re: #155 Flyers1974

Yet conservatives have absolutely no doubt that Obama’s lack of a statement is solely do to his character flaws. If Obama is willing to allow Iran to proceed with its nuclear ambitions, was Bush not willing? And if not why didn’t he stop them? What happened?

Bush was willing. Or, to put a finer point on it, I think his position was to state unequivocally that a nuclear Iran was unacceptable, but then to do nothing about it, perhaps leaving the problem for the next president. I have occasionally wondered if Bush didn’t make some kind of a deal with Iran, in which they withdrew support for insurgents in Iraq, in exchange for Bush letting them continue their nuclear weapons program. In that way, Bush’s legacy would be salvaged, in that we’d win the Iraq war during his presidency, and the Iranian nuke problem would be dumped onto someone else’s watch. I did notice that things started going a lot better in Iraq right when that bogus NIE statement about Iran was issued.

Obama’s policy in general is worse than a “lack of a statement.” He has officially endorsed Iran’s pursuit of nuclear power, and expressed his willingness to negotiate, without conditions, with a country that supports terrorism and vows to annihilate another country. He has endorsed the participation of Iran’s genocidal terrorist proxies in “Palestinian” government.