Find » Opinion/Editorial » American Foreign Policy is Easy to ...

American Foreign Policy is Easy to Second Guess

By BlowHard, published Dec 09, 2007
Published Content: 194  Total Views: 30,892  Favorited By: 53 CPs
Embed:  
Rating: 4.6 of 5
Content producer David Anderson published an article entitled "America Can't Have a Foreign policy Based on Maybes." His article dealt with the NIE and Iran. Mr. Anderson argues that Bush is over playing the Iranian danger. I say not so fast.

President Bush has been called every manner of creature because he, along with most of the Congressional Democrats, believed the intelligence about Iraqi WMD. Now out comes the NIE and Mr. Bush is again vilified, but this time for NOT parroting the report. What gives here?

This NIE uses the phrase "assess with high confidence" to relay that Iran has stopped its atomic program. "Assess with high confidence" means "we're pretty sure," but I think it bears recalling the intelligence reports about Iraqi WMD were probably equally assessed, and remember, Bush is demonized for believing it because he wanted to believe it, according to the most generous of his critics. Fair enough. There may be truth in that supposition.

So why are Bush's political opponents so certain that THIS NIE is accurate? Because THEY want to believe it. If it is accurate, and I have no notion of how accurate it is or is not, but Bush's opposition gleefully grasps onto this NIE. Clearly Bush's position of being far more skeptical of Iran than the report is just feeds the frenzy of the Left. And maybe the Left is correct in their parroting of this report - maybe not.

But what is important is that Mr. Anderson's position is one of "calling on Americans to let Congress know that we do not want to see military action taken against Iran." And that is the completely wrong position, unless of course you are pushing an agenda as it is clear Mr. Anderson is doing. No crime there; I just believe his position is the wrong one.

Mr. Anderson argues the "United States should continue to take a diplomatic approach to the situation, working hand in hand with the international community to ensure that Iran's nuclear program remains halted - permanently. But what the United States cannot do is engage in military action against Iran. Any such move would be based purely on speculation, not on verifiable facts."

Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 15 of 15
 
 
Jeff, as to your last comment, Israel is an atomic power. How many weapons? I have no clue. But unless Israel tosses a few at most of the major Muslim nations, I believe the US will still end up involved in war. In fact, I think the world will be at war. Pardon me if I misjudge your words, but it sounds like you're saying, "hey it's Israel's business, not ours," as if you believe we should just turn away. Maybe that's what you think should happen, but the nation I live in Sir. In fact, if Israel were attacked I believe any who would publicly advocate leaving them to their fate would be set upon by more "patriotic" Americans who REMEMBER OUR COMMITMENTS and realize if we did not destroy the attackers, we would be next. Has a bully ever walked away in the face of weakness? Not in my world. Never!

Posted on 12/11/2007 at 7:12:57 PM

 
Jeff, It is unfortunate that you project your hate and distrust so freely on others. What would possess you to make the statement that "the right" would intentionally hurt people to further their goals? (or at least the goals that you ascribe to them) As much as I disagree with much of what you say and believe, I hesitate to believe that anyone would harbor so much resentment and hate for others simply because they believe differently than you.

Posted on 12/11/2007 at 8:12:37 AM

 
Jim..on Israel..first, they "don't" have an estimated 400 nuclear weapons...so if someone did use one on them, I don't think they would need our help. And to your last post, yes, I do think many in the right would love a reason to escalate war and hysteria.

Posted on 12/09/2007 at 9:12:13 PM

 
As to your last supposition, what the Hell does "I fear another attack will come if the right sees its grip on power evaporating, and I cringe at the thought of a random act giving that "excuse" to them." mean????? That sounds almost like you're positing that the Right will "stage" an attack to win the election if we seem in danger of losing in '08? That sounds almost like you're touting the 9/11 conspiracy line. Or that the Right is hoping for an attack so we can escalate war and keep Conservatives in power. Which is it? Or is it both?

Posted on 12/09/2007 at 5:12:11 PM

 
Long after GWB is gone, Israel will be our ally, and we will defend them from such unprovoked aggression. We may as well, even if it weren't our policy, cause if Israel burps, we get blamed for it. Remember the last attempt to push the Lebanese terror groups farther back from the Israeli border? The US was blamed as the puppet master pulling the strings. So, if we're gonna be blamed no matter what, I say we may as well fry all the trouble makers in one fell swoop if they are so foolish as to attack Israel. See Jeff, I believe in keeping my commitments, and we are committed to protect Israel, and so we shall. You'll get over it, I'm sure.

