[T]he Bush administration may not have to worry about the opposition for round two. While Hersh surmises that Bush’s Iran invasion could be carried out with Israeli special operatives, political opposition may never reach the doorsteps of Congress. After all, the Democrats have long agreed that Iran must be dealt with militarily.
Recently, the Democratic Party’s rising “progressive” star Barack Obama said he would favor “surgical” missile strikes against Iran.
As Obama told the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004, “[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point … if any, are we going to take military action?”
He added, “[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in” given the ongoing war in Iraq. “On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.” Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if “violent Islamic extremists” were to “take over.”
Senator John Kerry echoed this sentiment on May 29, 2004, when he told the Washington Post that the Bush Administration has not “been tough on the [Iran] issue … which is the issue of nuclear weaponry, and again just like I said with North Korea, you have to keep your eye on the target.”
Even DNC chair hopeful Howard Dean, allegedly the liberal arm of the Democratic Party, concurs Bush has not been tough enough on Iran. The Forward quotes Dean as saying, “The United States has to … take a much harder line on Iran and Saudi Arabia because they’re funding terrorism.”
In fact, while campaigning for president, Dean contended that President Bush had been far too soft on Iran. In a March appearance on CBS’ Face The Nation, Dean even went so far as to say that “[President Bush] is beholden to the Saudis and the Iranians.”
As the commentor says, the Democratic Party leadership did this with Iraq as well and managed to easily discard their previous positions when that became convenient.
Based upon an investigation by Move America Forward, it appears President Carter and his associates are among the former officials with whom [Samir] Vincent collaborated.
“One of two things happened,” suggests [Melanie] Morgan. “Either President Carter was totally duped, and allowed himself to be conned into working as an indirect agent of Saddam Hussein, or President Carter knowingly associated himself with a foreign agent who was seeking to undermine American foreign policy.”
Who is Samir Vincent?
Samir Vincent admitted on Tuesday to receiving allocations for more than 9 million barrels of oil between 1996 and 2003 in return for serving as an agent of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Vincent worked at Hussein’s direction, lobbying U.S. and U.N. officials to end sanctions and to instead implement the oil-for-food scam.
Ah, everything’s clear now. Vincent was a friend of a brutal dictator, and therefore would be highly esteemed by Carter.
[source]
What was perhaps most infuriating about [Senator Barabra] Boxer’s pissy little tirade was that she cited a movie by a hate America lefty called Fog of War as if it were gospel, and had the unmitigated gall to basically call Condi a liar on Iraq. This from a woman who defended Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky matter. True to here nature as nobody’s fool, Condi shot back with a wonderful defense of the Iraq war that Boxer, one of the Senate’s dimmest bulbs (and that’s saying something), probably didn’t understand because Condi used words over 2 syllables.
However, in her harangue against everything about President Bush and Iraq, Boxer made a statement that was patently false. Even worse, it’s easy to prove as such.
[…]
After Condi had so brilliantly and passionately defended the Iraq war, and the reasoning for it that included cites to reasons other than WMD’s, half-wit Boxer smugly made this astounding statement:
BOXER: Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote.
The only problem for Boxer is that the internet exists, and we can go back and read, and link to, the actual text of the resolution.
Needless to say, the record doesn’t support Boxer. Any doubters are strongly recommended to read the text themselves.