We Can't Handle Iraq, So Why Not Take On Iran?
September 16, 2007
White House Debate Over Iran Strategy
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 — While scrutiny this week focused on the debate over troop strength, President Bush also used the occasion to turn up the pressure on Iran, using his speech on Thursday to stress the need to contain Iran as a major reason for the continued American presence in Iraq.
The language in Mr. Bush’s speech reflected an intense and continuing struggle between factions within his administration over how aggressively to confront Iran. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been arguing for a continuation of a diplomatic approach, while officials in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office advocate a much tougher view that seeks to isolate and contain Iran, and to include greater consideration of a military strike.
Mr. Bush’s language indicated that the debate, at least for now, might have tilted toward Mr. Cheney. By portraying the battle with Iran as one for supremacy in the Middle East, Mr. Bush turned up the rhetoric another, more bellicose, notch. “If we were to be driven out of Iraq, extremists of all strains would be emboldened,” Mr. Bush said. “Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region.”
So, let's see, we went into Iraq because George Bush lied to us and that's turned out to be a shambles.
So now, because he was so wrong and so inept and so utterly defeated in every goal that he had to keep changing the goals--because of this and because there's absolutely no support in the country for an extension of the war, he's making a lying case for attacking Iran.
Good idea, George. Now have some milk and cookies and take your nappy-nap.
Condi Rice is approaching her Colin Powell-moment and she better do a more able job of it than Colin did.
And oh, by the way, is Congress anywhere in this equation or are they having milk and cookies as well?