From "cakewalk" to "Walk in the Park" (1 Viewer)

blackadder

...from a chicken, bugwit
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
29,057
Reaction score
21,054
Offline
Analysis: Cakewalks and walks in the park?

By Arnaud de Borchgrave
UPI Editor at Large
Nov. 3, 2006 at 3:07PM

Ripley's Believe It Or Not! began in 1918 as a comic strip featuring unusual, hard-to-believe facts from around the world. Today it is a website for a global community that combs cyberspace for events so strange and unusual that it is often hard to believe they are taking place. These days, you don't have to go further afield than Washington, D.C.

The neo-conservatives -- or neocons -- who gave us the "cakewalk" prediction for Iraq before the war are now plugging "a walk in the park" in Iran -- i.e., a U.S. bombing campaign to consign the mullahs' nuclear ambitions to oblivion, or at least to retard the advent of an Iranian bomb for a few years, hoping that in the interim good democrats would rise up and send the clerics and their Revolutionary Guards packing.

Two Washington-based representatives of a global Fortune 100 company told their visiting senior executive this week a bombing campaign of Iran's nuclear facilities "is inevitable before President Bush leaves the White House." The incredulous executive thought his Washington eyes and ears were overstating the case. They assured him they were deadly serious.

Leading neocon Richard Perle, who led the intellectual charge for the ill-fated invasion of Iraq, believes 2 B-2 bombers, each with 16 independently targeted weapons systems, could punch out Iran's nuclear lights. No Air Force expert we could find agreed. But the Pentagon's Air Force generals believe it can be done -- and successfully -- with a much larger operation, including five nights of bombing, some 400 aim points, 75 of them requiring deep penetration ordnance. Time magazine estimates 1,500 such aim points, or "viable targets," related to Iran's widely scattered nuclear development complex. The Navy, with its carrier task forces and ship-launched cruise missiles, does not share the same degree of certainty.

No one has worked more assiduously for military action against Iran than Michael Ledeen, another leading neocon and the White House's Karl Rove's favorite, who writes frequently about the "horrors" of Iran's mullahocracy. His National Review Online commentary Nov. 1 was headlined "Delay." Ledeen has grown impatient over Bush's dangerous postponement of what he considers inevitable. "If the President knows Iran is waging war on us," wrote Ledeen, "he is obliged to respond; the only appropriate question is about the method, not the substance. If he does not know, then he should remove those officials who were obliged to tell him, and get some people who will tell the truth."

The truth has become an increasingly rare commodity in Washington. Ledeen concludes the president knows the truth, but thinks he may lack the political capital to directly challenge the mullahs. More likely, Bush's thinking has changed when confronted by the intelligence community's assessment of Iran's retaliatory capabilities. They are described as "formidable." These include mining the Strait of Hormuz, the channel for two fifths of the world's oil traffic, which would send oil prices skyrocketing to $200 almost overnight.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi/20061103-030557-7930r.htm
 

TPS

Guest
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
36,028
Reaction score
56
Age
56
Location
da boyah
Offline
Yikes. Not that I have any respect or desire to see the Islamic Republic's (that's Iran for half of you) theocracy survive, but we would only serve to further isolate ourselves if we launched a shock and awe against Iran.

:covri:

TPS
 

SaintJ

hard, pipe-hittin'
Approved Blogger
Joined
Apr 13, 2002
Messages
25,876
Reaction score
19,851
Offline
If they spent all that time and energy figuring out ways to wean this country off oil dependence...

...and then I woke up.
 
OP
blackadder

blackadder

...from a chicken, bugwit
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
29,057
Reaction score
21,054
Offline
If they spent all that time and energy figuring out ways to wean this country off oil dependence...

...and then I woke up.
These guys -- the neoconservatives -- are not going to go away. They are like petulant little children. I am sure that when they were children they were petulant...

They are going to do their best to promote a full scale regional war that can easily get out of control.

And they'll do it all while sitting safely behind their desks.

The war cry should be getting more and more shrill as Bush's time in office winds down.

Wouldn't the administration have to go to Congress before attacking Iran?? Isn't there something called a Constitution?

Are we going to get another Gulf of Tonkin?
 
Last edited:

Saintman2884

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
14,198
Reaction score
1,983
Online
blackadder, this is coming from a very conservative newspaper and a very suspect audiecne as well, we all know that Seymour Hersh has been basicaly jumping up and down saying he knows what will happen with Iran and the nuclear energy thing they are suspected of developing for sinsister purposes, the problem with Hersh is the same thing thats wrong with this report, its totally pandering to assuming and making assumptions and you just dont assume in this business. Despite your dislike for neoconservatives, they know that the Democrats control the House and the Senate and that to get any approval for an attack on Iran any kind, you need Congress to approve, hell even with the Iran/Contra scandal Reagan faced extreme hell for doing what he did, it may have been unpopular and dirty and suspect, but Reagan was damned and determined to not let the Soviets in Latin America have any kind of influence, none what so ever. I mean you had Castro in cuba and the Sandinista in Nicaruagua, you could not let the Soviet Union has a say so in the affairs so close to our country, REagan just couldnt allow that. I dont condone the funding to the Contras per se but the intentions of the Sandinistas were questionable at best, they were very left wing and had some socialist beliefs in their doctrines, what do you do?
But getting back to Iran, I dont think Bush has an option here with them, the next president will probably have to deal with them IMHO.
It may have been a passing thought a few years back, but not now with the Dems in control
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom