Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi calls it “the American Stance” - the means by which he has chosen to engage Iran. PM Berlusconi will not meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while the Iranian President is in Rome. (ht:Gateway Pundit)

However, Barak Obama states he would meet with President Ahmadinejad without preconditions, should he become president. The Irony of the “American Stance” under an Obama administration is striking.

Think about this. Other countries are taking our lead in dealing with these rogue nations - why? - because what we are doing works. It takes time and it is not without some level of pain, but in the end it works.

Now Mr Obama would change the “American Stance” to something more akin to what France does. And we can look at what French history has wrought in the Middle East today and see that is absolutely the wrong course. The American Stance should remain what it is today. That Mr. Obama cannot recognize that in its historic, geopolitical context is troubling.

Ok - Senator Obama has just gone into the realm of the ridiculous.

Obama’s willingness to sit down with the Iranian president demonstrates Obama’s lack of understanding of international relations, McCain said during a speech in Chicago, Illinois.

“Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment,” McCain said. “Those are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess.”

Obama quickly responded during a speech in Billings, Montana, asking why the presumptive Republican presidential nominee was afraid to talk to Iran and that it was the “Bush-McCain” war policy in Iraq, not diplomacy, that would make Iran stronger.

“Make no mistake, Iran is the single biggest beneficiary of a war in Iraq that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged,” the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination said.

“Thanks to George Bush’s policy, Iran is the greatest threat to the United States and Israel and the Middle East for a generation. John McCain wants to double down on that failed policy.”

Because of George Bush’s policy. For a generation.

First, George Bush may have been in office a lot longer than you can stand - it may feel like a generation to you - but 8 years does not a generation make.

Iran is the greatest threat to the United States and Israel and the Middle East for a generation because of Jimmy Carter’s policy. A policy that was ill-equipped to deal with the demands of Iranian Islamo-fascists (although we didn’t call them that back then). A policy so entrenched in a lack of resolve during the outbreak of the Iranian Revolution that the message sent by the Carter Administration was ” we are weak”. A policy grasped by leftists in Congress as a Hail Mary pass of appeasement while Iran arms itself with nuclear weapons. The same policy Jimmy Carter is now peddling with Hamas. That you don’t realize that worries a lot of people - hopefully enough to defeat you in November.

Senator Obama - your claim that everything wrong in the world is the fault of President Bush is ridiculous. Your entire presumptuous foreign policy rhetoric is ridiculous.

Understanding liberals is not easy - mostly because they relegate debate to the emotional aspects of the topic. In order to get closer to an understanding of the liberal mind, you must be able to decipher the language of liberalism.

Take “appalling attack” for example. Liberals often talk about how something someone said is an “appalling attack”. Senator Barak Obama said that President Bush’s statement to the Knesset was an appalling attack on the good Senator.

What President Bush said was:

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.

“We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is—the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

Now, unless Senator Obama has been engaged in appeasement politics with Hamas - or plans to work with terrorists in the future - he should have no issue with the President’s shoe of “Some”. then again, if the shoe fits, wear it.

So, “appalling attack” really means: You’re right, but I am pissed you’d say that.

The liberals want to talk with those who have pledged holy war against us because:

• They think this whole mess of Islamists wanting a worldwide caliphate is America’s fault
• Their elitist tendencies make them believe they can just talk Islamists out of their unreasonable notions, if someone smart enough would just try.
• They are immersed in victimization and identity politics to the point of not being capable of leading anything more than a moral retreat.

Once you grasp these things, it is relatively easy to understand a liberal. Understanding them is the first step to marginalizing and defeating their crazy ideals.

The United Nations - a study in how to call Iran’s sister and request silly things (Monty Python).

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called Monday for immediate presidential elections in Lebanon without foreign interference and told Syria and Iran they must support the disarmament of Hezbollah’s well-armed militia.

How odd - what exactly is the message here? Does anyone take United Nations sound-bite declarations seriously?

As the violence dwindles in Southern Iraq, the United States is ostensibly pleased with the performance of Iraqi forces in dealing with the recent Sadrist uprising. The Iraqi government is ostensibly pleased with their ability to respond with appropriate force and to stand up on their own in this crisis.

