Terrorists To Get Geneva Protections

Update: Was in the middle of something when this came up, so I wanted to at least offer this. You do not win wars through the appeasement of enemies like al qaeda, and you do not win political battles by equivocating and caving to the Left. Ultimately, some legislative good may come from this, but it was hardly worth all the buzz. And with elections not far off, this will do nothing to energize the more conservative Republican base.

I read recently that Rove wasn't the force he had once been. That seems more and more clear as Republicans continue to annoy their base right before an election. I'm scratching my head and wondering if the fight hasn't simply worn Bush 43 down, or was the administration as confused about what it was doing, as the Left would allege, from the start?

THIS is the big announcement??? Stick a fork in these turkeys, they're done.

Sept. 6, 2006 — ABC News has learned that President Bush will announce that high-value detainees now being held at secret CIA prisons will be transferred to the Department of Defense and granted protections under the 1949 Geneva Conventions. It will be the first time the Administration publicly acknowledges the existence of the prisons.

A source familiar with the president's announcement says it will apply to all prisoners now being held by the CIA, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept.11 attacks, and senior al Qaeda leader Ramzi Binalshibh.

As for the coming election, Mickey Kaus' advice isn't all that bad. h/t Instapundit. Look for the President on video at Hot Air.

Michelle Malkin live blogged the speech and is posting reax like the one below. One problem though ... it sounds great in punditville, but elections aren't about punditry, they are about populism ... and Bush is going to lose this because people don't take time to understand the nuance, they just vote. As you can see from another link at Michelles, the media ia already calling this a reversal - the Dems will call it a defeat. Damned lawyers are always too smart by half when it comes to electoral politcs.

Mario Loyola's take at The Corner:

The President just pulled one of the best maneuvers of his entire presidency. By transferring most major Al Qaeda terrorists to Guantanamo, and simultaneously sending Congress a bill to rescue the Military Commissions from the Supreme Court's ruling Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the President spectacularly ambushed the Democrats on terrain they fondly thought their own. Now Democrats who oppose (and who have vociferously opposed) the Military Commissions will in effect be opposing the prosecution of the terrorists who planned and launched the attacks of September 11 for war crimes.

And if that were not enough, the President also frontally attacked the Hamdan ruling's potentially chilling effect on CIA extraordinary interrogation techniques, by arguing that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is too vague, and asking Congress to define clearly the criminal law limiting the scope of permissible interrogation.

Taken as a whole, the President's maneuver today turned the political tables completely around. He stole the terms of debate from the Democrats, and rewrote them, all in a single speech. It will be delightful to watch in coming days and hours as bewildered Democrats try to understand what just hit them, and then sort through the rubble of their anti-Bush national security strategy to see what, if anything, remains.

The President just pulled one of the best maneuvers of his entire presidency. By transferring most major Al Qaeda terrorists to Guantanamo, and simultaneously sending Congress a bill to rescue the Military Commissions from the Supreme Court's ruling Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the President spectacularly ambushed the Democrats on terrain they fondly thought their own. Now Democrats who oppose (and who have vociferously opposed) the Military Commissions will in effect be opposing the prosecution of the terrorists who planned and launched the attacks of September 11 for war crimes.

And if that were not enough, the President also frontally attacked the Hamdan ruling's potentially chilling effect on CIA extraordinary interrogation techniques, by arguing that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is too vague, and asking Congress to define clearly the criminal law limiting the scope of permissible interrogation.

Taken as a whole, the President's maneuver today turned the political tables completely around. He stole the terms of debate from the Democrats, and rewrote them, all in a single speech. It will be delightful to watch in coming days and hours as bewildered Democrats try to understand what just hit them, and then sort through the rubble of their anti-Bush national security strategy to see what, if anything, remains.

Comments

[Dennis]

HUGE win for the democrats. What was Bush thinking? Terrorists are now under the Geneva Convention and Bush admitted we had secret prisons? Mccain just said there will be NO torture and NO secret evidence. OOPS. Buh looks like the pussy now. Maybe Scarborough was right!

