Sunday, February 12, 2006

Iran and the President's Conundrum

President Bush defends his warrantless domestic spying program based on his powers as a wartime Commander-in-Chief. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales argued that George Washington spied on British supporters, Abraham Lincoln wiretapped telegraph lines, and during World Wars I and II, both Woodrow Wilson and F.D.R. intercepted communications. On the other hand, is America really at war? (see The Un-War President)

Why did George Bush lead America into a preemptive war against Iraq? Perhaps more importantly, why aren't we going to war against Iran? What differentiates Iran and Iraq besides the last letter of their country's names?

Is there any question that Iran is a major terrorist sponsor? They send their petrodollars to Hezbollah and Hamas. They're playing a huge clandestine role in Iraq doing who knows what supporting Shi'ite retaliation against Sunni insurgents. What about Iran's intent on developing WMDs? They are threatening to launch attacks using long-range missiles and commando terrorist units in retaliation for any strike on its nuclear facilities. Iran began its Islamic revolution back in 1979 with the storming of the American embassy and the subsequent holding of kidnap victims for over a year. No Iranian has ever paid a price for that outrageous criminal act.

How does President Bush justify the loss of American lives in Iraq and simultaneously justify NOT EXPANDING the war on terror into Iran? What, exactly, is his definition of victory? How is Iraq different than Viet Nam? Who is going to be the last American soldier to die in Iraq, and when will that be? Are there going to be American military helicopters rescuing people from Baghdad's Green Zone reminiscent of images from Saigon a generation ago?

President Bush keeps asking that we trust him -- that we forget about things like democracy, judicial process and the balance of powers. Frankly, as much as I've learned to distrust presidents during my lifetime (LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton), Georgen W. Bush is the undisputed champion of distrust. To my fellow Americans who elected him, all I can say is the masses are asses.


Anonymous Jack Krupansky said...

Why Iraq first instead of Iran?

Well... VP Dick CHeney was one of the biggest proponents of going after Iraq, and this past weekend we learned a little about the "quality" of his aim.

Please keep in mind the President Bush is a puppet, the "front" man. He's clueless as to what policy proposals will be placed on his desk next. So, don't blame Bush the man, it's his "team" and their "advisers" that are to blame (or praise).

It would appear that those behind the policy formulation have a longer and more patient view of "changes" in the Middle East than yourself. No doubt: Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia all need to be "dealt" with. Iraq was the loosest (and closest) cannon on the deck, so clearing that portion of the deck seemed to make a lot of sense. It was probably also considered to be the easiest cannon to deal with. I think "they" all agreed that Iran was always the biggest long-term danger, but sometimes direct attack is not the optimal order of battle.

-- Jack Krupansky

1:38 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home