Who can we bomb next?

The Seattle-Post Intelligencer editorial board issues a call to arms:

With the clock ticking on our “commitments” in Iraq — the international mandate expires in less than a year — the Bush administration is left in an interesting position. It could create a plan for a troop withdrawal; instead, the plan being negotiated with the Iraqi government focuses on reasons to stay there, something The New York Times reports is seen by Democrats as a plan that would “bind the next president by locking in Mr. Bush’s policies and a long-term military presence.”

Imagine what this will mean for the next administration: A pre-packaged deal, leaving our military stuck in Iraq for decades to come, to guard against “external threats” — which external threats are they talking about? Could it be that the Bush administration is positioning itself for an attack on Iran? Or perhaps we’re to offer our troops as support for an Israeli attack on Iran? It’s not farfetched. The president has surely done his best yet to establish Iran as a real military threat, despite the lack of a shred of credible evidence.

Consider that he and his allies uttered no fewer than 935 false statements (when can we start calling them lies, by the way?). Falsehoods got us into Iraq; let’s not allow them to keep us there.

Text and images ©2023 Antony Loewenstein. All rights reserved.

Site by Common