If The US Wants To Look Serious, The Visa Must Be Revoked
Hugh Hewitt has made it abundantly clear that he, along with many others in the blogosphere, disagree with the State Department's decision to grant Mohammed Khatemi a visa. It was a stupid move carried out by a group of people purposefully dedicated to undermining this administration. The president gave a speech yesterday, and in that speech he chastised Iran.
He positively identified Iran as being behind Hezbollah, pointed out that they do fund terrorism around the world, and are openly defying the United Nations' call to stop their enrichment program. And yet, he still believes we can find a diplomatic solution in all of this. Mr. President, if we have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, why are you proposing to break that policy? Diplomacy, as we all know, comes at the end of stand-offs or wars. Furthermore, we do not negotiate with terrorists. Yet, this is the diplomatic solution that has been proposed.
No wonder why our enemy wishes to negotiate when they take a hostage.
And when it comes to negotiations, what are the guarantees that Iran will even abide by them? Iran has stated that they will continue enriching uranium (as a matter of fact, they were enriching it yesterday right through the deadline) and that the subject itself will not be entertained during the negotiations. Then what is the point of holding such talks. Is this a "win one for the Gipper" moment? Or is this further State Department shenanigans to prove, once again, how ineffectual State has become? If the case is the latter, there is no need to showboat this. Many people in America need no reminder of the last batch of negotiations held by State. Madeline Albright was there, and has admitted to being "duped" by the North Koreans. Can we afford to be "duped" again?
We cannot negotiate with a regime such as Iran's. The government is run by religious fundamentalists who believe that no one has the right to tell them not to do something. While that is a nice thought, they are not alone in this world. And just like when the Soviets built the bomb, a nuclear-armed Iran is going to make that region a tad bit more itchier. Indeed, in recent news, Israel is prepping the IAF for a possible strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. And I seriously doubt that others in the region will be happy to see nuclear weapons in Iran.
Is Iran going to unveil these weapons tomorrow, or the next day? How about a month or so from now? Not likely. The Pentagon swears that Iran is still a good five years away from building such a weapon. However, there is nothing saying that they could not obtain one from one of their two favorite trading partners. Russia and China still have plenty to spare. That is always a possibility that should never be discounted, no matter what either nation says, and no matter how "friendly" they appear.
We stand at the crossroads right now. One direction takes us down a worthless road of negotiations where the other party is still going to be openly defiant, or clandestinely mocking those negotiations by continuing enrichment. And if our diplomats think different, then it is time for new diplomats; the days of Chamberlain cannot be repeated. The other path is a dark one that is filled with uncertainty, and it leads to a possible war. To avert a head-on confrontation with Iran, we should be preparing and assisting the dissdents in Iran to overthrow their regime. But it may also consist of us having to help them with military might. I can almost certainly guarantee that at the end of negotiations, our troubles will be just beginning.
According to some pundits that are paying attention, we are literally Five Minutes to Midnight when it comes to dealing with Iran. The longer we wait, and the longer we screw around with the mad mullahs in Tehran, the harder this will be when we absolutely must act. And by then, it could be too late. By then Iran's missile technology could have the ability to strike one of our allies in Western Europe, or worse, the United States itself.
The first message can be sent today by the Bush Administration by superceding the State Department. Revoke the visa. And explain to America why the visa has been revoked. If there is one serious complaint I have with the president it is that he does not address the American peope the way President Reagan used to. Reagan had no problem going before the TV cameras, and addressing America about this or that. President Bush seems to have some misgivings about that idea. And it is likely due to the fact that he is not the best at communicating himself. However, America still needs to know what is going on, and it is the president's job to tell them. We all butcher the English language, and the president is no different; this is why we still refer to him as a "man of the people."
He needs to stand up before America, and remind this nation of why we are opposed to Iran, and its nuclear policy. He needs to remind this nation of what Iran has done, and is capable of doing. And he needs to remind America that we will do whatever is necessary to ensure that Iran does not create a nuclear weapon. He does not even have to address the issue of Israel in such a speech. He just needs to tell America what we must do to ensure that a violent, terrorist-supporting Islamic nation does not get its hands on a nuclear weapon. And it starts with forbidding Khatemi from coming to the United States.
Khatemi supports the regime in Tehran. He was the president of Iran. He is a staunch supporter of the mullahs there, and a firm believer in Ahmadinejad. He has spoken before on the need to destroy America and the "infidel" West. He has spoken about the need to destroy Israel. This is not a friendly nation to anyone except those that share their same twisted ideology. So why are we allowing Khatemi unfettered acces to the United States, and why are we negotiating with this nation?
This issue literally boggles the mind, and unfortunately, we are getting no answers from the administration other than crickets chirping.
Marcie
Hugh Hewitt has made it abundantly clear that he, along with many others in the blogosphere, disagree with the State Department's decision to grant Mohammed Khatemi a visa. It was a stupid move carried out by a group of people purposefully dedicated to undermining this administration. The president gave a speech yesterday, and in that speech he chastised Iran.
He positively identified Iran as being behind Hezbollah, pointed out that they do fund terrorism around the world, and are openly defying the United Nations' call to stop their enrichment program. And yet, he still believes we can find a diplomatic solution in all of this. Mr. President, if we have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, why are you proposing to break that policy? Diplomacy, as we all know, comes at the end of stand-offs or wars. Furthermore, we do not negotiate with terrorists. Yet, this is the diplomatic solution that has been proposed.
No wonder why our enemy wishes to negotiate when they take a hostage.
And when it comes to negotiations, what are the guarantees that Iran will even abide by them? Iran has stated that they will continue enriching uranium (as a matter of fact, they were enriching it yesterday right through the deadline) and that the subject itself will not be entertained during the negotiations. Then what is the point of holding such talks. Is this a "win one for the Gipper" moment? Or is this further State Department shenanigans to prove, once again, how ineffectual State has become? If the case is the latter, there is no need to showboat this. Many people in America need no reminder of the last batch of negotiations held by State. Madeline Albright was there, and has admitted to being "duped" by the North Koreans. Can we afford to be "duped" again?
We cannot negotiate with a regime such as Iran's. The government is run by religious fundamentalists who believe that no one has the right to tell them not to do something. While that is a nice thought, they are not alone in this world. And just like when the Soviets built the bomb, a nuclear-armed Iran is going to make that region a tad bit more itchier. Indeed, in recent news, Israel is prepping the IAF for a possible strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. And I seriously doubt that others in the region will be happy to see nuclear weapons in Iran.
Is Iran going to unveil these weapons tomorrow, or the next day? How about a month or so from now? Not likely. The Pentagon swears that Iran is still a good five years away from building such a weapon. However, there is nothing saying that they could not obtain one from one of their two favorite trading partners. Russia and China still have plenty to spare. That is always a possibility that should never be discounted, no matter what either nation says, and no matter how "friendly" they appear.
We stand at the crossroads right now. One direction takes us down a worthless road of negotiations where the other party is still going to be openly defiant, or clandestinely mocking those negotiations by continuing enrichment. And if our diplomats think different, then it is time for new diplomats; the days of Chamberlain cannot be repeated. The other path is a dark one that is filled with uncertainty, and it leads to a possible war. To avert a head-on confrontation with Iran, we should be preparing and assisting the dissdents in Iran to overthrow their regime. But it may also consist of us having to help them with military might. I can almost certainly guarantee that at the end of negotiations, our troubles will be just beginning.
According to some pundits that are paying attention, we are literally Five Minutes to Midnight when it comes to dealing with Iran. The longer we wait, and the longer we screw around with the mad mullahs in Tehran, the harder this will be when we absolutely must act. And by then, it could be too late. By then Iran's missile technology could have the ability to strike one of our allies in Western Europe, or worse, the United States itself.
The first message can be sent today by the Bush Administration by superceding the State Department. Revoke the visa. And explain to America why the visa has been revoked. If there is one serious complaint I have with the president it is that he does not address the American peope the way President Reagan used to. Reagan had no problem going before the TV cameras, and addressing America about this or that. President Bush seems to have some misgivings about that idea. And it is likely due to the fact that he is not the best at communicating himself. However, America still needs to know what is going on, and it is the president's job to tell them. We all butcher the English language, and the president is no different; this is why we still refer to him as a "man of the people."
He needs to stand up before America, and remind this nation of why we are opposed to Iran, and its nuclear policy. He needs to remind this nation of what Iran has done, and is capable of doing. And he needs to remind America that we will do whatever is necessary to ensure that Iran does not create a nuclear weapon. He does not even have to address the issue of Israel in such a speech. He just needs to tell America what we must do to ensure that a violent, terrorist-supporting Islamic nation does not get its hands on a nuclear weapon. And it starts with forbidding Khatemi from coming to the United States.
Khatemi supports the regime in Tehran. He was the president of Iran. He is a staunch supporter of the mullahs there, and a firm believer in Ahmadinejad. He has spoken before on the need to destroy America and the "infidel" West. He has spoken about the need to destroy Israel. This is not a friendly nation to anyone except those that share their same twisted ideology. So why are we allowing Khatemi unfettered acces to the United States, and why are we negotiating with this nation?
This issue literally boggles the mind, and unfortunately, we are getting no answers from the administration other than crickets chirping.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 10:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home