From Dr. el-Baradei, because he won't be listened to:
"Soften the Talk on Iran, ElBaradei Urges U.S." by BRIAN KNOWLTON
WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 — Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, urged the Bush administration on Sunday to soften its statements about Iran.
But American lawmakers appearing on Sunday television talk programs were divided on whether efforts to influence Iran had been helped or hindered by the administration’s tough talk.
Dr. ElBaradei said on “Late Edition” on CNN:
“We cannot add fuel to the fire. I would hope we would stop spinning and hyping the Iranian issue.”
Dr. el-Baradei is haunted by Iraq!
He also expressed frustration about the Israeli bombing in September of a building in Syria that analysts say may have contained the beginnings of a North Korean-designed nuclear reactor.
Dr. ElBaradei: “To bomb first and ask questions later, [was decidedly unhelpful]."
Some Republican lawmakers defended Mr. Bush’s approach to Iran.
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said when asked about Bush's “World War III” comment on “Face the Nation” on CBS:
“I think the president is dead right. I think the president is justified in trying to wake up the world, wake up Russia, wake up the European nations. We need to be more aggressive. We don’t need to talk softly, we need to act boldly, because time is not on our side.”
So I assume you will be joining up or sending your children, right, sir?
Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, on the same program:
"[We need] a tighter rope [around Iran. It is crucial not to] just give Iran a propaganda weapon — don’t just give them a can of gasoline to pour onto the fire. That’s what this hot rhetoric does when it’s just constantly repeated about World War III, or ‘We’re going to use a military option. We ought to dial down the rhetoric. [The West should offer "carrots” to Iran and not just “sticks,” much as had been done with North Korea].”
But when the rubber hits the road, AIPAC Carl will line up!
Dr. ElBaradei made a similar point:
“The earlier we follow the North Korea model, the better for everybody.”
Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi and a former majority leader, said on “Late Edition” that he supported the administration’s designation last week of the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guard in Iran as a supporter of terrorism:
"But you do need to be careful about the rhetoric.”
Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, denounced what she called administration officials’ “quite irresponsible” comments on the same program:
“What it does is, it pulls the people of Iran together behind Ahmadinejad.”
Boxer is also another bought off AIPAC whore!
I watched the interviews, and here is what the NYT DIDN'T report:
"BLITZER: Welcome back to "Late Edition." I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. We're continuing our conversation right now with the number two Republican in the U.S. Senate, Trent Lott of Mississippi, and Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California.
You heard Dr. ElBaradei, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, say the Israelis had no business, in his words, taking the law into their own hands and bombing this suspected facility in Syria. You agree with him on that?
BOXER: Let me just say, I have not been briefed on this, so it's really uncomfortable to talk about something I don't know about. But I will cite international law. International law says that every country has the right to defend itself. So I don't know what Israel knew. I really don't so I really can't comment.
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: And the Bush administration, the executive branch, has not briefed you on what happened?
BOXER: No.
BLITZER: Have you asked for a briefing of it?
BOXER: No. I have asked. I'm on the Foreign Relations Committee and I'm hopeful we will have such a briefing.
Where's the STINK from Congress, readers?
BLITZER: Have you been briefed? You're the number two Republican in the Senate.
LOTT: I have not. I haven't asked to be briefed, I presume, and I feel sure the Intelligence Committees have been briefed. I don't know the details but I suspect there was sufficient justification for an action, assuming one was taken in the way it was. But beyond that I couldn't comment because I don't know the details.
BLITZER: But you're willing to give the Israelis the benefit of the doubt that they were justifying in doing what they did?
LOTT: I am. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, yes.
BLITZER: Are you willing to give them the benefit of the doubt?
BOXER: I said every nation has the right to defend itself. I'm assuming that Israel acted within that boundary. "
Boxer looked annoyed, too, when Wolf was asking about this.
Is that what Israel was doing when it attacked the USS Liberty?
Case closed, readers!
How much more PROOF do you need?
