Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran

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

Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran


· Military solution back in favour as Rice loses out
· President 'not prepared to leave conflict unresolved'

Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Julian Borger
Monday July 16, 2007
The Guardian


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.

more...

they are truly a threat to the American people, our own homegrown terrorists sitting in the WH. Cheney is the first SOB that should go, I wish the Dems and Repigs would stick up for the American people. Or we will be toast.....sigh...

opinion on its side.

In fact world opinion is decidedly opposed to any unnecessary military action by the Bush administration, period. And it is justifiably dismissive that Mr. Bush's last attack was necessary.

There was no rush to join the alliance against Saddam Hussein because most governments knew straight away that this summer would come, with a great deal of Iraq reduced to despair, chaos and smoking rubble.

I don't personally believe there is sustainable support in the military for an assault on Iran. And there definitely isn't anywhere else.

How much more than dropping a bomb or two can they do? Not that I'm in favor of even that, I just don't know that the Bush's have the political capital to do any more than that.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

But . . . as bad as that would be, it would still seem to be a lot less bad, for both us and the Iranian people, than say invading and occupying Iran.

Bryant

November of 2004.

Wow have things turned around in that market ever since.

Politically, he has a few nickels in his pockets and is trying to buy a mansion. Cheney is more unpopular than Bush. I'm not seeing a flood of Republicans lining up to bomb the piss out of Iran either.

any eastern block country, they would have been long gone. They won't stop until we make them stop, violently or peacefully.

They are trying to blame the Iraq war on Iran but most of the foriegn fighters and suicide bombers are Saudis, Bushes pals...

yea, Saudis are our friends all right. :sarcasm:

Our military is stretched to the breaking point in Iraq. One bombing raid against Iran would probably bring the Iranian army rushing across the Iraq border. The soldiers in Iraq would pay one hell of a heavy price for that little bit of idiocy.

how great they are at 'supporting the troops'...

we got to stop them.