Posted on 12/09/2007 at 5:12:04 PM

 
And I believe an atomic attack on Israel will result in a like attack in return. So, to accept your position, I guess we'll just sit back after the flash and leave Israel to swing? Not my nation Buddy! If one of my nation's allies are the victim of an unprovoked atomic attack, you only HOPE we let it lay, but man are you gonna be disappointed. Did you grow up in the nation I did Jeff? Bush has only been here for 7 years. Long before Bush it was US policy to defend Israel, so Bush or no Bush, a flash in Israel is a flash all over the Middle East. THATS WHY THIS IS SO DANGEROUS. I guess you just thought this was about Bush and his empirical desires, you know, the one's you imagine exist?

Posted on 12/09/2007 at 5:12:33 PM

 
Jeff, I am berating partisanship because when it comes to national defense, there should be no Left/Right dichotomy. If the NIE is correct, as some are advocating, fine by me - in fact that is my preference. If they are wrong, and we accept the NIE, we're in trouble. I guess it's my imagination that all I've heard since the NIE came out was how "Bush has been calling for war! He's manipulating the intel so he can bomb Iran?" Point 2: We are the dominionist Right? And we would love to see Israel bombed? I guess so we can go to war? You do realize that's a damned strong indictment? And one you have no ability to prove? Cont'd above.

Posted on 12/09/2007 at 5:12:19 PM

 
Deez, the persons to whom I was addressing that statement, your #3, are the 39% who responded "yes" or "not sure/maybe" to the question. If you did not answer "yes" to the poll question, then I am not referring to you.

Posted on 12/09/2007 at 5:12:41 PM

 
Several things..first, why do you constantly berate partisanship, yet just as constantly take VERY partisan positions? Second, as much as the dominionist right would love it, an attack on Israel does not have to mean world war. Third, the last thing the left wants is "another 9/11." I fear another attack will come if the right sees its grip on power evaporating, and I cringe at the thought of a random act giving that "excuse" to them. And Deez, yes, we have to keep our eyes on Iran, but not our bombs.

Posted on 12/09/2007 at 2:12:57 PM

 
Jim, three things. 1. Even though I hate Bush, I think we should keep our eye's on Iran. 2. Saying we will never take military action against a country is wrong. 3. No matter how much I hate Bush this doesn't apply:"you hope for a new 9/11 just so you can announce "Bush Failed!"

Posted on 12/09/2007 at 2:12:05 PM

 
I know that you're an agnostic but I think it's interesting that all the poltically correct are out to get God's chosen people. If Israel ever was nuked, every Christian and Jew in the world would be out there rioting.

Posted on 12/09/2007 at 12:12:54 PM

 
Except in Bush's case, he had more than one NIE report to go on. He had Saddam's report which would not indicate what he had done with the WMD's, he had Saddam's nefarious behavior, he had Saddam's not responding to the UN requests, he had Saddam kicking out the weapons inspectors, and the UN had sanctioned him over and over on these issues. All you dems have is one NIE report about what happened in 2003. Go ahead, make decisions based on that, tie the government's hands and what Mr. Clayton says will apply to you. Unfortunately were in it together and what you do affects me too. Imagine that!

Posted on 12/09/2007 at 8:12:27 AM

 
Well, as a person involved in the intelligence profession I would say that most citizens do not understand the nature of intelligence. It is very much based on analysis and extrapolation and a lot of pieces of information. It is also very much "point in time" based. So if they stopped their program in 2003 what have they been doing since? And yes it appears that the Dems are making the same mistake they accuse Bush of making - taking one report and making it the basis for a major decision.

Posted on 12/09/2007 at 8:12:59 AM

 
Thanks Linda. So many peeps are tickled to death to "be correct" in their predisposed positions that they will trumpet their position regardless of the damage done. Some would gladly trade US security so they can be justified in their opinions. That's sedition, and they should be shot, but alas, they won't let me. Shame too - I would gladly bear the expense of the ammo to complete the task. Damn, I'm a prick, ain't I?

Posted on 12/09/2007 at 8:12:23 AM

 
Lol, speculation is a wonderful thing, I love the example ref Hitler, but then there are people who speculation that the Holocaust never happened. Go figure.

Posted on 12/09/2007 at 8:12:30 AM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 15 of 15
 
Most Commented On