Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Frank Gaffney: The Real Solution in Iran Is What We're Doing in Iraq

Reported by Marie Therese - November 24, 2004

Frank Gaffney, listed by FOX News as a former Assistant Defense Secretary and President of the Center for Security Policy, discussed the Iran situation with John Gibson, host of Big Story on November 19, 2004. Mr. Gaffney is also a member of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, the conservative think tank that provides FOX News with a lot of its experts.

VIDEO CLIP: COLIN POWELL: "If they [the Iranians] had been working on a nuclear weapon and designed a nuclear warhead, certainly they were also trying to figure out how they would deliver such a weapon." (END CLIP.)

John Gibson asked Gaffney "How worried should we be about Iran's nuclear program?" Gaffney responded that he thought "We have to be rather worried about it ... because it's coming in combination with several other things that are also worrying." He continued, saying that the "Islamofascist" regime in Iran "has been involved around the world supporting terror, including much of it aimed at American interests. It is a regime that is pursuing other WMDs and their delivery systems and not least it's a regime that is actively trying to undermine what we're trying to do in Iraq to bring about a better, more peaceable Middle East."

He went on to note that the mullahs are "not going to stop producing this gas or pursuing other aspects of a nuclear weapons program, I think, because a deadline has been passed and they're into some new arrangements with willingly-deluded, self-deluded as much as Iranian-deluded Europeans. This is going to be, I believe, just a way station along the path towards fulfilling the mullahs' nuclear weapons ambitions."

Giving the impression of "fairness," Gibson then revealed that there was a "little guff today that Powell was revealing classified information that he shouldn't have and that we're not so sure the information's any good, because some guy walked in with this information and Powell defended himself by saying ‘Hey, look, we all know they're trying to get a nuclear weapon - of course, they're trying to get a missile.'" However, Gibson softened the implications that Powell was using unsubstantiated intelligence by asking Gaffney: "Who's right here? Powell or the people who were sorta givin' him some lip?"

(Comment: To the average FOX viewer, the rude people who had the audacity to give Powell "lip" would, of course, be dismissed as unpatriotic, stupid and unreliable. Gibson achieved his goal - Powell's unsubstantiated statement was elevated to the status of "Proven Fact" and in future broadcasts will be treated as such. In other words Jell-O has been transmuted into Iron. This is the same kind of verbal sleight-of-hand that got us into the War in Iraq! Additionally, throughout the interview Gaffney made liberal use of qualifiers like "I think," "in my opinion," etc.)

Gaffney answered Gibson's question by saying: "Whether the Secretary was referring to specific information about warhead design that would mate up with one of these missiles and its provenance, I can't say. But, John, I will tell you, John, it's an inferential point, but it's a very important bit of circumstantial evidence that this is a nuclear weapons program that is going forward in Iran and will continue to go forward and we have to continue to be worried about it." (Comment: "I can't say?" "Inferential"? "Circumstantial evidence"? Such opinion wouldn't pass muster in a court of law, but FOX will use it to advocate more war!)

My transcription of the remainder of interview:

GIBSON: Frank, is there any way the United States and western Europe, which are all trying, is there any way the western world can stop Iran from getting this weapon?

GAFFNEY: I only know of one way and we've seen it applied in a particular fashion in Iraq. I think there are other ways to do it, but the bottom line ...

GIBSON (interrupts): Are you talking about when the Israelis bombed the nuclear facility?

GAFFNEY: I was thinking actually about effecting regime change through the use of military force. There are other ways to effect regime change as well. The problem with not replicating the Iraqi (Israeli?) Osirak attack, which also had a desired effect on Iraq, is it is no longer possible, given the lessons the Iranians learned about concealing and dispersing their nuclear weapons program. I think to do that very discriminate, precise military strike, you're gonna have to change the regime, and I think the good news here, John, if there is any, is that I believe the Iranian people want that every bit as much as we do, if not more.

GIBSON: Frank, are the mullahs so weak and teetering that a little push will push them over?

GAFFNEY: It's hard to say. They're not as weak or as teetering as the Shah was in 1979 when the people of Iraq, frankly, with the United States' acquiescence, if not encouragement, overthrew the Shah.

But, I believe there is almost universal hostility on the part of the Iranian people for this regime and, if we help them, if we make it clear we're not interested in dictating to them what kind of government they have or we're not interested in invading them, but we are interested in helping them free themselves, I think you will find this regime certainly cannot both pursue those things I talked about at the top of the program - the WMDs, the terror in Iraq, terror elsewhere and this Islamofascist agenda - and worry about it's own survival at home and that would be a very good thing to bring about.

Post a comment

Remember Me?

We welcome your opinions and viewpoints. Comments must remain civil, on-topic and must not violate any copyright or other laws. We reserve the right to delete any comments we deem inappropriate or non-constructive to the discussion for any reason, and to block any commenter for repeated violations.

Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.