Neoconservative McCain Adviser: ‘At Some Point,’ ‘You Might Want To’ Talk To Iran
Neoconservative McCain Adviser: ‘At Some Point,’ ‘You Might Want To’ Talk To Iran
Robert Kagan, adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and brother of Iraq surge architect Fred Kagan, is a prominent leader of the neoconservative movement. In 1997, for example, he and Bill Kristol co-founded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which advocated overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
Yesterday, McCain reiterated his unwillingness to engage diplomatically with various Middle East countries, particularly Iran. But last night on PBS’s Charlie Rose, even Kagan moved away from McCain’s position. While he defended the Bush administration’s current refusal to sit down with Iran, Kagan admitted that this policy may not be as sustainable as McCain thinks:
ROSE: Does it make sense to talk to the Iranian government?
KAGAN: You know, I think, and this is where John McCain may not — doesn’t agree necessarily. I think at some point we may find ourselves in a position when you might want to do that. But I think at this moment, there isn’t a great deal — we have a very sensible position.
Watch it:
Later in the segment, Rose forced Kagan to admit that the administration’s current posture with Iran also hasn’t worked well. “Do you think [not talking to Iran] stopped them from getting closer to building a nuclear weapon?” pressed Rose. “Obviously not,” Kagan admitted.
As former State Department official James Rubin noted today, McCain was open to meeting with Hamas just two years ago. And as Max Bergmann observed, in 2003, when former Secretary of State Colin Powell was criticized for meeting with Syrian leaders, McCain encouraged the talks, stating, “Colin Powell is going to look [President] Bashar aside in the eye and say, look, you know. You better clean up your act here.”
McCain: Bush ‘Exactly Right’ On ‘Appeasement’ Remark, Praises Reagan’s Handling Of Iran Hostage Crisis
McCain: Bush ‘Exactly Right’ On ‘Appeasement’ Remark, Praises Reagan’s Handling Of Iran Hostage Crisis
Referring to President Bush’s notorious comments, MSNBC’s Pat Buchanan asked this morning: Will Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) “endorse this statement about Barack Obama that in effect he is an appeaser?” Today, McCain confirmed that he would.
The New York Times reports that McCain “wholeheartedly endorsed Mr. Bush’s veiled rebuke” at Obama. Talking to reporters this morning, McCain said:
Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain. I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.
McCain elaborated on his campaign bus today, claiming diplomatic talks are a “serious error.” Watch it:
McCain’s praise of Ronald Reagan is wholly misplaced. To recap, during the Iran-Contra affair in the 1980s, hostages were not released because of Iran’s fear of Reagan, as McCain suggested. In reality, Iran released them after Reagan administration officials infamously sold arms to the country, which were transfered to Ayatollah Khomeini. As a result, 11 Reagan officials were convicted of crimes.
Furthermore, Reagan did not have to “negotiate” with Iran during the hostage crisis of the 1970s because he wasn’t involved in it. The extensive negotiations with Iran were done before his presidency. In fact, Reagan’s inauguration occurred only minutes before the hostages were released.
McCain should take note of what Reagan said in 1981: “Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will.”
Lieberman Says Bombing Iran ‘Has An Appeal To It’
On right-winger Bill Bennett’s radio show this morning, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) expressed his openess to bombing Iran, saying that there is “an appeal to it.” Discussing the West Virginia primary results, Bennett praised what he claimed was Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY) transformation into his “style” of politician, which he said is someone who “throws down a shot of liquor and bombs Iran.”
Lieberman whole-heartedly endorsed the “appeal” of the hawkish caricature Bennett had created:
BENNETT: Listen, I give her credit. She has found her…three things. She’s found her voice. He is very much in the background now, it’s not this, you know, ventriloquial thing, it’s definitely her voice.
LIEBERMAN: That’s true.
BENNETT: And Joe, you know, this is my style. This is a girl who puts on her pearls, goes down, throws down a shot of liquor and bombs Iran, you know. This is…lookout Mrs. Bennett, this is my kind of girl.
LIEBERMAN: Hehehe, it does have an appeal to it.
Listen to it:
Neither Lieberman nor Bennett is shy about his willingness to militarily strike Iran.
Almost a year ago, Lieberman declared on Face The Nation that “we have to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians.” Earlier this week, he called airstrikes against Iran “a distinct possibility.”
In April, after Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker testified before Congress, Bennett told the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol that the “conclusion” he drew was that their testimony was “less an argument for getting out of Iraq than going into Iran.”
Lieberman: Airstrikes in Iran are ‘a distinct possibility.’
Lieberman: Airstrikes in Iran are ‘a distinct possibility.’
This morning, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, where Pat Buchanan asked him whether he believed “the United States states should conduct air strikes on the Iranian Quds force in Iran if they do not stop” interfering in Iraq. Lieberman replied that he “hoped” the U.S. would not have to strike at “the people who are responsible for killing Americans,” but said that the Iranians should “have in mind that it’s a distinct possibility.” Watch it:
Lieberman, one of the most vocal supporters of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), has been pushing for war with Iran for a long time. As far back as last June, he said that the U.S. had “to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq.”
Transcript Read the rest of this entry »
Bolton on whether Bush might bomb Iran before he leaves office: ‘I think so, definitely.’
