---------------------------
More Strange Silence [Michael Ledeen]
General Petraeus gave an interview to the London Times in which he said
The Iranian involvement here we have found to be much, much more significant than we thought before. They have since about the summer of 2004 played a very, very important role in training in Iran, funding, arming.
I think this is now on the verge of becoming the conventional wisdom, after years of denial from top Bush-administration officials, including, sad to say, Petraeus's predecessors. There has long been a desperate attempt to deny Iran's role in Iraq (and Afghanistan, for that matter), primarily because it was clear to the military that the policy makers back home didn't want to take the decisive action that the information so clearly demanded. And demands.
Secretary of State Rice seems to have been extremely tenacious in insisting that we must stick to a diplomatic track with the mullahs, even going so far as to recommend the release of the "Irbil 5," the Revolutionary Guards officers captured in Irbil. I suspect—no inside information mind you—that at least some of what Petraeus has learned came from those Iranian killers, and he has bluntly said that he intends to keep them as long as they can talk, as long as we have food for them.
It's quite amazing how the desire NOT to know trumps intelligence every time. Can't let the facts get in the way of good policy, right? The desire NOT to know about Iran is not at all unique to this administration or to this secretary of state. Indeed, it is the basic theme of American policy ever since the 1979 Revolution that brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power in Tehran.
Add this, Bush not pressing the Iranians on their aiding and abetting the killing of American soldiers, to the "Either you're with us" list I posted above. -----------------------------------------------
So, Bush supports the Fatah terrorists, is considering engaging in talks with the Muslim Brotherhood, and refuses to admit the degree to which the mad mullahs are behind the Iraqi insurgency....and people want to say that he's good on the WoT. Laughable, I say.
Before you put your heads on the pillow, think about what 15,000 people looks like -- about the size of a basketball crowd -- and imagine all those Saudi students your fearless leader has let in our damn country.
I'm outta here. Sleep well, Bush-fans.
15,000
And just what would have happened if Bush attacked Iran? He has no support now, just how would he have support in an attack on Iran?
Another pie-in-the-sky criticism of Bush. He is hated if he does, hated if he doesn’t. Seems Bush is the football everyone wants to kick around.
I feel very sure that each and every “supporter” on FR would challenge the decision saying it should have been done last year, it should not have been done, it shows how “out of touch” the stupid president is.
The man is crippled by the lack of support of his team in the Congress, the media, the liberal/democrat majority (won by the so-called conservatives that taught the GOP a lesson in the last election).
So, we have the lesson aftermath and therefore no attack on Iran when maybe needed because there is no support of this administration for another war.
As there is less and less support for this administration for this war.
You see - we are a nation of spoiled brats wanting immediate gratification in anything that crosses our minds. We fully expect the terrorists to allow us to go home, quit fighting and still maintain the safety of America and our grandchildren.
Somewhere parents failed to teach this generation anything about facing the hard facts of life - that we don’t always get what we wish, that we have to sacrifice sometimes, that
the whole world does not cater to our wishes and that we are sometimes expected to grow up and realize that you have to fight for freedom if you want to keep it.