Cheney Must Be Very Angry

If, as I do, you believe that the writings of the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes reflect the views of Dick Cheney, particularly on matters having to do with the “Axis of Evil,” then you would have to conclude from the lead editorial in this week’s edition that the vice president is really, truly angry about the drift of U.S. policy toward the Axis’ two surviving charter members, especially Iran. “Stunningly Shameful” is the name of the piece written by Hayes on behalf of the editors, which also, of course, includes Bill Kristol.

The title is taken from a quote attributed to “former adviser to Condoleezza Rice,” the principal villain of the piece about whom, you’ll remember, Hayes did a real hatchet job in a lengthy feature article in the magazine’s June 2 edition. One can speculate who that “former adviser” is — it could be someone from her National Security Council days like Elliott Abrams or J.D. Crouch or from the State Department, such as Robert Joseph or, of course, John Bolton whose complaints about the ”intellectual collapse” of the administration, if not Bush himself, has become a staple of New York Times coverage since Rice sent William Burns to the Geneva talks last weekend. In any event, I can’t imagine Hayes writing about anything of special interest to the subject of his fawning biography without the latter’s presumed or even actual approval. (The 2007 book, Cheney: The Untold Story of America’s Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President, is available used and new for as little as $2.79 on

“It has been a dispiriting few weeks,” Hayes sighs. “Several conservative political appointees have said that they are embarrassed to be working the Bush administration.” Would that include the vice president?

Author: Jim Lobe

Visit for the latest news analysis and commentary from Inter Press News Service's Washington bureau chief Jim Lobe.

87 thoughts on “Cheney Must Be Very Angry”

    1. Maybe Bush realizes what a disaster a war with Iran would be. The State Department, the CIA, and the military are all arguing against war with Iran. Only Cheney, the neocons, and Israel favor it.

      1. Maybe Bush realizes what a disaster a war with Iran would be.

        I wonder what suddenly prompted the (four-watt) mental light bulb to illuminate? Given the transparent obtuseness of this cerebral pigmy, it must have involved bright-colored crayons, firecrackers, and plastic action figures.

      2. You forgot the Armeggedonites! There is a great excitement in fundy preachers on the radio, that this might be it! Only a 3 more years, and Jesus will return, you and I will burn in Hell, while they rule with rod of iron!

        Lester Ness

  1. perhaps bush is no longer taking orders from cheney, instead the chinese and saudis and everyone else we owe money too.

    1. With the banking, automobile and housing industries in shambles, the U.S. economy is tottering at the abyss. The only way to finance yet another disastrous war is to borrow even more money from China and Saudi Arabia, the two nations who will suffer lots of economic hurt from a U.S./Israeli attack on Iran especially if it morphs into a regional conflagration cutting off the flow of oil from the Gulf. Why should they finance their economic ruin?

      The U.S. is like a financially irresponsible, drunken thug who borrows money from his neighbors in order to buy guns to shoot up their houses. How much longer will the neighbors allow this to continue?

  2. Bush appears to have decided to choose peace over war very very late in the day. it’s a welcome change all the same

    1. Has the Chickenhawk-in-Chief decided to choose peace over war? Don’t bet the rent money on that.

      The Chickenhawk-in-Chief is an intellectual and moral cipher. If this neocon-controlled dunce wanted peace, he’d get the hell out of Iraq. He’d also tell the boys in Tel Aviv not to attack Iran.

      Let’s hope that sanity prevails in the usually insane world of the Chickenhawk-in-Chief.

      1. He’s still hoping to provoke the Rapture, the Second Coming.

        Lester Ness

    1. There’s hope – he has a long history of heart problems. Let’s pray for sooner rather than later!

    2. I can’t help but think each time I see his picture or hear him speak that mr. Cheney has suffered some kind of stroke that has caused severe damage in his pre-frontal lobes and might have affected other area’s aswell, locally effecting weird muscle tones for example.

      It can’t be normal.

      1. But maybe that is why McCain has kept quiet about his choice of VEEP: he will choose adorable Mr. Cheney!!

      2. Not impossible; but why do so many want to listen to him and obey? Even those opposed are very passive.

        Lester Ness

  3. I suggest that all of this is nothing more than a smokescreen or pretense…

    Something like a “dead cat bounce” in a bear market.

    The neo-cons have to go through a certain amount of “hand wringing”, just for the purpose of making the charade more ‘realistic’. (And how does “Bonkers” Bolton manage to get his witless comments into the media at all? He no longer has any official position within the Bush administration. Why does the media pay any *attention* to him?)

