Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx
What should the Obama administration's response to Iran's attempted act of war be?
A Sr. US defense official (unnamed in the article) says "The act is already done," the official said, noting the plot purportedly has been disrupted and calling it "much more of a law enforcement matter" than a military one.
"One of the people involved is still at large, but the other principal is in custody. So what does changing military posture do?"
He is deliberately trying to portray this as an act by two guys, rather than the terrorist act that it is supported by at least the Iranian military, if not higher. I hope this is just some lone misguided official and not the position of the Obama administration.
|
Given that this was posted only 54 minutes ago as I write, it must be characterized either as disingenuous or simply ill-informed. The Obama administration is taking all sorts of steps, but has not engaged in a specific retaliatory military strike. There is no question that it is being portrayed as a state-sponsored terrorist act by the Iranian government.
C'mon, Tracy, you're better than this. We can have a serious discussion about what the response ought to be, but let's start with being real about what's going on instead of trying to score points by implying (rather ham-handedly) that the Obama administration is, on this issue, "soft" on terrorism.