An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings
Archive for Middle East
A Peek From The Other Side Of The World
Found this in The Arab News:
Editorial: McCain’s pick of running mate
REPUBLICAN presidential candidate John McCain’s startling choice of Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate has brought echoes of the reaction to Richard Nixon’s 1969 veep pick of Maryland Gov. Spiro T. Agnew — “Spiro T. Who ?” chimed the pundits.
But while Agnew was a crook who was forced from office in the first year of Nixon’s fated second term in the face of charges of extortion, tax fraud, bribery and conspiracy, Sarah Palin is an all-American apple-pie mom with a school boy sweet-heart husband and five kids, whose extremely limited political career has seen her take on corruption within Republican-dominated Alaska. If she was unknown outside her home state, she appears to be hardly familiar to John McCain, who had reportedly only met her once, before she joined him Friday on the platform at a rally in Dayton, Ohio.
Well, it’s not like they live in the same neighborhood. Just because they didn’t meet on a regular basis, does not mean he wasn’t well aware of her qualifications.
But McCain is too experienced a political campaigner to have acted without careful thought. Commentators have failed to pick up the fact that for some time, McCain was not sure if he would be facing Hillary Clinton in the run for the presidency. Palin has, therefore, very probably been on McCain’s radar for some months, as a running mate who could cancel out the Clinton appeal to female voters. In this respect, Palin’s value to the campaign has probably not diminished. Despite Clinton’s highly theatrical endorsement of Obama at the Democrat convention, it seems significant numbers of Clinton supporters, who either wanted a woman in the White House and/or did not want a black man there, are determined to vote the Republican ticket in protest at Obama’s nomination.
I’ve never been a gungho McCain supporter, and if ya come around here often, you know this. But one thing I never thought was that he lacked intelligence. He’s quick on the upswing, and I do like that about him. He doesn’t need a lot of ‘ummm….uhh…..’ when answering questions….without his teleprompter or notes, unlike someone else in this race.
There was never a hint that McCain might have turned to either of George W. Bush’s secretaries of state, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, both of whom are deeply tarnished by their involvement in the misbegotten Iraq invasion. McCain wants to distance himself from the blundering Bush years and recast the Republican ticket as caring and listening as the US economy falters, but firm and principled when it comes to foreign affairs. The calculation is clearly that Palin’s youth — she is 44 — will balance McCain’s wealth of years — he turned 72 on Friday. But the stark truth is that were McCain to win the presidency and die in office, the most powerful country in the world would start to be run by an Alaskan housewife. Will voters take this risk or in the next 65 days will Palin be able to convince them that whatever her inexperience, she is guided by the strong principles that every American wants to lie at the heart of government in Washington, but knows all too well do not?
Considering that neither Rice, nor Powell, are exactly the pro life types, I can’t imagine that he would have chosen either of them. McCain has stated repeatedly that his would be a pro life ticket, and administration. Rice has become a major disappointment to me with her handling of the Israel/Palestinian business. And Powell? Well, I respect the man a great deal, always have, but I think he’s mellowed WAY too much in recent years.
As to the ‘misbegotten’? Well, maybe so, but they went on the information they had. We won, they lost. Saddam Hussein is burning in hell, along with that trash he called sons. The execution of the war since the victory….well, I have had issues with that, but that’s another post.
The only certainty is that this is going to be an extremely interesting election that will either see an Afro-American in the Oval Office or a woman sitting along the corridor from it.
Oh, you bet it’s going to be interesting. Every single nasty tidbit is going to be slung from both sides. I don’t think this is a good thing. As a matter of fact, I’m fairly tired of it myself. Class and politics don’t have much in common.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Musharraf Steps Down
Pakistani President Musharraf Resigns Amid Impeachment Threats
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf announced his resignation Monday, ending an eight-year tenure that opponents said was hampering the country’s labored return to democracy.
An emotional Musharraf said he wanted to spare the nation from a perilous impeachment battle and that he was satisfied that all he had done “was for the people and for the country.”
“I hope the nation and the people will forgive my mistakes,” Musharraf said in a televised address, much of which was devoted to defending his record and refuting criticisms.
Musharraf said he will turn in his resignation to the National Assembly speaker on Monday but it was not immediately clear whether it would become effective the same day. The chairman of Pakistan’s Senate, Mohammedmian Soomro, will take over as acting president when Musharraf steps down, Law Minister Farooq Naek said.
