President Bush: The War on Terror-Afghanistan

So now we move from the “Bad War” to the “Good War” (as many have dubbed them) in the discussion of the War on Terror.

Back in October of 2001, nobody really questioned going into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban, Al-Qaeda’s main support system; and really, after 9/11 how could anyone have?

My only question was, “what took so long”? Operation Enduring Freedom began on October 7, nearly four weeks after the September 11 attacks. Not that I think we stalled, but I’m still a bit surprised we didn’t attack a little sooner.

Once again, the military campaign to oust the Taliban was superbly conducted. Kabul fell in five weeks, the vast majority of Taliban and Al-Qaeda officials were either killed or captured and the beginnings of an Afghani democracy began to take root.

For over six years, Afghanistan was more or less doing fairly well. There were real improvements in the daily life of Afghan citizens. Local communities strengthened their economies and created jobs, an actual democratic governance began to rule and key infrastructure such as roads, bridges, hospitals and schools were built.

In addition, education and human rights were vastly improved, especially for women. More than six million children, approximately two million of them girls, are now in Afghan schools, compared to fewer than one million in 2001. Women are no longer barred from reading, voting of showing their face in public. In fact, women are members of the Afghan government, something, literally, unheard of under the Taliban’s reign of terror.

However, as impressive as these gains are, they are in danger of being reversed. The last quarter of 2008 showed the beginning of a disintegration of the situation in Afghanistan, due to a recent up tick in violence and a resurgent Taliban.

Most critics of President Bush will say that these recent events are due to him taking his eye off Afghanistan to focus on Iraq and I think that’s a totally misinformed assumption to make.

The U.S. has continuously and aggressively fought side-by-side with Afghans and our allies to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We have provided nearly $32 billion for security, political and economic development assistance since 2001, so it’s not like we merely came in, bombed and left them to their own devices.

I think these people are merely responding to a decrease in the media’s coverage of Afghanistan. Because Afghanistan wasn’t in the limelight of the American media it must not have been a major concern for President Bush is the conclusion they must be making.

Obviously, that’s a bunch of rubbish if you ask me.

Now that’s not to say that I believe the Afghan situation has been flawless. The failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden has been very disheartening. I realize that he may be dead and that even if he isn’t; he’s been rendered almost completely useless. Still, the fact that we have not, officially, brought him to justice must be a major disappointment to President Bush.

My other major complaint with our dealings in Afghanistan is the way we have dealt with Pakistan. Pakistan’s complete inability to secure its border and prosecute or kill the remaining Taliban and Al-Qaeda members living in the country is probably the primary reason our successes in Afghanistan are threatened, yet we continue to handle them with kid gloves.

I realize that their government faces a difficult task, however, they’ve had over seven years to get their act straight and they have failed to do so. In those seven years we have provided billions upon billions in aid, political assistance and military training and we have nothing to show for it. It is time for us to tell Pakistan that they need to start showing results and if they don’t, the gravy train that is our support and aid can go to other countries like India and they can help us prosecute this War on Terror.

Overall, Afghanistan has been a success. Sure, we face difficulties there and our successes can be erased, however I have no doubts in the ability of our military and political leaders to develop and implement a plan that will allow us to claim a final victory.

Over the next few weeks, you’ll continue to read the stories that Afghanistan is a lost cause and that the Taliban will prove too resilient for our forces. When you read those, I only ask you to remember what the “experts” were saying about Iraq a mere two years ago.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John

President Bush: The War on Terror-Iraq

So now we finally get to the juicy stuff don’t we? Enough already about what I think of President Bush’s personality or which presidents I would like to have a beer with.

Now we’re actually talking about issues, real issues that get people’s blood boiling, mouths moving, feet marching and tempers flaring.

Now we’re talking about war…literally, a life and death topic.

It’s no secret that President Bush’s global execution of the War on Terror (specifically Iraq) has been the most controversial and divisive issue in his eight years as president.

But why such division? Why such controversy? Why such strong opposition?

To me, the invasion of Iraq, subsequent overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party and development of Iraq’s new democracy was an extremely justified and noble endeavor.

I believe this because I share President Bush’s view of the War on Terror.

In a pre-9/11 world, we were content to let Hussein keep up his activity as long as he didn’t attack his neighbors, while remaining contained in Iraq. But as you all know, 9/11 changed everything.

With the Islamo-Fascist threat we currently face not having a home base to call their own; we need to root out terrorism everywhere it lives. By not doing so, we would be subjecting ourselves to the complacency and naivety that led to 9/11.

President Bush finally believed the old saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. He was not about to sit back and let a mad terrorist continue to intimidate an entire region and, for that matter, the rest of the world with his dangerous activities.

That’s right, whether people like to believe it or not, Saddam Hussein was a terrorist. This is not some right-wing theory that I’ve developed. This is a fact. He used biological weapons on Iranians and Kurds. He presented the families of suicide bombers with checks worth $25,000.

That is why he needed to be taken out, simple as that. He was a terrorist and after 9/11, terrorists were no longer going to be tolerated.

I think the reason so many people objected to this military action was because the administration needlessly complicated the issue.

We heard about the “stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction” and the “humanitarian good” we would be doing by going in. But see, those are dicey arguments to make.

First, we had intelligence that stated there were stockpiles of weapons, not facts and, as we know now, intelligence isn’t always what it’s cracked up to be.

Secondly, humanitarian aid, while a noble and just reason for intervening in Iraq, also brought up other instances where we failed to intervene when humanitarian aid was needed around the globe. It made the administration appear that they were making up reasons to go to war as they went along.

I think if President Bush had simply stated the following, the invasion of Iraq would’ve been better received:

My fellow Americans, due to the continued terrorist activity

committed by Saddam Hussein, his very presence endangers

not only the United States, but also the rest of the world. If

we sit idly by and let a known and unrepentant terrorist

continue to threaten his region and the rest of the world, it is

only a matter of time before someone, somewhere will pay

dearly for this indecision. As a result, I will authorize the

invasion of Iraq and elimination of Saddam Hussein. We will no

longer allow terrorists to roam free as an uneasy world hopes

for the best. Thank you.

Now, those that would oppose the invasion automatically, whether for moral objections to the war or just a blind hatred for everything President Bush stands for, would not have been swayed by this speech. However, those independents, those undecideds, those on the fence may have actually supported the invasion, rather than trashing it.

So to me, the President’s main failure was not the decision to into Iraq, but in his sales pitch to the American public. The reason this is important is because the invasion’s popularity, or lack there of, really made things difficult for President Bush’s second term.

By the way, does anyone else find it ironic that the same issue that President Bush’s critics point to to illustrate his ineptitude and deceptiveness is the same issue that his supporters point to to illustrate his greatness and courage? I think it’s pretty rare to see that happen.

So, I’ve established that I view the decision to invade Iraq as the proper one, now we have to look at the execution of the invasion.

The initial military strike was phenomenal by any measure. The “Shock and Awe” campaign, did just that, the vaunted Iraqi army proved to be absolutely no match for our military might and Baghdad fell with far, far, far fewer casualties than even the most optimistic experts estimated.

Not to get off topic, but do you guys remember “Baghdad Bob”, Saddam’s Information Minister? He was the guy that would announce to the media that Iraq was actually routing us and that we were on the run. He said things as absurd as:

"Today we (Iraq) slaughtered them (United States) in the airport. They are out of Saddam International Airport. The force that was in the airport, this force was destroyed."

"Be assured. Baghdad is safe, protected"

"We have them surrounded in their tanks"

I’m sorry, but if you don't find that funny, there's something wrong with you.

Ok, back on track here…

After the initial invasion until the troop surge…well, things were not so good in Iraq.

I do not blame President Bush for that, per se. Yes, he made a number of the personal appointments and those personal executed a less than flawless campaign, but that’s what happens in war. What we as a nation fail to understand is that war is a terribly difficult activity to properly carry out. There are going to be mistakes, there are going to be miscalculations, there are going to be casualties; as no war, no matter how just was ever perfectly executed.

That’s what we expected though: perfection. Now, part of that was due in no small part to the “Mission Accomplished” banner, a gargantuanly short-sided public relations stunt that really came back to hurt the administration after violence in Iraq increased.

The mistakes made in Iraq, however, pale in comparison to many other mistakes that were made in previous wars.

All one needs to do is look back to D-Day. While the initial invasion had fewer casualties than expected, the following weeks were a bloodbath. We lost over 80,000 troops in the hedgerows of France due to insufficient air cover and incorrect intelligence.

Now, does that mean we should not have conducted the D-Day invasion?

No, of course not.

But for some reason, we now seem to hold our military to unrealistic expectations. It’s as if we look at our military and say, “well, they’re not perfect therefore, they’re not good”.

Where I will heap abundant praise on President Bush, however, is in his decision to institute the troop surge.

Against conventional wisdom and the advice of every one of his senior staff of advisors, the administration sent more troops to Iraq and gave them a new commander (General David Petraeus) with a new strategy. Even President Bush's most vocal critics now acknowledge that Iraq is in far better shape than it was two years ago.

The surge, the Sunni Awakening and the pacification of the Anbar Province have allowed Iraq to rise from the ashes of civil war to a future that, while not brilliantly bright, certainly appears to be rather promising.

In fact, I will go so far to say that the war in Iraq is essentially over. The Iraqi military and police control security in over three quarters of the country, civilian and military deaths are at an all-time low and the few remaining terrorists have no real base of operation.

Iraq is a functioning democracy with a new round of elections right around the corner, something that seemed impossible three, six, even ten years ago.

Clearly, it is my opinion that President Bush made the correct decision to go into Iraq. In fact, I don’t even think it was a decision at all; we needed to go into Iraq. Now I know some will categorize me as a bloodthirsty, war-mongering, neo-con for this stance and that’s fine, I can handle that. What I would not have been able to handle was to have us sit idly by as another threat was allowed to run free, committing terrorist deed after terrorist deed.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John

President Bush: The War on Terror at Home

The argument over President Bush’s place in history is starting to ratchet up, as we are only 23 days away from the swearing-in of President-elect Obama. Some view President Bush as a great president, others, a terrible one, maybe even the worst one.

Me? Well…you’ll have to keep checking in to find out. (I know…what a teaser!)

The one thing that cannot be argued by any rational commentator is that the entire Bush Presidency changed on September 11, 2001.

I’m not going to sit here and try to articulate the nation’s mindset on that day because that’s for you to decide as that tragedy affected all of us in different ways.

I will say, however, that it’s a safe assumption that the vast majority of us believed that this was not a one-time event. Deep down, I think we all feared that it was not a matter of “if”, but “when” we would be attacked next.

Due to these unprecedented attacks on our country, on our culture, on our way of life, on us, President Bush took dramatic steps to keep us safe and make sure September 11^th was the only, not the first attack on U.S. soil.

In this endeavor, he has succeeded.

This, by the way, was no small feat. In fact, I’ve even seen it described as a “miracle”, as no serious observer ever imagined that after September 11 there would be zero additional terrorist attacks on U.S. soil with only three days remaining in 2008.

How did this happen?

Was it luck? Did Al-Qaeda simply pat themselves on the back, crack open a few cold ones and call it a day?

As we all know, it had nothing to do with complacency as we’ve seen that the Islamo-fascists that orchestrated the September 11 attacks have been quite busy all over the globe.

These seven-plus years of safety are the result of the President’s proper identification of the threat posed by these terrorists. He knew that we could not sit down with these people, discuss our differences, hug, make-up and continue on with our lives.

As a result, he knew he would have to take dramatic steps to limit their ability to function, communicate and organize in this country.

Enter the Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay and the NSA wiretapping.

What do these four tools in the War on Terror have in common?

Well, besides that they’ve all worked, they’re all despised by opponents of President Bush.

Opponents of President Bush say that The Department of Homeland Security is a bureaucratic behemoth that wastes taxpayer money.

Opponents of President Bush say that The Patriot Act tramples the Constitution and limits our personal freedoms. (Remember all of those hysterical stories perpetrated the media of librarians that would be thrown in jail for failing to supply federal agencies with book rental information? Breath easily librarians as, to date, none have been jailed.)

Opponents of President Bush say that Guantanamo Bay ignores the law and that these terrorists should be given rights of habeas corpus.

Opponents of President Bush say that the NSA Wiretaps strip us of our personal privacy.

Do you know what the opponents of President Bush never say?

They never say that all of these tools work.

