The financial crisis. Two wars. An oil spill. Health care reform. Student loan reform. And still people are disappointed in what President Obama has done.
The challenge of relocating the Guantanamo Bay prisoners is resistance to finding out the truth of what happened there. Of course, it's a matter of time. But what time would be good for a dose of reality like that? None. So inevitably it is pushed back and pushed back and excuses are made to postpone having to address such uncomfortable issues as America the Torturer.
You have to wonder what made George Bush and Dick Cheney think that no one would ever find out about what they were doing. The United States has a long history of power shifting between political parties. I can't imagine the hubris it takes to think that your group will never lose power. I guess that's what Hitler thought in relation to the Holocaust. Sending people to the death camps was a priority until the last moment of the Third Reich because they didn't want anyone to know what they did and were hoping to kill everyone first.
There will never be a good time for the United States to find out that innocent people were tortured at our hands. And all the excuses made in fear after the attacks on September 11, 2001 were not valid. "Things are different now." That phrase has been the excuse to do anything we wanted for revenge and false security. Those feelings were exploited to go to war to secure our supply of oil in Iraq, all based on the lie of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Congress needs to realize that to delay dealing with Guantanamo Bay and the crimes committed there will not lessen the impact on them or the American people.
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
11.22.2008
No, I Did Not Go To Yale
It's just a sweatshirt! It's not a resume!
Somehow, throughout Washington, DC, I am constantly getting comments on the Yale Bulldogs just because I wear this sweatshirt. It's warm! It cost a dollar! Leave me alone!
Especially in AU Park. People will call across the street to me. Others poke their children and point at me and shout, "Look! There's a Yalie!"
Others just ask me if I went to Yale.
"No, I just buy the sweatshirts at thrift shops."
Today someone asked me about my Yale sweatshirt on the way to my legal temp assignment and actually seemed annoyed that I was wearing the shirt without having gone there.
It's just a sweatshirt. You know, like Yale is just a school. Because it is.
People should be more concerned about something else. Maybe they could ask, instead, "Are you related to George Bush?"
or
"Are you getting foreclosed on?"
or
"Does your father own an oil company?"
or
"Is anyone in your family fighting in the war in Iraq or Afghanistan?"
Somehow, throughout Washington, DC, I am constantly getting comments on the Yale Bulldogs just because I wear this sweatshirt. It's warm! It cost a dollar! Leave me alone!
Especially in AU Park. People will call across the street to me. Others poke their children and point at me and shout, "Look! There's a Yalie!"
Others just ask me if I went to Yale.
"No, I just buy the sweatshirts at thrift shops."
Today someone asked me about my Yale sweatshirt on the way to my legal temp assignment and actually seemed annoyed that I was wearing the shirt without having gone there.
It's just a sweatshirt. You know, like Yale is just a school. Because it is.
People should be more concerned about something else. Maybe they could ask, instead, "Are you related to George Bush?"
or
"Are you getting foreclosed on?"
or
"Does your father own an oil company?"
or
"Is anyone in your family fighting in the war in Iraq or Afghanistan?"
11.02.2008
Drug War in Bolivia
The United States is accusing Bolivia of not doing enough to stop the flow of drugs out of that country.
How about the demand for drugs in this one?
We really can't control the flow of drugs as long as there is so much demand here in the United States. In fact, the only thing that the United States can really affect is the demand for illegal drugs by making it harder and riskier to purchase them.
Let's take all the DEA agents and all the money we are using to fight drug trafficking abroad and use it here in the States to attack demand. It would boost the economy by keeping those dollars at home. And we could stop blaming other countries for our own vicious appetites.
How about the demand for drugs in this one?
We really can't control the flow of drugs as long as there is so much demand here in the United States. In fact, the only thing that the United States can really affect is the demand for illegal drugs by making it harder and riskier to purchase them.
Let's take all the DEA agents and all the money we are using to fight drug trafficking abroad and use it here in the States to attack demand. It would boost the economy by keeping those dollars at home. And we could stop blaming other countries for our own vicious appetites.
8.18.2008
Georgia On My Mind
Russia's assault on the sovereignty of Georgia is a major challenge to the influence and credibility of the United States. If we can't, or won't, stand up for an ally then an alliance with the U.S. won't be worth much.
And if an alliance with the United States isn't worth much, our opinion on international matters won't be worth much, either. In a very real sense, the Georgian conflict will determine the power of the United States for many years.
Europe is continuing their spineless ways, just as they were content to allow mass slaughter in the former Yugoslavia, they are content to remain passive in the face of Russia's direct threat to their neighbor and themselves.
Anything other than harsh response will lead Russia to invade another country. Why not? If we don't do anything but talk, there is nothing to stop them. Of course, we cannot ignore the role of our Iraq war in all this maneuvering. Russia is betting, accurately, that the United States does not want another major conflict simultaneous with two full-scale wars.
This is the time for Germany and other nations to place troops in Georgia to protect their democracy, as well as Georgia's. And any alternate energy plans should be made top national security priority. Without oil, Russia is just another has-been on the world stage.
And if an alliance with the United States isn't worth much, our opinion on international matters won't be worth much, either. In a very real sense, the Georgian conflict will determine the power of the United States for many years.
Europe is continuing their spineless ways, just as they were content to allow mass slaughter in the former Yugoslavia, they are content to remain passive in the face of Russia's direct threat to their neighbor and themselves.
Anything other than harsh response will lead Russia to invade another country. Why not? If we don't do anything but talk, there is nothing to stop them. Of course, we cannot ignore the role of our Iraq war in all this maneuvering. Russia is betting, accurately, that the United States does not want another major conflict simultaneous with two full-scale wars.
This is the time for Germany and other nations to place troops in Georgia to protect their democracy, as well as Georgia's. And any alternate energy plans should be made top national security priority. Without oil, Russia is just another has-been on the world stage.
5.03.2008
McCain and the Oil Wars
Presidential candidate McCain promises to end U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil "so we never have to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East." The implication is that once we are energy-independent they can all kill each other for all we care. (The Arabs. Not Israel.) And it's an appealing thought. Without oil, the United States would never have defended Kuwait and Saudi Arabia against Saddam Hussein. As much as Osama bin Laden hates Western influences in his country, let's see how much he likes complete indifference.
With the United States relying on other means of fueling our vehicles and our economy, it would be a welcome relief to not care about placating religious crazies in Saudi Arabia. After all, we have enough of them here.
My position has always been that the excessive focus on Israel by other Middle Eastern nations is only to distract its citizenry from internal conflicts that would otherwise lead to civil war. And let's face it, none of them want the Palestinians.
With the United States relying on other means of fueling our vehicles and our economy, it would be a welcome relief to not care about placating religious crazies in Saudi Arabia. After all, we have enough of them here.
My position has always been that the excessive focus on Israel by other Middle Eastern nations is only to distract its citizenry from internal conflicts that would otherwise lead to civil war. And let's face it, none of them want the Palestinians.
12.12.2007
Al Jazeera Cartoon About Secretary of State Rice
Clever, not terribly insightful. Depictions of foreign leaders is funny.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/05BB5499-0307-4327-A21C-DEF8E7F3DA94.htm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/05BB5499-0307-4327-A21C-DEF8E7F3DA94.htm
Leaking the National Intelligence Estimate
The National Intelligence Estimate revealed that the Bush Administration knew since September that Iran has not had a nuclear weapons program for several years. The Bush Administration could not suppress this information because it knew that the moment it did, it would be leaked to the press.
Lamentations that in the old days such things would never happen were a source of mirth to many. When an Administration scapegoats an agency, what is it expecting? Loyalty? It's more like they were expecting stupidity. What happened the last time? Intelligence information was misused and the country was led into war with Iraq.
Poor President Bush. It seems those civil servants make a difference after all.
Lamentations that in the old days such things would never happen were a source of mirth to many. When an Administration scapegoats an agency, what is it expecting? Loyalty? It's more like they were expecting stupidity. What happened the last time? Intelligence information was misused and the country was led into war with Iraq.
Poor President Bush. It seems those civil servants make a difference after all.
U.S. War with Iran: It's Not Over
Many people heaved a sigh of relief when the Washington Post reported last week that the Bush Administration learned in September that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program several years ago.
The thinking was: "They can't possibly justify a war on Iran now. Whew!"
They would be wrong.
When a zealot hasn't had a new idea since 1986, they don't let go of it easily. Mere facts do not impede a well-fantasized plan of glory. So we have observed the concept being floated that Iran's uranium enrichment is enough of a reason to intervene in Iran. Watch out for that one, it is not going to die an easy death.
Iran is here to stay. We need to learn how to work things out. What the last forty years SHOULD have taught us is that the United States cannot control the government of another country without long-term grief. The purpose of government is talk to other governments to get business done. Beating a drum and calling for blood has its appeal, but is not governance. Nor is it leadership.
The thinking was: "They can't possibly justify a war on Iran now. Whew!"
They would be wrong.
When a zealot hasn't had a new idea since 1986, they don't let go of it easily. Mere facts do not impede a well-fantasized plan of glory. So we have observed the concept being floated that Iran's uranium enrichment is enough of a reason to intervene in Iran. Watch out for that one, it is not going to die an easy death.
Iran is here to stay. We need to learn how to work things out. What the last forty years SHOULD have taught us is that the United States cannot control the government of another country without long-term grief. The purpose of government is talk to other governments to get business done. Beating a drum and calling for blood has its appeal, but is not governance. Nor is it leadership.
9.21.2007
Implications of a Fuel Cell Car
So Iceland has created a fuel cell car. At $8 for a gallon of gas, Icelanders must be very happy.
Supposing, in the next ten years, this technology is adopted throughout the world. The demand for gasoline is radically and dramatically reduced. Are we going to continue caring about the Middle East in quite the same way? Of course not.
And if the demand for oil is reduced, then the riches of the Arab and Persian nations will also be reduced. So the money sent to radical Islamist groups will also be reduced, as will their ability to cause trouble elsewhere in the world.
Another nation affected would be Russia. Russia is basing its current bout of hegemony on its supply of oil. Witness the threats to cut off the heat to its neighbors last winter. I always predicted that the Russian resurgence would be short-lived. Now they can focus their efforts on fighting Canada for ice flows.
A fuel cell car - imagine! I'm dying to get a new car myself, but my husband and my sister prudently are talking me out of it. One way to inspire myself to patience would be dreams of a fuel cell car THAT DOESN'T USE GASOLINE!! With leather interiors, of course. I wouldn't get a car without leather interiors.
- - - - -
As an aside, you can usually click on the title of a post to see an article related to my rant.
Supposing, in the next ten years, this technology is adopted throughout the world. The demand for gasoline is radically and dramatically reduced. Are we going to continue caring about the Middle East in quite the same way? Of course not.
And if the demand for oil is reduced, then the riches of the Arab and Persian nations will also be reduced. So the money sent to radical Islamist groups will also be reduced, as will their ability to cause trouble elsewhere in the world.
Another nation affected would be Russia. Russia is basing its current bout of hegemony on its supply of oil. Witness the threats to cut off the heat to its neighbors last winter. I always predicted that the Russian resurgence would be short-lived. Now they can focus their efforts on fighting Canada for ice flows.
A fuel cell car - imagine! I'm dying to get a new car myself, but my husband and my sister prudently are talking me out of it. One way to inspire myself to patience would be dreams of a fuel cell car THAT DOESN'T USE GASOLINE!! With leather interiors, of course. I wouldn't get a car without leather interiors.
- - - - -
As an aside, you can usually click on the title of a post to see an article related to my rant.
9.19.2007
War with Iran - Ahmadinejad Calls the Bluff
In his own deft way, Ahmadinejad is calling the bluff of the West by pretending that none of the threats of war from France and the U.S. are happening at all. You may remember that the French Foreign Minister claimed that the only way to eliminate Iran's nuclear threat would be war if strong sanctions weren't imposed. That's not the same as calling for an outright war, but in diplomat-speak the mere mention of the term "war" is significant. It is a clear first step to the real thing, and not to be taken lightly.
Another significant point is that the threat came from France. Such verbal bullying we have come to expect from a cowboy President who had never been to Europe before his election. Not from France, who is not known for such things. France is not thought to be in goose-step with the Bush Administration either. So it shows there is a real coalition building in the West for war with Iran. That's serious.
Ahmadinejad's nonchalant rhetoric is probably aimed at trying to calm his population down and improve their self-esteem by another laughing round at the West. Thumbing your nose at the big guy always has a great feeling to it. He's also throwing the fear back at the West. Now the West has to react to its own words since Iran isn't giving us any pushback. Let's see if the mention of war continues.
Another significant point is that the threat came from France. Such verbal bullying we have come to expect from a cowboy President who had never been to Europe before his election. Not from France, who is not known for such things. France is not thought to be in goose-step with the Bush Administration either. So it shows there is a real coalition building in the West for war with Iran. That's serious.
Ahmadinejad's nonchalant rhetoric is probably aimed at trying to calm his population down and improve their self-esteem by another laughing round at the West. Thumbing your nose at the big guy always has a great feeling to it. He's also throwing the fear back at the West. Now the West has to react to its own words since Iran isn't giving us any pushback. Let's see if the mention of war continues.
