Pat Buchanan says today, "The neocons may yet get their war on Iran."
Let me see if I get this straight.
Conditions Delineated by MNF-I Commander
It "is correct" that "Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians."
There is no war with Iran, but if we respond it will be the American Neocons' War.
The Neocons' War would be the Democrats' fault for not forcing a full withdrawal from Iraq.
With all due respect to Mr. Buchanan, this flies in the face of logic. He states:
In early 2007, Nancy Pelosi pulled down a resolution that would have denied Bush the authority to attack Iran without congressional approval. In September, both Houses passed the Kyl-Lieberman resolution designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
Courtesy of Congress, Bush thus has a blank check for war on Iran. And the signs are growing that he intends to fill it in and cash it.
I feel compelled to restate that fully 10% of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq have come and continue to come at the hands of the EFP armor-piercing roadside bomb that Iran designed, manufactures, and supplies.
Iranians seek us out and kill us on the battlefield. Whether they do this with their army, with proxies, or with Peter Pan - I fail to see how that matters. Our dead brothers are our dead brothers. Yet there is no Iranian war.
If, however, we dare to retaliate by reducing the Iranian cross-border terror camps to dust, is a "Neocons' War" suddenly materializing out of a vacuum? Does America - or more specifically President George W. Bush - instantly become the wild aggressor? How on Earth does one possibly navigate that leap of logic?
Buchanan himself accepts General Petraeus's assessment and concludes that "The United States is now fighting the proxies of Iran for the future of Iraq." But apparently since it is "only" proxies, Iran must be afforded yet again a comfortable buffer between actions and accountability, and illusory insulation between acts of war and their consequences.
This charade of nuance has been going on for nearly 30 years with Iran. The nuance is over-intellectualized and held out as an endeavor so incredibly complex and unimaginably intricate as to require years studying international relations at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government to comprehend and master it. Well, it's not the rocket science advertised. The Iranians have mastered it (and many of us), and they've never set foot inside those hallowed grounds of Ivy League diplomacy education. Enough already.
We don't need a ground incursion, which would leave us with yet more territory to tend to. But if we know where to find the Iranian camps and EFP manufacturing facilities that are supplying us death in Iraq (or anywhere else), they should be dealt with decisively. You can keep treating the cuts, but eventually one simply has to consider taking the knife.
Pat Buchanan's answer to Iran is the same as Nancy Pelosi's: Leave Iraq. If only that would change the nature of those who have been killing us since long before we ever showed up to the fight. If only.
The neocons may yet get their war on Iran.
Ever since President Nouri al-Maliki ordered the attacks in Basra on the Mahdi Army, Gen. David Petraeus has been laying the predicate for U.S. air strikes on Iran and a wider war in the Middle East.
Iran, Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee, has "fueled the recent violence in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support of the special groups."
These "special groups" are "funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran's Quds Force with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq's seat of government (the Green Zone) ... causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital."
Is the Iranian government aware of this -- and behind it?
"President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders" promised to end their "support for the special groups," said the general, but the "nefarious activities of the Quds force have continued."
Are Iranians then murdering Americans, asked Joe Lieberman:
"Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?"
"It certainly is. ... That is correct," said Petraeus.
The following day, Petraeus told the House Armed Services Committee, "Unchecked, the 'special groups' pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq."
Translation: The United States is now fighting the proxies of Iran for the future of Iraq.
The general's testimony is forcing Bush's hand, for consider the question it logically raises: If the Quds Force and Hezbollah, both designated as terrorist organizations, are arming, training and directing "special groups" to "murder" Americans, and rocket and mortar the Green Zone to kill our diplomats, and they now represent the No. 1 threat to a free Iraq, why has Bush failed to neutralize these base camps of terror and aggression?
Hence, be not surprised if President Bush appears before the TV cameras, one day soon, to declare:
"My commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, has told me that Iran, with the knowledge of President Ahmadinejad, has become a privileged sanctuary for two terrorist organizations -- Hezbollah and the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard -- to train, arm and direct terrorist attacks on U.S. and coalition forces, despite repeated promises to halt this murderous practice.
"I have therefore directed U.S. air and naval forces to begin air strikes on these base camps of terror. Our attacks will continue until the Iranian attacks cease."
Because of the failures of a Democratic Congress elected to end the war, Bush can now make a compelling case that he would be acting fully within his authority as commander in chief.
In early 2007, Nancy Pelosi pulled down a resolution that would have denied Bush the authority to attack Iran without congressional approval. In September, both Houses passed the Kyl-Lieberman resolution designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
Courtesy of Congress, Bush thus has a blank check for war on Iran. And the signs are growing that he intends to fill it in and cash it.
Israel has been hurling invective at Iran and conducting security drills to prepare its population for rocket barrages worse than those Hezbollah delivered in the Lebanon War.
Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, the Central Command head who opposed war with Iran, has been removed. Hamas and Hezbollah have been stocking up on Qassam and Katyusha rockets.
Vice President Cheney has lately toured Arab capitals.
And President Ahmadinejad just made international headlines by declaring that Tehran will begin installing 6,000 advanced centrifuges to accelerate Iran's enrichment of uranium.
This is Bush's last chance to strike and, when Iran responds, to effect its nuclear castration. Are Bush and Cheney likely to pass up this last chance to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and effect the election of John McCain? For any attack on Iran's "terrorist bases" would rally the GOP and drive a wedge between Obama and Hillary.
Indeed, Sen. Clinton, who voted to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, could hardly denounce Bush for ordering air strikes on the Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, when Petraeus testified, in her presence, that it is behind the serial murder of U.S. soldiers.
The Iranians may sense what is afoot. For Tehran helped broker the truce in the Maliki-Sadr clash in Basra, and has called for a halt to the mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone.
With a friendly regime in Baghdad that rolled out the red carpet for Ahmadinejad, Iran has nothing to gain by war. Already, it is the big winner from the U.S. wars that took down Tehran's Taliban enemies, decimated its al-Qaida enemies and destroyed its Sunni enemies, Saddam and his Baath Party.
No, it is not Iran that wants a war with the United States. It is the United States that has reasons to want a short, sharp war with Iran.
__________________
~SC Harvey~
"The Republicans know we have a constitution, and they dismiss it with contempt and arrogance ... The Democrats simply have never heard of it ..."--Livyjr-2008
"Patriots don't let patriots vote stupid..."--Frenchy-2009
The neocons may yet get their war on Iran.
Ever since President Nouri al-Maliki ordered the attacks in Basra on the Mahdi Army, Gen. David Petraeus has been laying the predicate for U.S. air strikes on Iran and a wider war in the Middle East.
Iran, Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee, has "fueled the recent violence in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support of the special groups."
These "special groups" are "funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran's Quds Force with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq's seat of government (the Green Zone) ... causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital."
Is the Iranian government aware of this -- and behind it?
"President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders" promised to end their "support for the special groups," said the general, but the "nefarious activities of the Quds force have continued."
Are Iranians then murdering Americans, asked Joe Lieberman:
"Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?"
"It certainly is. ... That is correct," said Petraeus.
The following day, Petraeus told the House Armed Services Committee, "Unchecked, the 'special groups' pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq."
Translation: The United States is now fighting the proxies of Iran for the future of Iraq.
The general's testimony is forcing Bush's hand, for consider the question it logically raises: If the Quds Force and Hezbollah, both designated as terrorist organizations, are arming, training and directing "special groups" to "murder" Americans, and rocket and mortar the Green Zone to kill our diplomats, and they now represent the No. 1 threat to a free Iraq, why has Bush failed to neutralize these base camps of terror and aggression?
Hence, be not surprised if President Bush appears before the TV cameras, one day soon, to declare:
"My commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, has told me that Iran, with the knowledge of President Ahmadinejad, has become a privileged sanctuary for two terrorist organizations -- Hezbollah and the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard -- to train, arm and direct terrorist attacks on U.S. and coalition forces, despite repeated promises to halt this murderous practice.
