The Condi Conundrum 
Condi Rice just said that the U.N. will lose credibility if it doesn't deal with Iran. Let me repeat that; the U.N. will lose credibility.
Now, maybe I'm mistaken - I don't have a perfect memory - but I think we tried this one before. Let's see . . .
At the United Nations Security Council, it is very important that the members understand that the credibility of the United Nations is at stake, that the Security Council must be firm in its resolve to deal with a true threat to world peace -- and that is Saddam Hussein. But the United Nations Security Council must work with the United States and Britain and other concerned parties to send a clear message that we expect Saddam to disarm.
This really shows a lack of creativity, I think. This argument might have had teeth prior to Iraq, but I don't think Mr. 32%-Approval-Rating is going to get away with it again. Presumably, this is why he had the only likable member of his cabinet say it. But seriously, you'd think he'd have used the last two years to come up with something new.
September
-The President says that he is considering "all options" with regards to Iran.
Where I really got it wrong was the media/PR angle. I really thought that the White House and the pundits would make a big deal about bringing soldiers home from Iraq. In my own defense, that's because I couldn't have predicted that we'd be talking about using freaking nukes.
KEYWORDS: Condi Rice, Iran
Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!
| < Sago survivor: Our air packs failed us | Poll: Americans Support Strikes Against Iran 48%-42% > |
