Wednesday, December 05, 2007
War, no matter what
A new report from the U.S. intelligence agencies has determined that, contrary to assertions made by the Bush Administration over the past few years, Iran does not currently have a program to develop nuclear weapons, and actually halted their development program over 4 years ago. Good news right? Perhaps we won't have to go to war with Iran after all.

Not according to President Bush however. His response to the report was that this changes nothing about his aggressive stance towards Iran. Nevermind that his whole case for war with Iran has been the threat of them possibly developing nuclear weapons (with Bush even resorting to fear-mongering tactics like promising the start of World War III if Iran develops nukes). Nevermind that Iran has already done what we were wanting them to do in discontinuing their weapons development. Nevermind that, according to the report, diplomacy and sanctions achieved these goals, not saber-rattling and threats of invasion.

In fact, somehow Bush has actually managed to spin this report as a reason to step up our plans for war against Iran. According to CNN:

Bush said Tuesday he saw the latest estimate on Iran as "a warning signal."

"What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program?" Bush asked.

The latest estimate shows "Iran needs to be taken seriously as a threat to peace," Bush said.

"Look, Iran was dangerous," he said. "Iran is dangerous. And Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
So now we're preparing for war because Iran might start a nuclear weapons program? By this logic, we could justifiably threaten to invade pretty much any nation in the world at any time. After all, Canada could start a covert nuclear weapons program too if we're not careful.

What Bush's response tells me is that he is committed to war against Iran no matter what, irregardless of the evidence. We've been preparing for this for months, already moving troops and supplies into place for a potential invasion, and apparently Bush isn't prepared to stand down even if his reasons no longer apply. This is deeply disturbing and frightening. If even the facts cannot dissuade our President from his violent course, what hope do we have of preventing yet another war?

All this is very reminiscent of 5 years ago in the run up to the Iraq War. Just like now, there were confident statements that Iraq had secret weapons programs, which later proved to be false and based on poor intel that had been politically manipulated for the express purpose of justifying a war. The difference now is that the deception and manipulation has been exposed before the fighting has actually started. Hopefully this time it won't be too late to step back from the brink of another disastrous and immoral war. The American people don't have to be tricked into making the same mistake a second time. It's time to speak up and say "no" to the way of violence. After all, as they say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Labels:

 
posted by Mike Clawson at 6:06 PM | Permalink |


5 Comments:


At 12/06/2007 01:15:00 AM, Blogger friendlyskeptic

I agree with you! President Bush scares me.......it's like he's just itching for war no matter what...

 

At 12/06/2007 05:38:00 AM, Blogger C. L. Hanson

Hasn't it occurred to Bush that his own launching unprovoked attacks on other countries "needs to be taken seriously as a threat to peace"?

 

At 12/06/2007 04:44:00 PM, Blogger John

I agree with this being scary, but this vision reaches beyond the Bush Administration. Even Hillary Clinton has talked of aggression with Iran.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8428

I think our politicians as a whole need to be changed.

John

 

At 12/06/2007 04:51:00 PM, Blogger John

John,

Since we're on the talk of politics I thought I use this opportunity to throw Ron Paul out there.

www.ronpaul2008.com

This guy seems to be right on a lot of issues. Fiscal responsibility, sovereignty, economy, ect.

Anyone have any comments or opinions about him?

Thanks,

John

 

At 12/06/2007 06:28:00 PM, Blogger Mike Clawson

I agree John (#1), the Democrats are not much better when it comes to the aggressive rhetoric. That's why out of the Democrats the only one I really support is Dennis Kucinich. He's the only one that has made peacemaking a part of his platform.

John #2, Ron Paul is way too much of a libertarian for my taste. I may agree with a few of his positions on various issues, but I disagree with his rationale underlying them. I want better government, not just less government.

 

Links to this post

Links to this post:

Create a Link