The Bush administration grappled Tuesday for a way forward in dealing with 
According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJA):
This is not difficult to believe considering Russias and Chinas opposition to any results of substance that would have a detrimental effect on their economic interests with Iran. But the U.S. does have issues with regard to it's intelligence in Iraq, which many are using as a means of stalling this already over-stalled process over Iran.
What about Iran leads us to believe anything about their intentions? It's intentions seem clearer than Hitlers ever did, as his in Mein Kampf were written down, whereas todays media posts the present. With this you get many sides of the coin, from a nation that abhores Israel, supports terrorism, smashes down dissent, claims its present and future Middle East powerhouse status and pursues nuclear technology for "peaceful" purposes.
Regarding Irans peacefully pursued nukes The Atlanta Journal-Constituiton (AJA) says via the AP:Iran's president on Wednesday dismissed Western concerns over its nuclear program as "a big lie," a day after key U.N. Security Council members agreed to present Tehran with a choice of incentives or sanctions in deciding whether to suspend uranium enrichment.
This statement is nothing new and has been repeated over and over. Most if not all interested people are aware of the 17 or 18 page letter that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote and sent to President Bush the other day. The letter, recently referred to as a "missive" does nothing to forward the process or open the door to more fruitful negotiations.
A former Secretary of State had some suggestions about the correct way of dealing with the issue of Iran; this, at least is the way she feels as do others. From the AJA:
The former Secretary of State would have the U.S. barter from a position on weakness, something that many, if not all in the Middle East do not respect nor understand. The Secretary has spent much time deriding the present administration and fails to acknowledge that her methods during the Clinton tenure were not so hot either. The present administration has been trying a different tack since it's swearing in and should be accorded support and time to see how this works; we know how the other did. The former Secretary is also trying to sell her latest book as well.The nation's military forces are overstretched and the U.S. should seek direct talks with Iran instead of making threats, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said.
"The last thing we need is to invade another country," Albright told an audience of 800 people during a speech Tuesday night at Town Hall.
Albright also suggested that an official high in the Bush administration should give a speech in response to a letter that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent Monday to the president.
Another Letter
As has been the case with Iran; the world gets statement upon statement and no one seems to be concerned when each contradicts the other. An example would be a letter recently sent to Time, which has it all smitten with itself.
From Time Magazine on line:
The White House has brushed aside a new letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to President Bush that was designed, according to a senior Iranian official, to offer "new ways for getting out of the current, fragile international situation," a reference to the impasse between the two countries over Iran's alleged drive to develop nuclear weapons.The White House dismissed or "brushed aside" the letter, which implies a closed minded ignorance and belies the administrations true colors; that being conquest of the world, at least according to this appendage of the msm.
Being the font of truth that it is, Time reveals the open letter it received from
Hassan Rohani, representative of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, on the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and Iran's former top nuclear negotiator, defends Iran's nuclear posture, decries American bullying, and puts forward a plan to remove the nuclear issue from the U.N. Security Council and return it to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, a long-standing Iranian goal.Be sure to read the article regarding the letter, available via any Time links in this post and here.
Why the second letter? And why send the second letter to the media? For one Rohani has often been described as a "moderate" as Time points out. But what is a moderate?
Two examples defining "moderate" that are appropriate, from Merriam-Webster on-line:
1a: avoiding extremes of behavior or expression : observing reasonable limits; andGranted, we all know what is meant or the connotation arrived at by the word, but what is a "moderate" in Iran? Or what is a living "moderate" in Iran? Or what is "moderate" in Iran that would have any real impact?
3: professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme
Bush is not viewed as a "moderate" by the Left or msm in this country. The Left has put great effort into painting the president as a "Right-Wing" and in all fairness he is considerabley further Right than those decrying him, but that's pretty obvious. There should be no denying that Iran has a hardline government, where voting and all else shouldn't be considered of and for the people. The U.S. on the other hand is the antithesis of Iran (though, again not to the Left). How does one assume a "moderate" would fair in Iran, if one considers howto the Left a "moderate" fairs in the U.S. Yet the msm and the Left would have us take creedance in words from Iran with regard to it's peaceful nuclear intentions.
The letter to the president and the letter to Time is just another example of how negotiating with Iran can be and is. Iran is playing the very same game al Qaeda and all others have been. They realize the media is the message and the media buys it hook, line and sinker.
tag: Mullahs tag: Iran tag: Peaceful Nukes tag: Letters from Iran tag: Madeline Albright tag: Russia and China
DeMediacrat
Iran
Islamofascism
War On Terror
