Bush: Iran Is Not Iraq, Diplomacy Just Beginning

[leftchick]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050223/pl_nm/bush_europe_iran_dc&cid=615&ncid=1480


"Iran is not Iraq. We just started the diplomatic efforts and I want to thank our friends for taking the lead. We will work with them to convince the mullahs that they need to give up their nuclear ambitions," Bush told a news conference after talks with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.

Bush has noted repeatedly the U.S. launched its war on Iraq only after ousted leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had failed to comply with a series of U.N. resolutions over a number of years.


He said it was vital that the Iranians hear the world speak with one voice.

"You know yesterday I was asked about a U.S. decision and I said all options are on the table. That's part of our position. But I also reminded people that diplomacy is just beginning," he said.


Bush said Tuesday the idea that he was preparing to bomb Iran was "ridiculous" but also added that "all options are on the table," a clear reference to the possibility of military action.

[cthrumatrix]

1. the world knows "you can't trust this LIAR"

[radfringe]

31. if his lips are flying -- he must be lying

http://radfringe.tripod.com/ new toon

[redirish28]

2. he says all options are on the table so...

when he starts to bomb Iran he can claim that he never said he wouldn't bomb Iran. He'll claim that he considered his options and did it as a last resort when we know he has already signed an order stating that he intends to bomb them this summer. What a dumb idiot. I just hope people are smart and I wish somebody would call him on his total bs!

[marmar]

3. Exactly...

I think the Europeans know that they need to beware of Neocon geeks bearing gifts.

[Tesha]

4. No, Iran has friends with nukes.

No, of course Iran isn't Iraq; Iran has friends with nukular weapons.

And that's clearly the best way to get some respect from "Step outside" boy.

Tesha

[VegasWolf]

23. Doh! Because Iran has nukes. Even Homer could get this one. n/t

[Wright Patman]

5. Still trying to beat up on Iraq, I see

It appears to me as if Iraq DID comply with the resolutions to destroy its WMD arsenal. How many times are they going to try to rewrite history on this issue?

The "bad guy" on the world stage at this point in history is the USA and its lackeys, who waged preemptive war for the piracy of natural resources on a defenseless country that was no threat to anyone outside its borders.

[TahitiNut]

6. "Saddam Hussein had failed to comply"???

It seems to me that the purported goal of eliminating WMD was accomplished in 1991, as we now "discover" - so, just what's substantive about what's left of his "noncompliance"?

This repeated claim of a "failure to comply" seems awfully bankrupt at this point.

[denverbill]

7. Bush Says Diplomacy Just Starting on Iran

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=4&u=/nm/20050223/pl_nm/bush_europe_iran_dc

MAINZ, Germany (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) said Wednesday that European diplomatic efforts to rein in Iran's nuclear program were only just beginning and that comparisons with Iraq (news - web sites) were wrong.

"Iran is not Iraq. We just started the diplomatic efforts and I want to thank our friends for taking the lead. We will work with them to convince the mullahs that they need to give up their nuclear ambitions," Bush told a news conference.

Bush has repeatedly said the U.S. launched its war on Iraq only after then leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had failed to comply with a series of U.N. resolutions over a number of years.
<snip>

You know what pisses me off about this article. The 'journalist' makes absolutely no attempt to verify anything. Which UN resolutions did Iraq NOT comply with? The inspectors were given full access to anywhere they requested, including Hussein's palaces. They destroyed all of their WMD's. They gave a full accounting for it.

The only thing was the the US didn't believe it, and repeatedly called him a liar. In fact, it was the US who was ultimately proven wrong, but nobody in the media talks about that.

[opusprime]

8. What diplomacy?

Hasnt Bush already stated that we will not negotiate with Iran?

I'm still not sure what we need to be diplomatic about. Russia says they are not making nukes, and I havent seen any proof that Iran has nukes.

So why all the sabre rattling?

[The_Casual_Observer]

9. bush sat for seven minutes doing nothing after being told "America

is under attack". Why would anybody trust anything the shit for brains has to say now?

[cliss]

10. 2 things:

1) I've finally learned how to read between the lines with Bush. He'll actually tell you what you are wondering about, it you just look closely enough.

Notice the 1st sentence; "We just started the diplomatic efforts and I want to thank our friends for taking the lead".

Translation:

"We just started the diplomatic efforts" = We screwed up big time, and we're backing off. We thought it was OK to be a Big Mouth indefinitely, but we've been stopped in our tracks. Russia, India and China (indirectly) are threatening us with WW3.

"I want to thank our friends for taking THE LEAD" = "We are in big trouble (see above). We have overstepped our bounds, and other world leaders have made it clear that under no circumstances can we bomb Iran right now".

2) "The idea that we are preparing to bomb Iran is "ridiculous" but also added "all options are on the table".

