In the Boston Globe June 24, H.D.S Greenway writes Obsessing About Iran, in which he refers to the Bush White House as “…talking itself into attacking Iran”, Robert Gates at Defense as “…not the attack dog that”…”Donald Rumsfeld was”, Dick Cheney as “…our supernationalist vice president” and president Bush as retaining “…his messianic streak”.
The author managed to get all of that in before explaining what he’s writing against and why. I hesitate to take issue with H.D.S. Greeway as I start out behind one initial, but here goes.
Does supernationalist mean vice president Cheney loves this country a great deal or does it mean that he puts America first in his global concerns? Good gosh, shame on the vice president.
Gates must certainly be pleased to know he’s not an attack dog, and if the author is a Barak Obama supporter, he really shouldn’t be throwing around the word ‘messianic’ lightly.
Name calling first and last is perhaps entertaining but assuredly not informing.
The articles premise is that an air strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, capable of contributing to producing an atom bomb, would increase the popularity of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad. Additionally, it would – the article contends – set back Iran’s efforts only a few years, and would foster the belief that the United States is the enemy of Islam.
Possibilities all, but should we trade Ahmadinejad’s down slide in public ratings for an Iran with an atom bomb? Should we not attack because it’s effect may not be eternal? Couldn’t we hold back a few bombs for later use and just enjoy a further interlude of an Iran without the atom bomb?
Last, we are not the enemy of Islam, but rather the enemy of Islamists and jihadists who use Islam as a shield to hide behind.
Those who refuse to distinguish between the two and insist that any criticism of Islamists and jihadists is condemnation against Islam are pandering to political correctness.