President George W. Bush gives new meaning to the expression – speaking out of both sides of your mouth:
“This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous,” Bush said during a news conference Tuesday evening. “And having said that, all options are on the table.”
Are we going to bring American-style democracy to Iran too? As I drove to work the other day, I listened to Rush Limbaugh “report” from Afghanistan. Beyond the usual fluff in the conservative talk-show host's monologue, he said something quite interesting. All that mattered, he said, was that people in Afghanistan were set free [from the Taliban]. While I applaud the removal of the Taliban, I have to wonder, though, if the Americans set a country free (isn't there a tinge of condescension building here already?) would the Americans really accept a militant Islamic state to take its place, assuming of course that people were free to choose a militant Islamic form of government?
I think the American agenda in that region of the world is much too complex and Mr. Limbaugh is as usual much to simplistic in his world view. But back to W; the ambiguity in his statements are not likely to assuage Iranian fears and like any country that has been battling the US overtly and covertly over the last 50 years, it will seek to defend itself. All we need to do now is to crib notes from Saddam Hussein on that front. History, teaches nothing.
Latest posts by Seshu | Editor & Publisher (see all)
- 10 Steps To Stay Positive In Times Of Great Stress - July 13, 2022
- Why You Need To Read “Personal Branding For Photographers” Now - April 28, 2021
- How To Master Your Website Content Step By Step? - December 16, 2020
I don’t think I see the “2-sidedness” here… He’s saying 2 equally true things
– the US won’t attack anytime soon
– if Iran gets worse, then all options are on the table.
in other words, the ball is in Iran’s court. They can do a Libya (renounce weapons, rejoin the community of nations, etc.) or in the long run, suffer a North Korea.
I don’t think I see the “2-sidedness” here… He’s saying 2 equally true things
– the US won’t attack anytime soon
– if Iran gets worse, then all options are on the table.
in other words, the ball is in Iran’s court. They can do a Libya (renounce weapons, rejoin the community of nations, etc.) or in the long run, suffer a North Korea.
Bush, as always, sounds confused……
He, himself doesn’t know whats going to happen or what to do. He can’t differentiate between Iran and Iraq or for that sake any other mid east countries. He looks at the Middle east as one big country, and should realize that countries in the middle east have differnet policies, regulations, leaders, rules, restrictions, customs and are independent of each other.
Bush, as always, sounds confused……
He, himself doesn’t know whats going to happen or what to do. He can’t differentiate between Iran and Iraq or for that sake any other mid east countries. He looks at the Middle east as one big country, and should realize that countries in the middle east have differnet policies, regulations, leaders, rules, restrictions, customs and are independent of each other.
King Singh – is that why he’s recklessly invading Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia rather than using…oh… lets say… DIPLOMACY to deal with them?
One can argue that he’s dumb for being inconsistent about use of military in Iraq but not Iran/Syria/etc. or you can argue that he’s dumb for treating it as “one big” nail that he can use his hammer on. But for critics to simultaneously argue both is…. well… dumb.
King Singh – is that why he’s recklessly invading Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia rather than using…oh… lets say… DIPLOMACY to deal with them?
One can argue that he’s dumb for being inconsistent about use of military in Iraq but not Iran/Syria/etc. or you can argue that he’s dumb for treating it as “one big” nail that he can use his hammer on. But for critics to simultaneously argue both is…. well… dumb.