A number of MSNBC commentators tonight, including Pat Buchanan who supports the president's surge in Iraq (although he thought the initial war was a mistake), believe that President Bush is preparing to engage Iran.
The argument is this:
1. Bush indicated that he has moved a carrier into the Persian Gulf to help stop those who are aiding Iraq. This can only refer to Iran.
2. Bush indicated that he was sending Patriot missles to the region. There's no need for such missles in Iraq--there's nothing by air the insurgents or factions have to use against us. On the other hand, Iran has such things.
3. The clincher is the fact that American troops stormed an Iranian embassy in the northern part of Iraq. This is technically an act of war, although Iran has not yet taken the bait.
The idea is that Bush is trying to provoke Iran into attacking us there so that we can bomb their nuclear facilities.
If this is true, what are we to make of it? It goes diametrically against the recommendations of the Baker commission, who advised the President to talk to Syria and Iran.
On the one hand, we might make this argument: the President knows more than we do; we should trust him. Perhaps this will pressure Iran into negotiation. Maybe finding a way to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities is better than them having them, which currently seems inevitable.
On the other side, we trusted Bush once already--they have WMD's, they have mobile labs, they're getting uranium from Niger, they're helping Al Qaeda, they'll welcome us with flowers, it's in its last throes, mission accomplished...
This was all wrong. Colin Powell resigned, Generals have resigned, half the Republicans on Capitol Hill have left Bush's side. Gerald Ford disagreed, Bush junior refused to ask for his father's advice.
Somehow the Baker commission seems a whole lot more credible to me about now. God help us all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
One more item. The unusual appointment of Admiral Fallon as commander of CentCom doesn't make sense for a mission of securing streets in Baghdad, but it's perfectly reasonable if you're going to bomb military installations in Iran.
The idea that "the President knows more than we do; we should trust him" requires that we dismiss the opposing views of so many informed and intelligent people, including members of the Baker-Hamilton commission, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former NSA Director General William Odom, most Democratic and a growing number of Republican Senators and Representatives. Given the track record of President Bush thus far, how CAN we trust his judgment?
Prior to the invasion and occupation of Iraq there was a lively discussion on the definitions and merits of "just war", "preemptive war", and "preventive war". People of faith took leading roles in that debate, and their arguments seem even more valid in retrospect. If religion is truly relevant to the events of the world today, should we not raise our voices again?
Yes, isn't Fallon's specialty in the area of air combat?
oh crap, I've missed some news. I didn't know Colin Powell was gone.
God is sure sovereign! He kept me alive tonight from another stupid New Jersey driver (not besides me, it's just there are a lot of them:-). That is the closest I think I've come to death that I can think of.
I just went to cafeturtor, and witness yyour "grotesque" closeups for the Arabic alphabet. I need to pass that on to my brother, though I have to say the song and dance, I mean mouth close-up cracked me up.
Amen, God help us.
Dear Ken,
They were helping Al Queda, they were on their way to nukes (the USSR helped move much of the material to Syria), they did have other mass destruction weapons in their arsenal, Wilson's anti yellow cake testimony has been discredited by his own report---so many of the items you mentioned that were all wrong were in fact true. You might want to do some independent research as befitting a good professor as I believe you are befoe making such sweeping statements of "fact". That being said, your conclusion was truth "God does need to help us" . Help us to have discernment about the true and present dangers we do face, help us to rely on Him, help us to know how to balance our lives.
You might profit from reading Mark Steyn's "America Alone". You might also profit from reading some of the milbloggers---several of whom are reporters currently embedded in Iraq---Michael Yon, Bill Ardolino, Bill Roggio, are some who are currently on the ground in Iraq.
They are excellent writers and reporters.
If these things you mention are true, then why aren't we hearing this rebuttal from the Bush administration? Why do those who interview Bush go unchecked when they ask him about WMD? When the key player, the President, accepts the absence of WMD, why am I to believe the conspiracy theorists who talk about things smuggled to Syria. I've not heard Bush claim this!
Having said that, thanks for the references... I am more than willing to be corrected if my understandings are wrong.
Ken only believes what he hears on CNN, MSNBC, CBS News and the Democratic Party. More conservative perspectives from FOX or the Republican Party are no doubt potentially misleading and suspect.
Aren't we hearing the same things now from the Republicans and the Democrats? Isn't just about everyone on the same page except Fox News?
Post a Comment