[rwilymz]

Huge win for ... no one we want to win anything serious.

The war isn't between Democrats and Republicans[*], Dennis; the war is between "the west" and pan-islamism. We want the west to win.

Right?

The more time and energy we spend making "HUGE wins" for our partisan long-dicking [and partisan long-dicking *only*], the less chance we have to win anything consequential.

.

.

.

* - Unless the war, in your eyes, *is* between the Democrats and Republicans, in which case you're not exactly what anyone would call an American.

[xxx]

Why should anyone be prosecuted using secret evidence that they are not entitled to see or challenge?

If we try these 'special prisoners' using secret evidence that no one is allowed to see, how is that different than Stalin's kangaroo show trials?

Because "we" are good, and "we" would never substitute "fake" evidence or "wrong" evidence for secret evidence?

What's the logical rationale anyway? If the suspect is guilty then he already is going to know what the secret evidence is and where it came from, so what is the benefit? Seems to me the real the goal of using secret evidence is because you know it won't survive scrutiny in the light of day but you also know that the condemnation you...Bush Co...have faced so far will pale in comparisson to what you will face when the world finds out that you've been holding hundreds of innocent people in Gitmo and the secret CIA gulags for several years...

Thus, we must have secret evidence allowable because otherwise the fact that we don't have any evidence would be obvious for all to see.

Disgusting.

[rwilymz]

"Seems to me the real the goal of using secret evidence is because you know it won't survive scrutiny in the light of day"

"Secret" evidence is just that: secret. If it's gotten byspy, we don't want the world to know who the spy is or where he was at X time on Y day, and so we don't publicize it. If we did, we'd lose the spy.

"when the world finds out that you've been holding hundreds of innocent people in Gitmo"

Ain't nobody "innocent" or "guilty" in Gitmo; they are combatants. And according to the self-same GenCons the USSC falsely and ignorantly ruled on several weeks ago, the folks there are subject to indefinite detention without charge, and without legal representation.

"...and the secret CIA gulags for several years..."

Yeah, our gulags are so much different than everyone else's. It is only us who should be shamed for having them. France? theirs are fine. China? acceptable. Russia? copasetic. Britain? tally-ho.

America's? OMIGOD!! SHUT IT DOWN!! HOW HORRIBLE!!

[xxx]

How do you know they are all combatants? Because the government tells you so?

What about the handful of people ALREADY released from Gitmo without charges? Are we releasing terrorists back out into the world without even bothering to charge them or were they wrongly detained from the beginning?

Or were they combatants and terrorists for the first couple of years and then they underwent a miraculous transformation into innocent people who are released without being charged?

[The Real Left]

I'm about as leftist as it gets, and even I think that this is a pitiful sop to opportunistic scum in order to try to win elections.

Let me explain: I'm a real live socialist (not some pansy-assed moderate like Hillary Clinton that all of you think is a socialist) who understands that we are in a war with Islamic barbarism for the future of the civilized world. I could care less about Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, or any other situation in which barbarians are treated in the same way they have treated others.

The Idiot Bush ramps up the nation with speeches about Islamic fascism (he FINALLY said what he should have said five years ago!), and then follows it with leniency for people who will kill themselves in order to kill us???!!!

What the hell is that? I may disagree with you folks on almost everything else, but damn it, even I know that when you engage in something called a "war," you do it to WIN. War is not a swat across the face with a diplomatic handkerchief; unless we remember how to fight, we really are doomed.

War kills. That's what it's supposed to do. I don't give a shit about bringing democracy to savages; I care about protecting democracy in the civilized world. No war was ever won by restraint.

[xxx]

That viewpoint presupposes that the government never makes mistakes, so that they only people ever locked up in Gitmo or tortured are the barbarian/terrorist/savages out to destroy us...

