Yesterday, we published our thoughts regarding the supreme efficacity of word and deed, on many things of great import, of our 40th President, Ronald Reagan.
We focused the most and at the last on his call for a Strategic Defense Initiative to deal with the nuclear actions of regimes bent on our annihilation, and juxtaposed his desire for a defense against the Soviet Union he helped bring down into non-existence with today's very necessary protections against the Insane-ocracy ensconced in Iran.
Today, we have The Editors of the esteemed National Review echoing our thoughts as to why such safeguards would be nice, were they in place as per President Reagan's vision. And how limited and dangerous the options left to us are as a result of our multi-Administrative selective non-compliance with Reality.
From NR:
Since its birth in 1979, the Iranian theocracy has shown pure contempt for the norms that govern relations among sovereign states ...
And from NotD:
And with their vision of themselves not as a nation-state, but as the crusading leaders of the global Caliphatic movement, their acquiring the proper nuclear technology would quickly metastasize into Hizballah, Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and myriad iniquitous others all also in possession of variations on this deadly theme.
Again, from NR:
Things start to break down when a significant part of its ruling establishment fancies itself on divine mission to evaporate the Zionist Entity in a mushroom cloud, roll back the Great Satan, and usher in a paradisiacal rule by sharia.
And from NotD:
President Ahmadinejad’s seeking to be the catalyst of the Quranic Apocalypse affords us no such luxury. To paraphrase former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, we have not this assurance so long as they hate us living as much as they are unconcerned with, or actually relish their dying.
Theirs:
Make no mistake: This (air strikes) is not a good option. Iran would probably retaliate with terrorist attacks against U.S. interests around the world, as well as aggressive efforts to destabilize Iraq. But the alternative — letting the mullahs go nuclear — is incalculably worse. For a quarter-century those mullahs have been fighting an undeclared war against the West with the only weapons they had: terrorism and a poisonous ideology. For a quarter-century we have failed to respond. They now stand on the brink of getting a new weapon — and this one will let them threaten the incineration of millions of infidels at the push of a button.
And ours:
Hesitation merely lessens and worsens the choices one has in confronting evil. This quarter century lost has thinned considerably the alternatives herd, and the pickings therein are now extraordinarily slim. Had we adhered to this particular aspect of the Reagan defense vision, it would be one we would be making from a position of much greater strength.
We are left now with the equivalent of the descriptives in the old saw about the terrible impending blind date, “She is ugly, but she more than makes up for it by being stupid”.
We here certainly find National Review's analysis of this horrendus situation to be preeminent and of the first intellectual order (hardly surprising to all of you, we are sure).
