"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Friday, June 15, 2007

Incendiary Rhetoric toward Iran

Finally found the transcript to Hannity & Colmes interview with John Bolton regarding Gaza, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran from last night (6/14/07). What do you know, I pop over to RealClear every day, except this morning and there it is.

By all means read the entire transcript if you didn’t see the segment. I found one particular line of questioning from Alan Colmes that I found disturbing; if for nothing else, then for its naiveté:

COLMES: If you're Iran, and you hear this incendiary rhetoric toward Iran from certain people in the United States about how we have to take military action, what would you do if you're Iran?

BOLTON: Well, I wish they worried that much about me anymore, but I don't think that's really what motivates...

COLMES: But you're not the only one saying this. Does Iran respond to this incendiary rhetoric?

A lot of crosstalk when running short of time, but one last question/remark from Colmes;

COLMES: But they're going to feel they've got to defend themselves if they think an attack is imminent and people...

Cart before the horse; egg before the chicken; ultimately where does it begin and end? When someone in Colmes position seriously asks a question of this nature; calling statements from some in the U.S. “incendiary rhetoric toward Iran…” one truly should wonder if the person pays any attention to anything other than his own thoughts.

When the shrine in Samarra was again attacked by the enemies of a human race in Iraq the other day, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei blamed it on the “occupiers and Zionists.” Additionally:

‘”The disgraceful and blind-hearted agents behind this big crime, whether they are remaining stooges of Saddam's Baathist regime or the beguiled Wahhabi and Salafi fanatics, it cannot be doubted that the intelligence services of the occupiers and Zionists are the main masterminds of these heinous schemes.”’

‘”The occupiers have left the scene open to terrorists and panic-mongers to weaken the bases of the popular government of Iraq and justify their illegitimate presence in that country and are causing discord among Muslim brethren.”’

‘”Muslims throughout the world should be vigilant of the discord-sowing and war-mongering policies of enemies of Islam. Today, enemies will fan the flames of discord in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and any corner of the world of Islam that they can and instigate Muslims on various religious, partisan and ethnic pretexts to stand against each other and commit fratricide.”’

I’m curious how Mr. Colmes and those that agree with him feel about remarks like these? Are they not incendiary remarks? Are they not daily coming from Tehran’s leadership political and religious? Statements like these and much worse come from the pages of IRNA.com daily in the English translation they offer? Are they worse in Persian and Arabic?

We in the U.S. and West are supposed to take it easy and not ruffle any feathers in any way, shape or form and for all intents and purposes we really have not approached Iran and the issues that arise through its incitements with much more than what those, like Colmes have asked for or expect. This he would likely describe as too aggressive.

Four years now; we have been in negotiations with Iran. They continuously make overtures of interest in speaking, but will not bend on anything. EU-3 and all the rest has failed or failing; 15 victims of a misunderstanding, dual citizens taken hostage and on the list continues.

Alan Colmes and others are concerned about “incendiary remarks,” because they like talking and these “remarks,” make talking difficult. Iran has been talking with actions covert and overt, yet this somehow doesn’t fit into Colmes world view; why is that?

What do he and they really think they are going to get for their troubles?

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/536374588268114992

  • DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

    Please give this Post/Blog a Vote - Top Blogs

  • Linkfest Haven, the Blogger's Oasis
    Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Right Pundits, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Right Truth, Maggie's Notebook, Adam's Blog, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Pursuing Holiness, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Rightlinx, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Nuke's news and views, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, The Yankee Sailor, Gone Hollywood, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.


    © blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks