Bring It On!

Is Bush Taking on Iran Too?

June 12th, 2007 | by Matthew OKeefe |

In my own mind I can picture the President setting up his game board of the Middle East with his tin soldiers with the full intent of stamping the entire region as “Property of BIG U.S. OIL”. You can literally see the President staging the props for his next conquest and that target is Iran. Piece by piece he is building the set. Iran is building “Nuc’lar” weapons, Iran is funding the terrorists, Iran is going to wipe Israel off the map and as the President builds the set and arranges the lighting the stage and reasoning for his last “Preemptive War” is set.

It should be interesting to see him try and pull this one off now that the entire press of the United States and the world knows that his sources for information are not credible or reliable. His own personal reputation and his word is no longer acceptable as “Good enough for me too” amongst even our staunchest allies anymore.

Over at the Washington Post they have just a sound bite on yet another part to the Bush reasoning to attack Iran. I found it interesting that this information was released in Paris of all places…

U.S. Envoy Says Iran Is Arming Taliban
The Associated Press
Tuesday, June 12, 2007; 1:10 PM

PARIS — A senior U.S. diplomat accused Iran on Tuesday of transferring weapons to Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, where NATO forces are deployed to bring stability to the country.

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, speaking to reporters in Paris, said Iran was funding insurrections across the Middle East and “Iran is now even transferring arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan.” - Washington Post

All of this preparation for the President to pull the trigger on Iran will give him the reasons he needs to tell the people why our sons and daughters will be fighting and loosing their lives on yet another front. I’m beginning to think this President hates all nations that start with a vowel!

Tell me that I am wrong but wasn’t this the same information we started to hear about Iraq before he gave the go ahead to invade. Was Iraq not lead by a leader that despised the United States so much that supposedly he too was building weapons of mass destruction. The list of accusations went on and on and most of them turned out to be false. Other than Saddam Hussein being a bastard to his own people there was no reason for our troops to invade Iraq.

With all of the suggested possibilities for reasons to attack any sovereign nation given by the Bush administration, I’m keeping a real close eye on them Canadians. They have to be plotting against us during them long cold winters. They might not have yellow cake but I’m pretty sure there just might be some biscuits hidden in a bread drawer somewhere up there.

Mexico is okay because nobody really lives there anymore but that is another discussion for another day.

Cross Posted at Papamoka Straight Talk

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 8 Responses to “Is Bush Taking on Iran Too?”

  2. By Paul Watson on Jun 13, 2007 | Reply

    I’m beginning to think this President hates all nations that start with a vowel!

    As a citizen of the United Kingdom, specifically the English part, I’m rather hoping you’re wrong on this.

  3. By Matthew O'Keefe on Jun 13, 2007 | Reply

    That would also be Great Britain and they are okay. Those pesky Irish though best be on the lookout though…lol!

  4. By SteveIL on Jun 13, 2007 | Reply

    Tell me that I am wrong…

    It’s just amazing how “liberals” conveeeeniently forget history. And I’m telling you, you’re wrong.

    After Saddam threw out the weapons inspectors in 1998, President Clinton and elected officials on all sides made pronouncement after pronouncement warning about Saddam’s WMDs, for four years before President Bush began the lead up to going into Iraq.

    Would you revisionist idiots get it right? Clinton was too much of a pussy to take out Saddam (or anybody else, except for Milosevic, and probably because the EU procured some women for Clinton to induce that). And most of those accusations against Saddam were proven true, it’s just that “liberals” conveeeeniently forget that as well. And are trying to revise the history of Saddam Hussein. Hell, I’m sure you’ll start painting Ayatollah Khomenei, Ayatollah Khamenei, and Ahmadinejad as promoters of worldwide brotherhood. Leftists have been making that case for Yasser Arafat.

  5. By Tom Harper on Jun 13, 2007 | Reply

    I don’t care if Canada starts with a consonant; they’re on our shit list. Liberal drug laws, gay marriage (in some provinces), socialized medicine — them comminists are a threat to everything our great nation stands for. Attack!

  6. By BYSHOP on Jun 13, 2007 | Reply

    “Clinton was too much of a pussy to take out Saddam”

    or maybe he paid attention to Bush Sr. and his highly accurate assesment of what would happen if Saddam were deposed.

    I guess I would have a hard time concentrating too if my coors light was warm and I had a tooter lodged in my sinus.

    “After Saddam threw out the weapons inspectors in 1998″

    Talk about revisionist. Saddam stopped co-operating, the UN team left so they would not be in the line of fire. Saddam bluffed and payed for it. If you are going to claim revisionism you had better have emprical proof, but that might not be “conveeeenient”

    Here’s more straight from the horse’s mouth:

  7. By christopher Radulich on Jun 13, 2007 | Reply

    And most of those accusations against Saddam were proven true, it’s just that “liberals” conveeeeniently forget that as well.

    WMD’s - not true
    Al quida connections - not true
    yellow cake - not true
    war would be over in 6 weeks - not true
    iraq would pay for it’s reconstruction - not true

  8. By 1984 on Jun 13, 2007 | Reply

    “Saddam stopped co-operating”

    According to Scott Ritter not true:

    There’s no way in hell Clinton could’ve dealt with Iraq without a massive and event such as this new Pearl Harbor.

    Even Blair admitted so much that the Afghanistan operation would have been impossible without 9/11.

    1999 war games foresaw problems in Iraq

    Before War, CIA Warned of Negative Outcomes
    Analysts in 2002 Described Worst-Case Scenarios, Including Anarchy in Iraq, Global Antipathy to U.S.

    “Now, you can say, well, you should have gone to Baghdad and gotten Saddam, [but] I don’t think so. I think if we had done that, we would have been bogged down there for a very long period of time with the real possibility we might not have succeeded.”
    - Dick Cheney, 1996

    “Now, back in 1991, I was one of a handful of Democrats in the United States Senate to vote in favor of the resolution endorsing the Persian Gulf War, and I felt betrayed by the first Bush administration’s hasty departure from the battlefield even as Saddam began to renew his persecution of the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south, groups that we had, after all, encouraged to rise up against Saddam.”
    Al Gore, 2002

    As for Iran. Been a target for quite some time, and has little to nothing to with nukes or terrorism.

  9. By BYSHOP on Jun 14, 2007 | Reply

    “Saddam stopped co-operating”

    “According to Scott Ritter not true”

    I was trying to keep it simple for those who prefer to see in absolutes. The Un cited 5 cases out of 300 that led being called uncooperative. That’s 1.6% so according to Cheney we shoulda nuked em.

Post a Comment