PressCoverage

Does Cheney know bombing Iran will backfire? Bush doesn’t say:

At a farewell reception at Blair House for the retiring chief of protocol, Don Ensenat, who was President Bush’s Yale roommate, the president shook hands with Washington Life Magazine’s Soroush Shehabi. A grandson of one of the late Shah’s ministers, Soroush said, “Mr. President, I simply want to say one U.S. bomb on Iran and the regime will remain in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians will become radicalized.”

“I know,” President Bush answered.

“But does Vice President Cheney know?” asked Soroush.

The president chuckled and walked away.

scarier: does Bush even care?

Harry Boy

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

mr3putt

You seem surprised by this.....why?

The Gr8est

I don't know how we could support a military effort in Iran even if we wanted to, we are spread too thin right now.

Ahmadinejad doesn't have a lot of popular support in Iran, Iran has one of the youngest overall populations, and there is a decided pro-Western attitude among the younger generation.

There has to be a better way to deal with Iran than bombing them. Supporting the Iranian opposition groups would be a much better method.

patsfan13

Bingo! the situation is Iran is fundamentally different (sorry for the pun) As you point out the population is very young demographically and doesn't like the mullahs who control the country. Supporting internal opposition groups there is the way to go. Which is what is likely happening.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

Fogbuster

The U.S. must NOT use any force against the state of Iran. None. It would be a total disaster, a victory only for the forces that love violence.

And we need to begin or seriously ramp up collaborations with other nations, through the U.N. or some other international forum, to find a way to end the violence in Iraq (and Israel/Palestine, and Afghanistan). Enough of the "fortress America" mentality.

War is NOT the answer to the differences between peoples. Not anymore. Certainly not today.

SoonerPatriot

If something happens with Iran, we won't be involved, at least not directly. We'll let Israel do our dirty work for us IMO.

__________________
Celebrating the wonders of the ignore list.

Fogbuster

No consolation. Much of the world is already negative toward Israel, more sympathetic toward the Palestinian cause. To allow Israel to attack would be just as bad, and would bring even more hostility toward both Israel and the U.S.

No, we need to find another way. We need to get European and other nations involved in this. The only way to get the violence to end is to dry up its energy source, and right now that energy is being fed from many directions. Need to nullify that negative energy and turn it into positive.

..

DarrylS

Jack Bauer would make the difference, on a serious note I agree.. to attack Iran will only polarize us further from the rest of the world and bankrupt this nation

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

PressCoverage

it's interesting to see some of the staunchest Iraq excuse makers here capitulate that Iran would be formiddable... unfortunately, their heroes do seem to be making curious maneuvers in the Gulf region that do not indicate exhausting all diplomatic avenues...

two aircraft carrier groups in the area is ominous enough; perhaps Cheney is hoping for an "accident" to happen....