Democrats & Liberals: Archives

The discovery of traces of weapons-grade uranium in Iran by UN inspectors in August 2003 set off alarm

If Bush wants to convince American public that Iran is developing nukes, all that is needed is to scatter a bit of weapon-grade uranium (we surely have plenty of it) around suspected facilities in Iran, just enough for international inspectors to find the traces again. Then El-Baradei and his guys won’t have any factual basis to assure the public that Iran has only peaceful nuclear program underway. And the speech by Condi would have then some very good grounds, right?

PhD in GL

According to the site you linked, the Project for the New Century, the last piece on Iran dated August 2, 2005:

None of this means that the U.S. should be planning an attack tomorrow. There are numerous practical problems we would confront in carrying out that decision, even if that were in theory the right one to make. But it does mean that we have no reason to relax, nor can we postpone difficult decisions indefinitely.

Those practical problems include not having enough troops to be able to continue in Afghanistan and Iraq let alone consider Iran. Also added to that is public opinion, given the problems with the war in Iraq and how the intelligence was so faulty, it is going to take alot more than some “serious concerns” to be able to sell a war in Iraq to not only the American Public but Congress as well.

I’d also add I don’t place much stock in the comments of the extreme, whether it be Freeper or Kossack. At times there is enough bad behavior on both sides, I personally feel very few of them represent the majority of us. Some of them seem to enjoy being as extreme as possible to gain attention. But if trying to seek out “juicy tidbits of rightwing labeling” is what you desire?

May the force be with you.

:-)

Why bother? Iran is obviously not a threat to the left, George W. Bush is.

Let’s just wait until they do have nukes OR we could do what the Clinton administration did with North Korea, send Jimmy Carter over to coddle up to the Mullahs and actually help them produce nukes.

As for calling the left terrorist sympathizers… of course the left aren’t terrorist sympathizers, they’re “freedom fighter sympathizers” not terrorists! Apparently there’s a difference!

Another wimpy right winger heard from. Won’t call for overturning the 1st Amendment, because that would interfere with the right’s right to castigate all those who don’t agree with them. The wisdom of our forefathers continues to amaze me in its perfection. What a cognitive dissonance for the right wingers though, and left wing extremists as well who would castigate all conservatives as closet fascists.

Pakistan has the bomb. The genie is out of the bottle. Bush continues to distribute nuclear technology to other nations establishing the right of countries like China and Russia to do the same. Thanks to the Bush administration’s policies on proliferation, nuclearizing the Middle East is coming ever closer to an inevitability. The only hope of preventing it was a unified world front against proliferation, but Bush would not go along. He must have his star wars, and must reduce the trade deficit by selling nuclear technology to India as part of a paranoid policy toward China.

We can only hope to undo some of Bush’s harm caused after Bush leaves office, but, holding one’s breath for it would be ill advised.

Sometimes there are no good choices.

As David points out, there is already an Islamic Bomb. Pakistan is a shaky dictatorship with little control over much of its territory. However, Pakistan is primarily concerned with India, and so far, the possession of nuclear weapons by Pakistan and India seem to be acting as a deterrent, and discouraging direct confrontation. If & when Musharref falls from power, the situation will be truly frightening.

Iran cannot help but conclude going nuclear will prevent other countries, namely, the US, from invading. In addition, nukes will discourage the Israelis from further expansion.

Invading Iran is out of the question. It’s an insanely bad idea. Bombing their nuclear facilities is just as bad an idea. The payback, in terms of rebellion in Shia Iraq, a highly motivated combatant too big to occupy, an oil embargo, recession, and so on, would be disastrous.

That leaves negotiation. One would think the US would make every effort to encourage friendly relations with Iran, & encourage democracy; a long-term project that would take enormous patience, no question, but the only one that offers hope in the long run.

But like Clinton & Bush in their very similar policies towards North Korea, the choices concerning a nuclear Iran are limited, and the options all present obvious downsides.