Despite the Left’s blind hatred of these tools in the War on Terror, it is an irrefutable fact that they’ve all worked and we’re safe as a result.

This is an area where President Bush’s record is quite remarkable and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for his actions and policies.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John

President Bush: The Man

With today marking the first day of Lurching Right’s “President Bush Spectacular”, I thought it would be fitting to look first at the man, before looking at and judging his actions.

I twice voted for President Bush. In fact, the first presidential vote of my life was cast for him back when I was a knucklehead sophomore at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater (the Harvard of Walworth County) in November of 2000.

I voted for him because I was a “Republican”. I say “Republican” with “” because back then I had no idea what it really meant to be a Republican. Sure I believed in the death penalty, hated abortion and favored lower taxes, however if you pressed me to defend those positions (or any other that I held at that time for that matter) I probably wouldn’t have been able to do so in an intellectual manner. Some of you probably read that last comment and asked, “What’s changed?”

While I’ve always held conservative beliefs, at that time I was fairly easily swayed by personalities and hype. Good God, maybe I would’ve been swept up in the wave of “Change” and “Hope” banners had they been around at that time.

This brings me to probably the main reason I voted for President Bush back then; I liked him. In fact, I still like him.

On that November night in 2000, I thought back to the previous eight years; eight, wasted years filled with scandal after scandal.

Whitewater, Troopergate, Vince Foster’s mysterious death, Filegate, the Lincoln Bedroom being treated as a hotel room, Chinagate, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and, of course, Monica and the Impeachment were all on my mind as I walked up to the Old Armory on North Street to cast that vote.

The sliminess, smugness, aloofness, ruthlessness and the sheer inability to take responsibility for anything of the Clinton Machine also weighed heavily on my mind as I stood in line with my then-roommate Antone.

When I thought of President Bush then (and when I think of him now) none of those descriptions came to my mind. No matter what I’ve ever thought of his policies or actions, I’ve always believed he is a good man. A man that wants what’s best for this country. A man would do what he believes is right, even if the results would torpedo his popularity.

You know, it makes me think of the “Who would you rather have a beer with?” poll that comes out during the summer months of every presidential campaign.

Looking at the Presidents of my lifetime (W. Bush, Clinton, H.W. Bush, Reagan and Carter), our current president is the only one that I can say that I’d like to have a beer with.

Clinton? Too slimy.

H.W. Bush? Too geeky.

Reagan? Too mythic, too grand, too perfect.

Carter? Too self-righteous.

G.W.? Of course!

He strikes me as a really normal guy.

A guy you could watch a baseball game with and not have to correct his pronunciation of Albert “Pujols”.

A guy you could curse in front of.

A guy that would ask, “Are you ready for another?”

A guy that when you ask him to help you move, offers you his truck as well.

A guy that wants the lives of his daughters to be better than his.

Just a normal, decent, God-fearing, nice, kind man.

You know, I still to this day, do not understand the visceral hatred of this man by the Left. I understand attacking policies, views, stances, etc., but the attacks that’s he’s had slung at him over the past eight years are so personal, cut so deep and are so unfair that I don’t know why he still cares what the Left thinks of him.

And…you know he does. How else could you explain the auto bailout, his sudden change on global warming, his expansion of Medicare, etc.?

I really think this propensity, or even need, to be liked by everyone is the one character flaw that hurt his presidency the most. If he would’ve just stuck to his guns a little bit more, maybe things would’ve turned out a bit differently for him.

As I said in my previous post, at the conclusion of the “President Bush Spectacular” I will assign him an overall grade. I, honestly, do not know what that grade will be quite yet.

I do, however, know one thing about President Bush. He is a good man. A man that tried his best, had some successes, had some failures, but at the end of the day remained the decent man he was when I pulled the lever for him back on that rainy night in November of 2000.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John

Momentary Break

Hello all. I will be taking a momentary break from my usual posting schedule to prepare for my President Bush Spectacular starting December 27^th and running through January 5. In that time, there will be one post every day, critiquing his entire Presidency and assigning him an overall grade coming on the 5^th.

Thanks and have a great Christmas!

-John

The Logic of Global Warming

It appears that EVERYTHING is proof of global warming

I did get this from Drudge, so he deserves the credit, but I just couldn’t help but post this quote from an Associated Press story about global warming:

“Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line. Experts say it's thanks to a La Nina weather variation. While skeptics are already using it as evidence
of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming.”

