Monday, July 16, 2007

"Bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb Iran"
And the beat goes on. Never mind that it's the Saudis who sew chaos in Baghdad and are willfully blind to the funneling of suicide bombers to blow up our troops. And then there's that little issue of how oversight of our own intelligence has been crippled.

Good combo. But none of that is important when you've got this news release of a few days ago from "Max Wright" Lieberman, Toker "White Fang" Coleman, and the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld twins
Kyl and Graham. The topic is important enough to revisit, so let's take another look at some excerpts:
The amendment, per Lieberman, states that “the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable act of hostility against the United States,” and demands the government of Iran “take immediate action” to end all forms of support it is providing to Iraqi militias and insurgents. The amendment also mandates a regular report on Iran’s anti-coalition activity in Iraq. [...]
“The Iranians are attempting to thwart our policies in the Middle East by actively supporting terrorists who are killing our troops in Iraq,” said Senator Kyl. “It is time we acknowledge this hostility against us, and this amendment tells the Iranians we will not tolerate any actions which threaten our troops or allies.” [...]

“It is long past time for Congress to speak out about this destructive behavior by Iran. We need one voice, and I expect it will be a unified bipartisan voice, speaking out and condemning these actions by the Iranian government.” [...]

The United States will not tolerate Iran’s hostile attempts to sabotage our efforts in the Middle East region,” said Senator Coleman.
Don't the Dems realize how this is going to be used? Did they even know what they voted for? Are they that willing to bend over for Lieberman to keep him from defecting? Um, guys? See: Lead-up to the invasion of Iraq.

So, how do we stop the permanent war machine from attacking Iran when this amendment passed 97-0? And as the Saudis get snuggled and the intel community gets a free pass, do we just continue to cross our fingers and hope with all our might that everything will turn out hunky-dory? Or am I just being a silly lefty hippie alarmist who hates America?

Cliff Note: Thanks for this Gottalaff, and sorry to intrude. I beat this drum a lot. From now on, a thought exercise. Every time the Neo-warmongers say "Iran," replace it with "Saudi Arabia" and see if the same conditions apply, or if Saudi Arabia is even more guilty of said offense (as they likely will be). Then decide if what they're telling you makes any sense.

GottaLaff Update:
A British newspaper alleges that "the balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour [sic] of military action" before President George W. Bush leaves office. The Manchester Guardian's "Washington source" said neither Bush or Vice President Cheney trust any future president -- Republican or Democrat -- to deal with Iran "decisively." [...] "No decision on military action is expected until next year," the paper adds. "In the meantime, the state department will continue to pursue the diplomatic route." That's what they said before they invaded Iraq.


At 3:28 PM, Blogger GottaLaff said...

And what troops would they use to realize their latest wet dream?

At 3:43 PM, Blogger GottaLaff said...

Cliff, thank you. I obviously feel strongly about this too, and your note was the perfect cap to the post.

At 3:51 PM, Blogger Ashen Shard said...

All this focus on Iran is Islamic extremists has removed our attention from some other real threats. For one, look where Russia is heading, the headlines the past few days are quite scary. China is also growing and could also become a threat in the near future.

At 2:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hate to use the cliche 'it's deja vu all over again', but it's deja vu all over again. Again.


Post a Comment

<< Home