Iran: No connection to 9/11

I just noticed something: Hillary is demanding action against Iran …but does Iran have any connection to 9/11? Have they attacked us? Is Iran is an imminent threat? Democrats in general need to answer some of these questions before they can even think about criticizing Bush for not already taking action.

The problem is that Democrats are stuck. They have burnt all their bridges and have nowhere to go. Many supported the war, (most of the intelligence was from the Clinton Administration after all), and voted to give Bush the power to invade Iraq. In deference to them Bush went to the UN and did everything he could to get as many countries on board as possible but in the end he failed to convince several key (Euroweenie) players, like France, but 'he had to do' what 'he had to do' as Hillary is now emphasizing and even encouraging Bush to do all over again.

You can't on the one hand say that you are so dumb that you were duped by the incompentent Bush (Jr.) into voting for a war you didn't want and on the other hand say that he better take quick action this time or else.

We have played this game before. Why should Bush listen to anything any Democrat says after these last few years of pure abuse? Democrats have consistently chosen the low road of partisanship over unity and compromise. Bush reaches out with a hand and Democrats bite it off.

Instead of honest disagreement democrats see 'evil geniuses' like Karl Rove manipulating around every corner. They cry out that each election they lose has been stolen. Each argument his administration makes is somehow the actions of a dictatorship trying to silence their 'dissent'.

But what standards have Democrats set out for the actions that Hillary Clinton is calling for in her new/same as the old 'rush to war '?

"(I)ntelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program," said this national leader.

"(I)f left unchecked," the politician argued, "Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, affects American security."

"This much is undisputed," declared this Democrat, as she voted to authorize the war in Iraq. Townhall.com

What is she so sure about again? Sounds an awful lot like the following:
In a speech at Princeton University, Mrs. Clinton, a New York Democrat, joined the Bush administration's call for sanctions against Iran, and also said that the threat of military action against nuclear sites should not be ruled out.

But she was critical of the administration for letting European nations take the lead in negotiations over the last several years.

"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," Ms. Clinton said, according to a transcript of the speech published by The Daily Princetonian. "I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines."

...The Bush administration has long favored sanctions, but had deferred action at the request of the European nations, who convinced Iran in 2003 to suspend its nuclear program. Mr. Bush last week said that he would pursue a vigorous diplomatic push to get as many countries as possible on board for possible United Nations action. On North Korea, the Bush administration has refused that nation's request for direct talks over its nuclear program and instead has worked in concert with China, South Korea, Russia and Japan. (completely biased) nytimes
So is Iran an imminent threat or not? They sure haven't attacked us. How can they be any danger to us? Certainly as much of a threat as Saddam Hussein was. Which is to say nonexistent according to the liberal comments here on watchblog. What's the rush? They're contained aren't they? Diplomacy needs time to work, doesn't it? And isn't diplomacy the key here? Or is it?

Is there any reason to believe that after calling for action a Democrat won't hesitate to turn and rend those they agreed with a day before? By the standards Democrats have set this President cannot receive their praise under any circumstances and will assuredly receive their contempt no matter what he does.

Bush is apparently deferring to allies, mounting a vigorous diplomatic push to get as many countries on board as possible... What the *flying nun* is Bush up to?! Is he channeling John Kerry?
The premise in all four points is that Kerry will be able to mobilize an international community that has been alienated by President Bush's strategy of preemptive strikes and by U.S. defiance of close allies and the United Nations. "We have divided our friends and united our enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all-time low," Kerry said in a feisty speech at New York University. "We must make Iraq the world's responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden. . . . I'm convinced that with the right leadership, we can create a fresh start." washingtonpost
So which is it? Should we mobilize the Euroweenies or take decisive military action against Iranian nuclear sites? I sure hope Democrats figure this out sometime soon, because I'd hate to have Bush actually make a decision and have Democrats flay him alive for acting unilaterally/multilaterally as the case may be.

Or has this been a case of duplicitious talk all along? Say just enough about both sides of the issue so that in the end no matter what happens you take credit for whatever went right and accuse everyone else of failing to listen to what you said might go wrong, but which you nevertheless voted for anyway.


Bonus material:

WWDVD
(What would Darth Vader Do?)
We all know that Darth Vader would crush the Iranian's nuclear program just as he would crush the rebellion.

