… about yesterday’s Bush speech at the UN.
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
David Frum is not sufficiently cynical. The President is in a no win position every time he opens his mouth about North Korea and Iran. The MSM will simply yell and scream about Bushís alleged incompetence. Itís a pro-John Kerry press corp. I probably would have also advised him to leave these topics out of his speech.
There still seems enough time to deal with Iran and NK after the election; staying the course with Afghanistan and Iraq should remain the key focus. (Ref. Abe Lincoln’s “One war at a time, gentlemen.”)
Once Dubya’s reelected with a larger plurality, our “allies” will realize they’re stuck with him and may feel the need to cooperate more. If not, the hell with them, and Iran/NK will still be “dealt with” accordingly and successfully.
As bright as Frum and his NRO pals may be, I always get the feeling they expect Dubya to be a full-fledged incarnation of Goldwater and RR. Get real.
I agree with David. He doesn’t need to. We will all be watching events unfold in Iran as time goes by anyway. When they’re fully operational (because the UN won’t be able to do a damn thing about it) and the UN and half the world starts screaming bloody murder, “why didn’t he do something?”, he should just hook his thumbs in his belt Texas style and say, “Ya’ll are always yelling at me not to stick my nose into others’ business.” He knows he’s damned if he does say or do anything and damned if he doesn’t. If we need their approval for everything and if we go after threats at their behest and only when they deem it necessary, it makes the American Military little more than mercenaries for hire.
I like the National Review but mostly ONLY because it is not the MSM.
But I find them way too ideological to be a trusted and reliable source of opinion.Even on a practical level this is NOT the time to go around waving the sword at Iran.I think the Iraq plate is full enough at this point,is it not?Why ask for trouble especially the ‘political’kind of trouble which gives your opponents another chance to say that not only are you not going to or able to fix Iraq ,but you are about to launch the next phase of a ‘never-ending’war.This makes people NERVOUS and they might get cold feet on the way to the ballot box.
GWB is right to keep quiet at this point and wait it out until after the election in November at which point,hopefully,he will no longer be constrained by political concerns.
Perhaps the UN omission is tied to the announcement that the US is selling Bunker Buster bombs to Israel? Bombs which have little value on the Palestinian front.
There’s a point I’ve wanted to make for a while.
First, Oyster’s right, damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.
That said, the real problem I have with a lot of bloggers and journalists that I agree with is the near constant drum beat about “we need to know the plan!” NRO fits this all too often. This is wrong for two reasons:
1) It plays right into the LLL’s hand since they are constantly screaming that their is no plan, and
2) IT”S STUPID! Have you ever played chess? or poker (more to the point) or football?
You don’t explain the plan even to your friends because it will be read by your enemies!
You have to take Bush’s plan on faith ’cause he can’t explain it to you without making it useless!! Remember all the chatter about how the real strategy was to put a democracy in the middle of the Mideast, but, he couldn’t say it cause it would not fly with the Saudis? Well, just look at what’s happening, the State dept. said something bad about the Saudis. Iraq is on the way to democratization.
What’s next? I don’t know, but, Bush has a hell of a lot more info than I do. Do I believe he has a plan for the future that involves NK and / or Syria and / or Iran? Durn right I do. I’ve watched what he’s done and believe he’ll keep on with his principals. But, I sure don’t think he’s about to explain it to me beforehand. After the game is over is when the coach can explain what the game plan was and what went right and what went wrong. We’re not even to half-time yet.
And, by the way, this is why character is the most important issue in any campaign. You never know what the important issues will be, you have to elect someone that you believe can deal with the unknown unknowns. Do I really need to say “e.g. 9/11″?
Why would Bush tell the General Assembly what is plans are?
It is not as if the UN can be trusted.
It is not as if he owes them any explanations.
After all they made it plain that it is illegal for the US to have plans that they have not approved, so why talk to them?
To what purpose? I think we may well see the UN become less and less important as time passes.