NYT: Bush Aides Divided on Confronting Iran Over A-Bomb

[DeepModem Mom]

DIPLOMATIC MEMO
Bush Aides Divided on Confronting Iran Over A-Bomb
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

Published: September 21, 2004


WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 - At a time when the violent insurgency in Iraq is vexing the Bush administration and stirring worries among Americans, events may be propelling the United States into yet another confrontation, this time with Iran. The issues have an almost eerie familiarity, evoking the warnings and threats that led to the war to overthrow Saddam Hussein, and stirring an equally passionate debate.

Like Iraq in its final years under Saddam Hussein, Iran is believed by experts to be on the verge of developing a nuclear bomb. In Iraq, that proved to be untrue, though this time the consensus is much stronger among Western experts....

***

The Bush administration has yet to forge a clear strategy on how to deal with Iran, partly because of a lack of attractive options and partly because there is a debate under way between hard-liners and advocates of diplomatic engagement. But in another similarity with the Iraq situation before the war, Washington is in considerable disagreement with key allies over how to handle the threat....

***

With Iran policy in a state of flux, there is a drive among conservatives to reach out to Iranian dissidents and exiles seeking to overthrow the government, much as efforts were made with Iraqis in the 1990's. Senator Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, is sponsoring legislation favoring "regime change," with what some say is the tacit backing of administration conservatives....


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/21/politics/21diplo.html

[yardwork]

1. Great. Now they're squabbling among themselves

just like a den of thieves. Morans.

[Lady_Liberty]

2. Why is it always USA doing all the work???

The UN needs to start doing something.

[DrWeird]

4. How come the people who support the war(s)...

aren't enlisting?

Answer: They're cowards.

[karlrschneider]

6. It might have something do with Chimp telling them to go fuck themselves.

:eyes:

[H. Rearden]

8. The UN has never done anything

The UN has never done anything without the US taking the lead and providing most of the resources. Without the US, the UN is simply a social club for privileged diplomats.

[Zero Gravitas]

18. And they're not going to start helping

so long as the US acts in an arbitrary unilateral way. They won't help us if our idea of diplomacy is demanding that others give us 100% of what we want right now or Rumsfeld will call them names.

Other countries are not helping in Iraq because the Bush crowd failed to convince them that there was a threat from Iraq. Either because they were smart enough to see through the lies or because Bush's "diplomacy" was so bad that they could not convince our Allies that he had (what he thought was) credible evidence.

Either way Bush fucked up big time right at the start, not to mention the total incompetence they displayed when it came to dealing with the aftermath of the Invasion. Again you don't have any good choices: either Bush is so blinded by ideology and his own right wing spin that he can't understand reality or he and his advisors are bumbling incompetent, reckless, fools. Your little tin god is going down.

[Nimrod]

21. You're right

We should just go in there and bomb the bejeezus out of everything. We'll relegate the UN to clean up after we're... ahem... tired of the insurgency and violence in the nation we've occupied.

That's the American way, right?

[Jacobin]

10. You mean, "why is the U.S. doing all the conquest?"

Maybe because its Pax Americana, like the Third Reich was to Germany?

Maybe because other countries are horrified by rogue nations like the U.S. and Israel attempting to conquer countries for hegemony and monopoly over oil supplies?

I dunno. What do you think?

[Lady_Liberty]

24. "Pax Americana, like the Third Reich was to Germany"

How can anyone be proud to be an American these days? *sigh*

[Riptide]

13. I'm sorry, didn't you get the memo? The UN is irrelevant....

I heard the chimpmeister declare that himself.

[leesa]

3. Of course they are. Someone might notice they don't have one, unlike

Israel and the US...two rogue nations with a much longer list of violations.

[David Zephyr]

5. Same Headline Leading Up to Invasion of Iraq.

Bush will go after Iran after the election if he wins and the Iranian government knows it and is now only doing what parnoia makes one do.

Now back to the CBS and Dan Rather story.

[SineOfNothing]

7. I think it's a very serious matter

And it should be taken very seriously. I don't have any answers but I do have concerns. All I know how to deal is to duck and cover. Any better ideas with specifics?

[Jacobin]

11. Maybe you should start a movement to de-nuke Israel.

Then maybe Iran wouldn't feel the need to have them.

Israel has 200 or so nukes.

[SineOfNothing]

20. Iran has said they want Israel destroyed

Israel has NOT made such a comment in kind. Iran is intolerant. Israel can be trusted with self-defense. Iran will use nukes for terror and their record shows that to be true.

[Maple]

9. Why can't Iran have nukes?

US own the patent or something?

Why should the UN do anything about it?

It's a world body...not a US body.

[H. Rearden]

15. Because they signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

.

[Kool Kitty]

23. I believe we did, too.

Once upon a time. And then Crusader Bush decided that we don't need to be part of any of those pesky ol' treaties.

[KeepItReal]

12. Hmmm letting Iran and NK develop nukes and ICBMs....

Gives Bush & Co. an excuse for building that boondoggle "Star Wars" missile defense.

Remember, follow the money when you think about Bush & Co. They don't give a flying Cheney about National Defense, unless their cronies or homeys can make money off of it.

[trueblew]

14. Whoa Nelly

Whatever happened to not letting the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud? Does that only apply to regimes we have given WMDs? President Pinocchio should have already had a plan for Iran, instead of cleaning up Daddy's mess with America's future.

[Disturbed]

17. Attacking Iran..

would be an even bigger mistake than invading Iraq. Iran wouldn't be a three week cake walk. What would the Shi'ites in Iraq do about an attack on Iraq, their Shhia brothers and sisters? Does anyone think that the Shi'ites in Iraq have no fire power?

[trueblew]

22. Iran is already supplying the the insurgents...

and they have been in a covert war with us since the late 1970's. We did Iran a great favor taking out Saddam (no friend of Islam). It just shows that Bush can get fooled again.

[leftchick]

25. why do you believe Iran is "supplying the insurgents"?

I don't believe that has been proven by anyone. It is speculation on the part of the US military. Like all of those "foreign fighters" in Fallujah.

[teryang]

16. As if a thoughtful dialogue with give and take

...actually takes place in the dictatorship of the corporatariat.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. Word.