Bullying Iran?
The tender-hearted New York Times is concerned that President Bush is bullying Iran.
That's the same Iran that's trying to kill our soldiers in Iraq, and the same Iran who (in contravention of the will of the sacred "international community") persists in developing nuclear bombs that will, if unchecked, threaten freedom and civilization everywhere.
The Times believes that President Bush should be engaging in "diplomacy" with Iran. Like many liberals, the Times op/ed board apparently believes that sweet words, with nothing more, may be sufficient to overcome what it concedes is "malign intent" on the part of Iran.
Ironically, if the Times and its liberal adherents hadn't done such a great job in signalling weakness and irresolution when it comes to Iraq, maybe Iran would have some incentive to come to the table. As things stand, why should it bother? If one listens to the Democrats and the Times, America should retreat from Iraq with its tail between its legs, avoid even tough rhetoric when it comes to President Ahmadinejad, and essentially ignore Tehran's continued nuclear buildup.
From the perspective of Iranian hardliners, why in the world would one bother to negotiate?
One final note: It seems that the left needs to get its story straight. The Times op/ed charges that "Mr. Bush’s last big idea — that imposing democracy on Iraq would weaken Iran’s authoritarians — has had the opposite effect." Really? Then why do we also keep hearing that confrontation with Iran should be avoided because Ahmadinejad's unpopularity could lead to change from within? And couldn't it be argued that if the US were showing a bit more internal resolve in dealing with Iraq, that in itself would, indeed, weaken Iran's confrontational politicians by persuading the country that America can't be bullied?
That's the same Iran that's trying to kill our soldiers in Iraq, and the same Iran who (in contravention of the will of the sacred "international community") persists in developing nuclear bombs that will, if unchecked, threaten freedom and civilization everywhere.
The Times believes that President Bush should be engaging in "diplomacy" with Iran. Like many liberals, the Times op/ed board apparently believes that sweet words, with nothing more, may be sufficient to overcome what it concedes is "malign intent" on the part of Iran.
Ironically, if the Times and its liberal adherents hadn't done such a great job in signalling weakness and irresolution when it comes to Iraq, maybe Iran would have some incentive to come to the table. As things stand, why should it bother? If one listens to the Democrats and the Times, America should retreat from Iraq with its tail between its legs, avoid even tough rhetoric when it comes to President Ahmadinejad, and essentially ignore Tehran's continued nuclear buildup.
From the perspective of Iranian hardliners, why in the world would one bother to negotiate?
One final note: It seems that the left needs to get its story straight. The Times op/ed charges that "Mr. Bush’s last big idea — that imposing democracy on Iraq would weaken Iran’s authoritarians — has had the opposite effect." Really? Then why do we also keep hearing that confrontation with Iran should be avoided because Ahmadinejad's unpopularity could lead to change from within? And couldn't it be argued that if the US were showing a bit more internal resolve in dealing with Iraq, that in itself would, indeed, weaken Iran's confrontational politicians by persuading the country that America can't be bullied?
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:56 AM
1 Comments:
Bush Derangement Syndrome prevents such show of resolve by enough Americans to have the impact needed to affect Iran's agenda.
Post a Comment
<< Home