    Deep inside they know that all of this hand-wringing is merely for the cameras…

    Just so they will be able to say, after the war starts, “Oh how we *tried* to resolve this issue through ‘diplomacy’.”

    Fundamentally, it is the *theology* which is driving this insanity.

    And that is something that the media has *NO* interest in.

    Which is why there will be a war.

    Michael Cecil

    1. This I agree with. They were doing this “diplomacy” nonsense in early 2003 also, this while all the Troops and Warships were heading into position.

  4. To hell with Cheney. Except that when he gets out of the underground elevator there, the door will be locked because Satan is afraid of a takeover.

    1. ha ha! That is quite funny. But weirdly enough, that has been my sentiment about the VEEP for many years. It’s weird because I do not care about politics, but something about this particular VEEP gave me bad feelings already a long time ago. Perhaps I have just forgotten what the real reason was.

  5. Maybe Bush has just awakened to the terrible loss of lives for which he is responsible. His conscience must have kicked in, albeit much too late.

    1. I don’t think so. Whatever the reason may be (and I still think there is a chance Iran will be attacked) I don’t believe it has anything to do with morals, ethics or his conscience. With his mental makeup and his peculiar religous beliefs Bush is disengaged from the human costs of his actions. With his pipeline to god he is above it all.

      1. Bush is desperate to achieve some kind of legacy — hence the movement on North Korea, the Palestinian question, Iran, etc. Pragmatists like Rice are in the ascendancy, while Cheney, Bolton and the rest of the neo-cons look for some incident, real or created, to force Bush to pull the trigger on Iran.

        Bush is an empty suit, and the most venal President since Grant.

  6. I never could understand why Bush picked Cheney. With a different vice-president Bush’s presidency and eventual legacy might have been very different. By the way, is it just me or does Cheney just look like a mean S.O.B.? He reminds me of the stereotypical mean high-school vice-principal who just loves to expel students.

    1. I would imagine that it was less an issue of Bush picking Cheney than Cheney (and whoever else makes up that cabal) of choosing Bush. There has never been any question of who is really in charge, and if ever an figurehead offering plausible deniability could be found, Shrubtard is it.

    2. Bush didn’t pick Cheney. Daddy Bush’s crew gave Cheney the job of finding a suitable candidate for the VP slot. Cheney chose himself. Nice work if you can get it, eh?

  7. Deeerrr…Bush wants peese….deerr…Duhh Peese is goud!

    Who let these sheeple in here! XD

    1. I’m sure that must bring great comfort to all the people who’ve suffered because of this needless war.

  8. In the lengthier of those two Steven Hayes articles (“In the driver’s seat”), it says this:

    In April 2007, the director of national intelligence called the ranking members of congressional intelligence and foreign affairs committees in for a meeting. They were not told what was on the agenda–a fact that suggested it was serious. It was.

    Despite strong warnings from the United States in the past, the North Koreans had provided assistance to Syria in its efforts to build a nuclear reactor. Information was sketchy, but the facility looked to be modeled after the North Korean reactor at Yongbyon and construction appeared to be in advanced stages. There was no question that the North Koreans were at least sharing nuclear technology with the Syrians. The congressional leaders were told to keep the information “close hold” and forbidden from sharing it with their colleagues on the intelligence and foreign affairs committees. They agreed, and over the course of the summer attended additional briefings.

    Bush administration officials were divided about what, if anything, to do in response. The Israelis communicated a strong inclination to take out the Syrian facility that heightened the disagreements on Bush’s national security team. Rice was concerned about the diplomatic consequences of approving a preemptive strike. Cheney, who once signed a photograph to Israeli general David Ivri thanking him for taking out Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, favored it.

    On September 6, 2007, Israeli jets bombed the Syrian facility…

    — I think this is all fiction ; I remember that the entire claim that Israel had notified US of the upcoming raid didn’t appear anywhere until quite a late stage in the cover-up process.

  9. You dont know why the neo-cons and darth cheney picked lil bush for prez ?? because he is their zoolander incompetent not very brite and willing to go along with every evil little scheme to be one of the boys to be the so called decider then take all the heat for the evil little schemes and he doesnt even know it yet

  10. For a guy who’s never spent a day, an hour, even a minute, no wait even a second of his life in combat, Cheney sure is a vicious, bloodthirsty fireball. Of course he isn’t going to be doing ANY of the actual fighting. He is the SUPREME chickenhawk.

  11. “Intellectual collapse” of the Bush administration? Isn’t that like the “democratic collapse” in Zimbabwe?