Posted by Eric Simonson at January 22, 2006 4:50 AM
Comments
Comment #115436

Sounds to me like the Democrats are kinda divided (mixed up) on the issue of what to do with Iran. They have a plan for about everything there is when all their plan is, is to say they have a plan. Takes a lot more than that to Get’r’Done. Kerry can say he was against a war with Iran before he voted for a war with Iran, and will soon after that change his mind and say he was against being for a war with Iran. Duh! If he keeps changing his mind he’s gonna injure his brain cell and want another Purple Heart to go along with his others. Who really cares what Hillary thinks. She can’t even keep Wild Bill on a leash let alone deal with Iran. So that leaves President “Dubya” Bush to Get’r’Done no matter what anybody else thinks and to heck with the polls. Takes courage and conviction to make the hard decision and that seems to be in short supply in the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Gopher at January 22, 2006 5:26 AM
Comment #115485

why does Iran need nuclear power?It has enough oil to serve it’s needs for many years.

Posted by: seacomb_editor at January 22, 2006 7:15 AM
Comment #115520

Eric,

Usually, you can count on the Democrats to be all over the board on the issue, while you can count on the Republicans to be consistently wrong.

In the case of Iran, though, I think Bush has taken the better approach of the two. He seems to have learned something from his mistake in Iraq.

In deference to them Bush went to the UN and did everything he could to get as many countries on board as possible

The problem in Iraq was that Bush never involved the international community until AFTER he had chosen a course of action for them. He showed up with a “you’re with me or you’re against me” attitude that killed diplomacy before it started.

With Iran, he seems to have taken the proper approach. By involving Europe, Russia, etc. from the beginning, he’s kept the paths of diplomacy open. He’s not just trying to get them to join him on his decision. He’s working with them to MAKE the decision.

Hillary is right, though, that we shouldn’t be “standing on the sidelines”. (Then again, when you claim EVERY opinion as your own, you’re going to be right at least once.) We should be more actively involved than we have been. But, as Bush has already shown that he doesn’t handle diplomacy very well, I think he made the right choice to let Europe/Russia take the lead in Iran.

My biggest complaint about how Bush has handled Iran is that he wasted so much time in Iraq first. While I don’t necessarily consider Iran an imminent threat worthy of a preemptive invasion, it’s definitely more of a threat than Iraq was. But with our troops tied up in Iraq now, we really can’t pose much of a threat to Iran.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 22, 2006 9:33 AM
Comment #115526
why does Iran need nuclear power?It has enough oil to serve it’s needs for many years.

Why does the US need nuclear power? We have enough oil to serve OUR needs for many years, too. Why would we research alternative methods of energy?

There are advantages to nuclear power besides less dependence on oil. The ability to build weapons is just one of them. Lower pollution levels is, in my mind, the most important reason. Oil is very polluting. In my opinion, ANY responsible nation should be pursuing alternate energy sources, no matter how much oil they have.

Of course, this probably isn’t why Iran chose nuclear power. They want nuclear power because they want nuclear weapons. Then again, if the US had just evicted your two closest neighbors, and was threatening to do the same to you, wouldn’t you want nuclear weapons, too?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 22, 2006 9:41 AM
Comment #115567

Eric,

You are making this too easy. The difference between Iran and Iraq is that Iran has a nuclear program. Next.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 22, 2006 10:47 AM
Comment #115584

I was watching a program recently where an expert said that we buy NO oil from Iran, so that is not a problem. The problem with Iran having nukes is Israel. They are our friends. We protect our friends. Iran has stated loudly, publicly and literally that they want Israel wiped off the face of the Earth. Even if there was no other reason to sanction/punish/use force against Iran, that would be enough. Just the humanitarian aspect of protecting a small nation in the middle of enemies should be enough. Allowing nations not necessarily friendly with Israel to negotiate with Iran seems imprudent to me. We are the ones with the strength and the resolve to protect our friends. Sanctions will only serve to force Iran to seek what they need from nations that we already know are bad news. To prevent an all out World War III with nukes, we have to nip Iran’s aspirations in the bud. Just the fact that Iran’s president was is Syria this past week is enough to make me nervous. We have known for years that Iran and similar governments are only out for 2 things - the destruction of the Jewish state and world dominance. Hitler had the same aspirations and look at the damage he did before we stopped him. Do we really want another world war? Do we really want the deprivation, loss of life, instability, economic hardships imposed by a war on that scale? Put Iran on the defensive NOW, before they have the nukes, before they garner support for their ideals from like-minded nations that have no love of us or Israel. Stop this insanity from spreading.

Posted by: Ilsa at January 22, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #115585

Iran could have nuclear power. Nobody is saying they can’t. They just have to allow the same safeguards other countries that use nuclear power live with.