It is boardering on comical that anyone can take seriously the idea of a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists taking over Western Euorope and the US or destroying same via terrorism, especially since they universally come from fourth world nations whose only resource is the oil they sell to Western Europe and the US.

As far as the wide eyed buy in to 'war on terror' that goes on forever and ever and ever until every last barbarian terrorist is hunted down and killed, well, let me introduce you to George Orwell's future.

[jeff]

I listened to the speech. I think you need to read the transcript. Loyola's take is my take. It is also the take of the NPR hosts (where I tuned in.) I think once you absorb the speech, you'll be updating your post.

[xxx]

I agree it was a totally political move designed to energize the Sept. 11th=vote republican strategy that has done so well for the R's in the past 5 years.

Nothing like the cynical manipulation of national security and the 'war' on terror solely for partisan political reasons.

[Dan Riehl]

listened to the speech. I think you need to read the transcript. Loyola's take is my take. It is also the take of the NPR hosts

Well, that's a whole five or so votes. It doesn't matter how it get parsed, it matters how its spun. And I think the Dems and the media can handle this one just fine, painting Bush as caving in because he was wrong. But then, I don't think terrorists deserve Geneva protections in the first place. And that anyone thinks a bunch of upper to upper-middle class snots in Congress holding hearings asking PhD's and MD's how to determine appropriate interrogation techniques is a good idea, shows how silly this all is and how far we are from where we need to be.

[Brett]

Real left--

You're halfway to sanity. When you recognize that socialism is the most savage political philosophy to escape the intellect of the West, you'll be well.

[rwilymz]

"How do you know they are all combatants? Because the government tells you so?"

Have you got information to the contrary? To gainsay for presumptive reasons -- the government says it, therefore it's wrong -- is the rationality of the kindergartener.

"What about the handful of people ALREADY released from Gitmo without charges?"

When you are captured on the field of battle, when the battle is being fought between non-uniformed enemy combatants and us, the presumption is: if you are there, you are a combatant.

The va-a-ast majority of the combatants from A'stan sent to Gitmo were, indeed, combatants. There are 4 Chinese nationals who are not. But they can't be released, because to do so would open them up to the Chinese oppression they crawled over the mountains to escape, and to release them into the US would be tantamount to kidnapping -- albeit unwitting. So they're there, separated from the panislamists, and probably enjoying it.

But for the rest: combatants.

"Are we releasing terrorists back out into the world without even bothering to charge them or were they wrongly detained from the beginning?"

There is no "charge" for "being a combatant". They are combatants; period. Doesn't have to be charged or adjudicated. When we get tired of holding them, we let them go. Most released have shown back up on the battlefield. ...and they were tracked from Gitmo. It was not without design.

"It is boardering on comical that anyone can take seriously the idea of a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists taking over Western Euorope and the US or destroying same via terrorism, especially since they universally come from fourth world nations whose only resource is the oil they sell to Western Europe and the US."

You are presupposing rational foresight on the part of the pan-islamists. They haven't got any. Or, rather, they haven't got *much*.

It is the wildest fantasy of every classroom to overthrow the teacher and the principal and "run the school the way it *should* be run!!!" Yet how many 12 year-olds do you know with the foresight to brush their teeth every night so that they have good teeth and fresh breath by the time they're 16 and want to start kissing girls?

Islamic eschatology declares that the world is to be ruled by islam. Their scriptures say bupkus about whether it is run soundly, or with material progress; just that it is to be run by islam.

In order to do that, they need to supplant Western primacy in economic and military affairs. What the results are? irrelevant. As long as The West is no longer the economic power [what better way to do that than to pick our pockets for the oil it costs them <$5/bb to pump] or military power, then they will be on the road to the muslim "kingdom of god".

You can think it's comical if you like, but the evidence is right there.

"That viewpoint presupposes that the government never makes mistakes"

And yours presupposes that the government *invariably* makes mistakes.

