Target Iran

In his inaugural address, President Bush said this about where we'll go in the fight against terror: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."\nSome see this speech as a new direction for the War on Terror, but in reality, it is an affirmation of the direction the president has taken all along. The same justification that was used to go into Iraq should be used to go into Iran. If Iran is gathering dangerous weapons, it is likely they would be used against the United States or our allies. Implicit in this statement is the president's desire to enlist the support of the international community but also that he will not wait indefinitely for it. The president's supposed new direction is the same one he has used all along. \nThe president has aggressively pursued terrorists wherever they may be. Critics charge the president with desiring oil and a worldwide empire, but the reality is that Saddam Hussein was a serious threat to the world because he launched air strikes against our allies and tried to kill one of our former leaders.\nIt amazes me that some still feel taking out Saddam was bad. I guess all those gassings, human rights violations and threats to America make no difference.\nOne of the most outspoken of those people is former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark. In an Inauguration Day event sponsored by Democracy Now, Clark said "Every moment of their lives is fraught with danger right now because of us. There can't be any more Fallujahs. We just went in and destroyed that city."\nIt's no surprise Mr. Clark feels that way. It was reported on Dec. 29 by The Associated Press that Ramsey Clark was joining Hussein's defense team to get him off of the charges he currently faces. What this boils down to is this former U.S. official is defending a monster like Saddam. \nTo the residents of Fallujah, I'm sorry we had to level your town, but you shouldn't have let terrorists set up shop in the first place. What did you think was going to happen with insurgents launching cowardly attacks from the shadows? If you want someone to blame, I'd suggest you look towards Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his buddies because their actions gave America justification to do what we did. \nIf we responded this aggressively in Iraq, how likely are we to sit back and watch while Iran does the same thing?\nThe debate began when Vice President Dick Cheney hinted at a possible Israeli strike against Iran. According to a January 20 article in the Jerusalem Post, Vice President Cheney said, "Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first."\nCould anyone really blame Israel if they decided to act? Wouldn't you want to strike back at a nation that wanted to kill you?\nThe vice president's statement shows that the administration is thinking about what their role should be. I wouldn't rule out any U.S. role. The situation is currently being handled diplomatically, but the president doesn't have much patience for perpetual diplomacy. Talk doesn't take courage. Action does.\nAn invasion of Iran would be even more justifiable than the invasion of Iraq since Iran has already admitted to having a program that could develop nuclear capabilities. \nI'm reminded of a saying I heard as a boy: All that evil needs to triumph is for good people to do nothing. \nI'm glad we have a president that won't let that happen.