The idea that anyone is trying to deprive Iraq of the possibility to develop nuclear energy is Iraqi disinformation.

It is ironic that Bush’s critics are giving him a hard time for doing exactly the multilateral diplomatic things they say we should do in all other cases. I suspect if he changed course, they would jump on the other side.

Bush can’t trust his critics on this issue. Many of the same people who supported him in Iraq and then claimed to have been fooled by Bush’s brilliance are now criticizing his multilateral diplomacy. If he changed, they would quickly forget and claim that he fooled them again. Maybe they are fools, or maybe just liars, but they are unreliable.

If you can stand Diane Rehm, there is a discussion of Iran
of Iran on her program last week.

Posted by: Jack at January 22, 2006 11:33 AM
Comment #115596

Ilsa,

Put Iran on the defensive NOW, before they have the nukes, before they garner support for their ideals from like-minded nations that have no love of us or Israel. Stop this insanity from spreading.

So are you saying that not being friends with Israel is an offense worthy of invasion?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 22, 2006 12:13 PM
Comment #115597

Eric,
Confusion. What is it Bush wants to do in Iran? If you can articulate his position, maybe someone can articulate the Democrat position(s).

Seems to me the situation is very similar to North Korea. No one likes the US stance, but no one has a better idea. There just aren’t many practical alternatives. Like North Korea, we’re in the position of advocating non-proliferation, negotiating, offering inducements, and, in the case of Iran, seeking ways to moderate their politicians.

You’re right about Hillary. She’s played both sides of the fence too many times. No one is happy with her, neither left nor right. Being a pragmatic, middle-of-of-the-road politician might make sense in terms of positioning, but… who needs her? She’s going to need to make some changes if she runs in ‘08. Guess it’s part of the difficulty of running for President out of the Senate.

Posted by: phx8 at January 22, 2006 12:22 PM
Comment #115649

Eric, finally we agree on something. Sen. Clinton is playing the political game and not very sensibly.

Bush is working on the Iran situation in the way I had hoped he would have worked on the Iraq situation, with some exceptions. Iran poses no threat to the U.S., it lacks intercontinental ballistic missiles as well as WMD. So both Bush and Clinton are leaving false impressions.

We must not remove our intelligence gaze from Iran, but, at this time, they pose no threat. Therefore, there is no justification for beating war drums on Iran. The Security Council should receive referral to review the Iranian intentions, and decide how to best keep them from becoming a threat to other nations in the future.

But, like Iraq, the threat posed by Iran is regional, and the bulk of the heavy deterrent lifting should come from regional nations like those in Europe. If Iran purchases the short range ballistic missiles from Russia as has been discussed between the two nations, the threat grows against neighboring Middle Eastern and European Nations. It is time the U.S. backed off (except as a UN and security council member)and let them bear the responsibility (ability to respond appropriately) and cost of deterring a potential Iranian threat.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 22, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #115669

David

I think I disagree.

I think Iran has been influencing the Iraq situation for a while..especially the Shia.

Last week’s downing of a US helicpoter was done by a missle…similiar to whyat is in Iran’s arsenal.

As for it being a regionial issue….try telling that to Isreal….or Isreal’s friends in the US.

Iran IS a threat to Isreals’ existence right now,today as the president ther is beating his own war drum…thus I think it trancends a regionial issue.

Bush is correct this time..I agree..by letting France,Germany and England negotiate..was the right move but I don’t understand Hillary saying that it was the wrong move.

Dumb mistake on her part

Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 22, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #115673

Sic Eagle, the thing I don’t get about the right’s philosophy is this. On the one hand, they say it is wrong for government to initiate policies which breed dependency upon government by its citizens as in welfare. But, on the other hand, they readily exhort these policies which breed dependency upon the US taxpayers hard earned dollars by other nations in the world to protect them militarily.

Sorry, it just does not compute to me. Iran is no threat to the US. If the regional nation’s are unwilling to take up their own defense against a looming threat in Iran, should they not suffer the consequences of their actions as conservatives say should be the case for those in our society who don’t assume the responsibiity for providing for themselves?

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 22, 2006 4:26 PM
Comment #115675

Rob,

The problem in Iraq was that Bush never involved the international community until AFTER he had chosen a course of action for them. He showed up with a “you’re with me or you’re against me” attitude that killed diplomacy before it started.