"let me introduce you to George Orwell's future"

Which is why the foolish response is to combat the terrorIST; the terrorISTS are invariably the poor and dispossessed which have historically dominated human civilization. Yet terrorISM is a relatively new phenomenon, arrising mostly in the last few generations.

Uber-enlightened idiots long on student loans and short on real world experience will be quick to tell you that first-world militarism is what really creates terrorism. Yet a cursory glance through the history books they never opened will show them that there hasn't been a first-world empire in the history of the human race which created terrorism before about 70 years ago.

Persian empire? Roman? Greek? Babylonian? Aztec? Inca? Mayan? Spanish? British? Nary a terrorist.

What creates terrorism is rich nations not wanting to fight wars themselves [for political reasons] preying on the fatalism and gullibility of the poor and dispossessed. Nations like Syria and Iran don't want to take on Israel directly, so they hire dirt poor Palestinians to do it for them, and give them the modern weapons they need. So when Israel kicks ass then Israel is the bad guy for picking on the poor dears, and the responsibility does not *formally* go to Syria and Iran.

To avoid 1984-like perpetual war, we need to take out the financiers. The poor will dissolve on their own after that, relatively quickly, as they always have.

They may actually have to settle down and get a job.

[xxx]

Again with the nomenclature, "terrorists" have always been us from the perspective of the dispossessed using whatever means they had to kill anyone and everyone associated with whoever they thought they were being oppressed by. The jews perpetrated acts of terror on the Roman Empire and the Founding Fathers perpetrated acts of terror on the Brits, it was simply called by a different name.

Yes, governments invariably make mistakes. And they have released more than Chinese guys from Gitmo, they released a couple of German nationals and I think a Canadian and one or two Brits.

To avoid 1984 perpetual war/perpetual 'sacrifice' by the people/perpetuation of the authoritarian regime to 'protect us' we need to stop talking about the war on terror likes its a conventional hot war and stop talking about the need for "war powers".

I'm sorry, I simply cannot take the idea seriously of radical islam ever doing more to the West than killing some random civilians on occasion, nor do I believe that the Arab world wants to take over the West..we seem unable to differentiate a rejection of Western values, western culture and western ideas of equality/human rights etc. with a plan to destroy the west. The former is obvious, though misguided and bad news for all the citizens in the ME, the latter is pure paranoia and/or propaganda.

But maybe if we put some effort into alternative energey sources instead of drilling for PRETEND oil in Alaska then we wouldn't be at their mercy.

[old trooper]

XXX: As You have never seen a War, Your advice on War Crimes, the Gen Con, or anything else on this topic carries no water.

Having been held to the Gen Con and ROE in places that would be your worst nightmare, I can tell you that I find your sophomoric opinions are purely academic and non-applicable in the realm of REALITY.

The GEN Con specifically prohibits what you suggest and what the Prez proposes. I have read it and been held to that standard.

[xxx]

Huh?

It doesn't matter what the Geneva Conventions prohibit since until quite recently Bush has said that he doesn't have to abide by them in the context of the war on terror or those being held as enemy combatants.

[rwilymz]

""terrorists" have always been us from the perspective of the dispossessed using whatever means they had to kill anyone and everyone associated with whoever they thought they were being oppressed by."

Not really.

230 years ago, these "terrorists" you call American Revolutionaries picked up their muzzle-loading muskets and stood behind trees and stone walls and had essentially the same weaponry as the British soldiers they were firing at.

1950 years ago, the "terrorists" you call the Jewish Revolt got their swords out of the cupboard, hid at Masada, and had essentially the same weaponry as the Roman Legion.

No one supplied them; no one paid them to wage a proxy war on their behalf -- France wasn't paying American Revolutionaries to tie down a half million Redcoats and one-third of the Royal Navy. We might have come out of the Revolution without being buried in debt if they had.

