Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Obama: Hey, Iran gets to have nukes, ya know?

Oy, vey.  Excerpt:

President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful.

In a BBC interview broadcast Tuesday, he also restated plans to pursue direct diplomacy with Tehran to encourage it set aside any ambitions for nuclear weapons it might harbor.

Iran has insisted its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. But the U.S. and other Western governments accuse Tehran of seeking atomic weapons.

“What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations,” Obama said, adding that the international community also “has a very real interest” in preventing a nuclear arms race.

Ed nails it:

The inconvenient fact? Iran has all the resources it needs for energy production now.  In fact, with the money they’ve spent on nuclear technology, they could have built oil refineries that would have reduced or eliminated their depending on imports for gasoline, producing it themselves from their own abundant supply.  Absent sanctions, Iran could make a mint each year off of oil revenues and produce all the energy they need for domestic consumption, too.

So why do they pursue nuclear power?  They want it for something other than energy production, although they’ll take that, too. Since they also spend a lot of money testing and launching rockets these days, the conclusion is a lot less difficult than Obama makes it.  Iran has mainly illegitimate motives for pursuing nuclear technology.

The last time we took a hostile nation’s word for it that they would only use nuke energy for energy and not for weapons, the NorKoms convinced us (or, more accurately, the naive Democrat president and his Not Bright Secretary of State) of their peaceful intents.  Say, how’d that work out?

June 2, 2009 Posted by | Iran, Obama | 2 Comments

UPDATE: Shooter of unnamed religious affiliation shoots, kills Army recruiter

UPDATES BELOW.

Here’s a link to the story, with the following excerpt:

A man with “political and religious motives” killed a soldier just out of basic training and wounded another Monday in a targeted attack on a military recruiting center, police said. The shootings were not believed to be part of a broader scheme.  (As opposed to the lone nutbar who killed the abortion doctor?  I don’t recall seeing the disclaimer that he wasn’t “part of a broader scheme”, do you? – Ed.)

Let’s see: what “political and religious motives” might a man with an Middle Eastern-sounding name harbor that would encourage attacking U.S. Army recruiters?  Hard to say, considering that the word “Muslim” or “Islam” never appears in the article!  But nope, no liberal media bias or anything!

Exit question: Since we just saw an article that attempted to put anti-abortion foes on the defensive for an act of violence commited in their name, when will we see an article that puts a similar scrutiny on Islamofascists?  Naming the religion isn’t too much to ask, it is?

UPDATE (05/02/2009 – 05:30 AM EST): The story has since been updated to include the previously unmentioned religion, and as sheer luck would have it, it was indeed Islam.  Who knew?  (Hat tip to Pablo)

June 2, 2009 Posted by | media bias, religion of peace | 2 Comments

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers