When considering the recent visit of Mahmud Ahmadinejad to the United Nations this week I looked at what was released by the Tehran Times on the subject. I wanted to see how they were viewing the trip and how they might be informing their people of how it was going.

This is a direct quote from that paper.

“It has been our honor and privilege to meet with President Ahmadinejad ... we have found the Iranian President to be a deeply religious man, dedicated to a peaceful world, based on mutual respect, fairness and dialogue,"" Rabbi Weiss wrote.”

Now I thought for a moment and searched for how Columbia University, about as liberal an institution of learning as exists in the world, felt about Iran’s President last year.



And I decided to listen to his answer on the Holocaust from 2006



And then I went to look at what he had to say about America recently



Considering all these comments from his own mouth, respectfully I wonder where does Rabbi Weiss find a dedication to world peace, mutual respect or fairness? Truly it’s a shame the Tehran Times is so controlled as to be unable to comment on what the rest of the world hears.

Labels: Columbia University, Holocaust, Iran, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, Rabbi Weiss, Tehran Times, United Nations

Here we go, the polispeak is in full force. Senator Obama has suddenly realized that Iran affects the price of oil. In fact he has been advised, recently one would assume, of the following:



Now let’s ignore the fact that both the Democrats and Republicans share equally in the lack of alternative energy sources for America in the past 40 years. Neither side can point a finger as ultimately both sides failed the American people on this issue, multiple times.

Rather I want to focus on a scenario.

Senator Obama has made it clear time and again that he wants to speak with Iran. Let’s say he is President (which is not all bad) and he does speak with Iran. Say the meeting goes ok, or so we are lead to believe. They promise not to create any (more) nuclear weapons. And then they go out and “shut down the Straight of Hormus”.

What does President Obama do? Speak with them more? What argument or negotiation can he make that is better than the, at least, $300 a barrel price of oil in the mere first minutes of the blockade? What would be better than the probable $500 a barrel price that would come easily in the first day?

Considering that Senator Obama has repeatedly stated that a strong offense, ie military, is not the means he would use first – and/or possibly ever – what recourse does he have?

Well Democrats have said that higher oil and gasoline prices are good. Because they will force America off of oil. That we need to use alternative energy. So the thought of $12 a gallon for gasoline must be thrilling to them.

Of course if this is true then you have to wonder if President Obama would say anything to Iran. Or if he could say anything that he felt was better than having higher oil prices.

At the same time remember this. If oil suddenly went to $300, heating oil 3x overnight. Gasoline goes to $12 and people will horde it in a manner that would make the 1970 look like a vacation. Millions would not be able to heat or cool their homes. Tens of thousands of businesses would close overnight. Unemployment would rocket past the levels last seen during the President Carter Administration. The cost of every good in America, or sold overseas, would be so high that a gallon of milk would cost like buying printer ink cartridges today.

So while Senator Obama is trying to use Iran as a scare, and a source of blame only on Republicans, remember the facts.

Democrats are as much to blame as anyone. Democrats want oil prices higher. Obama wants to talk to Iran. Obama does not like to use the military (even in the case of a 9/11 type of incident).



Diplomacy while businesses shut down, cost of everything skyrockets, and people freeze. That’s a really great plan. And every American will he stateside to experience every second of it.

Labels: Democratic Party, energy alternatives, Iran, oil per barrel, oil prices, Senator Barack Obama

Lately my conversations with ultra-liberals have began to take a repetative tone. I’m hearing complete paragraphs of conversations that are verbatim. I’ve begun to wonder if it’s some kind of Ipod track that they have hooked up to their mouths. It’s as if their brains have shutdown to any original thought or the concequences of the party line.

Ok so some of the conversations have not been quite that bad. Some. But there have been massive misconceptions, faulty facts, and a complete disregard for consequences.

So let’s look at a couple of common quotes.

Oil companies are bad for making big profits.

Since when is making a profit a bad thing? Is that not part of the American dream? Isn’t that why every small business in America was created?

But go deeper. Beyond the jealousy of the profits they make, look at the impact they have. Oil companies do not make more money with higher oil costs – OPEC does. Gasolines price is ~60% based on the cost of oil. In the past year oil has more than doubled in price; yet gasoline has only risen ~40% in the same time. That means the oil companies are doing a good job of keeping the cost down.

The profits that oil companies make is not isolated to 2 people as ultra-liberals would like you to think. Millions of mutual funds and IRA’s hold large positions in these oil companies. When they make a profit (which is their job) their stock goes up and investors and retirees have more money. Capping their profit in fact will take money away from retirees and investors, thus hurting the average American.

Capping profits will not stop the need of an oil company from making a profit. To get that profit they will need to cut jobs and stop research into efficiancies, exploration, and alternatives. That means the unemployed in the nation will go up. That will hurt the economy. And if they cut jobs, hundreds of other companies that work directly with this industry will have to cut back too. And by the way, the price of oil will not be forced down a penny while this happens.

We need to leave Iraq now.

As I have said many times that’s not only impossible, it’s stupid. You cannot end a fight just by walking away, not after people have died. Walk away and the orphans (possibly created by the people we are fighting and having nothing to do with our troops) will turn to the only people with power in the area. A great many of those people want to kill every American because we exist. They are the same people that created 9/11 and several other terrorist acts that have failed in the over 2300 days since 9/11. Those orphans will be fed hate against America, and I will guarantee will be committing terrorist acts against us in 5 years from an immediate pullout.

Add to that the fact that if Al Quida and Iran get to boast about making the ‘cowardly Americans run away’ they will gain respect and recruits to their causes.

We will have troops in Iraq for 100 years.

Pay attention to what you are hearing and being told. Troops in Iraq is not fighting a war in Iraq. We have had troops in Germany for 50 years, Japan for 50 years, Korea for 40 years, and Vietnam for 30 years (ronding off the years). Last I checked we are not at war with any of these countries. Nor are we removing those troops and bases in any decade in the near future.

President Bush has ruined America.

How? As far as I have lived and am aware there is nothing I do today that I have not been able to do in the past. There is no restriction to travel, doing business, paying bills, dating, or any other aspect of life that did not exist 30 years ago. So how has America been ruined?

We still elect officials and create laws. We still drive cars and build homes. We still criticize the government and elected officials when they do or porpose something stupid. We are till the most free nation in the world, with tens of thousands entering the nation every year for that reason (illegally or not).

What I think is really meant by that is someone saying that does not like President Bush. I agree that President Bush may be the least articulate, least intelligent Presidents ever. I agree that he has failed the nation in several aspects. But he is not the horrendous life-threatening force that some want to see him as.

So many want to live in the past. They can’t get past the decision, made by Senators and Cogress – of both political parties – to go to war in Iraq. But that was the past, as is who to blame. The 2008 election is about the future and answers to issues happening now, not in 2002.

I want change. Real change.

This is a really stupid statement. Unless the definition has been altered since I was in 3rd grade, the 2008 elecetion guarantees change. No matter who wins, change is a fact. The comment makes about as much sense as saying that a person is “keeping it real”.

The statement should be ‘I want to change X’ or ‘I want a positive change in Y’. Better yet is the statement ‘I will change Z like this and it will be positive’. But if a politician were to say that then you might actually form an opinion on what they think and intend to do. Some would agree others not. You could lose an election (or gain a landslide) for such comments. Having a plan and a clearly stated objective is a boon and a bane.

But just ambigously wanting to change things, since that is the only predictable outcome of the 2008 presidential election, is safe and allows voters to inject their emotions. That definitely will win an election. To bad that it makes no impact or potential steps torwards improving anything. It can’t since it doesn’t even attempt to define what it will change or how.

In the 2006 mid-term elections Democrats were elected under the rally call of change. What change happened is that millions of taxpayer dollars were used to hold a multitude of Congerssional meetings on issues that never involved a single law being broken, the health of professional athletes, pointing the finger of blame at one political party or another. Please tell me how any of that prevented the mortgage crisis, put food on a table, or money in anyones pocket? But you can’t call them liars, because it was a change.