7.25.2007
U.S. Talks With Iran: Is War Still in the Air?
Yes. Don't be fooled. The Bush Administration acknowledged that the country cannot be run like Texas when it agreed to have conversations with Iran. It only took them six years. As a national leader, you have to talk to people you hate. Freezing them out is ineffective.
But the Bush Administration is populated with people who don't change their minds and hate new ideas. So their thoughts from twenty years ago, namely, to invade Iraq and then Iran, are still driving their thinking and policy decisions.
It would be wise to watch the news reports and the rhetoric. Recently, an article appeared about Iranian problems with drug smugglers. It was a sympathetic article to Iran and likened their border issues with ours. The appearance of this article can be seen as a signal that the U.S. position towards Iran is open to cooperation. It would be a declaration of "common ground," if you will. The Bush Administration would be feeding the notion that Iran and the U.S. could unite in fighting narcotics trafficking.
How strong would that "common ground" be? Almost illusionary. Iran should not be baited into any conciliatory stance.
Don't be surprised if a sudden reversal of rhetoric occurs, painting Iran as an enemy of the U.S. One would be mistaken to think that any gains in understanding between the U.S. and Iran would preclude manic accusations from our President. That is not the case.
And when the President speaks, he is speaking to his political base. So the reassurance of "don't listen to what I say, watch what I do" would be hollow.
But the Bush Administration is populated with people who don't change their minds and hate new ideas. So their thoughts from twenty years ago, namely, to invade Iraq and then Iran, are still driving their thinking and policy decisions.
It would be wise to watch the news reports and the rhetoric. Recently, an article appeared about Iranian problems with drug smugglers. It was a sympathetic article to Iran and likened their border issues with ours. The appearance of this article can be seen as a signal that the U.S. position towards Iran is open to cooperation. It would be a declaration of "common ground," if you will. The Bush Administration would be feeding the notion that Iran and the U.S. could unite in fighting narcotics trafficking.
How strong would that "common ground" be? Almost illusionary. Iran should not be baited into any conciliatory stance.
Don't be surprised if a sudden reversal of rhetoric occurs, painting Iran as an enemy of the U.S. One would be mistaken to think that any gains in understanding between the U.S. and Iran would preclude manic accusations from our President. That is not the case.
And when the President speaks, he is speaking to his political base. So the reassurance of "don't listen to what I say, watch what I do" would be hollow.
4.13.2007
Turkey and the Kurds in Iraq
Remember when Turkey wouldn't let the U.S. go through its country to invade Iraq? Now the Turkish military is talking about moving into northern Iraq on its own. It seems that Kurdish separatists within Turkey are hiding in northern Iraq and Turkey wants to go in and get them.
For now, the Turkish military is holding itself back and waiting for civilian leaders to make the call. So let's imagine that the U.S. is pulled out of Iraq altogether, which is the best. The new Iraq now has to worry not only about Iran menacing them, but Turkey too. Not to mention Kurd separatism erupting in northern Iraq at the same time. Let's not forget the oil there.
If Iraq blows up, then Iran and Turkey will have good reasons to march in. I think what the Iraqis will find is that they had better hang together, or they will surely hang separately.
For now, the Turkish military is holding itself back and waiting for civilian leaders to make the call. So let's imagine that the U.S. is pulled out of Iraq altogether, which is the best. The new Iraq now has to worry not only about Iran menacing them, but Turkey too. Not to mention Kurd separatism erupting in northern Iraq at the same time. Let's not forget the oil there.
If Iraq blows up, then Iran and Turkey will have good reasons to march in. I think what the Iraqis will find is that they had better hang together, or they will surely hang separately.
4.07.2007
Iran's Hostage Strategy Worked
So now the truth is shook out. Iran took the British hostages so they could get their diplomats back. You may recall that the U.S. stormed an Iranian diplomatic facility and took some 'diplomats' as captives.
Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. So Iran seized British marines and held them without access to British embassy officials. Just like the U.S. did to the Iranian diplomats. Then, after the U.S. released a diplomat and allowed Iranian officials to visit the other ones, the British marines were released.
So you get the point now, President Bush? Or do you need a picture? If you throw beer in someone's face, be prepared to have beer thrown back in yours.
Econo-Girl has always said that the Iranians are neither stupid nor crazy.
Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. So Iran seized British marines and held them without access to British embassy officials. Just like the U.S. did to the Iranian diplomats. Then, after the U.S. released a diplomat and allowed Iranian officials to visit the other ones, the British marines were released.
