The fact of the matter is that their efforts have spanned both GOP and Dem administrations. The evidence shows that they are intent on developing nuclear weapons regardless of which party is in power in America. Hence, Michael's partisan spin really doesn't hold water, in my estimation.
Way off base.
I'm arguing that the events of the past four years, in particular the Bush take on foreign policy, will naturally have caused anyone within Bush's targetting sight to get more defensive.
Its a simple, logical, reasonable, conclusion.
I never once suggested that certain countries have only now just started to develop nuclear or other weapons systems.
Indeed, if you have been paying attention I have stated on numerous occasions that *domestic policy* particularly as it relates to an oil-fueled economy, is the number one contributor to US foreign policy problems.
These policies did not just burst on to the scene. US energy dependency has been an issue for decades, as has the attitude in the country that the world is something for the US to suck dry, damn the consequences.
Back to the matter at hand: Bush put Iran in his sights; Bush invaded Iraq on false pretext. To the extent that these are his, partisan, ideologically derived, policies, yes, there is a partisan influence here to be sure. It is a matter of fact and simply can not be denied.
Trying to argue that I see the world only from a post Jan 2001 perspective is quite simply ludicrous. |
