Crazed Madman Calls For Enemy's Oppressed Citizens to Rise Up, Kill Their Rulers

But Which Crazed Madman was it? It's truly difficult to tell them apart at times, what with their undying devotion to the regional and global supremacy of their respective nations, their blind fealty to religious folklore and legends, and their absolute disregard for the will of the citizens that each individually leads.

President Bush had nothing to say at the United Nations today... or at least, nothing that would convince anyone that his intent isn't to go to war with Iran. During Bush's 25-minute speech before the UN General Assembly he made it clear that he's dead set on war, that he has no desire to talk with his enemies, no proposals for negotiation and no initiatives of any sort, except to name an envoy to Sudan. I'm sure that Genocide will dry up the moment that guy gets there.

Bush's message to the people of Iran was interesting. The United States, he said, respects their country. "We admire your rich history, your vibrant culture, and your many contributions to civilization." The problem is "your rulers," who "deny you liberty" and seek nuclear weapons. Then came the sucker punch: "We're working toward a diplomatic solution to the crisis. And as we do, we look to the day when you can live in freedom." This statement reveals his contempt for diplomacy: in one sentence he advises consultation and negotiation, but in the next, he encourages Iranians to rise up and kill their leaders. Why would anyone even bother meeting with him when his ill intent is so clear? This is, of course, his true desire: to appease Americans nervous about a new war with platitudes and nice-sounding words, all while deliberating angering the Iranians who will see past the smile to the knife clutched behind his back. Bush's game is to threaten Iraq: while the Europeans hold out the olive branch of negotiations, he stands behind them with a club -- the last resort should diplomacy fail.

The real question now is where on Earth Bush plans to get the troops necessary to invade and conquer Iran? According to the new issue of Time Magazine, a "prepare to deploy" order has been sent out to U.S. Navy submarines, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers, and two mine-hunting ships. The chief of naval operations, the nation's top admiral, has ordered a fresh look at contingency plans for blockading Iran's oil ports.

These aren't the actions of a man determined to let diplomacy proceed apace. They look decidedly like the actions Bush took in threatening Saddam: "If you don't let us inspect your country for nukes, we'll go to war. Oh, you will? Okay, we'll inspect. Ooops, guess what, you've got not no nukes, so now we're definitely going to war with you because we know it's safe to do so." That particular game works once. The second time around, the person on the receiving end of those threats knows not to let you in to inspect because then you'll have proof that they're defenseless and you'll invade. The lesson has been taught, but it wasn't the lesson Bush wanted to teach.

Still, though, for threats like these to carry any real weight, they have to have force behind them... and at last count, our military is broken, unable to muster even a single division to attack Iran. I guess Bush could just declare Mission Accomplished II and move our soldiers from Iraq over to Iran, but then who's going to protect us HERE? (Because we wouldn't be fighting them over THERE, see).

Feh.