British P.M. Neville Chamberlain infamously declares, after
appeasing Adolf Hitler, "My good friends, for the second time in
our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany
bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time."
.
Considering the reality of the dangers posed to America by the nascient fundamentalist Islamo-Fascist movement throughout the world, as I watched the Democratic presidential wannabees in Sunday’s NH debate, I became even more fearful of the prospects of one of them becoming Commander-In Chief. Watching them stumble over one another in an effort to be first to rule out the use of military force when dealing with those sworn to our destruction was a sight to behold. How can these clowns be taken seriously by so many people? I firmly believe that in any other era, they would have been laughed off the stage when delivering their Pollyanna-like views of how to deal with the global menace.
.
While their stance on the Iraqi front in the war was emotional, predictable pandering to the left wing base, and makes good primary political rhetoric, the reality of the timetable till the election precludes any of the wannabees from having much impact on its ultimate outcome. The prevailing view is that by election day, for better or worse, we will be "finished" in Iraq. Bush still has a stretch of time left to mop up before leaving office. No, what was more important (and chilling) was what the Democrat candidates put forth as "solutions" to the problem that whoever becomes the next president will have to face: a nuclear Iran…
.
The questioner asked the candidates,
How would you approach solving the problem we have Iran today? Would you use force or would you use diplomacy? And if you used diplomacy, what would you do?
Consider Hillary Clinton’s answer– not forgetting that she is considered among the most credible, the toughest, most experienced of the candidates when it comes to foreign policy.
.
CLINTON: Well, I am very concerned about Iran. And I believe that we should have been using diplomacy for a number of years now.I am, I guess, pleased that the administration is starting to talk to the Iranians, but it is way overdue. We have allowed the Iranians to begin their nuclear program, to imprison Iranian Americans as they are now, to send weapons across their borders to be used against our young men and women..And we need a process of engagement. You know, the president’s policy has been, we don’t talk in this administration to people we don’t agree with or that we think are bad. All during the Cold War, we always talked to the Soviet Union. They had missiles pointed at us. They had leaders who said they would bury us. They waged wars around the world. We never stopped talking.In my administration, diplomacy, patient, careful diplomacy, the kind of diplomacy that Bill Richardson did for my husband, that really gets people to stay with it over time.Are you always going to get good results? No. But you’ve got to start the process. However, we still have to make it clear that Iran having a nuclear weapon is absolutely unacceptable. We have to try to prevent that at all costs..(APPLAUSE).But we need to start with diplomacy in order to see what we can accomplish..BLITZER: So what happens, Senator, if diplomacy, when all is said and done, fails?.CLINTON: Wolf, I’m not going to get into hypotheticals, because we’ve had an administration that doesn’t believe in diplomacy. You know, they have every so often Condi Rice go around the world and show up some where and make a speech, and occasionally they even send Dick Cheney — and that’s hardly diplomatic in my view..We won’t know until we get a president who is committed to diplomacy and will do things like use the great diplomats that have come up through our country — use former presidents, use people like Bill Richardson. Only then will we be able to make a clear assessment. I just hope we have enough time. Because, unfortunately, we have many months to go before this administration is done.
We’ll prevent them from getting a nuclear bomb. At all costs. Diplomacy. We’ll talk ’em to death…
.
The others weren’t any better, either. Let’s review…
.
Aside from diplomacy, Edwards threatens really, really, really bad economic sanctions. By the Europeans!
We don’t have economic leverage over the Iranians. But the Europeans do. The European banking system does. We should put two options on the table. One, carrots: we’ll make the nuclear fuel available to you, the international community, but we’ll control it; you can’t nuclearize — you can’t weaponize it..Second, we’re going to put a clear set of economic incentives on the table. And the Iranian people need to hear this..BLITZER: All right..EDWARDS: It needs to be not behind closed doors. –Just 10 more seconds– And then the alternative — the stick — is if they don’t do that, there are going to be serious economic sanctions. We need to drive a wedge between the Iranian people and this radical leader..BLITZER: But you’re saying only economic sanctions, not a military threat that should be on the table. Is that what you’re saying?.EDWARDS: I think this is the clear path. I think no president — no responsible president — would ever take any option off the table.
