Simply Ridiculous: Perhaps Not

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,6119,2-10-1462_1666314,00.html

Bush, speaking in Brussels this week, said that the idea that the United States was preparing to attack Iran was "simply ridiculous." He went on to warn that he was keeping all his options open. What kind of a thing is that to say? All options are on the table. (Click on above link to go to article from 02/23/2005.)

Scott Ritter, a former intelligence officer and U. N. inspector in Iraq, has said that he believes the U.S. will most likely attack Iran this summer. Read a related article here:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0222-28.htm

Scott Ritter, Doomed to Fail, by the Baltimore Sun (02/22/2005):

Ritter writes:
"The intermingling of nonproliferation and regime change policies was doomed to fail. One requires skillful multilateral diplomacy based on the principles of uniform application of international law, the other bold application of a unilateral doctrine of aggressive liberation rhetoric backed by the real threat of military power. When blended, as the Bush administration did, unilateralism trumps multilateralism every time. North Korea's announced accession to the nuclear club represents the inevitable result."

Ritter's article states that all diplomatic efforts under Bush were regarded as disingenuous fronts intended to facilitate instability and regime change. Bush's approach leaves no choice for North Korea and Iran but to acquire an independent nuclear deterrent against possible U. S. aggression. Ritter believes there could be a solution to this dangerous situation, but it would require the Bush administration to unlink nonproliferation efforts from regime change. He sees this as unlikely since Bush and his ideologues have too much invested in the global crusade against tyranny. Ritter sees the possibility of nuclear apocalypse.

Germany, France, and Britain are involved in negotiations to get Iran to abandon any plans it has to develop a nuclear weapon. However, the U. S. has chosen not to join these talks. Without U. S. involvement, Europeans fear that the negotiations could be fruitless. Read further from a WaPo article by Tom Raum (02/23/2005):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46290-2005Feb23?language=printer

Why are we not participating in diplomatic efforts? Bush misled the American people and attacked Iraq rather than allow the U. N. inspections to be completed properly. He still maintains that Saddam Hussein was not complying with U. N. inspections. This was not true. But millions of Americans went along with Bush and supported the war. Now we know that there were no WMD and that WMD had been destroyed in Iraq by 1996, obviously long before Bush ever took office. However, the U. S. was committed to a policy of regime change in Iraq, which required economic sanctions-based containment and was dependent on finding Iraqi noncompliance with its disarmament obligation. Iraqi compliance was not an acceptable reality for George Bush and his neocons with their vision of American world dominance. So it seems another reality was constructed to suit the goals of the White House. Congress and the American people have complied over and over as calamity after calamity have occurred.

Is there a chance we can live through this? Can we stop killing and maiming people in the name of freedom, liberty, and democracy? Must we greet the world with our big guns and strutting cowboy president? Where Bush is, war is. Can he be stopped?