Obama's responce to Netanyahu victory: a nuclear Iran

Benjamin Netanyahu won a landslide election in Israel, and Obama has yet to congratulate him.  He h

as congratulated the people of Israel for a good election, but not the victors.  Instead, Obama and John Kerry are over in Iran trying to broker a deal that would allow the Iranians to have nuclear weapons in ten years.  Many see this as a slap in the face to Netanyahu.

Obama has said Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons. It is based on this fatwa that Obama believes the Iranians will not use their nuclear program to develop nuclear weapons.  And even if the fatwa doesn't exist, he believes the U.S. can convince them over the next ten years not to develop weapons.

The problem with this is that Iran was built on a charter that calls for the destruction of Israel. Another problem is that no one can find any evidence that such a fatwa exists. A fatwa is a legal pronouncement issued by an expert in religious law, and it's usually a pronouncement against the infidels or the enemy, not against a weapon.

Iranian leaders are proud of their fatwas, and therefore list them publicly on their websites.  The Iranian website Tasnimnews published 493 fatwas from Khamenei dating back to 2004, and not one of them says anything about nuclear weapons.  According to the Washington Post, the evidence that such a fatwa exists is "quite fuzzy."

There was actually a scientist who called into one of the radio shows I was listening to on the way home from work one day, and he said that if Iran bombs Israel, the reaction would also destroy Iran. So the question posed was: why would Iran use a bomb to destroy the infidels in Israel if it would result in their own destruction?

The consensus was that Muslims don't value life the way Christians do. Or at least Radical Muslims don't value life.  So if they destroyed themselves in the process they'd go down in history as heros of the cause.

Anyway, along with the anti-nuclear weapon fatwa, Iranian President Rouhani said he won't use whatever remnants of the nuclear program are left in ten years to create nuclear weapons.  Being that the Iranians have shown their radical Muslim tendencies many times over the past several years, it's amazing to me that we are even talking to them.

Oh, and one more thing.  If there really is a fatwa that says the Iranians will not use their nuclear program to develop weapons, then why are we talking to them.  If they have sworn off nuclear weapons, why to we need to broker a deal?

It seems that a more rational approach would be for Obama and Kerry to help the "hardliners" in Iran who oppose the Iranian Regime and want to oust it in favor of a democratic government.  Instead, he goes to Iran, tries to broker a bad deal with them, while saying to their people:

Hello. To everyone celebrating Nowruz -- across the United States and in countries around the world -- Nowruz Mubarak. This year we had the best opportunity in decades to pursue a different future between our countries. Just over a year ago we reached an initial understanding regarding Iran's nuclear program. I believe that our countries should be able to resolve this issue peacefully with diplomacy. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon.

To make sense of this, we must understand that the entire premise of fascism is that a worldwide utopia can be created through negotiations.  They actually believe this idealist utopia will some day be a reality.  They believe those who oppose them are idiots. Yet the idiots usually tend to be the realists.

Hitler said he was going to kill all the Jews and Chamberlain didn't take him seriously.  Iranian leaders have said many times over that they want nuclear weapons and they will stop at nothing until Israel is destroyed.

Yet now it's Obama who isn't taking the fascist seriously.

Further reading:

• Netanyahu looked very presidential before Congress
• Obama addresses His people -- in Iran
• The Truth About the Ayatollah's Fatwas
• Idealism versus Realism
• Khamenei calls ‘Death to America’ as Kerry hails progress on nuke deal

Has George W. Bush been vindicated?

Few people would disagree that former president George W. Bush was an amiable and sociable guy. He was also a humble president who made decisions based on sound principle

He is a humble guy who put his country first, even when his legacy and the future of the republican party stood in the balance,. 

He showed time and again that he loves and respects his country so much that he refuses to respond to criticisms that he was wrong about the Iraq war, even while doing so might have saved his legacy and lead to a republican monopoly in Washington.  

From the moment the Iraq war began in 2003, the Democrat Party, after a couple days of making it look like they were all for it because public support was, it didn't take long before the Democrat Party and the media began an ongoing, never-ending 24/7, 365 effort to discredit the effort, to discredit the war, to discredit the motivation.

During the initial fighting in Iraq there was no effort to search for WOMD, as the effort at this time was to secure the area.  Yet one the fighting started to slow down in 2004, evidence started to come in that Saddam did indeed harbor such weapons.  Yet even when Rick Santorum came forward with evidence back in 2006 (and, yes, he's gloating today), George W. Bush refused to release the evidence to prove Santorum right.  

While the decision must have been that of George Bush himself, a new report suggests that Karl Rove is taking the blame for covering up the fact that WOMD were indeed found in Iraq.  As evidence of discarded WOMD started coming in, he simply said, "Let sleeping dogs lie."

To me, that does not seem to be the type of decision that Karl Rove, Bush's political advisor, would make.  As political advisor, you'd think he would have preferred for such evidence to become vastly available for the media to pounce over in order to vindicate a president who had otherwise been vastly criticised by democrats in Washington and the media.  

However, a decision to let sleeping dogs lie would go right along with how Bush handled his presidency, whereby he would often make decisions he thought were best for his country based on principle, and let the people decide for themselves.  

In fact, as you can see for yourself in this video, in 2007 Bush ordered a surge in Iraq while critics were calling for a pull out.  Bush, however, went on TV to defend his decision.  He said: 

"I know some in Washington would like us to withdraw from Iraq now.  Begin withdrawing before our commanders say we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda.  It would mean we would risking mass killings on a horrific scale.  It would mean we allow terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq that they lost in Afghanistan.  It would mean that we increase the possibility that U.S. troops will face on a later date an enemy that was even more dangerous." 

This was a surge that would indeed end up stabilizing the region.  And, after Obama pulled troops out of Iraq, ISIS entered the region.  ISIS, as you may know, is quite possibly the enemy that is even more dangerous than Al Qaeda.

The problem with any news that appears to vindicate Bush is that it will always be underplayed by the media.  Even as the New York Times reported that WOMD were in fact found in Iraq, they down played this news by saying, "but it was a pre-1991 weapons cache."

But what does it matter.  The fact of the matter is that Bush was right. He was right to go into Iraq to in an effort to create stability in an otherwise unstable region, and to make it so terrorists could not harbor weapons and find safe havens that allowed them to regroup in their efforts to convert or kill non Muslims.

It appears, however, that Bush has indeed been vindicated.