Democrats may have only themselves to blame

[Tigermike 3,055]

October 25, 2007

Democrats’ Vows Not to Attack Iran May Ensure that Bush Does

Vice President Dick Cheney reiterated last week what the administration has hardly downplayed: It has no intention of letting Iran get nuclear weapons.

If, before President Bush leaves office, the United States attacks Iran to prevent its entry into the nuclear club, Democrats may have only themselves to blame. They have declared themselves so unwilling to deal with the threat, they may be pushing Bush to the belief that he must launch an attack – lest he leave the job to a successor who will either lack the nerve or tragically dismiss the seriousness of the threat.

Nuclear weapons are perfectly safe until someone decides to use one. Those arguing that we can live with a nuclear Iran argue that the Iranians understand the actual use of nukes would be suicide. An Israeli counterattack – and then an American one – would surely wipe Iran itself off the map. According to this reasoning, there is no regime on Earth whose acquisition of nuclear weapons would be objectionable, because the same condition applies to everyone.

Do those who make this argument believe that any regime is crazy enough to actually use nuclear weapons? If they don’t, then there is no need to counteract nuclear proliferation – which is quite a change in thinking for many of the same people who marched in the “No Nukes” demonstrations of the 1980s.

But if you believe it’s possible a regime could exist that is too unstable, too evil or simply too irrational to be trusted with nuclear weapons, Iran is a pretty good candidate for the honor.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has declared that Israel should be wiped off the map, despite the attempts of liberal history revisionists to explain this 2005 comment away. For those who argue that Ahmedinejad really has no power in Iran (pretty much the same people who are trying to explain away the Israel comment), meet the mad mullahs who hold the ultimate power. This is the same regime that kidnapped U.S diplomats in 1979 and held them hostage for 444 days. Still in power. These are the same people who are sending weapons and insurgents into Iraq to destabilize its democratically elected government. Iran actively arms and encourages the terrorist group Islamic Jihad.

And yet the argument against stopping its nuclear ambitions rests on the belief that it is somehow a rational actor on the world stage. Are you sure of that? Are you really sure? Let-them-have-nuclear-weapons sure?

For years, the administration has indulged the usual futility of multilateral diplomacy and “weapons inspections” by a feckless United Nations, understanding throughout that none of this is going to stop Iran – because it never stops anyone from doing anything.

Meanwhile, Democrats have decided to use Iran as a campaign talking point, openly expressing their shock and horror at the prospect of Bush attacking Iran and falling all over themselves to promise the world that none of them would ever do so.

Put yourself in Bush’s shoes. The Democrats have succeeded, with the help of their mainstream media allies, in driving your approval ratings to an irretrievably low level. If you care at all about approval ratings – and it’s far from clear that Bush does – you can count on ending your presidency with numbers in the toilet. These same Democrats have telegraphed to you and everyone else that they will never, ever, ever attack Iran – and even more, that they don’t believe the U.S. is even capable of doing so because of our other military commitments abroad.

You, Bush, are convinced that a nuclear Iran is a mortal threat. There appears to be a strong possibility that your successor will be unwilling to confront the problem. And your approval ratings are going to be horrendous no matter what you do.

What’s more, at least some of your military advisors are saying publicly that the U.S. has more than enough military resources available to successfully attack Iran and take out its nuclear capabilities.

If Bush decides he cannot leave office on January 20, 2009 without first attacking Iran, the Democrats who have dismissed the threat and vowed not to deal with it will have only themselves to blame.

Of course, Americans may choose on November 4, 2008 to elect a 44th president who takes the Iranian threat as seriously as Bush does, in which case he may see no reason to launch the attack in the two months and 16 days he will have before leaving office.

So if you’re not eager to see America attack Iran, you might think twice about voting Democratic. It may be tantamount to giving the attack order.

http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc119.htm

[Auburn85 432]

Does anyone find it disturbing that Ahmedinejad was not shouted down when he came to speak at Columbia? Yet, we seen the minutemen at the same college pretty much forced off the stage?

We see people trying shout down Condi, Petraus, even the other day Bill Clinton.

Yet , if you're the leader of Iran and deny the killing of Jews and want to wipe Israel of the face of the earth, it's ok. We won't shout you down.

[Justin5 20]

Yeah, the democrats are really the ones to blame here [/sarcasm]

[AURaptor 1,126]

Yeah, the democrats are really the ones to blame here [/sarcasm]

That you don't see that they are the problem, OR are incapable of showing why they aren't, only amplifies the point being made.