  12. Jim Lobe needs to get a grip.

    Dick Cheney is not angry – characters like him don’t get angry, they get even.

    Right now he’s still trying to start a war with Iran – and he’ll be trying even when he leaves office if he can see any way.

    And assuming Bush has opted for “peace” is clearly premature. The current “negotiations” with Iran are nothing different from past negotiations except for the presence of a senior State Department individual. And as the article in today’s page from Flynt Leverett shows, even that’s not a first. And the negotiations aren’t either. The bottom line for the US remains that the Iranians must suspend enrichment.

    And Iran is NOT going to do that.

    Which means either Bush has to blink and give up and accept the Iranian nuclear energy program after spending the last five years complaining about it, or he has to start a war (or leave it to McCain or Obama or Israel to start it.) Since there is no downside FOR BUSH (and even less so for Cheney) to starting a war, I fail to see how anybody can conclude that he isn’t going to do it based on pointless “diplomacy” that continues to misrepresent the real issues.

    I don’t know why Jim Lobe insists on bringing up every single alleged piece of “good news” about the upcoming Iran war, but he needs to start being considerably more skeptical than he appears to be.

    1. He doesn’t get mad, he gets even,,,

      Get even for what? What did Iraqis ever do to Cheney? To his family? What did Iran ever do to him?

  13. How, exactly, would we expect the Weekly Standard to react otherwise? Yes, they pile on the boilerplate outrage at the Geneva talks. Then Rice turns around and call the Iranians insincere and recalcitrant. All these “talks” will do is allow the Administration to claim they’d “tried everything – even diplomacy” as the bombs start falling on Tehran. It’s the Administration that’s insincere and recalcitrant. All these feints at rapproachment with the Iranians amount to a smokescreen, an engineered calm before yet another dumb storm.

  14. Cheney’s plan B takes effect next year: 1) Let Obama get drunk on power. 2) Call on a few Navy loyalists to stage a false flag attack in the Gulf.

  15. Speaking of disappearing this administration, tis great to listen to the committee hearing witnesses on whether to initiate impeachment hearings, covered by C-Span, which should be on all the major networks, LIVE. Upon Dennis Kucinich entrance in the room, there was much, much enthusiastic applause. IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY. Shame on Pelosi’s incompetence, or worse.

  16. One thing you can’t say about the Iranians is that they have been unclear. They have been VERY CLEAR: They will not, under any circumstances, stop enriching uranium and they will not accept the will of the international community. The United Nations has passed not one but several rounds of sanctions against Iran and still Iran thumbs their nose at the world. England, France, Germany and other countries have continually tried to have diplomatic talks and have put pressure on Iran and still they refuse to budge. The bottom line here is very simple. Even Obama has said so. Iran cannot be allowed to obtain nuclear material and they must be stopped.

    1. How come its okay for the United States to have nuclear weapons but not Iran? How come its okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons but not Iran? What makes Americans morally superior to Iranians? Didn’t the USA open Pandora’s box by inventing WMD? And isn’t the U.S. the only country in the world to have actually USED them? Not once, but twice? Iran has invaded no country in its modern, almost 300 year history as a country. The USA has invaded more countries and fought more wars of agression then I can easily count. Except for Israel (which doesn’t want to lose its nuclear monopoly supremacy) and America (thanks to the power of the Jewish lobby), the rest of the world seems quite at ease with Iran and its ALLEGED nuclear weapons program. The time when the USA can dictate terms to the world is rapidly coming to an end. America’s TRUE national interests are not at all synonomous with Israel’s.

      1. Andy asks the following question:

        “What makes Americans morally superior to Iranians?”

        6 words: The Constitution and Bill of Rights

      2. Andy,

        Another thing, you say Iran has not invaded anyone in 300 years. That is all well and good. But by the way, who attacked our Embassy in 1979? Who took 51 Americans hostage? Also, in 1983 who bombed the Marine Barracks? Hizzbolah with the backing of Iran that’s who! And more recently who kidnapped British sailors in international waters and held them hostage? Which country has a President that denies the Holocaust and calls for a fellow United Nations member country to be destroyed?

        Iran is without a doubt a backward nation that is belligerent and hostile. Nuclear weapons in the hands of such a nation would be a disaster.

        1. Timmy

          I think it is settled. Tomorrow I am going to settle in your house and start barking orders at you and making demands, and if you disagree then I will simply have to attach some wires to your body and run some high voltage current through it until you understand that I am the one in control here.

