Excerpted from today's
Washington Post:
Iran Watch
In an interview with NBC's David Gregory, Bush refused to rule out the potential for military action against Iran.
This comes in the wake of a Seymour Hersh story in the New Yorker in which Hersh says his sources tell him that Bush's next strategic target is Iran.
"The President and his national-security advisers have consolidated control over the military and intelligence communities' strategic analyses and covert operations to a degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War national-security state. Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for using that control -- against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the ongoing war on terrorism -- during his second term," Hersh writes.
Also from the NBC interview:
"Gregory: It's clear, sir, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Do you think that the word of the United States is still good enough around the world for you or future presidents to ever again launch a preventative or pre-emptive military strike?
"Bush: Well, you might remember that the intelligence that we used was close to the intelligence that the U.N. had about Saddam Hussein and that many countries had about Saddam Hussein. But we did find out that he had the intent and the capability of making weapons, which in my judgment still made him a dangerous man, and the world understood how dangerous Saddam Hussein was.
"Gregory: Could you ever do it again, though?
"Bush: Well, hopefully we don't have to, but if we had to, to protect America, if, you know, if all else failed and we needed to use force to protect the citizens of the United States, I would do so."
But aren't American troops already overextended? Ronald Brownstein writes in his Los Angeles Times column: "The strains on the volunteer military from the war in Iraq are now unsettling as many Republicans as Democrats -- and exposing an enduring contradiction in President Bush's agenda."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From the same article, here's another example of the "fuck you" arrogance that's typical of this dickhead:
"The Post: Why do you think [Osama] bin Laden has not been caught?
"THE PRESIDENT: Because he's hiding."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
What the fuck else does this guy have to do before the public realizes he's going to bankrupt and destroy the fucking country?