BloggeRhythms

Spending considerable time reading, analyzing and opining daily on issues and events occurring in the nation and world, teaches one to pay close attention to what's seen and heard. Because accuracy is critically important when trying to present one’s point of view.

 

That’s why an article today by Daniel Halper of the weeklystandard.com via Drudge, took several readings,  to assure there was no misunderstanding of his commentary.

 

Mr. Halper writes about the president’s recent interview with “NPR when he called Tehran a "country." But, as Mr. Halper further points out, “the gaffe isn't the news from the interview at all.”

 

Mr. Halper then quotes the president as saying about Iran that, “They have a path to break through that isolation and they should seize it. Because if they do, there's incredible talent and resources and sophistication inside of — inside of Iran, and it would be a very successful regional power that was also abiding by international norms and international rules, and that would be good for everybody. That would be good for the United States, that would be good for the region, and most of all, it would be good for the Iranian people."

 

And then, “In the same interview, President Obama acknowledges that Iran sponsors terrorism and wants a nuclear bomb, “ as follows: 

 

"Tehran is a large, sophisticated country that has a track record of state-sponsored terrorism, that we know was attempting to develop a nuclear weapon — or at least the component parts that would be required to develop a nuclear weapon — that has engaged in disruptions to our allies, whose rhetoric is not only explicitly anti-American but also has been incendiary when it comes to its attitude towards the state of Israel," he said, mistaking Tehran for Iran.”

 

Mr. Halper concludes by stating that, “And yet a "path" exists, in Obama's mind, for this nation to be "a very successful regional power."

 

So, here we have a president of the United States pushing for improvement in the relationship with Iran because it would be “good” for everybody involved if they simply agreed to abide by international norms and international rules. However, as he himself explained at the exact same time, they presently don’t and from their present actions, probably won’t.

 

Which is like saying we probably wouldn't have needed to invade Iraq if Saddam Hussein hadn’t been so hard to get along with.  

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios