Posted on 05/18/2006 5:23:05 AM PDT by unionblue83
Should President Bush “respond” to the 18-page rant sent to him through the media by the jihadist president in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
The Party of Appeasers – which includes the Senator from France, Chuck Hagel – believes the answer is yes. They believe the United States should be offering concessions to a regime that murders its own young, that cheats on its international obligations, and that threatens to obliterate another member of the United Nations.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who has now acknowledged publicly that she and her political masters completely missed the rise of political Islam during the 1990s because of their ideological rejection of religion in any form whatsoever, had a slightly more interesting suggestion. She has said the president should respond to the message he wants to receive, not necessarily the one that was sent.
That is a constructive suggestion, seeing as there is nothing – absolutely nothing – in the bearded boy wonder’s screed that deserves serious attention by anyone other than a rapid consumer of urban legend. (Which is why Cindy Sheehan thinks it’s a masterpiece, no doubt).
Just to sum up, for those of who haven’t the patience to troll the gutter, Ahmadinejad makes the case why he believes why America is an evil empire. I guess that is what explains the letter’s unending torrent of torrid prose. It’s a long and often amusing case if you buy into it.
He complains that the United States has tried to overthrow his regime (millions of Iranian patriots wish that were true).
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
Yes, of course... We should immediately send diplomats to Tehran and try to engage this fellow in constructive arms negotiations. We can give him enriched uranium and see what he does with it, like John Kerry suggested.
Arms negotiations like Stallone in "Over the Top"? North Korea is a shining example of what happens when you give them nuke fuel and see what they'll do with it. Thanks Albright and Clinton! I am actually in favor of the Israeli pre-emptive strike with our help. Just thought Timmerman had an interesting take. He's hoping for less mess on our hands and avoiding the nation-building. I think it's a poop sandwich either way but the longer we wait the worse it's gonna be.
Did Maddie Halfbright really admit to this? I find this hard to believe.
He should send a written reply, sandwiched safely between two slabs of C-4
"Third, the President should ask Congress to fully fund programs in support of the Free People of Iran. These programs should include massive support for exile broadcasting out of Los Angeles, as opposed to expanding the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe’s pro-Iranian regime broadcasting in Persian.
VOA showed once again on May 11 just how opposed it is to the agenda of President Bush by inviting lobbyist Housang Amirahmadi onto their premier TV show broadcasting into Iran. (Amirahmadi is one of the legion of VOA guests who has called for lifting sanctions against Tehran and opening trade with the Islamic Republic, instead of confronting them.) What kind of message does that send to the people of Iran? Where are the pro-freedom advocates on U.S.-taxpayer funded broadcasts into Iran? Where are the president’s speeches in favor of freedom?"
I agree - we should accept Iran's surrender to our will, after the salvo of tactical nukes which destroy much of their nuke capabilities as the letter suggested we should do. We will be happy to be the oversight custodians of their oil resources and to institute free elections so the Iranians can choose who leads them.
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.