It also was not clear whether Musharraf, a stalwart U.S. ally, would stay in Pakistan.
Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said leaders of the ruling coalition would discuss later Monday whether to prosecute Musharraf in court on charges that that were being planned for the impeachment process.
Musharraf’s political foes celebrated.
“It is a victory of democratic forces,” Information Minister Sherry Rehman said. “Today the shadow of dictatorship, that has prevailed for long over this country, that chapter has been closed.”
Well, this should get interesting. I’m fairly sure we knew this was coming. Personally, I have never seen Pakistan as an ally. All you have to do is look at the violence that continues, with some Pakistani help. I see a possible escalation now. Maybe we SHOULD be concentrating more troops where the real war is right now? Iraq is starting to take care of itself. Let’s look for the bigger evil, bin Laden, and his pigs.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Do Saudis Approve of Pedophelia?
Now, this is seriously WRONG! When you read this column, from a Westerner’s prospective, you have to wonder.
To each, a marriage of his choice
As if one kind of marriage is not enough, each year people come up with new names for temporary marriages and they give them names like “mesiar” and “mesfar”. “Mesiar” is a marriage with no responsibilities, where the husband visits his wife at her family’s house and does not bear any responsibilities toward her.
“Mesfar” marriage is used by women mostly to be able to travel abroad with a “mahram,” as they are required to have the approval of a legal guardian for traveling. Then someone devised a new kind of marriage to make life easier for female students who have to study abroad.
Now the latest entry is called “wanasa” marriage, and it is devised for men, mostly old men who need company. The scholar who introduced the concept of “wanasa” marriage is a teacher of Islamic Studies at Imam Muhammad Bin Saudi University.
So here we go, our men and women have all the choice in the world. They can pick and choose which kind of partner they want as if in a supermarket. There is a choice for all occasions. How flexible we have become!
I have a question. Since, to my limited understanding of Islam, a man can murder his ‘wife’ if she isn’t a virgin. So, when you have such temporary “marriages”, is there a physical aspect? What happens to the “wife” when the mission is accomplished?
But the “wanasa” marriage is something else, apart from the humorous aspect of its name, which means “fun company.” No wonder readers of the news item online made jokes about their miserable marriages. Quite simply the idea behind such marriage is: Old people who live alone need company. In some cases, old men go for the option of the traditional marriage, which is fair if they choose wives of a certain age, but then we hear about cases where a 70-year-old is proposing to marry a 12-year-old. This is still happening in our society. The latest news is about a man in Hail who is over 60 and is finalizing the formalities to marry a 10-year-old girl. Alarabiya website, which carried the news item, mentioned that a lot of people have raised objections to the marriage, though it has the approval of the girl’s father.
I’d like to know what kind of father would approve of a marriage of their ten, or twelve year old daughter? Do they value their children so little?
Last month a Saudi marriage official who appeared in LBC channel, said that girls can be married off by their fathers even when they are toddlers, but the consummation of marriage has to wait until she becomes 9 years old. Naturally the comment drew a huge amount of criticism, and rightly so. But the negative effect of what the official said won’t go that easily; it simply says that there are some people who think this way, they consider a daughter a property that can be given as a gift whenever her father wishes. In the official’s case, some religious scholars have also denounced those comments, saying that the courts should stop processing such contracts, making sure that there is no huge disparities between the ages of a man and his bride. A member of Islamic Jurisdiction Society said that he also stressed that fathers have to ask the girl if she approves of the marriage, saying it is essential for the legality of the contract. We hope that such scholars will be given more access to the public. They should be the ones giving lectures and talks about Islamic views and issues. We understand that some parts of our society is steeped in tribal laws that refuse to be changed but enlightened scholars should visit those areas and address those problems. We just hope to hear less of those semi-scholars who like to shock the public, or those who are busy devising new ways to enable men to exercise their infinite power over their women relatives.
Yes, I do realize it’s a completely different culture. However, I question the sanity of a culture that has so little regard for the female population that they’d basically sell their little girls to perverted old men. What happens to the child when the old dog dies? Does she go back to live with her family to be ’sold’ again? Is she murdered in an “honor” killing? Nice of ‘em to allow the so called father to ask if the child wants to marry an old man. What happens if she says no? Is she beaten until she says yes? I have a real problem with a society that thinks marriage can be temporary for convenience sake, and marrying off young girls to old men. I know that in past centuries, this was common practice. People didn’t live as long, but this is the 21st century, and things have changed. Evidently, not in Muslim cultures though.
