It's no secret Democrats have struggled for years at the national level to rid themselves of the residue of liberal foreign policy excesses toward the end of the Vietman era. Simply put, liberals - though not always Democrats writ large - don't inspire much faith on national security outside the Democratic base.
Take today's P-I editorial on Iran is the clear example of the problem. In one short writing the opinion page rejects the thinking of Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney on the topic of Iran. Quite a feat.
First they put McCain's joking "Bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb, Iran" on the same level as more serious policy views from the other candidates. Then they reject talk of linking "militant jihadists" to Iran, while claiming the "Iranians haven't been involved in any terrorism plots."
Let's check a reasonably non-partisan source on such matters, the Council on Foreign Relations; no shill for the Bush administration or war mongering. They say this about Iran:
Does Iran sponsor terrorism?Yes. The U.S. State Department has called Iran the world's "most active state sponsor of terrorism." Iran continues to provide funding, weapons, training, and sanctuary to numerous terrorist groups based in the Middle East and elsewhere.
...
What other terrorist groups does Iran support?
Iran mostly backs Islamist groups, including the Lebanese Shiite militants of Hezbollah (which Iran helped found in the 1980s) and such Palestinian terrorist groups as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. A few months after Hamas won the Palestinian Authority (PA) elections, Iran pledged $50 million to the near-bankrupt PA. The United States, among other nations, has cut off aid to the PA because of Hamas' terrorist ties.
Call me a loon but the above quote seems to imply some consequential linkage between the Iranian regime and terrorist activity by Islamic radicals. Reasonable people can disagree about America's policy toward Iran, but is a little intellectual honesty too much to ask?
It's not that I expect the P-I's editorial board to find much synthesis with conservatives on such topics. They're a big fan of diplomatic dialogue as a silver bullet solution; thinking if we just explain to the Iranian regime that we respect their culture and want everyone to get along nicely that our differing national interests will be resolved.
Right.
This is a regime that wants to execute porn stars, a society where ruling elements get upset when former regime officials shake hands with the opposite sex, and whose leader denies the Holocaust and cheers a countdown to the destruction of a free nation.
By all means, polite talk across pretty tables with people who clearly share our values and interests is surely the only course we should even consider pursuing. Five major Presidential candidates from both parties just couldn't be on to something, could they?
Posted by Eric Earling at June 13, 2007 10:51 PM | Email ThisLOL PS I hate hippies. They eat gradnola. I'm a real republican so I only eat beef jerky.
Posted by: pat on June 14, 2007 02:39 AMLOL PS I hate hippies. They eat gradnola. I'm a real republican so I only eat beef jerky.
Posted by: pat on June 14, 2007 02:40 AMSince were not cowards, war mongers, or well idiots, I guess yah we do suck at national security.
Posted by: Giffy on June 14, 2007 06:00 AM
You mean just like Viet Nam that you boys just couldn't wait to get into and then Nixon got us out and the you GUYS pulled all the funds so the South fell and we know what happened after that.
(how many thousands died)
FDR must be rolling in his grave.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 14, 2007 06:58 AMIran was more the epicenter than Iraq or Afghanistan.
So, Mr. Giffy, you don't think it a big deal that Iran has nukes and says what it is going to do with them? And the people saying them are the same terrorists that held Americans hostage for about a year?
The funniest liberal quote comes from Pelosi and Reid yesterday- big headlines- The Surge Has Failed!!
I thought the surge troops weren't even all there yet.
Posted by: swatter on June 14, 2007 07:02 AMIran not a bonafide terrorist nation
Yeah what the heck, their trying to build nukes, saying over & over they will use them.
But Libs say hey NO worry. Iran is peaceful.
I swear did you just hear Jimmy Carter behind that curtian!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 14, 2007 07:55 AMIran's not making bombs. Nor can they make bombs in short order (e.g. under a decade) with their current infrastructure. Nor do they pose a threat to the United States of America. In fact, we SOLD them the civilian reactors that are the center of this discussion.
We members of the reality-based community keenly recall the bogus evidence for the run up to the invasion of Iraq (aka Bush's Folly).
This is no different.
Some of us also recall that Iran initially HELPED the USA take out the Taliban in Afghanistan. Enemy of my enemy, and all that. Yet another opportunity for improved foreign relations spiked by the Bush Administration.
It'd be really, really clever if the Four More Wars crowd had some inkling of what's going on. Just a suggestion.
Posted by: zappini on June 14, 2007 09:41 AMAs I've said many times: "Reality-based community, my ass."
Posted by: pudge on June 14, 2007 09:45 AMThose who are welcoming the emergence of India or China should take more notice as to how their people are treated.
When they do, I want to be around to watch the look on the liberals faces. What will they say when the radicals start throwing homosexuals off roofs, stoning the women who refuse to wear burkas, confiscating televisions, and executing poets, rock stars, and actresses? How will they veel when their newspapers and radio stations get shut down and their nightclubs are shuttered?
After all, in their mind the islamofascists just hate Bush. They've convinced themselves of that. Won't reality come crashing in then!
(Think those things won't happen? Take a look at what happened in Afghanistan under the Taliban, Iraq under Saddam and Iran under the Ayatollahs.)
When are these idiots going to learn that if we keep letting these loonies win, they are going to got bolder?
Posted by: Johnny on June 14, 2007 11:50 AMRight on, and if Islamist crackpots start running amock here I would be willing to bet that liberals will be the first to scream to the government..."YOU DIDN'T PROTECT US."
Posted by: NW Denizen on June 14, 2007 12:16 PMThe Iranian leadership is providing explosives to terrorists in Iraq? Says who? Didn't one of our generals just refute those Administration stories?
Why would Iraq need outside suppliers? Rumsfield GAVE the Iraqi insurgents all the explosives they'd ever need. You may recall the looting of unsecured weapons depots like Al Qa'qaa.
Yea, in hindsight, having 500,000 soldiers for the invasion seems like a pretty bright idea.
Posted by: zappini on June 14, 2007 02:00 PMAnd your claim about Rumsfeld supplying them with "all the explosives they'd ever need" is quite obviously false. Please do some research into what was actually supplied to Iraq.
Posted by: pudge on June 14, 2007 02:20 PMThe Iranian leadership is providing explosives to terrorists in Iraq? Says who? Didn't one of our generals just refute those Administration stories?
Oh, I don't know, maybe a little paper called the Washington Times reporting it?
And about General McNeill's statement? That was about the TALIBAN IN AFGHANISTAN, which I assume you know is on the OPPOSITE SIDE of Iran from Iraq...
Iran is supplying Iraqi terrorists with weapons and materiel. It's been known for quite a while, well documented. Even to the point of multiple sources confirming the fact over the years (since at least 2004).
Lastly, about Al Qa'qaa, yes that site the Brits reported that was producing phosgene gas. And was built with Russian and German assistance (notice, two countries that opposed the war; maybe because the ties would be exposed?).
And where hundreds of tons of uranium were stored, including a few tons of yellow cake (you know, that stuff that Joe Wilson swears Saddam didn't have?)
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on June 14, 2007 02:23 PMsimple. besides a plain old surrender bias and placating evil & world bullies....also....
diversity. "rights" and benefits to illegal aliens. tolerance of bums in parks. suing police & soldiers for doing their jobs & risking their lives. class action lawsuits for the slightest hurt feeling & hangnail. death taxes. hating 'evil' corporations and "excess profits" (while keeping same stocks in their own retirement plans & assets.)
shall i continue?
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on June 15, 2007 09:16 AMSo for 7 year Bush has done virtually zero about our Southern board.
We lost S. Lebanon against a Terrorist Organization.
We lost Gasa to a democratically elected terrorist organization
We lost Sudan
We got kicked out of Uzibekistan.
We are letting Iran get the N-bomb
We let Pakistan get the N-bomb
We are funding the terrorist organizaton Fatah
We refuse to acknowledge all the US terror in the multitude of sudden jihad terror attacks - dozens have died here since 9/11, hundreds more were killed in London and Madrid.
We are sending billions of dollars via oil purchases to the nation that is the fountain head of all recent Muslim terror with their radical wahabbism sect.
Meanwhile we put our soliders in prison like those at Camp Pendleton - but we are supposed to support the troops.
What a crock - the Republican party is just a circus of fools
Posted by: John McDonald on June 16, 2007 03:10 PMFurther, you are wrong about most of what you said. We did not lose Lebanon under Bush, it was controlled by terrorists before Bush got into office, and it is, further, not our responsibility. Similar with Sudan. Gaza was given up VOLUNTARILY by the Israelis. We were not in Uzbekistan until Bush took office (after 9/11) and we were told to leave because they thought we didn't need the access to the base any longer, so nothing was lost.
Iran does not have the bomb. Pakistan got the bomb under Clinton, not Bush. (You could also mention North Korea: alas, there too, the North Koreans were cheating on their deal with the U.S. before Bush took office.) We were funding Fatah under Clinton, too.
Call whomever you like a fool, but it may have more force if you get your facts straight.
Posted by: pudge on June 16, 2007 04:35 PMPudge responds with responsible fact yet again!
No mudracking or name calling, he remains pure and rational!
"Call whomever you like a fool, but it may have more force if you get your facts straight.
Posted by: edgeup on June 16, 2007 10:16 PMSo let's get the facts straight.
1. We have not secured our Southern Boarder.
2. Israel lost the war to Hezbollah. Rice screwed around with Israel by refusing to sell them arms, then agreeing, giving them deadlines, then pulling them back. Israeli opinion is in the single digits for their PM since they lost. I guess you mr. super smart guy are smarter than 90%+ of the Isreali public.
3. We lost Gaza to a Islamic Extremist Group, prior to that they were secular terrorists. The Bush Doctrine says we will fight them, why aren't we fighting them?
4. We lost Sudan to Islamic facists .. you just need to read the news.
5. We got kicked out of Uzibekistan because we did not like how they dealt with Islamic facists.
6. Bush did not uphold the punishment against Pakistan violating US Law. Pakistan spread more N technology than any other country.
As I said the Republicans are a circus of self-righteous fools.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 17, 2007 09:50 PMOur Southern Boarder (sic) has never been secured: blaming the Republicans for that makes no sense.
In fact, militarily, Israel clearly beat Hezbollah. They lost politically, but that is hardly the fault of the U.S. It was the decisions of Olmert that lost for Israel. As you say, he is wildly unpopular because of what he did, and didn't do: why do you think we are responsible for the decisions Israel made?
In fact, no, we did not lose Gaza. We did not have Gaza, Israel did, and Israel gave it up voluntarily, of its own uncoerced will. Again, Israel chose to do this. Repeating a clearly false claim doesn't make it true. Further, Israel is probably better off having given up Gaza. Their border in the south is more defensible, and of course they now have much more political leverage, since they gave up so much without coercion.
In fact, we did not lose Sudan. Again, we never had Sudan. Again, repeating a false claim doesn't make it true.
In fact, no, we were "kicked out" of Uzbekistan because we were only there to invade Afghanistan, and we no longer needed to be there. Same reason we were "kicked out" of Saudi Arabia in 2003 (after 12 years), after we completed the invasion of Iraq: we no longer needed to be there, they didn't particularly want us there in the first place, so it was time to go. Again, we were only there in the first place because of 9/11: why would they want us to remain? Why should we remain? Heck, we should have left before 2005.
As to Pakistan, any sane President would have done what we did. Find me a single person who would have gone after Kahn in particular or Pakistan in general, let alone Musharaff. Any such person is unqualified to be President, because it would have meant, at the very least, that Pakistan would have refused to help us any longer in the fight against al Qaeda, and at the most, that we would have gone to war against Pakistan, which likely would have led to a regional conflict that could bring in both India and China.
You are literally saying we should risk a new World War in order to punish someone who was no longer a danger. And you think the REPUBLICANS are "fools" and bad at national security?
If you had a single reasonable point, that would be one thing. But every point you made is significantly wrong in one way or another.
Posted by: pudge on June 18, 2007 08:12 AM