There is only one response. A strong and angry posture backed by weaponry. I sincerely believe we needn't even use the weaponry if we show the will. The Quran gives them an 'out'. The muslim goes to war when it looks like the enemy is weak.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at June 14, 2006 9:25 AM

President George W. Bush singled out Iran, Iraq and North Korea as "an axis of evil," bluntly warning the three nations that they could soon become targets in the US-led war on terrorism.

Delivering his first State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress, Bush put the three so-called rogue states on notice that the United States is prepared to act, alone if it has to, against them should they threaten their people, their neighbors or others.

In addition, the president said the United States could and would bear the immense cost of a military campaign against any one the nations, maintaining that the price of doing nothing to counter such threats "would be catastrophic."

"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world," Bush said in the speech which appeared to anticipate an extension of the anti-terror campaign beyond Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden.

"By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger," he said. "They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred.

"They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

"All nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security," he said.

"We will be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer.

"The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons," he said, laying down a direct challenge.

Bush said that while Iran, Iraq and North Korea might not have been particularly active since the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington which sparked the US war on terrorism, he was not fooled by them.

"We know their true nature," he said.

"Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedomBut Bush saved his harshest comments for Iraq -- frequently mentioned as a possible next target in the anti-terror campaign.

Bush left his warning to the three countries vague without mentioning any specific actions that could be taken against them, but he hinted that he would move to use the full force of American military might if he had to. .

"It costs a lot to fight this war ... and we must be prepared for future operations," Bush said.

Posted by: Mackie at June 14, 2006 10:01 AM

I hope that the Isrealis have not ruled out a military response. Their survival depends on it.

Posted by: Infidel33 at June 14, 2006 11:01 AM

I have no sympathy for the Bushies or Blankley at all at this point. Blankley ended his article with, "Where are the cold-eyed realists when we need them?"

Well, Tony, I'll tell you where the "cold-eyed realists" are: Bush ignored them, and those who were working in his Administration he even fired. Was bringing "democracy" (whatever Bush thought that meant) to Iraq by armed force as a way to spark freedom throughout the Muslim world, an example of "cold-eyed realism," or was that a quixotic fantasy, or was it something in between? How about ignoring General Shinseki's call for 300,000 troops and going into Iraq with even less than the 150,000 Rumsfeld had originally planned for (because the 4th Infantry Division was bottled up in Turkey due to their stalling tactics)? Was that an example of "cold-eyed realism"?

The "cold-eyed realists" would have told Bush that to wage an effective worldwide campaign against jihad can't be done on the cheap. And democracy is not some magic fairy dust you can sprinkle on the Muslim world.

And we "cold-eyed realists" would have told Bush that you can't detach the problem of terrorism from the Islamic concept of jihad, and you can't detach the Islamic concept of jihad from the rest of Islam that easily. Was calling Islam a "religion of peace" despite its many calls to violent armed jihad against secular governments an example of "cold-eyed realism"?

Tony, you have some nerve to call for "cold-eyed realism" now after 4 1/2 years of the opposite.

Posted by: Steven L. at June 14, 2006 2:37 PM

Mackie,
Bush has long since forgotten his "Axis of Evil" speech. He hasn't even used that phrase in ages. The debacle in Iraq, which was largely of Rumsfeld's making (Rumsfeld is to Iraq as McNamara was to Vietnam), has so weakened the U.S. strategic position that we are simply incapable of taking strong military action at this point. We could launch air strikes against Iran, sure. But we could never be sure of destroying Iran's secret nuclear installations, since Representative Jane Harman admitted to the news media a few months ago that our intelligence community doesn't really know where they are (thank you for letting Iran know that, Jane). It will turn into another cruise-missile light show for the CNN cameras, just like the four day Desert Fox operation Clinton launched against Saddam's Iraq, which accomplished nothing. Almost immediately Clinton had to admit that he couldn't determine how effective the strike had been. And in exchange for such a failed strike, Iran will retaliate with terrorism. We are an open society. We may not know where the key targets are in Iran, but Iran knows where the key targets are in U.S. assets worldwide.

Posted by: Steven L. at June 14, 2006 2:45 PM

"Ring the bell backward"*

Tony Blankley is one of the only ones doing the math re: the Muslim Menace and speaking publicly about the results. Nearly every Western Leader knows exactly what he's talking about in this piece. So how does one explain their complete reticence to discuss or act upon the realities he writes about?