I think of my nine year old granddaughter, and wonder.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
SO Accurate!
Swiped from The Political Jungle!
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Rewriting History
“The Jewish leadership accepted the resolution, but the Palestinian and Arab leadership did not, which they had a right to do. What they did not have a right to do was attack the nascent Jewish state with the objective - as they acknowledged at the time - of initiating a ‘war of extermination.’ The result was, therefore, a double Nakba: not only of Palestinian-Arab suffering and the creation of a Palestinian refugee problem, but also, with the assault on Israel and on Jews in Arab countries, the creation of a second, much less known, group of refugees - Jewish refugees from Arab countries.”
IT IS tragic to appreciate that had the Partition Resolution been accepted 60 years ago, there would have been no Arab-Israeli war - no refugees, Jewish or Arab - and none of the pain and suffering since. Indeed, we would have been celebrating the 60th anniversary of both the State of Israel and the State of Palestine.
Moreover, this “double rejectionism,” where Arab leadership was prepared to forgo the establishment of a Palestinian state if it meant countenancing a Jewish state in any borders, not only found expression 60 years ago, but has underpinned the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict ever since.
Yet the revisionist Mideast narrative - prejudicial to authentic reconciliation and peace between peoples as well as between states - continues to hold that there was only one victim population, Palestinian refugees, and that Israel was responsible for the Palestinian Nakba of 1948.
How many school kids know that the Arabs living in the region REJECTED an establishment of a Palestinian state? How many Palestinians even know that they leadership of the time refused to give them a “homeland”. I can pretty much guess….not many, if any, are aware of the rejection.
Simply put, the Arab countries not only rejected a Palestinian state and went to war to extinguish the nascent Jewish state, but also targeted the Jewish nationals living in their respective countries, thereby creating two refugee populations - the Palestinian refugee population resulting from the Arab war against Israel, and the Jewish refugees resulting from the Arab war against its own Jewish nationals.
The hatred of the Jews runs pretty deep. This “war” has never been about the establishment of a state for the Palestinians, it’s always been about hatred of a people, and their destruction. The Arabs learned well from the Nazis.
REGRETTABLY, THE United Nations also bears express and continuing responsibility for this distorted Middle East and peace narrative. Since 1948, there have been more than 130 UN resolutions that have specifically dealt with the Palestinian refugee plight. Yet, not one of these UN Resolutions makes any reference to, nor is there any expression of concern for, the plight of the 850,000 Jews displaced from Arab countries. Nor have any of the Arab countries involved - or the Palestinian leadership involved - expressed any acknowledgement, let alone regret, for this pain and suffering, or for their respective responsibility for the pain and suffering.
It’s not really surprising that the Useless Numnuts continue to foster blame on the Israelis.
This is an extremely interesting opinion piece, and well worth your time to read.
Some extra info: Al-Nabka Day, The Nakba, May 29, 1453, Nakba, The Iron Illusions of Rashid Khalidi.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Victor Davis Hanson and Some SERIOUS Common Sense
Do the Right Thing - Start Drilling
The other day in southwestern Fresno County, a poor part of Central California, I talked with a number of folks at a rural gas station. Most drove second- and third-hand pickups, large cast-off sedans or used SUVs. Their general complaint was twofold: They didn’t have the cash to buy a new fuel-efficient Honda or Toyota. And they were now spending a day or two of their wages just to fuel their cars for their long rural commutes.
Now see, I’ve been asking this question every time folks like Bill O’Reilly starts bringing up building the flex fuel type vehicles. If you can’t afford to fill up your car, how the hell can you afford to buy a new one? Does anyone ever stop and think about this? Not everyone can just go out and put themselves into debt for a “new and improved” car. And who’s to say this is really a solution to the world’s woes? They said that ethanol was the answer, and we’re finding out it costs more to produce than it’s worth. Not to mention all the food that’s being put into gas tanks that could be used to feed the world’s hunger. Morons!
Indeed, from my informal conversations at two very different gas stations, I would go even further: The wealthy, particularly those who are politically liberal, also like that high-priced gas translates into less burning of fossil fuels by others and will help accelerate research into alternative energies.