Translation:

He's speaking to 2 groups of people. Part a) it's "ridiculous" is directed at Europe, to the rest of the world, meaning, don't worry! We won't do anything.

Part b) "all options are on the table" is directed at Iran, as a warning. This guy really does speak out of both sides of his mouth.

[American Tragedy]

11. Failed to comply? Then what the fuck was Hans Blix doing down there?

and the rest of the UN inspectors? And where are the WMDs that would ostensibly justify non-compliance?

I remember I kept wondering about that as the rush to war began, and despite dozens of opportunities to question the administration in interviews, not a single goddamned journalist asked them. The press in this country are either cowardly pawns or morons.

[Strelnikov_]

12. I Have No Doubt There Is No Attack Plan On Our Leaders Desk

The attack plan is on Sharon's desk.

The plan on Our Leaders desk is for a 'defensive' response after Iran lashes out following the Israeli air attack.

[DoYouEverWonder]

16. How many battalions does Israel have?

that have not been decimated by being stuck in Iraq fighting Bush's Blunder?

Yes, you are right, this time it's Israel's turn.

[Colorado Blue]

18. Gimme a break guys. Israel is NOT running Washington.

IF anything Israel stands to lose bigtime should such a thing, a war against Iran, occur.

It would be a disaster for everybody in the Middle East.

I truly hope Bush gets a grip.

[DoYouEverWonder]

19. Then you've never read a Clean Break

google that and PNAC and you will find out who is running DC. Sharon is one of the major decision makers but he is not the only one.

[Colorado Blue]

22. Don't believe everything you read. I've been hearing about

conspiracy theories involving Jews since I was a little girl. Back then they involved communists. It's BS and it's dangerous. During WWII, in Germany, it was stuff like, the Jews have all the money and so forth. We all know how THAT turned out.

Anybody can put anything on the 'net, in a book or simply pass along idle gossip. Much of it is malicious and it is flat out antisemitic - especially when you consider the sheer size and wealth of the US vs. Israel. It simply does not compute and it never did. If you want a bogeyman look at the oil industry, and the concretion of wealth in the "old money" WASP upper classes of the USA. Trust me, these people want NOTHING to do with Jews other than to use them.

There's another factor you must consider in this day and age: innocent people may well be killed behind remarks like this. Please be aware that Jewish people all over the globe are the targets, once again, of the Nazis. Antisemitism is growing. Near my home, within about a mile radius or thereabouts, several synagogues have been damaged. Glass broken, fires, graffiti. It's only a matter of time before the people themselves are targeted.

Please consider what is being said here before you pass along gossip like this. It isn't benign.

Thank you.

[DoYouEverWonder]

24. "Clean Break" Is not fiction

Here's the link. Then let's discuss whose running US policy after you read it.


A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.

http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

[Colorado Blue]

26. Hello. Thank you for the link. I read through this and truly

find nothing sinister about it.

This is essentially a position paper concerning the future of Israel. It deals with several issues including the Israeli economy and the relationship with the US, including the need for Israel to stop depending on the US as much as in the past.

The paper represents THE OPINIONS of a few people, who may have some influence within their own country and perhaps even within Washington. But the "Clean Break" paper IMO remains OPINION, a series of ideas, that by no means mention anything about AMERICAN foreign policy, at least as I read it.

Some of the options suggested may seem uncomfortable to liberals, such as the doctrine of preemption and the idea of hot pursuit to catch people who are threatening the security of Israel. No doubt they disturb many Israelis as well. However the paper is talking about ISRAEL's situation, not that of America.

The paper does state a point of view which isn't rosy concerning human nature and that somewhat dark view - the idea that Israel must live in the "real world", permeates the paper. Many Americans, especially Conservatives, share this view about America. They think liberals like us are rosy-eyed fools. However, to suggest that because some Jewish people and some American people share similar world views, Israel is running US policy, is to underestimate the size and power of the US, and to underestimate the nature and extent of US interests in the Middle East. And these do differ from Israel's interests.

Our primary concern in the Middle East, apart from its strategic location - something this region has always possessed and which has made it a crossroads and also a battleground throughout history - is OIL. This has nothing to do with Israel per se.

Israel's interests, as defined in the paper, are served by establishing relationships with its Arab neighbors which are sustainable, which depend as the paper suggested upon a BALANCE of power and NOT upon dominance within the region. I see nothing wrong with suggesting that drug connections, ie within Syria, are of no benefit to Israel. I see nothing wrong with suggesting future ideas for the long-term economic stability of Israel. This IS a fairly right-wing position paper and as such does not necessarily reflect Israeli thought in general on these topics.

Please tell me how you have come to the conclusion, from reading this paper, that Israel is running the US or its foreign policy?