          Then you will know how the Iranians felt in 1979.(Think SAVAK, the Shah, and the CIA, and remind me, where was the Embassy located?)

          Who bombed the Marine Barracks? Perhaps the family members of those Lebanese killed by US shelling and bombs before the Marines landed? You ever considered that? Ever heard of a vendetta/blood feud? They are very popular in the Eastern Mediterranean. Hezbollah did not exist yet in 1983.

          And that “United Nations member country” threatens to bomb Iran with Nuclear weapons.

          “Iran is without a doubt a backward nation that is belligerent and hostile. Nuclear weapons in the hands of such a nation would be a disaster.”

          That is the kind of language Hitler used to describe his enemies. Timmy, what is “backward” about Iran here?

          They say Paris is the “city of light” Tehran is not far behind as it is probably the largest Urban area in the Middle East. Its construction projects will soon match if not surpass Dubai.

          Belligerent and hostile? Can you actually say that with a straight face? When was the last time the Iranian Navy was spotted off the coast of Long Island?

          Pakistan, a far more underdeveloped country than Iran has Nuclear Weapons, and has a full scale civil war, nuclear weapons there are a far greater risk than in Iran. And Pakistan actually has them.

    2. Tim R,
      Iran has every right in the world to enrich uranium under the international agreements (NPT) that they signed. And unlike our friends, the Israelis, Iran has agreed to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. What you are asking for is that Iran be treated as if it has no sovereignty and less rights than other countries. This “will of the international community” exists solely in the mind of Bushs and the Zionist agitators. True, the UN has passed sanctions against Iran but you know, some sanctions are sanctions and some are chopped liver – like the sanctions against Israel building more settlements on Palestinian land. I would bet that a tailor moving to Israel has to learn to leave a much larger amount of space in the crotch of trousers than is customary.

      1. “I’m asking that Iran be treated as if it has no sovereignity”,,,

        Wow, did you ever misinterpret my post.

      2. Richard Vajs,

        Why do you seem to see everything through the prism of your animus for Israel and Zionism? If Israel did not exist would that make nuclear proliferation any less dangerous? Would it make the Iranians and less fanatic in their religious beliefs?

        1. Tim R,
          Yes, I have animus for Israel and Zionism. Why? Well first off, I resent AIPAC bribing, threatening and corrupting our Congress into waging unwarranted war upon Iraq (makes the U S look like Nazi Germany). I find it morally distasteful to watch a nation dedicated to racism and land-stealing called “a democracy”. I find it unneccessary for Westernized Jews (who encounter no discrimination in America and Western Europe) to maintain their western citizenship and yet at the same time travel to the heart of Islam looking for some free land to rip off causing a world wide conflagration. I find it annoying to know that wealthy Jews have schemed to get American taxpayers to fund this whole racist rip-off. I resent the advantage taken of low IQ “Christian Zionists” who are led to believe somehow this bs will lead to the “return of Jesus”. And mostly, I resent that there seems to be no end to this crap (first Iraq, then Iran, Lebanon, Syria, etc., etc.). America’s association with Zionism seems to me to be like that of a cow that will be milked to death.
          Tim R, I would really like to hear you address the above points, instead of just moaning about “how unfair people like me are to Israel”.

        2. Well, Richard Vajs, I have in the past tried to address some of the issues you bring up. First of all, I don’t think that AIPAC has the kind of omnipotent power that you suggest it has. Does it have substantial influence in Washington DC? Sure it does but then again so does General Moters, the pharmaceutical companies, the Saudi Arabians, CAIR, the United Federation of Teachers, and dozens of other special interest organizations.

          There are what about five million Jews in this whole country of over 300 million, so thats about what? Less than 2% of the population. And of that percentage and even smaller percentage are Zionistic. But yet you believe they have this sort of omnipotent power to control our government and only use it to support Israel? I just don’t agree with you on that. ( and by the way, I greatly resent those Zionistic Jews who put Israel first. we are in agreement on that. if they put Israel first they should just move there already. But Most Jews are loyal and patriotic Americans.the only flag you will seeing fluttering in front of my house is Old Glory, the Red White and Blue)

          As to Israel being racist. Well, I suppose in a way it is. It was always meant to be a Jewish State and if that is your definition of racism then I suppose it is.

          As for stealing the land: First off, certainly not all, but quite a bit of it was purchased by wealthy Jews such as Sir Moses Maimonodes back in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. They had the money and the arabs sold it. How is that stealing?

          Furthermore, I again take you back to November of 1947 when the general Assembly of the United Nations voted to create two states, (the “two state solution”) Ben Gurion and the Jews readily accepted the offer. The Arabs rejected it flat out and decided that they would try to destroy all the Jews and rid the land of all Jews. On the afternoon of Friday, May 14 1948, the modern State of Israel came into being. President Harry Truman recognized it within minutes as a legitimate government. The very next day the Arabs attacked. And the rest is history. They lost the war. In June of 67 Hussein of Jordan, at Nasser’s request, also attacked Israel and Israel captured the west bank in the course of DEFENDING HERSELF. These are historical facts.

          Now, is Israel without fault? Are they blameless? Have they always treated the Palestinians fairly and justly? Certainly not. Israel has at times treated the Palestinians in ways that are morally reprehensible and inexcusable. But that does not take away from the fact taht Israel is, indeed, a democracy and one of only countries in the region that respects freedom of speech, thought, religion, etc.

          So there is my response to your points. I look forward to your reply.

        3. Tim R,
          You deny that AIPAC has power over our Congress and our President? Oh, please!
          At the AIPAC convention in June of this year, over 60% of our Congress made an appearance. All three of the two major party candidates showed up and tried their damnest to “out-Zionize” each other. If you claim that CAIR, etc. have that kind of power, you are either very naive or you don’t mind lying.
          I am glad that we agree that Israel is officially racist, because it is.
          As to land theft, Israel controls the West Bank, not one square inch of which was bought. What can you make of the “settler” movement other than it is bald-faced theft of Palestinian land. The “settlers” squat down in some Palestinian’s field, kill the livestock, attack the rightful owners and the IDF backs up the “settlers”. This has been documented many times by groups like the CPT (Christian Peacekeepers Team). Wednesday night, NBC News showed these kinds of incidents.
          I disagree with your history. In general, the Jews, who were more or less guests in the land, organized pre-meditated raiding parties to drive out the Arabs. Much of the land in Israel proper still belongs to Palestinians with actual title to the land. In 1967, Israel struck first. Whose planes were still on the ground – Egypt’s or Israel’s? If I were you, I would not bring up the 1967 War – it tends to remind intelligent Americans of the hostile attack upon the USS Liberty.
          Finally, how can something be called a democracy that illegally occupies other’s land, defies all civilized codes of conduct in war and peace, drags the US into its wars, corrupts our government, mooches without shame, and is (should be) an embarrassment for Jews of integrity.

        4. Timmy you know what I don’t understand. Why the hell are you still here? If you want to go fight Iranians nobody is holding you back. Go ahead, see how long it takes for you to end up dead.

        5. Richard Vajs,

          You are quite right that Eygpt’s planes were still on the ground and Israel struck first. But, first off, they only struck Egypt. They did NOT strike Jordan until Jordan decided to attack first. Those are two separate nations.

          Secondly, do you deny that prior to Israel strike, which I assert was pre-emptive and in self-defense, do you deny that Gamel Abdel Nasser said in clear and unmistakeable terms that he intended to totally destroy Israel? That he intended to drive her into the sea and “wipe her off the map?” Do you deny that he said those things and the Arabs like King Faisal of Saudi Arabia were also saying similar things in the weeks before the war?

          Do you deny that Eygpt threw out all the UN Peace keepers from the Sinai? Do you deny that Egypt fully mobilized her army for war and instituted a naval blockade of the Straits of Tiran? Isn’t a naval blockade an act of war? Do you deny these facts?

        6. I wish those mideast countries who keep threatening to destroy Israel would put up or shut up. Then we could get our government back.

        7. Tim R,
          If we are to argue the history of the 1967 War, we have to go take things into context. Nassar had good reasons to be wary of hostile to Israel. Go back a few years and you will see that after Nassar nationalized a lot of foreign holdings in Egypt, Israel concocted a scheme with France to seize the Suez Canal. Luckily, at that time, we had a President who didn’t have his schnoz up Israel’s tushie, and America backed the Arabs (i.e. the Suez Crisis). Israel was royally pi–ed at Eisenhower’s gall. After that Israel decided to develop nuclear weapons so that they wouldn’t be dependent upon the US. President Kennedy tried to stop Israel in this goal, but Kennedy got shot instead (Note: I am not saying Israel was responsible for THAT, although others do). Anyway, Mr. Nassar, who had serious ambitions for the whole Arab world saw that Israel was treacherous, hated all Arabs, and was seriously about acquiring nuclear weapons, so he named Israel as “an existential threat to peace in the Mid East”, in so many words. You may be proud, Tim, that Israel sucker punched him first, if that makes you happy. You mention Jordan and Saudi Arabia as if they ever were serious military powers.
          Tim, we can continue this, if you insist – but I get real weary dealing with your shopworn, nickle-dime Zionist talking points. You keep dragging them out of your little bag of tricks and they are just bs. And I don’t think you fool too many on this site.

        8. Tim R,
          Because there is usually a three hour delay between my submissions and their postings, I am correcting blindly what I may have skimped on in my previous answer. In 1956 Nasser (not Nassar) nationalized the Suez Canal because the US reneged on its promise to help build the Aswan Dam (USSR filled in). The British were upset because they used to control Egypt and the Suez Canal; they were adamant upon at least controlling the Canal (the cheek of the bloody wogs!). France was upset because they were losing their African colonies to Nasser imitators. Israel, always on the lookout for land to conquer set their sights upon the Sinai. The two colonial powers and Israel concocted a scheme whereby Israel would attack the Sinai and the other two would “rush in to protect the Canal” and of course, never leave. The USSR and the USA
          stopped the deal. However, later the French helped Israel get nuclear weapons as a protracted part of the bargain.
          In the 1967 War as you said, Nasser ordered the UN peacekeepers from Egypt’s side of the Israeli/Egyptian border. The UN asked Israel to let the peacekeepers move to the Israeli side, which was refused. The USA thru the USSR got Nasser to forget attacking Israel. The Egyptians had basically stood down when the Israelis went ahead and attacked. The blockade of the Straits of Tiran was instituted by Egypt which believed that it was totally in Egyptian waters and that Israel had no port which depended upon passage through them. It was a complicated legal problem and not the simplistic act that you try to present.
          The foundation of Israel has been nothing but a curse to the Mid East. The Israelis are like birds that think they make a home in the river just by driving all of the fish out.

    3. Iran should promise to stop its uranium enrichment if Israel will close its facility at Dimona.

  17. Tim:

    Why should Iran “obey” the international community? The countries that are trying to dictate to Iran have nukes, some of which are pointed at Iran. What right do these countries have in demanding that Iran give up the same nuclear rights that they assert?

    1. Eric:

      A very good question. I would say that, yes, it is somewhat hypocritical of nations that have nuclear weapons to tell other nations that they can’t have those same weapons. I can’t deny the double standard.

      However, I will say two things: First, it is bad enough that now 9 nations on this earth have nuclear weapons. (we ought to get rid of them all) but do we want to add insult to injury? Do we want to put salt on the wounds? Do we want to stand by and allow for not nine but a hundred and ninety nations to get nuclear weapons?

      Second: There is also a profound difference between nations like Russia, China, England, France, India and the United States and nations like Iran that follow a radical Islamic theology. Russia for instance might have almost 10,000 nuclear weapons, but thankfully they are rational people that are not bent on suicide. Can the same by said of radical Muslims in Iran? I said it before and I will say it again: 10,000 nuclear weapons in the hands of rational people are less dangerous than even one nuclear weapon in the hands of a religious fanatic.

      1. You need to worry about the radical Xtn End Times fanatics in the US. They are the ones with thousands of nukes. Iran is far less dangerous.

        Lester Ness

  18. Exactly. The USA knows it can only attack, threaten and bully countries that do not have nuclear weapons. Do you really believe Clinton would have dropped bombs on Serbia for 78 days if Serbia had had a nuclear weapon?

    1. That’s a more broader question whether Iran should be denied a “right” to have nuclear weapons they claim they don’t want, have even spoken out a fatwa against, and of which the IAEA can’t find a trace, by countries who do have them, hand the technology out to non-NPT states and wouldn’t ever dream of giving up the “right” to have as much as they deem desirable for themselves (even though nuclear disarmament is the second pillar of the NPT.)

      The NPT consists of three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament and (helping with) the proliferation of peaceful uses of nuclear technology, to effectively stop proliferation of nuclear weapons. This is so because it was acknowledged by the smart people who first thought it through, that you can’t simply demand countries voluntarily giving up their rights i.e. to pursue nuclear weapons, without them getting something in return.

      That something in return is embodied in the NPT by the third pillar in which is guaranteed for all parties to the Treaty that they have: “..the inalienable right … to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination .. in conformity with articles I and II..”

      And that inalienable right without discrimination attends the right to “ participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy … especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.”

      This also includes the inalienable right to process natural uranium to reactor fuel in conformity with articles I and II (conversion to UF6 and enrichment to 4-5% U235 fuel grade uranium.) As richard vajs pointed out this right ultimately comes down to matters of independence and sovereignty and as such it is understood by all parties, that is why it is stressed to be inalienable.