The key is mending relations with Iran, (no matter how aggravating that will surely be), and ensuring a nuclear Iran does not pose a threat to US security.

Great post Carla. Finally the truth. The facts.
(: The Schroeders said they felt U.S. policy in Iraq wasn’t working for a long time but didn’t say anything because they didn’t want to appear unpatriotic. Now, all that’s changed.
One other question might be: Who does Bush want to arrest 1. Mrs. Sheehan 2. Bin Laden
Someone Tell the President the War Is Over
By FRANK RICH
Published: August 14, 2005
These are the tea leaves that all Republicans, not just Chuck Hagel, are reading now. Newt Gingrich called the Hackett near-victory “a wake-up call.” The resolutely pro-war New York Post editorial page begged Mr. Bush (to no avail) to “show some leadership” by showing up in Ohio to salute the fallen and their families. A Bush loyalist, Senator George Allen of Virginia, instructed the president to meet with Cindy Sheehan, the mother camping out in Crawford, as “a matter of courtesy and decency.” Or, to translate his Washingtonese, as a matter of politics. Only someone as adrift from reality as Mr. Bush would need to be told that a vacationing president can’t win a standoff with a grief-stricken parent commandeering TV cameras and the blogosphere 24/7.

At Fox News Bill O’Reilly is trashing Donald Rumsfeld for his incompetence, and Ann Coulter is chiding Mr. O’Reilly for being a defeatist. In an emblematic gesture akin to waving a white flag, Robert Novak walked off a CNN set and possibly out of a job rather than answer questions about his role in smearing the man who helped expose the administration’s prewar inflation of Saddam W.M.D.’s. (On this sinking ship, it’s hard to know which rat to root for.)
“the central front in the war on terror,” as Mr. Bush keeps reminding us, as if that might make us forget he’s the one who recklessly created it.

Hey, I’m thinking that we should just roll the dice and start giving nuclear technology to all countries, that way we don’t have to worry who is going to develop them next.

What does America have to worry about?

We’ve got “Star Wars”!

“The inspectors took the samples from Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, which had been concealed from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for 18 years.”

Is it me or does anyone else wonder why they might conceal this facility for “peaceful” purposes? Is it me or does anyone else wonder what else they might yet be concealing from the IAEA FOR 18 YEARS!?! The Iranians are not the good guys here folks. Do I trust the inspection folks? NO! They screwed up in Iraq, North Korea, and now in Iran. IAEA performance has been abysmal. They may be all we have but like the UN in general, they need reform. They are creatures of diplomacy and seek diplomatic solutions. They need to be enforcers of the international agreements for which they are supposed to be verifing compliance. In the instances of violation they need to call attention of the security council and the council should act to enforce its own edicts. Failure to act loses any credablity or, worse, invites individual actors to take action on their own in what they believe is their own interest a La the US and Iraq.

Nucleur Weapons are the only real defense now.

In the old days, the key to defending yourself was being friends with a Veto Capable Security Council Member. Weak Countries and/or Evil Countries can protect themselves by having China, US, England, France or Russia veto anything against them.

Operation Iraqi Freedom ended that.

By ignoring the UN, Bush proved that the previous method is worthless against a determined aggressor. Iraq’s “Friendship” with France, China and Russia did not stop the US from destroying them. Therefore, the only conclusion is that nuke-capable North Korea had the correct approach.

You can only be safe by having the BOMB.

Thank You, Republicans.

Aldous-

I can’t believe I’m writing this…I concur with your assesment. Wow! that didn’t hurt as much as I thought it would! Yes, the only way to make the elimination of your current government unpaletable is to posess a atomic/nuclear deterent. That said, I don’t care for the implication that the US is a “determined agressor”. I see the argument and concede it’s validity, I just don’t like it. As an aside argument, there have been at least ten conflicts under the very nose of the security council, between atomic/nuclear armed beligerants and those without in all combinations, all of which “ignored the UN”. Bush set no precedent there and Republicans are not responsible for the strategic military policies of any foreign nation. The Iranians have been pursuing their nuclear program for at least 18 years, as noted earlier, which predates both the current administration and the republican majorities. How inconvienient for your conclusion.

