E-MAIL THIS LINK
To: 

Brzezinski: U.S. in danger of 'stampeding' to war with Iran
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski likened U.S. officials' saber rattling about Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions to similar statements made before the start of the Iraq war.
Who?
"I think the administration, the president and the vice president particularly, are trying to hype the atmosphere, and that is reminiscent of what preceded the war in Iraq," Brzezinski told CNN's "Late Edition" on Sunday.

Earlier this month during a televised speech asserting that U.S. troops should not be immediately withdrawn from Iraq, President Bush said, "Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region." However, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in an interview that aired Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes" that "insecurity in Iraq is detrimental to our interests."
They also concealed their nuclear program.
And the Left believes Short Round, of course.
Brzezinski also disapproved of Bush's statement. "When the president flatly asserts they are seeking nuclear weapons, he's overstating the facts," he said. "We are suspicious. We have strong suspicions, but we don't have facts that they are."
How about a 15kT bomb going off at ground zero again? Would that be OK? Followed by ten more at other population centers and veiled threats of more to follow?
The whole point of 9/11 was that we couldn't wait to see what suspicious nations were doing with suspicious programs and suspicious characters. Zbig obviously didn't get it and this point, doesn't want to, since (I'm suspicious here) he wants a job in the Hildebeast administration, given that his pal Obama isn't going to get the big job in the Oval Office.
Brzezinski, who served under President Jimmy Carter, said he is not sure how to interpret Iran's intentions. Iran has insisted its nuclear program is intended solely for peaceful purposes.
Maybe it wasn't entirely Carter's fault after all . . . .
Oh, great, a National Security Advisor who can't figure out what Iran is up to. That inspires real confidence, doesn't it.
"I think it's quite possible that they are seeking weapons or positioning themselves to have them, but we have very scant evidence to support that," he said. "And the president of the United States, especially after Iraq, should be very careful about the veracity of his public assertions."
Is Brzezinski still part of our inner intelligence circles? I'm guessing he's not.
But Henry Kissinger, the former national security adviser and secretary of state under President Nixon, appeared not to doubt Iran's alleged ambitions. "I believe they are building a capability to build a nuclear bomb," Kissinger told CNN. "I don't think they're yet in a position to build a nuclear bomb, but they may be two or three years away from it."
I'd rather they be two or three centuries away from it.
Brzezinski, who is advising the Democratic presidential campaign of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, urged American officials to be patient, whatever Tehran's intentions may be.
Hide and watch. Then hide again when they pull out a nuke. "Oops, sorry! I hate it when I'm wrong!"
Don't worry, the MSM will stuff his comments today down the memory hole if the Mad Mullahs™ explode a nuke. Count on it in fact.
"If we escalate the tensions, if we succumb to hysteria, if we start making threats, we are likely to stampede ourselves into a war, which most reasonable people agree would be a disaster for us," he said.
Please expand on who you consider to be reasonable people?
Him. Barack. Hilde. The Breck Boy. Kos. Howard Dean. Maddy Half-bright. Harry Reid (D-Saster). How many more 'reasonable' people do you need?
"And just think what it would do for the United States, because it would be the United States which would be at war. We will be at war simultaneously in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we would be stuck for the next 20 years."
Better than the alternative!
A 10kT nuke does tend to ruin one's day.
Kissinger said the international community should enlist support from countries opposed to Iran becoming a nuclear power.
They're chicken$hits. Like you.
"The current objective has to be to unite the countries that will suffer directly from Iranian nuclear weapons, the members of the Security Council and other countries in a program of diplomacy," he said.
That would be nice. It might actually work to some extent. But careful not to let that point of no return slip past you unnoticed. Which would be Iran's sole purpose during this do-nothing process.
