George Bush has proven that he is unable to wage war effectively. We will have new presidential elections in 2008, a good eight years before Iran will have nukes according to our best estimates. We should wait until Bush leaves office before considering any possible military action against Iran. There is simply no reason to rush things and permit this administration to prove its incompetence in foreign and military policy once again.
There will never be a good time to attack someone else's country. If the Democrats want to be a majority party, they need to speak for the majority of Americans who know that.
6) Bush is the not the president we want exercising the nuclear option.
There are credible news reports that President Bush isn't just considering using nuclear weapons against Iran, but that he is strongly leaning towards that option. Regardless of one's opinion on such an option, George Bush has already proven that he is not competent to run a conventional war. It would be insane to trust him to run a nuclear war.
There will never be a good time to attack someone else's country or to use nuclear weapons in any way, no matter who the president is.
7) Bush either lied to us, or was unable to determine the truth, about Iraq's WMD program (which we now know didn't exist). Why should we believe claims from the same president and same intelligence agencies about Iran's WMD program? We need more than President Bush's assurances.
The evidence that he knowingly lied is overwhelming and well established and at www.afterdowningstreet.org .
8) What military and what money are we going to use to launch a war against Iran?
Our troops are stuck in Iraq, and Bush says he refuses to withdraw them. So what troops are we going to use to invade Iran? And is America truly prepared to fight 3 wars at the same time? That has never been US military policy, at least not in the past several decades, to be able to fight a three-front war. Our military simply is not made to fight three wars simultaneously.
Just as importantly, Iraq has cost us over $300 billion, and the estimates of the total cost of the Iraq war is in the trillions. George Bush inherited a budget surplus when he came to office, he has now put the budget into a massive deficit. We simply no longer have the money, so how is Bush going to finance a massive invasion of Iran?
Incompetence comes at a cost. George Bush has run our military into the ground our and bankrupted our government, and now wants us to give him permission to do it all over again?
This is criminal, not incompetent. That money if well spent could have saved more lives than it was used to destroy.
9) Why is it always us?
If Iran is such a threat, then why not let the Europeans and the Russians and the Chinese take care of it? Clearly none of those countries wants a nuclear Iran on their back porch. So why is it always America that has to give our money, our soldiers' lives, and our goodwill?
Our goodwill? Conquering the MiddleEast is a show of goodwill? Let's get away from this way of thinking, white man.
Conclusion
There will never be a good time to attack someone else's country. If the Democrats want to be a majority party, they need to speak for the majority of Americans who know that.
6) Bush is the not the president we want exercising the nuclear option.
There are credible news reports that President Bush isn't just considering using nuclear weapons against Iran, but that he is strongly leaning towards that option. Regardless of one's opinion on such an option, George Bush has already proven that he is not competent to run a conventional war. It would be insane to trust him to run a nuclear war.
7) Bush either lied to us, or was unable to determine the truth, about Iraq's WMD program (which we now know didn't exist). Why should we believe claims from the same president and same intelligence agencies about Iran's WMD program? We need more than President Bush's assurances.
The evidence that he knowingly lied is overwhelming and well established and at www.afterdowningstreet.org .
8) What military and what money are we going to use to launch a war against Iran?
Our troops are stuck in Iraq, and Bush says he refuses to withdraw them. So what troops are we going to use to invade Iran? And is America truly prepared to fight 3 wars at the same time? That has never been US military policy, at least not in the past several decades, to be able to fight a three-front war. Our military simply is not made to fight three wars simultaneously.
Just as importantly, Iraq has cost us over $300 billion, and the estimates of the total cost of the Iraq war is in the trillions. George Bush inherited a budget surplus when he came to office, he has now put the budget into a massive deficit. We simply no longer have the money, so how is Bush going to finance a massive invasion of Iran?
Incompetence comes at a cost. George Bush has run our military into the ground our and bankrupted our government, and now wants us to give him permission to do it all over again?
This is criminal, not incompetent. That money if well spent could have saved more lives than it was used to destroy.
9) Why is it always us?
If Iran is such a threat, then why not let the Europeans and the Russians and the Chinese take care of it? Clearly none of those countries wants a nuclear Iran on their back porch. So why is it always America that has to give our money, our soldiers' lives, and our goodwill?
Our goodwill? Conquering the MiddleEast is a show of goodwill? Let's get away from this way of thinking, white man.
Conclusion
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