And from the editorial page of the war-mongering N.Y. Times:
"Trash Talking World War III"
America’s allies and increasingly the American public are playing a ghoulish guessing game: Will President Bush manage to leave office without starting a war with Iran? Mr. Bush is eagerly feeding those anxieties. This month he raised the threat of “World War III” if Iran even figures out how to make a nuclear weapon.
With a different White House, we might dismiss this as posturing — or bank on sanity to carry the day, or the warnings of exhausted generals or a defense secretary more rational than his predecessor. Not this crowd.
So you gonna stop 'em, or you gonna let them go ahead and ENABLE them this time, Times?
Four years after his pointless invasion of Iraq, President Bush still confuses bullying with grand strategy.
You were all for it at the time, Times! Think he could have done it without you?
He refuses to do the hard work of diplomacy — or even acknowledge the disastrous costs of his actions. The Republican presidential candidates have apparently decided that the real commander in chief test is to see who can out-trash talk the White House on Iran.
The world should not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, but there is no easy fix here, no daring surgical strike. Consider Natanz, the underground site where Iran is defying the Security Council by spinning a few thousand centrifuges to produce nuclear fuel. American bombers could take it out, but what about the even more sophisticated centrifuges the administration accuses Iran of hiding? Beyond the disastrous diplomatic and economic costs, a bombing campaign is unlikely to set back Iran’s efforts for more than a few years.
The neocons pushing an attack on Iran admit that a prolonged bombing campaign would be necessary and would likely only delay Iran’s program. But it is still worth it, they say, and if everybody gets lucky maybe the attacks will unleash that popular uprising against the mullahs they’ve been promising for years.
That is the same kind of rose-petal thinking that was used to sell Americans a fantasy about the invasion of Iraq. Large numbers of Iranians are fed up with their government’s corruption and repression and with being branded a pariah state.
So we will see if the Times is serious about its rhetoric!
Rain down American bombs, however, and the mullahs and Iran’s Holocaust-denying president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are more likely to be turned into national heroes than hung from lampposts.
Not too serious!
And that’s not even calculating the international fury or the additional mayhem Tehran could wreak in Iraq or what would happen to world oil prices.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is the other great hope (after Defense Secretary Robert Gates) for holding off a war.
The War Princess, Ms. Bubblehead, is our GREAT HOPE?
We are fucking DOOMED!!!!!!!
She still wants to give sanctions and diplomacy a chance. But, as with everything else she does, there’s nowhere near enough follow-through. If the stakes are really that high — and they are — then Ms. Rice and her boss must tell Moscow, Beijing and the Europeans that relations will be judged on whether they are willing to place a lot more pressure on Iran.
They also need to offer Iran a credible way back in from the cold — and clear rewards and security guarantees if it is willing to give up its nuclear ambitions. If it’s really that important — and we believe it is — then it’s time to send somebody higher ranking than the American ambassador in Baghdad to deliver the message.
So the Times wants to send an ISRAELI?
And I get kind of angry when I hear the Times' editorial solution, then read their news pages.
Like two different planets!
For this to have any chance, Mr. Bush will have to tone down the rhetoric. Sure, a lot of these countries are letting greed cloud their judgment, when they balk at restricting trade with Iran. But it’s a lot easier to justify when they say they’re not giving the crazy American government an excuse for another war.
Don't hold your breath! And take a look in the mirror, will ya?
Maybe the country will get lucky and Mr. Bush will listen to the exhausted generals. But this isn’t just about surviving the rest of his presidency. Fifteen more months of diplomatic drift will bring Iran 15 months closer to figuring out how to make a nuclear weapon."
As if THAT is what they want to do!
The Zio-prop just ACCEPTED as true now, huh?
And rather than "get lucky," how about calling for the IMPEACHMENT and CONVICTION of the lying, law-breaking, mass-murdering Bush/Cheney regime and PREVENTING the MADNESS?!
Times?
Hullo?
