Yesterday's Question Already Answered

Yesterday I asked if the release of the national intelligence estimate declaring that Iran has not been working toward developing nuclear weapons would stop the BushCo pressure to attack that country.

By the time the evening news carried the story, the answer was already on the street. On the Jim Lehrer News Hour, two government experts were interviewed - David Kay, a past arms inspector, and another whose name I missed. Their assessment sounded like they were talking about an entirely different report. From their perspective the report simply proved that Iran had been developing nuclear arms, that US diplomacy was working to deter further development, and that this all went to prove that Iran truly is an enemy we need to fear.

Additionally, President Bush himself made it clear in a statement to the press that this report was not going to change anything. His logic, if you can call it that was that this report was a warning signal because if Iran had once had a nuclear weapons program but stopped it, they could restart it any time.

He also related Iran's decision to stop its program to effective U.S. diplomacy. To cap it off, Hillary Clinton, in a statement made in yesterday's Iowa Public Radio debate agreed with that statement!

What US diplomacy was it that worked to stop Iran's nuclear development four years ago?!? There was none going on that I'm aware of. The big event of that year was our invasion of Iraq. It seems much more logical to me that Iran looked at that invasion and said, "Saddam's gone. I we won't need the nukes." Friends or not, we had removed their greatest enemy so, by dint of the old saw, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend.",they actually saw the U.S. as a sort of round-about ally. If there is any truth in that scenario, our "diplomacy" at this point becomes an even greater slap in the face than ever before.

To me, all this is like a trip through the looking glass. What is there to fear if we know they have stopped trying to develop nuclear weapons? Why should we continue to consider attacking another nation that is not a threat to us?

Maybe because they are still the threat the administration says they are in Iraq? Or, maybe not . . .

The Los Angeles Times recently ran an article confirming the Asia Times article I cited here a couple of weeks ago about the determination that Iran was not behind the IEDs in use in Iraq, either. Here is an excerpt:

In Iraq, U.S. shifts its tone on Iran

Officials have backed off the accusations of arms smuggling and agreed to talk. It could be each side needs the other.

By Tina Susman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 1, 2007

BAGHDAD -- Not long ago, U.S. military officials in Iraq routinely displayed rockets, mortars and jagged chunks of metal to reporters and insisted that they were Iranian-made arms being fired at American bases. Collaboration between Tehran and Washington on stabilizing Iraq seemed doubtful at best.

In the last two months, though, there has been a shift in U.S. military and diplomatic attitudes toward Iran. Officials have backed away from sweeping accusations that the Iranian leadership is orchestrating massive smuggling of arms, agents and ammunition. Instead, they have agreed to a new round of talks with Iranian and Iraqi officials over security in Iraq. The meeting is expected to take place this month.

The U.S. also freed nine Iranian men last month, some of whom it had been holding since 2004. Iran denied U.S. accusations that many of them had been assisting anti-U.S. militias in Iraq, and had demanded their release in a series of testy exchanges with U.S. officials.

When the U.S. freed them, it did not allude to the Iranian demands. It said only that they no longer posed a threat.

Pentagon officials and analysts cite several reasons for the change, including U.S. concern that provoking Iran could set off a confrontation that military commanders are keen to avoid, and the realization that better relations with Iran would help stabilize Iraq.

So - if they are not a threat in Iraq, either, why would BushCo keep saying that we should attack Iran? -- Because it somehow fits into their grand plan for control of the Middle East. The only other reason I can think of is that it definely fits into the BushCo approach of sticking to its guns no matter what.

This administration is like a three year old kid. It can't see the long term effects of its actions and it will hold its breath and kick and scream until it gets its way. Well, it's time we parents put a stop to this nonsense.

BushCo needs a knot jerked in its tail and it's obvious that Congress isn't going to do it. That leaves it up to you and me. Maybe we can find a small room to lock these brats up in until the tantrums pass. Or maybe we could arrange an extraordinary rendition and give them a taste of their own medicine. A little Syrian waterboarding would probably do them a world of good. These guys don't believe it's torture, so they shouldn't mind.


Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi

Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR

The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle