Dawn’s Early Light …
… is blinding over at NYT:
McCain: No Plan B in Iraq. NYT … like Obama, Dodd and Edwards, still reeling from McCain’s “We Will Fight Them on the Beaches” speech last week … has a sitdown with him, and in this article allows him to deconstruct the “plans” of the opposition. The best NYT can do to try to undercut him is ”no Plan B.” Because, McCain notes, the current plan is working … according to plan … and when we come up with a better idea, we’ll do that, too. You can always surrender later. Most remarkable thing about McCain’s speech is how a little unflinching fortitude puts such a twist in the shorts of the withdrawal fans. Hard truth the new political gold standard? McCain on a badly wounded Seal he visited:
“Grabs my hand and says, ‘I’m honored you’re here. Thanks for your support. We can win this fight.’ You know, I’m supposed to worry about my political future?”
If Iran gets to have one, why can’t we? NYT lays out the case for obliterating Iran’s nuclear program, just as the Israelis and the United States obliterated Saddam’s.
Who the heck is assigning these stories at NYT? Get with the program for the big lose!
Editorial page skulks around Gonzales. Op-Ed page identifies an actual threat to freedom and justice: Witness for the Persecution.
Meanwhile, quick Sunday morning scan:
Read Fred Thompson’s lips: Taxes suck.
Alberto Gonzalez: I am not a crook. That would require there to have been a crime. However, in the current witch-hunt environment, it is necessary for me to couch my answers to avoid getting Libbyed.
Michael Moore’s Sicko Stunt: 9/11 workers to Cuba to make US healthcare look bad.
Whatever this guy says, do the opposite. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were too conservative for Robert Kuttner.
Mandate-bearing Pelosi’s great 100-day victory was getting anything done at all. Cheney predicts that will crash and burn shortly.
Topics: media
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 11:42 am on Sunday, April 15, 2007
13 Responses to “Dawn’s Early Light …”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
April 15th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I don’t mind Michael Moore going to Cuba. It’s his coming back that torques me.
April 15th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
2007.04.15 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup
Updated from the top. Please treat this as a blog-within-a-blog, come back often, and scroll down till you hit something you saw on your last visit. No Plan B for a reason Report: Thousands of Iraqi Shiites training for war
April 15th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
2007.04.15 Decision ‘08/1st Amendment Roundup
Updated from the top. Please treat this as a blog-within-a-blog, come back often, and scroll down till you hit something you saw on your last visit. Dawn’s Early Light … Hillary’s Conundrum Truth Will Out … Case Closed
April 15th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
[...] at Forward Movement (Jules Crittenden) (which some interesting other [...]
April 15th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
“NYT lays out the case for obliterating Iran’s nuclear program, just as the Israelis and the United States obliterated Saddam’s. ”
There’s a fundamentalist Moslem country without democracy that already has nuclear weapons ready to go.
The same country harbors al Qaeda and bin Laden himself, and won’t let U.S. forces go after them.
The country is Pakistan, but because it’s “friendly” we do nothing and gun for Iran instead.
This whole thing has nothing to do with terrorism; it’s all about geopolitical power.
April 16th, 2007 at 12:55 am
I like that line, “you can always surrender later”. So why are the democrats in such a hurry? Particularly when we seem to be winning for a change. But the third sentence expains the second, doesn’t it?
April 16th, 2007 at 9:30 am
corndog, Pakistan is a worry, but the primary object of their aggression - India - can quite handily defend themselves (including a nuclear arsenal). Plus you don’t really hear Musharref offering to “wipe them off the map”. I dearly hope Pakistan picks its act up one of these days. It certainly could go south. But they’re not as much of a worry as Iran because they’ve so far been less irrational to date. Plus it’s too late for us to do much about their nuclear program; not so Iran. Are you saying that if we could have done something to stop Pakistan’s nuclear program in the past, and they were calling for us all to die, we should have done nothing? Because that’s what you seem to be calling for now with Iran…
April 16th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Nicholas,
No, I’m saying it is important to notice the difference in attitude between how we regard Iran and how we regard Pakistan. Pakistan is protecting the Taliban and al Qaeda. We know that. Although Pakistan’s present posture is against India, as you say, the government is so riddled with pro-al Qaeda types that the nuclear program is highly insecure. And yet, because the dictatorship is “friendly,” we do nothing.
Toward Iran, on the other hand, although it has never said it would like us wiped off the map (that was Israel it was talking about), it has no nuclear weapons, is capable of change through democratic elections, is an enemy of al Qaeda and has openly sought to help us crack down on terrorists, there are a number of quick-trigger types who want to invade right now. What’s the difference?
I’m saying the difference has nothing to do with terrorism, so you have to look for other reasons.
April 16th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Corndog, thanks for making the case for hitting Iran now. Pakistan and NK are great examples of how few options remain to deal with nations that have nuclear weapons. The reason we are not doing much about Pakistan is that we can’t do much other than cajole them. Imagine how Iran will behave when they have nukes and we cannot credibly threaten conventional military attack.
April 16th, 2007 at 11:07 am
“Pakistan and NK are great examples of how few options remain to deal with nations that have nuclear weapons”
Really? We just reached an agreement with North Korea, and Pakistan relies hugely on us for military and economic aid. Plus, Pakistan is paranoid and jealous about how much we give to India. There are lots of ways to leverage a country if we really wanted to put the screws to them. My point is, we don’t put the screws to Pakistan because we don’t care about the terrorists living happily there.
Iran, likewise, has screws that can be turned. Iran is grateful to us for getting rid of Saddam. Iran wants to safeguard the gift we gave them in handing them an Iraq that loves them. Iran, like the U.S., wants to get rid of al Qaeda. Iran has elections that are largely free, so the regime may change on its own.
There are lots of ways to avoid yet another disastrous war with Iran by a group of bunglers who don’t know what they’re doing. My point is, Bush supporters don’t seem to want avoid a war. And there is a reason for that having nothing to do with terrorism.
April 16th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
We have turned all the screws we can turn on Iran. The hardship created by them will not be sufficient to cause Iran to back down. If Russia, China and the EU took the same actions we did Iran would be brought to its knees in short order. They will not take such actions under any circumstances.
We are in a race against time and Iran is winning it. They will have a nuke(s) within two years. After that, all hope of crippling militant islam will come to an end.
I agree that a war with Iran will be disasterous, but less so than what will occur if we try to avoid it.
You are correct to be very concerned about this administration fighting any such war. The Bush admistration cannot come to terms withthe fact that we are in a hot war - not a cold war. Bush wants to fight it without hurting anyone (even many of our potential enemies), without increasing the size of the military, without interrupting any American’s lives (other than our servicepersons’), without closing the borders, and without rational profiling of threats. As a result, our enemies have grown bold and our initial gains are being quickly squadered. We are not feared and respected.
I would prefer almost any other administration to fight a war with Iran over this one - except any Democratic administration. But, you go to war with the adminstration you have. The war with Iran is already underway as Iran has been at war with the US since 1979. The question is whether we fight back and do so under our terms.
April 16th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Corndog:
You picked the wrong time to highlight the NK “agreement” as an example of a non-military success. NK just blew a deadline without consequence.
And again, the NK “deal” was only possible because the Chinese seemed to support it. Good luck getting the Chinese to support a harsh squeeze on Iran.
April 16th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Brian,
Hardly wihtout consequence. South Korea is about to shut off food aid. Plus, N. Korea skipped the shutdown because the U.S. reneged on giving N. Korea back the money it had confiscated after it falsely accused N. Korea of counterfeiting.
Your point about getting the Chinese to help in Iran is totally useless. No one is talking about getting the Chinese to help in Iran. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other countries that can apply pressure.
As to your point about futile negotiations with Iran, apparently you’ve forgetten the fact that in 2004 Iran has already offered to Condi Rice everything the U.S. has asked for. But Rice and the Bush administration ignored the offer and resorted instead to threats of war. For some reason.