Comments on: Report: Bush administration to ‘establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran.’

By: jpopphan

jpopphan — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:22:58 +0000

Normalizing relations with Iran is the right thing to do. But, like others, I suspect Bush’s true intentions with this decision. There is no way that we can take on Iran right now while we are still bogged down in Iraq (right next door!) and Afghanistan (again, right next door!!) Iran is a much larger country than Iraq and has a real military that didn’t suffer the from the same sanctions that Iraq did.

We don’t have to deal with Ahmadenijad. In fact, there is little point in talking with him. The real power in Iran is held by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the “Supreme Leader”. This post is the highest level of political and religious authority as per the post-1979 constitution.

I am no fan of the Islamic Republic, but the reality of the world requires that we hold our noses and deal with people that we don’t like very much. Ditto for North Korea. We must be clear about our intentions and make the best use of our diplomatic corps to resolve tensions. Less hostility between Iran, the United States and Iran’s neighbors would not only bring us closer to peace but would also affect the market price of oil.

Peace is always, always less expensive than war.

By: stateofthedivision

stateofthedivision — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:07:21 +0000

Bush needs eyes on the ground to plan the attack. Secure networks will facilitate the passing of up to date intelligence from sympathetic locals. As mentioned earlier, they’ll be pulled in a grandstand event prior to an attack.

Of course, the Iranian people will rush in afterwards and greet the returning diplomats with flowers.

By: RWeSafer

RWeSafer — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:20:19 +0000

Bush can’t bomb Iran if we have diplomats on the ground there…

How would that look (even to a crazy person)??

By: Alecto

Alecto — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:09:24 +0000

Buckie Boy said:
“…so someone somewhere pushed his STFU button.”

There is a STFU button, man we gotta find that thing.

By: Zimzone

Zimzone — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:57:09 +0000

Bobwurst Says:
Zimzone, isn’t the N Korea agreement essentially what Clinton had set up, and bush dismissed in bush’s first year in office? Except of course that now N Korea has several nukes they didn’t have back when the adults were in charge.

I believe we’re both right, Bobwurst. Richardson was an integral part of Clinton’s efforts, but was brought back in once the 6 party talks emerged.

It’s interesting to note that the ‘Axis of Evil’ is now gone?
Irag-we destroyed it.
N. Korea-backed off before being destroyed
Iran-See N Korea.

By: Bilbo Hussein Baggins

Bilbo Hussein Baggins — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:31:48 +0000

Just wait. After about a month Bush will announce that “I tried it Obama’s way, I tried to talk to them, but it didn’t work.” This is all a dog and pony show before the bombs start falling.

By: J

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:25:16 +0000

Well, we wouldn’t want them to think that their missile test “worked” now would we? WTF!!?! How is this going to deter them from building weapons? It’s a good idea, but couldn’t be worse timing, in my opinion.

By: Bobwurst

Bobwurst — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:49:21 +0000

Zimzone, isn’t the N Korea agreement essentialy what Clinton had set up, and bush dismissed in bush’s first year in office? Except of course that now N Korea has several nukes they didn’t have back when the adults were in charge.

By: Bobwurst

Bobwurst — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:45:39 +0000

stewarjt Says:
Is it possible to go sane after seven years and more of insanity?

Well, if we can apply Einstein’s theory on the universe here, (where if you travel in a straight line in space long enough you come back to the same place) then perhaps bush has gone so far to the right that he’s re-appeared on the left…or has gone so far insane that he has come back around to sanity from the opposite end?

By: Gregor Samsa

Gregor Samsa — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:43:21 +0000

Bush was against appeasement before he was for it.

Flip flop!!

By: Zimzone

Zimzone — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:32:19 +0000

Trollups,
North Korea’s outcome was due to Bill Richardson.

Quit trying to rewrite history; Bush is doing quite well on his own.

By: lzcrmc

lzcrmc — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:29:53 +0000

“The press has capitulated. Reporters either (1) understand that GDumbya is incapable of answering tough questions or (2) don’t want to be complicit in spreading more lies on top of lies that would occur if they did.

‘Or 3) understand that their press credentials would be quickly revoked and possibly a loss of job.’”

or 4) are on his team

By: MapleStreet

MapleStreet — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:22:31 +0000

So Bush flip flopped and took on Obama’s position. Once Again.

Now if we can stop McCain from making indecent remarks about Iran.

Originally I couldn’t figure out why McCain wanted to poison the well with Iran – after all, why not start negotiations on good terms. Originally I thought it may be to guarantee that they wouldn’t negotiate with him should he be elected. But now I’m wondering if it could also be to poison any attempts of Obama to negotiate with them ?

By: katy

katy — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:20:30 +0000

something underhanded is surely in the works…

bobwurst @3 offers one likely scenario…

when even JOHN BOLTON (yelling, as rachel does) changes his tune, it’s really time to worry…

something evil…

By: RUCerious

RUCerious — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:02:10 +0000

Most likely scenario:

1. Bush sends diplomats

2. CIA assassinates one or more of said diplomats

3. US bombs Iran in retaliation.

By: 5th Estate

5th Estate — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:01:00 +0000

If this is another feint before another US undeclared war of aggression I shudder to think what price we liberal elitists will end up paying for the pistachios and caviar we all like to sprinkle on our muesli breakfast cereal.

By: Cats r Flyfishn

Cats r Flyfishn — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:50:47 +0000

This may prove to be a problem for Israel that is just itching to bomb Iran. Maybe it will prevent bombing that beautiful country.

By: gummitch

gummitch — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:42:33 +0000

JMOHR Says:

The Republicans are very carefully reversing themselves on issues to prepare for the election. It is an attempt to rob Obama of issues on foreign policy. Iran – we are engaged in diplomatic actions because we perceive that the Iranians have been cowed by our sabre rattling. Iraq – we brought home the surge troops because we are winning. More will follow and we will use them to clean up Afghanistan.

That’s my take on this, exactly. More evidence of it has been showing up in Congressional votes, with Republics suddenly discovering the middle class — at least for a few months.

By: DwH

DwH — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:36:49 +0000

“… seems to contradict”? Why can’t we speak the truth and say that it directly contradicts Bush and his surrogates’ attacks on Obama for the suggestion that talking to Iran would be an important step?

Why all the hedging when it comes to this kind of subjectivity? What happened to the unvarnished truth?

By: LibertyLover

LibertyLover — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:32:15 +0000

alph the wonder llama Says:
Bobwurst Says:
On a more thoughtful note, what are the odds that this is a ploy so bush can say he exhausted every avenue before he starts bombing?

Forgive me for being so cynical, but… BINGO!

—

Worked for Iraq, didn’t it?

Most people believe the lie that Saddam threw out the nuclear inspectors, when it was actually the Bush admin that told them to get out of Iraq so that they could start bombing.