Rumsfeld: Iran Regime Sponsors Terrorism

[ProSense]

Rumsfeld: Iran Regime Sponsors Terrorism

By DAVID RISING, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 25 minutes ago

MUNICH, Germany - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld urged America's allies to increase their military spending to prevent the rise of a "global extremist Islamic empire."

He also urged the world to work for a "diplomatic solution" to halt Iran's nuclear program.

"The Iranian regime is today the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism," he said in prepared remarks. "The world does not want, and must work together to prevent, a nuclear Iran."

Rumsfeld was in Munich to address a defense conference focused on the relationship between America and its European allies.

The remarks came as the U.N. nuclear agency was meeting in Vienna, Austria to vote on a U.S.-backed proposal to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council over concerns Tehran may be developing nuclear weapons.

more...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060204/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/germany_rumsfeld

Same statement can be applied to Saudi Arabia.

[rudy23]

1. then we should be concerned about Cheney's ties to Iran

via Halliburton, as well as several other high ranking R's.

[JuniperLea]

2. Same thing they say about Iraq

Only to find out that Hussein and Bin Laden have opposing views and would never support one another.

We are being played like a fiddle.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

3. With Pakistan and India aiming their nukes at each other.... Iran

somehow is the problem... okey dokey.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. global extremist Islamic empire?

Can I have some of what Rummy is smoking? How about preventing the rise of a global extremist christian empire? That is a real and present danger.

[Kalisiin]

6. Ah, But...

A global CHRISTIAN extremist empire is not dangerous if YOU are a Christian extremist imperialist!

[jarnocan]

5. but we do (BU**SH** regime actually) promotes it

hate and fear= terrorism
They are beating their drums- looking for the right excuse and way to motivate US to back what? an attack that likely will include bunker busting bombs- armed with nuclear war heads.
Now many folks here- even on OLS are discussing this substantial possibility, so I would imagine it even seems more frighteningly likely if you lived in Iran.
I wonder how I would feel, would I be more anti-terroristst or more anti-BUSH, if I was an Iranian. What prospect would terorize me the most?

[Kalisiin]

8. Quite Frankly

Nukes would terrorize me more than terrorists.

Your chances of being a victim of a car-bombing, a bus-bombing, a train-bombing...any suicide bomber...even a victim of something like 9/11 - is still smaller than your chances of being struck by lightning!

On the other hand...your chances of being affected by radiation and nuclear fallout, when those "bunker-busting" bombs with nuclear material come raining down on your country....well, let's just say you're far more likely to be negatively impacted by that...than you are a terrorist attack.

Therefore, the prospect of nukes would terrorize me more than would the threat of terrorists...if I was looking at it from the perspective of an average Iranian.

[Catchawave]

7. Do we need another act of Congress to invade

another country? Or did Bush get the blank check he needs to spread his global freedoms?

[Kalisiin]

9. Nope.

Bush will just claim it is another part of "The War On Terror" and that congress has already approved him to wage such a war. don't you just love how he doesn't even have to name an enemy...and that he can add enemies later on, and get no approval from Congress for it...claiming they already gave him that, post 9/11, with their AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force)?

How convenient is that??

[Catchawave]

11. But the approval was based on faulty intelligence ?

And all we have to show for the invasion is a 300 billion dollar Terrorist Training Camp ?

Surely, there's an escape clause?

[Kalisiin]

15. Yes

There is an escape clause. Get the Congress to specifically withdraw the AUMF.

Good luck trying to get this rubber-stamp Congress to do it, though!

We would need an act of congress literally and explicitly FORBIDDING Bush to continue to use the post 9/11 AUMF for any military venture he sees fit. It would need to clearly outline exactly what is, and is not authorized.

The commander-in-chief clause is pure bullshit. Nixon tried that one, too, and got shot down by the SCOTUS. That ruling still satnds. Although, with new Chief "Just us" Roberts, and a newly-confirmed "Just us" Scalito...well, you see where I am going.

R.I.P. America! I loved you!

[ProSense]

13. IWR isn't a blanket statement, and Bush violated it in attacking Iraq. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

10. The Imperium proclaimed

that it has the authority under the 'commander in chief' clause of the constitution to ignore the constitution and any and all legislation it deems inconvenient in its efforts to make us safe from terra. It further proclaimed that when the IWR was passed that amounted to a blank check to do any damn thing it pleases in order to keep the same terra from overtaking us.

However I would expect the Imperium to go to the compliant congress and squeeze some new and ambiguous authority out of it to clobber Iran, or perhaps to elicit approval after the bombing starts, which would be real soon now. I would further expect that the compliant congress will vote something like 75-25 (and its equivalent in the house) to approve the slaughter of Iranians.

[Catchawave]

12. Scary sh*t isn't it ?

Our congress gave him the authority start World War III. Especially with Rummy out there whipping up the Hitler comparisons to Chavez. :nuke:

[leesa]

14. If America falls for this shit again they deserve everything they get.