Tuesday, Mark was noticeably upset by what he had to report.
Back in the days after 9/11 when President Bush gave that great speech at Ground Zero, who would have thought that his administration would engage in a “neighbor’s meeting” with Iran & Syria? Unbelievable!
Hannity looks nicer in person
.jpg)
Perhaps I’m being overly optimistic on this……..but I’ve got a feeling that these “meetings” aren’t going to be fuzzy & warm. While I certainly understand where Mark is coming from, I’ll hesitate before calling this a “mistake”.
If things don’t go well, and the administration decides to pull the military trigger, they can always say, “Hey, we TRIED to talk to them…..but they wouldn’t listen”.
Mark may ultimately be correct……but I also know he’s a great patriot and would LOVE to be wrong. If we bomb these vile cockroaches, we’ll be doing it with NO question marks……and NO excuses from the putrid Democrats!
Excellent points, and I sure hope your hunch proves to be correct.
America cannot hunker-down and “set the course of history.” No amount of talk will dissuade Islamofascists from their goals. We either take the fight to the enemy or quake in fear waiting for the day our fears are realized.
After 28 years of Iran’s regime supporting terrorists, who have murdered Americans during indiscriminant attacks or directly targeted them (Beirut, 1983, and now by supplying weapons and training), we need no “excuse.” Nor will cutesy diplo-speak assuage the liberal media and “loyal” political opposition. The administration needs to stop wasting time kissing the rears of America’s editorial boards and start kicking the Iranian regime’s rear goodbye.
I can understand how there was always international jealousy and resentment of the USA because of who we are and what we stand for, but when in h&!! did we become the villains in all this?!? The anti-US propaganda from Al Jezeera and their flunkies is to be expected, but the hatred of our President by the democrats knows no bounds and has encouraged our international enemies like those sleazy Syrians and Iranians. It’s like deja vu with all the UN sanctions, back-and-forth, resistance to UN resolutions while they continue hiding their development of WMDs (here we go again). Hey, maybe we can offer them a Michael Jordan signed basketball like…nah! This mind-set that we somehow ask for and deserved 9/11 and American deaths in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter, are trivial repercussion for our international actions is BOGUS BS!
This did not surprise me. This is altruistic pragmatic religious Bush trying to neutralize criticism of the Administration by the Iraq study group and people like General Westmorland. I saw it coming for a while and knew ML Levin would see it as enabling the enemy and compromising our military. When I saw this on Drudge before the show I had the same disgusting feeling. Does Bush hope to be so totally abused by the Iranian leadership that he can then justify a military maneuver against Iran? Justify to whom… the House leadership and the press? Any discussions will be dragged out indefinitely so as to offset a military solution while discussions are active. This is not a solution. It is another problem.
The only surprise is Carl Levin, an outspoken war critic, asking for action against Syria and Iran. The only thing I can derive from this is that if Bush suggests losing the war we can count on the Dems demanding we win it.
Remember, a number of Dems were calling for a troop surge until Bush announced he was doing it! Then, they were all against it! I see the same thing happening here.
I think the Dems are trying to coax Bush into doing something they think they can impeach him for! Like going to war with Iran, for example! I predict you will now see many more Dems urge Bush to do just that! If and when Bush attacks Iran, they will all call for his impeachment!
The Dems are so transparent!
If we participate in talks with them, expect (bank on it) the following: They will call our bluff.
Well, maybe you can start some talks in say paris. Get a nice round table, maybe Henry Kissenger is still available. He has experience in these matters…..
Or handyman maybe we should elect a president who takes after Reagan and how he handled things diplomatically. Wesley Clarke, that putz, was on O’Reilly saying we have to talk to them because we are the big dogs and the UN cant handle this sort of thing. Um Wesley, are you just figuring out that the UN is useless?
Hey all, long time Mark Levin, new to this site. Glad I found you all. I’m listening to Marks show from last night right now.
As to this touchy feely, let’s talk approach, I’m not sure what’s going on. Either Bush is pulling a rope a dope or he’s lost his will, his balls, whatever.
We shall see.
In my previous post concerning this issue, I erroneously mentioned General Westmorland when I meant Wes Clark. Yes, even O’ Reilly saw the folly in that strategy.
Let me say that if Mr. Bush and his staff is concerned about impeachment relative to a military maneuver against Iran they have a right to be concerned because that is exactly what will occur. Nevertheless Americans die in Iraq every week to insure the integrity of our future against a very zealous and committed enemy who has been clear, straightforward and unambiguous about their own military intentions against the US, Israel and Europe. What is confusing about this is not their resoluteness but our blind apathy.
Mr. Bush is also committed and despite many of his shortcomings on immigration and domestic entitlement spending he has a clear picture of why we cannot afford to lose this war at this time and at this location. He is right on this issue because it is the most important issue of our day and because it will seriously reshape the rest of our future. He, and he alone, is our Commander-in-Chief. He has an obligation to protect the citizens of this country, including my family and the families of my friends and countrymen. This is first and foremost to any other obligation. If he is impeached as a result of ensuring our safety and securing our future then so be it. If that is the sacrifice he must make to fulfill the job that he was elected to do then despite this very real possibility he must still do so.
He cannot leave his office with a nuclear equipped Iran as part of his legacy because that is a legacy that will permanently affect the rest of us. Now more than ever he is called upon to do, what he knows, in his mind and heart, what is right and very necessary.
amen.
