Quote:
|
The logical ones will say they are still planning on making a bomb the desire hasn't gone away and they are waiting for a time politically, say when a republican isn't in office when they can do so without fear of invasion.
|
i'll just post a shorter version of what host posted above:
retreating into categories of intent---relying on speculation as to motive and/or desire--is the weakest possible form of argument, given the evidence presented in the nic report--which i would advise you to read.
all this seems to be about is avoiding dissonance: avoiding a confrontation with the simple fact that the premises for the position you, ustwo, as dutiful repetition machine for the conservative meme-of-the-moment, have been falsified.
while such a move has been from the outset a basic pattern within american populist conservative ideology for a very long time, and seems to me part of such appeal as it has for those who subscribe to it, there really has to come a point where this move simply does not operate any longer. this seems to me to be such a point.
so deal with the situation, ustwo, and stop shucking and jiving.
there has been no nuclear weapons program in iran since 2003.
so the entirety of the bush administration's marketing campaign--stoking the flame of jingoism by providing it with yet another abstract bogeyman that conservatives can be afraid of on the one hand and posture as manly about on the other--has been false.
it is self-evident that iran stands to be the principal beneficiary of american fumbling in iraq. it is self-evident that in geo-political terms, the american right can't but see this as a yet another disaster brought about by the disaster that is iraq. worse than the cholera epidemic that reports over the weekend outlined as a very real possibility in baghdad in the coming months as a function of the collapse of the sewage system and the coming rainy season because it affects conservative credibility--which apparently folk like you imagine that you still have--and not only expendable brown people far away.
if you accept that an iran as beneficiary is not in american interests--thanks in large part to the history of american involvement in iran around the person of that lovely guy the shah, whose policies were responsible for the revolution and so was (along with the americans) responsible for the possibility that the americans now fear---is you accept this premise (which i am not entirely sure about but putting that aside for the moment) NOTHING could be more counter-productive than creating a needless legitimacy problem for the administration itself as a function of choosing expediency over reason, ease over deliberation, in their idiot choices as to how to address this strategic situation.