Ignoring The Iran ProblemGot that?
Now, the confusion is manifesting itself in spasms of gibberish over another self-imposed wound: To release or not release evidence that Iran
is stoking the violence in Iraq.
A December raid by U.S. forces in Baghdad resulted in the capture of two high-ranking Iranian operatives suspected of coordinating attacks against Americans. One of them, identified as “Chirazi,” is reputed to be the number three official in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the militia which — in conjunction with Hezbollah and, possibly, al Qaeda — orchestrated the murder of 19 U.S. airmen in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia.
The December raid left the Bush administration doubly red-faced. First, it took place in what the Iranians must have believed was the safety of a compound belonging to Abdul Azziz al-Hakim. Hakim has recently been portrayed by the administration as a “moderate Shiite political leader” with whom the president has personally been consulting to help shore up the new Iraqi “democracy.” Well, he’s a Shiite leader, alright. In fact, he heads the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq — a creation of Iran dedicated to the teachings of the Ayatollah Khomeini.
... with Losers like this, how can we win?
1 comment:
All reasonable people want to avoid war, Lady Hawk, but going into Iraq was an acceptance of the regional problem with Islam and the Arabs. It was like claiming to the world; America is going to be one huge "Lawrence of Arabia". I said so at invasion time. Now we know P. Bush had other ideas, "Lawrence Lite" if you will.
... "Lite" won't work!
And yes, lots of people are disappointed in the Repubs. We thought is was a continuation of Reagan - we didn't know it was Bill Clinton, part deux.
Post a Comment