What is wrong with this guy and his administration of jackasses? In referenceto Rice bumping into the foreign minister of Iran, Bush actually had totell us , and will be firm about policy. Why would he feelthe need to tell us that? Oh, maybe because he thinks she's incompetenttoo.
"Should the foreign minister of Iran bump into Condi Rice, Condi won'tbe rude; she's not a rude person. I'm sure she'll be polite," Bush said ata news conference after meeting with European Union leaders.
"She'll also be firm in reminding the representative of the Iraniangovernment that there's a better way forward for the Iranian people thanisolation," Bush said.
A few days ago when GOP presidential candidate John McCain joked about bombing Iran. I would bet money that he got the idea from this video, which was made one year ago (note: the video is a bit disturbing at places):
Compare this to what this week:
"That old, eh, that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran," he said in jestWednesday, chuckling with the crowd. Then, he softly sang to themelody: "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, anyway, ah ..." The audience respondedwith more laughter.
Experts and world powers are expressing doubt about Iran's claims of nuclearcapabilities. I don't know which is more disturbing, Iran's act of defianceafter the U.N.'s imposed sanctions, or the possibility of the Bushadministration taking matters into their own hands.
The Washington Posts's article
MOSCOW -- Russia voiced skepticism Tuesday about Iran's announcement of adramatic expansion of its uranium enrichment effort, saying it had not receivedconfirmation of the claim.
Their article gives some insight about the skepticism.
VIENNA,Austria-- Is Iran bluffing about the progress of its nuclear program? Experts and someworld powers are expressing doubt that the country has been able to assemble thecomplicated system it needs to enrich uranium _ a potential pathway to nucleararms.
If true, Iran's revelation Monday that it now has 3,000 centrifuges producing enricheduranium brings the country a giant step closer to being able to produce thenuclear material for a bomb. But the inaccuracy of some past claims _ and Iran's present drive to defy the U.N. Security Council _ has fed skepticism.
Experts say 3,000 centrifuges would be more than enough for at least onenuclear weapon a year should Iran decide to make bombs instead of its professed goal of generating power.
Some experts feel that Iran may be exaggerating for negotiatingleverage.
With its nuclear activities shrouded in suspicions,
Iran's claims are difficult to independently verify. Exaggerating the number ofcentrifuges gives the Iranians more room to negotiate with world powers _ andpossibly allow them to hold out and keep some vestige of a nuclear enrichmentprogram.
"This is a country that routinely lies about conventional weaponsdevelopments and production," said Anthony Cordesman, an analyst with theCenter for Strategic and International Studies.
Even I was fairly skeptical to hear people comparing the current situation in Iran to the 1964 . We need to be careful when drawing historical comparisons. But if this new story in the UK's is true, then the Administration was trying to use the British hostage standoff to put the U.S. on a war footing with Iran:
The US offered to take military action on behalf of the 15 Britishsailors and marines held by Iran, including buzzing IranianRevolutionary Guard positions with warplanes, the Guardian has learned.
Inthe first few days after the captives were seized and British diplomatswere getting no news from Tehran on their whereabouts, Pentagonofficials asked their British counterparts: what do you want us to do?They offered a series of military options, a list which remains topsecret given the mounting risk of war between the US and Iran. But oneof the options was for US combat aircraft to mount aggressive patrolsover Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases in Iran, to underline theseriousness of the situation.
The British declined the offer and said the US could calm the situationby staying out of it. London also asked the US to tone down militaryexercises that were already under way in the Gulf.
As authoritarian as Iran's one-party system is, president Ahmadinejad does not have complete control over all Iranian forces. He cannot micromanage them on the battlefield. So if we buzz them with our warplanes overhead, what is to stop Iranian soldiers from shooting at us? What if they down one of our planes? You probably know what would happen.
So why would the Administration suggest enacting this aggressive tactic unless they were trying to provoke a wider conflict?
As I watched the news channels and listened to journalists, strategists andretired military commentators remark about the way the British prisonershandled themselves, it made me shake my head in disbelief. It was beingspeculated that they weren't behaving as prisoners should behave. They seemed to becooperating with the enemy.
Some Britons have questioned the behavior of the 15 service personnel duringtheir detention,
Carman said that Turney, whose interviews and letters apologizing to theIranian people were widely aired in Iran and around the world, in particularpaid a high price.
I understand that when captured you are only to give "Your name, rankand serial number". Unless you were there, you don't know how you wouldbehave, or what you would or wouldn't do. For the last few years we have allwatched beheadings and torture victims on the news and internet.
has more about their capture and how they were treated here
Sean Hannity has got to be one of the most despicable commentators of all thenews channels. He continuously brow beats, bullies and antagonizes his guests.He'll be speaking to a respected individual that has a different view than hedoes, and his attempt at showing his other right wing guests (and America) thathe is the Almightiest Patriot of them all, displays nothing shy of disrespect.His repeated taunts of "answer yes or no" have gotten to the point of amusement.The guest will try and answer Hannity's question in an educated thoughtful way,and that will simply not do for Mr. Hannity. This is evident in the video.
