(Page 3 of 13)
Jacob Laksin’s article “Confronting Iran” completely misses the point. Perhaps he should write for the New Yorker or for the Democrats.
He seems surprised when the State Department recommends more diplomacy. Don’t they always? “Engagement” is what diplomats do. Does he remember the Lusitania? Or the invasion of Poland? Vietnam? Lebanon? Tehran? Etc. It takes leadership to go to solve problems, not bureaucrats.
It seems Mr. Laksin thinks the U.S. has unlimited power to go everywhere at once. We neither posses the military or political power to do all we wish.
The point is that President Bush is trying to get the U.N, i.e. the world, to actually do something constructive. Before we can act; he must first demonstrate that the U.N. Security Council is failing in its mission, that there is a threat to the world, and there is no more time to waste. Also, it must be proven that military action is the solution, so the world will support us. Otherwise we will unite the Muslim world against us.
Therefore, before the problem of Iran, North Korea, and China can be solved, Iraq must prevail.p>Have a nice day. br> — James Bercaw /p> p> BIPOLAR AMERICA br> Re: Wlady Pleszczynski’s
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?