Monday, April 10, 2006

"This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran..."

"...and that means war"

This of course coming from the new Seymour Hersh article on Iran Plans
Publicly flaunting diplomacy while at the same time planning an intense air attack. Just in January I heard Mr. Bolton speaking in Berlin patently denying any possibility that the US pursues military options for dealing with the "Iran issue". He actually yelled at the poor kid in the audience who asked about it - using Iraq as the precedent.
With support for the Iraq war so low, and international trust in the tank, its rather disconcerting that this information has gotten out. Of course it is only a plan (one which includes a nuclear option!), but after the example of Iraq it's extremely difficult for me to believe that the current administration takes the option of diplomacy seriously. This sums it up well...
One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”

Good question.
Any ideas how the Dems can challenge this foreign policy point, without siding with the bad guys?


At April 10, 2006 12:26 PM, Blogger Martin said...

There's a simple little principle which - bizarrely - gets overlooked each time: "People don't like to be bombed".

(a) It saps any pre-existing sympathy for the bomber's cause.
(b) An immediate response of (the majority of) victims is to rally around their 'protector'.

You can find examples anywhere you choose to. Maybe this principle needs to be branded onto certain people's eyelids. More modestly, some tinkering with the Fox teleprompter ought to suffice.

At April 10, 2006 4:21 PM, Blogger Gilbert Martinez said...

The way Iran's government is tied to it's religious institutions will make it easy to conflate bombing the country with an attack on their religious beliefs. Steve Clemons over at The Washington Note has been to Isreal and is under the impression that Isreal does not think it is wise to attack Iran--even "strategic" bombing.

The fact that we are not at least trying to engage Iran with bilateral talks is ominous. The whole "let's go to the UN" gambit by the President sounds startlingly familiar. The whole situation is pretty frightening, especially considering that an intel report indicated that Iran would resort to terror attacks if they were bombed.

At April 10, 2006 9:15 PM, Anonymous American Patriot said...

Rest assured. Frankly, with the military in its current state, I don't think we can go to war with Iran (I mean a serious war, not a few bombs here and there.)

At April 10, 2006 10:30 PM, Blogger Gilbert Martinez said...

Rest assured, the Pentagon was warned repeatedly of needing more troops to stabilize post-invasion Iraq. Warnings weren't heeded then, why should we suspect competence will prevail this time?

BTW, what is a GOP troll doing on a college blog? I think it's cute.

At April 12, 2007 3:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

free teleprompter A fantastic peice of kit, but the cost of buying a commercially produced unit is beyond most peoples price range. But your site provides the answer to many of my questions.
If anyone is interested, I have details of teleprompter software to download free teleprompter and best of all its FREE


Post a Comment

<< Home