What is most noteworthy about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rambling letter to President Bush is that certain people actually want to treat it as a good faith effort to open up a dialogue between our two nations and believe President Bush should jump at the opportunity.
The Associated Press presents it in that light and points to Ahmadinejad's desire "to build on a shared faith in God," even though the letter is a scathing indictment of the American government, which Ahmadinejad says is the object of an "ever-increasing global hatred."
Those trifles aside, the AP observes, wistfully, that "Ahmadinejad strikes the tone of a man who is troubled by a friend's actions and decides to sit down and give him a little advice." Yes, the benevolent dictator "delivered U.S. President George W. Bush a history lesson, philosophy lecture and religious sermon laced with references to Jesus Christ."
Liberal talk show hosts Bill Press and Thom Hartmann also regarded the letter as "thoughtful" and containing "good ideas." Likewise, television hosts Matt Lauer and Charlie Gibson were impressed that Ahmadinejad initiated direct communications with our government for the first time in 27 years. Why would the administration reject this "overture"?
Sen. Dianne Feinstein also saw it as an "overture" that we shouldn't ignore. We must show a willingness "to talk and to negotiate," she said. "I think bluster and arrogance does not befit the United States."
We could easily surmise that Ahmadinejad's letter was designed solely to unite the Arab street against the United States. But given the liberals' reaction, we might be forced to conclude the despot was wooing the left side of the American street as well.
Leave it to the American left to play right into the hands of yet another of America's sworn enemies by treating this raving zealot who denies the Holocaust occurred and has called for Israel to be wiped off the map as a respectable statesman.
Is it any coincidence this letter was fired off at a time when the United States and, to a lesser extent, other nations are pressuring Iran to cease and desist its nuclear program?
The AP and fawning liberals can swoon over Ahmadinejad's gracious history lesson to President Bush, but the main history lesson Ahmadinejad has learned is the incalculable value in turning America against itself in the war on terror. If he can present himself as a leader earnestly seeking diplomatic solutions with the United States and paint the United States as the recalcitrant, "arrogant" empire who refuses to reason, he is miles ahead.
The Bush administration has correctly dismissed his disjointed missive as propaganda and is wisely refusing to take the bait. You can't take this man's diatribe seriously -- as a sincere "overture" to begin discussions.
If you still need a reminder of how dangerous it would be to have Democrats in charge of our national security, you should compare Secretary Rice's reaction to the letter to that of former Clinton administration Secretary of State, now author and weightlifter, Madeleine Albright.
Albright said the United States should counter Iran's nuclear threat with direct talks instead of "saber rattling." She assured us the issues Ahmadinejad raised in his letter are "not irrelevant." Does she mean we should seriously discuss with him Israel's right to exist or better yet -- beg his forgiveness for attacking Iraq under false pretenses?
More importantly, be advised that what Albright means by "direct talks" is that the United States ought to communicate one on one with Iran, rather than involving other nations.
In the first place, the United States isn't saber rattling. I've yet to hear President Bush say that we were going to invade Iran if it didn't discontinue its nuclear program. Secondly, to suggest that this madman has legitimate grievances that can be resolved through a little schmoozing is shockingly naive.
If I didn't know better -- and I don't -- I might think Albright and other leading liberal lights were setting a trap for President Bush. While they've savaged him for years for his reckless "unilateralism" and alienating our allies, they're now proposing we engage in unilateralism and alienate our allies.
Of course, we didn't approach Iraq unilaterally, but worked tirelessly to build a larger international coalition. If we were to assume the role of sole negotiator with Iran, we would be letting the U.N. and other nations off the hook and setting ourselves up to take the blame when diplomatic efforts fail. Liberals would blame Bush for failed diplomacy and any ensuing military action -- by the United States or other nations.
Liberals are showing their true colors again for all to see. No amount of provocation is ever enough for them. We just need a little more sensitivity training. We just need to open our eyes, hearts and minds to the "very good ideas" of this "thoughtful" Iranian "teacher."
Afghan Woman Who Was Beaten To Death By Mob For Allegedly Desecrating The Koran Was Innocent | Matt Vespa
‘He’s Had His Run’: Group Wants to Replace Andrew Jackson with Influential Women on Twenty Dollar Bill | Cortney O'Brien
Headache: Three Shiite Militias Withdraw From The Fight In Iraq, ISIS Continues To Skim Millions From Iraqi Government Workers | Matt Vespa