IMO it is far more likely to be the other way around. Israel is actually quite vulnerable, has no resources, is very small, has a population of about 5 million to our 250,000,000 plus and our vast resources, money and military. We could squash Israel like a bug. Indeed, any further warfare in the Middle East is likely to affect Israel very negatively. The Bush Doctrine in the Middle East is very likely to create more terrorism and antisemitism aimed toward Israel as well as for Jewish people around the world. So I don't see how Israel is running US policy, nor by the way are American Jews, who are primarily Democrats.

And finally, simply because an idea is presented, which may actually be a GOOD idea, does not mean it is a sinister attempt to overtake the US government.

Please let me know what you think.

[DoYouEverWonder]

27. "Clean Break' is not just the opinions of a few people

nor was it written by Israelis.

Look at the list of people who were involved in creating this document. Don't you recognize any of the names? Here's a list of the people who created the "Clean Break' document and their positions at that time. Since this document was written, Bush came into power and at least a few of them have become prominent members of the WH and DOD. I've included the current info for the ones that I know about.



Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader and until recently Chairman, Pentagon Defence Board


James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs

Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS

Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates, currently serving has the US Undersecretary of Defense.

Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies

Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, currently Personal Asst. to John Bolton, Chief Policy Adviser

Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University (I assume he's related to David?)


Once you've finish digesting this part, then you might want to check out The Project for the New American Century. I hope you will find it, let's say enlightening? http://www.newamericancentury.org/

[Colorado Blue]

28. Right. Agreed. The paper was not written by Israelis, it

was written by Americans, members of the Republican party, who espouse a particular POV that is popular in Washington right now. However, the paper itself deals with the future security of Israel and how, in their OPINION, it should be secured.

So how does that equate with Israel running the US Gov't?

I'll read the link you provided later and get back to you when I can.

Meanwhile, let me know what you think.

Thanks!

[DoYouEverWonder]

33. A group of people

are running the US Government, not a country. Some of those people happen to be zionist and some happen to be born-again 'christians'.

At this point in history we are in the midst of a marriage made in hell. On one side we have the fundie end-timers who want a war in the ME in order to bring on the rapture and the 2nd coming. Then you've got the zionists who want to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem in hopes of the 1st coming. In order for either group to achieve their goal, requires the destruction of a fair bit of real estate in Jerusalem.

Then there is the 3rd dimension of this situation, the world powers who depend in one way or another, upon the military industrial complex for their main source of income. Too bad we can't take all this talent, time and energy and direct it towards construction use, instead of destructive use?

So no, it's not Israel. I'm sure the country of Israel is full of very nice people, who would like to live a peaceful life, like the rest of us.

[Colorado Blue]

35. Right on! Maybe when we mention zionists we should make

a distinction - say "Christian zionists" - endtimers, so forth - the world "zionist" connotes "Jewish settler" and Israel to many, probably to most. With antisemitism rising I think we have to be careful how we phrase things - innocent people are in danger of being hurt and a word in the wrong ear can result in terrible trouble. As it is an awful lot of people from Saudi Arabia to Houston blame Jewish people in general, Israel, and Jews in the administration for 911 and the subsequent warfare in the ME.

As you say the difference between groups and ideologies is very great. Also I, like you, do NOT want to see any more aggravation in Israel - from ANY quarter.

IMO the people of PNAC are secular and they are concerned with temporal power. That is not a sinister thing per se but a necessary aspect of statecraft although one may disagree with their political philosophy. I don't see a Jewish agenda there and I can't imagine a rational, secular Jew wanting to see fundamentalist crazies running around Jerusalem with heavy weapons - indeed, that would be an absolute nightmare. It would actually be terrible for Israel and for Jews.

I hope those who are sitting around waiting for the 1st coming realize that G*D isn't stupid and doesn't wait aroung looking for signs? Seriously they are probably a very small number - I hope. But radical religious people are scary I don't care where they are.

Absolutely concur that that we are wasting time and resources - we could be doing such great things. And I can't help but feel that the Pax Americana has already proved to be a bust, due to Bush Administration stupidity and or corruption.

Thanks for the conversation!

[Colorado Blue]

29. OK - I visited the link - I've been there before. It's a huge

site - was there a particular paper you wanted me to read?

Thanks!

[DoYouEverWonder]

30. Their original policy document

is on this page:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defensenationalsecurity.htm

The report is the first item on the list but it is in PDF format. Skip to the last page and read the list on people who signed it. Once again key people within the Bush administration, including Paul Wolfowitz, many of whom from both projects happen to be Jewish with stong ties to the zionist and members of the Likud party.


Title = View the Project for the New American Century's report, Rebuilding America's Defenses released September 2000.


I've got to run. I'll get back to you in a little to answer your other question.

DYEW

[Colorado Blue]

34. Hello - thank you for the link. Basically I scanned it and it

appears to be a pretty straightforward assessment plus recommendations concerning the state of our armed forces. I can't comment on its quality as a recommendation because I do not have a clue about defense matters on this level of detail. However I have seen documents LIKE this and ANY president would have to have something similar to work from. The father of a dear friend was an Air Force bird colonel who tested weapons systems when he wasn't flying in various wars and he prepared stuff like this all the time.

