Dermer said Bush should attack & defeat–all at once–Iran — & Iraq & Syria

In the Dec. 21, 2001 issue of The Jerusalem Post, today’s Israeli ambassador to the United States, Ronald Dermer, who secretly cooked up with Boehner and Netanyahu the trip and the speech, wrote a quite amazing little piece:

It’s strikingly titled– “The March to Baghdad.”

He writes:

“It now it is clear to everyone that the war against terror waged so efficiently [!] in Afghanistan will soon move to other theaters.

…. “Today with an impressive victory in Afghanistan [!]

“under his belt Bush will have an even easier time mobilizing the American people for war against Saddam. [!]

…”But Afghanistan has not only given the Bush administration a much-needed battleground victory [!]

“in the war against terror…

“it has also given it a model of how that war can best be fought.” [!]

Folks, it’s Israel’s Ambassador Ronald Dermer.

Dermer also mentions hopefully that the US will attack —

a whole slew of other countries…

All in short order — or even at the same time:

Including the US (George Bush) attack Iran. And without any mention at all of Iran having any nukes.

No mention at all of Iranian nukes– nothing whatsoever. But still, just maybe (and hopefully) Bush will successfully attack and “beat” gigantic Iran too.

He writes, in his “The March to Baghdad”:

“While there is some debate over whether the American administration will first target smaller terrorist regimes like those in Syria and the Sudan or larger ones like those in Iran….”

no nukes, just part of the whole series of countries Bush will hopefully attack …

It can just be done easily and quickly. The only question is which order? Hmm… good question.

So, quickly and in quick short-order, folks: Topple large-to-small countries first or small-to-large countries first?

Shall we toss a coin? Seems to be pretty painless. And seems it’ll be all over in a jiffy anyway.

As for Iran, again, no mention of nukes, nothing, but just maybe (and hopefully) Bush will launch an attack on gigantic Iran just before or after Baghdad and Iraq:

“While there is some debate over whether the American administration will first target smaller terrorist regimes like those in Syria and the Sudan or larger ones like those in Iran…

Not whether or not to, Dermer says. Just in which quick and rapid-fire and express-lane order would it be best to get totally rid of them all.

Again no Iranian nukes, just as a quick part and parcel of the whole series of countries Bush will hopefully and in a jiffy attack and topple. Topple – or something.

And with no geopolitical consequences, either !

And–the key isn’t Iran and nukes. It’s Iraq: “The March to Baghdad.”

“Second the day when the world will have to face a nuclear-armed Saddam is fast approaching.”

Oh no.

In talking about which order to wipe them out, and whether large-to-small or small-to-large, Iran will be such easy pickings it doesn’t even really matter. His eyes are on Iraq. The March to Baghdad:

“While there is some debate over whether the American administration will first target smaller terrorist regimes like those in Syria and the Sudan or larger ones like those in Iran…”

Iran is so quick and easy and unimportant and so not even a nuke issue, it doesn’t even matter to Dermer—so he finishes his sentence…

“….and Iraq there is little doubt that Saddam Hussein’s days in power are numbered.”

So who cares about Iran? Certainly Bush will quickly wipe the government of Iran clean off the map…

But first—and it seems the short-order exrpess-lane sequence Bush is gonna choose is to Baghdad and Iraq.

Tehran, yes, and quickly, and Syria too, but probably seems take Iran by way, first of all, of Iraq.

Why not? After all, again, he opens like this:

“It now it is clear to everyone that the war against terror waged so efficiently in Afghanistan will soon move to other theaters. ….

Today with an impressive victory in Afghanistan

under his belt Bush will have an even easier time mobilizing the American people for war against Saddam.

…But Afghanistan has not only given the Bush administration a much-needed battleground victory….

it has also given it a model of how that war can best be fought.”

You see, Dermer says:

Before Sept. 11, Bush

“did not have… a successful war model.”

Now he does!

Successful war models, take out all these countries, quick and easy-as-pie, non-nuclear Iran too, but first…nuclear Iraq.

This is Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, Ronald Dermer.

This–is a guy who we have rational reason to find trustworthy?

This–is the guy who…behind the back of the American President…

hatched a sneaky plot with Boehner and Netanyahu to get Netanyahu a speech before a Joint Session of Congress?