Iran and nuclear weapons | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    It's interesting; our previous President, most of our Congress, and most of the rest of the world believed both the US and British spy agencies' reports that there were WMDs in Iraq. When that turned out to be wrong, all we could hear from the Dems and their mouthpieces, the main stream media, was that "Bush lied".

    Clearly the "spooks" didn't have it right when it came to Iraq's WMDs. In view of that experience, it would seem prudent to take what they tell us with a grain of salt before we rush into any other attacks on anyone. The problem is that half of the spooks are pulling us in one direction and half are pulling us in the other direction. So, which of the "spooks" should we be believing now?? The ones who tell us Iran is a year or two away from a nuclear weapon or those who are telling us that Iran will have a nuclear weapon very shortly?? Probably the latter. Of course what remains unanswered is whether it is "spooks" who are telling us that Iran's nukes are a couple of years away or is it the anointed one's acolytes (who have already proven to anyone who cared enough to pay attention that they are not to be trusted). Additionally, in the best tradition of Ronald Regan, how can we "trust" Iran if there is no way to "verify" what they are up to??

    Iran reportedly agreed to negotiate their Uranium (and presumably Plutonium) enrichment activities. Could they possibly be taking a page out of N. Korea's book?? First they talk about negotiating and then they take the very thing we are talking about negotiating off the table - as they have done. Actually, the Dems frequently do the same thing, so it is somewhat surprising that even they get "suckered" into such a deal. With the Dems, it's give us tax increases now and we will give you tax cuts in 9 or 10 years (or some other outlandish number of years). How many times do we "fall for" that one before we wise up?? In the case of N. Korea, it's send our starving folks food and the like and we can sit down and talk about whatever it is that you want. Does anyone know where the food really went?? Could it have been what looks to be a well fed military instead of the "starving" peasants?? What is amazing is that even "Slick Willie" fell for this one. And here we go again. With Iran, it's lets talk about the possibility (and ground rules for) of your (UN) inspectors coming to look at our nuclear facilities. In the meantime, the Iranians are observed doing what looks like cleaning up their facilities that may show radiological contamination prior to agreeing to anything. Of even greater significance, they seem to be continuing their work on further enrichment and the development of triggering devices for nuclear weapons.

    The fact that we are even in a discussion about whether we have plenty of time to "negotiate" before we have to worry about Iran becoming a nuclear state is truly weird. On the one hand, we are risk averse in almost everything we do. Safety rules supreme!! Our kids are not allowed to skin their knee or elbow when they fall off their bike. They are not allowed to play "tag" during recess at school lest they accidentally "tag" someone in an inappropriate place or get too rough and cause someone to fall down. (Never mind the salutary effect of running around and getting plenty of exercise... Michelle!! Where are you when we need you??) We are not allowed to buy (and presumably consume) "raw milk" lest we come down with something. The list goes on...

    On the other hand, we don't seem to be treating the possibility that Iran may be further along in their nuclear development than some of our "spooks" (or politicians?) would have us believe, even though in the case of Iraqi WMDs, they proved that they can be wrong. Clearly, the implications of a nuclear Iran are serious (much more so than a skinned knee).. Just as clearly, we should be giving it much more serious attention than we do the knee..

    There are a lot of folks who would suggest that the amount of "risk" we should be willing to accept is in inverse proportion to the consequences of being wrong. That is to say that the skinned knee or elbow we get from falling off a bike is of a lot less consequence than the risk of being wrong about Iran's nuclear weapon "timetable", and, therefore, should not merit as much concern. The risk of being wrong about Iran's timetable is the risk that they will try to blow Israel (and maybe us) off the map. They will also likely be predisposed to arming terrorists who will continue to prove that they are willing to blow themselves up in order to "get" some Americans and breed fear into the hearts of the rest of us and our allies.

    And yet, here is the anointed one apparently willing to take the risk. Who is right, the "spooks" who are suggesting we need to do something very soon, or the politicians, who seem to favor a certain laissez faire approach to our national (and even perhaps global) security - while we are lulled into a false sense of security by offers to "talk"??

    And yet, as we hear one misdirection after another coming out of the mouth of our community organizer, we do not hear even a "peep" out of the main stream media about half truths and outright falsehoods. Of course, if we are willing to wait until after the next election.... So what gives??

    What happens if we do enter into a N. Korea type "negotiation" with Iran (on again - off again and never very productive) and they acquire a nuclear capability in the interim?? Is that a risk we should be taking??

    D'ya think??