Bush may be unwilling to compromise, but it seems like Iran may be up for some talks. According to this, there may be a way for Iran to agree to stop enriching uranium.

“Our position on suspension is very clear,” he told reporters at U.N. headquarters, where he is attending the United Nations’ annual meeting of world leaders. “We have said that under fair conditions and just conditions, we will negotiate about it — under fair and just conditions, I repeat.”

I’m not holding my breath, but it seems that at least there’s progress happening. And keeping in mind that the US won’t be there next time for the sit-down talks, we may be gettin’ closer toward this whole issue being over. As for a bomb?

The Iranian leader denied U.S. claims that he is pursuing a covert nuclear weapons program, saying that Iran’s spiritual leader has issued a decree prohibiting such a development. He said Iran is simply exercising its rights, under the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty, to develop nuclear power to meet the country’s growing energy needs.

Bush says he takes it very seriously when they say they want to destroy Israel. Will he take it seriously when Ahmadinemichaelmooreijad says “The bottom line is, we do not need a bomb”? Probably not. You can read up on the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but the bottom line is that, so far, Iran has broken no laws.

[tags]iran, nuclear, bush, america, united nations[/tags]

In 2006, the liberals are suggesting fiscal responsibility and smaller government involvement in our lives. We’re the ones saying taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be used to build up other countries and we need fewer laws telling us how we’re supposed to live our lives. What in the hell happened to America?

This one has me a little perplexed, and maybe anyone better versed in the law can explain it. It seems as if this little “compromise” still allows our guys to violate the Geneva conventions, and that people have no protection from it.

In addition to the elimination of habeas rights in section 6, the bill would delegate to the President the authority to interpret “the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions” “for the United States,” except that the bill itself would define certain “grave breaches” of Common Article 3 to be war crimes.

So here’s my question to you fellows out there in InternetLand: no matter how the United States defines the Geneva Conventions, doesn’t that mean the rest of the world can still accuse us of War Crimes? Can any country define for itself how to interpret the articles and thus be immune from the rest of the world’s opinion?

As an international agreement, couldn’t the other countries of the UN still say “hey, no” and bitchslap the United States no matter what the US law says? I have no idea myself.

[tags]torture, bush, bill, mccain, war, terrorism[/tags]