Why does this not surprise me. The ‘do as I say, not as I do’ libs are notorious, yet no one ever asks them exactly what they are doing to “save the planet”. Again….morons!
But what these elites don’t seem to realize is that the energy policies they tend to advocate are for the present paralyzing almost everyone else in the country — and that the truly ethical and environmental solution would require embracing positions long considered anathema to traditional liberalism.
That’s the thing about liberalism. The big picture seems to totally pass over their heads. They don’t look at the effects in the long run. Their constant brow beating of “it’s for the chiiiiiiiiiilruns” only affects those who actually have their children, instead of those who prefer to choose to kill them. We are seeing the affects of many of their policies destroying generations of children: no spanking, more violence in the schools, and such.
The debate in Congress over more refineries and nuclear power plants; drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off our coasts; and developing oil shale, tar sands and liquid coal has been usually a predictable soap opera: Grasping Republicans supposedly wish to enrich energy companies, while idealistic Democrats want only to protect the environment. But those black-and-white positions, hatched in the good old days of $1.50-a-gallon gas, should now be revisited on the basis of far different moral considerations.
One is fairness to the poor and middle class. Like it or not, radical environmentalism (and those behind it who provide the lobbying, funding and influence to block energy legislation) appeals to an elite not all that worried when gas prices rise or electricity rates go up — since fossil energy use goes down.
The libs keep saying they don’t like “lobbyists”, but they sure do kowtow to them on a regular basis, to the detriment of the nation.
Consider also how oil triggers a massive transfer of wealth abroad that is as illiberal as it is dangerous. Productive energy-strapped Americans, Europeans, Japanese, Chinese and Indians are working day and night to give the world critical material goods, ideas and services. To be blunt, oil-rich Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia and Iran are not.
If we want to be ‘energy independent’, shouldn’t we be producing more of our own energy? And while producing that energy, producing the products that actually HELPS the world’s poor? You know, things like medications, FOOD, etc. Why keep feeding the beast of OPEC? This makes NO sense whatsoever!
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
From the Saudi Perspective
Last fortnight ago oil chiefs in the UAE said oil prices were rising “too high and too fast.” It is in order to find ways to keep the price level reasonable that the Kingdom is hosting a meeting of oil producers and consumers in Jeddah, on June 22.
OPEC producers have increased output to try and put a brake on the rise. In the Kingdom’s case, not only did it increase production by 300,000 bpd to 9.45 million bpd this month, it has even expressed its willingness to increase it further. To no avail. In normal circumstances, such a production increase would have produced a fall in price. But these are neither normal circumstances nor normal times. Market forces are not working as usual. Because of the extra production, supply in fact now exceeds demand and commercial inventories are growing. Still the price goes up. Alexei Miller, head of the Russian energy giant Gazprom, has just warned that the prices are headed for $250 a barrel.
That is because of speculators who have seized control of the market. The problem started because a weak dollar forced investors to look elsewhere for profits; they latched on to oil futures. But they have taken a liking to them and a completely new investment structure has been created. Banks and financial houses have set up hedge funds to invest in oil prices and profit from them. They do not want the price to go down; they want it to continue its steady and unjustifiable ascent. The proof of that is that announcements which would normally result in prices falling — such as new finds off Ghana and Brazil or that Greenland has mega-reserves beneath its melting surface are ignored — but a ruptured pipeline or the threat of a storm near offshore platforms are used as excuses for pushing prices up even further.
The situation is now alarming. It is crippling for consumers in industrial economies where it has triggered a wave of protests and strikes, and even more so for those in developing countries whose hopes of prosperity may be dashed; the food crisis is a direct consequences of the oil price rise. In the long term, it is even more dangerous for producers. Consumers are going to look to alternative technologies and energy sources.
OPEC will help if extra production is required but that has to be part of a larger package of price-calming measures. Producers cannot do it all themselves. Thus the need for consumers and producers to get together. The target has to be the speculators. The use of hedge funds and massive financial reserves to push up the price of oil is immoral. Economies — people’s livelihoods and their hopes of prosperity — are at risk.
But can the genie be forced back into the bottle? Having developed the mechanisms to push prices up and benefit from them, can banks and financial institutions be persuaded to stop? There are ways. Speculation could be taxed out of business, although it would require unprecedented cooperation between countries that till now have been loathe to work together on tax matters.