Unfortunately, what isn’t clear is his answer. Whatever he really meant, something tells me the regime in Tehran spends little time worrying about the implications of an Edwards Administration. It would certainly cause me many more sleepless nights than the Iranians.
.
Senator Biden, once again demonstrating his talent for numbering his sound bites, spewed a bit of dazzling, yet meaningless pap about Iran.
While not advocating pre-emption as a means of prevention, at least said he’d use force once they get nuclear weapons– albeit at the point of no-return…
While not advocating pre-emption as a means of prevention, at least said he’d use force once they get nuclear weapons– albeit at the point of no-return…
BLITZER: What about that, Senator Biden? You’re the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. If you got word from the U.S. intelligence community that Ahmadinejad and his government were on the verge of having a nuclear bomb capable of hitting targets in the region on missiles, what would you do?.BIDEN: Well, first of all, I would do away with the policy of regime change. What we’re saying to everybody in Iran is: Look, by the way, give up the one thing that keeps us from attacking you and after that we’re going to attack you, we’re going to take you down..It’s a bizarre notion, number one..BIDEN: Number two, understand how weak Iran is. They are not a year away or two years away. They are a decade away from being able to weaponize with exactly what the question was, if they put a nuclear weapon on top of a missile that can strike. They are far away from that..Number three, in fact, we have to understand how weak that government is. They import almost all of their refined oil. By 2014, they are going to be importing their crude oil. There are much better ways if we had to get to the point of real sanctions of doing economic sanctions on them forcefully that way.But at the end of the day, if they posed a missile, stuck it on a pad, I’d take it out.
That, of course, while earning a point or two from me, won’t earn him points with the moonbats that will be voting as Democrats in the primary.
.
While none of the others got a chance to answer the question directly, which is too bad, because I think it is among the most important to consider as we choose the next president, we can surmise, based on other statements made during the debate.
Barack Obama, answering a question about how he’d "use" Bill Clinton in his Administration, should he be elected, provides more insight as to where he’s coming from. He’s not going to use force, certainly:
But what we’ve seen over the last six years is the effort to replace bluster and belligerence and saber-rattling for solid diplomacy and strategy and foresight..One of the things that we’re going to have to do is to return to that recognition that we can’t simply lead with our military. The strength of our military has to be matched with the power of our diplomacy, the strength of our alliances.That’s how we are going to deal with the crisis in the Middle East. That’s how we’re going to end a genocide in Darfur…
Sure, we’ll just blab at the perpetrators of the Darfur genocide. It might work– after listening to enough of this sort of blather, how could anyone not wish to pack up and run away?
.
As to the rest, well, you can pretty much assume that they won’t do anything but talk till it’s too late too. Really- this bunch? Who would expect much different from them than those mentioned above?
.
. After threatening Darfur with a boycott of the Chinese Olympic Games, Bill Richardson plans to halt Iranian nuke plans by ordering a Budweiser at Munich’s annual Oktoberfest celebration.
Chris Dodd: "If I’d only had more time to talk to the Iranians, they wouldn’t have been able
to build that bomb that blew up Los Angeles. That way there, I coulda’ lectured ’em to death!"
Dennis Kucinich will simply declare "peace" and disband the US military, which will show the Iranians we love them and mean them no harm.
.
Mike Gravel: "Who am I? What am I doing here?"
.
Yep. What a bunch. They all come to the table promising to withdraw our military force, currently adjacent to the next great threat looming on the horizon, Iran, while at the same time pledging to bring peace through the use of massive doses of "diplomacy." Great. I hope they are more successful than this guy was. Ah yes,
DIPLOMACY– IT’S A BEAUTIFUL THING, ISN’T IT?
BY DOUG
.
