In a scathing editorial this weekend, The Wall Street Journal
blasted President Obama’s handling of the Iran crisis, from the failure
of U.S. diplomacy which has apparently only sped up the Iranian nuclear
program, to Obama’s letting go unanswered Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey’s remarks that he doesn’t want to be
“complicit” in an Israeli strike.
As TheBlaze reported last week,
Dempsey told reporters that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear
facilities would only delay, not likely destroy any nuclear program,
adding: “I don’t want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it.”
The Wall Street Journal’s editors wonder if Gen. Dempsey was speaking for himself or on President Obama’s behalf:
More
5 comments:
Obama is either yellow or in bed with the muslim brotherhood. Neither is good for America.
I would rather you had re-posted the original editorial from the Wall Street Journal instead an opinion from The Blaze. The Blaze is too reactionary.
One of the rare occasions in which I completely agree with Obama.That may never happen again.
Do we really want a nuclear weapon capable Radical Islamic Iran?
Is anyone really so naive as the Russians to believe their purposes are peaceful?
Do we want to allow the incineration of millions of innocent people of all religions?
Obama and Clinton have failed.
1036, I am 58. For the last 58 years, the Middle Eastern Countries have been fighting and killing each other. We have done all we could to try to make peace happen over there, and failed. In fact, it's been happening for waaaaay more than 58 short years. Why not just let them have their own caliphate and blow themselves up to where the sand over there turns to a big glass plate? We could then just wait for the rediation to go away and get all the oil we wanted without hassle. And without having yo deal with their constant fighting and killing.
Post a Comment