Here's the math as I see it:

Pre-emptive war is intolerable to those who are incapable of waging it. This would include every nation in the West with the obvious exception of the USA. Here is an excellent article by Robert Kagan entitled "Power and Weakness" discussing the chasm between European "soft" power (which is no power at all) and US Power (which is genuine, but perilously hampered by Europe's weakness and decadence):

http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html

The Europeans aren't doing their part, and US power clearly has its limits. According to Kagan's thesis -- the Europeans are incapable of joining us in this battle. As such, were the US to wage unilateral pre-emptive war against Iran to destroy her nuclear capabilities -- what would be the logical outcome? I always say predicting the future is like pushing on a string -- it's impossible to really predict -- but I think it's reasonable to assume that an effective attack against Iranian nuclear capabilities would escalate Global Jihad exponentially. ALL Muslims would be encouraged to engage in Jihad, support it energetically -- They all know this. Our Leadership knows this. Funding from Saudi Arabia and Iran would explode for their respective Global Jihadi activities. Would the world be wise enough to recognize that the Muslim sponsors of this renewed Islamic Jihad, this crime against humanity (i.e. Iran and Saudi Arabia -- including their tools of Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Qatar, Kuwait, Libya, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc) are the only ones responsible and that they should be punished further? Or would the rest of the World take the opportunity to blame EVERY new Muslim terrorist atrocity EVERYWHERE on Earth on the USA?

Bingo -- the world would blame it all on the USA, and help foment the Islamic Jihad against the West exponentially. I doubt we (the non-could survive.

So the only nation capable and willing to destroy the Iranian nuclear terror project is grievously inhibited from crushing it by her feckless allies. There is little incentive for America to do this deed -- and it must not be left to tiny Israel. If she were to act -- all bets would be off on her survival. The cowards of planet Earth would unite in a chorus of anti-Semitic rage so gargantuan that Israel would be swept away by the hurricane.

If the premise is correct, and one then pushes on the string a little furter, one would have to conclude that the only path forward is to allow Iran to acquire nukes -- and allow the Saudis (and the others) to gain access to nukes as well through dirty Muslim dealings -- then endure the horrors commensurate with this new reality (i.e. nuclear extortion against the West or, more likely, actual bombs going off in Western Capitals) until the cowards, the appeasers, and the fence sitters are convinced that annihilation of this enemy is warranted and justifiable.

Ultimately -- I think the outcome will be in our favor -- this enemy IS annihilatable -- but only after we have walked within the most horrid precincts of terror, death, and destruction that the world has ever witnessed. Of course I could be wrong! We may not be able to muster the will to annihilte them in the end. But I'm pretty sure some variant of this formula is the future for the world over the next 2 decades.

Our "Allies" could change their trajectories and begin embracing "Peace through Strength", but all the signs do not point in this direction now. Only our enemies are preparing for the coming all out war. Only they are talking openly and frankly about their designs, and acting on them with zeal and conviction. They know what we know: We will not act to stop them. They are gambling that we will not prevail once we face the truth of the situation. They may be right.

*From T.S. Elliot "The Little Gidding" -- a poem in quartets published in 1942 -- it's the poem that also gives us:

... We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.

Perhaps it's the only way. It's a fantastic poem -- composed in the midst of the last Great World Conflagration -- a bleak but hopeful poem about endings and beginnings. It's well worth a read:

http://www.tristan.icom43.net/quartets/gidding.html

(note the links to the other 3 parts of the quartet at the bottom of the page)

Posted by: jsla at June 14, 2006 3:11 PM

“We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization…. we must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles. There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites, and we know how we are going to attack them.”

- Hassan Abbassi, Revolutionary Guards intelligence advisor to the President, May 28, 2004

Islam has declared its intent to destroy our civilization. Yet Bush is too much of a coward to deal with them. Even the Nazis didn't issue declarations of intent that bold in 1938. Not even close.

In my view the countries that need to be reduced are, in order,

Iran
Pakistan
Saudia Arabia

Encourage Israel to take out Iran. Give Israel Iran's oil reserves.

Encourage India to take out Pakistan. Give Pakistan back to the Indians.

And let the US take out Saudia Arabia. The oil fields are repatriated back into western hands.

Everyone benefits.

If everyone does their part, the world will be a better place for the next 1000 years.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at June 15, 2006 12:30 AM

somethingaboutislam I agree with your post.

But for everyone to do there part we need leadership. Lets examine India and Pakistan. India could of taken this country out decades ago. But Pakistan was seen as a bulwark against the soviets and was backed full tilt by the US. What happened when it was discovered that Pakistan developed a nuclear bomb with Saudi backing. Saudi connections were denied, the US turned a blind eye to Pakistan's bomb, and Musharaf was declared a great ally in the war on Terror.

All of us here see how inadequate the EU's response is to the Islamic threat but there are delusional posters here such as JSLA who think the US is doing more than its fair share to fight this menace.

Last I checked the US was the most powerful country on earth. It should stop sending mixed messages. Maybe then the rest of the world will line up behind it. And if not all of us will no it has right on its side.

Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at June 15, 2006 2:54 AM

It would be profoundly reckless to allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Iran under the ayatollahs is a general threat, not merely a threat to Israel. Indeed Iran is a more threatening, more sinister power North Korea. If Bush does not take action to stop Iran from acquiring these weapons [a-bomb, h-bomb], then he is very irresponsible to his own people and to the future of civilization.

Posted by: Eliyahu at June 18, 2006 12:22 PM