"Iran Is Not Iraq" ~ Much of the U.S. government no longer believes in, ..... the Bush Doctrine.

The Weekly Standard ^ | 05/08/2006 | William Kristol

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

"Iran Is Not Iraq" Much of the U.S. government no longer believes in, and is no longer acting to enforce, the Bush Doctrine. by William Kristol 05/08/2006, Volume 011, Issue 32 "We are committed to a diplomatic course [to stop Iran's nuclear program] that should, with enough unity and with enough strength and with enough common purpose, make it possible to convince the Iranian government [to change its course]. . . . "Let me go right to the crux of the question. The United States of America understands and believes that Iran is not Iraq. The Iraq circumstances had a special character going back for 12 years of suspended hostilities after a war of aggression which Saddam Hussein himself launched. . . . "It goes without saying that the United States believes and others believe that, in order to be credible, the U.N. Security Council, of course, has to act. . . . The Security Council is the primary and most important institution for the maintenance of peace and stability and security, and it cannot have its word and its will simply ignored by a member state." --Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Europe last week, from Glenn Kessler's April 28 account in the Washington Post, "U.S. Tries to Calm Fears in Europe on Using Bases"

[oxcart]

It's going to take a mushroom cloud over one of our cities to wake the left up again...3000 dead on 911 woke em up for what, a year?

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

I'd never let this fellow borrow any of my power tools!

[Mike Darancette]

The President's clock is ticking and Stinky knows it. Iran is attacking in the North of Iran as I write this.

[Andy from Beaverton]

You see children, there is a Santa Claus.

[rogue yam]

So I read the article. What now? Become a McCainiac?

[marron]

With ten years of hostilities, and 18 UN resolutions, we still never got a consensus for war with Iraq, Bush essentially had to act unilaterally.

If we are going to move against Iran, in the end, it will be a unilateral decision. Absent a mushroom cloud, there will be no consensus. Even with a mushroom cloud, our Dems will be using it merely to assign blame and jockey for domestic political power.

Now, since the EU has no legions, and wouldn't send any if they had them, the question now is the same as the question then; who cares what they think? Since the UN is essentially for sale to the highest bidder, what is their opinion worth? And since the Dems care nothing about what happens in the world, except as it affects their domestic power struggle, again, who cares what they think? Our position toward them, EU, UN, and DNC, should simply be that of chess player, removing his opponents options.

[petkus]

Wait for a coalition of the radicals (Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria, etc) to turn off the oil spicket & that will have the same effect as a mushroom cloud over the USA!

[CWOJackson]

William Kristol"

Is he that guy who used to hang out with Whoppee Goldberg and Robin Williams?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Well now, I just read Captain's Quarters and Captain Ed has a whole new angle:

Teheran Tries To Turn Back Time
April 30, 2006

*********************************************AN EXCERPT **********************************************8

Iran attempted to shift the non-proliferation process into reverse yesterday by proposing that the UNSC drop its review of the IAEA dossier on their uranium enrichment program, even while they insisted the program would continue. The US didn't bite on the Iranian time-machine gambit, and even Russia got blunt in their demand to an end to Teheran's enrichment activities:

*****************************************************

In effect, Teheran wanted the UNSC to ignore its defiance of the world body while it continues to publicly defy them more.

********************************************************

Russia and China have the most to lose diplomatically from Iranian defiance. They need a credible UNSC to guard against American economic, military, and diplomatic hegemony in the same manner that France tried to use it in 2003. If the West finally decides that the UNSC has no will or ability to enforce its own resolutions (again), if the Iranians play Russia and China against the West long enough to develop a nuclear weapon, then the UNSC is dead and so is its parent organization. Russia and China will bear the blame for this development and lose the one diplomatic tool that has -- until recently -- contained American diplomacy and military forces.

If Iran continues to make such a public spectacle of its defiance, Russia may have to cave on sanctions, and China would likely follow. If that doesn't happen soon, however, the West may complete the collapse of the UN and render it into the dustbin of history. After all, if the UN serves as an obstruction to the defense of its member nations, then it has no purpose at all.

************************************************************

**************************************************

So could the game be....use the inability of the UNSC to do anything meaningful about IRAN to effectively neuter the UN.......that would be a MEANINGFUL ACHIEVEMENT

Posted by Captain Ed at April 30, 2006 08:00 AM

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

THIS:

So could the game be....use the inability of the UNSC to do anything meaningful about IRAN to effectively neuter the UN.......that would be a MEANINGFUL ACHIEVEMENT

IS MY Statement......

[Unicorn]

Kristol is a jackass. He thinks he knows everything.

[marron]

Good post. Good point.

[gotribe]

It's going to take a mushroom cloud over one of our cities to wake the left up again

No, it will take that for most of the republicans to wake up. The lefties will say - "But the terrorists have shot their nuke and have no more, so let's not escalate this." There is no longer any stomach among republicans for violent preemption, and there never has been stomach among the left for violent response.

[HitmanLV]

I honestly think that the problem the american people have is with Bush personally. A strong majority now does not trust him to engage a war effectively.

[Slings and Arrows]

2001: "Beware! Afghanistan is not Iraq (1991)!"

2003: "Beware! Iraq is not Afghanistan!"

2006: "Beware! Iran is not Iraq!"

2008: "Beware! [???] is not Iran!"
:
:
:
:

[Principled]

Differing opinions...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1624232/posts

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I honestly think that the problem the american people have is with Bush personally. A strong majority now does not trust him to engage a war effectively.

Then the leftist's media has done their job well!

[HitmanLV]

I didn't suggest why they thought that. It's a combination of the MSM's conduct, but Bush's inability to break that image has hurt a lot, too.

[Billthedrill]

Well, the majority of people within the government have very few strategic opinions at all, prefering to sway with whatever wind is likely to blow them back into office. That's true for both sides of the aisle.

I do not believe that there is anything like the international consensus against Iran's possession of nuclear weapons that is widely assumed. Russia and China don't really care who Iran uses them on as long as it isn't them and the oil continues to flow. Israel can count her friends on one hand and have fingers left over. In fact, I'd love to see an honest poll through Europe as to whether nuking Israel out of existence would be a good thing or a bad. I'd be happy for a 50% "bad" return but I'm not sure I'd get one.

And yes, as I've pointed out long before Kristol, it is the UN that is likely to be the first casualty. That same poll taken in that corrupt and degraded organization would probably top 75% in favor of Israel's nuclear annihilation. Those people aren't even living on the same planet as the rest of us.