Subscribe Twitter

Sunday, July 20, 2008

POLITICS: Lay off George W. Bush

Sometimes the hatred for President GWB from those in the far-left and those in the far-right are indistinguishable. I know many Libtards and Conservatives hate the President with equal passion, either because he's too conservative for them or just not conservative enough. I mean, wtf, right? When President Bush sent a top US diplomat to sit down with some Iranian guy, along with representatives from the EU and a bunch of other countries I don't care to remember, many hawks howled with indignation. He's becoming "softer" on the War On Terror, they say. And yet we're talking about the man who invaded two countries (to topple tyrants), forced North Korea to slowly disarm itself, and pissed-off Leftists all over the globe! And yet people on the right say he is "softening" his stance. Well as much as I want to see the terrorists in Iran bombed to extinction, if there is another way to win the nuke enrichment argument with Iran without firing a single shot (a la Ronald Reagan vs. the Soviet Union), then that's fine. If there's anyone in this world who doesn't need to prove himself as being tough on terrorism and socialism, it's George W. Bush. Mention his name to a bunch of jihadists like, say, Hamas, or al-Qaeda in Wherever, and they'll burst into flames with hate and anger. On the other hand, when you say Hussein Obama...

From the American Thinker:

The hollow "victory" of Hezb'allah in southern Lebanon ultimately became a pointless exercise except to awaken Israelis to the need to recommit to strengthening their military. Iran tested President Bush in nearly every way possible over the last five years. President Bush won.

Word in recent days of planned talks between the Iranian government and high level State Department officials has provoked calls of flip-flops from the left and hoots from hawks on the right. There's not much to worry about in the cutesy political carping coming from the left, but the right's reaction is disturbing. How many countries does President Bush have to invade or strike before he gets some "street cred" for being tough on terrorists and despots? Can we take a moment to consider that he is making this move for a good reason? Maybe even for reasons he can't share publicly?

President Bush has consistently held a tough-line with the Iranians. He has criticized those who would offer presidential-level talks to the Iranians with no preconditions (taken personally by the media as a slap at their guy Obama). His requirement for high level negotiations could be summed up as: stop the program to build a nuclear bomb and we can talk.

At the end of 2007, President Bush got a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that said Iran had stopped development as far as we could tell. Therefore, he is acting according to the best information he has available, and I dare say I trust it more than the judgment of talk show hosts and TV pundits no matter how much I enjoy their shows.

Our intelligence services are not perfect, but at some point we have to start trusting them again; even if there findings go against our instincts. It's difficult to believe that a regime like the one in Iran might change its course toward acquiring a weapon that would alter the balance of power in the world. But let's not forget, that is exactly what happened in Libya. President Bush made that happen: thank you Mr. President.

It might help here to examine Iran's motivation for a nuclear weapon in the first place. Remember that in the 1980's there was an arms race and a war between Iran and Iraq. Although that war ended in '88, Saddam's nuclear weapons program was revealed as part of the inspections process after the Gulf War in ‘91. The specter of a nuclear Saddam set the Iranians on a renewed pursuit for a nuclear weapon in the 90's.

According to the December 2007 NIE, Iran stopped its' nuclear weapons development program in 2003. Why? The NIE said that Iran was reacting to international pressure. But the removal of Saddam, and thus the threat of a nuclear madman, that year and the audacity of President Bush and our military likely had more to do with it than international diplomacy, thank you Mr. President.

Iran apparently abandoned its' nuclear weapons program deciding instead to focus on terrorism as the primary means of pursuing its' goals. That course was successful for a time as the militias in Iraq nearly gained the upper hand in destabilizing the fledgling Iraqi government and turning it into an Iranian puppet as the American political left, and some on the right, went weak in the knees. However, Bush's surge strategy once again frustrated Iranian (and American leftist) ambitions, thank you Mr. President.

Although Iran gained some advantage in Lebanon via its' proxy terror groups, during the 06' Israeli conflict, it still mostly just rules the south, not all Beirut as it surely wanted. Although that conflict was all-in-all a victory for them, it was a hollow one bringing no real change in the balance of power other than rubbing off some of the sheen from the vaunted Israeli military.

In a matter of weeks after hostilities ceased the Hezb'allah supporters in southern Lebanon began expressing buyer's remorse as the Israeli incursion had devastated their homes and livelihoods while bringing no tangible reward. Both the Lebanese and the Israeli government were rushed US military equipment which ended up frustrating Iranian ambitions once again, thank you Mr. President.

As it stands today Iran has lost much of its ability to strike with proxies in Iraq. The Syrian army was run out of Lebanon by US support to the Lebanese government, an act that weakened Iranian influence. The hollow "victory" of Hezb'allah in southern Lebanon ultimately became a pointless exercise except to awaken Israelis to the need to recommit to strengthening their military. Iran tested President Bush in nearly every way possible over the last five years. President Bush won.

With no more nuclear threat from Saddam, against a US government that has raised the stakes on Iranian attempts to hide nuclear development, and faced with an international community that largely agrees with our president that Iran must not get nuclear weapons, it is possible that Iran has run out of options and might actually be looking for a peaceful way out. Because of Iran's recent history trust is out of the question. But there is no reason not to find out what they have to say. That's not weakness. It's negotiating from a position of strength.

I'm not saying give peace a chance. I'm saying give president Bush a chance with the Iranians. He has earned it.

(American Thinker)


Anonymous said...

Of Course, Iran working towards Nuclear weapons.

Can you blame them for it? Two national governments on their borders have been overthrown. Israel has threatened them with air strikes…

A Nuclear Weapon is a defensive weapon.

Ever notice that North Korea and Pakistan can resist the United States,,, What do they have in common?
They are both Nuclear Powers.

It is simple bigotry that Iran is not being allowed to develop atomic weapons. Why shouldn’t an Islamic hereditary theocracy be allowed to build I.C.B.M.s?

A nuclear middle-east will be a peaceful middle-east because of Mutually assured destruction. Mutually assured destruction kept the peace between the United States and the Soviet Union for decades.

Atomic bombs are defensive weapons because they make victory impossible for anyone.

Nuclear proliferation is going to happen sooner or later any way.
Technology always spreads. Gunpowder was invented by the Chinese, but now everyone has it. Even the most isolated illiterate tribesman carrys an assualt rifle when he goes to war.

In the future, every Mullah, Latin American Generalismo, and African Warlord will have the ability to hurl nuclear weapons at one another. But, they will also be threatened with the same thing coming back at them. War shall become obsolete and peace shall prevail.

Support Iran, Support Nuclear Proliferation, Support World Peace.

Anonymous said...

I agree. Iran is working towards a nuclear weapon.

Yes I can blame them for it. Can you imagine what people would say if a nuclear armed "Christian Theocracy of The United States" was advertised as such? No one would buy it.
At least Christians nowadays are not flying planes into buildings.

Iran should be thanking the U.S. for removing the Taliban from power. Oh yeah! I recall that it was Ahmadinejad who said that "Israel should be wiped off the map".

I don't trust one of world's largest sponsors of terrorism......Especially if their agenda is in the name of a religion.

Once the Mullahs and their dark age ideology is removed by the growing, young, progressive population of Iran, can a peace exist. That's a possibility. I have talked to Iranians who are in a self imposed exile (refugees) who hope that the U.S. would play a larger role in removing the Mullahs from power. War would be a bad idea but it's these people's wish....believe it or not.

As far as North Korea is's leaders days are numbered. Pakistan is totally unstable but the U.S. needs support in it's war on terror. India will keep Pakistan at bay too.

Nuclear weapons are not defensive. MAD theory went out with the advance of technology. There are now many scenarios where a nuclear war can be won. A nuclear armed Iran can only add instability in the Middle East.

In the future, many countries may have nuclear capability, but it won't be at the same level. Also; the high grade uranium required for these weapons is hard to procure. No one will stop trying to get higher yields and better delivery systems. The arms race will only continue. The "loose cannon" behavior of these Islamic Theocracies will definitely light the fuse.

The statement that "even the most isolated, illiterate, tribesmen carries an assult rifle when he goes to war" is a scary thought. I associate the words "isolated" and "illiterate" with the words stupid and unwise. Wouldn't it be great to give the stupid and unwise nukes?

Iran= no nukes!