One Little Consonant
D'ya get the impression that Fussy Russy Feingold has never learned the difference between Iran and Iraq?:
Where to begin, indeed. We could start with the fact that the mullahgarchy has been developing nuclear weapons since the Clinton years, long pre-dating Operation Iraqi Freedom - which, it should be remembered, was itself a Clinton policy that his successor actually followed through on. That act was irrelevant to Iran's imperial ambitions; indeed, without following up the Iraqi campaign with an invasion of Iran itself, it can be argued that toppling Saddam Hussein advanced those ambitions closer to actual realization. Which, ironically, bolsters Feingold's contention of increased tensions between Washington and Tehran, if from the opposite direction from what he errantly believes.
His analysis of our military and diplomatic position is similarly confused. The latter is actually a function of the former, but also a function of our will to use it. Attempted diplomatic coercion has no credibility if its target does not believe that the threatened consequences will not be forthcoming. Feingold dismisses the entire process - which is the only one that has a chance of actually disarming the mullahs - as "warmongering." Therefore the strength of either our military or diplomatic positions is, by his reckoning, rendered irrelevant. Yet he argues that we should "persuade" Iran to "back off nuclear weapons"! And wants to be president of the United States! Is he planning on procuring a magic wand from Jimmy Carter before the New Hampshire (oops, I mean NEVADA) primary?
Yeah, by "persuasion" the Wisconsin senator means more and endless concessions - a policy that "the Republican administration" is already pursuing, to predictably futile results. But at least I know that a member of the "World's Greatest Deliberative Body" is a regular reader of this blog, because we are one of the few places anywhere that urges "military threats" and "warmongering" as the sole means, especially at this late date, of averting the catastrophe of a nuclear-armed Islamist superpower.
Fight a small war now, avoid a huge war later. Hard to see what doesn't make sense about that.
Guess it settles the question of who the "warmonger" is.
Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, in Ames Thursday, raked the Republican Administration for fighting a war in Iraq and also blamed the war [for] growing tensions between the U.S. and Iran over its nuclear energy program.
"We made the situation in Iran worse," Feingold told a packed audience of Iowa State University students, Ames residents and local politicians in the Maintenance Shop in ISU's Memorial Union. "They took this period to develop nuclear capacity."
Feingold said since fighting in Iraq, the United States is in a weaker military and diplomatic position. He said the U.S. should respond by persuading Iran to "back off on nuclear weapons" rather than with military threats.
"It's a far better approach than warmongering," he said.
Where to begin, indeed. We could start with the fact that the mullahgarchy has been developing nuclear weapons since the Clinton years, long pre-dating Operation Iraqi Freedom - which, it should be remembered, was itself a Clinton policy that his successor actually followed through on. That act was irrelevant to Iran's imperial ambitions; indeed, without following up the Iraqi campaign with an invasion of Iran itself, it can be argued that toppling Saddam Hussein advanced those ambitions closer to actual realization. Which, ironically, bolsters Feingold's contention of increased tensions between Washington and Tehran, if from the opposite direction from what he errantly believes.
His analysis of our military and diplomatic position is similarly confused. The latter is actually a function of the former, but also a function of our will to use it. Attempted diplomatic coercion has no credibility if its target does not believe that the threatened consequences will not be forthcoming. Feingold dismisses the entire process - which is the only one that has a chance of actually disarming the mullahs - as "warmongering." Therefore the strength of either our military or diplomatic positions is, by his reckoning, rendered irrelevant. Yet he argues that we should "persuade" Iran to "back off nuclear weapons"! And wants to be president of the United States! Is he planning on procuring a magic wand from Jimmy Carter before the New Hampshire (oops, I mean NEVADA) primary?
Yeah, by "persuasion" the Wisconsin senator means more and endless concessions - a policy that "the Republican administration" is already pursuing, to predictably futile results. But at least I know that a member of the "World's Greatest Deliberative Body" is a regular reader of this blog, because we are one of the few places anywhere that urges "military threats" and "warmongering" as the sole means, especially at this late date, of averting the catastrophe of a nuclear-armed Islamist superpower.
Fight a small war now, avoid a huge war later. Hard to see what doesn't make sense about that.
Guess it settles the question of who the "warmonger" is.
posted by JASmius at 12:59 PM
<<< Home