Here's another oldie but goodie from the same source:
Steve Holland of Reuters asked about Iranian weapons in Iraq. "What makes you so certain that the highest levels of Tehran's government is responsible?"
Bush admitted he doesn't know "whether or not the head leaders of Iran" were involved. "But here's my point: Either they knew or didn't know."
NBC's David Gregory wasn't buying. "Critics say that you are using the same quality of intelligence about Iran that you used to make the case for war in Iraq," he noted.
Bush said he is "confident" Iran's Quds force was involved in sending weapons to Iraq.
But CNN's Ed Henry still didn't share Bush's confidence. "What assurances can you give the American people that the intelligence this time will be accurate?" he asked.
"Ed," Bush vouched, "we know they're there."
Does anyone think he won't blunder into Iran as soon as he can make an excuse? Does it worry anyone even in the slightest? Or are we too fascinated by our poke-balls to even notice?
Then why this intense level of rhetoric? It feels like 2002 all over again.
Perhaps they believe in some kind of reverse "domino theory," that if they neutralise Iran, it will ease the burden in Iraq. I know the original neocon plan was to take out all the recalcitrant states in the middle east, one after the other. Maybe they still believe that's the way to go?
Comments
Here's another oldie but goodie from the same source: Does anyone think he won't blunder into Iran as soon as he can make an excuse? Does it worry anyone even in the slightest? Or are we too fascinated by our poke-balls to even notice?
Perhaps they believe in some kind of reverse "domino theory," that if they neutralise Iran, it will ease the burden in Iraq. I know the original neocon plan was to take out all the recalcitrant states in the middle east, one after the other. Maybe they still believe that's the way to go?