Getting those affected countries to unite isn't going to work unless they see that the U.S. is willing to stand by them today and tomorrow. They've got reasons to worry precisely because of people like Zbig, Obama and Hildebeast. Anyone see the Dhimmicrats working with the Gulf Council states? Anyone see the Dhimmicrats persuading the Russkies and the Chinese to forsake their own interests in Iran so as to contain the nuclear power the Mad Mullahs™ would have? Nah, me neither.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reiterated last week that Bush was committed to diplomacy when dealing with Iran, but has not taken any options off the table. "We believe the diplomatic track can work," she said. "But has to work both with a set of incentives and a set of teeth."
We tried that already, didn't we?
Condi is uttering one of those basic statements of diplomacy -- words work better when you've got a club in your hands and the will to use it if pushed. Condi understands that, and Zbig apparently doesn't, which explains a great deal about why the Carter administration was such a disaster.
During the "60 Minutes" interview, Ahmadinejad denied claims by the administration that Iranian weapons are being used against American troops in Iraq. "We don't need to do that. We are very much opposed to war and insecurity [in] Iraq."
Cheap words from a sawed-off pathologically lying egomaniac.
Ahmadinejad said U.S. officials are blaming his country for problems caused by the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Heard that, did he?
"American officials, wherever around the world that they encounter a problem which they fail to resolve, instead of accepting that, they prefer to accuse others," he said. "I'm very sorry that, because of the wrong decisions taken by American officials, Iraqi people are being killed and also American soldiers."
Both because of Iranian meddling.
Ahmadinejad also said Iran has no use for an atomic bomb.
No, not Iran personally. AQ however would.
Not sure Short Round would hand AQ a nuke. But they just might hand one to Hezbollah.
"If it was useful, it would have prevented the downfall of the Soviet Union," he said. "If it was useful, it would [have] resolved the problem the Americans have in Iraq. The time of the bomb is passed."
** Boggle **
The International Atomic Energy Agency said last week it has verified that Iran's declared nuclear material has not been diverted from peaceful uses, though inspectors have been unable to reach conclusions about some "important aspects" of Iran's nuclear work.
How 'bout the undeclared stuff?
Which 'important aspects'?
Kissinger and Brzezinski also disagreed over whether Columbia University in New York should have offered to present a lecture by Ahmadinejad, scheduled for Monday.
K: "I don't like him, so give him the rope!"
B: "He should be able to speak because I'm not sure of his intentions!"
K: "You're an idiot!"
B: "I'm not sure what you meant!"
Ahmadinejad has questioned whether the Holocaust happened and has made statements suggesting that Israel be politically "wiped off the map," though he insists that can be accomplished without violence.
He also leads a country that murders gays, apostates and dissidents. For starters. Let's not forget that.
Kissinger said Sunday on CNN that Columbia's invitation to the Iranian president to speak was not "appropriate." Kissinger clarified, "I do not oppose his speaking. I oppose its sponsorship by Columbia University."

Brzezinski said Ahmadinejad should be able to speak. "It seems to me a university's a place where ideas, issues -- very controversial issues -- should be discussed, can be discussed," Brzezinski said. "Look, if his views are odious, we can say so, but we have a society of openness," he said. "If we start censoring in advance what it is we like to hear and what we don't hear, we're on a slippery slope."
Just hand MSNBC a DVD of your pre-recorded speech and after much introspection, hair pulling, and many sleepless seconds they'll take care of the rest.
Let's see if Columbia will invite Larry Summers, Condi Rice, or Victor Davis Hansen to speak, and protect their right to do so.
Prior to departing Tehran, Ahmadinejad called his planned address to the General Assembly "a good opportunity for presenting his own the Iranian people's clear views regarding the problems of the world and materialization of peace and tranquility," IRNA, Iran's state-run news agency, reported Sunday.

Some students and Jewish leaders planned to protest at the Ivy League school, which last year withdrew a speaking invitation it had extended to the Iranian president after citing security concerns.
Iranian EFPs popping up all along his planned route, are they?
Posted by: gorb 2007-09-24
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=200065