If a guest disagrees with him, he goes right into his normal behavior andvery rarely will you see him act in a professional manner as the majority of commentatorsdo. Losing your composure once in a while is normal, but with Hannity his unprofessionalbehavior seems to be HIS norm. He comes across as not being very knowledgeableand often plays off of his "teams" comments. If he continues to refuseto treat guests with dignity and respect, then why have them on at all?
As far as Hannity is concerned, we should not speak to any of our enemies.Diplomacy is not an option. I suppose in Hannity's world, it's "OurWay" or the "Bombs Way". He is a closed minded, militant warmonger. He also partakes in berating his co-host (Alan Colmes) every chance he gets.
All this comes at a time when Iran just released the 13 British sailors.
Iran's decision to release the 13 British sailors was welcomed by the U.S.,however the White House continues with their Hardball attitude of meetingand talking with Iran.
Reuters reported.
if the circumstances were right, she would not rule out meeting Iranbilaterally, but with the usual caveat that Iran must give up enrichment.
Andpreviously said she would meet with Iran only in a multilateral context, alongwith other nations dealing with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. Iran may not bethe easiest country to deal with, but I think it's a no brainier to open up dialoguewith them, as opposed to the silent treatment and not knowing what they arethinking or doing.
"I see Condoleezza Rice -- she goes on a plane, she gets off aplane, she waves, she goes there to meet some dictator," Trump said."They talk, she leaves, she waves, the plane takes off. Nothinghappens, it's a joke, nothing ever happens. I think she's a very nicewoman, but I don't want a nice woman. I want someone that's notnecessarily nice."
I say let's talk, lets make deals and let's stop looking for the "next" country to bomb.
The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Saturday to approve aresolution that bans all Iranian arms exports and freezes some of thefinancial assets of 28 Iranian individuals and entities linked to Iran's military and nuclear agencies.
The15-nation council imposed the latest sanctions in response to Iran'srefusal to abide by repeated U.N. demands to halt its most sensitivenuclear activities, including the enrichment of uranium and thereprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. The council seeks verifiableassurances from Iran that it is not pursuing a clandestine nuclearweapons program.
This is what happens when you use diplomacy for a change and communicate like grown adults on the world stage. Iran's current nuclear energy program is in violation of international law. You respond to that by uniting the world in an effort to corner the Ahmadinejad government.
Of course, this is only step one. Step two is to pressure China and Russia, some of Iran's other trading partners, to stand firmly against Ahmadinejad's nuclear program.
Finally, and most important, the Bush Administration needs to get with the program and engage in direct talks with Iran. Why? Sanctions can have one of two effects: they may force Iran to comply, or make them twice as aggressive. If they get aggressive, then we need to know their true intentions at all times. The last thing we need is a war that begins over miscommunication.
It will be interesting to see the how Iran reacts on a political level to this unanimous U.N. vote.
Dick Cheney's hawkish circle that once had enormous influence on Bush's foreign policy has been diminished. Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Scooter Libby, and Donald Rumsfeld are all gone. We are watching the lessening of Cheney's influence before our very eyes. Just days after Dick Cheney took a , American officials have agreed to high-level , which will take place at a regional conference on Iraq:
The discussions, scheduled for the next two months, are expected to include Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Iranian and Syrian counterparts.
Theannouncement, first made in Baghdad and confirmed by Ms. Rice, that theUnited States would take part in two sets of meetings among Iraq andits neighbors, including Syria and Iran, is a shift in President Bush’s avoidance of high-level contacts with the governments in Damascus and, especially, Tehran.
We will probably never seen Bush and Ahmadinejad in a room together -- so don't get your hopes up. Though, this definitely is a start. It shows that the State Department and the post-Rumsfeld Pentagon are moving in a more realistic direction, even though it is taking them a long time to do so.
Bottom line: the most damage Cheney can do is with his mouth. In terms of his influence, he is definitely a lame duck without anything to do other than voice threats. New Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has obviously helped shift power away from Cheney. Even Joshua Bolton, Bush's Chief of Staff, is more influential than Cheney at this very moment. Compared to the situation when Andrew Card was in there, a lot has changed.
By Republican standards, that would make the generals anti-military, defeatist and emboldening the enemy -- the grand trifecta.
The UK's is reporting that a number of high-ranking generals are already prepared to resign if Cheney convinces Bush to invade Iran:
SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.
Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.
“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,†a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.â€
Take that Dick Cheney! This weekend during an oversees trip, the Vice President was busy ratcheting up the war rhetoric. His likely motive was to preempt calls for diplomacy by Condoleezza Rice's State Department, which represents the less hawkish wing of the Administration -- comparatively speaking. Now, if this report is true, it looks like both the State Department and the Pentagon agree that attacking Iran would be disastrous to the military. John Bolton, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith are all gone. That puts Cheney in a corner all by himself.
Recent Comments