The reality of war and war planning does not go away - ever. This document is a pretty cold-blooded assessment of our requirements should war break out in one or several places as well as the requirements in specific arenas and within specific branches of the services. This is not a sinister piece of work. It is meant to help defend America and has NOTHING, again, NOTHING to do with Israel or Israel's security or well-being.

I did note that the organizations for which the people who signed it work are quite diverse. They include various universities, corporations, branches of the service and of the government - and I did note that the primary author's last name is Donnolley:

–Strategy, Forces and Resources
For a New Century
DONALD KAGAN GARY SCHMITT
Project Co-Chairmen
THOMAS DONNELLY
Principal Author

PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
Roger Barnett
U.S. Naval War College

Alvin Bernstein
National Defense University

Stephen Cambone
National Defense University

Eliot Cohen
Nitze School of Advanced International
Studies, Johns Hopkins University

Devon Gaffney Cross
Donors' Forum for International Affairs

Thomas Donnelly
Project for the New American Century

David Epstein
Office of Secretary of Defense,
Net Assessment

David Fautua
Lt. Col., U.S. Army

Dan Goure
Center for Strategic and International Studies

Donald Kagan
Yale University

Fred Kagan
U. S. Military Academy at West Point

Robert Kagan
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Robert Killebrew
Col., USA (Ret.)

William Kristol
The Weekly Standard

Mark Lagon
Senate Foreign Relations Committee

James Lasswell
GAMA Corporation

I. Lewis Libby
Dechert Price & Rhoads

Robert Martinage
Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessment

Phil Meilinger
U.S. Naval War College

Mackubin Owens
U.S. Naval War College

Steve Rosen
Harvard University

Gary Schmitt
Project for the New American Century

Abram Shulsky
The RAND Corporation

Michael Vickers
Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessment

Barry Watts
Northrop Grumman Corporation

Paul Wolfowitz
Nitze School of Advanced International
Studies, Johns Hopkins University

Dov Zakheim
System Planning Corporation

The above list of individuals participated in at least one project meeting or contributed a paper for
discussion. The report is a product solely of the Project for the New American Century and does not
necessarily represent the views of the project participants or their affiliated institutions."

The fact that some of the people who signed it are Jewish or have Jewish names does not mean that Israel or the Jewish community is running Washington. Again, I really must protest! And, I must note that there are Italian names, Irish or English names, a couple that could be German, one possibly French - why is it the Jewish ones that bother you? Is there something that strikes you as particularly sinister about Jewish names or Jewish people?

Do you think Jewish people shouldn't be allowed to serve their country?

I'm sure you're aware that Jews have been advising American presidents for generations. Indeed, Jewish people have been advising powerful nations since the days of Joseph and the Pharoah. This does not mean that Joseph or the tribes of Israel were running Egypt.

Back when John F. Kennedy was running for President, people objected because he was Catholic. They thought this indicated that the Pope would be running Washington.

It sounds silly, doesn't it?

Let me know what you think.

Thanks for the link and all the best!

[nolabels]

13. "Diplomacy Just Beginning" is code for there is no such thing as Diplomacy

Now we should really ask the question if there could be the possibility that there could be someone out there who really thinks some other country would be stupid enough to listen to one word these fools have put out and think they were telling the truth. Could that even be a possibility?

[Supersedeas]

14. confession/admission that in Iraq, diplomacy never really had a chance

[SomewhereOutThere424]

15. Bush: Iran is not Iraq

Boy he's a thinker ain't he? I wonder if he's just realizing that now...that iraq was the little middle eastern country with no WMDs, and it was 'IRAN' that had it. 'OHHHHH, boy did I make a mistake. I better inform the american people, they listen to my every word and that's the kind of thing which may cause trouble being the president!'.

[Bouncy Ball]

17. How did SH fail to comply?

He HAD NO WMDs. Sheesh. Thick as planks, the whole bush junta. And evil to boot. NOT a good combination.

One thing always strikes me though: how can we tell other countries to get rid of their nukes when we have them?

[Demeter]

20. Diplomacy? Bush Doesn't Know the Meaning of the Word

Diplomacy means persuasion without insult or force. All Bush knows IS insult and force. Bush is the Anti-Diplomant, as well as the Anti-Christ.

[Massachusetts]

21. Bushi$ = Bushi$

Friggin Liar, POS.

[kohodog]

25. So we'll give diplomacy until June before we strike

That's plenty of time for diplomacy.

[TankLV]

32. "You've l ied about Iraq, why should anyone believe what you say now?"

Why isn't anybody asking him THAT question.

That is the ONE question I wish somebody would ask.