I have a different take on this. With Iraq there is a 12+ year history of diplomatic solutions. There is the first Gulf War with a terms of surrender that were never fully met. With Iran we are beginning that process now. This puts the two in slightly different categories I should think.

Posted by: esimonson at January 22, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #115676

phx8,

Confusion. What is it Bush wants to do in Iran? If you can articulate his position, maybe someone can articulate the Democrat position(s).

Seems to me the situation is very similar to North Korea. No one likes the US stance, but no one has a better idea. There just aren’t many practical alternatives. Like North Korea, we’re in the position of advocating non-proliferation, negotiating, offering inducements, and, in the case of Iran, seeking ways to moderate their politicians.

All three are very similiar. Now here’s where I disagree with the left. Bush named these three ‘the axis of evil’ and the left went berserk on him. But why? These are the big three rogue nations we must deal with in the near future. It makes no sense to say that we must do all three or none at all. Which is what the criticism amounts to regarding Iraq.

With Iraq we have had the most involvement up to date and the most justification to take action of all three. Diplomatic solutions had 12+ years to play out. I think this is why you had so many democrats making the statements they did, because eight years of that was under Clinton.

Should Bush have ignored Iraq because ‘it was contained’. When in fact we didn’t know what they had or what they were up to, only what the intelligence said and that Saddam would not cooperate.

Where are we with North Korea in contrast? Under Clinton we sent Jimmy Carter who made them a sweetheart deal which they nevertheless broke. Kim Jong Il is probably more psychotic than Saddam was/is. They are no doubt determined to have nuclear weapons, (if they do not already).

Iran: in contrast. We do not even have diplomatic relations with Iran. IAEA inspections are spotty at best. We know they are determined to have nuclear weapons, no one truly believes they are interested in the peaceful use of nuclear power.

In both North Korea and Iran inspections and the anticipated UN course of sanctions will not prevent either nation from aqcuiring nuclear weapons. The only option left is military force, just as with Iraq.

There are no perfect answers because it is an imperfect world and sometimes you have to make choices between doing something and doing nothing.

Posted by: esimonson at January 22, 2006 4:38 PM
Comment #115678

David,

You forgot to mention the fact that Iran is a major MAJOR funder of terror. For all we know Osama is in Iran.

That’s why the war on terror should take place within their region rather than ours.

Hezbollah was established by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who came to Lebanon during the 1982 “Peace for Galilee” war, as part of the policy of exporting the Islamic revolution. It receives substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid from Iran and Syria.

In Israel’s view, Hezbollah’s activities are part of Iran’s overall policy with regard to Israel, which is to fan the flames of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and initiate terrorist activities against Israel, despite the fact that Hezbollah is a Lebanese organization consisting entirely of terrorists from Lebanon, with no national connection to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In view of Iran’s interest in smudging its fingerprints with regard to direct control over internal terrorist activities, Hezbollah’s status is significant as Iran’s front-line operative arm against Israel.

Posted by: esimonson at January 22, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #115685

esimmonson, the fallacy of your argument is that by targeting Iran sponsorship of terrorism that the war will be won. Their are 3 strategies the US may pursue toward terrorism, and only one will work.

1) Selectively target one or two sponsor nations at a time. Doesn’t work, sponsors exist in dozens of naitons and our borders are wide open to them.

2) Secure our borders. Again, only half the solution since it does not interdict and reduce the growth of western directed terrorism organizations.

3)(This is the only one that has a real chance) Secure our borders against intrusion, we have the technology and resources, and internationally in cooperation with other nations, develop intelligence of, and interdict organizations involved in terrorism globally.

The President doesn’t want to erode the Hispanic vote for Republicans so he leaves our borders wide open. The President doesn’t know how to play nice with others, so international cooperation and following has diminished when it should be at its zenith.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 22, 2006 5:22 PM
Comment #115707

Eric,
You write: “In both North Korea and Iran inspections and the anticipated UN course of sanctions will not prevent either nation from aqcuiring nuclear weapons. The only option left is military force…”

Military force not the only other option. First, Wwe have to ask ourselves where we want to go; what is the goal? Democracy, human rights, self-determination, self-rule, peace, these are all goals advocated by Bush, Clinton, and other presidents. Most of us agree with these goals. Second, how can we achieve those goals?

This is where we differ. I’d argue that the military option is the last and least desirable option. For that reason, belligerent rhetoric such as identifying an ‘axis of evil’ is counterproductive for achieving our goals.

In the case of North Korea, we don’t exercise a military option because, while we would win in a matter of months, it would cost tens of thousands of lives for South Koreans. To achieve our goals, we’ll need to be patient, exercise diplomacy, and let exposure to western culture undermine the North Koreans.

Economic interaction and exposure to western culture will effect Iran as well, probably faster. Like Israel, Iran has the mechanics of a democracy already in place. And like Israel, Iran allows religious values to trump the democratic process. In Iran, the Mullahs can veto a political candidate if they are insufficiently virtuous or pious. In Israel, only candidates supporting a Jewish state are allowed to run.

David is right. Iran and Israel are regional problems. Strictly speaking, neither is a matter of US national security. Important? Of course! A matter of national survival? Not even close.

There is no need for the US to exercise a military option. Let time work in our favor. Let our culture and let economics do the work. In the meantime, encourage the Israelis and Iranians to come to terms. Religious zealotry simply does not work in the modern world, especially when zealots possess nuclear weapons.

Posted by: phx8 at January 22, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #115715

Eric,
Allowing Iran to have full nuke capability should not be allowed to happen for so many reason. However, instead of sending in our complete military and creating another Iraq or worse, why is it that President Bush and Company use our technology to lay waste to their nuke program? Tiny micro gremlins would do the trick very nicely and send a clear message to any nation that even their best is not even close enough to match the power of “We the People.”

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 22, 2006 8:02 PM
Comment #115725

Iraq and Iran are two different situations. We thought (erroneously) that they might have chemical weapons. We know for a fact that Iran has a nuclear program and that they hate the US. One was never a threat. One is a nuclear threat.

Posted by: John at January 22, 2006 8:44 PM
Comment #115730

Is there a connection to IRAQ and 9/11?

Posted by: Maya at January 22, 2006 9:13 PM
Comment #115735

Maya

There were no operational links, but Saddam was a fellow traveler and there were training links with terrorist groups.

Posted by: Jack at January 22, 2006 9:47 PM
Comment #115757

When the President started his march of war towards Iraq as the next part of the war on terror, he had me scratching my head.

Iran was one of a number of more obvious targets afterwards. The Iranians have been behind some of the worst terrorist attacks and worst terrorist groups out there, including, most recently Khobar Towers. They were supporters of our friend Moqtada al-Sadr, when he was killing Americans in Najaf.

Let’s face it: Iran was always a legitimate target in the War on Terror, in fact more legitimate than Iraq. The difference was, Iran was going to be tough and bloody. At least that’s how it looked when we were sure that Iraq was going to be a victory.

As for the Axis of Evil, it just looks to me like Bush falling back on his more comfortable foreign policy fixations

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 22, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #115775

Jack,
You cite the Weekly Standard article by conservative Stephen F. Hayes. Caution! Hayes has a history of being unreliable. Connecting Saddam Hussein with three terrorist training camps in Iraq, where thousands of terrorists were obstensibly trained, should be huge news, right?

Where are the documents to back up this claim? This should be very, very easy to prove. Hayes claims 11 government officials back jis claim. Yet no other media outlet seems to have similar sources to back up a similar claim. Hayes has been making similar claims for several years, and even published a book in 2004 about the Iraq/Al Qaida connection, based on an intelligence document that has turned out to be wrong, and information obtained by torturing a fellow named Al-Libi, which turned out to be bad info. Turned out the guy was willing to say anything under torture. Whoops!

Here is the beginning an article on Hayes from June, 2004:

“Weekly Standard staff writer and author of the book The Connection: How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America (released on June 1 by Rupert Murdoch’s publishing house HarperCollins), Stephen F. Hayes has appeared in recent months on numerous cable and Sunday talk shows to support his contention that there was indeed a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Despite vigorous critiques that have undermined the credibility of Hayes’s contention, conservative pundits have embraced Hayes and his book in order to, in the words of Center for Strategic and International Studies fellow Daniel A. Benjamin, “shore up the rickety argument that Baathist Iraq had posed a real national security threat to the United States.”

Questions surrounding Hayes’s journalistic credibility have been documented…”

It gets worse. If you need more material or more specifics exposing Hayes as an unreliable source, let me know.

In the meantime, I’d urge people to steer clear of this guy, Stephen F. Hayes. When reputable journalists go with this story we can run with it. Bush supporters can rejoice. Until then, use caution! Assume Hayes is unreliable.

Posted by: phx8 at January 23, 2006 12:06 AM
Comment #115806

David
A hypotheticial for you (or anyone…all invited)

Let’s say that you are the new Prime Misinster of Isreal.

