How I Lost 12.5 Pounds & Regained My Soul

Naked, as in truth, and uncensored, I share my daily quest to survive as a woman and artist, while dealing with the complications of a full life, meddling in politics, loving my children to excess, totally permanently married and on a never-ending diet. While my soul is in constant need of repair and redemption, I struggle to do the right thing. In the meantime, let's all double the love. (Love, not sex, you fool). All posts are copyrighted material.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

When I woke up this morning, Iran was on my mind...


Good morning, my little red peppers~

Good lord, sometimes I cannot believe what I read, and this morning was one of them:

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."

The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.

Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.

Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.

"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.

"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," Mr Cronin said. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."

Almost half of the US's 277 warships are stationed close to Iran, including two aircraft carrier groups. The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise left Virginia last week for the Gulf. A Pentagon spokesman said it was to replace the USS Nimitz and there would be no overlap that would mean three carriers in Gulf at the same time.

No decision on military action is expected until next year. In the meantime, the state department will continue to pursue the diplomatic route.

Source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2127115,00.html


Of course I heard the saber rattling this past year by Bush, and who could miss all those warships and military personnel in the Gulf? But with the gigantic mess we have going in Iraq and Afghanistan and Al Qaeda romping around re-grouping?

When did we become the world police? Okay, okay, so we have been, but I guess the better question is why is the United States responsible for these things? One need only look at the horrible job we have done to recognize that a diplomatic solution coupled with economic incentives would have been a much better approach for any civilized people.

Our people don't want anything to do with this and without having been manipulated, none of our Congress would have agreed to go to war. Actually, fools that we all were? Everybody sort of thought that if Bush was given the power to go to war, all he would have to do would be threaten. I truly believe the majority of the Congress and the Senate in their heart of hearts thought Bush would use it like Roosevelt's 'big stick'. You know, "Speak softly but carry a big stick".

Well, fellow Americans, and you fifty-four million who voted for Bush the last time? Here's another Teddy Roosevelt quote:

If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn't sit for a month.


Clark County Diva

Labels:

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

 
SynBlog.com - Blog Directory SynBlog.com - Blog Directory
Google