there has been some recent similar reporting. For instance, just on Tuesday Raw Story covered a paper by two British academics arguing that the US has the capability and perhaps the intention of launching an aerial assault on Iran's enrichment facilities.
Earlier, McClatchy reported on Aug. 9 that Cheney has been urging bombing of Iranian trails to Iraq. This position struck me as eerily reminiscent of Nixon-Kissinger's treatment of Cambodia (which is what really caused the Khmer Rouge horrors, not, as Bush said the other day, US withdrawal from Vietnam; we dropped enormous amounts of ordnance on that country and severely disrupted it).
You'd think this was all hyperbole, but clearly Bush has ratcheted up the rhetoric lately. Glen Greenwald has a post on the insane speech that Bush gave this week, in which he said:
Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. And that is why the United States is rallying friends and allies around the world to isolate the regime, to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late
...among other threats.
Obviously, the idea here is to attack from the air, as the idea of a groundwar is even to fantastic for these lunatics to dream about. Cheney, Podhoretz, Giuliani, Kristol, etc are hell bent on bombing Persia back into the middle ages. Imagine the consequences of that. Really, someone needs to get a hold on this white house, before it's too late. Or perhaps, as Greenwald points out, it already is:
The Iraq debate is over, at least from the perspective of actual results. It has been over for some time. The Congress is never going to force Bush to withdraw from Iraq. We are going to remain in Iraq in more or less the same posture through the end of the Bush presidency. That is just a fait accompli. The real issue of grave importance that remains unresolved is Iran, and it is hard to find causes for optimism there either.
No comments:
Post a Comment