One might think that the Bush Administration would be desperately wanting to avoid new wars right now. But lots of people also didn't believe they would just make up the WMD claims about Iraq, either. And Richard Perle and the rest of the merry band of "neoconservatives" still want to boogy. From Still Dreaming of Tehran by Robert Dreyfuss and Laura Rozen, Nation 04/12/04:
But the neocons aren't giving up, and they are trying to pull the White House in even deeper. Not only are they undeterred by the chaos in Iraq, but they are pressing ahead to advance their regional strategy, one that calls for regime change in Iran, then Syria and Saudi Arabia. Says Chas Freeman, who served as US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War and a leading foe of the neocons, "It shows that they possess a level of fanaticism, or depth of conviction, that is truly awesome. There is no cognitive dissonance there."
What makes the neocon strategy on Iran especially risky is that with Iraq teetering on the brink of civil war, neighboring Iran has significant clout inside Iraq, including ties to various Iraqi Shiite factions and a growing paramilitary and intelligence presence. If Iran chooses, it can help ease the daunting task that the United States faces in trying to put together a sovereign Iraqi government. But if it seeks confrontation, it can help spark an anti-US revolt in southern Iraq, home to most of Iraq's Shiite majority. In that case, nearly all analysts agree, the American occupation could be overwhelmed.
And you think it's partisan excess when Democrats say, "Bush-Cheney '04: Four More Wars"?
3 comments:
What's that definition of insanity again? Doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different result?
I thought the technical name for that condition was "the Bush syndrome." :) :) - Bruce
FD, that's the definition according to Albert Einstein. Which really pales when trying to describe the absolute madness that this is.
Post a Comment