Why was Bush silent on Iran?
David Frum asks a very good question about the President's address to the UN General Assembly yesterday: What happened to the Iran paragraph?
"So shouldn’t President Bush have said something about it? Given some public indication of the stance the US will take – and of its expectations of the world community? The President touched on many subjects of interest to the United States, but the looming threat of nuclearization in Iran and the very horrible likelihood that North Korea has already nuclearized surely top the list.
"The UN speech presented an opportunity to remind [our] allies [real and the John Kerry variety] of their danger – and their obligations. Why didn’t the President make use of it?"
I don't have an answer to that one. Can't be fretting over offending the "excellencies'" sensibilities, or exacerbating Bush's reputation there as a "warmongering cowboy." Indeed, his remarks were yet another reiteration of the Bush Doctrine - except for applying it to the mullahs.
Is there something going on behind the scenes? Some covert op designed to bring about the overthrow of the Islamists in Tehran? Or perhaps plans are being drafted for military action and won't be announced until after Bush is re-elected? That would make its sale of 5,000 "smart" munitions to Israel all the more striking.
Administration officials have said repeatedly in recent weeks that the United States is determined to prevent the Iranians from acquiring or producing nuclear weapons. And it's beyond obvious that nothing short of direct military intervention will accomplish this end. Which makes the President's omission of Iran before the "world body" either ominous or pregnant, depending upon your point of view.
Meanwhile, the mullahs have begun converting raw uranium into the gas needed for enrichment, a process that can be used to make nuclear weapons.
The nuclear clock that has been ticking louder and louder is about to run out.
We know what John Kerry would do. Low as that bar is to clear, how much better a strategy does GDub have in mind?
"So shouldn’t President Bush have said something about it? Given some public indication of the stance the US will take – and of its expectations of the world community? The President touched on many subjects of interest to the United States, but the looming threat of nuclearization in Iran and the very horrible likelihood that North Korea has already nuclearized surely top the list.
"The UN speech presented an opportunity to remind [our] allies [real and the John Kerry variety] of their danger – and their obligations. Why didn’t the President make use of it?"
I don't have an answer to that one. Can't be fretting over offending the "excellencies'" sensibilities, or exacerbating Bush's reputation there as a "warmongering cowboy." Indeed, his remarks were yet another reiteration of the Bush Doctrine - except for applying it to the mullahs.
Is there something going on behind the scenes? Some covert op designed to bring about the overthrow of the Islamists in Tehran? Or perhaps plans are being drafted for military action and won't be announced until after Bush is re-elected? That would make its sale of 5,000 "smart" munitions to Israel all the more striking.
Administration officials have said repeatedly in recent weeks that the United States is determined to prevent the Iranians from acquiring or producing nuclear weapons. And it's beyond obvious that nothing short of direct military intervention will accomplish this end. Which makes the President's omission of Iran before the "world body" either ominous or pregnant, depending upon your point of view.
Meanwhile, the mullahs have begun converting raw uranium into the gas needed for enrichment, a process that can be used to make nuclear weapons.
The nuclear clock that has been ticking louder and louder is about to run out.
We know what John Kerry would do. Low as that bar is to clear, how much better a strategy does GDub have in mind?
posted by JASmius at 3:13 PM
<<< Home