      However the troublemakers that make up the UN Security Council “think” the NPT shouldn’t be taken so seriously and do away with the prohibition on discrimination entirely and “inalienable right” is reinterpreted as being not all that inalienable or rather said as being subjected to the approval of a bunch of Likudniks and their overseas counterparts.

      As a consequence of this corruption, the sanctions based on resolutions 1737 under chapter VII and the previous 1696 whatever the feeble excuses they’re based on stand in direct opposition to the spirit and the letter of the NPT. Or in other words violate the NPT. All the more painful since Iran does not. And this demonstration of failure and kowtowing to political pressure from Washington undermines the whole effort to counter the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the future.

      And that is criminal on a whole new scale.

      1. Okay “.. attends the right to..” is most likely not English at all. I meant something like “refers to the right to” probably. I have scanned my inner vocabulary but can’t really find the word I’m looking for now..

      2. You didn’t answer my question. What did the USA do in Chechnya to the Russians? Nothing. What did the USA do in Tibet to the Chinese? Nothing. Because unlike Serbia with Kosovo, these countries have large armies and nuclear weapons and are quite capable of defending themselves against any American agression. The USA is the classic schoolyard bully – attack the weak.

  19. Tim:

    I rational person (country) would not give up ambitions to weapons if the self-avowed enemies are pointing those same weapons at him. Is it likely that someone less rational (as you contend) should give up those same ambitions?

    The only way we can start to demand (request?) that Iran give up ambitions to weapons is to stop pointing our nukes at them. How about a nuclear-free region? How about asking Israel to sign onto the same treaties that Iran has signed onto? Maybe we could demand inspections of Iran if Israel agreed to those same inspections? Also, the world remembers taht only one country has ever used nuclear weapons in war. Our arrogance does not help erase that memory.

    The radical muslims were a small minority in Iran before the West decided to overthrow their elected government (1953). Yet Iran helped us after 9/11 against our common enemy, al-Qaeda. The average Iranian is not a muslim fanatic, that is a myth. If you check the research done by Robert Pape on suicide bombings, you will find that a very small number of Iranians become suicide bombers. They mostly come from Sunni countries, and mostly from US allies.

    1. Eric,

      Well, we are in agreement on at least one point. I don’t think we should have ever dropped an atomic bomb on Japan. That is a stain on our history. I am categorically against the deliberate killing of innocent civilians at any time by anyone.

      But again, the more nations that get atomic bombs, the more likely that they will be used in the future.

  20. Lets be somewhat truthful now Tim, shall we?

    Hezbollah attacked a U.S marine base in Lebanon after Israel had attacked and killed 20 000 mostly civilians. It is likely they saw them as nothing more than support for Israel’s territorial ambitions. Indeed – Israel attacked and destroyed Lebanon with U.S backing.

    As for the embassy incident – lets not forget shall we that Iran put up with 20 odd years of a U.S backed dictator, placed there after a coup deposed a democratically elected leader(who just happened to not like how western oil companies were robbing the country blind. Which they were, indeed). Clearly Iran has excellent cause to not like America.

    I shouldn’t even have to address the rest of the nonsense about wanting to nuke Israel – this website has done an excellent job of detailing the evidence that those claims are sheer rubbish.

    And I don’t think nuking Iran for denying the holocaust makes a whole lot of sense either – do you?

    1. Stevieb,

      You contend that the Marine barracks were bombed only after Israel killed 20,000 civilians. Do you have a reputable source for that claim?

  21. Sorry – of course Israel was occupying Lebanon at the time too – with U.S backing….

  22. Let’s face it with the pace of technology eventually most countries in the world will have the technology to create nuclear weapons. Maybe 20, maybe 50 years whatever.

    So doesn’t it make sense to brainstorm a policy to deal with prolific WMD? We can’t prevent it from happening.

    I am not a professional diplomat, but even I could think of elements that might be part of a productive policy. I welcome ideas from you more experienced bloggers.

    For example, what if we:
    1. Threw away the Axis of Evil and never do anything so agressive again
    2. Offer peace to our enemies. Ask Iran to make us an offer. What do you want for peace?
    3. Probably that would be remove the sanctions
    4. Cultural exchange
    5. Commerce escalation
    6. Willingness to take a fair position on the Palistinian issue

    My point is, we can’t stop it from happening. We need some good ideas.