Terrorism without outside influence and support uses organic means and methods -- i.e., the weapons they have in the closet -- and those weapons are comparable to current military weapons; modern terrorism is does not use organic means and methods, because the weapons in the closet are, almost literally, stone-age by comparison to military weapons. You can't go to the local gunsmithy and buy a grenade launcher. Or armor-piercing rockets. Or shoulder-launched SAMs. You certainly can't make them yourself.

These people are dupes. Without Syria and Iran financing and arming them, they don't exist. You have stone-throwing teenagers going up against a tank. ...which we see often enough in the West Bank. It's when the stone-throwing teenagers are the front line for a blind holding armor-piercing rockets ...

Modern terrorism requires state-financing; virtually nobody can finance the technological weaponry needed. Bin Laden can't even do it any longer; his finances have been frozen. Can't freeze a state's finances, that'd be a violation of their sovereignty and an act of war.

"I simply cannot take the idea seriously of radical islam ever doing more to the West than killing some random civilians on occasion, nor do I believe that the Arab world wants to take over the West"

Don't know why not. They say that; they take actions which match their words.

[rwilymz]

Look, 'x', you're not stupid. You've already shown you understand what happens when super-powers don't defend themselves properly.

For better or worse, we are the super-power. We are Rome. We out-rome Rome, for godsake. If anyone, not matter how small, challenges Rome, Rome is obliged to obliterate the challenge. Failure to do so encourages other challenges.

Enough challenges ... death by a thousand cuts.

Whether or not pan-islamism has the military muscle to go toe-to-toe with us and hold their own [let alone win] they are making the challenge. To have essentially half of our population sit back and say "ah! but they don't have what it takes, so we shouldn't respond to that" simply means that the Huns lived through their border raid and the Vandals saw it and are joining them for the next border raid.

[xxx]

I NEVER said we should not respond and even though it goes against my peacenik nature, history has taught us over and over again that deterrence works, when your enemies think you are too tough to go up agaisnt they won't do it, when your enemies think you've gone soft they start to test you to see how far they can go....

I just don't think WAR ON TERROR...big war, big invasions, hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground, taking over sovereign nations... and all the jingoistic crap that goes with it is the proper way to go about the problem.

Since I also don't believe that taking the Koran out of context and painting all Islam all Muslims and all Arab states as wanting to destroy the west [let us remember, the "west" is not Israel] is a worthwhile exercise or an accurate reflection of the truth of Islam/muslims/arab states I believe we need a carrot combined with a smaller, more mobile more black ops type of stick. The small, strategic stick is for the terrorist organizations and the carrot is for the arab states, when you make a move toward a secular, tolerant, non terror financing state you get a carrot. When you don't, you get a strategic, but meaningful beating with the stick. Small, low key sticks don't stir up the arab street or give amunition to radical islam and terrorist organizations. I also think we need to turn our stick on the Israelis and get them in line since I don't actually believe Israel is a true friend of the US, if they thought _______ would be a better protector they would sell us out in a heartbeat

I concede your point about modern terrorists and financing and the difference between an organic uprising in the streets and someone giving the uprisers military grade equipment.

[xxx]

PS,

It is also wise that when you are going to use all stick and no carrot that you make sure your stick hits its target dead center so there is no mistaking that you are not to be trifled with our provoked.

When you just wave your big stick around randomly or bring the big stick to the party but once you get there you aren't sure who to hit, or you find out you are at the wrong party, wrong address, dresssed all wrong for the festivities then you look like a MORON. Thus, the Iraq debacle has not improved our image or or deterence in the ME unless the idea of a stupid, irrational super power that hits first plans later is a deterrent rather than a mobilizer of opposition.

Or, when you go in with your big stick and you hit everything in sight, leaving blood and guts all over the place but miraculously your primary target is still standing after 15 rounds READ: Israel invades Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah, you have likewise not particularly helped your long term cause.

[rwilymz]

"I just don't think WAR ON TERROR... is the proper way to go about the problem."

How do you defend yourself without ... like ... defending yourself?