Is Senator John McCain President Bush? No. So a 3rd term of Bush is a stupid and feeble statement based on capturing an emotional response and not the benefit of the nation. Is global warming real? Probably not, but there is nothing wrong with having a cleaner world. Can you fix an economy (ie giving people more money in their pockets) by increasing the taxes they pay? It’s never worked before.

So when you think of the Presidential election think of this – How do you want to change the issues you think are important to America? How will those changes happen without hurting other Americans? Who has a plan to attain those changes? What plan is based in the reality (and not emotion) of the world today?

Labels: 2008 election, Crude oil prices, Democratic Party, Iran, Iraq War, OPEC, President Bush, Senator John McCain

So in the 4th day of the start of the unofficial race between Senator McCain and Senator Obama the barbs are continuing to hit their marks. Of course the start of the race lies with President Bush.

It must be said that President Bush was wrong as he spoke overseas. A U.S. President should NEVER discuss the internal political matters in a foreign state. It weakens any potential President in terms of foreign policy and is little different than when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to affect policy when she visited the Middle East.

Going beyond that, I do have to wonder about what Senator McCain first stated

‘What does Senator Obama expect to gain…’

Seriously, what does he expect? If an American President speaks to any nation that promotes terror, they elevate that nation. Without a clear ability to gain something of equal importance, direct talks hurt America.

I gave a friend this example,

“No one is concerned about the threat of Papua New Guinea today. But if the President of the free world went there and spoke to their leader about their military and goals, it would instantly be news. New Guinea would instantly have more political power than other nations in their region and be more involved with every world power. Now imagine if you just change the country to Iran.

Imagine Iran saying that America was so afraid they had to talk, tail between their legs, to the powerful Iran. And so on.”

The fact is that Senator Obama is wrong on this. He is wrong to make the comparison about President Kennedy. While it is true that there were talks to remove all future nuclear weapons from Cuba, and to discuss the cold war, it wasn’t because President Kennedy was a talkative guy. President Kennedy threatened and near took America to war, over the missiles and Cuba. It was the Cuban Missile Crisis that created the talks. So it was the threat of force, and only that imminent threat that got talks going.

When you compare President Kennedy’s motivation to talk to the USSR to the plans of today’s Presidential candidates, he doesn’t match up to Senator Obama. Maybe those to young to recall the incident will not realize this, maybe those older have romanticized the event, but President Kennedy did not just start talking, and the threat of the post-nuclear USSR was far more tangible than Iran at this moment.

So think about it. How does elevating Iran, a nation that denies the Holocaust and desires the death of Israel and advocate the overthrow of the American political system, make America safer? What argument could Senator Obama provide that would suddenly convince Amenajad (President of Iran) top change his mind or tactics? Especially since he claims these beliefs are part of how he views his faith?

I’m sorry for Senator Obama’s fans, but such a plan or even the idea is idealistic and based in a fantasy world that has nothing to do with the here and now. It may sound nice, and is preferable to the current status or violence, but it’s about as attainable as buying a gallon of Ethanol in New York City or a snowstorm at the equator.

I’ll compare Senator Obama and Senator McCain in depth shortly.

Labels: Cuban Missile Crisisis, foreign policy, Iran, Israel, Middle East, President Bush, President John F. Kennedy, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, USSR

So here are some of the thoughts I’ve had about the first part of Senator McCain’s interview with Bill O’Reilly on the O’Reilly Factor. I plan to provide the full set of videos as soon as I can have them downloaded. Currently I’m having an issue with the sound mixer. Please be patient.



To start with it’s obvious that Senator McCain has a far superior level of experience when it comes to the military and military actions. Neither Democratic candidate has served a single day in defense of this nation or ever in the military during peace time. That lack of understanding may be fine for a President during peace times, but whether you like it or not we are currently engaged in 2 military actions – thus experience matters. Ultra-liberals may enjoy the concept of peace, from cozy houses without fear of death from anything, but that freedom is only possible by the cost soldiers pay every day since the creation of America.