I said ostensibly. The truth of the matter is the real winner of the recent events in Southern Iraq is Iran - although again, it is ostensibly Muqtada al-Sadr.

Yes, Iraqi government forces responded well and the results of unequaled training, along with a more ecumenical devotion to a unified nation, is evident in the performance of Iraqi forces - although they still have a way to go. Iran gaining victory has nothing to do with military prowess, nor with the willingness of Iraqis to defend Iraq’s emergence as a viable government.

Al-Sadr himself has acknowledged there are many groups which have split off from his personal control. While he is in Iraq, speaking as Muqtada al-Sadr, his influence is limited - much like a local mob captain. However, you must note that he is in Iran now for some “special religious training”. Though his followers have not seen him for many weeks, not only does he have the ability to influence their actions on a broad scale, he has the ability to influence the activities of many of those “break away” groups as well.  His followers understand that his presence and training in Iran is not a coincidence. In a theocracy, an invitation to take special religious training is a huge, ostentatious vote of confidence. The ability of al-Sadr - little more than an upstart at the beginning of this war - to stop the violence by issuing a proclamation is a large feat. Al-Sadr has definitely been given a big Shi’ite promotion.

Iran was able to gain victory because the power of the Iranian theocracy, with al-Sadr as the conduit, was the sole reason for the ending of hostilities. The fighting in Basra is over because Tehran wished it to be.

Let’s get this into the clear air of reason already. The Bush haters are once again arming themselves with only half of the knowledge they need to come to an intelligent conclusion. They write and spout things like this to people who are not going to take the time to find out that they are being fed a bunch of crap.

WASHINGTON - The George W Bush administration has long pushed the “laptop documents” - 1,000 pages of technical documents supposedly from a stolen Iranian laptop - as hard evidence of Iranian intentions to build a nuclear weapon. Now charges based on those documents pose the only remaining obstacles to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) declaring that Iran has resolved all unanswered questions about its nuclear program.

But those documents have also been regarded with great suspicion by US and foreign analysts. German officials identified the source of the laptop documents in November 2004 as the Mujahideen e-Khalq (MEK), which along with its political arm, the National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI), is listed by the U.

Mujahideen e-Khalq is a Marxist organization which began as an opposition to the Shaw and his pro-western government. Because of their Marxist ideology, they also are at odds with the theocracy of the current government. However, you need to understand that the US considers MEK to be a terrorist organization, as does the EU. The source of these documents makes them no more or less suspect than if they had come from any other source in the Middle East. Although it is reported that German intelligence captured the laptop and disclosed the existence of the documents in 2004, it is equally likely the MEK documents could have come from one of two other places.

1) The US Forces in Iraq, when they raided the MEK compounds during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

2) The French security services raid on the Paris headquarters of MEK.

So make certain you understand. The MEK and the US are not in bed together on this and there is nothing to indicate MEK would have known their offices in either country would be raided.

If you are going to question anything, question the age of the documents. The thing most people who have not done intelligence work miss is that information is perishable. If these documents were captured in November 2004, the claim that the Iranian nuclear weapons program was halted in 2003 could still be valid. How many documents do you have on your hard drive that are over a year old?

The issue here is not the documents themselves. Those documents simply raised questions. The issue is regarding how Iran responded to the questions. They have refused IAEA requests to interview scientists who’s names appeared on the documents and they have refused the IAEA the ability to inspect the locations mentioned in the documents. Suspicion is not based upon the documents themselves, but Iran’s reaction to them.

Iranian President Ahmedinejad, speaking at a National Right to Life dinner yesterday, denounced the “theory that human life actually exists”. The Iranian president, known for his denials of the Jewish holocaust in Nazi Germany and that terrorism existed in the Middle East prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as well as his recent statements that there is no homosexuality in Iran, has earned himself a rare place in the Darwin Awards Hall of Fame.

In the prestigious St. Regis Hotel Potomac Ballroom, President Ahmedinejad - to jeers from the NRTL audience -  was quoted as saying, “I cannot imagine why you would claim a right to something, which we in Iran know does not exist. Perhaps you have such things in the United States - with your George Bush - but in Iran there is no such thing as life.”

National Right to Life President, Wanda Franz, could not be reached for comment. However, a staffer at the NRTL Headquarters related that President Ahmadinejad did not actually attend their dinner, but the Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories dinner, which was coincidentally being held in the Mount Vernon Ballroom of the same Washington, DC hotel.