I don’t believe he will. My feeling is that this is the beginning of the end of Ahma-Yabba-Dabba-Doo.
We’ll see.
Clarification: He won’t leave office with a “nuclear” Iran.
Beginning of the end for that doofus over there!
Though it looks like the Bush administration is being hypocritical by this meeting, it very well may be Iraq asserting itself with its neighbors. Iran has deep internal problems, foremost is the student and female unrest for democracy. The numbers for change are building and the administration must be careful not to alienate them at this point. I venture to say that a different kind of enemy requires a different approach. I pray that weakness and appeasement is not driving this. I pray also that Iraq does not weaken. Will have to see. I would have sent in the strategic bombers, but that’s me.
I submit that the impeachment issue is wholly irrelevant. Yes, the Democrats would dearly love to do it-to vindicate Clinton, among other reasons-but they know very well that they’d never get the 67 votes to convict in the Senate. If they believed they had enough evidence to convict, they’d have already made their move-but there’s no THERE there, and they KNOW it, no matter how much oxygen they waste on the subject. They’re not going to make the strategic blunder the GOP did in ’98. Hopefully the President understands that and is not now behaving as if the spectre of impeachment is looming over him-that would hamstring him, and it would disappoint me. The Democrats are trying to use the prospect of impeachment as a club, a means of controlling him. Lord help us if they succeed…
a lot of good thoughts here, I agree with many. Perhaps Bush, seeing the Democrat hand writing of wanting to cut off funds is enough to push him into lower level talks. To appease the appeasers. Kinda like at the UN prior to the Iraq War. We had to do the dog and pony show, and they still said no. But he knew he had to at least make the effort, or show effort to comfort those weaklings at the UN, and the Democrats. I believe it will be preceived by the Iranians and the Arabs as weakness, and having us over a barrel. We currently have three carrier groups either in the Persian Gulf, or standing by. Israel is the ringer here.
I can image a conversation going something like this: “Well, Mamoud (baby) we got our troops over extended, we know, you know. But… we do have 3 carrier groups offshore, basically doing nothing. But… that’s not your problem, at least not right now. Hey…were gonna have a hell of a time holding Israel back, and with all this Hezbollah funding, and end of days talk coming from you, we can’t guarantee they’ll hold back very much longer. On the nuclear thing… we know it’s a sham, you know, the IAEA knows, hell… we all know what your doing. Our offer to exchange nuclear fuel is still on the table, but you guys gotta back off this enrichment, or it will be taken out. UN consent, or no UN consent. As for our troops being killed by either your agents or weaponry, we can’t abide that. Pull them back, stop the flow, or the war may just edge into your country. Killing an American in Iraq will be seen as an assault on America, and we won’t be able to hold back the American people from wanting your blood.”
Something like that. I would only hope. (and pray)
Remember it is the House that impeaches and that is where the Dems currently rule. An impeachment attempt is like an indictment. That is what Dems do. They accuse and indictment. Clinton was impeached by the House but was not removed by the Senate despite the fact that Senator Robert Bird stated that he (Clinton) had committed “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
Nixon left on the threat of impeachment for the sake of the Country. Unlike Al Gore Nixon also never disputed the dubious Illinois vote in his first Presidential run against John Kennedy for the sake of our Country. Clinton stayed for the sake of his legacy. The Senate did nothing.
The Dems despise Bush based upon the 2000 election and his strong faith.
Do not underestimate these radical liberals especially because they are aided and abetted by a sympathetic agenda driven and liberally biased anti-war media that are always hungry for Republican blood even in good times Not all of the American public listens to talk radio and Fox News. Despite the former and the problems of rampant academic indoctrination conservative concepts are clearly beginning to take root. And the Dems recognize this. That is why they are so pro amnesty regarding illegal aliens. If they cannot obtain the votes they need to win elections by camouflaging themselves as moderates and misrepresenting Conservatives as compassionless insensitive extremists then they will import them as ready made socialists that vote without a modicum of understanding of American history and culture and completely absent any Constitutional comprehension. They are entitlement driven, not rights driven. They confuse rights with entitlements. The Constitution supports rights (common law rights). There is no right for someone that becomes a negative right for someone else. Our Constitution does not support entitlements and the redistribution of wealth and property to someone other than the producer and owner. Yet you would never know that listening to Clinton or Obama. When I attended public school we were forced to memorize the preamble to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I once looked at a high school American history book that was used in the NYC public schools in 1932 and I concluded that today’s students would need a college education to read and understand it.
John Adams stated that “this Republic will survive based on the education of its’ constitutesâ€ÂÂ. That is why many of us listen to ML.
It’s a beautiful day in this neighborhood
A beautiful day for a neighbor
Would you be mine
Could you be mine
It’s a neighborly day in this beauty wood
A neighborly day for a beauty
Would you be mine
Could you be mine
I’ve always wanted to have a neighbor just like you
I’ve always wanted to live in a neighborhood with you
So, let’s make the most of this beautiful day
Since we’re together we might as well say
Would you be mine, could you be mine
Won’t you be my neighbor
Won’t you please, won’t you please
Please won’t you be my neighbor
It’s OK to be neighborly. Just be careful that we’re neighborly with neighborly neighbors
i say give israel enough nukes to turn iran into a giant sheet of glass and well see how much they talk after that…