Hugh Hewitt's poll on Iran
Hugh Hewitt has an interesting poll up right now that measures his readers' impressions of seven potential Republican nominees for president, but it also asks about Iran.
The poll, which you can find at the top of Hewitt's blog, asks what action President Bush should take regarding Iran; you'll find these options:
If President Bush chose Option A (which I suspect will be necessary at some point), the entire world -- not to mention the entire Democratic Party -- would be on his back relentlessly for another round of Unjustified-Preemptive-Strike-Shoulda-Done-Sanctions-Imperialist-Cowboy rhetoric, and it would not be pretty. George W. Bush may take actions based solely upon what he believes is the right thing, but there is also a limit to the abuse he's willing to endure.
If he chose Option B (which he should do, in a perfect world), he'd be lucky to get a simple majority in either chamber, much less a filibuster-proof Senate vote. There are too many Congressmen who want nothing to do with controversy in an election year, and they're not about to support the president when it could hurt their cushy government pension.
Option D is not an option. Iranian President/American Embassy Kidnapper/Committed Israel Bomber Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made it clear he cannot be trusted with conventional weapons, much less nuke-u-ler technology, and we cannot wait to see how long it takes for him to complete that technology.
So, for now, President Bush must seek out Security Council Approval. When that doesn't work, either because the Security Council is blocked by states like Russia or China or because the sanctions work as well as they did with Saddam, he can move to Congress or (if an immiment threat is detected) he can take military action.
But for now, his hands are tied.
The poll, which you can find at the top of Hewitt's blog, asks what action President Bush should take regarding Iran; you'll find these options:
- Order military action to degrade the nuclear program as soon as the Pentagon says it is capable of conducting such a mission
- Ask the Congress for authority to take action, including military action
- Request the Security Council authorize sanctions, including a blockade of Iran's oil exports
- Wait and see what happens
If President Bush chose Option A (which I suspect will be necessary at some point), the entire world -- not to mention the entire Democratic Party -- would be on his back relentlessly for another round of Unjustified-Preemptive-Strike-Shoulda-Done-Sanctions-Imperialist-Cowboy rhetoric, and it would not be pretty. George W. Bush may take actions based solely upon what he believes is the right thing, but there is also a limit to the abuse he's willing to endure.
If he chose Option B (which he should do, in a perfect world), he'd be lucky to get a simple majority in either chamber, much less a filibuster-proof Senate vote. There are too many Congressmen who want nothing to do with controversy in an election year, and they're not about to support the president when it could hurt their cushy government pension.
Option D is not an option. Iranian President/American Embassy Kidnapper/Committed Israel Bomber Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made it clear he cannot be trusted with conventional weapons, much less nuke-u-ler technology, and we cannot wait to see how long it takes for him to complete that technology.
So, for now, President Bush must seek out Security Council Approval. When that doesn't work, either because the Security Council is blocked by states like Russia or China or because the sanctions work as well as they did with Saddam, he can move to Congress or (if an immiment threat is detected) he can take military action.
But for now, his hands are tied.
posted by Ken @ 12:28 PM
1 Comments:
At 4/20/2006 10:31 PM,
Vigilante said…
IMHO, Bush is the last one to lead us into a war with Iran after he has so misled us into the un-provoked, unnecessary and largely unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq (UULUIOI). You should pick the last option (wait & see): in a few years the USA will have more competent leadership, and maybe Iran, too!
Post a Comment
<< Home