Perhaps we should take a good look at who is doing all the “speculating”.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We Elect Idjits!
One day the OPEC minister will look you in the eyes and say the following:
‘We are at war with you infidels. Have been since the embargo in the 1970s. You are so arrogant you haven’t even recognized it. You have more missiles, bombs, and technology, so we are fighting with the best weapon we have and extracting on a net basis about $700 billion/year out of your economy. We will destroy you! Death to the infidels!
While I am here I would like to thank you for the following:
Not developing your 250-300 year supply of oil shale and tarsands. We know if you did this, it would create millions of jobs for US citizens, expand your engineering abilities, and keep the wealth in the US instead of sending it to us to finance our war against you bastards.
Thanks for limiting defense department purchases of oilsands from your neighbors to the north. We love it when you confuse your allies.
Thanks for over-regulating every segment of your economy and thus delaying by decades the development of alternate fuel technologies.
Thanks for limiting drilling off your coasts, in Alaska, and anywhere there is a bug, bird, fish, or plant that might be inconvenienced. Better that your people suffer! Glad to see our lobbying efforts have been so effective.
Corn based Ethanol. Praise Allah for this sham program! Perhaps you will destroy yourself from the inside with these types of policies. This is a gift from Allah, praise his name! We never would have thought of this one! This is better than when you pay your farmers NOT TO GROW FOOD. Have them use more energy to create less energy, and simultaneously drive food prices through the roof.
And finally, we appreciate you letting us fleece you without end. You will be glad to know we have been accumulating shares in your banks, real estate, and publicly held companies. We also finance a good portion of your debt and now manipulate your markets, currency, and economies to our benefit.
Please, in November, elect Senator Obama, you really need to be led by a true Arab American!
THANK YOU, AMERICA!’
Courtesy of brother in law Tom.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Islamophobia
OIC urges measures against Islamophobia
“Mere condemnation or distancing from the acts of the perpetrators of Islamophobia will not resolve the issue, as long as they remain free to carry on with their campaign of incitement and provocation on the plea of freedom of expression,” OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu said, in a speech at a conference in Kuala Lumpur.
Ihsanoglu appreciated those Western governments which slammed a blasphemous and anti-Islamic film produced by a Danish lawmaker, Geert Wilders, which sparked strong protests by Muslims.
The movie, Fitna, portrays the Holy Qur’an as a book which inspires terrorism.
The OIC head also urged the media to reject “proponents of hatred totally,” citing other incidents such as the republishing in Denmark of cartoons considered an insult to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), AP said.
Pssst!
When you yahoos stop condoning the violence, or at least speak out against it once in a while, I might take you seriously. Until then……
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Living In The Land Of Oz
As President Bush commemorated Israel’s 60th anniversary by attacking Barack Obama from overseas, here at home he found an all-too-frequent ally: John McCain.
Uh….no, actually he said a Senator during WWII had said “if he had only talked to Hilter”…. Get the facts straight you egotistical putz!
When Bush accused “some” — including Obama, Bush aides explained — of “the false comfort of appeasement,” McCain echoed this slander.
Slander? What slander? Is he saying Hussein never said he’d chat with Ahmabooboo with NO preconditions? Sorry Scary, but that’s exactly what he said. Again….facts!
Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person’s reputation or standing in the community.
John, ya might want to use a dictionary the next time you put pen to paper!
“What does he want to talk about with [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad?” McCain asked, fumbling to link Obama to the Iranian president’s hateful words. Soon, a GOP talking point was born.
Wow! I didn’t know the non leadership of the GOP read my blog, and many others, who have been saying the same dadburn thing. And I tell ya, I’m no big McFeingold fan, but this is one thing he didn’t fumbled on.
Lost in the rhetoric was the question America deserves to have answered: Why should we engage with Iran?
In short, not talking to Iran has failed. Miserably.
Oh, I dunno about that. Works pretty well for me. Of course, if the UN wasn’t full of a bunch of APPEASERS, perhaps Iran wouldn’t be at the point they are now? Just a thought.
Bush engages in self-deception arguing that not engaging Iran has worked. In fact, Iran has grown stronger: continuing to master the nuclear fuel cycle; arming militias in Iraq and Lebanon; bolstering extremist anti-Israeli proxies. It has embraced Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and spends lavishly to rebuild Afghanistan, gaining influence across the region.