Eighteen years would put the onset of Iranian nuclear development square in the lap of the Reagan administration, Tony. Remember “Arms For Hostages”? Whether Republican or Democrat, however, the current Iranian policies are a direct result of U.S. foreign policy toward it. We need to adjust our foreign policy to tolerate Iran’s desire for self-preservation. If we managed this type of policy with India and Pakistan, we can do the same with Israel and Iran. We need not allow Israel’s influence to determine our policies. True, Iran funds Hamas and the Israeli’s have every reason to consider Iran their adversary and enemy, but we should be able to compliment the development and preservation of both countries, as we would benefit accordingly. Iran has every reason to not trust US foreign policies toward it. From the Shah to Saddam’s invasion of it (which we supported) we have done nothing but meddle in its internal affairs, and all for nothing. The current situation is a direct result, in my humble opinion, of our misguided policies. Here, diplomacy is the best tool we have, I think.

WW-

Not defending a particular administration, merely pointing out that foreign governments do not act on the basis of either US or UN political approval or oposition. They make decisions on the basis of percieved advantage for the advancement of THEIR agenda or interest. If that is dissonant with the “powers that be” they assess the risk and proceed accordingly. You folks seem to think if we would only play nice everyone else would leave us alone. Our government makes choices based on the information provided by career burocrats and they make the best choices that advance the agenda they come to office with. This administration came to town believing the application of force is what makes diplomacy work. They other guy has to believe he has more to lose by opposing you than by complying. The world is full of bad guys some of which we support because it advances our interests. We don’t have to like them; the emema of my enemy is my friend! This creates problems down the road but is necessary NOW. Governments, particularly western elected ones, don’t look much further than the next election. If you don’t like the current policy just wait a cycle or two; it’ll change. Our worst “misguided” policy is still a lot better than our opponents, IMO. Stop looking in the past to blame current conditions on the political opposition(siting the Reagan administration for the Iranian Nuclear program and by extension current relations). It is valid to identify “should haves” to adjust current policy, but today’s international environment is different. Can’t use hindsight to fix blame for judgement calls made in a cold war environment.

Do I trust the inspection folks? NO! They screwed up in Iraq, North Korea, and now in Iran. IAEA performance has been abysmal.

On the contrary, they’ve been right every time. there was no nuclear program in Iraq, nobody but the Bush administration thinks North Korea has a uranium enrichment program (though, if they did, it wouldn’t be illegal under the NPT), and Iran’s program is totally legal under the terms of the NPT.

The problem is that the NPT is totally inadequate. It’s voluntary, there’s no mechanism for enforcement, and it allows countries to develop all the technology and know-how necessary to develop a bomb, before they give their three-month notice that they’re no longer going to abide by the NPT.

Even ElBaradei at the IAEA says we should scrap the NPT and come up with something better,

The sweeping overhaul he envisions - bringing uranium and plutonium technology under tougher, possibly international control - would mean a “sea change” in the nuclear realm. But it’s necessary, the U.N. nuclear chief says, “because we are facing a threat.”

“…in the next 10, 20 years we’ll have 20, 30 countries that I would call virtual nuclear-weapons states, meaning countries that could move within months into converting their civilian capacity or capability into a weapons program.”

Three cheers for Aldous. Sarcasm or not, it’s a great assessment.

Iran : Let’s get Bolton on a weapons inspection trip.

In the old days, the key to defending yourself was being friends with a Veto Capable Security Council Member. Weak Countries and/or Evil Countries can protect themselves by having China, US, England, France or Russia veto anything against them.

Operation Iraqi Freedom ended that.

By ignoring the UN, Bush proved that the previous method is worthless against a determined aggressor.

