When you read this kind of liberal drivel you realize that people like the NY Times editors are eager to allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
Oh, of course they would not put it that way, but since all the bleating about “negotiations” means absolutely nothing unless Iran is convinced it has no alternative but to yield, demanding endless negotitations that go nowhere (but which buy Iran more time) is tantamount to preferring that Iran acquire nuclear weapons.
In the words of Al Capone, you can get a lot further with a kind word and a gun than with just a kind word.
“Whats scary is that his comments may reflect his understanding of where American policy is headed. Far closer to Washington than his predecessor, Mr. Sarkozy just spent time with President Bush on vacation in Maine. His remarks, reflecting his blunt, no-nuance style, will be read as a warning to Tehran and to countries reluctant to increase the penalties for Irans nuclear ambitions. The message: If the diplomatic initiative fails, Iran will have nuclear weapons or there will be military action to prevent it. Mr. Bush added to the bullying yesterday by suggesting the nuclear threat from Iran was a justification for keeping American troops in Iraq.”
SCARY?!! Who the Hell’s side are you on, you Jihadist sympathizer? I hope to God that Mr. Sarkozy got this idea from the Bush administration and not off the top of his head!! President Lincoln shut down several newspapers for sedition: It’s past time that President Bush do that same!!
I would like to hear how the editors would deal with the problem. Of course, I’m not a self-defeating coward, so I don’t suggest implementing their suggestions.
LOL...I see the Wet Panty Brigade at the NYT doesn’t approve of France’s new president being a man instead of a mouse. What a surprise.
The editors must work for the Iranian regime