So you get the point now, President Bush? Or do you need a picture? If you throw beer in someone's face, be prepared to have beer thrown back in yours.
Econo-Girl has always said that the Iranians are neither stupid nor crazy.
3.28.2007
Iran and Its British Hostages
The world has generally been confused by Iran's actions in taking British marines hostage. Why, after so nearly becoming engaged in a war with the U.S., would Iran choose to engage the U.S.'s number one ally so aggressively?
Here's an idea. The Iranian government is trying to get the new Iraq leaders used to the watery boundaries that the Iranian government wants. The Iranians are demonstrating clearly the boundary that will trigger a war and the boundary that they are willing to fight for.
After a time has passed, the hostages will be released. The message would have been conveyed to the Iraqis "Don't let your people go here or it will be considered close to an act of war."
What the Iranians may not be considering is that dramatic actions like these take on a life of their own. Once you do something like take hostages, the outcome cannot easily be controlled. Iran has seriously placed itself in a position to get attacked, this time led by Britain and supported by the United States. What the hell are they thinking?
Here's an idea. The Iranian government is trying to get the new Iraq leaders used to the watery boundaries that the Iranian government wants. The Iranians are demonstrating clearly the boundary that will trigger a war and the boundary that they are willing to fight for.
After a time has passed, the hostages will be released. The message would have been conveyed to the Iraqis "Don't let your people go here or it will be considered close to an act of war."
What the Iranians may not be considering is that dramatic actions like these take on a life of their own. Once you do something like take hostages, the outcome cannot easily be controlled. Iran has seriously placed itself in a position to get attacked, this time led by Britain and supported by the United States. What the hell are they thinking?
3.23.2007
Iran Captures British Soldiers
What does this mean? After Russia's public pressure for more money, Iran is Ahmadinejad is naturally feeling defensive. The whole ruse that Iran didn't pay the money to Russia for enriched uranium sounds bogus. The Iranians are neither stupid nor crazy. Of course they would pay. And if it was merely an matter of cash, the squeeze for more could have been made privately.
My suspicion is that Russia never intended to hand over the goods to Iran in the first place. They want to manufacture it and export it to other countries, to include Iran.
So that brings us back to the original question: what does this mean? Perhaps the Iranian military is not strongly controlled by Admadinejad. Perhaps a little taste of what we did to them, i.e., capturing the Iranian diplomats, helps set a boundary.
Can we be reasonably sure that the Iranians DON'T want a war with U.S. and Great Britain? Up until now, that has seemed the case. Of course, no one is talking about uranium enrichment now. That's probably the point of all this.
My suspicion is that Russia never intended to hand over the goods to Iran in the first place. They want to manufacture it and export it to other countries, to include Iran.
So that brings us back to the original question: what does this mean? Perhaps the Iranian military is not strongly controlled by Admadinejad. Perhaps a little taste of what we did to them, i.e., capturing the Iranian diplomats, helps set a boundary.
Can we be reasonably sure that the Iranians DON'T want a war with U.S. and Great Britain? Up until now, that has seemed the case. Of course, no one is talking about uranium enrichment now. That's probably the point of all this.
2.27.2007
U.S. War With Iran: Watch It, Ahmadinejad!
Look Ahmadinejad, I know you are just thrilled to think that the U.S. isn't going to invade Iran right now. But don't push it too far. Your Foreign Minister was gloating the other day about how the U.S. taxpayer won't tolerate a war with Iran. Well, that's for right now. Never overestimate the American public. Or any public, for that matter.
Nuclear Iran: Cheney's Empty Threats
War with Iran has been averted. Thank God.
Now the Iranians are acting up with their usual attitude since they know we aren't really going to attack them. How do we know this? A quote from Scotland on Sunday:
A New Yorker article claims that the U.S. is increasing covert operations into Iran in a way that could spark a war. That is possible. It would be a way of getting us into a war with Iran while the Administration blames Iran for the whole thing. It would be typical of them.
Now the Iranians are acting up with their usual attitude since they know we aren't really going to attack them. How do we know this? A quote from Scotland on Sunday:
"Responding to Cheney's comments, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the US was not in a position to take military action against it and urged Washington and its allies to engage in dialogue.
"We do not see America in a position to impose another crisis on its tax payers by starting another war in the region," Mottaki said."