"let us remember, the "west" is not Israel"

Not to us, no; to them, yes. To them, Israel is effectively the 51st state of the union.

You don't need to go back any farther than the massive pan-islamist panty-wetting over The Danish Dozen. The US officially sided against Denmark, calling it "irresponsible". What were the pan-islamists chanting?

Death to Denmark
Death to Israel
Death to America
Death to Bush
...in that order. That is a very linear progression through their thinking pattern. Doesn't get clearer than that.

Listen to their official rhetoric: "zionist crusader". Let's just forget that the Crusades were a textbook military response to the two-pronged Turk/Moor invasion of Europe, they believe [as do the pitifully uneducated westerners] that the Crusades just popped up out of the blue, apropos of conquering and ruling a peaceful and benign Palestine. Anything which gets between them and ruling territory they've laid claim to is a "crusader".

"Zionist"? Well! to have a nation smack-dab in your face, on land you claim as yours, which is ruled by someone of a different religion, for the sake of that religion ... the muslim version of anathema.

Even now, they've laid claim to Spain and southeastern Europe -- because the Moors held Spain as a muslim province from the mid 700s to the mid 1400s, and because the Turks effectively owned the Balkans until WWI. Essentially, pan-islamists are saying "If it's mine it belongs to me; if it used to be mine, it belongs to me; if I want it, it belongs to me."

"I believe we need a carrot combined with a smaller, more mobile more black ops type of stick."

Well, okay, that's a proposition. Here are the problems I see with it right off the bat. Black-opsing our military responses to specifically aim at the antagonistic governments so as to not inflame the peasants sounds nice on paper. But the formula for modern terrorism is:
1] pissed off masses
2] charismatic hotheads whipping them into a war-frenzy
3] nations willing to supply them as a proxy army.

Pissed off masses is a historical constant. Every day of the 10,000 years of human civilization has had the majority of human being being poor, dispossessed and pissed off. Trying not to make the masses mad is pretty much guaranteed to not work. Hasn't worked yet, anyway.

So we have a government that supports terrorism. We *privately* kick their ass. We can't do anything publically, because that would inflame the masses, and so the government which supports terrorism against us remains in power. Since it remains in power, there is no need for substantive change in their policies -- and quite likely any change would be seen by those masses as capitulation -- and so the government which supports terrorism against us is free to continue doing so.

I.e., nothing has changed, and we're simply sneaking around to do it. At some point we have to actually draw the line in the sand -- preferably their sand in their deserts rather than our sand on our beaches -- and say, publically for all to hear: "No more; knock it the hell off", and hold *every*one's toes to the fire.

"I don't actually believe Israel is a true friend of the US, if they thought _______ would be a better protector they would sell us out in a heartbeat"

Dang. Israel is self-serving. The nerve!

[xxx]

Hmmm, how come my history book says the crusades were to take back the Holy Land....birthplace of Christ....from the unbelievers?

WHO specifically in the muslim world has laid claim to modern Spain?

Sorry, a state that differentiates between its citizens based on religion and ethnicity is inherently RACIST, the jews don't get a forever pass to do whatever they want in the quest to maintain Israel as a pure 'jewish' state in my book because of the Holocaust. If Americans really understood Israel they would no longer support it.

[rwilymz]

"When you just wave your big stick around randomly or bring the big stick to the party but once you get there you aren't sure who to hit, or you find out you are at the wrong party, wrong address, dresssed all wrong for the festivities then you look like a MORON."

Hardly. You look like the 1200-lb gorilla that everyone avoids annoying because when the 1200-lb gorilla is annoyed it goes on a bender.

International respect is earned among nations antithetical to you by means of fear, not cooperation. If Iran is afraid of us, they will respect us. If Iran is not afraid of us, they will see us as someone they can push around. Hearken back to the late 70s.

