Like one of those cartoon characters who run right off the edge of a cliff and just keep treading air — but you know it can’t go on that way for long — the Obama administration keeps looking for ways to pretend that Iran’s nuclear bomb program is no immediate crisis.
President Obama has extended his hand to Tehran’s uranium-loving mullahcracy, wished them happy new year, brushed aside their role in arming terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, hung back when they murdered protesters in the streets of their own capital, and placed his bets on the bizarre premise that Iran can somehow be sweet-talked out of its nuclear bomb program. Until his hand was forced last week, he kept quiet for months about Iran’s additional hidden uranium enrichment facility on a military base near Qom. In deciding to make history by becoming the first American president to chair a meeting of the UN Security Council, he swept aside any specific discussion of Iran (or North Korea) and — despite a try by French president Nicolas Sarkozy to insert some reality into the session — marked it down as a triumph that all 15 members paid lip service to the utopian and currently irrelevant dream of a world without nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, Iran keeps barreling toward the bomb. If this doesn’t add up to confrontation, it’s because the U.S. keeps backing off, which gives Iran a chance to go further… and further… and we get closer and closer to the moment at which, yes indeed, they’ll have those bombs. At that point, any confrontation would no longer be about stopping Iran from getting the bomb. It would be a confrontation with a nuclear-armed armed Iran. Anyone see a problem with that?
Which brings us to a line from President Obama that I’ve been marveling over since last week. In The Wall Street Journal on Friday, in an article mentioning the talks with Iran now scheduled for Oct. 1, Obama was quoted saying that Iran will have to choose between giving up its nuclear program or continuing — here’s the line — “down a path that is going to lead to confrontation.”
Let’s look at that locution again (boldface mine). “Down a path that is going to lead to confrontation.” So… by this description, Iran need not worry about confrontation right now. Iran is not yet even on a path that already leads to confrontation. Iran is merely traveling along a path which at some point is “going to” lead to confrontation. With lines like that rolling out of the White House, the mullahs would be mad not to keep going — right down the thruway to the bomb, while Obama is still poring over the paths on his roadmap.
For those of us, outside the United States, who stuck up for the United States in the form of “United we stand”, for example, as seen here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002994 are vexed, and bothered, and perplexed, about the profound lack of leadership and good judgment coming from the Oval Office.
So, my question is this: do we have to make do until a new person is in the White House, or do we wrench leadership of the free world from the power hungry and culturally debased who have their paws on the levers of power?
It really makes me wonder why there isn’t a move for a United States government-in-exile
to provide what is needed.
Ms. Rosett probably did not specifically intend to portray our righteous president as the wily coyote; Nevertheless, I got the impression that I will visualize a roadrunner the next time Amhadinejad shows up on my TV screen, and I’m not sure I will resist the temptation to yell “Beep-beep!”.
If only it was a joke! But let’s not despair: We did plant a significant obstacle on Amhadinejad & consort’s trajectory: The Internet in general, and Twitter in particular, is in fact the electronic tentacle of the great American ideas, a great weapon in the hands of the Iranian protestors. The mullah’s attempts to parry the attack have been frustrated so far.
With any luck, the Iranian people will manage to pull the magic carpet from under the Ayatollahs. We have not degraded ourselves into a banana republic, yet, but we dispersed a few banana peels along the roadrunner’s mountain path, and the nefarious plans may still be derailed. May the cartoon analogy apply all the way!
I’m with David Lincoln’s comment about how we old foreign allies feel right now. Betrayed by a stupid US electorate and POTUS.
The Great Zero has produced so many gaffes and flipflops that go unpunished by the USMSM, but they are noted with deeply furrowed brows overseas [even by Sarkozy]
The holes in the language coming out of the White House can have nuclear prime movers driven through them, but O still rides high and unexamined by the starstruck illiterates called MSM journalists..
Bush made many congenital verbal fluffs [hardly his fault], humorous but always inconsequential.
‘Smooth O’ makes huge blunders in language, consistency and truth regularly, and gets away with it domestically.
A foreign policy Tragedy in the Making.
The USA has forgotten the 1930s, along with Europe.
#2: The only hope for not seeing a bomb out of Iran is if the Iranian people rebel.
The west will do nothing because the Soviets will put enough roadblocks in the way to thwart any real sanctions or actions.
I think this is a task too far and too deep for the Israelis. Although it is not out of the question that Israel might get help from the Egyptians and Saudis. If you recall Ahmadinejad has said, on at least one occasion, that if Arabs die in a nuking of Tel Aviv that was a price worth paying. The west may have ignored that statement but many Arabs, excluding the suicidal Palestinians, heard it loud and clear.
Kuwait would still be a territory of Iraq had Bush I not chose to free it. Although there was a coalition nothing would have happened without the US. The chances of the US leading anybody to do anything other than lip flapping vis-a-vis Iran are Zero.
The real fly in the Iranian Hitler’s genocidal ointment is going to be delivered via a low-yield WMD pummeling from Israel. It will either be accomplished via the Dolphin submarines or via the long range aircraft retrofitted just for the occasion.
There is very little that the otherwise fractured Israeli zionist public agrees upon EXCEPT for the existential need to decapitate the mullah’s and their genocidal weapons.
The count down is on….
The USA attitude = Alfred Newman
What, me worry?
Look at the map:
Iran – Israel – India – China – Russia – Saudi Arabia – Pakistan – Afghanistan
These are the key players for nuclear control.
The idea of a hezbollah operative in North America getting a nuclear bomb from Iran doesn’t worry me at all. I’m sure they just want to be friends. And they obviously have great respect for innocent human life. I heard that those giant rockets that they fire at Israeli towns are full of chocolates and Starbucks coupons.
TO: All
RE: Heh
If it’s bad for America, Obama will do it.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. If you don’t believe that statement, show me any major thing he has done that is GOOD for America….go on….I’ll wait….
P.S. Watch for Obama to cut-and-run in Afghanistan.
Why?
[1] It will take pressure off of Iran, having a US presence on both sides of it.
[2] It will demoralize the US military.
It’ll be ‘subtle’, like Nixon’s ‘Peace with Honor’ BS. But it will be the end result.
The title of this piece could be:”How the CIA Bites the Hand That Fed It”
In 2006 a cabal of Leftist traitors within the CIA used their MSM megaphones to deliberately subvert a sitting president by issuing a Big Lie – a notorious NIE asserting that Iran had ceased all nuclear weapons activities.
The same mendacious and subversive mindset which authored the NIE in order to gain political advantage now resides in the White House, and that damning document along with Obama’s equally damning campaign bellicosity on Afghanistan have become a noose around this preposterous, dangerous administration’s neck.
I think this moron (Obama) honestly believes that the Muslims can have a WMD without using it.
What an IDIOT!!!
Obama is intellectually ignorant of history -and anything else for that matter. His means of advancing in life has been confined to the manipulation of people.
He does this by pathological lying; he’ll say whatever he thinks you want to hear. By emotional manipulation; and if you continue to resist him, by accusations of your bias
In all governmental issues, Obama hasn’t a single idea. He voted ‘present’ in the Senate for that reason. He follows the ‘advice’ of the left radicals who run him, and who use him as The Salesman. That’s why Obama can’t answer questions; he has no idea about the policies.
The radical left support Zelaya and Chavez and socialism in L. America; they support Iran vs Israel and Iraq; they are anti-West and anti-American and anticapitalist. Their agenda is to insert a socialist domestic system. Obama is their Salesman because of his manipulative skills..
How bad has it gotten? We now have the French calling our CINC a pussy. That’s right, THE FWENCH! You know, those lilly-livered galls who never leave the house without a white flag and 1/2 dozen foreign phase books with the pages on how to say, “I surrrender,” dog-eared, just in case.
And the worst part of this whole mess is that they are abso-fricking right!
Well, I really think the United States, in conjunction with its close allies are on the right track here. They recognize the best way forward is a united front. None of them feel they can afford another hot war right now, so their gamble is bring Iran in from the cold in a peaceful manner via international pressure. I think its really the best way forward. Any alternative, must be an alternative of the last resort.
David W. Lincoln,
Don’t be silly. The guy was voted in. But voices from outside the government are indeed setting back his agenda.
On Iran, he’ll be scooped by others who see clearly and possess courage.
Government in exile, no. Just keep squeezing him until he cracks.
Ahmadinejad has said, on at least one occasion, that if Arabs die in a nuking of Tel Aviv that was a price worth paying.
SAF, I missed that. I believe it, but could you provide a link?
Exactly. Well and simply put Ms Rosett. What amazes me is that the same people who were absolutley apoplectic about nuclear weapons when only a handful of generally sane nations possessed them are so ho-hum about Iran and N.K. What’s with that lefties?
#17:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/index.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1689559/posts
http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11272854.html
It is all over the web. People just choose to forget or say he isn’t serious.
The isn’t serious crowd is winning these days.
@ 1& 3:
We didn’t all drink the Obama Kool-Aid and are very upset about his performance as our Chief Executive, but you’ll have to wait about 3 years, 3 months, and 20 days until you have a better option. That also depends on who the Republican candidate is and whether the Republican party survives the next 3+ years intact. I see a lot of disgust with both Democrats and Republicans, and a possible splintering of the “Conservative” movement that will hamstring an Obama opponent.
@ Poor Citizen:
We’ve got enough firepower and technology to waltz in and drop a bunker buster on the Mullahs, their friends, the nuclear enrichment facilities, and then be home in time for dinner. Obama is just too weak willed to use it. The other issue is that despite those that want to bury their heads in the sand, the West is already at war with Islam and has been since the 7th century. Its been a hot one for decades even though we don’t admit it. Islam is at war with us whether we want to acknowledge it or not.
It seems obvious that Iran is working towards obtaining nuclear weapons. But there seems to be various ideas on how to confront them regarding this issue. The Obama administration pays lip service to economic sanctions but, since they’ve never worked in the past, why would we believe that they would work now? Does anyone around here remember how many economic sanctions the UN placed on Iraq prior to the war? I think there were about 12 resolutions against Iraq and did any, any of the them, work? In fact, the “Oil for Food” program was one of the biggest disasters for the United Nations and actually helped Saddam Hussein stay in power. UN Sanctions have never worked since there will always be countries out there willing to break them for the right price. Again, Iraq was the most stunning example of how inaffective the UN was and still is, with France, Germany, Russia, and China all willingly breaking the sanctions just to make money. So if Obama thinks that these same nations are going to help him with Iran, dream on, buddy.
However, this is not to say that anyone needs to go to war with Iran over this. In fact, an overt war should be the last thing we do with this country. Iran is on the brink of a civil war right now and all it needs is a little “push” from a third party to send it over the edge. There are a wide range of actions available to the West that can all be designed to wreck Iran’s day. All we need to do is be creative about it. If the Iranians are determined to obtain nuclear weapons, we can use massive covert operations to support and pump money into any political group that wants to oust the current regime. Can’t happen, you say? Just remember that the Shah was just as cruel as the mullahs are now, and what did it get him? Massive public unrest overthrew the Shah and it can overthrow the mullahs. We can do other things, too. We can destabilize Iran’s currency by pumping counterfeit money into the country (a tactic the North Koreans love using with counterfeit American dollars, only they can’t do it on a large scale); we can use random acts of sabotage to close down their oil pumping stations; we can support anti-government groups with money and weapons (like the Iranians do in Lebanon); we could place sea mines in their ports, which would effectively close them; and we could, if pushed to the limit, impose a naval blockade on the country as a last resort. There are lots of ways to destabilize the Iranian government and none of it involves invading Iran itself. Will this prevent Iran from moving ahead with its nuclear program? Maybe, maybe not. But if we don’t do anything you will have an Iran armed with nuclear weapons. And the Iranians could also decide to retaliate by attacking Iraq or Afghanistan if it feels it can once it is armed with nuclear weapons, countries where American troops are stationed. So it’s certainly worth a try if, as a result of these covert actions, the Iranian people rise up and decide to overthrow the mullahs. We can only hope.
Our first affirmative action president who haled from the 57th state will continue to tilt at windmills until he loses his absolute majority in Congress in Nov of 2010. The real issue is will our nation survive until that time.
Brutus go back to school, an make a cure of MSM desintoxication,
Les FWench comme tu les appelles, te disent M…, comme Cambronne, dis !