Bolton on whether Bush might bomb Iran before he leaves office: ‘I think so, definitely.’
In a Fox News interview this afternoon, former UN Ambassador John Bolton discussed his desire to bomb camps inside Iran that are reportedly training and arming Shiite insurgents who fight in Iraq. Fox host Martha McCallum asked, “Can you imagine a scenario where President Bush would do that before the end of his term?” Bolton responded, “I think so, definitely.” He added later, “This is entirely responsible on our part.” Watch it:
Asked by McCallum whether Israel would be supportive of the strikes given the possibility of Iranian retaliation, Bolton responded, “I think they’d be delighted.”
Ledeen one-ups Bolton: It’s ‘time to attack’ Iranian AND Syrian terror camps.
Ledeen one-ups Bolton: It’s ‘time to attack’ Iranian AND Syrian terror camps.
Yesterday, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton announced on Fox News his belief that “the use of military force” against Iranian training camps “is really the most prudent thing to do.” Responding to a Telegraph report on his comments today, American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Ledeen declared that Bolton is “right.” Adding that he’s “been proposing this for years,” Ledeen also said that “we should do the same thing to the Syrian camps as well.”
Bolton: Striking Iran ‘Is Really The Most Prudent Thing To Do’
Bolton: Striking Iran ‘Is Really The Most Prudent Thing To Do’
Yesterday morning, Fox News interviewed former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton to discuss whether America is close to striking Iranian targets, as new reports indicate the Bush administration is drawing up plans for a “surgical strike.” Bolton said that while there are “obviously risks associated” with a strike on Iran, the risks of not doing something are “far higher” at this point.
Fox anchor Jaime Colby asserted, “The Brits think we overestimate the threat of Iran in this particular case. Are they right or wrong?” Bolton — who has previously claimed that the “mullahs in Iran” want a Democratic president in 2008 — responded:
I think they’re dead wrong on this. I think this is a case where the use of military force against a training camp to show the Iranians we’re not going to tolerate this is really the most prudent thing to do. Then the ball would be in Iran’s court to draw the appropriate lesson to stop harming our troops.
Fox anchor Colby reacted to Bolton’s war cries by concluding — without sarcasm — “That’s a good message to end on. Thank you.” Watch it:
Bolton has asserted that preventive war against Iraq “did work” and “achieved our strategic objective.” Moreover, he has openly stated that the U.S. should have no interest in the well-being of Iraqis.
Bolton’s unquenchable appetite for a military conflict with Iran is easy to understand, given that he cares so little about the disastrous consequences that follow from war.
U.S. Prepares ‘New Options’ To Attack Iran, Deploys Second Carrier To Persian Gulf
U.S. Prepares ‘New Options’ To Attack Iran, Deploys Second Carrier To Persian Gulf
The Bush administration deployed a second aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf on Tuesday to serve as a “reminder” to Iran, in the words of Defense Secretary Robert Gates. When asked whether the Pentagon was preparing military strikes, Gates said, “No.”
But, CBS News reported last night that the Pentagon is developing new “options” for attacking Iran:
A second American aircraft carrier steamed into the Persian Gulf today as the Pentagon ordered military commanders to develop new options for attacking Iran. Planning is being driven by what one officer called the “increasingly hostile role” Iran is playing in Iraq — smuggling weapons into Iraq for use against American troops.
CBS’s David Martin said that, while “no attacks are imminent and the last thing the Pentagon wants is another war,” the U.S. has identified two key targets inside Iran that it is prepared to strike: 1) the plants where weapons being exported to Iraq are made and 2) the headquarters of the Quds Force.
This week, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is expected to confront Iran with with evidence of their meddling and demand a halt. If these talks don’t produce results, Martin reported, “the State Department has begun drafting an ultimatum that would tell the Iranians to knock it off — or else.” Watch it:
Is the most powerful man in Iraq an Iranian?
McClatchy reports that one of “the most powerful men in Iraq isn’t an Iraqi government official, a militia leader, a senior cleric or a top U.S. military commander or diplomat.” “Tehran’s point man in Iraq” is Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, who commands the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Suleimani has “ensured the elections of pro-Iranian politicians, met frequently with senior Iraqi leaders and backed Shiite elements in the Iraqi security forces that are accused of torturing and killing minority Sunni Muslims.” He has also:
–Slipped into Baghdad’s Green Zone, the heavily fortified seat of the U.S. occupation and the Iraqi government, in April 2006 to try to orchestrate the selection of a new Iraqi prime minister. Iraqi officials said that audacious visit was Suleimani’s only foray into the Green Zone; American officials said he may have been there more than once.
– Built powerful networks that gather intelligence on American and Iraqi military operations. Suleimani’s network includes every senior staffer in Iran’s embassy in Baghdad, beginning with the ambassador, according to Iraqi and U.S. officials.
– Trained and directed Shiite Muslim militias and given them cash and arms, including mortars and rockets fired at the U.S. Embassy and explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, the sophisticated roadside bombs that have caused hundreds of U.S. and Iraqi casualties.
“The United States has struggled, without much success, to cripple Suleimani’s operations in Iraq,” McClatchy notes. “Suleimani’s role in Iraq illustrates how President Bush’s decision to topple Saddam has enabled Shiite, Persian Iran to extend its influence in Iraq.”