Posted on 07/23/2008 4:56:27 AM PDT by Schnucki
The Bush administration should stop talking about a military attack as an option if negotiations do not immediately halt Iran's uranium reprocessing program, two former national security advisers said yesterday.
"Don't talk about 'do we bomb them now or later?' " said Brent Scowcroft, adviser to presidents Gerald R. Ford and George H.W. Bush, during a discussion at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the negotiations between the United States and Iran.
Scowcroft added that by mentioning that threat, "we legitimize the use of force . . . and may tempt the Israelis" to carry out such a mission. He said he thinks that negotiations must continue and that sanctions have had an effect on Tehran, noting that even with elevated oil prices, Iran, alone among oil producers, is having a difficult time economically.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, adviser to President Jimmy Carter, described the Bush administration's policy of maintaining the option of military action as "counterproductive."
"I don't want the public to believe a preemptive attack can be justified," he said. Repeating the possibility "convinces Iran it is being threatened . . . and maybe it ought to have a [nuclear] weapon."
He added that a U.S. attack on Iran would be a "disaster," suggesting it could result in the U.S. fighting "for at least two decades" on four fronts -- Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Brzezinski said he fears that if negotiations break down between now and the end of the year, some in the Bush administration might believe "it justifies doing something."
Both former advisers said they think both Washington and Tehran are internally divided on how to proceed, making progress difficult before the next U.S. president takes office. But they said that President Bush's sending Undersecretary of State William J. Burns to the most recent negotiations
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Why would we give any credence at all to what Z Bresnetxski had in his muddled thinking? His policies got us into this morass in the first place.
Message to our enemies: “Military force is not a response we are willing to consider. We are prepared to talk at you, but will do nothing more. Please do our bidding. Pretty Please. Awwwwwww, come on! I’m begging you. Please?”
He’s right. We should stop threatening and just do it.
MOVE ZIG!
FOR GREAT JUSTICE!
We're now into our third decade of having to deal with Iran on multiple fronts (Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, etc) due to this moron and his peanut brained accomplice.
It doesn’t matter what he thinks, really, because Israel will have to do our dirty work.
I don’t care for the company he keeps.
http://www.brookings.edu/projects/saban-cfr/advisory-board.aspx
Has America (or its President) ever looked weaker? Have our threats ever seemed more idle? Could Condi Rice possibly look more irrelevent? War has become the way to transfer wealth to cronies instead of mantaining securiy. Truly sickening.
Scowcroft & Brzezinski are two “advisors” who best serve as examples of what NOT to do.
Check their respective track records and see where reversing their “advice”, would not have better served the world.
and may tempt the Israelis” to carry out such a mission
And the Problem is??????
Why is it that in DC, if you had given PROVEN bad advice to a President in the past, people will listen to your advice now?
Unfortunately, under its present leaders, Israel sounds as weak and wimpy as Brzezinski and Scowcroft.
These fools are the ones who ought to keep their mouths shut. They had their turn.
What is your evidence for this claim?
Who on earth would give any credence to anything that Zbigniew Brzezinski, advisor to the great 444 appeasor, jimmy carter, would say?
That SOB has been in the mix for a long time. But you see, in his book he talks about dismantling the Russian sphere of influence and war is a viable option from the Eastern Block countries all the way to China. This included the desert as well.
utterly gutless left wing “journalism” citing only Bush haters.
How can you write a story only about the consequences of an attack and not the consequences of a nuclear armed and terror sponsoring Iran? O wait, they’ve done the same thing on Iraq. Apparently the left thinks there are no costs in leaving threats alone, only in confronting them.
Advice from two washed-up has beens. When is James “F*** the Jews” Baker going to open his piehole and spew his worthless opinion?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.