At your first cabinet metting,two issues are brought up:Iran and Hamas.

What is your policy?

Let’s try to be specific.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 23, 2006 6:08 AM
Comment #115851

phx8,

-“Confusion. What is it Bush wants to do in Iran? If you can articulate his position, maybe someone can articulate the Democrat position(s).”-

Why do the Democrats need to know President Bush’s stance? Democrats should be able to think for yourself. Oh wait, thats right, they can’t. The only thing they know is disagreement and conflict. Democrats idealistics views are based on what ever Republicans believe in we believe the complete opposite and then we find explanations and excuses for the opposition.

It’s time to re-name the Democratic Party to the Antagonism Party or the Enmity Party or just the Oppostion Party, you choose.

Posted by: Blah Blah Blah at January 23, 2006 11:02 AM
Comment #115854

What right do we have to keep this peaceful, freedom fighter supporting country from nuclear technology?
They said it was for energy only, not bombs. The world knows there is no proof of Iran making nuclear arms. Any intel that says they are, is wrong or planted by our govt.
Why can’t hillary see that it is the US’s fault?
She shouldn’t be sabre rattling, she should be finding out what the US has done to cause this.
Why is she on this religious crusade to destroy muslims? First, she voted to kill innocent Iraqis and now she wants to do the same to Iran.
What about the children?
It takes a village, people!
The world should be one happy village.
No more blood for oil!

Posted by: kctim at January 23, 2006 11:14 AM
Comment #115864

Blah,
Thanks for the insightful comment. The opposition party, the Democrats, have the nerve to oppose the Republicans? That’s deep, Blah. Very deep. And the Democrats have no ideas? Wow. Ok. Dang. Busted. Boy, you got me there. You really, really nailed that one. Mmm, mmm.

Blah, I think you’re ready for an upgrade. Here’s a line of conservative thinking which may be challenging, but it is, after all, an upgrade. Ready?

“Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that.”
Britney Spears

Posted by: phx8 at January 23, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #115871

#1) Anyone who thinks Saddam had sworn off negotiations with terrorists, funding of terrorists, or the use of WMD … they are in a “La La” land of epic proportions.

#2) The reason 9/11 is in play is because after 9/11 we cannot have a national leader with the capacity to incur great damage to the US say “Death To America”. Before 9/11 we almost thought such comments cute. Now we justifiably need to put a knee in such a person’s chest and a knife at their throat (and then calmly check for head lice).

#3) Afghanistan should’ve been the first target and, for those history revisionists out there, IT ACTUALLY WAS! The Taliban were handled fairly quickly. The search for Osama is for Special Ops, not for 150,000 troops. (As long as Osama continues to huddle ineffectively in a cave somewhere it’s a close second to killing him.) We thus had an opportunity to strike at Saddam and we acted when we should have! (Just ask John Kerry and Hillary Clinton who voted for action.)

#4) Libs slam Bush for note letting more countries get involved with Iraq and then they slam him for letting countries get involved with Iran. Bi-polarity is indeed a horrible affliction. (P.S. Diplomacy over Iraq lasted over 12 years. Despite Lib revisionists, Iraq did not suddenly present itself as a problem in January 2001.)

#5) Iranian leaders will be just like Saddam, they will only understand a threat to their very lives. Very sad, but very true.

Posted by: K. Cooper at January 23, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #115878

My question to the Pres. of Iran and his leading Muslim Clerics:

Why, if the Religion of Islam is so wonderful, do you feel the need to force it on people?

I know that question will cause people to remind me of history.
I don’t want to know about any more history right now - I want to know why a religion that some claim is peaceful - needs leaders like them to suppress their people and threaten other Nations with different religious beliefs.

Killing off the Non-believers, and suppressing people, may be a faster way to reach their goal BUT is it the RIGHT way?

Why wouldn’t you want to use the peaceful way? Spreading the word and converting people without chopping heads off?

Posted by: dawn at January 23, 2006 1:46 PM
Comment #115880

K Cooper,
1) How carefully worded this first point is! So there were no WMD’s, or terrorist training camps, or Iraqi terrorists, but Saddam Hussein never ‘swore them off.’ I see. In other words, there was no threat to national security. Period.

2) Aggressively put. I’d recommend diplomacy before a knife to the throat, but it’s an understandable sentiment.

3) We don’t need 150,000 troops to search for OBL. We need them to provide security while the country is rebuilt. We need them to integrate a peaceful version of a Pashtun-dominated, Taliban government into the world community.

