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

O'Reilly solves the Iran "conundrum"

Reported by Chrish - April 18, 2006

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo tonight 4/17/06 laid out his oversimplified plan for resolving the "Iran dilemma." Today The New York Times was a credible source for Bill, who referenced an op-ed piece by former presidential counter-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke and acknowledged Middle-East and terrorism expert Steven Simon. They say a military attack on Iran will prompt retaliatory measures including terrorist tactics.

O'Reilly says that Clarke and Simon don't offer a solution for the conundrum and they just warn of dire consequences should the US bomb, but he fails to mention their advice:

"Congress did not ask the hard questions then (pre-Iraq). It must not permit the administration to launch another war whose outcome cannot be known, or worse, known all too well."

They put the responsibility squarely on Congress, where it belongs.

O'Reilly says that we've tried diplomacy for years and all it got us was attacked, by Al Queda and the Taliban.

"Every time you hear the word diplomacy you should know that the speaker has nothing else, no other solution to the growing menace* from Iran. Neville Chamberlain loved diplomacy and so did Hitler. Remember, the Iran mullahs are Nazis! "

Yes, he agrees, "bad things" will happen if we attack Iran but worse things will happen if we allow that terrorist state to get nukes. So O'reilly's plan:

Have a summit of industrialized nations in Geneva and each nation submits a plan, to be made public. Then the world can see which nations want control in the world and which want chaos. After the summit, if Iran continues to "develop nukes", the UN Security Council should vote on sanctions, and the world would see from these actions, the summit and the vote, what a danger Iran poses to the planet. Finally, the US, Great Britain, and other willing nations should meet secretly to decide what consequences Iran should face if they continue with their terrorist policies. Hopefully that worst-case scenario wouldn't have to be implemented but the mullahs need to know there's that possibility. That's what should happen: lots of diplomacy and conversation, but behind the scenes a really big stick.

Comment: From his mocking comments about diplomacy we can deduce that the diplomacy and conversation he pretends to advocate would be insincere charades meant for the TV cameras and for the record. The really big stick, the secret war planning, is already in motion. All that remains is the PR campaign to get the public fearful and ready to get behind "Shock and Awe: The Sequel." This one is going to be harder if not impossible to sell, but as Lawrence Eagleburger said the other day on The Big Story, "it will take a lot of courage to do it, particularly if we can't get anybody else in the world to join us" and post-bombing the sycophants (psychophants) at FOX News will be telling us how courageous Bush is.

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.