Ex-Advisors Warn Against Threatening Iran

It takes ex-advisers such as these men to figure this out? Hell we could have told the Bushies this years ago!



It seems odd to me that a man, like Junior, would spend his entire first term, and now he is shouting ever louder, telling everyone who would listen that Iranian leadership is NUTZ; you know, the real macadamia in this loony bin we call the global community. According to just about everyone in this White House, and certainly everyone at Fuax Noise, Ahmedejhad is some kind of insane end-timer (not unlike Junior's pew-mates) who intends to bring about the end of days (at least for Israel.) Oooo.K.


We get it. Ahmedinejad is a full blown psychotic.



So why, Junior and company, do you keep poking at him? It doesn't take a first year psychologist to know that you just don't poke at a psychotic. Why, that would be a truly igornant thing to do, unless you're goal is to bring about a very psychotic response from said psychotic person. Of course, that would be a psychotic thing to do, thus making Junior and his henchmen NUTZ as well.


Oh, crap. We are so screwed!


Or maybe not. Maybe Jesus, the hidden Imam (is that it?) and Moses himself, for that matter, are going to come back. Actually descend through the clowds, very dramatic, and proceed to bitch slap every religious hater and say:


You may well be a vicious, cowardly, vengeance-seeking group of moral and religious whores, who will either believe or sell a whole lot of horse-hockey as the truth, making tons of money off our names and treating each other like the scum you believe you are and are doing a good job of actually being, and for that reason and many more, we are gonna slap you "back to where you once belonged."


Another time in space, another dimension.


The rest of mankind, who longs for peace, abundance, social justice and that sort of "satanic thing," you know, Heaven on Earth, Eden, the Kingdom of God, as they are described in scripture, shall live into the next world, as this one passes away.


There, will mankind continue to aspire to all-goodness, through hope, faith in knowledge and community.

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 23, 2008; A11

The Bush administration should stop talking about a military attack as an option if negotiations do not immediately halt Iran's uranium reprocessing program, two former national security advisers said yesterday.

"Don't talk about 'do we bomb them now or later?' " said Brent Scowcroft, adviser to presidents Gerald R. Ford and George H.W. Bush, during a discussion at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the negotiations between the United States and Iran.

Scowcroft added that by mentioning that threat, "we legitimize the use of force . . . and may tempt the Israelis" to carry out such a mission. He said he thinks that negotiations must continue and that sanctions have had an effect on Tehran, noting that even with elevated oil prices, Iran, alone among oil producers, is having a difficult time economically.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, adviser to President Jimmy Carter, described the Bush administration's policy of maintaining the option of military action as "counterproductive."

"I don't want the public to believe a preemptive attack can be justified," he said. Repeating the possibility "convinces Iran it is being threatened . . . and maybe it ought to have a [nuclear] weapon."

He added that a U.S. attack on Iran would be a "disaster," suggesting it could result in the U.S. fighting "for at least two decades" on four fronts -- Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Brzezinski said he fears that if negotiations break down between now and the end of the year, some in the Bush administration might believe "it justifies doing something."

Both former advisers said they think both Washington and Tehran are internally divided on how to proceed, making progress difficult before the next U.S. president takes office. But they said that President Bush's sending Undersecretary of State William J. Burns to the most recent negotiations with Iran was a positive step.

"It brings the U.S. solidly in with the Europeans and the Russians," Scowcroft said.

Both also said there are parallels between negotiations with Iran and previous talks with North Korea on its nuclear programs. One difference is the role of China: Scowcroft pointed out that the Chinese, once engaged in the North Korea discussions, were "decisive" because Beijing has enormous economic leverage over Pyongyang.

China does not have similar influence over Iran. Scowcroft said that in partnership with the Germans, the two "could affect the Iran negotiations."

Staff writer Karen DeYoung contributed to this report.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.