Interesting thought process, but it started with Bush? I don’t remember Clinton getting UN Security Council approval for bombing Kosovo back to the stone age with depleted uranium bombs… In fact, didn’t Russia veto such action?

So, by following your logic, wasn’t Bush just following the Clinton mandate? And I don’t think Clinton was the first one to do it either…

Rhinehold, Serbia was a NATO mission, and the UN was (and is) heavily involved in its successful resolution.

Oh, and anti-tank rounds are made with depleted uranium, not bombs.

In fact, Russia was part of the broad international coalition.

AP-

Thanks for the reminder on NPT. Mea culpa. There is still India and Pakistan and If North Korea isn’t enriching their own either someone is doing it for them or they are not the threat they themselves purport. This may be more ignorance on my part; were India and Pakistan signatories? Does it matter? The thrust of Aldous’ post was that all the governments of the world who now feel threatened must develop nuclear weapons and that is all this administration’s fault because they didn’t get UN permission to kick Sadam’s ass…AGAIN. Not that N Korea got permission to invade the south in ‘51, Britain and France in Suez, Egypt et al in ‘67, Israel in ‘73,…I need to go on!?! Blaming this administration for the insecurity of Dictatorships and their pursuit of ANY policy is just sophistry.

“Those who come out in disagreement with Dear Leader are branded as traitors and terrorist sympathizers.”

To be fair, its those who disagree with him and are willing to sacrifice our nation for nothing more than political gain that are labeled as such.

Ignorant cow?
Yesterday she was just a pawn being used by the left for political gain.
Today though, it seems like she has allowed her politics to destroy her family, her husband has filed for divorce.
So, ignorant cow? Naw.
Ignorant pawn? Definetly!

According to the site you linked, the Project for the New Century, the last piece on Iran dated August 2, 2005:

None of this means that the U.S. should be planning an attack tomorrow. There are numerous practical problems we would confront in carrying out that decision, even if that were in theory the right one to make. But it does mean that we have no reason to relax, nor can we postpone difficult decisions indefinitely.

I’m familiar with the PNAC writings on the topic.

I specifically linked to a page that, at the bottom, contains a list of some of the PNAC’s more well known members. It’s those individuals, not old PNAC writings, that I was referring. If you look over the more current statements and writings of those members..the Iran/PNAC is more along the lines of what you’ve heard Bush say lately.

If North Korea isn’t enriching their own either someone is doing it for them or they are not the threat they themselves purport.

North Korea’s bombs are the result of reprocessing plutonium from spent fuel rods - a totally different program that they only started after President Bush accused them of having a secret uranium enrichment program (which no one who’s seen the evidence - China, Japan, Russia, south Korea - believes they have).

This may be more ignorance on my part; were India and Pakistan signatories? Does it matter?

No, they were not, and still aren’t. Which makes me believe that President Bush’s recent offer of nuclear aid to India is illegal under the NPT. Of course if it gets brought to the UN Security Council, President Bush will just veto it.

David,

Another wimpy right winger heard from.

Hmm, is that critique of the message or the messenger? I think you missed the sarcasm there.

Iran isn’t a threat to the left. Bush is. Bush is the enemy you guys are trying to defeat, not Islamic extremists. Your comments perfectly illustrate this. Because on the whole the left doesn’t believe in Islamic extremists. They are only responding to the imperial, rascist, sexist oppressor America. It’s Bush’s fault that terrorists want to blow us up.

What a cognitive dissonance for the right wingers though, and left wing extremists as well who would castigate all conservatives as closet fascists.

David, I have read quite a few references to right wingers as nazi’s in your columns, I’m not sure you can get away with blaming others for being slipshod.

Won’t call for overturning the 1st Amendment, because that would interfere with the right’s right to castigate all those who don’t agree with them.