The "Iraq debacle" has caused Syria and Iran -- cooperative on the Hezbollah front -- to confront each other on the Iraq front. Now clearly, they both don't like the US having flattened Iraq, but they both see it as an opportunity to expand their own neo-empirial aims: they both want Iraq as a client state, to the point where they are willing to wage proxy war against each other rather than against us. It took less than two years for the primary insurgency in Iraq to shift from being anti-American to being sectarian.

The standard view is "this is a bad thing"; the long view is "this is a very very very good thing".

Was this planned? Doubtful; but much in History is the result of serendipity.

[rwilymz]

"how come my history book says the crusades were to take back the Holy Land"

That was the recruitment poster.

"WHO specifically in the muslim world has laid claim to modern Spain?"

Ahmadinejad.

"If Americans really understood Israel they would no longer support it."

If Americans really understood pan-islamism, they wouldn't be rationalizing it.

[xxx]

The standard view is "this is a bad thing"; the long view is "this is a very very very good thing".
--------------------------------

Your're talkikng a very very long view here...like several decades, since the short term result is more war and chaos in the ME, exactly the opposite of what we say/seem to think we want, which is a ME that is more western and more secular, not run by religious fantatics.

It seems to me Iran would be more scared of us if we weren't pinned down in Iraq, that they would be more scared of us if we still had credibility with the global audience when we say they're trying to make bombs right now, which we of course squandered in our Saddam has a whole new batch of WMD antics.

Somehow the view of my country as an insane, belligerant gorilla who attacks with our without real provocation is not very comforting, somewhere George Washington is turning over in his grave as is Eisenhower.

[rwilymz]

"Your're talkikng a very very long view here...like several decades"

Several decades is still short term. Life is not a microwave meal, where you fizz it on high for 45 seconds and get piping hot peace and stability.

"the short term result is more war and chaos in the ME"

There's a switch, eh? They're so not used to that.

"It seems to me Iran would be more scared of us if we weren't pinned down in Iraq"

We're pinned down? To whose way of thinking? Ours? Maybe. More like we're "busy". To theirs? what Iran sees is that we have 120K troops to their west, 30K troops to their east, 30K troops to their north, a whole ocean full of navy that could clap their hands and sink the glorified motor boats that constitutes the Iranian navy... an air force that on its worst day could obliterate theirs on their best day...

That's what Iran sees.

"if we still had credibility with the global audience when we say they're trying to make bombs right now..."

???

This is the complete turnaround I predicted last year. It was "the world audience" that rose the alarm over Iranian nukes -- EU, UN -- and which claimed that the US was too "quagmired" in Iraq to even notice. Iran dug in its heels, refused to budge to "negotiation", so ... predictably ... the individual "world audience" members drop out, now claim that it really isn't a problem, the world's second largest oil exporter needs nuclear energy, and one by one are rationalizing Iran. Annan was just quoted as saying that Iranian nukes are for "peaceful purposes", I believe it's Germany that is starting to yawn ... and now the US position -- same now as it was 2 years ago -- "lacks credibility" with the world. It has been the world which has changed; not us.

"which we of course squandered in our Saddam has a whole new batch of WMD antics"

I don't recall anyone saying that Hussein was making "new" chemical weapons.

"Somehow the view of my country as an insane, belligerant gorilla who attacks with our without real provocation is not very comforting"

Without provocation? To maintain standing as the super-power, provocation cannot be trivialized.

When a nation violates a cease-fire, it is every bit the provocation as crossing our borders and sacking Kansas City. It must be. If we refuse to enforce our treaties because "it's just not worth it" then our treaties will be violated with impunity every chance antithetical nations get. And they'll become worthless for lack of American balls.

'oh, golly, Iraq violated the cease fire, but we don't want to bother to do anything about it because we could get hurt ...' Next thing you know, Venezuela refuses to abide by its treaty about proliferating its US technology. 'oh, well, y'know, it's just a few old F-16 parts they sold to Iran ... no big deal ...'

"somewhere George Washington is turning over in his grave as is Eisenhower"

Yes; and they're mooning you over your lack of circumspection.