The most important story of the day...

Yesterday, sort of out of the blue, Charlene said, "After this election, I think we are going to go to war with Iran." (I agree, although the situation may well be resolved with lesser pressures; blockades or sanctions or some such.)

Then I encountered this post. by Rick Richman at Jewish Current Issues, about Bolton's speech (un-reported, of course, by our fake news media). He's got the speech, and it's worth reading, but especially interesting is Richman's conclusion...

...When the Head of State (directly or through his authorized representatives) says to another nation that its possession of nuclear weapons is “unacceptable,” the use of that word is (as I’ve noted here and here) significant in itself.

But more than that: you don’t say that word repeatedly; you don’t explain that its meaning is self-explanatory; you don’t present it without qualifiers or adjectives or modifiers; you don’t have it said officially (on the same day) by your Secretary of State, UN Ambassador and White House spokesperson; you don’t have it repeated later by your Vice President; and finally, you don’t re-emphasize it on the steps of the United Nations, to a crowd of tens of thousands, with the head of state of Iran in the building behind you -- you don’t do all that and then accept an Iranian nuclear weapon.

There may be various tactics in pursuit of your strategy, pursued in successive stages. But having said that word repeatedly, one thing you cannot possibly do -- not simply because of your regard for your reputation, or your place in history, or even simply because of your concern for the credibility of American diplomacy in the future, but rather because you know that, in fact, the problem is a threat to the whole world -- is leave office with it unhandled.

If it is unacceptable, you don’t go home and accept it. And one thing we have learned in the last six years is that George W. Bush means what he says.

The message Wednesday was undoubtedly meant not only for the crowd, but -- since it was delivered in a highly visible public forum by an important official of the United States -- for Iran. By choosing not to cover it, the MSM not only violated basic principles of journalism (and the NYT its own credo), but missed the most important story of the day.

George W Bush is not a Clinton, to kick this problem down the road, or hope it just goes away. He's a man, and he won't shirk the duty. I predict it. Unlike cowardly lefty-bloggers, I'm not afraid to make a prediction or take a position that I can be held to.

And I predict that the Democrats, and the "pacifists," the UN, the terrorists, the EU, China and Russia will all be working against us and trying to preserve the Mullahs in power. An Axis of Appeasers, with a mighty weapon: Ankle Biting! That's about even odds. Bring 'em on..

And I will note (and keep noting it to the point of tiresomeness, but hey, it's my blog) that this isn't going to be a "war" in any traditional meaning of the word. We have no quarrel with the nation or the people of Iran. In fact we are in tacit alliance with them, to remove the blood-sucking tyranny that battens upon them. Operations like this, or the Iraq Campaign, are really like campaigns against robber bands in olden times. There is no reason for "anti-war" activists to break out the giant puppets, except what is for them the most important reason, which is that they hate America, and the freedom and peace of which we are the symbol and the reality. If the Iranian government were murdering hundreds-of-thousands of its own people, like Saddam was, the "pacifists" would be supporting that internal war exactly the same way they supported Saddam's internal war.