America's Red Lines in the Sand on Iran -Richard Cohen
•The fact is that the Iranian regime is astonishingly violent. In addition to the attempt on the life of the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Iran had its own former prime minister stabbed to death in a Paris hotel room, was allegedly behind the bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish center (85 dead) and is blamed for the bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in which 19 U.S. airmen were killed. This is a dangerous regime.
•President Obama wants the Iranian regime to turn its nuclear sword into a plowshare.
•In his State of the Union address, Obama said: "A peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations." This statement - the vaunted carrot - is startlingly naive. Where is the evidence to suggest that the men who now run Iran will slap their foreheads, say zowie (in Farsi) and conclude that they were wrong to pursue a nuclear weapons program? More likely, they will conclude that North Korea survives because it defied the U.S. and continued to develop nuclear weapons.
•The ultimate remedy is Iranian regime change. In the meantime, Obama must ensure that Iran perceives no daylight between the U.S. and Israel, and no chance that Washington will become naive about Iran's intentions. This looming crisis is not only about Israel. It's about America, too.
(Washington Post)
*
President's Super Bowl interview -Frank J. Gaffney Jr
President Obama provided his own Super Sunday show. In some respects, it was almost as bizarre as Madonna's performance at half-time. In his interview with NBC's Matt Lauer, Mr. Obama responded oddly to concerns raised last week by leaders of the U.S. intelligence community. They testified on Capitol Hill that the Iranian mullahs appear to be planning attacks on the United States. Yet, the president told Mr. Lauer, "We don't see any evidence that they have those intentions or capabilities right now."
Anyone with an IQ above room temperature has noticed lately plenty of evidence of both hostile Iranian intentions and the capabilities to act on them. Mr. Obama's statement that "we don't see any evidence" of Iran's intentions and capabilities to attack us is either witless or deceptive.
[Jewish World Review]
*
6 comments:
The first article is a bit misleading, more so with the snippet here, but even in its totality it does not actually say anything. it does not call for Obama to actually do anything, it only acknowledges half of what was said, and I think the Time magazine article was much more balanced, but of course it would not seem that way to Obama detractors. It calls for regime change in Iran--whoa--controversial. It does not call for Obama to enact anything militarily to accomplish this, merely that hopefully the economic sanctions could work because the Iranian government is not very popular with its people right now. There is nothing new there---rather it is an excuse to bash Obama while saying we are currently on the right course, and that somehow Obama is naive but is accidentally doing things appropriately. The second article is ridiculous because it confuses two points. The point was being made that Iran is attempting to develop long range technologies that can reach the US. The point was made that Iran wants to threaten US interests. Obama made the point that there is no evidence that Iran currently holds those long range technologies and is not a threat in that way to the US right now. Obama did not say Iran was not trying to develop these technologies and he did not say that terrorist acts by Iran were not a threat. He was pointing out that currently there is no direct threat to American soil from any Iranian military attack. As Time magazine rightly pointed out, the toughest stance ever taken on Iran by the US is being taken by Obama. Regan got a free pass when he got into office and the US hostages were freed. W. Bush empowered them by knocking down their greatest threat and constant nemesis---Saddam Hussein, and he never addresses that a country that had already evidenced nuclear ambitions were now free to act with impunity now that America had freed it from the yoke of the constant threat of Iraqi invasion. In fact, Hussein had been supported for years by America because their intentions on Iran supported our cause and Bush never made it clear to the American people that his invasion of Iraq would help one of our great enemies. If Bush/Cheney dd not anticipate this crisis---that was naive. What Obama is doing--is trying to clean up a mess about 30 years in the making without creating a military confrontation with China or Russia, and without involving an American occupation force in the MidEast for the next 20 years or more.
I'd be interested in taking a look at the Time Magazine article you referred to. If you can share the link I'd be grateful.
Thanks for sharing.
You are welcome.
Bruce :}
Sorry it took so long to respond. Not positive which article. I believe it was this one, tough its publication date is one day after my comment it has actual sentences I remember so maybe it was available the night before: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2106501,00.html
Thank you so much for the link
Post a Comment