So let me get this straight…

Earth warming=Global Warming

Earth Cooling=Global Warming

More Hurricanes=Global Warming

Less Hurricanes=Global Warming

Polar Ice Caps Receding=Global Warming

Polar Ice Caps Expanding=Global Warming

And I could go on and on.

-John

Thank You UAW!

As you all know by now, the auto bailout package, weighing in at a whopping $14 billion, failed to survive a Senate procedural vote on Thursday night.

Shortly afterwards, the blame game started.

Democrats pointed the finger at Republicans using phrases like “un-American” and “an unbelievable stab at workers around the country” to describe the actions of Republican Senators that stopped this legislation from passing.

In turn, the Republicans pointed the finger at the United Auto Workers (UAW) as the real culprits in this story. The Republican senators stated that it was the UAW’s refusal to accept immediate wage reductions that actually killed the bailout package.

In fact, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, the GOP's point man in the negotiations said "We were about three words away from a deal," referring to any date in 2009 on which the UAW would accept wage cuts.

After reading these accounts, I only have three words to say…

Thank You UAW!!!

While their incredibly selfish and shortsighted decision to refuse lower wages may (and I say “may” because I have little to no faith that the bailout would have actually worked) ultimately cost them and many of their fellow coworkers their jobs, it nonetheless, proved to be the death knell in another piece of misguided legislation.

Way to go UAW! Keep sticking it to the fat cats in management!

So, I know what some of you are thinking. ”What did they actually object to?”

Well, I’m glad you asked.

Senate Republicans asked the UAW to bring total wages (including benefits and pension plans) down to levels that mirrored what Japanese automakers pay their employees at American plants.

Currently, UAW and Toyota workers make nearly identical hourly wages ($29.78 per hour for UAW workers vs. $30 per hour for Toyota workers). However, and here’s where the lunacy begins, when figuring in benefit and pension packages, Toyota states that their costs are about $48 per worker per hour.

UAW’s?

$69.

That’s right, $69 per worker per hour.

And some people wonder why the automakers are running out of money.

So in other words…

All American citizens are expected to suck it up and make sacrifices as their tax dollars save these companies, all governmental agencies must stop certain programs due to slashes in funding in order to pay for this bailout, CEOs of the Big 3 agree to work for nothing to make sure this plan gets past, yet these UAW workers can’t sacrifice a little of their obnoxiously decadent benefit plans to ensure this plan passes?

The gall of these workers is, literally, indescribable and indefensible.

Yet, I’m quite happy that they took this stance as it, momentarily, will save taxpayers billions and billions of dollars.

I say “momentarily” as President Bush, appearing hell bent on providing the Big 3 with taxpayer money, is considering raiding the coffers of the $700 billion financial bailout package.

I have a question for President Bush, and I say this with the utmost respect because I really do like him…

What the hell are you thinking?

First, has he abandoned all of his so-called Conservative ideals when dealing with economic and domestic issues?

It appears that way as he supports rampant governmental spending, this auto bailout, the financial bailout, Illegal alien amnesty (which I actually agree with him on) and environmental actions designed to stop global warming.

My God man, you’ve got like five weeks left. Can’t you just hang on for a little longer, rather than capitulating to the Left? Are you that tired from fighting these people for the past eight years that you’ve got nothing left in the tank?

Secondly, he’s been all over the map on this package. First he was against it, now he’s for it. I actually think he went back and forth a few times in between that as well.

And this is the guy that criticized John Kerry for flip-flopping?

I do give the Senate Republicans credit, as they, for once, stuck to actual conservative ideals in killing this plan.

I know that Congressional Democrats are going to attempt to paint them as the boogieman in this situation and try to convince voters that they turned their back on the working man.

I do think that this will backfire, as people are smart enough to realize that it was not the Senate Republicans that turned their backs on the working man, rather it was the working man that turned its back on itself in this situation.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John

Pull the Plug on the Ahmadinejad Administration

I know that may sound harsh, but we are at a very critical point with Iran.

In a report released yesterday, a “well-placed American source” stated that if Iran were to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, President-elect Obama would authorize the use of nuclear weapons by the United States in a counter-attack against Iran.

