Monday, April 10, 2006

What’s the difference ?

During comments earlier today at John Hopkins University our ‘President’ spoke to reports that the administration is considering tactical nuclear missile strikes against Iranian nuclear sites. He responded that those reports are "wild speculation".

He went on to emphasize that his administration is trying to resolve concerns over Iran through diplomacy.

"The doctrine of prevention is to work together to prevent the Iranians from having a nuclear weapon," Bush said. He suggested that in Washington "prevention means force." However, he added, "It doesn't mean force, necessarily. In this case, it means diplomacy."

Gee there is an idea… diplomacy !! So where was the idea of diplomacy when talking about Iraq back in 2002?

Iraq- They (may) have WMD’s and we need to go in with force, damn the diplomacy !

Iran- Diplomacy, Diplomacy, Diplomacy !

So what’s the difference? First, Iran didn’t threaten to kill Bush’s father, that was Iraq. Secondly, Iran didn’t have a hand in making Bush’s father a one-termer, than was Iraq. Lastly, at a time when we are now faced with potential adversaries that do posses WMD’s (North Korea and Iran), Bush has absolutely zero credibility. He can’t even get a coalition of his own party, let alone other countries.

So he has nothing left to his disposal but diplomacy.

Way to go George, you and your cronies have destroyed our credibility in the world. Not only that, but our grandchildren will be ‘paying’ for your mistakes, literally…..


p.s.- Hey George, one more thing, do the troops a favor and fire Rumsfeld. It certainly can't hurt your ratings, but it might help save a few lives.

(Editors Note from Kemp: Hell, getting rid of 'Rummy' may even help your numbers... as would ditching Press Secretary Scott McClellan, he's deadweight on a ship that's sinking fast. Just my opinion)


LiberalismIsAMentalDisorder said...

"Gee there is an idea… diplomacy !! So where was the idea of diplomacy when talking about Iraq back in 2002?"

I tell you where it was, it was in the 43...YES 43... UN resolutions against Iraq calling for Hussein to co-operate which he refused to do.

I would think that after 43 times of the Useless Nations passing resolutions that someone would step up to the plate...We and 143 other countries did.

Meanwhile, the head of the UN and France were benefiting financially from the oil for food...geez, I wonder why the UN didnt ask for a joint strike on Iraq with us?


Scott said...

SO 2+2 =143... 143 other countries? You want to take a moment and rethink that one?

As of July 1, 2005 there were only 26 'non-US military forces' participating in the coalition and contributing to trying to stabilize Iraq.

According to an op-ed piece written by Dr. Condoleezza Rice in March 2003 "nearly 50 nations" were committed to the coalition. And research on the websites of the White House and the State Department fail to show any greater number anywhere 143 countries.