Hawks need to back off from Bush over Iran talks

It's just that everything else President Bush has touched has turned to crap. Sorry. My Bad.

Well said Ray.

I think one thing driving all of this is the realization of what a difficult option the Israeli/US air strike is. The NY Post ran a great article talking about how many targets must be taken out to actually pull it off. This is no surgical strike. Major commitment, major fallout. Huge increase in the price of oil; a new generation of Iranians that hate the West; Russia and China conspiring to weaken our efforts.

I think all this may have given everyone, (Iranians as well hopefully), a reason to give talking one more try.

All this said - I'm not too hopeful about the outcome. I'd give it about a 1 in 4 chance of succeeding. But who knows - 25% of the time, 1 in 4 breaks your way...

Thanks for making an important point. We do not and can not know what is happening with Iran. We do know that Iran has seen Israel destroy a nuclear site in Syria and that their planes were undetected by air defense systems. We know that Israel has taken a very strong position against a nuclear Iran. These are some pretty big sticks. We and the EU3 are also able to offer some pretty tasty looking carrots. We may have more info about the status of Irans's nuclear program than we let on. We may know some things about internal Irania politics that could work in our favor.

It is perfectly legitimate to state that we want to remain tough with Iran and that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. It is legitimate to talk about developments we don't like and positions we don't trust. In fact, this may support tough positions taken by Bush. But it's not legitimate to think that we know everything that's going on.

Sir -
You make some valid points but the assertion about NIE report is just vapid.
The authors of that NONsense are political hacks within our "intelligence" agencies with obvious political agendas. That report was designed to do one thing- prevent this President or the next from acting to terminate Iran's nuclear bomb building efforts .
The US State Dept as well has an entrenched political class largely hostile to the defense of the Republic.
The information leaks from the FBI, CIA and State over the last several years prove these agencies serve the Left far too often .

I doubt that Bush expects anything to come of these talks, but politically, Bush has to play this card before anyone strikes Iran. It will demonstrate very clearly the intransigence of the Iranians. Then he can say to his critics, "We tried everything".
Of course Pelosi will charge Bush with incompetent diplomacy, but with Dem poll numbers at abysmal levels, and Obama sticking his foot in his mouth on a regular basis, I doubt that charge will carry much weight with the public.

As Ray Robison alludes to, the difference between Bush and Obama (oh, where do I start) is that the latter would willy-nilly offer direct talks at the Presidential level; certainly a sign of his utter naivete or worse. Even if Obama can convince Ahmedinejad to give up his nuclear ambitions, abandon his goal of destroying Israel, or stop believing that he is destined to grease the skids for the Mahdi; which of course Obama cannot do; the meeting itself would be a huge recruiting and propaganda win for our enemies.

That is not what Bush is proposing. The goal is a well-behaved Iran, not a flattened one. As Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL) and others have pointed out, there is a growing resistance movement inside Iran and its success is our best outcome. Moreover, as Israeli historian Benny Morris (once a leftist now on the right) points out, an attack that is only marginally effective or worse almost inevitably will lead to an eventual nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel. Moreover, talks do not mean capitulation. Neville Chamberlain is not our only historical model.

I have been working with anti-Islamists in South Asia particularly, and I can tell you that our greatest and most long lasting victory would be to get Ahmedinejad to blink--which is the object of the talks.

seems like a simple case of good cop bad cop. i'm willing to let W have his way on this. as you say he's earned the right given his steadfastness against global thuggery.

Indeed. Bush has a rare opportunity here. He will never again run for office and the election is drawing attention away. Does anyone really think Bush is going soft on.... anything?

Let us admit that we, general public (probably including almost everybody on the Hill), just do not have enough information for an educated judgment. Intelligence is not perfect to be sure but Mr. President has all up-to-date information on his desk and we don't. So far whatever he did with Iran made much more sense than what his opponents proposed. Let him finish what he is doing. Now we are divided nation. Some of us think that he is doing just fine, and many think that he is doing awful. We will have more than enough time to give 'W' much more kudos when our next President (probably Mr. Obama) will start his experimentation with setting our common home on fire.

I agree that we should cut the president some slack here. Like poster WSG, I have about as much faith in that politically created NIE report than I have in Mr. Obama, or the breathless media that's chasing him around the world, like groupies.

Much of this makes sense. However, he also could be trying Barack's "method" of talking to terrorist heads of state in order to prove that it doesn't work and thus helping McCain. Just another possibility.

Finding out "what they have to say" seems futile since they lie. Our entire premise on refusing to allow them nukes is that they aren't peace loving. Now Mr. Robison thinks they might want a "peaceful way out." Doubtful. Granted, the issue is more complex than the discussions about it often are, but some of the author's conclusions seem based more on hope than fact. John Bolton said this is an attempt by the Iranians to buy more time. Bolton is probably the one that has it right, as usual.

