Here we go again. You'd think that after two failed wars (one which was also heavily lobbied for by Israel) the Bush Administration would get the message. They suck at waging wars and everything they touch turns to shit.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut grilled Petraeus on Iran's anti-U.S. activities in the region.
I can only imagine the appearance of Joe Lieberman, literally salivating over the notion of bombing another Muslim country.
And Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia pressed Petraeus on what he meant by the need to "counter malign Iranian influence" and the "consequences for its illegitimate influence in the region."
What about our illegitimate influence in the region? At least Iran's leaders don't need dozens of helicopters and thousands of troops just to take a stroll in the park.
The general, whose confirmation as head of U.S. Central Command was stake in the hearing, did his best to pacify the men and women who held his appointment in their hands, emphasizing his support for "the three rounds of negotiations that have taken place" between Iran, Iraq and the U.S. in Baghdad over security issues.
Petraeus was nominated specifically because he will start a war with Iran. Everyone in Congress knows it. If they didn't know it before, they certainly should have learned the lesson the first time it happened in Iraq. This administration will do anything it can to start wars because it enriches their friends. If Congress confirms Petraeus, knowing full well that he is the Bush Administration's handpicked yes man for war with Iran, then I may just lose all hope I ever had that the Dems are any different from the Republicans. 5 years ago they had an excuse, albeit a flimsy one, since they weren't used to being lied to by a President. Now they have no such excuse. If they buy the same lies, spouted by the same people, they deserve what they get.
In theory, the idea of a war with Iran should be a non-starter in a nation whose war-weary public has no appetite for further military adventures in the Middle East,
When has public opinion ever stopped these morons?
no matter how determined Iran may be to get a nuclear weapon or to arm and train anti-U.S. forces in Iraq.
Of course we have to rely on the word of known liars for all of this. I haven't seen any proof for this that doesn't rely on the same people who lied to us about Iraq.
Republican candidates on Capitol Hill, already facing their worst electoral prospects in a generation, are equally disinclined to support military action against Iran. Even Bush's own cabinet officials, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have been repeatedly cool to the idea in public.
They're sheep, they'll all fall in line.
In Israel, from which President Bush recently returned, one doesn't have to go far to find deep, existential concern. "A military option is not a good option," for dealing with Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, a senior Israeli official told TIME on the sidelines of one of Bush's meetings, "But there's only one thing worse than that, which is Iran going nuclear." Those outside the Israeli government express even greater urgency. "I'm worried that by November it's going to be too late," to stop Iran from gaining the ability to produce nuclear weapons, said Yossi Kuperwasser, the former senior intelligence officer for the Central Command of the Israeli Defense.
Since when are we taking orders from Israel? If they're so concerned why don't they attack Iran's nuclear facilities? They did it before in Iraq, what's different now? Why should we continue to sacrifice thousands of our troops in another unnecessary war when they don't even contribute a token number of troops to the present war effort?
On military action against nuclear sites in Iran, he said, "Just do it. For Christ's sake, do it and solve our problem."
I don't give a shit about this guy's "problem". It's not our responsibility to solve this guy's problems.
Nor is it only the Israelis who are concerned. Egyptian and Saudi leaders also expressed their worries about Iran's nuclear ambitions when Bush met with them on the trip, several White House aides say. "People in the region really want to see it solved peacefully," says a senior White House official, "but they're also concerned for their own safety and they're also mindful of the calendar, and they know that this President has been very strong."
But I'll bet Egypt and Saudi Arabia don't want the US to start a world war over it. The only people who want to escalate this to WWIII are Bush and Israel.
If diplomatic efforts continue to look unlikely to produce an outcome acceptable to the Administration, would President Bush consider military action?
How could diplomacy have produced an outcome? Diplomacy hasn't even been tried. Bush openly derides the Democratic Presidential nominee for merely suggesting that we start diplomacy, comparing it to the sacrifice of Czechoslovakia in WWII.
Olmert said his impression after talks with Bush was that the President is "exceptionally determined," and that "he has proven this throughout his term in office his preparedness to take exceptional measures in order to defend the principles in which he believes, and in his deep commitment to the security of the state of Israel."
Translation: Bush will manufacture evidence and lie through his teeth in order to do whatever Olmert tells him to do.
It's that kind of talk that has people in Washington worried. Aides to Democratic leaders on the Hill fear that Bush may be planning to bomb Iran between November and January, after the political cost goes down and when he may feel he is doing his successor a favor.
Well then, perhaps they should actually show some balls and not roll over for him like they did on Iraq.
Dan Senor, former military spokesman and foreign policy advisor to the Bush Administration, says he finds that scenario highly unlikely, because he believes it would provoke numerous resignations from the intelligence community and the armed services, both of which groups feel burned from the Iraq experience.
There were resignations when we invaded Iraq, it didn't make a difference then and it won't now.
|