Posted on 06/27/2008 10:55:38 AM PDT by The_Republican
Of the Axis-of-Evil nations named in his State of the Union in 2002, President Bush has often said, "The United States will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."
He failed with North Korea. Will he accept failure in Iran, though there is no hard evidence Iran has an active nuclear weapons program?
William Kristol of The Weekly Standard said Sunday a U.S. attack on Iran after the election is more likely should Barack Obama win. Presumably, Bush would trust John McCain to keep Iran nuclear free.
Yet, to start a third war in the Middle East against a nation three times as large as Iraq, and leave it to a new president to fight, would be a daylight hijacking of the congressional war power and a criminally irresponsible act. For Congress alone has the power to authorize war.
Yet Israel is even today pushing Bush into a pre-emptive war with a naked threat to attack Iran itself should Bush refuse the cup.
In April, Israel held a five-day civil defense drill. In June, Israel sent 100 F-15s and F-16s, with refueling tankers and helicopters to pick up downed pilots, toward Greece in a simulated attack, a dress rehearsal for war. The planes flew 1,400 kilometers, the distance to Iran's uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.
Ehud Olmert came home from a June meeting with Bush to tell Israelis: "We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat. ... I left with a lot less question marks regarding the means, the timetable restrictions and American resoluteness. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
How do you Europeans feel about attacking Iran? Have a clue?
I don’t know if Pat is an antisemite, but he’s the last “America First” member. Most America Firsters closed up shop after Pearl Harbor.
I tend to be an isolationist myself and have some sympathy for some of Pat’s views. (I don’t want to be the World’s policeman.)
There are two complicating factors. One is U.S. (and world) dependence on Mideastern oil, the other is the status of Israel.
Few Americans are ready to abandon Israel, regardless of the cost. This is admirable and noble, but must be recognized as costly. Pat is not one of those Americans willing to bear these costs.
He also might not be an antisemite, but he keeps going back to Holocaust Revisionism recently.
So even by 1946, the seeds doubt about the cause existed and an object lesson in suppressing them was available.
Buchanan takes advantage of widespread historical ignorance to make a few childish points about World War II. Yes, Pat, it was an ugly affair and more morally ambiguous than we might like, but the destruction of Nazism and Japanese militarism were not negligible accomplishments. That we could not immediately defeat Communism was sad, but does not negate the other accomplishments.
Okay. Lemme put on my Thinking Cap!
Oh, wait a minute! We're talkin' Pat Buchanan!
I better put on my Thinking Suit!
I'm guessing "the Joooos"
What do I win?
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.