Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran

Posted by Kendall Harmon

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."

Read it all.

Filed under: * Economics, PoliticsDefense, National Security, Military

Posted July 16, 2007 at 7:33 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]

1. Brian from T19 wrote:

“Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo.”

Creates more for the next President to clean up.

July 16, 8:13 am | [comment link]
2. Alli B wrote:

Good thing Clinton didn’t leave any us security problems, huh!

July 16, 11:09 am | [comment link]
3. Jeff Thimsen wrote:

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try, again.

July 16, 12:41 pm | [comment link]
4. chips wrote:

The only alternative to a military response soon appears to be a nuclear armed Iran in a few years. Had Britain gone to war over Czecheslovakia in 1938 instead of Poland in 1939 - the world would have a lot more people in it.

July 16, 1:38 pm | [comment link]
5. Reactionary wrote:

The nuclear club is going to grow as a rational response to the historical observation that the US is unwilling to invade countries armed with them.

July 16, 1:51 pm | [comment link]
6. Fred wrote:

Haven’t we learned our lesson by listening to Cheney’s lies about Iraq? How can anyone possibly listen to him now about Iran?? Bring on the impeachment hearings! Th sooner the better!!!!!

July 16, 3:26 pm | [comment link]
7. libraryjim wrote:

your bias is showing.  In case you haven’t heard, Clinton (both Bill and Hillary) and Algore had repeatedly stated the same things about Iraq that Bush/Cheney asserted before going to war. So, either EVERYONE was lying, or they all acted the best they could based on the intel at the time. But you can’t say that one made statements in good faith where the other side lied.

July 16, 3:54 pm | [comment link]
8. chips wrote:

I wonder if Fred believes that the Iranian President is lying about his nuclear ambitions.  The problem Sadam ran into is that he wanted the world to think that he had WMD in order to improve his stature and he believed we wouldnt invade if we though that he had them.  Sadam miscalculated.

July 16, 6:25 pm | [comment link]
9. Katherine wrote:

I’m not sure I want to believe the Guardian about the inside deliberations at the White House.

July 16, 6:55 pm | [comment link]
10. libraryjim wrote:

Judging from the rhetoric coming from Iran about how the U.S. is the great Satan, and that the U.S. is their enemy, how much room does that leave for negotiations?

July 17, 1:33 pm | [comment link]
11. Ross wrote:

Aside from the question of how much of a threat Iran is now, or will be in the future, I have to wonder—given that our military is being stretched to the ragged edge of exhaustion trying to keep on top of our committments in Iraq and Afghanistan, who exactly are we supposed to send into Iran?

July 17, 2:10 pm | [comment link]
12. libraryjim wrote:

Why send anyone? Cruise missles will do the job nicely.  Then we can just take on the Iranians when the continue to cross the border into Iraq.

July 17, 3:29 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.

Next entry (above): In Europe God is (Not) Dead

Previous entry (below): Ezra Klein: Land of the overworked and tired

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)