Obama; Clinton is like Bush on Iran
Barak Obama made the assertion yesterday in Indiana that when it comes to dealing with Iran, Hillary Clinton is no different than George Bush (Fox News link);
Earlier, Obama likened Clinton to President Bush for threatening to “totally obliterate” Iran if it attacks Israel as he tried to fend off her challenge ahead of two pivotal Democratic primaries.
Clinton, in turn, stood by both her comment on Iran and her tax proposal as she gave chase in Indiana and North Carolina to the front-runner for the nomination.
Well, if Obama had a tiny bit of common sense, he’d be like Bush on Iraq, too. Clinton said that she’d totally obliterate Iran if they attacked Israel. For Iran to attack Israel they’d have to violate the airspace of at least two other nations – both of which are currently US allies. So Obama is saying that he’d not attack Iran if they violated the sovereignty of at least three nations? That’s how we got to where we are today – allowing Iran to get away with bad behavior over the last thirty years.
Fouad Ajami writes in the Wall Street Journal this morning that someone should have started talking tough with Iran a long time ago;
In Iraq, the Iranians have been able to dial up the violence and dial it down, to make promises of cooperation to the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki while supplying Shiite extremists with weapons and logistical support. “Lebanonization” may be an exaggerated fear, because Iraq is much larger and wealthier than Lebanon, and more jealous of its own sovereignty. But the low-level warfare against American soldiers by Shiite groups – aided and abetted by Iran – may be responsible for hundreds of American deaths.
The hope entertained a year or so ago, that Iran would refrain from playing with fire in Iraq, has shown to be wishful thinking. Iran’s nuclear ambitions are of a wholly different magnitude. But before we tackle that Persian menace, the Iranian theocrats will have to be shown that there is a price for their transgressions.
Iran continues to lend support to anyone who fights against the US or Israel. The Iraqis announced yesterday, after returning from Tehran that they have concrete evidence of Iran’s interference in the rebuilding of Iraq after Hussein (Washington Post link);
“There is an interference and evidence that they have interfered in Iraqi affairs,” Dabbagh said in an interview arranged by a U.S. official. When asked how he would characterize the proof that Iranian weapons are flowing into Iraq, he said: “It is a concrete evidence.”
The U.S. government has long accused Iran of providing the powerful roadside bombs known as explosively formed penetrators to Shiite militiamen who attack American troops. Iran has denied any such role.
Dabbagh said that after Maliki launched an offensive last month in the southern city of Basra, weapons were found that were clearly produced in Iran.
“The truth came out; there is evidence of Iranian weapons in Iraq,” he said. “Now we need to document who sent them.”
For Obama to totally disregard the evidence and Tehran’s history with the West and think that there’s some way to talk them out of being a rogue nation is just juvenile.
Just like his talk about Iraq – of course he’s hoping that President Bush does something about those two countries before he has to next January, if he’s elected. And that might just happen – as goes Iran, so goes Iraq.
Category: Politics
And the US supported Pakistani invaders into Iran… guess its payback now. Wonder what would have happened if Bush hadn’t labeled Iran as part of “The Axis of Evil”. Maybe we would have been able to accept the “Grand Bargain” from Iran which would have conceded to all of the US’s demands. Oh well. Now we’re conducting diplomacy with saber rattling and Clinton wants to institute a nuclear umbrella for the entire Middle East. Obama’s plan to open talks with Iran directly may not be that crazy after all. But I doubt anyone (even the smooth talking Obama) will ever get an offer as good as the Grand Bargain ever again. Thank you Rumsfeld and Cheney!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t all the sources you cited (Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, FOX News) the same agencies who ran story after story about Saddam Hussein’s quest for a nuclear weapon? We all know how that turned out…
Why should we believe news agencies and pundits that got it exactly wrong when it came to Iraq?
The statement “As goes Iran, so goes Iraq” is the slipperiest of slopes…I can easily see it becoming “As goes Iran, so goes [Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, etc.]”
Jonn wrote: “We all know how that turned out…” Do we?
Yeah… I remember those wonderful heady days of pure diplomacy while Iran held our Embassy staff hostage for 444 days. I’m sure the diplomatic staff got a lot of meaningful dialog done with those sacks over their heads. And Iran’s President seems like such a reasonable and likeable guy too. I’m sure he doesn’t even remember how he led those “students” during the Embassy takeover and successfully thumbed his nose at America for over a year.
He’s like a little boy teasing a big dog tied to a chain, all full of confidence and self importance. He’d best be careful, the dog has been known to break the chain. He’s not as safe as he thinks he is.
Rooney and Allen would cater to this thug and increase his sense of invulnerability. Better to bend over and take it from this little twit then to stand up and defend our troops and interests in the region. The thought of this lunatic getting control of a nuclear weapon should be as frightening as letting a raging 10 year old with ADD get hold of a loaded M-60. And to that tired old standby of no weapons of mass distruction in Iraq. Exactly who gassed the Kurds? What did he use? What exactly do you call a dispersed chemical weapon agent? Who continued to interfere with weapons inspections and shoot missiles at US aircraft patrolling the No Fly Zone? Who thought “that big dog will never slip his leash”? The suggestion that Saddam would not have pursued further aquisition of WMD’s once the focus was off is laughable. Fortunatly he is no longer a problem. Ahmadinejad should take note.
Well, we don’t know whether or not the Yeti exists, either, and that doesn’t stop people from searching for him. So I guess you’re correct.