Also, another straw man there with the first amendment. You seem to confuse shaming those who should be ashamed of their anti-american views with wanting to destroy the first amendment. By your standard of the first amendment only those who agree with you support the first amendment.

Which, when you think about it, essentially

Pakistan has the bomb. The genie is out of the bottle. Bush continues to distribute nuclear technology to other nations establishing the right of countries like China and Russia to do the same. Thanks to the Bush administration’s policies on proliferation, nuclearizing the Middle East is coming ever closer to an inevitability.

That’s odd, did Pakistan and India got the bomb under the Bush adminstration, or was it under Clinton? Gee, it’s news to me that China and Russia are still working on getting the bomb. Oh my, I hope they don’t go nuclear under Bush too! Bush just let’s everyone build nukes! Or haven’t China and Russia have the bomb for the last fifty years or so?!

The only hope of preventing it was a unified world front against proliferation, but Bush would not go along. He must have his star wars, and must reduce the trade deficit by selling nuclear technology to India as part of a paranoid policy toward China.

Yeah, being able to shoot down ICBM’s aimed at American cities is a horrible idea. If someone launches nukes at us we probably deserve it for allowing them to have it by not being ‘unified against proliferation’.

We can only hope to undo some of Bush’s harm caused after Bush leaves office,

Again, it’s worth repeating that the real enemy here in the mind of the left is Bush and an America not controlled by the left.

Archie Bunker had a great idea how to stop hijackers back in the 70’s…give all the passengers a gun. Maybe the same logic would work in the Middle East. On the other hand, I haven’t seen anything logical in the Middle East.

I have two questions :

[1] What nations have nuclear weaponry and HAVE NOT used them

[2] What nations have nuclear weaponry and HAVE used them

[3] What nations have the capability to develop nuclear weaponry but HAVE NOT done so yet

[4] What is the point of having nuclear weaponry capability and not developing it

[5] At what point in time was there a pact to discontinue building nuclear weapons and, were the countries that already had them “grandfathered” (ie USA and Russia)

Iran isn’t a threat to the left. Bush is. Bush is the enemy you guys are trying to defeat, not Islamic extremists. Your comments perfectly illustrate this. Because on the whole the left doesn’t believe in Islamic extremists. They are only responding to the imperial, rascist, sexist oppressor America. It’s Bush’s fault that terrorists want to blow us up.

Not “all Bush’s fault”, but in part yes it is. Keeping troops on soil that terrorist organizations consider sacred/holy is their main articulated reason for continuing suicide terrorist bombings.

Yeah, being able to shoot down ICBM’s aimed at American cities is a horrible idea. If someone launches nukes at us we probably deserve it for allowing them to have it by not being ‘unified against proliferation’.

The world is full of great ideas. That doesn’t make those ideas workable or reasonable. Star Wars is one such idea. The technology doesn’t exist to make a workable defense shield.

I doubt you’ll get much protest from anyone on the research dollars being spent. It’s the implementation sink hole of dollars that is a waste. They’re building a system that doesn’t work…and wasting billions.

Republicans like to spend heaps of money on unworkable crap like that.

Again, it’s worth repeating that the real enemy here in the mind of the left is Bush and an America not controlled by the left.

Bush is definitely part of the problem. His policies are a disaster for this nation, in my view. However…this statement is written as if the right didn’t loathe Clinton and completely considered him the enemy.

The moral high ground on the “some Americans are the enemy” is completely nonexistent for the Republican Party. Witness the crosses in Crawford that were mowed down by a Bush supporter.

Eric Simonson-
Bush is not Osama Bin Laden, he’s Chief Wiggum from The Simpsons. That’s the problem.

SDI currently can’t hit the broad side of an intergalactic barn.

North Korea and Iran continue and even flaunt the development of a nuclear stockpile, remaining defiant, despite Bush’s strongly worded disapprovals.

Bush’s tough guy posturing is next to useless. If there is no difference, then Bush’s added frowns and murmured complaints will do little to actually deal with these situations.