  23. I have a bad feeling this whole “diplomacy” act is a smoke screen before the attack. Demanding Iran to do as the US says and offering no peace guarantees. This sounds like the same old coercion.

    And of course Iran will reject any US commands. And the US Government will claim that Iran is “undermining” the “negotiations”.

    I think this was thrown up to mask the real activity behind the artificial fog of war.

    The US Government may be trying to lure Iran into a false sense of security like a Snake hypnotizing its prey before it strikes.

  24. >Andy asks the following question:

    >“What makes Americans morally superior to Iranians?”

    >6 words: The Constitution and Bill of Rights — Tim R.

    Nothing makes the US superior to the rest of humanity. We are all a bunch of baboons standing on our hind legs, disputing who has the biggest, reddest, buttocks.

    Lester Ness

    1. One will have you know that one has jogged with baboons in the noon day sun (all the cooks laughing) and you are flattering both the US and the rest of humanity by comparing them to so noble and rational a creature as the baboon.

  25. Dear Tim R.,

    have you enlisted yet? I’m sure there’s a place for you working in the chow line on the Kitty Hawk! Maybe you can be an ordinance-man, actually loading the bombs onto the planes! I’m sure you can lift 500 hundred pounds with the old hernia bar.

    Lester Ness, USN, ret.
    now enjoying life in
    Kunming, China

    1. What you think he is crazy? What if an Iranian missile slams into Carrier while he standing next to a pile of JDAM bombs and fuel tanks filled with aviation fuel? No he is the kind of guy that prefers “others” did the fighting for him.

  26. “Also, in 1983 who bombed the Marine Barracks? Hizzbolah with the backing of Iran that’s who!”

    The USMC had been shelling villages in the hills outside Beirut. They should have expected retatiation. I remember hearing a marine interviewed on the radio just a few days before the truck bombing. He was bloviating arrogantly about what poor quality fire-control and shells the opposition had. I hope he wasn’t one of those killed few days later.

    Lester Ness

    1. The marines should never have been there in the first place. No marines in Lebanon, no dead marines in Lebanon. Simple logic. Reagan withdrew the troops shortly afterwards,,,and,, the ‘terrorists’ did NOT “FOLLOW US HOME”. Insiders have said that Reagan later recognized his Lebanon misadventure as his greatest mistake in his presidency. At least he learned from his mistakes unlike Bush.

    2. One remembers this as well, though one would have to review for many lost details.

      The singular image that remains, and is perhaps not common, is reports of the Druze in the mountains being shelled, and considering it an honor that their power and status in Lebanon was being recognized.

      In the Levant and the Near East, and especially Mesopotamia, Americans, even Marines–perhaps especially Marines–often seem to come off as naive children, stumbling aimlessly about with hi-tech toys and capable of great, blunderbuss destruction but not much else.

      More recently the American press has made much of the typos and supposed grammatical mistakes of the Iranian two page reply to the recent conference in which Ms. Rice accused them of “stalling” and wasting time wanting to talk about “cultural issues”.

      One has no inside knowledge of what the Iranians were up to in this case, but it occurred to me that they responded so sloppily as intentional repartee, and as a way of telling Rice and the Americans that what they had to offer and the terms of the discussion they were demanding, were not worth even the effort of a proofreader.

      Another devilish possible cryptotype, again without any inside knowledge, but based on the suspicion that the Iranians (one has known some) still have a sense of humor–to wit, in wanting to talk of “culture”, one message to Rice might have been, “You have none.”

      Nor, if that is a message, is it far off the mark.

      Other items are noticed in their absence, as Lester Ness might appreciate especially, and anyone familiar with the American withdrawal from Vietnam–id est: no one, it seems, in the mainstream press, or elsewhere is yet talking of “face” and its saving–that I have seen anyway.

      What to make of it, if anything, is another story.

  27. Everybody please Email Senators and Congressmen/women asking them to vote No to SR 580 and HR 362 because they are a Declaration of War as Congressman Ron Paul pointed out. Probably they haven´t even read HR 362 and SR 580. HR 362 has 252 endorsements and SR 580 has 41 endorsements for now so it´s really the last chance !

  28. Ilan Pappe on How Israel was Founded on Ethnic Cleansing:

    “Zionism arrived in Palestine in the late 19th as a colonialist movement motivated by national impulses.

    The colonisation of Palestine fitted well the interests and policies of the British Empire on the eve of the First World War.

    With the backing of Britain, the colonisation project expanded, and became a solid presence on the land after the war and with the establishment of the British mandate in Palestine (which lasted between 1918 and 1948).”

Comments are closed.