Which tells me a couple of things: One, we should go ahead and bomb both of those useless countries back to the 12th century, where they want to be anyway; and two, al Maliki is sucking up to ‘Booboo, and stabbing US in the back.
Instead of backing Bush’s toxic rhetoric, McCain should have called George H.W. Bush’s secretary of state, James Baker. After years of stonewalling, the administration grudgingly tested the Baker-Hamilton report’s recommendation and opened talks with Iran — albeit low-level dialogue restricted to the subject of Iraq. Is James Baker an appeaser, too?
Toxic? No, Bush is a lot of things, but ‘toxic’ isn’t one of them. Well, unless you are leftist Dhimmi. The Iranians have flat out stated they want to destroy Israel, and us. So, Scary parroting Hussein’s “let’s have tea” nonsense tells me we made a wiser choice in ‘04. Oh, and what have those low-level chats accomplished so far? Iran still wants to destroy Israel, and us, and all Western civilization. Yep, that’s working real well.
While the president attacks political opponents from the Knesset, responsible members of his own administration meet face to face with Iranians. Yes, Ahmadinejad’s words often are abhorrent, and often Iran has played a poisonous role in Middle East politics. But when our ambassador to Iraq meets with his Iranian counterpart, he isn’t courting “the false comfort of appeasement” — he is facing the reality that Iran exerts influence in Iraq. That’s why Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have called for engaging Iran. Appeasers all? Nonsense.
“Often abhorrent”? How about downright dangerous! Perhaps those chats with the Iranians are emphasizing the idea they had better knock it off! You know, stop supplying the terrorists with weapons, stop trying to become a nuclear power with the intent of starting a MAJOR confrontation. Maybe they are setting those same ‘pre-conditions’ that Hussein doesn’t think he needs to have a conversation?
Opponents of dialogue often quip that talking isn’t a strategy. Walking away isn’t a strategy, either. McCain says that “there’s only one thing worse than the United States exercising the military option, that is, a nuclear-armed Iran.” But for all his professed reluctance, when McCain disavows diplomacy, he is stacking the deck in favor of war.
No, actually, I don’t think he is “stacking the deck”. Iran has been doing that since 1979, when Jimmah, the biggest appeaser of all, was in the White House. You notice that they were released when Reagan was sworn in, because they KNEW they’d get their collective asses kicked if they didn’t. Reagan wasn’t an appeaser.
Dialogue helps us isolate Ahmadinejad rather than empowering him to isolate us. More important, even if we fail to reach an agreement, engaging Iran will spark three conversations likely to strengthen our position.
Where does he come up with this stuff? Dialogue with ‘Booboo will give him legitimacy, to the point where he can say “See? Even the Americans fear us and want to talk!” That, in my opinion, is more than just a little dangerous.
The first is between our leaders and Iran’s. From nonproliferation to counterterrorism, frankly, Iran won’t care for much of what we have to say — but at the right moment, it is not unreasonable to think Tehran would cut a deal in exchange for economic incentives, energy assistance, diplomatic normalization or a noninvasion guarantee.
Why is it that the left assumes that these are reasonable people, who are guided by logic? Nothing could be farther from the truth. They are ruled by a book that provokes hatred and violence, and the destruction of anything, and anyone, who does not subscribe to that same book. Get a grip!
Some have asserted that meeting with Iran’s leaders would legitimize Ahmadinejad, who is neither Iran’s supreme leader nor someone whom Obama specifically promised to meet. Curiously, many critics then hype Ahmadinejad as a threat of historic proportions, thereby granting the stature they seek to deny. Iranian elections in mid-2009 could yield a less objectionable president; engaging Iran makes that more likely.
Well, actually, he’s a small man, likely with a tiny weenie, but a HUGE ego. Napoleon comes to mind, and look what he did. Then, there was Hitler, and we KNOW what he did to the world. So, is MR Scary suggesting we should play Neville Chamberlain?
As Iran’s centrifuges churn out enriched uranium, we’re asking the wrong question. Instead of wondering why Barack Obama wants to talk with Iran, we should ask: “What are George Bush and John McCain waiting for?”
Good question! Why haven’t we taken out Iran’s nuclear facilities?
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
