http://media.www.hofstrachronicle.com/media/storage/paper222/news/200...

Dumbo declares war on terror "World War III"

By: Samuel Rubenfeld

Posted: 10/25/07

With one careless move late last week, President Bush ratcheted up the
rhetoric again. The new frontline in the "War on Terror" might just be
a nuclear-armed Iran. But this time, the world powers are not just
apathetic, but actively against the United States.

The U.S. is not ready and not able to conquer another nation, for a
whole host of reasons, the specious nature of our foreign intelligence
notwithstanding.

And more than the "War on Terror," Bush has already labeled the new
campaign "World War III." (Cue the doomsday image with a mushroom
cloud here.)

The language used by the administration mirrors that of its
manipulation of public discourse in the run-up to the Iraq War in 2002
and 2003-that should not strike anyone as a coincidence.

Famed investigative reporter Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker has been
reporting with increasing urgency about a planned war with Iran since
Jan. 2005. He has been reporting about competing U.S. relations with
Iran-or the lack thereof-and its impact on Israel since Nov. 2001.
Hersh's highly (but often anonymously) sourced reports are getting
increasing attention from the "blogosphere," who has forced the
mainstream media to pay attention.

In his latest article, Hersh identifies the changing rhetoric of the
administration, and its obvious threats towards Iran. "I have
authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's
murderous activities," Bush said to a cheering audience at the
national convention of the American Legion.

News reports have been honing in on the White House for a comment on
the whisper campaign across the beltway, but until last week, no one
was saying anything.

The campaign against Iran is led by the most aggressive and
ideological members of the Vice President's office, including *****
Cheney himself; again no surprise there. In a speech Sunday hosted by
The Washington Institute, a research organization, Cheney called Iran
"a growing obstacle to peace in the Middle East" and he said the U.S.
"will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

"The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present
course, the international community is prepared to impose serious
consequences," Cheney added.

Middle East expert Dennis Ross, who is a scholar for the Institute and
has served as an envoy to the Middle East for both the first President
Bush and for President Bill Clinton, told The New York Times that
Cheney's language is "quite significant" and that it "does have
implications," even if it doesn't call for specific military action.

If it is already in the "theoretical" stage, the American people by
now should know that war is inevitable as long as Cheney's office
continues to have a stranglehold on foreign policy decisions.

Foreign powers are almost unanimously against the idea of a war with
Iran. Most notably is Russia's opposition by President Vladimir Putin,
who attended a meeting in Tehran with Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei, and reportedly expressed a willingness to cooperate with
a nuclear Iran.

The only major foreign nation seemingly on board with the hard line
Iran policy is, strangely enough, France, along with the usual suspect
Britain. President Nicolas Sarkozy's foreign minister said that his
country is preparing for the "worst" regarding the Iranian nuclear
ambitions. Even if his words, as he said, were "misunderstood," it
underscores the growing alliance between France and the U.S. since
Sarkozy's election.

Iran itself has long denied an interest in nuclear armament; in fact,
Ahmadinejad said as much in an interview on "60 Minutes." But the
evidence proves otherwise, as Tehran has obfuscated every move the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has attempted to make in
inspecting the nuclear sites.

The U.S. cannot handle the Iraq war, let alone attempting to conquer
another nation. But with the snake pit of a $10 billion a month
misadventure in Iraq, how can the President justify another war? There
are no troops to spare, especially since the policy of "stop-loss" is
already taxing the troops beyond what an able-bodied person can
normally take. There is no political will for another invasion.

This is nothing more than fear-mongering of the worst order. And it
has to stop.

Samuel Rubenfeld is a junior print journalism student. You may e-mail
him at

http://media.www.hofstrachronicle.com/media/storage/paper222/news/200...

Dumbo declares war on terror "World War III"

By: Samuel Rubenfeld

Posted: 10/25/07

With one careless move late last week, President Bush ratcheted up the
rhetoric again. The new frontline in the "War on Terror" might just be
a nuclear-armed Iran. But this time, the world powers are not just
apathetic, but actively against the United States.

The U.S. is not ready and not able to conquer another nation, for a
whole host of reasons, the specious nature of our foreign intelligence
notwithstanding.

And more than the "War on Terror," Bush has already labeled the new
campaign "World War III." (Cue the doomsday image with a mushroom
cloud here.)

The language used by the administration mirrors that of its
manipulation of public discourse in the run-up to the Iraq War in 2002
and 2003-that should not strike anyone as a coincidence.

Famed investigative reporter Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker has been
reporting with increasing urgency about a planned war with Iran since
Jan. 2005. He has been reporting about competing U.S. relations with
Iran-or the lack thereof-and its impact on Israel since Nov. 2001.
Hersh's highly (but often anonymously) sourced reports are getting
increasing attention from the "blogosphere," who has forced the
mainstream media to pay attention.

In his latest article, Hersh identifies the changing rhetoric of the
administration, and its obvious threats towards Iran. "I have
authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's
murderous activities," Bush said to a cheering audience at the
national convention of the American Legion.

News reports have been honing in on the White House for a comment on
the whisper campaign across the beltway, but until last week, no one
was saying anything.

The campaign against Iran is led by the most aggressive and
ideological members of the Vice President's office, including *****
Cheney himself; again no surprise there. In a speech Sunday hosted by
The Washington Institute, a research organization, Cheney called Iran
"a growing obstacle to peace in the Middle East" and he said the U.S.
"will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

"The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present
course, the international community is prepared to impose serious
consequences," Cheney added.

Middle East expert Dennis Ross, who is a scholar for the Institute and
has served as an envoy to the Middle East for both the first President
Bush and for President Bill Clinton, told The New York Times that
Cheney's language is "quite significant" and that it "does have
implications," even if it doesn't call for specific military action.

If it is already in the "theoretical" stage, the American people by
now should know that war is inevitable as long as Cheney's office
continues to have a stranglehold on foreign policy decisions.

Foreign powers are almost unanimously against the idea of a war with
Iran. Most notably is Russia's opposition by President Vladimir Putin,
who attended a meeting in Tehran with Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei, and reportedly expressed a willingness to cooperate with
a nuclear Iran.

The only major foreign nation seemingly on board with the hard line
Iran policy is, strangely enough, France, along with the usual suspect
Britain. President Nicolas Sarkozy's foreign minister said that his
country is preparing for the "worst" regarding the Iranian nuclear
ambitions. Even if his words, as he said, were "misunderstood," it
underscores the growing alliance between France and the U.S. since
Sarkozy's election.

Iran itself has long denied an interest in nuclear armament; in fact,
Ahmadinejad said as much in an interview on "60 Minutes." But the
evidence proves otherwise, as Tehran has obfuscated every move the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has attempted to make in
inspecting the nuclear sites.

The U.S. cannot handle the Iraq war, let alone attempting to conquer
another nation. But with the snake pit of a $10 billion a month
misadventure in Iraq, how can the President justify another war? There
are no troops to spare, especially since the policy of "stop-loss" is
already taxing the troops beyond what an able-bodied person can
normally take. There is no political will for another invasion.

This is nothing more than fear-mongering of the worst order. And it
has to stop.

Samuel Rubenfeld is a junior print journalism student. You may e-mail
him at