[TexasTiger 13,031]

Yeah, the democrats are really the ones to blame here [/sarcasm]

That you don't see that they are the problem, OR are incapable of showing why they aren't, only amplifies the point being made.

Yes, because Raptor logic is that the Dems are responsible for what they won't do because it somehow forces Dubya to do it. So Dems are responsible for Republican actions. Everyone can see that.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Sadly, the Dems are fully against anything the President is for, with out thinking about the consequences.

[TexasTiger 13,031]

Sadly, the Dems are fully against anything the President is for, with out thinking about the consequences.

Yeah, and the people for the Iraq invasion fully thought throught "the consequences" of weakening Iran's biggest foe.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Sadly, the Dems are fully against anything the President is for, with out thinking about the consequences.

Yeah, and the people for the Iraq invasion fully thought throught "the consequences" of weakening Iran's biggest foe.

I think it's safe to say that Saddam wasn't exactly ' our guy' anymore after the 1st Gulf War. You offer a flimsy argument not to invade Iraq.

[TexasTiger 13,031]

Sadly, the Dems are fully against anything the President is for, with out thinking about the consequences.

Yeah, and the people for the Iraq invasion fully thought throught "the consequences" of weakening Iran's biggest foe.

I think it's safe to say that Saddam wasn't exactly ' our guy' anymore after the 1st Gulf War. You offer a flimsy argument not to invade Iraq.

Funny that you think the burden is on those not advocating invasion. Intelligent, informed people know, at least now, that having a counterweight to Iran was an excellent reason not to invade.

[AURaptor 1,126]

That concept was batted around back in '91, and we chose not to take Saddam down. We see how well that worked.

[TexasTiger 13,031]

That concept was batted around back in '91, and we chose not to take Saddam down. We see how well that worked.

Worked pretty well, considering how well the alternative is working.

[AURaptor 1,126]

That concept was batted around back in '91, and we chose not to take Saddam down. We see how well that worked.

Worked pretty well, considering how well the alternative is working.

Exactly how did it work? Saddam defied the U.N., was making under the table deals w/ the Euros and former Soviet Union, Iraq had perpetual no fly zones in the north and the south,....yah, it was a real picture of stability there.

[Tigermike 3,055]

That concept was batted around back in '91, and we chose not to take Saddam down. We see how well that worked.

Worked pretty well, considering how well the alternative is working.

Exactly how did it work? Saddam defied the U.N., was making under the table deals w/ the Euros and former Soviet Union, Iraq had perpetual no fly zones in the north and the south,....yah, it was a real picture of stability there.

In Tex's world the U.N. sanctions were working perfectly. The U.N. is to be admired and supported unquestionally.

How did that little food for oil thingy work out?

[TexasTiger 13,031]

That concept was batted around back in '91, and we chose not to take Saddam down. We see how well that worked.

Worked pretty well, considering how well the alternative is working.

Exactly how did it work? Saddam defied the U.N., was making under the table deals w/ the Euros and former Soviet Union, Iraq had perpetual no fly zones in the north and the south,....yah, it was a real picture of stability there.

In Tex's world the U.N. sanctions were working perfectly. The U.N. is to be admired and supported unquestionally.

How did that little food for oil thingy work out?

It worked in that Iraq was less of national security risk then that it is now.

How's that invasion thingy working for you?

[AURaptor 1,126]

It worked in that Iraq was less of national security risk then that it is now.

How's that invasion thingy working for you?

Iraq is less of a national security risk now than it was. Invasion's going great. Surge is working. Thanks for asking, now go back to sleep.

[TexasTiger 13,031]

It worked in that Iraq was less of national security risk then that it is now.

How's that invasion thingy working for you?

Iraq is less of a national security risk now than it was. Invasion's going great. Surge is working. Thanks for asking, now go back to sleep.

Glad to see you still have that Kool-aid IV drip...

[AURaptor 1,126]

It worked in that Iraq was less of national security risk then that it is now.

How's that invasion thingy working for you?

Iraq is less of a national security risk now than it was. Invasion's going great. Surge is working. Thanks for asking, now go back to sleep.

Glad to see you still have that Kool-aid IV drip...

Ohh..ooh....that's just too much! You take that back! TAKE IT BACK!