Wednesday, May 24, 2006
BUSH TO IRAN: I'M NOT LISTENING
President Ahmadinejad wants to chat. Bush says nope. I don't get it. Why not? What harm can it do to engage in dialog, specially considering there's so much at stake? Is GW afraid of offending Israel? I think diplomatic dialog between the two leaders could only enhance the security of Israel.
This is why I hate our President. He has no sense, and plenty of conviction.
When there's no communication, only dictation, resentment grows.
President Ahmadinejad wants to chat. Bush says nope. I don't get it. Why not? What harm can it do to engage in dialog, specially considering there's so much at stake? Is GW afraid of offending Israel? I think diplomatic dialog between the two leaders could only enhance the security of Israel.
This is why I hate our President. He has no sense, and plenty of conviction.
When there's no communication, only dictation, resentment grows.
Comments:
Ridiculous. Even if he is completely insane, even if his country has no respect for human rights, you simply cannot ignore the problem. Iran is probably only months away from developing a nuclear weapon. If we don't start talking now we're going to have a lot to explain later.
It's absurd how easy it is for this administration to dismiss what they want to dismiss. I really feel that George W. Bush is the worst President of the last 1000 years, and I challenge anyone to prove me otherwise. What has he done for this country? How has he improved our lives or the lives of others? How has he left our children safer, or better cared for? What has he left other than a trail of resentment?
This isn't partisan for me, by the way. I'd rather have John McCain in the White House than John Kerry, but I'd rather have John Kerry than GW.
It's absurd how easy it is for this administration to dismiss what they want to dismiss. I really feel that George W. Bush is the worst President of the last 1000 years, and I challenge anyone to prove me otherwise. What has he done for this country? How has he improved our lives or the lives of others? How has he left our children safer, or better cared for? What has he left other than a trail of resentment?
This isn't partisan for me, by the way. I'd rather have John McCain in the White House than John Kerry, but I'd rather have John Kerry than GW.
On the surface, I'd agree with you both, but diplomacy is an art like anything else political. I'm no expert, but what I do know is that rapprochement with Iran, and North Korea for that matter, is currently being carried out as a coalition of nations. This is not a bad idea really,(no?) now more than ever since there is such sensitivity to the U.S. being the sole big bully super power of the globe. In fact, if the MSM outlets have it right, the European nations are as worried, more so perhaps, about Iran's saber rattling and want to be engaged in any talks. Jimmy Carter has endorsed continued multi-national talks with Korea vs. the unilateral option.
I could be wrong, but I don't think this stance/tactic is a partisan one at all and am quite sure that if McCain or Kerry were sitting presidents they would do the same thing as well.
BTW.. I've been searching for a link to an oped piece by James Klurfeld of Newsday titled, "Few Object To U.S. Role as top dog" that made me think of you two guys and is apropos to this discussion. He references a book, “A Case for Goliath” written by Michael Mandelbaum recently reviewed in the Times. After Klurfeld posits, “…It’s hard to fathom how this administration turned all the sympathy and positive feelings about the U.S. after the 9/11 attacks into utter distain we now see so freely expressed”, he states that there is another view that is worth considering and quotes the author, “For all their criticisms of it, the American role in the world enjoys other countries’ tacit consent,” he writes. “More important than what others say about it, is what they do, or rather what they choose not to do. They have chosen not to mount serious opposition to what the U.S. does in the world, something that they would do if they considered the U.S. Dangerous”.
I had no luck finding a link yesterday, but since this came up I'll see if I can't dig it up.
I could be wrong, but I don't think this stance/tactic is a partisan one at all and am quite sure that if McCain or Kerry were sitting presidents they would do the same thing as well.
BTW.. I've been searching for a link to an oped piece by James Klurfeld of Newsday titled, "Few Object To U.S. Role as top dog" that made me think of you two guys and is apropos to this discussion. He references a book, “A Case for Goliath” written by Michael Mandelbaum recently reviewed in the Times. After Klurfeld posits, “…It’s hard to fathom how this administration turned all the sympathy and positive feelings about the U.S. after the 9/11 attacks into utter distain we now see so freely expressed”, he states that there is another view that is worth considering and quotes the author, “For all their criticisms of it, the American role in the world enjoys other countries’ tacit consent,” he writes. “More important than what others say about it, is what they do, or rather what they choose not to do. They have chosen not to mount serious opposition to what the U.S. does in the world, something that they would do if they considered the U.S. Dangerous”.
I had no luck finding a link yesterday, but since this came up I'll see if I can't dig it up.
is there a link that accompanies this post? I want to see the context of Bush's remarks.
While the UN Security Council did meet today to discuss Iran relations, Tony, the IAEA and other EU officials are in favor of US engaging Iran.
Let's face it - after 26 years of silence, the U.S. has a right to be skeptical.
'Worst president of the last 1,000 years'. Hilarious. You can safely go 10,000--from 9000 BC to 1000 AD, every US President I can think of did a better job than Dubya.
While the UN Security Council did meet today to discuss Iran relations, Tony, the IAEA and other EU officials are in favor of US engaging Iran.
Let's face it - after 26 years of silence, the U.S. has a right to be skeptical.
'Worst president of the last 1,000 years'. Hilarious. You can safely go 10,000--from 9000 BC to 1000 AD, every US President I can think of did a better job than Dubya.
If the other nations are supportive of the United States engaging unilaterally, than I have no problem with it whatsoever and would support the talks, but I personally remain extremely skeptical of any overture Iran is making. The Mullah's that really run the joint are just not a trustworthy lot.
I still think silence does more harm than good.
I think that having a unified position with as many nations as possible is certainly the way to approach any pressure put on Iran to comply, but if Ahmadinejad wants to rap with GW, I think GW should respond in kind.
Maybe the Mullah's should talk to Bush's Christian Right buddies.
Post a Comment
I think that having a unified position with as many nations as possible is certainly the way to approach any pressure put on Iran to comply, but if Ahmadinejad wants to rap with GW, I think GW should respond in kind.
Maybe the Mullah's should talk to Bush's Christian Right buddies.
