September 21, 2004

Good question. Keep asking it

How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? -- John Kerry, yesterday Yeah, that's what President Bush is saying all right. Kerry's speech was by far his best on Iraq. Its brutal accuracy about our situation in Iraq, and what Kerry says he'd do about it, make it today's must read. We're 42 days from the election. Finally, we've gotten some meat from the Democratic candidate. The text is here. William Saletan has a good analysis at Slate: We need a clear picture of how Kerry's position on Iraq differs from Bush's. This is it.

Posted by tbrown at 01:35 PM

Three not so pleasant choices

Sean-Paul Kelley details them at The Agonist. First, the United States can effect what I would call a strategic and orderly retreat. … The second option is that which I believe the United States is currently considering. This option entails a large offensive into regions that are currently labeled by the media as "no-go" zones. … Finally, we come to the last option, which I would term the "More of the Same" option. … Between the dots, Kelley outlines the pros, cons and possible outcomes. One of these options will be chosen by whoever is president come Nov. 3. Give it a read.

Posted by tbrown at 01:22 PM

'Fahrenheit 9-11' boffo in Iraq

WASHINGTON – Inside dusty, barricaded camps around Iraq, groups of American troops in between missions are gathering around screens to view an unlikely choice from the US box office: "Fahrenheit 9-11," Michael Moore's controversial documentary attacking the commander-in-chief. "Everyone's watching it," says a Marine corporal at an outpost in Ramadi that is mortared by insurgents daily. "It's shaping a lot of people's image of Bush." Does Karl Rove know about this?

Posted by tbrown at 01:20 PM

Iran: déjà vu all over again

Does any of this sound familiar? free New York Times site registration may be required.) Like Iraq in its final years under Saddam Hussein, Iran is believed by experts to be on the verge of developing a nuclear bomb. In Iraq, that proved to be untrue, though this time the consensus is much stronger among Western experts. In addition, as with Iraq, administration officials have said recently that Iran is supporting insurgencies and terrorism in other countries. Recently, top administration officials have accused the Tehran government of backing the rebels in Iraq, something that officials fear could increase if Iran is pressed too hard on its nuclear program. The thought of Iran's mullahs with nukes should be enough to scare the bejesus out of anyone. It is a deadly serious problem with no easy, obvious, solution. Also scary is that the folks who got us into the Iraq debacle are reverting to favored thought patterns for dealing with Iran: With Iran policy in a state of flux, there is a drive among conservatives to reach out to Iranian dissidents and exiles seeking to overthrow the government, much as efforts were made with Iraqis in the 1990's. Senator Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, is sponsoring legislation favoring "regime change," with what some say is the tacit backing of administration conservatives. That was also a favorite fantasy of neoconservatives and other hardliners on Iraq. Really worked well there, didn't it? It's mildly encouraging, therefore, that: Administration officials say that there was an internal debate last year but that the idea of giving aid to dissidents who might try to overthrow the Iranian government had been dropped for lack of any credible groups to support. Unfortunately, … the cause of regime change in Iran is expected to be revived if President Bush is re-elected, administration officials say. Leading the charge is John R. Bolton, the under secretary of state for nonproliferation, who gave a speech last month saying that Iran's conduct did not "bode well for the success of a negotiated approach to dealing with this issue." Bolton is just as scary as the mullahs. At the Christian Science Monitor, Jim Bencivenga has a good roundup of what's happening internationally in the attempt to get Iran to halt the uranium-enrichment enterprise that could pretty quickly give it the raw material for bombs.

Posted by tbrown at 01:18 PM