Grim is anything but optimistic about peace in our time. I'd love to find a flaw in his logic but I can't. Sooner or later someone is going to have to take out the Iranians, and the sooner the better. As I said in a comment on Grim's post I grow more convinced with each passing day that the thing that would result in the loss of the fewest American lives in the long run is a direct U.S. attack on Iran. I hope and pray the Bush is just waiting till after the November elections to order one.

*** Update and bump. Originally posted 2006.08.05.18:02

Iran steps directly into the crosshairs
Posted By Uncle Jimbo

Following up on Grim's excellent piece below. By Barbara Lerner in NRO, an excellent piece detailing Iran’s success in leading the Islamic war against us.

Today, Iran’s emboldened mullahs are on a triumphant roll, waging a bloody, three-front proxy war against us, using the Mahdi army to assassinate dreams of peace and democracy in Iraq, using Hezbollah to blow up those same dreams in Lebanon, again, and using Hamas to make a grotesque mockery of them in the Holy Land. Now they threaten to activate Hezbollah terror cells, here in America and throughout the world, to kill and maim us at home and inflict more carnage on our allies. This week, they mocked our efforts to prevent them from becoming a nuclear power, announcing that nothing we do — in the U.N. or elsewhere — will stop them from going nuclear, and sharing their WMDs with other rogue states and Islamofascist terror groups at will. More ominous yet, they threaten to unleash an apocalyptic surprise on us on August 22, the night they believe Mohammed lit up the skies by ascending to heaven from the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.

[Read on here.]

If you haven't already read The Gray Dog's When Will We Act? now's a pretty good time to do that, too.

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 7, 2006 at 12:42 AM in Bill Faith, Iran, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel, Lebanon | Permalink

Comments

Posted by: Rurik

If Bush is waiting till after the election before taking military action, that is horrible to contemplate, as that would be a clear sign of placing domestic partisan politics above national strategic interest. And it would imply that he would set the same priorities again during his last two years, or even make decisions to "improve his legacy". Unfortunately, I see too much evidence of this sort of trimming already. Why did we not knock out the Iranian nuclear sites last March? Or do we wish to let the Iranians get their full defense posture up to speed so our attack will not be "disproportionate"? This playing politics with entry into war has a long thogh not honorable tradition, dating back to Woodrow "too proud to fight" Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, and, of course Slick Willie. George, Time is NOT on our side.
Do it last week in not even earlier.
The only worse possibility is that he may plan to "do a Clinton" and punt the problem down the road for his successor.

Posted by: Rurik | Aug 5, 2006 9:27:43 PM

Post a comment

Comments accept simple HTML for formatting and linking.

Comments are moderated and may not appear on the site immediately. Comments in violation of our comment policy will never appear on the site.

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451e4ed69e200e5506f26ca8833

Trackbacks are moderated and do not appear immediately. Trackbacks from posts that do not link to this post will be deleted and will never be visible here.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Where Are We Going? (Updated and bumped):