"I have therefore directed U.S. air and naval forces to begin air strikes on these base camps of terror. Our attacks will continue until the Iranian attacks cease."
Because of the failures of a Democratic Congress elected to end the war, Bush can now make a compelling case that he would be acting fully within his authority as commander in chief.
In early 2007, Nancy Pelosi pulled down a resolution that would have denied Bush the authority to attack Iran without congressional approval. In September, both Houses passed the Kyl-Lieberman resolution designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
Courtesy of Congress, Bush thus has a blank check for war on Iran. And the signs are growing that he intends to fill it in and cash it.
Israel has been hurling invective at Iran and conducting security drills to prepare its population for rocket barrages worse than those Hezbollah delivered in the Lebanon War.
Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, the Central Command head who opposed war with Iran, has been removed. Hamas and Hezbollah have been stocking up on Qassam and Katyusha rockets.
Vice President Cheney has lately toured Arab capitals.
And President Ahmadinejad just made international headlines by declaring that Tehran will begin installing 6,000 advanced centrifuges to accelerate Iran's enrichment of uranium.
This is Bush's last chance to strike and, when Iran responds, to effect its nuclear castration. Are Bush and Cheney likely to pass up this last chance to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and effect the election of John McCain? For any attack on Iran's "terrorist bases" would rally the GOP and drive a wedge between Obama and Hillary.
Indeed, Sen. Clinton, who voted to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, could hardly denounce Bush for ordering air strikes on the Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, when Petraeus testified, in her presence, that it is behind the serial murder of U.S. soldiers.
The Iranians may sense what is afoot. For Tehran helped broker the truce in the Maliki-Sadr clash in Basra, and has called for a halt to the mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone.
With a friendly regime in Baghdad that rolled out the red carpet for Ahmadinejad, Iran has nothing to gain by war. Already, it is the big winner from the U.S. wars that took down Tehran's Taliban enemies, decimated its al-Qaida enemies and destroyed its Sunni enemies, Saddam and his Baath Party.
No, it is not Iran that wants a war with the United States. It is the United States that has reasons to want a short, sharp war with Iran.
"Are Bush and Cheney likely to pass up this last chance to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and effect the election of John McCain?"
Yes, this would be the reason they would do it. They don't want to risk losing what they have gained(??) in Iraq and elsewhere should the Democrats take over.
No, we should just let Iran keep attacking and murdering Americans, either directly or by proxy. We can always flie a complaint at the UN.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Etta Place
"Are Bush and Cheney likely to pass up this last chance to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and effect the election of John McCain?"
Yes, this would be the reason they would do it. They don't want to risk losing what they have gained(??) in Iraq and elsewhere should the Democrats take over.
__________________ XD 45 Service
XD 9mm SC
Walther PPK
Walther P22
S&W Model 39 9mm
Ruger .41mag Blackhawk
Colt .38spc Detective Special
Colt .38 Lightweight Detective
Colt .38 circa 1930's model unk.
Rosssi .22
Next???
Paul still sucks....
Location: Near the confluence of the Missouri and Osage
Posts: 21,656
So, let me get this straight, Judge. you are stating an opinion, of an opinion, of an opinion....and calling it evidence?
__________________
~SC Harvey~
"The Republicans know we have a constitution, and they dismiss it with contempt and arrogance ... The Democrats simply have never heard of it ..."--Livyjr-2008
"Patriots don't let patriots vote stupid..."--Frenchy-2009
I don't think we will be jumping into a war with Iran at this point. We have most of the world on our side with sanctions. If we start talking about military options watch how fast these so called "allies" against Iran will start looking like rats on a sinking ship...
And they often work against our interest, but for their own. In addition, I'm not aware of any incident where their army acted as a proxy for ours...
That's a damn big streach comparing their relationship with us to that of Hezbollah and Mahdi to Iran's....
How so?? Do we equip them, train with them, share 'intelligence' with them, pay them money to keep them alive?? Ergo-they are our 'step children'. They also influence our politics to an extent....so whats not to understand??
__________________
Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time is enemy action
Linear Mode
