Is there anyone these liberal rags won’t publish?
Yup, Newsweek has allowed the one, the only, the wannabe Hitler to publish his own diatribe against Zionism and the United States. With such great passages as this where could a liberal rag go wrong?
The American people do not like to see their leaders
fall captive to the Zionist network. Surely the American people would
prefer U.S.-inspired policies to those perpetrated by the Zionists. No
fair-minded American is happy with the present situation. Regrettably,
despite the objections of some of America’s elite, personal and
political interests–especially those of the present administration–have
prevented any action to counter this fatal disease.
Problem is Achmedanutjob, the American people sympathize with the Israeli people over bomb strapping, innocent people killing terrorists like those the Palestinians produce. We don’t see Isreal sending in teenagers to bomb a cafe in the Palestinian territories.
It was hoped that the new world would enable all
nations, in light of universally accepted humane norms and mutual
respect, to advance together, eradicate poverty and injustice, and set
aside bitter memories of the past that were nothing but war, bloodshed,
violence and tension.Those hopes were dashed by the United States and its leaders
Is that you KOS? MoveOn? DemocraticUnderground?
Well, at least we all know now that the greater your leftist, communist, socialist, terror loving tilt is the greater the chance you can get something published in Newsweek. And to top it all off, Iran’s nuclear bomb dropping days are looking brighter and brighter…..thanks to three men inside our intelligence agencies, Thomas Fingar, Kenneth Brill, and Vann H. Van Diepen.
Less than eight days after it was first published, the NIE report on Iran has delivered its third diplomatic victory for Tehran.
The first accomplishment for Tehran took place on December 11. On that day, Egypt, a close US ally in the Middle East, sent its deputy foreign minister on the first official visit to Iran by any Egyptian official, since relations between the two sides were terminated in after Khomeini’s revolution in 1980. The primary reason for the break in relations was Ayatollah Khomeini’s strong opposition to Anwar Sadat’s peace deal with Israel. The late Iranian leader hated Sadat so much, that he named a street in Tehran after Khaled Eslamboli, his assassin.
Since then, the two countries have only been represented by interest sections in each other’s capitals.
Just a day after that historic visit, Iran received its second post NIE accomplishment, in the form of a Saudi invitation to President Ahmadinejad to attend the Haj ritual in Mecca. This is an honor that has not been bestowed upon any Iranian president, ever.
The Saudis, who were seething at Iran and Ahmadinejad’s role in Iraq and Lebanon, suddenly seem to have taken a shine to him.
The timing of both events, and their message should not be lost on Western leaders. The important question which should be asked is: why do two close US allies feel comfortable enough to make such friendly gestures to Iran, and upgrade its status in the region, at a time when President Bush is trying to do the opposite?
The answer is simple, and important.
It is one thing when the IAEA gives Iran positive points for being “generally truthful about its past.” After all, many argue that the IAEA is a toothless bureaucratic organization, at the mercy of different governments and their political agendas.
But when the multi-billion dollar US intelligence machine declares Iran halted its nuclear weapons program back in 2003, then as far as many Middle Eastern countries are concerned, the “danger” label has been taken off Iran’s nuclear program.
Although many Sunni countries are worried about Tehran’s activities in Iraq and Lebanon, they were more worried about the prospects of war between Washington and Tehran. Now that this danger has dissipated, it is likely that even more countries in the region will decide to engage Iran, as means of influencing its strategy and behavior in the Middle East. This will make the job of imposing sanctions against Iran much more difficult than before.
It will also enable Iran to come out of regional isolation, thus ruining all the celebration that took place in Washington and Jerusalem following the Annapolis show of solidarity.
Unreal. Will the left in this country realize their folly once Iran has the nuke and decides to use it to either blackmail the world or bomb Israel?
I’m betting no.
See author page
Re: “Unreal. Will the left in this country realize their folly once Iran has the nuke and decides to use it to either blackmail the world or bomb Israel?”
I don’t see any Conservatives in the US too concerned about a Muslim country that already has nukes, and has admitted sharing that information with Iran and North korea, and that is sheltering al Qaeda.
But the, President Bush tells us that the Pakistani government is a friend of ours, so that is DIFFERENT.
Do any Conservatives here consider Iran to be at war with the United States? If so, for how long? What is their justification?
If Conservatives are lusting for another war, to add to their successes in Afghanistan and Iraq, please let them add the above justifications.
You do not read much do you Steve? Or is that part of being a useful idiot: Do not think, just parrot your master’s talking points? Iran repeatedly declared war on the US every few years. They OPENLY send arms and their military to Iraq. They OPENLY fund terror groups. They attacked our embassy years ago in case you missed that. The US ignores Iran’s declarations of war most of the time and we defeated their “elite” operatives in Iraq this year.
I also do not see conservatives happy about Pak’s nukes or the lack of security around them. No consergvatives were happy when India and Pakistan began their arms race. However, something approaching a stable government in Pakistan is FAR better than a taliban group armed with nukes. India agrees with our position also as they are the nominal first target for a “greater Pakistan” caliphate under the taliban. You do not seem to understand this issue, but it may be because your masters have not told you to believe it yet.
Or are you seriously suggesting we unilaterally invade Pakistan just because they are predomiantly Muslim and are armed? Where are the UN Resolutions, 12 years of embargos and inspections, a cease-fire from a previous war, or 30+ nation coalitions for your romp into mountanous Pakistan?
“If Conservatives are lusting for another war, to add to their successes in Afghanistan and Iraq, please let them add the above justifications.”
Your stupidity and arrogance is beyond comprehension. First, considering that Iraq is stabilizing and the taliban have met nothing but defeat in Afghanistan, these are successes. No thanks to the treasonous leftists and sending funds and moral support to the islamofascists, but I digress. The only ones talking about attacking Iran ARE the lelftists and their allies in the Iranian government. Everyone else is talking diplomacy, sanctions, and inspections FIRST. IF need be, after diplomacy has failed, then a military option is on the table. The only ones wanting more war seems to be the left.
You are projecting agains Steve. Seek some therapy.