Bush Talks Tough On Iran
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Foreign Policy, The War On TerrorismFrom The Herald Sun:
When asked if the use of force was an alternative to faltering diplomatic efforts, Bush said: “All options are on the table.”“The use of force is the last option for any president. You know we have used force in the recent past to secure our country,” he said in a clear reference to Iraq.
“I have been willing to do so as a last resort in order to secure the country and provide the opportunity for people to live in free societies,” he added.
Here’s the problem with this. Of course every President must leave every option on the table to defend their country. However, when Bush says that the use of force is the last option, he is being intellectually dishonest.
Simply put, we did not go into Iraq as a “last resort”, even though he assured us that this was the case.
And personally, that’s one of the biggest problems that myself and my fellow Democrats had when the Iraq war began. It wasn’t that we felt it wasn’t a “just” war. You don’t understand how many conversations I had with other Dems where we truly wanted to find WMDs so it wouldn’t appear as if Bush was going into the country on a semi-educated guess that was growing weaker with each passing month.
True, they did talk about liberation beforehand, but this was NOT how they sold the war to us or the world. The messaging was specifically about the fact that Saddam could give WMDs to terrorists and that’s why we needed to stop him.
And now it appears as if he’s starting to use the same language to frame the Iran issue.
Color me concerned.
This entry was posted on Saturday, August 13th, 2005 and is filed under Foreign Policy, The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 13th, 2005 at 3:30 pm
I seriously doubt W. would even have the votes of a predominately Republican house to start up something with Iran. And for all those who argue we should have gone to Iran instead, on what grounds? It would have been under the same grey area as Iraq (and other wars, when one thinks about it.)
August 14th, 2005 at 5:36 am
With all due respect, you can’t compare Iraq with Iran. Both hate each other anyway and have or at least had, two totally different ideologies.
Saddam Hussain had something the west wanted and that was oil and now we got it with a whole load of trouble to boot. Taking Iraq militarily was a fairly easy option and one that was simple to sell the public as Saddam was a bad man anyway, and I think behind-the-curtains, everybody knew there was no WMD’s.
Iran is different in that the Mad Mullah’s hate the West and want it distroyed. Sure they got oil, but the West know they can’t take that so easiliy by force as Iran is very capable and modern. So we left them alone until now.
Neuclear is diffferent and Iran will use it on Israel without batting an eyelid. This is the real deal now. I don’t think Bush should need to convince any of us that we need to stop them. Saddam was a gangster, and a brutal one at that and knew how to play the game. He has now had his hands slapped but its not Iraqi’s that are stirring all the trouble for our troops, its Iran who is at the centre of it all. The latest terrorist attacks on us all just sped up the process of dismantling it bit by bit.
Its not the time to be hand wringing now, its time to be strong and draw a line in the sand and going with it. Decide which ideology you subscribe to and defend it.
The West embraces long life. Iran glorifies death and they will bring it to us make no mistake about it. They just need the capability and they are not far away. Make your choice.
If we come through it all and out the other end, we can argue party politics in a peaceful and democratic way at a later date. Just pray that you get the opportunity.
August 14th, 2005 at 10:35 pm
Jon W., America will certainly get the opportunity, even if San Diego or Miami or New York is WMD’d. Tehran is NOT Mecca.
and I think behind-the-curtains, everybody knew there was no WMD’s.
This is terribly false. The Downing Street Memo stuff shows that everybody “knew” Saddam had WMDs, as much as they “knew” Al Capone was committing crimes — just no smoking gun. And what they knew was wrong.
But you are absolutely right about “the real deal.” Iran getting nukes, and giving them to some terrorists. It’s a race between Iranian scientists and Iraqi democratic compromisers.
How much federalism in Iraq? How to split the oil revenues? (Really too bad a Trust Fund, with Iraq oil revenue directly to the people, hadn’t been set up “as a default.” Bush-Bremer mistake.)
The troops in Iraq are ideally placed for a strike against Iran. Sorry, I don’t believe Iran ground forces would be any tougher than Iraq; possibly less tough (is that possible???).
I thought Israel would attack Iran if Kerry had been elected; glad that fear wasn’t tested. Israel does NOT want Tel Aviv nuked.
August 15th, 2005 at 9:32 am
Jon,
“Saddam Hussain had something the west wanted and that was oil and now we got it with a whole load of trouble to boot. Taking Iraq militarily was a fairly easy option and one that was simple to sell the public as Saddam was a bad man anyway, and I think behind-the-curtains, everybody knew there was no WMD’s…”
I keep hearing everybody say that ‘we knew that there weren’t any WMD’s in Iraq’ yet they never cite anything that showed this before the invasion. If you are using the information gained as a result of the invasion that wasn’t available to us ‘before’ the invasion so you are armchair quarterbacking… show me something that we had before the invasion that would prove that Iraq didn’t have WMDs. If there was even the possibility that he did, given his stance against the US, then we would have been remiss had we not gone in and checked. Can you imagine the screamfest if Bush hadn’t gone into Iraq and they did have WMDs that they gave to a terrorist to use in our country? If that had happened then I would have been one of the ones calling for Bush’s head…. why, because even after such a severe attack on the US Bush didn’t take the terrorist threats seriously…
“Neuclear is diffferent and Iran will use it on Israel without batting an eyelid. This is the real deal now. I don’t think Bush should need to convince any of us that we need to stop them. Saddam was a gangster, and a brutal one at that and knew how to play the game. He has now had his hands slapped but its not Iraqi’s that are stirring all the trouble for our troops, its Iran who is at the centre of it all. The latest terrorist attacks on us all just sped up the process of dismantling it bit by bit.”
I agree with this, I believe that Bush will need to take some action on Iran… I’m just not sure what can be done other than strategic strikes to their nuke equipment. But, like you pointed out, nuclear is different and we cannot afford to allow them to aquire this technology.
“If we come through it all and out the other end, we can argue party politics in a peaceful and democratic way at a later date. Just pray that you get the opportunity. ”
I really wish this could happen but the ‘gotcha’ mentality is just embedded too deep in the political landscape. Kind of sad!
August 15th, 2005 at 9:49 am
Recent reports have put Iran’s capability to make the materials necessary for a nuclear bomb out to about 10 years. Forgive me if I’m taking your comments with a grain of salt. And yours are the same types of fear tactics I was sold before the war with Iraq, so again…grain of salt.
August 19th, 2005 at 8:12 pm
[...] And what does Hagel think about Bush’s tough talk on Iran “Quite frankly, what is the military option, what are we talking about here? We lose credibility in the face of the world when we say things like, ‘Well just don’t forget what happened to Iraq could happen to you Iran. We could invade you, we could bomb you.’ [...]