Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: Norman Podhoretz with Jay Nordlinger via Atlas Shrugs by Pamela Geller on 1/17/08
Norman Podhoretz is the editor emeritus of Commentary magazine and the author of numerous bestselling books, including Breaking Ranks, Making It, My Love Affair with America and, most recently, World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism. On January 10, he talked with Jay Nordlinger, managing editor of The National Review, at the Y about why he considers the war against global terrorism as legitimate and necessary as the two World Wars. In the video clip above, Podhoretz posits why he thinks George W. Bush will be remembered as a great President, invoking both Truman and Napoleon as historical examples. UPDATE: Read Podhoretz's latest piece on Iran in this months Commentary here Stopping Iran: Why the Case for Military Action Still Stands "Being contained within the region," writes Martin Walker of UPI in his summary of Cordesman's study, "such a nuclear exchange might not be Armageddon for the human race." To me it seems doubtful that it could be confined to the Middle East. But even if it were, the resulting horrors would still be far greater than even the direst consequences that might follow from bombing Iran before it reaches the point of no return. In the worst case of this latter scenario, Iran would retaliate by increasing the trouble it is already making for us in Iraq and by attacking Israel with missiles armed with non-nuclear warheads but possibly containing biological and/or chemical weapons. There would also be a vast increase in the price of oil, with catastrophic consequences for every economy in the world, very much including our own. And there would be a deafening outcry from one end of the earth to the other against the inescapable civilian casualties. Yet, bad as all this would be, it does not begin to compare with the gruesome consequences of a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran, even if those consequences were to be far less extensive than Cordesman anticipates. Which is to say that, as between bombing Iran to prevent it from getting the bomb and letting Iran get the bomb, there is simply no contest. [...] When I first predicted a year or so ago that Bush would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities once he had played out the futile diplomatic string, the obstacles that stood in his way were great but they did not strike me as insurmountable. Now, thanks in large part to the new NIE, they have grown so formidable that I can only stick by my prediction with what the NIE itself would describe as "low-to-moderate confidence." For Bush is right about the resemblance between 2008 and 1938. In 1938, as Winston Churchill later said, Hitler could still have been stopped at a relatively low price and many millions of lives could have been saved if England and France had not deceived themselves about the realities of their situation. Mutatis mutandis, it is the same in 2008, when Iran can still be stopped from getting the bomb and even more millions of lives can be saved--but only provided that we summon up the courage to see what is staring us in the face and then act on what we see. Unless we do, the forces that are blindly working to ensure that Iran will get the bomb are likely to prevail even against the clear-sighted determination of George W. Bush, just as the forces of appeasement did against Churchill in 1938. In which case, we had all better pray that there will be enough time for the next President to discharge the responsibility that Bush will have been forced to pass on, and that this successor will also have the clarity and the courage to discharge it. If not--God help us all--the stage will have been set for the outbreak of a nuclear war that will become as inescapable then as it is avoidable now. Things you can do from here: - Subscribe to Atlas Shrugs using Google Reader - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
