Democrats & Liberals Archives

Good News, And World War III

Fearmongering, scaremongering, warmongering… it doesn’t matter what you call it, the Bush Administration is back at it again.

I’m not saying that Iran, whose nuclear program is deemed to have halted four years ago, is all roses and Turkish Delight, but when the intelligence clearly states that the threat of a nuclear Iran is overstated, shouldn’t we listen?

Well, not if you’re Stephen Hadley, who holds the exalted title of US National Security Advisor. Because what most of us might consider pretty good news is nothing short of the return of the Black Plague to him.

"If we want to avoid a situation where we either have to accept Iran ... with a path to a nuclear weapon, or the possibility of having to use force to stop it, with all the connotations of World War III -- then we need to step up the diplomacy, step up the pressure, to get Iran to stop their so-called civilian uranium enrichment program," he said. "That's our policy going forward -- no change."

Yes, you read it right – a blessedly nuclear-free Iran is the likely precipitor of a global thermonuclear conflict. Read that paragraph again, and tell me where the diplomacy lies in phrases like ‘so-called civilian program’ and ‘no change’. Hardly the language of someone committed to diplomacy, is it?

Bush added his two cents’ worth, naturally.

"What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program?" Bush asked. The latest estimate shows "Iran needs to be taken seriously as a threat to peace," he quipped.

Fear won Bush the last election. Are we really dumb enough to fall for the same ruse again?

Posted by Jon Rice at December 4, 2007 12:06 PM
Comments
Comment #239948

At-least the Bush administration is apparently not editing or approving the intelligence reports.

One step at a time.

Posted by: Schwamp at December 4, 2007 12:42 PM
Comment #239949

How exactly should our policy change? We are NOT going to war with Iraq. We are applying diplomatic pressure to a country that is constantly posturing in threatening ways.

Re intelligence - where do you think this report came from? It is an intelligence report with the same caveats and strengths are all intelligence reports. It is a version of the truth, not THE truth and not better truth than reports that came before.

It is produced by those same guys who work for the president that so many of the blue men say produced the bad intelligence in the past.

Over the past years, people on the blue side have warned of immient war with Iraq. I have always pointed out to them that this idea was mostly an artifact of the left. I will say again that I believe war with Iraq is very unlikely. Nobody is gearing up for it except in your imaginations. I have written this dozens of times. Maybe I should just make a link.

Posted by: Jack at December 4, 2007 12:57 PM
Comment #239951

Jon,
Good article! This is one of the most significant developments we’ve seen, since it blows the Bush administration’s Neocon program out of the water, once and for all.

Schwamp,
The Bush adminstration knew this information since April. They have been lying to us again by exaggerating the threat of a non-existent Iranian nuclear weapons program.

The existence of the program was probably discovered by the Mujahideen-al-Khalq at least four years ago. It was terminated by the Iranians for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons was probably to extend an olive branch when they approached the Bush administration with a peace offering, an offer of cooperation, back in 2003. This was rebuffed by Cheney. However, the Iranians calculated that because of other factors, the program would not benefit them anyway, so they terminated it.

Earlier this year, Turkey brought home a high ranking Iranian informant. The defector, Ali Reza Asghari, was deputy minister of defense. Most likely he was the source of the information about Iran. In all likelihood, the Bush administration has known about this since April.
Yet Bush continued advocating sanctions, and invoking the threat of WWIII because of this defunct Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Posted by: phx8 at December 4, 2007 1:04 PM
Comment #239952

Here is the wikipedia article, which is two weeks old:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Reza_Askari

And here is an Arab newspaper report:

http://www.asharqalawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=8253

“According to anonymous officials who spoke to the Turkish newspaper, ‘Millet’, the Turkish intelligence and police had discovered that Asghari was opposed to the Iranian government and that he holds information regarding its nuclear plan.”

Posted by: phx8 at December 4, 2007 1:12 PM
Comment #239954

Jack:

The fact that you’re standing in Iraq and can’t apparently keep it and Iran straight does not exactly inspire confidence in your analysis. You made this (freudian?) slip not once, but three times in the space of a single comment.

Posted by: jarandhel at December 4, 2007 1:18 PM
Comment #239957


Jack: this Administration doesn’t take a back seat to any nation when it comes to “constantly posturing in threatening ways.”

Once again, the Bush Administration has made our country look foolish and weak.

Posted by: jlw at December 4, 2007 1:40 PM
Comment #239961

Fear won Bush the last election. Are we really dumb enough to fall for the same ruse again?

When will Democrats recognize the fact that Bush is not a candidate in this election? And when will they recognize that many in their own party are just as bad on this issue?

Bush and his administration aren’t doing ALL the fearmongering on Iran, not by a long shot. Should we just close our eyes and ignore the Democrat-led congress? Remember the resolution allowing the government to call the revolutionary guard a terrorist organization and Senator Clinton’s subsequent vote on it? “Tell me where the diplomacy lies” in the resolution? It doesn’t. It was all about saber-rattling.

Given all of her tough talk on Iran over the past few years, I don’t believe we would be less likely to go to war with Iran under Clinton than under Bush. Fortunately Senator Obama is starting to pull ahead of her in some states. He says he hasn’t ruled out military strikes on Iran but he seems a bit more pragmatic on the subject than Hillery.

Posted by: TheTraveler at December 4, 2007 1:55 PM
Comment #239962


Rudy’s Middle East advisor say’s that this is just a CIA plot to prevent Bush or Rudy from invading Iran. Heck, he might be right. After all, Mr. Slam-dunk isn’t running the CIA anymore.

Posted by: jlw at December 4, 2007 2:03 PM
Comment #239965

jlw,
Source? Sixteen intelligence agencies contributed to the finding, not just the CIA.

Traveller,
Agreed, Hillary’s Iran vote needs to be held against her. Prominently.

Posted by: phx8 at December 4, 2007 2:16 PM
Comment #239970

clarancec-
So what’s your reason for saying he hates his country and his countrymen, disagreement with your favorite politicians and party members?

Traveller-
He is very much a candidate in this election, since most GOP candidates are elbowing each other in the face to see who can most resemble him in his grab-bag loyalty to Neocons, Theocons and Billionaires. Having sold people so thoroughly on the love of the shrub, the GOP feels compelled now to deny the negatives of his legacy.

As for what the Democratic Congress did? Man, you and Karl Rove should get together sometime. You know, he’s been talking on all the programs about how we got into the Iraq war because of our pressure. You read that right, by the way.

You have to take into account that some Democratic leaders just don’t have a spine handy when Bush and the Republican come around fearmongering. However, you should consider that Hillary and others subsequently supported legislation requiring Bush to seek permission to take us to war with Iran. I wouldn’t confuse the saber-rattling of the administration with the acquiescence of a few overly cautious individuals.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 4, 2007 3:16 PM
Comment #239973

Stephen,

I’ll skip over the usual knee-jerk crap about *cons and get right to the heart of your argument:

You have to take into account that some Democratic leaders just don’t have a spine handy when Bush and the Republican come around fearmongering. However, you should consider that Hillary and others subsequently supported legislation requiring Bush to seek permission to take us to war with Iran. I wouldn’t confuse the saber-rattling of the administration with the acquiescence of a few overly cautious individuals.

I think that you want us to ignore the fact that those “few individuals” make up a good chunk of your party’s congressional representation as well as your leading presidential candidate. The fearmongering on Iran, for God-only-knows what reason has been and remains bipartisan.

Posted by: TheTraveler at December 4, 2007 3:49 PM
Comment #239981

The Traveler-
Do I want you to ignore a fact I don’t consider a fact? There’s a difference between half-hearted support for something on political grounds and the kind of active support and pursuit of war that Cheney and the Neocons are out for, and which the GOP gleefully supports.

And the supposedly kneejerk stuff? Well, when the party line stops being carbon-copy Neoconservative policy (indefinite stay in Iraq, continual warmongering on Iran), carbon copy theocon policy (with even presidential candidates historically pro-choice jumping on the bandwagon), and economically elitist (all hail the Club for Growth.), I’ll stop referring to the party line. The unfortunate fact is that these people have made their policy a literal stereotype.

Even if the politicians are wafflers on this issue, their base is not, and it’s beginning to have an effect on the candidates. We’re not as patient as we once were with folks in Washington.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 4, 2007 4:49 PM
Comment #239982

Stephen,

There is so little (overt) bipartisanship these days that when it happens, it sticks out like a sore thumb. That’s what those of us not beholden to a party see here on the issue of Iran.

The administration is not pressuring congress, and certainly not the Democratic Majority, to be antagonistic to Iran. The parties are doing that on their own. Both parties. It’s a shame they had to choose this issue to agree on. That resolution passed with Bipartisan Support, remember. Hillery has been talking tough about Iran for years. I’d really like you to try to explain how belligerence on Hillery’s part is the Republican’s fault. I could use a good laugh.

When Clinton is elected President with her “economically elitist” campaign funding and her “Neoconservative policy,” will you still be defending Democrats to the death and trying to blame every problem on Bush?
What about at the end of her first term when we will still be in Iraq (she said so, remember), and may very well be at war with Iran?
If a Democrat-controlled Congress authorizes the use of force against Iran, will you still be trying to blame it completely on the Republicans?

Posted by: TheTraveler at December 4, 2007 5:48 PM
Comment #239989

“Fear won Bush the last election. Are we really dumb enough to fall for the same ruse again?”


Funny, I thought it was Jim Baker, and the Supreme Court.


Posted by: googlumpugus at December 4, 2007 7:38 PM
Comment #239991

Jon, if the reports are indeed true and Iran did stop it’s nuclear program; then, wouldn’t that mean Bush was right?! Think about, he went after Saddam and took him out of power (four years ago), then Iran (suddenly) stops their quest for nukes. Hmmm. I’m sure glad that “ruse” worked. Ha!

Posted by: rahdigly at December 4, 2007 9:34 PM
Comment #239993

The Traveller-
Axis of Evil. John Bolton. Democrats accepting the news, Republicans trying to act like it means nothing. You don’t know the nervous nellies in Congress like I do. Nor do I think you have much experience with the active, informed base of Democratic voters. Trust me, when Clinton made her vote for the Lieberman-Kyl Resolution, Democrats knew and they were angered. Not a few days go by, and she co-sponsors another bill with Senator Webb restricting Bush’s funding to go to war without Congressional approval.

It’s really a difference of who actually has a sense of shame about these things, and an electorate to make sure they feel it. The Republicans have let things go by for far too long. You can’t count on them to really get through to their politicians or their politicians to let them, and the media they rely upon is more interested in softening the impact of scandals and misbehavior than holding them accountable for it.

Rahdigly-
But isn’t your fearless leader telling us the danger is still great they’ll make a nuke? You Bush supporters define success in a very confusing way. Maybe it’s because you define it by what you want to say is true, and that changes with the situation. If you’re trying to make the case for war, Iran’s still a danger. If it’s “Bush’s strategy worked”, it’s “we showed them!”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 4, 2007 10:07 PM
Comment #239995

rahdigly, do you not really see how absurd it is to credit Bush with anything positive about Iraq, much less trying to credit him with this thing he has tried covering up all these months? He just got busted and is now trying to stop the stink of yet another screw-up! He isn’t smart enough to be given credit for something like this, and by any stretch of the imagination if he were, then he would have shouted it for the world to hear that he had actually, finally, and at long last, done something positive. He wanted to keep it quiet so his fear mongering would maybe work again.
So sorry GW, but you got caught with your britches down this time.

Posted by: Jane Doe at December 4, 2007 10:22 PM
Comment #240012

googlumpugus,

“Fear won Bush the last election. Are we really dumb enough to fall for the same ruse again?”

Funny, I thought it was Jim Baker, and the Supreme Court.

No, this was the previous last election.
;-)

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 5, 2007 6:13 AM
Comment #240032

Jack
I am willing to ignore your somewhat telling typo and address your question.”How exactly should our policy change?”
Our policy should change about 180 degrees.For starters we should stop making accusations that we have no evidence of.After years accusing Iran of supplying weapons to sheite militias we still have no evidence that would pass even the slightest test for validity that the Iranian government has anything to do with it. Those copper exposive projectiles reputably from Iran for example.Any one with some copper,a hammer and a hard place can manufacture one. I saw how to do it on the Discovery Channel(no kidding).
Iran has no recent history of being an expansionist state. Iran helped get rid of the Talban and supported the Afgani regime. It was Irans suggestion that the new constituion of Afganistan even contains the word “democracy.” Clearly our regimes rehtoric concerning democracy is exactly that,pure bs,It should be recognized that Iran is much more democratic than any of our allies in the region,with the exception of Isreal.
This administrations reason for butting heads with Iran are that Iran stands in the way of our goal of regional domination.That goal in itself will continue to strenghten jihadist.Will increase and perpetuate the terrorist war.With their age old influence in the Mid-East and Afganistan a workable cooperation with Iran is the key to ending the “War on Terror”. It does not appear that that is the goal of our current regime.

Posted by: BillS at December 5, 2007 12:39 PM
Comment #240033
do you not really see how absurd it is to credit Bush with anything positive about Iraq, much less trying to credit him with this thing he has tried covering up all these months? He just got busted and is now trying to stop the stink of yet another screw-up! He isn’t smart enough to be given credit for something like this, and by any stretch of the imagination if he were, then he would have shouted it for the world to hear that he had actually, finally, and at long last, done something positive. He wanted to keep it quiet so his fear mongering would maybe work again.


So, you’d rather believe Iran than your own President?! You have that much confidence in Iran to believe that they aren’t trying to attain nukes?! Now, it will be that much more difficult to stop them (diplomatically, fiscally, etc.). They still can enrich uraniaum and start a covert nuke program.

I’ve said it before, some of you can not give any credit whatsoever to Bush for anything; it’s the Bush Derrangement Syndrome (BDS). Way to go, some of you actually are showing that you “hate” the President more than that Amadinanutjob. Yeah!

Posted by: rahdigly at December 5, 2007 12:41 PM
Comment #240047

rahdigly, you are just about out of wiggle room now. You’re backed into a corner with your precious Bush, so preposterous statements and nonsense is all you have left.
It isn’t a matter of believing Iran, but a consensus of contributors from the intelligence community. And we (most of us anyway) know that intelligence is a quality seriously lacking in the White House with this leader (???)
This is oligarchy at its’ best, or at least a dam good run at it.

Posted by: Jane Doe at December 5, 2007 2:52 PM
Comment #240048

Wait, I forgot to agree with you in one thing….Bush is most certainly deranged, and thanks for that acknowledgement! ;)

Posted by: Jane Doe at December 5, 2007 2:55 PM
Comment #240051

There’s still no response about them stopping their nuke program after the invasion of Iraq. It’s hilarious to watch some of you take the Iranian side; they are, by the way, claiming this as a VICTORY. Nice going. Oh and, thanks for proving me right about the BDS crowd, Jane.

Posted by: rahdigly at December 5, 2007 3:43 PM
Comment #240064

rahdigly, you really need to move away from this delusional thinking. In reality, there is nothing wrong that the people of Iran consider this a victory. Bush has been pushing the wrong information about them all along. They no doubt bear watching and monitoring, but are obviously not the threat he has tried to shove down our throats. Do you not understand how, and why other countries despise us for “our” attitude and demands that other countries must subject themselves to Bush’s unrealistic and demonic theory of ruling the world?

Posted by: Jane Doe at December 5, 2007 6:20 PM
Comment #240131

Give it up Rah.
They accept opinions over facts and in the end, they will still vote for the lady who shares the same ideas of the current President.
Why? Because she is a liberal and the same things are “different” when its a liberal at the helm.

They do support Iran, Chavez, Saddam, OBL etc… over their own President. Why? Because the President is not a liberal.
If you don’t let them think for you and tell you what to believe, you are wrong and you are evil.
Fellow Americans doesn’t mean jack sh*t anymore!

Its party before country with the left and I hope the revolution begins soon.
I want my country back.

Posted by: kctim at December 6, 2007 2:07 PM
Post a comment