A really bad idea ... but the American Legion will love it

Bush spoke to the American Legion on Tuesday. I can see why he would feel at home with that crowd; see my earlier posts Is it just because they hate our freedoms? 08/24/05 and Legionaires Disease II is already speading 08/27/05.

Our Dear Leader's speech included this:

The other strain of radicalism [besides Sunni extremism] in the Middle East is Shia extremism, supported and embodied by the regime that sits in Tehran. Iran has long been a source of trouble in the region. It is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Iran backs Hezbollah who are trying to undermine the democratic government of Lebanon. Iran funds terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which murder the innocent, and target Israel, and destabilize the Palestinian territories. Iran is sending arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan, which could be used to attack American and NATO troops. Iran has arrested visiting American scholars who have committed no crimes and pose no threat to their regime. And Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.

Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. And that is why the United States is rallying friends and allies around the world to isolate the regime, to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late. (my emphasis)

We've been down this road before with Dear Leader. It's impossible for war opponents to answer each and every line of the claims used to push for war with Iran. But we can note the main ones. Is there any real evidence that Iran is supplying the Taliban? It's very unlikely, since Iran was hostile to the Sunni-fundamentalist Taliban regime in Afghanistan and actively supported the US efforts to overthrow it.

My understanding is that it's correct that Iran "is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism". That was also true back in 2002 when Cheney and Bush were pushing for war with Iraq, claiming it was a state sponsor of terrorism that had to be stopped. Critics of that policy at the time pointed out over and over again that according to the State Department's own documents, Shi'a Iran was the leading state sponsor of terrorism, not secular-Sunni Iraq.

That Iranian-sponsored terrorism, so far as we know from the public record, has not been directly specifically against the United States since the attack on Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, which is widely regarded as an Iran-sponsored attack.

Our Leader continued:

I want our fellow citizens to consider what would happen if these forces of radicalism and extremism are allowed to drive us out of the Middle East. The region would be dramatically transformed in a way that could imperil the civilized world. Extremists of all strains would be emboldened by the knowledge that they forced America to retreat. Terrorists could have more safe havens to conduct attacks on Americans and our friends and allies. Iran could conclude that we were weak -- and could not stop them from gaining nuclear weapons. And once Iran had nuclear weapons, it would set off a nuclear arms race in the region.

Extremists would control a key part of the world's energy supply, could blackmail and sabotage the global economy. They could use billions of dollars of oil revenues to buy weapons and pursue their deadly ambitions. Our allies in the region would be under greater siege by the enemies of freedom. Early movements toward democracy in the region would be violently reversed. This scenario would be a disaster for the people of the Middle East, a danger to our friends and allies, and a direct threat to American peace and security. This is what the extremists plan. For the sake of our own security, we'll pursue our enemies, we'll persevere and we will prevail. (Applause.)

In the short-term, we're using all elements of American power to protect the American people by taking the fight to the enemy. ... Our strategy is this: We will fight them over there so we do not have to face them in the United States of America. (Applause.) (my emphasis)

... We seek an Iran whose government is accountable to its people - instead of to leaders who promote terror and pursue the technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons.

He is claiming the alleged Iranian backing for anti-American attacks in Iraq, where Iran is backing the American-supported Shi'a government, as a fact:

Shia extremists, backed by Iran, are training Iraqis to carry out attacks on our forces and the Iraqi people. Members of the Qods Force of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are supplying extremist groups with funding and weapons, including sophisticated IEDs. And with the assistance of Hezbollah, they've provided training for these violent forces inside of Iraq. Recently, coalition forces seized 240-millimeter rockets that had been manufactured in Iran this year and that had been provided to Iraqi extremist groups by Iranian agents. The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased in the last few months - despite pledges by Iran to help stabilize the security situation in Iraq.

Some say Iran's leaders are not aware of what members of their own regime are doing. Others say Iran's leaders are actively seeking to provoke the West. Either way, they cannot escape responsibility for aiding attacks against coalition forces and the murder of innocent Iraqis. The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops. I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities. (Applause.)

For all those who ask whether the fight in Iraq is worth it, imagine an Iraq where militia groups backed by Iran control large parts of the country. Imagine an Iraq where al Qaeda has established sanctuaries to safely plot future attacks on targets all over the world, including America. We've seen what these enemies will do when American forces are actively engaged in Iraq. And we can envision what they would do if we - if they were emboldened by American forces in retreat. (my emphasis)

I really hope some enterprising reporter is following up on exactly what Bush meant when he said, "I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities."

He's talking more and more, it seems, as though hostility to Iran is part of the Iraq War. And if he attacks Iran, it will be essentially a broadening of the Iraq War. With consequences that will not be good for the United States.

Bush's host on Tuesday, the American Legion, takes a position on antiwar criticism that fits well with the authoritarian state of today's Republican Party. From their booklet Resolution 169 - The War on Terrorism: A Guide to Building Awareness (2005):

Antiwar groups began demonstrating against military action even before U.S. troops began to strike back at our enemies. The antiwar group Act Now to Stop War and End Racism actually held its first antiwar rally on Sept. 29, 2001 - before U.S. forces began the liberation of Afghanistan, before the first terrorist was jailed at Guantanamo Bay, before the war in Iraq, even before the fi res stopped smoldering in Manhattan.

Because of their methods, history will not judge these protesters kindly. They are not only causing additional pain and anguish to America’s heroes, they are also encouraging the enemy, thereby lengthening the war.

In our view, war is painful enough without adding anguish to its veterans and their families. What do we mean by anguish? Walter Reed Medical Center, where many of America’s injured warriors are being treated, has been targeted by war protesters. Some demonstrators have gone as far as protesting at funerals for America’s fallen heroes. Some opponents of the war have even called the terrorists "freedom fighters." These terrorists are people who murder religious pilgrims, behead humanitarian aid workers, kill unarmed U.N. offi cials and bomb U.S. troops as they rebuild broken cities. Simply put, they are not freedom fighters. They are killers without conscience or compunction. That was obvious to most Americans on 9/11, and it remains obvious today. (my emphasis)

These guys (and they're mostly guys) are still so hung up on the "culture war" of the 1960s that they seem fixated on the moment when Spiro Agnew was Vice President and ranting and evil media types in New York (and we know what kind of people live in New York, don't we, nudge-nudge wink-wink?) and hippie protesters. Further in their little propaganda pamphlet, in which they equate supporting the Cheney-Bush war policy with (of course!) supporting "the troops", they say:

U.S. forces serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are committed to completing their mission successfully, transforming tyrannies to democracies and defeating organized terrorism in places where it has been allowed to exist. Those U.S. forces need to know that most Americans share their passion to succeed and that those who oppose the war represent a media-hungry minority whose efforts inspire the enemy. Troops everywhere must know that the people at home support them and their mission. They cannot be separated from each other, and support for both is the fast track to bringing our troops home safely. The protest movement, meanwhile, gives hope to the insurgency, to terrorists and other criminals around the world, energizing their campaigns to destroy America and all it values. (my emphasis)

I haven't gone back and checked the polls from 2005. But sufferers from this particular brand of Legionnaire's disease that leads them to cheer for disastrous war policies by Cheney and Bush are very much a minority in America today.

Tags: american legion, authoritarianism, bush, iraq war, iran, iran war