Friday, April 11, 2008

Here we go again… and again and again and again

During their much heralded and often repetitive appearance on Capitol Hill earlier this week, General David Petraues and Ambassador Ryan Crocker accused Iran of “funding, training, arming and directing” ‘special extremist groups’ in Iraq.

At one time during his appearance on the Hill, Petraeus, responding to a reporters question asking if he believed Iran was supporting Sunni militants inside Iraq or had any evidence establishing such a link, said; “I’m not aware of – it doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened” which he then infused with the implication that some Sunni extremists could have had weapons that were made in Iran…

So let me get this straight… per Petraeus, Iran IS a material influence in Iraq, whilst at the same time is NOT a material influence in Iraq and therefore MAY WELL BE a material influence in Iraq BECAUSE there is no evidence to suggest otherwise…

God, I think my brain just cramped up…

And Petraues wasn’t the only one throwing blame towards Iran, Ambassador Crocker also got into the act when he said; “I think one might look for a reconsideration in Tehran as to just where they want to go in Iraq. […] This would be an excellent time for them to reassess.”

What the HELL does that mean?

Is it an honest attempt to ask them to alter their relationship now despite the fact that there will be a new president to deal with in less than a year?

Or is it a veiled threat that if they don’t mind their P’s and Q’s, the US will use military force?

Before the conservative trolls come out to torch me about making too much out of what he said, it should be noted that quite a few conservatives see the duo’s testimony as cause to reignite talk about striking Iran.

Per ThinkProgress;

On his radio show this morning, Bill Bennett told the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol — who had a personal meeting with President Bush yesterday — that a “conclusion” he drew was that the hearing was “less an argument for getting out of Iraq than going into Iran.” After suggesting that Iran may “have to pay some price at some point on their own soil,” Kristol said that President Bush authorizing an attack of some kind before he leaves office is not “out of the question.”
Uh-oh…

Then we have noted conservative tool and Democratic turncoat Joe Lieberman who, having previously said that the US has to be prepared to take military action against the Iranians, appearing on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show Thursday night said that he hopes the administration tells the Iranians that “unless they stop it, we’re going to take action.”

And then we have this from Bush himself when (supposedly) speaking about Iraq; “The regime in Tehran also has a choice to make: They can live in peace with its neighbor, enjoy strong economic and cultural and religious ties, or it can continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups which are terrorizing the Iraqi people and turning them against Iran. […] If Iran makes the right choice, America will encourage a peaceful relationship between Iran and Iraq. If Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests and our troops and our Iraqi partners.”

Wow, that sounds familiar… I wonder wh— oh yes, the buildup to Iraq...

Here we go again…

No comments: