You wing nuts won’t see and this disaster of a POTUS won’t do it, but who we really need in this position is Jimmy Carter. He understands the failures of US policy in the region, has strong ties tot he regional actors that are necessary for the establishment of a stability in the region, Syria and Iran. He has tremendous foreign policy experience! He understands the electoral process and democracy, making him perfect to operate with the region’s existing democracy Iran and to foster further democratic growth in Iraq.
If we wish to arrest, at least temporarily, our decline in the region I say Jim-muh is our only hope! |
| |
Written By:
Joe
URL:
http://
|
Given the look on Gates’s face today — grim and nervous — perhaps Petraeus is being elevated to the Centcom to do the thing with Iran. I’ve been seeing signals about Iran popping up all over the place. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was on it at some banquet the other night. Hillary Clinton was on it the other day (she might be privy as a presidential candidate).
Bush did just visit with Putin a couple weeks ago. That would certainly be a necessary stop. |
| |
Written By:
Martin McPhillips
URL:
http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
|
The assassination of Riyad al Nouri, Sadr’s brother-in-law and a senior aide in Najaf, continues to spark reports that his death was carried out from within the Sadrist movement. On April 17, The Long War Journal reported that Nouri was pushing for the Sadrist movement to disband the Mahdi Army lest the party be shut out from the political process, and US military officers believe he was killed because of this. Sounds just like Sadr won .. with his brother-in-law. |
| |
Written By:
Neo
URL:
http://
|
|
There is no "thing" with Iran (at least no imminent thing). We’re only a couple of months away from a Pres. election with a significant chance of a Dem winning and starting an Iraq retreat. Iran isn’t stupid enough to do something, and Bush doesn’t have the capital to go after them w/o a provocation. |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
The "thing" with Iran is the nuclear facilities. That is an ongoing provocation. Along with thinly veiled Iranian threats to use nuclear weapons once they have them.
As for Bush, he doesn’t need any capital because he is leaving office. This is a matter that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said, just a few nights ago, will have to be taken care of. Hillary Clinton just spoke of "obliterating" Iran if it used nuclear weapons.
With Iran there are no good choices, there are only bad choices. The awful choice of taking out the nuclear facilities, and the horrible choice of dealing with the Iranians after they have nuclear weapons. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to deal with a millenarian cult of mullahs with nuclear weapons.
I would think that all three presidential candidates would be grateful if Bush exercised the awful choice before one of them takes office. That would be a favor to them, leaving them with certain problems in the aftermath, but not the main problem of acting against the facilities before it is too late.
The statements by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and by Hillary come just a few weeks after Bush met with Putin, who would at least be consulted, and perhaps even asked to sign off on it, if not on to the mission. Do you think that Putin relishes a nuclear Iran?
I don’t think so.
Petraeus will replace Fallon who was advertised (probably an exaggeration) as the man standing between Bush and an attack on Iran. Well, Petraeus is none too fond of the Iranians: they’ve been killing his men in Iraq. |
| |
Written By:
Martin McPhillips
URL:
http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
|
I can’t imagine anyone wanting to deal with a millenarian cult of mullahs with nuclear weapons. Jimmy Carter? |
| |
Written By:
Don
URL:
http://
|
Off topic:
Sam Graham-Felsen, Obama’s official campaign blogger, is a commie. |
| |
Written By:
Don
URL:
http://
|
|
I don’t think so too. |
| |
Written By:
jenny
URL:
http://www.business-sunrise.com
|