4) I’m not sure who you are referring to in this section. Generally speaking, I think liberals opposed invading Iraq, and liberals oppose invading Iran. Some moderate Democrats favored the invasion, but liberals with almost without exception opposed. Generally speaking, I think liberals support ongoing negotiations with Iran.

5) As long as Iran feels threatened, it will feel a need to defend itself.


Posted by: phx8 at January 23, 2006 1:48 PM
Comment #115881

Dawn,
“Killing off the Non-believers, and suppressing people, may be a faster way to reach their goal BUT is it the RIGHT way?”

It’s not the right way, I’m sure we agree. We need to apply the same thinking towards Israel, which suppresses the Palestinians.

And while Iran support Hezbollah, & deserves condemnation for that, Israel builds settlements on confiscated land, in violation of international law. Stealing land is not ok, even if the Israelis think God is down with it.

Posted by: phx8 at January 23, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #115891

Apparently, someone removed Eric’s brain and replaced it with Rush Limbaugh’s. Now he can’t tell the difference between Iraq and Iran (hint: it’s the last letter).

All along, Iran has been the bigger threat, but OBL is the biggest one. How about doing something about him?

Posted by: Mental Wimp at January 23, 2006 2:37 PM
Comment #115894

I hope this “Iran is evil” way of thinking becomes a Republican talking point, soon.
Then, hillary will change her viewpoint, again, and the the liberals will be against it.
kerry was probably against and is now for it and they all will be against it if we take action.

Save yourselves some time and just be against it from the beginning this time.

Posted by: kctim at January 23, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #115895

phx8,

‘Israel builds settlements on confiscated land, in violation of international law. Stealing land is not ok, even if the Israelis think God is down with it.’

I agree with you there too BUT it isn’t you and I who have the belief that God gave us our land. Both sides of that fight believe the same thing - BOTH sides also claim their religion is a peaceful one…. BOTH sides believe the land was given to them by GOD.

If there is a GOD - he gave this land to ALL of us to share - NOT to fight over.

The problem is convincing those ‘true believers’ of that.

Bush is right about staying within borders and living peacefully with thy neighbors.
Any future border changes should come from countries joining together not conquering.


Posted by: dawn at January 23, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #115973

Sic Eagle, I am not Jewish, and I don’t live in Israel, and I don’t have the history of being born and raised there with a lifetime of headlines, and war, and lost fellow Jews, and huge military. Therefore, I cannot presume to know what would be best for their Prime Minister to do under those circumstances.

I am an American. And I do know, that Iran poses no imminent threat to the U.S., which makes Iran a European and Middle Eastern problem, which we might offer our State Dep’t.’s opinion and support on, but, little beyond that save supporting international law in the UN.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 23, 2006 7:45 PM
Comment #115975

esimonson, you forgot to mention that the US has been a major funder of terrorism as well, in S. America, Cuba, Russian occupied Afghanistan, and in the Iraq-Iran war, and many others.

What goes around comes around, apparently. We are afterall, the leader of the free world, meaning leader by example of those whose economic or military might can justify their actions as right. Can anyone say, CHINA? The two great leaders of the 21’st century, America and China, shall lead in just this fashion. Might makes right! And with that philosophy, I can all but guarantee the continued proliferation of WMD throughout the world as a direct consequence of that philosophy we tout so well.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 23, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #116057

Dave you sound like a enlightened chamberlainesque liberal that would have served honorably on the carter administration. appeasment never worked, hoping for the best never worked and dening the obvious is a recipe for disaster. thankfully your kind are corraled in kalifornia and chappaquidik, the rest of the country has finally got it Right,

Posted by: tim at January 24, 2006 2:20 AM
Comment #116060

The false premise here is that Iran and Iraq are analogous. It’s been false all along.

Iranians were closer to the model of folks who really could hand a nuke to a terrorist.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 24, 2006 2:30 AM
Comment #116074

David,

esimonson, you forgot to mention that the US has been a major funder of terrorism as well, in S. America, Cuba, Russian occupied Afghanistan, and in the Iraq-Iran war, and many others.

Excuse me, I think I just stumbled on your pacifist relativism… Ahem, but there is a difference between funding terror whose sole targets are in fact women, children, and civilians and helping Afghan’s fight Soviets who invaded their country.

Those who have the might and do not use it for right will lose both might and right.
(~That’s from the tao of Eric.)

Posted by: esimonson at January 24, 2006 3:29 AM
Comment #116160

tim,

Dave you sound like a enlightened chamberlainesque liberal that would have served honorably on the carter administration. appeasment never worked, hoping for the best never worked and dening the obvious is a recipe for disaster. thankfully your kind are corraled in kalifornia and chappaquidik, the rest of the country has finally got it Right,

“Appeasement never works”, and yet, YOU still haven’t offered an alternative. Please let us know what YOU think we should do in Iran.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 24, 2006 9:55 AM
Comment #116180
I just noticed something: Hillary is demanding action against Iran …but does Iran have any connection to 9/11?

Eric, this is one of the dumbest articles I’ve seen over here.

President Bush put Iran on the back burner so he could go after a WMD-less Saddam, and Hillary is the bad guy? Cuckoo! Cuckoo!

And BTW, Iran does actually have ties with the 9/11 hijackers: The final report of the 9-11 Commission reveals troubling new evidence that Tehran was closer to Al Qaeda than Iraq was

Posted by: American Pundit at January 24, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #116541

Rob, what needs to be done is preemtive surgical strikes to destroy irans ability to “wipe israel from the face of the earth”. If this involves cruise missiles and/or precision munitions then thats what it takes. But to listen to the psychotic rantings of the current leader and hope for the best would only invite and allow disaster. Reality and common sense dictate that the world should act immediatly and not let this islamofascist hold the world hostage. tim

Posted by: tim at January 25, 2006 2:55 AM
Comment #116545

I believe we cannot destroy Iran’s nuke capability with conventional weapons. But since Israel also has the ability to “wipe Iran from the face of the earth”, maybe we should sit back a little and let these two have their cold war — or learn to deal with each other a little better than both sides have: there seems to be a lot of intolerance there on both sides. Let’s be a peacemaker — yet avoid hitting the Tar-Baby — if possible.

Maybe let Iran & Isreal learn to play nice; let Europeans learn to play tough (and solve SOME problem for once); give our military the time to be ready for Iran if it comes to that; and try to play diplomacy so that as-much-as-possible of the world sees the US & our military as doing them a big favor.

Posted by: Brian at January 25, 2006 3:55 AM
Comment #116627

tim,

Rob, what needs to be done is preemtive surgical strikes to destroy irans ability to “wipe israel from the face of the earth”. If this involves cruise missiles and/or precision munitions then thats what it takes. But to listen to the psychotic rantings of the current leader and hope for the best would only invite and allow disaster. Reality and common sense dictate that the world should act immediatly and not let this islamofascist hold the world hostage.

Thanks. For the most part I agree with you — but there’s one thing I don’t know if you’ve considered.

The President of Iran doesn’t have a lot of popular support. There are many in Iran who would like to remove him from power. That would be a good thing…

… BUT, if we strike Iran militarily, they’ll likely unite behind him, at least for a short time (as the US did behind Bush after 9/11). So, while strikes would accomplish the goal of keeping Iran from going nuclear, they would hinder the goal of removing this guy from power.

Now, weighing the two options, I still think that preventing a nuclear Iran is more important than changing their government. But, if the possibility still exists that we could do BOTH, I’d like to play it out.

So, my thought is this: Get the planes loaded and ready to head out. But give the diplomats a bit more time before you send’em down the runway.

Thoughts?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 25, 2006 10:15 AM
Comment #116971

Eric,

You act as though Democrats take Hillary serious. If she runs in 08, I’ll vote independant or for J. Mc Cain. Hillary is you’re enemy and your symbol for the Democrats, not ours.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at January 26, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #117090

phx8:

Israel is a ally of the US. We have a history of supporting Israel self-defence policies. Ergo, the potential nuking of Israel is not a regional issue. Realistically, the Israelis would have only limited options for responding to a nuclear threat from Iran. The primary option being a nuclear response. That would disrupt the region so thoroughly that the world oil supply would be entirely unpredicable. How can a situation that would upend the global economy be a regional issue.

I noticed when the Israelis had the stronger hand, liberal politics didn’t view the palestinian issue as a regional issue that should be resolved by the nations in the area. This is the same issue and it wasn’t regional then and it’s not regional now.

By the way, the reference to the Israelies stealing the land was a cheap shot. The history of land acquisition in Israel is complicated with large portions of land being purchased, other portions seized in response to palestinean miltary operations within Israel and other portions seized after anti-Israelie military action coming from the Syrian border. I am not saying that the Israelies always took the high road, but to condemn them as land grabbers is too simplistic.

Posted by: goodkingned at January 26, 2006 2:20 PM
Post a comment