If this report is accurate, this is the most hawkish statement made by the Obama camp to date.

However, despite all of this hawkish talk, Obama also came out earlier in the week and expressed interest in negotiating with Tehran and offered economic incentives for their cooperation in the nuclear discussion.

So what is really going on here?

Let’s deal with the Israeli protection plan first.

While I wholeheartedly support taking the gloves off when dealing with Iran, this is a rather flawed approach in my opinion.

First, while this policy is designed to help Israelis, what will it actually do for them? I am quite sure that the vast majority of Israelis will not find this action very comforting, considering most of them will be dead if Iran were to attack them with nuclear weapons.

Secondly, why should we provide this type of guarantee exclusively to Israel? Why not expand this type of protection to all of our allies around the world, especially Iraq?

While I am not a strong proponent of such a plan, if we are going to go through with it, we should do it the right way.

As I have previously stated, Iran’s nuclear aspirations are the chief source of instability in the Middle East. By assuring all of our allies that we will be there to protect them in the event of an Iranian nuclear attack, a small degree of insurance may be provided to areas that could be reached by such a strike.

Thirdly, and the biggest reason this is a flawed policy, this announcement concedes that Iran will possess nuclear weapons. I cannot stress this enough…Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon under any circumstance. I view any resignation to Iran obtaining such weapons as being totally unacceptable.

Many of you already know this, but as a brief refresher, if Iran has nuclear weaponry, all of our gains in Iraq have a strong possibility of being erased, there is a definite probability that a terrorist organization could get their hands on the bomb and it is almost guarantees that Israel will be attacked by Iran.

Listen, we still have time to take care of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Whether it is us, Israel, NATO or someone else that decides to take out these facilities, I don’t really care, so long as it gets done.

The elimination of the Iranian nuclear program would not only stabilize the entire Middle East it would also stabilize the entire world.

Let’s move on to the open negotiations with Tehran.

Now is not the time to be negotiating with, and therefore propping up, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s administration.

Despite what the Iranian propaganda machine would like the rest of the world to believe, Ahmadinejad is unpopular in Iran and his administration is on the verge of collapse. The last thing we want to do is negotiate a plan that would help Ahmadinejad as frustration with and a lack of patience for him spreads like wildfire all over Iran.

In Iran, December 7 is known as “Student Day”. The origins of this day go back to 1953. On December 7 of that year, Iranian students poured into the streets of Tehran to protest the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosadegh by the CIA and MI6. The students were venting their anger at the West, and at the Shah, whom they accused of collaborating with the West in what was yet another Western-initiated regime change in the Middle East. The Shah’s police brutally put down the demonstrations, thus etching this day in the history of Iranian students and their struggles for political change in Iran.

On this year’s Student Day, Iranian college students openly protested against President Ahmadinejad for a number of grievances including imprisonment and torture of students, expulsion of lecturers, poverty, abuse of human rights, dictatorship, and looting of their country’s wealth by foreign powers such as China and Russia.

These grievances are on top of Ahmadinejad’s paltry economic performance.

Currently, Iran faces an annual inflation rate of over 30%, an unemployment rate of over 10% and an incredible shortage of funds for governmental programs due to the declining price of crude oil.

Right now, we need to help provide the deathblow to the Ahmadinejad administration, not resuscitation, especially with their elections right around the corner.

The fear with any Iranian election is that the new leader would be even worse than their predecessor. While that scenario is a possibility, it does not appear that it is likely in this case.

The most likely person to replace Ahmadinejad is former nuclear negotiator and moderate conservative cleric Hasan Rowhani. Rowhani is highly respected throughout Iran and the world after working with Great Brittan, France and Germany in nuclear negotiations.

His balanced and measured approach would be in sharp, and welcomed, contrast to Ahmadinejad’s nonsensical rants about Israel and the U.S.

I know that Obama views himself as a “citizen of the world” and prefers a soft power approach to foreign policy, making these actions potentially unsettling to him. However, there is no greater gift he could give to the world than a nuclear free Iran.

Pulling the plug on a dying Ahmadinejad administration by not negotiating with them or, better yet, taking out their nuclear facilities would go a long way in accomplishing that goal.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John