So when Vice President Cheney tells the world that "all options are on the table" he really isn't telling the truth. The U.S. doesn't have the option of military action in Iran.A New Yorker article claims that the U.S. is increasing covert operations into Iran in a way that could spark a war. That is possible. It would be a way of getting us into a war with Iran while the Administration blames Iran for the whole thing. It would be typical of them.
2.16.2007
U.S. War with Iran - We've Got To Stop This War!
It wouldn't be so scary if President Bush listened to people. Even once in a while. One gets the feeling he is acting off of a script he wrote years ago.
Looking to George Bush's example, if I ever think God wanted me to be President, I'd go straight to the psych ward.
Retired generals are refuting Bush claims of Iranian involvement in the Iraq insurgency. Econo-Girl herself was suspicious when all of the intelligence community agreed. Believe me, there is nothing more suspicious than the entire U.S. intelligence community agreeing on something.
It's not just Bush's lying. We can expect that from politicians. It's the cynical use of the same old formula: repeat it often enough, and fake the evidence. I don't think it will work this time.
Looking to George Bush's example, if I ever think God wanted me to be President, I'd go straight to the psych ward.
Retired generals are refuting Bush claims of Iranian involvement in the Iraq insurgency. Econo-Girl herself was suspicious when all of the intelligence community agreed. Believe me, there is nothing more suspicious than the entire U.S. intelligence community agreeing on something.
It's not just Bush's lying. We can expect that from politicians. It's the cynical use of the same old formula: repeat it often enough, and fake the evidence. I don't think it will work this time.
2.15.2007
US War with Iran - Pretext
One gets the feeling that the entire idea of attacking Iraq was a pretext to attack Iran. Econo-Girl would urge somebody to talk sense into the head of our President, but is afraid it would only get them arrested.
Bush will use al Sadr's presence in Iran as a pretext to start a war with them. Watch for a media build-up on the evils of al Sadr. Already Econo-Girl has seen him compared to Osama bin Laden.
The only chance to escape the impending debacle is for Iran to talk to Germany, and get Germany to talk to Israel and Britain about approaching Bush about not doing this.
People who are comparing the rhetoric about Iraq to what is being said by the President about Iran are correct. We live in dangerous times.
Bush will use al Sadr's presence in Iran as a pretext to start a war with them. Watch for a media build-up on the evils of al Sadr. Already Econo-Girl has seen him compared to Osama bin Laden.
The only chance to escape the impending debacle is for Iran to talk to Germany, and get Germany to talk to Israel and Britain about approaching Bush about not doing this.
People who are comparing the rhetoric about Iraq to what is being said by the President about Iran are correct. We live in dangerous times.
2.10.2007
Atomic Israel: Iran, Iraq and War
The question isn't "Is Iran Supporting the Iraq Insurgency?" It's the kind of crap they would do, and Econo-Girl has no information to say they aren't. The question is "Why is the U.S. advertising this?"
The U.S. could be setting the stage for a real confrontation with Iran to let them know their rhetoric against Israel needs to calm down a few notches. Reminding them of what a real problem could look like in the headlines of the world's leading newspapers is a great way to get it across.
Or maybe the Administration has been planning a war with Iran all along. All the intelligence agencies agree, and that's suspicious right off the bat. The logic expressed in the New York Times article is something like "We were wrong before and we admit that. So you got to believe us now." OK, so you finally admitted the obvious when it was impossible to do anything else. That doesn't give you credibility.
One thing is certain: a lot of this bandying of headlines could stop if we would just have some kind of dialog with Iran directly. Remember, you don't have to be able to look into someone's eyes and declare you can do business with this man, to do business with this man. You just need to get over yourself.
See "Deadliest Bomb in Iraq Is Made by Iran, U.S. Says " today in the New York Times.
The U.S. could be setting the stage for a real confrontation with Iran to let them know their rhetoric against Israel needs to calm down a few notches. Reminding them of what a real problem could look like in the headlines of the world's leading newspapers is a great way to get it across.
Or maybe the Administration has been planning a war with Iran all along. All the intelligence agencies agree, and that's suspicious right off the bat. The logic expressed in the New York Times article is something like "We were wrong before and we admit that. So you got to believe us now." OK, so you finally admitted the obvious when it was impossible to do anything else. That doesn't give you credibility.
One thing is certain: a lot of this bandying of headlines could stop if we would just have some kind of dialog with Iran directly. Remember, you don't have to be able to look into someone's eyes and declare you can do business with this man, to do business with this man. You just need to get over yourself.
See "Deadliest Bomb in Iraq Is Made by Iran, U.S. Says " today in the New York Times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)