April 13, 2004

Two good points by Hobbs

This, about the press conf :

Can't anybody ask a substantive question anymore? How about, "Mr. President, what will you do about Iran's reported financing of Muqtada al Sadr's militia?" Nope. They didn't ask. They don't want to go there. Because "there" might be information that would once again remind Americans of the high stakes, and of the importance in continuing the fight. Because "there" might be more War on Terror - and the media is much more interested in the War on Bush.
I didn't even notice the lack of substantive questions, until I read this. How depressing, that one has come to expect so little from them...

and this:

Any serious War on Terror can not be won - indeed, it can not even be said at such as war is seriously being fought - until we take on the Mad Mullahs of Iran. The good news: that's starting to happen. The bad news: It's Iran that dictated the time and place of events, not us, as the evidence mounts that Iran's Islamofacist regime is backing renegade iraqi Shiite "cleric" Muqtada al-Sadr's terroristic attacks against Coalition forces, civilian aid workers and Iraqis. But I suspect we'll soon regain the inititative. The road to pacifying Iraq and winning the War on Terror runs through the inner sanctum of the Iranian mullacracy - and doing it before the Mad Mullahs of Tehran complete production of a nuclear weapon.
I was just reading about a Clinton Administration report on which rogue nations were the most dangerous. Guess which three they picked...

Iran is the worst of the terror-supporting states. Bush probably isn't in a strong enough political position to challenge Iran directly—The Democrats, the Europeans and the "International Community"-types are like a practiced team of Lilliputians, all with the shared goal of tying down America. Bush has to use much of his energy pulling off the strings they throw over him.

BUT!

Our liberation of Iraq is a deadly threat to the Mullahs. They know it well; they don't think Iraq is a sideshow. So the bad news that they are trying to sabotage Iraq contains the good news that we are fighting them at last. And in a larger sense it is we who have "dictated the time and place of events." They are reacting to our going into Iraq. They are forced to react, and in a real sense are on the defensive.

I'm impressed once again by the brilliance of the Iraq strategy. I think, quite simply, that the appeasers have missed the boat. It's too late, the battle is joined. The Vulcans understood, as I certainly didn't, that a large portion of the Western world is no longer willing to fight, even after so obvious a portent as 9/11. But America, at least, is in too deep in to consider surrender.


Posted by John Weidner at April 13, 2004 9:22 PM
Weblog by John Weidner