Unacceptable? (Another neocon tactic: denounce Iraq war, promote Iran war)

[ProSense]

Newt, check! Kristol, check!

Unacceptable?

Is the America of 2006 more willing to thwart the unacceptable than the France of 1936?

by William Kristol
04/24/2006, Volume 011, Issue 30

IN THE SPRING OF 1936--seventy years ago--Hitler's Germany occupied the Rhineland. France's Léon Blum denounced this as "unacceptable." But France did nothing. As did the British. And the United States.

In a talk last year, Christopher Caldwell quoted the great Raymond Aron's verdict: "To say that something is unacceptable was to say that one accepted it." Aron further remarked that Blum had in fact seemed proud of France's putting up no resistance. Indeed, Blum had said, "No one suggested using military force. That is a sign of humanity's moral progress." Aron remarked: "This moral progress meant the end of the French system of alliances, and almost certain war."

Today, it is President Bush who has said (repeatedly) that Iran's "development of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable, and a process which would enable Iran to develop a nuclear weapon is unacceptable." The "reason it's unacceptable," the president has explained, is that "Iran armed with a nuclear weapon poses a grave threat to the security of the world." The Iranians must "not have a nuclear weapon in which to blackmail and/or threaten the world."

Is the America of 2006 more willing to thwart the unacceptable than the France of 1936? So far, not evidently. According to the New York Times, "One of President Bush's most senior foreign policy advisers" recently told a group of academics, "The problem is that our policy has been all carrots and no sticks. And the Iranians know it."

more...

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/095mzmiq.asp

[marmar]

1. So now Kristol is trying to equate stopping Iran to stopping Nazi Germany?

That man is a complete sociopath. I think he, like many Bush apologists, has gone quackers. He's lost all contact with reality.

[don954]

2. man, i seem to recall an article just about exactly like that

but with Iraq as the target 3 years ago during the run up to Iraq War. Cant they come up with new materal?

[enid602]

3. why

If Bush thinks the growing influence of Iran is unacceptable, then why did he eliminate the one regime in the area that did so much to counteract Iran?

[skeeters2525]

4. Bush/Iran Kissin Cousins

Here we go again. The Bush family has always been in bed with Iran. Well I know, they did arm Saddamn in the war with Iran. But they armed Iran too. They just like to make money on war.

But let's think outside the box. What is the real reason Iran is now the hot potato. Why, could it be we have to scare the stupid again. You got it.

I'll bet, and don't put up money it's just a term, that Iran is working with Bush to look tough so Bush can play War President again.

Now. Just a theory. So call me tinfoil hat or whatever useless cliche you can find. But these same people told us Saddamn was a threat. And now they repeat the same lies. If this were a movie, you'd just get up and leave. But it's real, and there are many falling for the same lies.

War, what is it good for. Well, distractions and money. Tin Soldiers and Halliburton's coming.