Posted on 06/07/2006 6:39:05 AM PDT by Sabramerican
I agree with the first part. He's been drained by his opponents.
But a leader would find the strength to do what's right.
So he lacks support. That excuses this? Why not try to build support. Instead of selling, as a did, idiotic Medicare drug plans, sell the danger of a nuclear Iran.
The only support he needs is from the American people.
He has said Iran will not be allowed to be a nuclear power on his watch. If he is too weak to implement the policy he knows is right, let Cheney be President.
Thank you...I thought I was the only one thinking that. The world is going nutjob
Now we have "peace in our time"..
Because finally we have sane people advising the President? Instead of the 'bomb 'em now, bomb 'em somewhere, spread democracy, bomb 'em one more time for good measure' crowd?
Really sane people, by your description, would just give Iran several nuclear tipped missiles to pacify them.
Because sanity is a nuclear Iran.
He needs the support of the Senate and the House to fund and authorize the use of troops against Iran (supposedly a soverign nation). If he doesn't have it...he can't send troops in, even if he wanted to. It's a government procedural issue, not an excuse, which is why he's not a Tyrant. Unlike the Saddam Husseins of the world the POTUS doesnt have the ability to use force unilaterally, no matter what the liberatards would have ignorant America believe.
He's got the strength to do it, just not the votes...and that was what Condi probably told him, when they decided to go the diplomatic route.
Cheney...c'mon, I luv the guy too, but do you really think a Republican Majority legislature which barely backs Bush..will back him?
You can credit our lack of resolve on Iran to a bunch of weenies that kowtow to the media in the House and Senate.
This is Iran, and Americans have long memories, I don't know that he wouldn't have the votes in Congress.
What he needs to ignore is the International community.
A nuclear Iran is a nightmare with terrible consequences.
If he must, do what needs to be done, and apologize afterwards.
Under no circumstance do what he he doing: looking them in the eye....and blinking.
As long as a nation's military technology cannot reach the shores of this nation of states, I could care less what they have. With the Middle East surrounded by nuclear powers these days (Israel, India, Pakistan) don't you agree a sovereign nation should be able to defend itself? Or is acceptable defense now defined by running to these US and asking for 'help'?
Just so that it's clear to everyone.
As my pro Israel stance figures into my calculations, your hatred of Israel figures into yours.
What you call sane advice to allow Iran nuclear weapons does come with a hope of a bombing, doesn't it?
That's the added strange thing about you Israel hatters and supposed American firsters. To see Israel hurt, you would gladly damage American interests.
For your information, when Olmert was in Washington recently, Israel was pressured not to act unilaterally on Iran.
Would you draw the line when Iran has intercontinental missiles added to a nuclear arsenal?
Think maybe a nuclear Iran would engage in some oil blackmail? Think the US would be affected.
I'm all for Israel doing what the US won't and I hope this Bush capitulation quickens their action.
But Bush is working in a very difficult environment--some of which he brought on himself by his administration's failure to understand the cultures of the Middle East.
Still, even FDR had to lie constantly to keep a friendly press from killing him. You may know that the Chicago Tribune printed what Doolittle was about to do and the Japanese simply failed to pick it up. In this instance, you have a some members of a bureaucracy fighting to maintain their view of what is right regardless of their duties, you have a press which will use anything to vent their hatreds and prove their superiority and you have a school system built on some of the most brainwashed people alive.
Tony Snow has become just about the most important member of the administration: if they cannot seize the flow of information back from the present producers and editors, Bush can't govern. Snow must convince the president to go repeatedly to the American people in prime time and begin to rebuild his support. Otherwise, he can only play for time.
McVey
Sabra:
Your pro-Israeli stance does you credit. The problem that someone on this list is not getting is that Israel is a small country. One dirty nuke at Tel Aviv and not much of Israel will be liveable.
Who on this list would wish a nuclear exchange involving one of our allies?
Are some of you nuts?
Leadership does not include warding off all possible criticisms.
Bush: "We did EVERYTHING we could to stop them"
Critics: "No you didn't - you could have said 'Stop!' again!"
Some things simply cannot be comprimised on.
A reasonable Bush supporter, my hats off to you. So many have a knee jerk reaction, while you actually show thought process, and leave room for doubt. Of course it works both ways.
??? Interesting. Because I don't support pre-emptive wars I 'hate' Israel. That would be a real suprise to most people that know me IRL. I fully support the existence of Israel and frankly they should tell the Palestinians to pound sand.
However, this does not lead to a blind obedience that the Armed Forces of these United States should clear out all Israeli enemies based on the deluded ramblings of a Middle Eastern neighbor
What you call sane advice to allow Iran nuclear weapons does come with a hope of a bombing, doesn't it? That's the added strange thing about you Israel hatters and supposed American firsters. To see Israel hurt, you would gladly damage American interests.
LOL, you guys kill me. Find a post in the past 6 years I have made here that I 'hate' Israel. Go on, I'll give you all the time you need. You won't find one. You won't find an unkind remark I have ever made against God's Chosen People either.
For your information, when Olmert was in Washington recently, Israel was pressured not to act unilaterally on Iran.
For your information, I don't care. If Israel thinks it can take on Iran, let 'em. Personally I don't think it's the wisest choice, but hey it's not my country. I think Israel however should be armed to the teeth for defense. One attack on them, they should wipe the other country off the map.
Would you draw the line when Iran has intercontinental missiles added to a nuclear arsenal?
Depends on if those missiles can reach our borders doesn't it?
Think maybe a nuclear Iran would engage in some oil blackmail? Think the US would be affected.
Well considering the US receives the majority of its oil from areas outside the Middle East, if we started drilling in ANWR, the Gulf, off the shores of NC, then no. Of course it would have some effect but not as much. But the issue isn't really the amount of oil is it, it's the processing of the oil that's becoming a problem
I'm all for Israel doing what the US won't and I hope this Bush capitulation quickens their action.
Again, as Israel is a sovereign nation, that's their business. Personally I think it falls under the column of stupid brave attacking another nation when you're surrounded by enemies but hey if that's the course they choose, go for it.
Any questions?
He did, and we did.
Funny how replacing "(R)" with "(D)" just changes everything.
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.