Skip to comments.Why Did Bush Blink on Iran? (Ask Condi)
Posted on 06/25/2006 8:35:14 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran knows what he wants: nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them; suppression of freedom at home and the spread of terrorism abroad; and the "shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems."
President Bush, too, knows what he wants: an irreversible end to Iran's nuclear weapons program, the "expansion of freedom in all the world" and victory in the war on terrorism.
The State Department and its European counterparts know what they want: negotiations.
For more than five years, the administration has dithered. Bush gave soaring speeches, the Iranians issued extravagant threats and, in 2003, the State Department handed the keys to the impasse to the British, French and Germans (the "E.U.-3"), who offered diplomatic valet parking to an administration befuddled by contradiction and indecision. And now, on May 31, the administration offered to join talks with Iran on its nuclear program.
How is it that Bush, who vowed that on his watch "the worst weapons will not fall into the worst hands," has chosen to beat such an ignominious retreat?
Proximity is critical in politics and policy. And the geography of this administration has changed. Condoleezza Rice has moved from the White House to Foggy Bottom, a mere mile or so away. What matters is not that she is further removed from the Oval Office; Rice's influence on the president is undiminished. It is, rather, that she is now in the midst of -- and increasingly represents -- a diplomatic establishment that is driven to accommodate its allies even when (or, it seems, especially when) such allies counsel the appeasement of our adversaries.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
He didn't blink, he tossed the ball in Euros court. They have shown their effectiveness and are now beginning to re-learn their place.
I'm beginning to have a different opinion of Richard Perle and it isn't toward the good side.
He was one of the attendees at Bilderberg a week ago -- along with Hillary and others...
We'll dance with Iran next year.
He did not blink, he is just playing chess with the Iranians but the stupid people cannot tell this. Iran will not have nuclear weapons under the Presidency of George W Bush, period.
They might as well ask why (or when) did he stopped beating his wife...
I'm not so sure the Iranians are stupid...wrong...but not so stupid. Not good.
Iran's nukes are a greater threat to Europe than to the US. Letting the Europeans take the lead and ultimately conclude that this is more than just a ploy by the Iranians to strongarm the west into concessions is an important step in the runup to war.
Personally, I have more confidence in Condi Rice than Richard Perle.
If you remember North Korea acted up right before the Iraq war in an effort to distract the focus of the administration.
I think this is no different.
Regarding"stupid people" in my post I was more referring to the people here in the US who still do not understand President Bush.
Perle is entirely right. I read this with great interest because he was in the know. Rice was never as strong a player as people on FR seemed to think. She smiled and giggled when interviewed about the E-3 incident. She has nothing to contribute to world peace except the same stale ideology of appeasement. Bush will be remembered in history as one of the worst Presidents..because he did not stand up to the true source of terror in this world: Iran, when he had all the resources and all the moral fervor of his countrymen to do so after 9-11. And it looks like he never will and the MidEast is headed toward a conflagration.
"I'm beginning to have a different opinion of Richard Perle and it isn't toward the good side."
Welcome aboard. Perle and others hawked the war in Iraq..now on the turn of a dime..they want us to take out Iran without a blink while we are still trying to secure Iraq!!
They (Krystal included) sound like spoiled little children that did not get their blinky! What do they do? They start to undermine our President at every turn. Instead of looking forward with an understanding that this is a war that will take many decades to win and supporting the types of conservatives that in the long run will bring it about...they sit and whine like spoiled rotten children that scream for their ice cream when it is front of their face! Screw eemmmm.....
"Personally, I have more confidence in Condi Rice than Richard Perle."
Good grief..remind me not to hang out with you when we kill Osama. You are like that 'Downer couple' on SNL!!...LOL
Perle is a serious player, and this column was a broadside to Condi to tell her that her policy will not pass muster without opposition unless it is explained to conservatives that Iranians will not be allowed to cheat and retreat. No enrichment means no enrichment. She will be held to the "no enrichment" policy. Any deviation and a chorus of "appeasement" will come up from the Republican Party. This is a warning to the White House: no truckling under to Nazis. Period.
What Rice needs to do is to remember where her base is, and to make sure that she sits down with people like Perle and Ledeen and to remind them that she was a hardliner Soviet specialist for decades. Henry Kissinger lost his entire base of support when Republicans decided that "detente" meant "appeasement".
I'm convinced that Rice understands that she's dealing with a bunch of bad actors. Unfortunately, we don't have the best allies, and the Chicoms and the Rus are playing a double game.
Be Seeing You
The rest of this article, though good, is redundant.
It's time to get some new blood in the state department. Too many entrenched ideologues too used to "dialogue" and compromise with the enemy.
Most of this article is nothing but an attempt to divide the base(us). We all know that the State Department has a bunch of entrenched left wing cronies and clinton holdovers.....wake up..the only reason that the Washington Compost printed Perles 'tantrum' was in the hope that we will all get mad about it.
Get real..we need to be on the side of our troops right now..like our President. Our troops don't need to 'open' Iran right now..especially when we can nuke them if push comes to shove!
What do you mean? The entire world knows that Iran has the means to build a nuclear bomb, and that they are just one little step away from having it. That's what the whole uproar is about.
I honestly can't understand why so many people look at Bush as some genius who just toys with the bad guys like a champion poker player, and then when it really counts he'll just pull out that big 'trump card' and win the day. But I have learned over time that Bush is not always playing "poker", and many of those times when it looks like he's not doing so well it's because he isn't doing so well.
I don't know what tomorrow will bring, maybe Bush will pull out some kind of 'trump card' and set Iran's nuclear bomb ambitions back 50 years; but so far Iran is laughing in Bush's face as they continue to build their nuclear weapon, and Bush isn't doing a thing about it except threaten them with some kind of useless sanctions. Frankly, I think Iran has Bush over the proverbial barrel and he doesn't know what do about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.