Which Is Worse?
Our President not caring that the top Iranian leaders may not be behind Iran supplying the IEDs in Iraq or once again marching down the war path with intelligence that appears to be faulty?
Three things are significant about this. First, it’s deliberately an argument by innuendo. Without specifying even what the U.S. is alleging about Iran, viewers (and journalists) are invited to draw their own inferences — inferences understandably likely to be alarming. Second, we’ve been here before. It’s exactly the sort of innuendo put forward by the administration before the Iraq war, when officials endlessly told us that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was “in Baghdad” — and so we were to believe that al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein had the sort of operational relationship they never had.
Finally, these two points represent something of a gauntlet to administration critics. It becomes incumbent on them to make the case that the Iranian government isn’t involved in attacks on U.S. forces. Bush, on the other hand, takes the posture that he won’t wait for dangerous threats to gather until they’re perfectly clear. It’s an emotionally compelling stance. Unfortunately, we’ve seen its effects in Iraq for the past four years.
No doubt it’s a good gambit, but I don’t think the American public or the media is going to let Bush get away with these types of explanations anymore. He had his chance, he got his war and that’s it. He only gets to do it one time. But it certainly seems like he’s trying anyway. After all, he is the decider.