After this statement, a unnamed official close to the Iranian president was quoted as saying that the Mount Vernon Ballroom does not actually exist, so President Ahmadinejad could not possibly have spoken there.

The IAEA has some questions, which may be difficult for Iranian President Ahmedinejad to answer. The answer I anticipate is some revisionist history piece that gets us all giggling at how stupid he is, while Iran continues to make bombs.

VIENNA/UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. investigators want Iran to explain an organizational chart linking projects to process uranium, test explosives and modify a missile cone for a nuclear payload, diplomats briefed on the matter say.

They said a top U.N. nuclear watchdog official last week gave a detailed presentation of intelligence alleging illicit atomic “weaponization studies” by Iran and naming the man who ran them for the Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics.

In a written summary given to Reuters of the presentation, they said Iran had refused to let inspectors interview Mohsen Fakrizadeh or visit sites where the experiments took place.

The summary also confirmed leaks that the briefing for the first time indicated Iran continued the three projects into 2004, calling into question a U.S. intelligence estimate in December that said Iran shelved weaponization research in 2003.

Any takers on a bet this is going to be yet another CIA failure?

Hey, guess what? You can’t continue to talk about President Bush’s suspicion of Iran as being unilateral. I told you how the Dutch feel about Iran right now and now we have indications that Germany has a similar view.

  BERLIN (Reuters) - German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Tuesday a U.S. intelligence report saying Tehran had stopped an active nuclear weapons program in 2003 was not an excuse to give the Islamic Republic the “all clear”.

I am sure you will come up with something else to extend your vilification  of our President over, but this won’t be it.

The die is cast for me now. I have heard enough.

Iran’s president has stated clearly enough that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons. This interview took place on Iranian TV in July 2007.

Interviewer: But the international public opinion cannot prevent this?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Today, international public opinion is the main power in the world…

Interviewer: I don’t want to draw comparisons, but if I recall what happened with regard to Iraq before 2003, there were many anti-war demonstrations, but Bush did what he wanted.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Demonstrations and public opinion are two entirely different things. At the time, international public opinion was against Saddam.

Interviewer: True.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: They considered Saddam to be a dictator.

Interviewer: But they were against the war as well.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: No. The international public opinion wanted to topple Saddam. You should not make this mistake – even if there were some demonstrations. But now the situation is different, because international public opinion believes that justice lies with the Iranian people. That is why hundreds of articles are published daily throughout the world, none of which [supports a war]. Even the top officials in the world are in our favor.

[...]

We must bear in mind that we are becoming a nuclear country. When Iran becomes nuclear, it’s not like any other country becoming nuclear. It means that Iran will automatically become one of the nine [nuclear] countries of the world. That is why they are worried, and not because of four spinning devices, or because of the [nuclear] fuel production. The fact that we produce fuel is not the issue. This is done in Iran, and it enables Iran to sit beside the other eight countries of the world that do so, and say: “I am a partner, I am one of those managing the world.” This is how we will join the global economy. That is why it is so difficult for them to accept. They say: “So far, we used to divide everything by eight. Now, we will have to divide by nine.” It is not the bomb they are worried about…

[...]

Interviewer: You took several measures during the first months of your presidency, but now it seems that you’ve cut down on them, and you don’t send letters to anybody, and you don’t say things that are meant to shock the world, with regard to international relations.

It sounds innocent enough, as nuclear fuel is used for the generation of electricity in nuclear power plants - except for one small detail.

Ahmadinejad mentions that there are 8 nuclear countries, and Iran will become the 9th. Well, there are some 30 countries who a “nuclear” from a power generation standpoint. There are only 8 other countries, which have nuclear weapons.

Here is the admission

That is why they are worried, and not because of four spinning devices, or because of the [nuclear] fuel production. The fact that we produce fuel is not the issue. This is done in Iran, and it enables Iran to sit beside the other eight countries of the world that do so, and say: “I am a partner, I am one of those managing the world.” This is how we will join the global economy. That is why it is so difficult for them to accept. They say: “So far, we used to divide everything by eight. Now, we will have to divide by nine.”

Don’t take my word for it - see for yourself.