We can always hope that even the mild & useless sanctions that Obama will probably announce might so unhinge the bloodthirsty lunatics who run Iran that they’ll do something abysmally stupid and force us to take real action.
East to West, North to South. Divide the country!
We don’t need a shadow government. All we have to do is ask for America to be divided. Of course, even the mere suggestion of war would make most of them go Stockholm Syndrome: jump up, grab a rifle, shoot a moose, and THEN pee themselves. Then we’d all be conservatives.
But realistically, the Left would be as delighted to get away from us as we are to get away from them.
Here’s a question nobody is willing to answer: How many of those brave freedom fighters who took to the streets of Iran are you willing to kill to bomb Iran? Anybody?
The problem IS the solution. When Iran decides to use it’s nukes ( they tested one last October, almost a year ago. That test was disguised as an earthquake, one among a series of 5, so there is no conclusive evidence beyond an anomalous squiggle on a sheet of paper) They will use them on places like New York, D.C. Chicago, L.A. etc. Maybe Houston, it being a soft target and having the majority of US refineries.
Except for Houston, those are all seriously ‘blue’ areas.
So the Mad Dog Mullahs will be killing those protecting them from the rest of America.
I saw a poll on some MSM outlet about using military force on Iran. Those in favor were in the high 20′s. (27&+- 4, IIRC). Polls like that are always done in the Blue States. Out here in flyover America it would be between 80 and 90% favored military action. We could get 30% to agree that nuking them would be a good thing.
So the Mad Dog Mullahs WILL get their bombs and they Will use them. On the people that allowed them to build those bombs in the first place. Justice?
Democracies are almost immune to nuclear weapons, America especially so. We are to large and have to low a population density. Despotic regimes, on the other hand, are extremely vulberable to nukes.
Kill the tyrant and the government dies also. Kill POTUS and somebody else takes over, There is a whole long list, with Hillery about 3rd or 4th. In some respects the US Government is immortal.
Which is why there are limits on it’s power.
23. Marie Claude:
Je vous n’aime pas either froggy.
26. Freedom fighters?
Which would you rather do? Support your buddy, Ahmadinejad, and slaughter 200,000 Israeli freedom fighters? Or kill 500 brave freedom fighters from Iran?
Just a tip that might improve your critical thinking.
Iran as a nation says they’re out to wipe out Israel, every man, woman and child.
Israel wants to defend itself and isn’t out to kill any country.
Next time, before you bore us with an inane question, my advice would be to consult your brain before showing everyone just how dim witted you really are.
have a nice day,
rachel
If Israel doesn’t act quickly Manhattan is radioactive glass. As for sanctions apparently O is unaware of the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. What a a totally gutless screw up and how come the 53% did not see it coming. There must be some sort of pathological need to believe in Santa Claus.
arhooley,
I’m not sure if Nutjob ever said that but the “moderate” Rafsanjani said something very similar back in 2001:
http://tinyurl.com/3vzrp
brutus, that’s a name, we give it to ill bred pitbuls
I don’t think the prez is pretending.
Claudia, on a slightly related note, I thought you would enjoy this footage from the Beeb, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8285739.stm?ls
given the very hard work you have put into corruption in high places.
That is, exposing corruption in high places.
SAF:
Why lie about the Iranian president quotes? I read all 3 links and there is no mention of sacraficing half of Iran in order to nuke Isreal. The only thing related to it was a quote by AN ISREALI on what he thought: “Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, if he ever became the supreme decision maker in his country, would “sacrifice half of Iran for the sake of eliminating Israel,” Giora Eiland, Israel’s former national security adviser, told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.”
So an Isreali shill tells you what you wanted to hear. It appears that most of the case for war with Iran is based on similar lies made by people with an agenda, friends of Israel.
#34
“brutus, that’s a name, we give it to ill bred pitbuls”
Now you can start naming your poodles Obama. Or maybe just Berry. Wouldn’t want to be tooooo obvious, Michael Mooron might figure it out.
Naaah! Never happen. He would see poodles named Berry as a whole nation of cheap dates. Maybe he would move to Paris.
I’ll go halves on his plane ticket. One way, of course.
Well, I really think the United States, in conjunction with its close allies are on the right track here.