The
Hostages are
Pawns in a global game.
No Spin
The world is so complicated now (perhaps it always is) that it makes my head spin. Since this is a bigger no-spin zone than
O'Reilly, I've got to get a hold of myself and stand my ground. If the world situation affects me this way, I suppose it affects a few others similarly. I don't envy George W. Bush, nor members of Congress, nor, for that fact, the American voter.
Nukes and Hostages
Iran, feeling that it has not gotten the respect it deserves, and feeling threatened by sanctions, reached out and grabbed someone—a number of British hostages who we're not supposed to call hostages.
Iran's move, after the kidnapping, was to parade the hostages with their "confessions."Iran Monday showed no sign of bowing to diplomatic pressure to release 15 British sailors and Marines detained for over a week, saying all the captives have confessed to illegally entering Iranian waters.
Iran's state-run IRIB network reported Monday that all 15 confessed on video, but "due to certain changes in the last two days in the sensational British policies, the detailed interviews will not be aired."
Blair's move was to half-apologize and use quiet diplomacy.
"We are anxious that this matter be resolved as quickly as possible, and that it be resolved by diplomatic means, and we are bending every single effort to that. . . . We are in direct bilateral communication with the Iranians," British Defence Minister Des Browne told reporters yesterday.
Bush's move was to call the kidnapees hostages, and move in the aircraft carriers.
"The British hostages issue is a serious issue because the Iranians took these people out of Iraqi waters, and it's inexcusable behaviour," Mr. Bush said in response to a reporter's question during a press conference at the Camp David retreat.
Who is Winning?
Iran gets to have higher oil prices, which will help their economy. Britain and the United States, so far, though, get a boost in public opinion worldwide, as compared with Iran.
Several commentators are saying, though, that Bush went too far in calling the prisoners hostages. They fear that this will provoke Iran into keeping the prisoners longer.
The bedrock truth is that this whole incident will not delay sanctions against Iran, and the world seems even more united in seeing that Iran not obtain nuclear weapons.
Another 444-day Hostage Crisis?
Can the situation escalate into a repeat of the 1979 Iran hostage crisis, which lasted from November 4, 1979, through January 20, 1981?
I don't think so. Though Bush is a weakened president, a lame duck with low approval ratings, he has no shortage of backbone, as was the case with Jimmy Carter.
Iran took the hostages in the Carter era because they thought they could get away with it. They took the hostages this time as a daring act of pique. They are hoping to change the status quo.
There is not a chance in a million, though, that they can keep these hostages for 444 days. As long as Bush and Blair are in charge, this won't happen.
Iran's Boldness
Why did Iran think they could get away with even this stunt, as it is? Well here, I have to concede that they know Bush and Blair can't do anything in the short run—yes, due to their lack of approval, and the public's war fatigue, but also due to the takeover of the United States Congress by leftist pacifists, who always bring more violence to the world than they prevent.
Still, neither Bush nor Blair will let this situation stand for long.
Check and Mate
Is it a chess game? Yes, but eventually, sooner rather than later, the West will checkmate Iran on this one. Ahmadinejad will have made his point, though, that he can stir up trouble and roil our markets anytime he chooses.
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Click here to get a button link to this blog:
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!
Subscribe to my feed
Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.
Technorati Tags for this post: Iran, British hostages, Ahmadinejad, 1979 Iranian hostage crisis, Jimmy Carter, George Bush, Tony Blair, Bill O'Reilly, Iranian nuclear crisis, Iranian sanctions
Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth
He is not unpopular because of the Iraq War per se. He is unpopular because he has tried to be popular in the way he wages this war, and he has not explained Iraq well.
(See Breaking News at the start of this post. Is Bush finally leveling? Let's keep our fingers crossed. He definitely is changing strategies and tactics, which is a good thing.)
Nice Guy Bush
He is also unpopular because he has tried to be a nice guy, and have everyone like him, with the opposite results.
Regarding Iraq, again, he has fought a politically correct war, tying the hands of our armed forces.
(Again, is this going to change with the new commander, Petraeus? Let's hope so.)
With regard to immigration, Bush has tried to buy the votes of Hispanics, angering many conservatives, dooming our country to third-worldedness, bankrupting our hospitals, overloading our entitlement programs, and filling our jail cells.
He has outspent any Democrat.
He now is pushing phony causes like global warming, so the Democrats and Independents will like him.
They won't.
(Here, as I've said before, I don't mind our country going green. I hate mercury in ocean fish. I just don't want the hysteria and pandering that feed off fear. Al Gore is a demagogue folks, believe it.)
Why the Schwarzenegger Approach Won't Work on a National Scale
Arnold's left veer worked in California because my state is basically a leftist encampment. Many people in California are limousine liberals who want nothing but feel-good politics that make them think they are being nice to everyone, from the environment to the poor, but without really being nice to anyone.
My theory is that real goodness, really being nice, means a kind of tough love. It involves making hard choices as well as goody-goody choices. You can't have everyone love you. If you try, then you become a populist or a demagogue.
Veering left has worked for Arnold because the people are getting what they deserve, the feeling that they are nice. In reality, they are ruining the state for everyone, and this is not nice.
The Schwarzenegger approach won't work for the entire U.S.A. For one thing, half the country really is red. The left will always hate Bush. This means he'll get about 50% disapproval from America even if he is perfect. Yes, the Iraq war exacerbates this, so make that a 55% disapproval when you include Iraq. Then include another 5% disapproval for Bush fighting a politically correct war. Then, add and another 10% disapproval from conservatives as Bush veers left, and makes a shambles of issues like government spending and immigration. Add another 2% disapproval for Bush's pandering to everyone. This adds up to a 72% disapproval rating. It is Bush's perfect storm of disapprobation
One Conservative's View of Bush
I am a conservative. Ask me if I approve of the way Bush is handling his job and I will be counted among the people who disapprove.
Issue by issue, I rate him high on the decision to invade Iraq, on the War on Terror, and on the economy. I rate him the lowest of the low on his conduct of the war in Iraq, his communicating with the American people, immigration, government spending, and his pandering to the left and trying to be a nice guy.
This is the tricky part to understand: though I disapprove of President Bush's overall performance, he still has performed admirably on arguably the two most important issues for me—on invading Iraq, and on the War on Terror.
So, while I disapprove of Bush's performance overall, I do not regret voting for him, as no other politician in America, I believe, would have invaded Iraq; and no other politician, I believe, would have kept us safe from terror. On these issues, all the other politicians are wussies, and Bush is the giant.
Quite a conundrum.
2008
For the next election, I believe, with all due respect, we have had enough of Bush, and are ready to move on to new leadership. The Republicans, though, like Mr. Bush, are dramatically misreading the 2006 elections and the recent polls. They sense a need to move left and be the nice guy Republicans. They are so wrong, and they will pay for this with even more losses in congress.
The only Republican who even comes close to what I want in a leader at this time is John McCain.
Has his pro-surge stance hurt him in the polls? No. Just the opposite. McCain has the reputation, even among liberals, as a straight shooter, and they respect him for this, even when they disagree with him vehemently.