The conversation goes on to discuss taxes. Now as I have previously posted - $31,850 is the new definition of rich - both Democratic candidates have voted to increase the taxes of everyone making $31,850 and up. A far cry from their claims of only the rich being taxed don’t you think. Senator McCain voted against that increase.

But consider something else. If you own any stocks, mutual funds, or bonds the Democratic candidates want to increase the tax you pay if your investment makes money. So all that money you are trying to save for retirement – kiss a good part of it away if the Democrats have their way. That money will go to Government programs to decipher why April 2008 was the coldest on record, but Global Warming is creating a hot house in the world.

But don’t forget that all these taxes are coming out of pockets that have to pay more money for food because the glut of ethanol production is using up corn that would otherwise go for food. And gasoline costs more because of OPEC, and the fact that we are pushing for more ethanol plants instead of oil refineries. Don’t even mention nuclear power to the eco-ultra-liberals. Their fear of hurting an owl or some such supersedes the fact that without an alternative source of energy millions will eventually die.

Moving on to Senator Obama’s preference to speak with nations that are dedicated to the eradication of America. Senator Obama wants to speak with North Korea, Iran and other nations that hate our existence. Why? What can you offer or discuss with a country that has spent 50 years on one thought only, finishing the war they had with us (that’s North Korea for the younger readers). They have gone nearly bankrupt and many are starving as they divert all funds and food to their military.

How about Iran. A nation that would kill millions solely because of their religion. Do you believe that leaders with such intolerance would be any friendlier to a nation of multiple religions they disagree with, and lifestyles they abhor? They are extremists, given, but how do you compromise with someone that believes that God wants them to obliterate the existence of those that do not believe and act exactly as they do?

I need only say one thing about the media driven Rev. Wright issue, which I thing Senator McCain nailed.

“This campaign is not going to be about, in all due respect about, Rev. Wright or Mr. Ayers. It’s going to be about vision; it’s going to be about a plan of action for the American people that are hurting right now.”

As for the government running healthcare, I stand by Senator McCain. Name one agency that the Government runs that is fiscally sound. Name one Agency that is not mired in red tape and inefficiency. Name one that provides all the services it is supposed to do, and in a timely manner. I know of none. And the Democratic candidates want to create another of these agencies because they believe that YOU are not smart enough to be given money and chose the healthcare program you think is best for you and your family. How kind of them.

But there is also the media to consider with Senator John McCain. Where were the months long outrage and media investigations of his connection to Pastor John Heagy. Aren’t that pastors comments against gays and Catholics unacceptable? But if Senator McCain’s refutation of his unsolicited remarks, and endorsement, are enough to keep the media off his back – shouldn’t Senator Obama’s be the same?

But the media is far from even-handed, or focused on the issues. The New York Times has made that very clear as their attack on Senator McCain was backed by nothing. It was a blatant attempt to discredit a Presidential candidate whose political views they don’t agree with. Another reason I say that you need to check the candidate’s positions as the media wants to decide that choice for you and get a President that may not be in your best interest.

It should be noted though that Senator McCain has weathered this and other smears throughout his career. At no time has he fallen back and whined about it. He has refuted the positions and waited as other media groups proved these smears false. This is highly unlike at least one Democratic Presidential candidate that runs behind their gender anytime they are questioned strongly or find their campaign in a weak position.

Lastly, I know of no one that questions the honor and dedication of Senator McCain. Anyone that would call him a traitor, in the face of direct first-person comments contrary by fellow Prisoners of War, is simply a fool. There are few in the nation that have given so much to this nation, and to besmirch that is to be ungrateful and deceptive in the most cruel and vile way. There is no reason unsubstantiated smears should be allowed for any candidate, regardless of political party, because such claims against Senator McCain are no better than calling Senator Obama a fanatical Muslim or attacking his race.

Well that’s what I got out of the first part of Senator McCain’s interview. I admit that I agree with many of his opinions. The issue of immigration is not one of them obviously. But that will be discussed in a later video on the issue.

Labels: Bill O'Reilly, ethanol, global warming, Iran, Presidential election race 2008, Republican Party, Rev. Wright, Senator John McCain, tax policy, universal healthcare

Crude oil prices have been on a seesaw of volatility, most notably since hitting $100 a barrel in January of this year. Since that time there have been recession fears in America, massive rate cuts by the Federal Reserve, horrendous losses by most financials due to the mortgage sub-prime loans, and drops in the stock markets to near bear levels. That says nothing of the current growing battle between Venezuela and Exxon.

Overall the pressure has been on the downside of pricing, as many of the indicators express a likelihood of reduced demand as industries slow down. Yet not all the pressure is one sided. And the economic outlook is seen as not as bleak as once thought.

"The market has been struggling with whether we are recession-bound or not," John Kilduff, senior vice president for energy at brokerage MF Global in New York said. "That's an indicator [Japan’s economy] that whether or not we are, there's some life out there in the rest of the world and energy demand could hold up."

It’s this factor that has added to the price of crude oil recently, topping $95 a barrel on February 14th. But I think there is an aspect that has yet to be factored into the market. That factor has nothing to do with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s thoughts the U.S. economy will rebound at the end of the year. It has little to do with the lack of effort of states like Michigan to create a renewable portfolio standard. It has everything to do with Venezuela.

It’s a given that the 90,000 barrels of low quality crude exported by Venezuela to the U.S. is a fraction of what the nation used. The threatened cut of sales to the United States is more likely to have a negative effect on Venezuela than effect America or impact crude prices significantly. But it’s the ally of Venezuela, or more accurately the ally of Hugo Chavez that matters. That ally would be Iran.

Iran is a major oil exporter, and no friend of America. In recent months there have been several conversations of mutual support between Iran and Venezuela, and condemnation of the U.S. It is this mutual anti-American sentiment that could drive up prices beyond an OPEC reduction in supply might create.

If the current court actions continue to favor Exxon over Petroleos de Venezuela, and negotiations fail with ConocoPhillips causing them to follow in Exxon’s direction it could start a landslide against that nation. In the face of that kind of pressure, and the refusal to sell oil to America, Iran may join with Venezuela in a stance against America. This combination of political action and national leadership prejudices is an unknown that I have yet to see any analyst or blogger mention. It’s probable that the reason for that is the unlikely nature of it coming to pass. But unlikely is not improbable.

Beyond this scenario the more likely thing to expect is that OPEC will be cutting production levels during the March 5th meeting. Without a dramatic downturn in the U.S. and world economies, in that order of importance, a return to $100 a barrel will likely happen again for a brief period before the summer and then drop back into the mid -90’s. But I believe a surge will occur along with a resurgence of the American economy in the 3rd and 4th quarters. I will say that by the end of 2008 oil breaking $110 is likely.

Now let’s see if this comes to pass.

Labels: Ben Bernanke, ConocoPhillips, Crude oil prices, Exxon, Federal Reserve, hugo chavez, Iran, John Kilduff, MF Global, OPEC, Petroleos de Venezuela, Venezuela

**This can also be found at www.Presidentialraceblog.com, where I am a contributing author.**

There are few things that can be named that are the bane of not only multiple Presidents of the past, but the current and future President as well. Perhaps the most serious issue is the most complicated as well. Iran.

In one word I describe a key exporter of oil, a terrorist supporting nation, a potentially nuclear armed country, and a fanatically Islamic regime not to mention a government that would prefer to see America destroyed and in ashes since the 1970’s. Talk about a mouthful. I mean there is no simple answer to how this nation should be dealt with. Unless you listen to the Presidential candidates.

“On the Democratic side, there has been too much silliness on the issue of engagement, and a candidate's particular choice of words for conditions for talking. The rhetoric on the Republican side ignores a bunch of important questions - the Iranian response, our standing in the region and around the world, and poisoning relations with Iran for generations to come."

Why are the candidates so one-sided and tunnel-visioned? Because they are pandering to their respective parties to gain the nomination. While that seems well and good, as it’s been the manner in which the candidates have discussed Iraq, terrorism and most of the vital issues in this election-cycle, it has ramifications. It also fails to present a realistic outlook on what actions we need to take.

I consistently believe that any candidate that cannot present a plan that envisions, or even allows for; the best outcome for the nation does not deserve to be President. That does not mean that a poll-watching, publicity bandwagoner deserves the position any better. But we need to hear voices that can lead, not react to polls or hedge their bets as they await the other candidates’ responses. Yet that is what we are getting.

Iran has made it clear that they wish to see America crushed. It’s been televised in their speeches for decades. It’s been the sentiment since they took our embassy personnel hostage. And there is no doubt that given an opportunity they would use a nuclear weapon against the U.S., if not several if they had them.

But to attack Iran is to invite the shutdown of oil imports to America immediately. To impose sanctions is to invite higher world oil prices, and inflict pain on our economy. To simply have talks is to stalemate, allowing the development of the very weapons we don’t want and should not allow development.

Obviously we need a multiple pronged tactic that employs several strategies all at once. But multiple tactics and the implication that far more severe actions can take place only when the opponent believes the actions can be taken. Democrats have made it clear to date, that they will take virtually no action that would involve the military, and the Republicans have virtually guaranteed military responses. Where is the one person, at least, that can convey a credible ability to do more than just one thing.

As tensions grow, the threat increases, and the time and power of our current President wanes with the nearing of the next election (not to mention comments from political rivals that weaken and insult the sitting President) we need to see someone step up.
Maybe there is time left for one candidate to become Presidential in their stance, but not as long as they are all so preoccupied with trying to buy cheap votes by looking Presidential. And unlike comedian Billy Crystal’s character Nando Fernando famous saying, it is not “better to look good than feel good.” Our President needs to be more than an image of leadership, and the reason is again just one word.

Iran.

Labels: election 2008, Iran, nuclear weapons, oil

**This can also be seen at Presidential Race Blog, where I am a contributing author.**

As we approach of the primaries and then enter the Presidential race of 2008 in earnest, more Americans are beginning to pay real attention to who the candidates are. It’s given that there have been multiple debates on each political side, and many organizations have made standpoints on issues they believe are essential in their potential nominee. Yet, most Americans have yet to pay any attention.

That will soon change as we approach December and the early primaries of 2008 loom on the horizon. If you thought Christmas, Hanukah, or Kwanza were about religion, gifts and family cheer you will be sadly proven incorrect. This year that time will be about immigration, taxes, and the Iraq war.

This can be said with some authority when the advertising numbers are viewed.

“National cable networks sold 301 ad units between January and Sept. 2, 2007. That compares with a mere 19 units sold over a 15-month period during the last presidential cycle, January 2003 to March 2004.”

There is no end in sight. But what do these numbers really mean?

Estimates state that up to, or far more than, $2.7 billion will be spent on political advertising by Election Day in November 2008. That’s a huge number. That’s just swamping television, broadcast radio, and the internet with political ads. I would presume that at 30 seconds a piece the total number of ads, placed back to back, could equate to roughly a week or more of nothing but ads.

That’s a lot of time to say as little as possible and yet gain as many votes as possible. In all honesty, it’s an attempt to blur the facts and coerce the votes on the cheap. Because there is not a scholar on the planet that can summarize the Iraq war, and its ramifications into a 30 second sound bite. Hell, the debate by President Lincoln took hours and that was over 100 years ago, without a war, terrorism, nuclear weapons, illegal immigration, or taxes. If the Presidency was so complicated then that it took hours to justify the worthiness of who is to be elected, how long should it take now?

I realize that the immediacy of the world today does not lend itself to long debates fill with facts and details. I realize that superficial items like the clothing and colors the candidates wear are more easily digested. Still one has to ask, with so much time being devoted to pick candidate A, why is it being split up into multiple 30 second ads. My thought is that we the people are being misled to a degree and the candidates know it.

If any candidate was seriously interested in letting the nation know what they think, they would buy a half-hour block of time, and run that once a month on cable and broadcast television. They would send out transcripts of that discussion with the people, and post it on the internet. They would give definite answers and stand on a platform everyone can understand. And poll numbers would not sway their beliefs.

Think about it. I will use Senator Clinton as an example, but the same actions can be found with all the candidates. We have seen Senator Clinton strongly demand that the nation go to war with Iraq and Saddam Hussein, coincidentally while polls were favoring such action. Not all agreed with the information available for the war, but Sen. Clinton was a staunch advocate. As polls went against the war Senator Clinton came out against the war, at the same time plans were made that she would run for the Presidency. Now in the middle of her campaign, after defending organizations like MoveOn.org and questioning President Bush’s comments on Iran, Senator Clinton has begun to state that she may not take all the troops out of Iraq during her first term and that military strikes against Iran are feasible answers to their nuclear ambitions.

If you only follow the 30 second soundbites of the ads, you will miss these comments and turns in policy. They are minimized and drowned out by her regional and targeted messages. The Senator has distracted attention with ‘thoughts’ about college funds for all the children and denouncement of the plans of her peers. I am not saying her actions are correct or incorrect. I am highlighting the fact that the political ads obscure the actual platform that Senator Clinton, and to varying degrees the other candidates, hold.

We deserve better. We need to pay more attention. The 2008 election is not a MTV video. The lives of all Americans will be changed by the next President. I strongly believe that. So as the attention increases, and the ads fill the airwaves I suggest taking a bit of time to look back and learn the history of these candidates. Compare what they have said in the past with what they say today. Check how and when they changed their positions. It’s one thing to come to a better understanding on an idea, it’s another to just go with the popular opinion for the sake of gaining political power on the emotional cheap.

IF we don’t, you may not like what happens after the election when it’s too late.

Labels: election 2008, Iran, Iraq War, political ads, Presidential race, Senator Clinton

Well here is something that has me wondering. The Presidential candidates and other noted political figures have all made statements about the nuclear program in Iran. Let me correct myself, several of the candidates, not all. But the fact that any have commented is interesting.


This occurred at the press conference hosted by The Israel Project (TIP). The goal is stated as increased sanctions and pressure to cause Iran to end their nuclear efforts. Which is a pretty strong stance for several candidates, especially when the efforts to retreat from Iraq are considered.

This is important to think about because Iraq is directly connected to this. The connection is that Iran is helping to create instability in Iraq. Because of that the foreign policy of the next President may dictate how the Middle East will be over the next decade.

Consider this. If America retreats from Iraq, and pressures Iran with sanctions, Iran must try to absorb parts of Iraq (or effectively control them) to avoid the economic pain. At the same time, Iran can use the disenfranchised to bolster anti-American sentiment – promoting terrorists that would seek to attack Americans world-wide. On top of that, there is no guarantee that Iran would stop its nuclear ambitions.

That is scary, terrorists with nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, if America stays in Iraq and continues to fight Iran will still continue to support instability in the region. Not as much as without a U.S. presence, but still all the same. The economic pressure cannot be offset (or is minimized) by gaining access to Iraq. Fewer terrorists can be trained and any continued efforts of nuclear weapons can have the added fear of a pre-emptive strike by American forces. The cost of all this is American soldier lives. Not tens of thousands, but thousands per year.

Neither situation is foolproof. Nor will either make the U.S. public happy. It will cost American lives either way. And the Middle East will continue to be in turmoil for a decade at least.

Which effort is best? Which outcome is most likely? There is no answer. There is also no answer on what plan is the best from ANY of the Presidential candidates. One of the candidates must come up with a plan and let us know what is going on. Obviously any plan will not satisfy the whole of America. But a plan is better than none at all. I think everyone will agree on that.

So the question is, to prevent/persuade/deter Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, what do we do in Iraq?

Labels: election 2008, Iran, Iraq War, nuclear weapons, presidential candidate, terrorism, The Israel Project