Getting Iran involved IS the administration’s “exit strategy.” Obama wants an ALLIANCE with Iran. And that’s why he picked a fight with Netanyahu over the non-issue of apartment construction in a part of North Jerusalem that every draft piece plan agrees will remain Israeli. If Israel hits Iran’s nuclear capacity, the deal is off. [..]
Obama is following Gates’ and Brzezinski’s recommendation to the letter, but also the point of absurdity. It is the stupidest, most reckless, and most destructive foreign policy action the United States has taken in my lifetime.
Don't worry, be happy--says Herr Rot. Have some more ouzo.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
In order to make Iraq look better than it was and to make Petraeus surge look like a success, the Bush administration made a conscious decision to treat Iran carefully — Bush was as emphatic as Obama in dissuading the Israelis from striking Iranian nuclear capability.
Petraeus made his reputation with the surge knowing perfectly well that if Iran wanted to jack up the list of US casualties, it could.
When he says that Israel is endangering American lives, the question is — how? Who is going to kill Americans? The Egyptians are virtually allied with Israel now — they let Israeli subs and missile boats through the Suez Canal. The only possible answer is: the Iranians, via their proxies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Provoke Iran, and Americans will die. JCS Chief Admiral Mullen has been saying the same thing for some time. These are officers whose careers advanced on the strength of a de facto deal with the Iranians and now they are stuck with it. And that’s why they are dumping on Israel: if Israel hits Iran, the whole American “exit strategy” (based on a silly balance of power game involving Iran) falls apart.
Peters does a very good job of explaining why it will fall apart in any event:
The whole thing is a Potemkin Village.
Kerry-McCain in 2004 sounds better and better. No Obama, No 4 Year exercise in Socialism triumphing House of Bush dithering Putting All Eggs on a Shitcar called Delusion.... and the Left is voted out in 2008, hence no AmeriSoc crowing victoriously over the health and financial disaster looming ahead.
The Wages of Rott are fearsome.
You're the one pulling for Kerry. Don't blame me.
Who says Kerry & Edwards (or McCain?) would not have pushed through some kind of "health care" package if they'd won in 2004? At any rate, let's not beat a dead horse. More ominous is what Spengler (and Ralph Peters) are saying. These guys know very well Asia, and all those wars and rivalries in there, the stabbing and backstabbing. We're like a babe in the woods in that environment.
The big thing in the past, though, was that even if we were kind of stoopid at times, and not knowing all the ins and outs of local stuff, we had a strong army, backed by a mighty economic and financial engine. That engine is sputtering right now, and in danger of choking. What's left, then?
Blogger Tecumseh said...
Who says Kerry & Edwards (or McCain?) would not have pushed through some kind of "health care" package if they'd won in 2004?
Says me. Look at the composition of Congress in 2004. The great shift to the Dems didn't crack open until 2006. Without a 4 year build-up of using Bush as Snowball [and Bush being an absolutely inneffectual and halfhearted responder to such]; without all that time for Soros & co to prep Obamakles, without the focus on Bush to provide misdirection for the MSM becoming a truly shameless reincarnation of preparation for New Pravda; and with the Left having for 4 years to be the ones responsible for the WOT, when 9/11 was still relatively fresh in the national psyche and the confusion of the second Bush term had not yet happened, would have sharply limited their opportunities for revanchism. Heck, it might even have giving breathing room to the Lieberman's within that Party's confines.
Says who? Says me!
Even if the Dems had played the primaries straight, we would have ended up with Hillary president, at worst, and I can't imagine she could be as bad as this anal neoplasm that we have now.
AA: You make a good case, but look again at what I wrote: Who says Kerry & Co would not have pushed for HR"C"? I didn't say it would have passed [well, disregard the "through"], but sure as hell Kerry & buddies would have tried. But yes, I agree with your analysis -- now way the US would have moved so abruptly to Socialism in 2004-2005. It took a special set of circumstances, starting roughly with Katrina (the hand of a vengeful God?) to get us to this pass.
HR: Hillary would have been only marginally worse. The difference is barely noticeable, at least from where I stand. And, at any rate, we'd still have Nancy & Harry running things in Congress...
Post a Comment