...of Saddam's Iraq.
...We are also standing against the forces of extremism embodied by the regime in Tehran. Iran's rulers oppress a good and talented people. And wherever freedom advances in the Middle East, it seems the Iranian regime is there to oppose it. Iran is funding and training militia groups in Iraq, supporting Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, and backing Hamas' efforts to undermine peace in the Holy Land. Tehran is also developing ballistic missiles of increasing range and continues to develop its capability to enrich uranium, which could be used to create a nuclear weapon. Our message to the people of Iran is clear: We have no quarrel with you, we respect your traditions and your history, and we look forward to the day when you have your freedom. Our message to the leaders of Iran is also clear: Verifiably (Reagan) suspend your nuclear enrichment, so negotiations can begin. And to rejoin the community of nations (Bush 41 said this all the time about Saddam, all the flyin' time), come clean (come clean? What kind of language is that for a President of the USA to the people of this country and the global community? That must mean that Iran is 'up to' something sinister and underhanded.) about your nuclear intentions and past actions, stop your oppression at home and cease your support for terror abroad. But above all, know this: America will confront those who threaten our troops , we will stand by our allies and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf....
Bush's 'speech' wasn't about the USA, it was about promoting an agenda of war in the Middle East that will support Republican ideology and their cronies. Just that simple. It wasn't worth listening to as a Lame Duck as he simply limped through more rhetoric than ever before in attempts to lay the ground work for McCain in 2008.
Bush never stopped being the candidate in the entire time in office long enough to be a President.
That is irrelivant to the issue at hand. The rhetoric was to 'set the stage' for an invasion into Iran. But, why would an invasion into Iran be necessary by every measurable standard of American conflict of the past? Why isn't Iran at war already with violence trickling into that country and taking over it's infrastructure?
Why? Seriously, why isn't the entire region of the Middle East so destabilized that Osama bin Laden isn't sitting on a thrown in Jordan or Egypt or Saudi Arabia? Why? Why isn't Israel already overrun by Iran? By Hezbollah? By Hamas or the Islamic Brotherhood? Why?
Because when leaders identify with sovereignty over any other issue and 'contain' threats to that sovereignty and in the Middle East sovereignty is more important than nearly any other area of the world due to the chronic threat of terrorist networks. Virulent terrorist networks. The leadership of those nations react in appropriate measures to contain the threat to their nations. They act to protect their people.
Why are the borders with every nation of Iraq so porous? Why were Bremer's promises to 'close' the borders met with failure? Why? Because. Because it's easier to allow the warring parties their 'pleasure' in a well fueled environment rich in the resources 'the war' needs than to provide other areas of the region as tinderboxes of hatred. To contain the USA military in it's overt disregard of international infrastructure and it's snobbish treatment of peace directives was to contain the Neocons intent on expanding war to all corners of the Earth.
Iran acted to protect it's people and it's sovereign in the ONLY rational manner possible and that was to 'maintain' the war in Iraq to whatever extent it needed to by supplying humanitarian aid and more than likely munitions to those that would seek the path of the Ayatollahs rather than the West's 'ideology' that would allow the destruction of their mosques and assassinations of their Holy Men.
Whatever measures Iran has exercised to date to 'contain' the USA threat of expansive war into it's borders has worked and they had a God given right to do it ! Iran's leadership has an obligation to it's people and a right to defend itself even from a war yet undeclared but attempted by American forces and otherwise that seek to destabilize it's infrastructure to allow for chaos and anarchy.
Iran has assigned itself a larger role in the world it will not turn from and that is to INSURE the existance of the Shia forever on Earth. To that end it will seek every venue of opportunity to strengthen it's military and control the economy the Shia need to survive. Iran has looked high and low to find 'it's flock' no different than Israel has post WW II and it knows where they are and will defend them covertly until the world comes to terms of it's destruction to it's Holy Land, religious lineage and the fact they have a right to Islam as much as any Sunni nation or people in the region.
I am grateful for Russia, for it is a decent people (regardless of the economic rhetoric the Republicans count on to win elections - Russia does NOT need Iran's oil as the USA lusts after). Russia has taken all the risks internationally to align with 'unpopular' countries and seek to stabilize these nations while holding enough clout to curtail a larger 'war footprint' of the Bush Wars in the Middle East. Among nations? Putin's Russia has to be regarded as a country intent on a path of peace through stability. I am more than impressed by Putin's prowess with international dialogues that have lead to stability over chaos and his ability to muster the power of Russia post Soviet Era. He is more than admirable in the international community regardless of how he is 'dissed' by his peers. To be dissed as a Russian President must be an enviable status to obtain.
