Key US Hawks Behind Iraq War Rally for Strikes Against Iran

[G_j]

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/10/18-0

Published on Tuesday, October 18, 2011 by Inter Press Service

US Hawks Behind Iraq War Rally for Strikes Against Iran

by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - Key neo-conservatives and other right-wing hawks who championed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq are calling for military strikes against Iran in retaliation for its purported murder-for-hire plot against the Saudi ambassador here.

Leading the charge is the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), the ideological successor to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which played a critical role in mobilizing support for "regime change" in Iraq in the late 1990s and subsequently spearheaded the public campaign to invade the country after the 9/11 attacks. The group sent reporters appeals by two of its leaders for military action on its letterhead Monday.

In a column headlined "Speak Softly …And Fight Back" in this week's Weekly Standard, chief editor William Kristol, co-founder of both PNAC and FPI, said the alleged plot amounted to "an engraved invitation" by Tehran to use force against it.

"We can strike at the Iranian Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC), and weaken them. And we can hit the regime's nuclear weapons program, and set it back," he wrote, adding that Congress should approve a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iranian entities deemed responsible for attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, acts of terrorism, or "the regime's nuclear weapons program".

Kristol's advice was seconded by Jamie Fly, FPI's executive director, who called for President Barack Obama to emulate former presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton when they ordered targeted strikes against Libya in 1986 and Iraq in 1993, respectively, in retaliation for alleged terrorist plots against U.S. targets.

..more..

[snappyturtle]

1. Truly scary! I can almost feel the war juices seeping out of Kristol's pores. Disgusting....nt

[denverbill]

2. Fine. Let's raise taxes now to pay for it first. n/t

[OnyxCollie]

3. FPI got what they wanted in Libya.

Foreign Policy Experts Urge President to Take Action to Halt Violence in Libya
http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/content/foreign-policy-experts-urge-president-take-action-halt-violence-libya-0

In an open letter to President Obama, the bipartisan group outlined several specific actions the United States and NATO should take in response the ongoing violence including establishment of a presence in Libyan airspace and waters to prevent the use of regime air and naval assets against civilians, the freezing of Libyan government assets, and consideration of a temporary halt to importation of Libyan oil, as well as immediate provision of humanitarian aid. The group wrote that failure to take action “will cast doubt on the commitment of the United States and Europe to basic principles of human rights and freedom.” The letter notes that “There is no time for delay and indecisiveness” and that “clear U.S. leadership” is required.

[G_j]

6. yes they did

"the bipartisan group" (of RW hawks).... :think:

[OnyxCollie]

8. Another OPEC country down.

Iran's on deck.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. and they don't think that these "strikes" would have any consequences?

Didn't think so. :eyes: :banghead:

[Scuba]

5. See Mitt Romney's foreign policy advisors if you want to see real hawks....

...they're the same ones that lied us into Iraq.

[Bonobo]

7. Sadly, if we did attack Iraq, we would suddenly see a large pct. of "Democrats"

backing it because Obama was for it, and oddly a large pct of "Republicans" against it for the same reason.

That is why an internal compass is so necessary.

So, fellow DU'ers: Do you have one? Do you have an internal compass? Can you make up your own minds?

[OnyxCollie]

10. The "Democrats" will support Obama

because the "Republicans" are against him.

The "Democrats" will not be provided with any cues other than that. "The Repubs are attacking! Defend Obama!"

The "Republicans" will be directed to attack Obama on a procedural move, like failing to get congressional approval. The political and media elites will then direct the "Republicans'" attention away from the fact that they choose to provide funding for the very thing the "Republicans" are angry about.

The elites will get what they wanted, and they will provide themselves a good "leave" by forcing "Democrats" to defend the indefensible (or maintain their principles and dump Obama) and riling up the "Republicans" to defeat the "out-of-control" Obama.

[G_j]

14. I have an internal compass

it's been working consistently since I registered as a conscientious objector during the Vietnam war. Presidents come and go, the struggle for peace continues always.

[joeybee12]

9. Thank you Eric Holder for your bullshit "plot" you created so that these thugs

can get us into mroe messes.

[Romulox]

11. Like Hillary Clinton (IWR: yea)? nt

[gratuitous]

12. Ooooh, an "engraved invitation" no less!

That will be good enough for a depressing number of Democrats, eager to project U.S. military power against . . . well, against anyone that gets in the way of one of our bullets or missiles. Collateral damage is just God's way of saying be careful who you share breathing space with. At all times. Everywhere. Because remote-controlled drones don't discriminate between the very, very bad men and someone in the vicinity. And that's not a crime against humanity, so stop saying that!

We have an engraved invitation, after all.

[DCKit]

13. As long as the PNAC chickenhawks lead the charge.... nt