Havoc, the media has told us that everything President Bush touches has turned to crap. In actuality, President Bush has been remarkably successful at waging war, at conducting diplomacy, at managing the economy--the parts that have turned to crap are those he allowed Democrats to have big input. Examples: education bill, medicare, DHS. If you consider the history of wars, these two have been remarkably well managed--just compare the stats for this war and WWII or Vietnam. There's no point playing Monday morning quarterback with military matters.

Here are statements I've been collecting that have come from Iran the past few years.

1
Commandant of Iran's elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, said on state television. "God willing, the 21st century will see the defeat of the U.S. and the Zionists, and the victory of freedom-seeking nations of the world. The final goal of the [1979] revolution is to create global Islamic rule and a regime of law to be led by the Imam Mahdi".

2
The [Iranians] President's chief strategist, Hassan Abbassi, has come up with a war plan based on the premise that "Britain is the mother of all evils" - the evils being America, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, the Gulf states and even Canada, all of whom are the malign progeny of the British Empire. "We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization," says Mr Abbassi. "There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them... Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover."

3
The IRGC chief warned that Iran was seeing through "critical days" and "fate-determining years". He described the purpose of Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution as the "Salvation of Muslims" from the hands of the "oppressive U.S. and Israel".

4
The following are excerpts from an interview withIranian chief negotiator on nuclear affairs, and member of the Iranian Supreme Council for National Security Hosein Musavian, which aired on Iranian Channel 2 on August 4, 2005

Musavian: Those (in Iran) who criticize us and claim that we should have only worked with the IAEA do not know that at that stage - that is, in August 2003 - we needed another year to complete the Esfahan (UCF) project, so it could be operational. They say that because of that 50-day (ultimatum), we should have kept (the UCF) in Esfahan incomplete, and that we needed to comply with the IAEA's demands and shut down the facilities.

The regime adopted a twofold policy here: It worked intensively with the IAEA, and it also conducted negotiations on international and political levels. The IAEA gave us a 50-day extension to suspend the enrichment and all related activities. But thanks to the negotiations with Europe we gained another year, in which we completed (the UCF) in Esfahan.

[...]

There was a time when we said we would not work with Europe, the world, or the IAEA, and that we would not comply with any of their demands. There were very clear consequences: After 50 days, the IAEA Board of Governors would have undoubtedly handed the Iranian dossier over to the (U.N.) Security Council. There is no doubt about it. As for those who say we should have worked only with the IAEA - this would have meant depriving Iran of the opportunity to complete the Esfahan project in the one-year extension.

Esfahan's (UCF) was completed during that year. Even in Natanz, we needed six to twelve months to complete the work on the centrifuges. Within that year, the Natanz project reached a stage where the small number of centrifuges required for the preliminary stage, could operate. In Esfahan, we have reached UF4 and UF6 production stages.

[...]

We suspended the UCF in Esfahan in October 2004, although we were required to do so in October 2003. If we had suspended it then, (the UCF) in Esfahan would have never been completed. Today we are in a position of power: (The UCF) in Esfahan is complete and UF4 and UF6 gasses are being produced. We have a stockpile of products, and during this period, we have managed to convert 36 tons of Yellow Cake into gas and store it. In Natanz, much of the work has been completed.

[...]

Thanks to our dealings with Europe, even when we got a 50-day ultimatum, we managed to continue the work for two years. This way we completed (the UCF) in Esfahan. This way we carried out the work to complete Natanz, and on top of that, we even gained benefits. For 10 years, America prevented Iran from joining the WTO. This obstacle was removed, and Iran began talks in order to join the WTO. In the past, the world did not accept Iran as a member of the group of countries with a nuclear fuel cycle. In these two years, and thanks to the Paris Agreement, we entered the international game of the nuclear fuel cycle, and Iran was recognized as one of the countries with a nuclear fuel cycle. An Iranian delegate even participated in the relevant talks. We gained other benefits during these two years as well.

[...]

Host: Mr. Musavian, there is a point that our viewers might find interesting - the comparison between Iran's nuclear activity dossier and North Korea's.

[...]

There is a belief that if we adopted the North Korean model, we could have stood much stronger against the excessive demands of America and Europe.

[...]

Musavian: During these two years of negotiations, we managed to make far greater progress than North Korea. North Korea's most important achievement had to do with security guarantees. We achieved the same thing a year ago in the negotiations with the Europeans. They agreed to give us international guarantees for Iran's security, its national rule, its independence, non-intervention in its internal affairs, its national security, and not invading it.

Ray,

You can indulge all the fantasies you want about the demonstrable twit in The White House, ------------------------- and you can pretend to your heart's content that Condi has a clue, ------------------------------------ but in the end of the day, the creepy rulers of Tehran are going to have the bomb, ----------------- and mushroom clouds are going to appear over multiple Western cities.

And when that happens, and that's set in stone, that's going to go down on a future date CERTAIN, when that goes down, --------------------------- George Walker Bush is going to go down as the worst leader in Western history, worse than Chamberlain, way worse than Baldwin, and not even close to Carter, who will appear serious in comparison.

The NIE was a disaster with unintended consequences, one of which is to wake up the Israel and the Saudi's that the US beaurocracy is weakening the President and validating Iran's view that all they have to do is stall until Bush leaves. Then the US will cave and withdraw as Reid and Pelosi and Obama have promised. This creates a very dynamic and explosive situation in the region as countries bet on who will prevail.

I expect this post will be deleted in the interest of polite discourse.

Still, I can try. Dan, you called my President a twit. You sir are an ASS.

The NIE mentioned above is an example of the hacks working against Bush.
The report showed a "high" confidence that Iran had stopped work on warhead design. In 2003. And that's what got the headlines, as was the objective.
The report also said there is only "moderate" confidence they didn't start up again.
In the meantime, Iran continues the refining of uranium. And the Swiss came across a laptop with detailed warhead designs. Hell, we came across the same thing in Saddaam's files after the initial invasion. The Swiss think the laptop was at one time in Iran. Or maybe not. The Manhattan project was sixty years ago. Nothing needs to be invented. You only need to read the instructions.

But the headlines were designed to put Bush in a box, while the reporters in question knew damned well the Iranians had started again.

Thanks for a very accurate summary of the Bush Administration's foreign policy and results.

Thanks for putting it all together. I think particularly impressive has been how Bush could do all this in spite of a less than stellar performance from State and the CIA, especially team play. Things do change though and maybe we see some wins from these guys.

Overall, most of us should cut some slack and praise the team's overall performance.

BobG, you are correct and I stand behind your assessment of Dan. Dan's posting is the perfect example of the crap our President has had to put up with for 8 years; he is representative of an ideology that has become so warped and twisted by their own hatred for a man, they have been reduced to ignoring and denying any sort of good news that is a result of the work of a steadfast man like George W. Bush. Every day it seems the left in this country digs deeper and deeper with the invective and hyperbole thrown at the President. Too bad they can't see the writing on the wall--9% approval ratings of their leaders in Congress--American's don't agree with Dan. This President's approval rating is stellar enough, Pelosi and Reid could ony dream of being as well liked as Bush. But then again, what are poll numbers compared to actual accomplishments?

Dan is the typical lib/dem /prog. They substitute
emotions for facts.

Oh yea,

I'm an "ass" and a "lib/dem/prog," and all because I see that THE defining issue of this Presidency will be whether or not he obliterated Iran's Manhattan Project.

If the effort to stabilize Iraq comes at the expense of a sustained air offensive not just to degrade, but to thoroughly obliterate that Manhattan Project, --------------- then those extolling the surge will come to decry it.

Right now, THE most important issue confronting the West is that Manhattan Project.

And be mindful of this too, IRAN has been the foremost sponsor of mohammedan mayhem on the planet for the last 30 years.

And we're supposedly in a war against muslim terror, {but our wonderful Pres hasn't even the moral and intellectual clarity to acknowledge as much}, but how many pieces of ordnance has descended on Iranian terror facilities.

Notice I didn't even bother asking how much hit the Manhattan Project, all I asked was how much hit those bases and facilities that figure so prominently in the killing and the maiming of the men in his command.

EVEN SEN LIEBERMAN has demanded that the terror camps at the very least be annihlated by air.

What's the use.........

You guys are all in cheerleader mode,

Dear American Thinker
Within the boundary of Isalm, the brutal and merciless antagonism between the minority sect of Shiism and the majority sect of Sunni dates back to 14 centuries ago and has never been dormant. Now, by arming themselves with nuclear weapons, the Shiism sees the prospect and feasibility of taking the revenge of 1000+ years of Sunni dominance. The IRI Shiites realize that a nuclear war against the judo-christian alliance can not be won, but the bomb empowers them to defeat the Sunnies.

Allowing Iran to go nuke ensures that the deal cut with Colonel Khadaffi collapses, and ensures a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region on the face of the earth.

Bush's passivity, Bush's incompetence, Bush's strategic bankruptcy, Bush's idiotic personnel selections, ----------------- has set this country on a course of measureless peril.

But hey, let's overlook all that, let's pretend that Bush isn't in strategic freefall, and let's all cry out once more:

"2, 4, 6, 8, ------------------- who do we appreciate........."