What to do what to do

Bush's Dilemma: Iran vs. Israel

In short, if Bush does not confront Iran on the nuclear issue with sanctions or air strikes, he may find himself confronted by Israelis and their U.S. auxiliaries. Hearken to Hillary Clinton:

"I don't believe you face threats like Iran and North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond."

Hillary is saying that if George Bush does not confront Iran, he is open to the charge of leaving Israel to face a nuclear attack by a regime that has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Political hardball.

Over to you, Mr. President.

Note how both groups of monkeys in DC are ignoring a couple facts, such as oh, nobody has yet proven that Iran has any weapons of mass destruction. Iran says they are building a power station. Now maybe they'll eventually get a nuke (I wouldn't trust the hardline mullahs of Iran who have psychotic issues as well) but Israel, on the other hand, does have weapons of mass destruction, somewhere around 400. More than adequate to deter an attack by Iran.

And in any event, could someone please explain why if Israel cannot get along with Iraq, and Israel cannot get along with Syria, and Israel cannot get along with Iran, and Israel cannot get along with, well, pretty much everyone, why is that a problem for which American lives (excluding the children of the pro-Israel politicians, if you pay close attention) should be sacrificed.

"Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." - Henry Kissinger