In the same sense, Rummy was correct when he averred: “We know where they [WMDs] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
I suppose if we look hard enough we’ll find something. Someday. Or we could just give the Iraqi government poisonous gas like we gave Saddam in the 80’s.
I’m skeptical–to say the least–that this “cakewalk war where our soldiers would be greeted as liberators with reconstruction financed with oil revenue” storyline will play out.
Jonn wrote: Oh, so now we gave Hussein “poison gas” in the 80s? And your proof is…? It’s real funny, I’ve been hearing about all of these weapons we gave Hussein but the only weapons I saw over there were T-55/62s and AK47s – none of which are in the US inventory. All of the chemical equipment we found was Soviet in origin, too. But we can’t let facts get in the way of conspiracy theories of the emotional Left, can we?
No, I wouldn’t negotiate at all. I wouldn’t even give the Iranians a reason to consider us a potential enemy. I’d leave it to the Israel to fight their own battles.
Israel has threatened to act on its own if the Iranians build a nuke. I think that’s most foolish; nobody can hold back technology. But I’d let it be the Israelis’ problem, not ours. They’ve simply got to learn to get along with their neighbors. It’s too bad they live in such a bad neighborhood, but the location was their choice.
Jonn wrote: I don’t suppose you think your idea of foreign policy is a bit simplistic, do you?
A simple Wikipedia search reveals US involvement (as well as the Germans, British, French, and Italians) in the development of an Iraqi biological weapons program. I will send you the link if desired.
Regarding weapons, it’d be extremely easy for the United States to play middleman in an arms deal. In fact, there’s a historical precedent (Iran Contra Affair). The fact that you unearthed a cache of weapons doesn’t diminish the fact that larger weapons deals existed during that time.
So, what we have here is the US selling chemicals to Iraq and arms to the Iranians…all while waging (another) illegal war in Central America. Indeed, Democracy is a sticky wicket!
Jonn wrote: It’ll probably take more than a Wikipedia entry to convince me. I find it difficult to believe that anyone is so gullible as to believe that the US was involved in building a chemical weapons program in Iraq. Hussein has always been unbalanced and he was an ally of the Soviet Union at the time…it was the Cold War. Common sense would tell a rational person it’s not true.
And all of this tossing around the phrase “illegal war” is nauseating. Since when has the conduct of war been breached by lawyers? Whenever someone opposes a war, it’s got to be “illegal”. If it’s “illegal” impeach some-damn-body or shut up about it.
I’m sure there’s a fancy, complicated conspiracy theory about getting people impeached, too.
Well, if you believe the Constitution is the “Highest Law of the Land” then going to war without a declaration would qualify as illegal, wouldn’t it?
It’s impossible for Iraq to be both an ally of the Soviet Union during the Cold War and enjoy the backing of the United States in their conflict with Iran.
Unconvinced? Consider:
In 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), and also supplying weapons. President Ronald Reagan decided that the United States “could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran”, and that the United States “would do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.” President Reagan formalized this policy by issuing a National Security Decision Directive (“NSDD”) to this effect in June, 1982.
Again, I will send you the link if desired.
Jonn wrote: Even if (I wrote if) it were true, it doesn’t mean we helped them build a chemical weapons program, does it? Like I said, their chemical protective suits were Soviet issue – a logical person would arrive at the rational conclusion that the people who gave them the protective suits also gave them the weapons.
I guess it is simpler than war. I’m not trying to suggest that we give away our lunch money to the bully as someone else insinuated. But it pays to think these things out beforehand, not jump around, hooting and panting like a chimpanzee the way Bush is doing. Start by noticing that the “bad guys” all sincerely see themselves as good guys. Even Hitler had the self-image of a man fighting for right against the forces of evil.
It’s insane to go out of your way to provoke people who can do you serious harm, especially if it serves absolutely no purpose. Remember “Bring it on!”? This is just one of several signs that Bush may be psychologically unstable, in addition to being demonstrably unintelligent, ignorant and thoughtless. The accelerating War on Islam has no upside. If it gets out of control, scores of millions of people could die. We’ll defeat them, of course, but it will be a totally Pyrrhic victory. The real winners will be the Chinese and the Indians.
So the wise course is to defuse the bomb before it goes off.
From the Columbia Journalism Review:
“November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq’s missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.”
I don’t doubt the Soviets had a hand in all of this, too. The article makes no mention of who was present in the chemical plants actually making the weapons. However, we DO know America provided them with all the tools necessary to make those weapons (including Anthrax spores). For the US to claim no involvement in this matter would be like an irresponsible parent claiming he/she had no idea a party would be thrown at their house when they were out of town for the weekend after buying a few kegs for the kids.
Jonn wrote: …in your mind. It may have had the approval of the US, but that doesn’t mean the money was coming from the government, does it? And this was during the time the US wouldn’t give Hussein the technology for missiles and rockets and forced him to enlist Gerald Bull to build his supergun. Why would Hussein need Bull if he already had of the technical support you claim he had from the US?
I never said anything about money coming from the US government…that wasn’t my point.
The US provided Saddam Hussein with the chemicals needed to support a chemical weapons program. Further, the US did not dilute the chemicals to prevent reproduction of toxins. Here’s the list:
* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord and heart.
* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
* Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
* Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic.
* Escherichia Coli (E.Coli); genetic materials; human and bacterial DNA.
Additionally, consider:
May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.
May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq.