Posted on 07/19/2008 11:32:54 PM PDT by Dawnsblood
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The result counts. If this “meeting” was the last straw before a military strike, it’s fine with me.
A Look at Iran
http://www.truthusa.com/IRAN.html
I guess there are some folks who may see our entry into the negotiations as "legacy building", or another "face-saving" deal like the nuclear deal that Clinton reached with North Korea (and, some would say, like the second NK nuclear deal that Mr. Bush agreed to), but I believe that if the President is going to have any support from the American people (and, possibly, from some of our allies), he has to be seen as having walked the extra mile to avoid a military confrontation. I would also hasten to add that the current negotiations are not the sort of two-party "direct negotiations without preconditions" that a certain Presidential candidate has been advocating.
I’m convinced that Iran intends to go nuclear for military reasons. One of my grave concerns about this is that it will keep us tied up in the middle east with a large presence until the US weans itself from MidEast oil.
Personally, I don’t care how we do it, but the sooner the better. Our own reserves of oil, nat gas, and coal are beyond sufficient to accomplish this. They are a huge supply offering generations of power.
During that period, the need to develop other technology would still be paramount. It is during this period that great advances and economies in the production of other sources of power could be made.
This is the proper direction for the security of America and the world.
In fact, the sooner America weans itself from MidEast oil, the sooner the military aspirations of expansionist Islam will become unimportant. And the sooner America leads the world in alternative energy sources, the sooner the military aspirations of expansionist Islam will become insignificant.
I don't think IsraelWould agree with that, but on the whole I agree with you
If it comes to an operation against Iran by Israel, us or a combination, this instance of our taking the extra step to meet the Iranians can be pointed to as if to say, “we did everything we could to avoid this attack, but....”
It’s a well calculated move.
The Iranians are so clay-footed, that they've even pissed off the Europeans, who pride themselves on having no pride and never getting pissed off. The Iranians came out and directly said "we will never stop Uranium enrichment".
Of course, anyone with the courage to face the truth has know this for 5 years, but some people take longer. Our problem is once again getting suckered by mis-reporting by the MSM and the total lack of any communication skills by the Bush Team.
And why doesn't Bush get the benefit of the doubt in dealing with terrorists? I'd say there are a number of reasons for that and Bush's policy of support for a Palestinian State tops the list. Because the people running that State were going to be terrorists from Fatah, Arafat's outfit and now HAMAS, little different from al Qaeda. Second, Bush is silent about Hezballah and it's activities, including their activities in Venezuela, South America and Mexico. Third, Bush's domestic policies of playing nicy-nicy with Islamists, having his Administration meet with terrorist front organizations and taking advice on dealing with Moslems with folks like CAIR. Fourth, the Bush Administrations refusal to secure our borders, infiltration routes used by terrorists.
I could go on, but that's why Bush doesn't have credibility in dealing with terrorists.
You can’t invade Iran, because geographically, it’s as big as Alaska. Most people don’t realize that. But you can bomb its military and nuclear infrastructure back into the Stone Age.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.