![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Mirror, mirror
Apr. 15th, 2006 10:12 pmTimer Harper in the Star:
In Iran, a galvanizing of a splintered nation. An end to hopes for political reform, a rally-around-the-leader phenomenon common among the victimized, an ability to rebuild a nuclear program in two to four years.
The text in bold... You would think that a certain U.S. president would remember how he consolidated his power, eh?
But the cost of inaction could be even higher: a defiant nation with an apparently unstable leadership steeped in hatred for Americans in the heart of the Middle East with nuclear capabilities.
Swap around "Americans" with "the Middle East". Again, is anyone not reminded of what the political landscape was like in late 2001?
"It's going to be tough because they are led by ideologues who have a weird sense of history."
Once again...
Before he did so, he dismissed any influence of the United Nations, according to state media. "They know they cannot do a damned thing," he said.
Further...
And at the end of the article, someone actually does point out how Bush should look back on his own history to understand what the reaction would be:
But Pollack adds a sobering point. If the administration truly believes it cannot live in a world in which Iran has nuclear weapons, the military option may be the only way to prevent that.
But it would be seen as an unprovoked attack on a country that has attacked no one. It would be likened to Osama bin Laden's attack on the U.S., Pollack said, reminding his audience how the United States responded to that.
---
He argues, as many do, that Bush already has congressional approval and needs not go back to lawmakers.
This is of course a complete mockery of democracy.
The full article: U.S. strike on Iran could make Iraq look like a warm-up bout
In Iran, a galvanizing of a splintered nation. An end to hopes for political reform, a rally-around-the-leader phenomenon common among the victimized, an ability to rebuild a nuclear program in two to four years.
The text in bold... You would think that a certain U.S. president would remember how he consolidated his power, eh?
But the cost of inaction could be even higher: a defiant nation with an apparently unstable leadership steeped in hatred for Americans in the heart of the Middle East with nuclear capabilities.
Swap around "Americans" with "the Middle East". Again, is anyone not reminded of what the political landscape was like in late 2001?
"It's going to be tough because they are led by ideologues who have a weird sense of history."
Once again...
Before he did so, he dismissed any influence of the United Nations, according to state media. "They know they cannot do a damned thing," he said.
Further...
And at the end of the article, someone actually does point out how Bush should look back on his own history to understand what the reaction would be:
But Pollack adds a sobering point. If the administration truly believes it cannot live in a world in which Iran has nuclear weapons, the military option may be the only way to prevent that.
But it would be seen as an unprovoked attack on a country that has attacked no one. It would be likened to Osama bin Laden's attack on the U.S., Pollack said, reminding his audience how the United States responded to that.
---
He argues, as many do, that Bush already has congressional approval and needs not go back to lawmakers.
This is of course a complete mockery of democracy.
The full article: U.S. strike on Iran could make Iraq look like a warm-up bout