Bush's example for the world: In St. Paul on Wednesday, Bush asserted that the world is safer without Saddam Hussein. While many disagree with that assertion, an undeniable effect of W's war is the frightening example he's set for preemptive war. Yesterday, Iran stated flat out that it would adopt the US policy of preemption if it feared an attack on its nuclear facilities by Israel or the US.

"We will not sit to wait for what others will do to us," said Iran's defense minister, Vice Adm. Ali Shamkhani in an interview on al-Jazeera. "Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly. Any nation, if it feels threatened, can resort to that."

Gen. Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr reiterated the point: "If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant, it should permanently forget about the Dimona nuclear center, where it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons."

Republican intelligence official now regrets war: Republican Rep. Doug Bereuter of Nebraska, a senior member of the International Relations Committee and vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committtee, now says the war in Iraq was a bad idea: "I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action, especially without a broad and engaged international coalition."

Kerry's compliance: Helen Thomas, responding to Kerry's baffling admission last week that he would have "voted to give the president the authority to go to war" even if he had known there were no WMDs, asks: "Does Kerry realize that the U.S. invasion of Iraq without provocation violates the U.N. Charter and the Nuremberg Tribunal principles?"

And Juan Cole asks: Could Najaf Cost Bush the Election?

No comments: