Rumsfeld -- prewar intel "wrong"

[SonomaCat]

Bravo for Rumsfeld. This is exactly the kind of thing we need to do. By admitting the mistakes that were already obvious to the world (and the American people) we give the appearance of modesty. This should give us a lot more credibility as we deal with Iran. Without some strong statements like this, it would be way too easy (for Americans but more importantly for all of the foreign nations we need to work with) to be cynical about anything our government says about Iran.

So I think this is very encouraging from a PR perspective. I wonder whose idea this was? Is this a Condi move, or is this coming directly from the Pentagon?

Either way, it's a good thing.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/ ... index.html

[catsrback76]

Indeed it is.

[iaafan]

Lets see if it doesn't cost him his job first. The Bush Adm. may have some ulterior motive for this statement, or else Rummy is trying to distance himself. I'd say the latter.

[Bleedinbluengold]

Mark it down:

1. Iran refuses to stop enrichment.
2. Santions are imposed by the UN - albeit, diluted.
3. Years of sanctions do nothing to stop Iran from developing 'nucular' weapons. Why, because N. Korea, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, France and Germany sell Iran all the equipment and technology they need to reach their (Iran's) goal.
4. Within 5 years, Iran announces the successful test of a nuke, and shows the ability to successfully hit a target 1500 miles away.

[SonomaCat]

Mark it down:

1. Iran refuses to stop enrichment.
2. Santions are imposed by the UN - albeit, diluted.
3. Years of sanctions do nothing to stop Iran from developing 'nucular' weapons. Why, because N. Korea, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, France and Germany sell Iran all the equipment and technology they need to reach their (Iran's) goal.
4. Within 5 years, Iran announces the successful test of a nuke, and shows the ability to successfully hit a target 1500 miles away.

Although that is a very scary prediction, in reality, the genie is out of the bottle either way. It's not like Pakistan is exactly a non-zealot kind of country, and we seem comfortable with them having nukes ... we just kiss up to them a bit more. I think we will see most of the world with them in 20 years, and that's scary. In the old days, it was us against the Russians. The Russians were predictable -- mutually assured destruction was a deterrent for them because they didn't want to die. These crazy f***s who think that dying while killing others is the doorway to paradise are a different story.

I don't know how we will be able to keep nukes out of the hands of crazy-ass nations ... and I can only hope that rational minds take hold before anyone let's loose a nuke on an enemy.

In the meantime, I am fully in favor of trying to keep nukes out of the hands of as many countries as possible, but I just don't see that being a practical solution long-term. Especially in the current context, where we as the U.S. are threatening countries with military force -- it just strikes a nationalistic chord within those countries (including the otherwise moderate and liberal citizens) that they, too, need nukes for self-defense. Then when we say they can't have them, it only makes them want them more. It's all about sovereignty in their minds (or at least that's how it's marketed by those in power to gain popular support), and the entire process just feeds off of itself.

[Bleedinbluengold]

Completely agree. My 'scary' thought is that Israel just might make a first strike.

[BWahlberg]

The thought if Israel striking first, attacking Palestine or Iran with a WMD of any sort is scary. Right off the bat I'd wonder how the world would react, what the UN would do and what America's response would be...