Has Mitt Romney given Israel a blank check for war? --- it doesn't matter which American politician gives them a check ... just call the bank and put a stop on it. They should fund their own charities.
On Jul 31, 7:42 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > "The collective decision of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007 – that Iran > is not pursuing a nuclear weapon – reportedly reaffirmed in 2011 – has never > been rescinded. Nor has the White House produced any hard evidence Iran is > building a bomb."Is Mitt Being Neoconned Into War?by Patrick J. Buchanan > Has Mitt Romney given Israel a blank check for war? > So it seemed from the declaration in Jerusalem by his adviser Dan Senor, who > all but flashed Israel a green light for war, signaling the Israelis that, if > you go, Mitt's got your back: > "If Israel has to take action on its own in order to stop Iran from > developing that capability, the governor would respect that decision." > "No option would be excluded. Gov. Romney recognizes Israel's right to defend > itself and that it is right for America to stand with it." > What does "stand with" Israel, if she launches a surprise attack on Iran, > mean? Does it mean the United States will guide Israeli planes to their > targets and provide bases on their return? Does it mean U.S. air cover while > Israeli planes strike Iran? > This would make America complicit in a pre-emptive strike and a > co-belligerent in the war to follow. > What Senor said comes close to being a U.S. war guarantee for Israel, while > leaving the decision as to when the war begins to them. > This country has never done that before. > And what does Senor mean by Israel's need to act "to stop Iran from > developing (the) capability" to acquire nuclear weapons? > The collective decision of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007 – that Iran > is not pursuing a nuclear weapon – reportedly reaffirmed in 2011 – has never > been rescinded. Nor has the White House produced any hard evidence Iran is > building a bomb. > Moreover, Iran's known nuclear facilities are under inspection by the > International Atomic Energy Agency. > Does the government know something the American people are not being told? > Undeniably, Iran, by enriching uranium to 3.5 percent, then up to 20 percent, > has a greater "capability" than five years ago of building a nuclear weapon. > But Japan, South Korea and Brazil also have that capability – and none has > decided to build a nuclear weapon. > Gov. Romney did not go as far as Senor, but he, too, seems to be saying that > not only is Iran's possession of a nuclear weapon a casus belli for the > United States, even an Iran that is capable of building such a weapon is > intolerable. > "The regime in Iran is five years closer to developing nuclear weapons > capability," said Romney. "Preventing that outcome must be our highest > national security priority." > Preventing what outcome is "our highest national security priority"? > Stopping Iran from building a bomb? Or stopping Iran from being able to build > a bomb years from now? > The governor seems to be aligning himself with Israel's hawks who are > demanding that not only must Iran swear off nuclear weapons forever, Iran > must cease all enrichment of uranium, and dismantle the facilities at Natanz > and Fordow. > Romney's policy is zero enrichment, said Senor. Tehran must understand that > "the alternative to zero enrichment is severe, and that's why the threat of > military force has to be critical." > This is tantamount to an ultimatum to Tehran: Either give up all enrichment > of uranium and any right to enrich, or face war. > Here we come to the heart of the issue, which may be impossible to resolve > short of war. > Unlike its neighbors Israel and Pakistan, Iran has signed the Nuclear > Non-Proliferation Treaty and has no nuclear weapons. The ayatollah has said > they are immoral and Iran will not acquire them. > But under the NPT, Iran claims the right to enrich uranium and seek the > benefits of nuclear technology. And in that decision, the people of Iran > stand behind their government. > Is denying Iran the right to enrich uranium a reason for America to plunge > into its fifth war in that region in a generation? > That appears where we are headed. Reportedly, Obama's national security > adviser recently briefed Bibi Netanyahu on the specifics of U.S. contingency > plans to attack Iran. > Has Congress been briefed? Have the American people been consulted? Or are we > simply irrelevant? > A decade ago, this country sent an army up to Baghdad to overthrow Saddam and > strip Iraq of a vast arsenal of chemical and biological weapons we were told > it had and was preparing to use. > We were misled; we were deceived; we were lied to. > Before we outsource to Bibi and Ehud Barak the decision to take us to war > with a country three times the size of Iraq, we need to know: > Was the U.S. intelligence community wrong in 2007 and 2011? Is Iran hell-bent > on building nuclear weapons? If so, where are they constructing and testing > these weapons? > Finally, if Iran is willing to permit intrusive inspections of its actual and > suspected nuclear sites, but insists on its right to enrich uranium, should > we go to war to deny them that right? > But if we are going to go to war again, this time with Iran, the decision > should be made in America, according to our Constitution, not by any other > country.http://buchanan.org/blog/is-mitt-being-neoconned-into-war-5118 -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
