With "Friends" Like These...
Senator Chuck Hagel seems to think he knows more about how to deal with Iran than the administration does. And with idi...er, friends like him, who needs enemies? (Hat-tip: LittleGreenFootballs.)
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/19/MTFH94171_2005-08-19_16-46-53_WRI960027.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican Party foreign policy expert Sen. Chuck Hagel is calling for the United States to open talks with Iran's new president and has dismissed President George W. Bush's talk of a military option against Tehran as an empty and foolish threat.
Empty and foolish, huh? I am sure that Saddam thought something similar to that prior to us removing him from power. And I would like to point out that the president did not say that a move militarily was the only option. He said "all options are on the table."
In an interview with Reuters during a trip across his home state on Wednesday, Hagel said the United States should greet the new Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with a bold diplomatic stroke.
"You've got a new president, a new opportunity to do something bold here. Why not take that opportunity and do something bold? Iran is going to be a major influence in the future of Iraq. It already is. Who are we kidding when we think that they're not? They are."
A bold diplomatic stroke? Like what? Would Sen. Hagel like to see a deal similar to the one with North Korea in 1994? Is he now jumping on the John Kerry bandwagon? Kerry said in the presidential debates that he would give Iran the fuel they wanted. He had no "trust, but verify" method to keep Iran in line, and not allow them to build their nuclear weapons, but he would have done it anyway. Is this the move that Sen. Hagel is proposing?
He is right that Iran is involved in Iraq. We saw that with Muqtada al-Sadr. We know that Iran has sent terrorists and weapons into Iraq. Yes, they are involved, in all the wrong ways. Diplomacy works for nations that are serious about maintaining such relations. Iran does not want regular, diplomatic relations with us. If they did, they would quit interfering in Iraq. Further, this new president has made it clear that when Iran has a nuke, they are willing to unilaterally attack Israel with it. Did Sen. Hagel forget that Israel is an ally of ours, and that such diplomacy could be dangerous for that ally?
"Quite frankly, what is the military option, what are we talking about here? We lose credibility in the face of the world when we say things like, 'Well just don't forget what happened to Iraq could happen to you Iran. We could invade you, we could bomb you.'
"Oh come on now. First of all, where are we going to get the troops? Who's going to go with us? Where are our partners going to be with Iran?"
The United States has been working through its allies, France, Britain and Germany, in an effort to persuade the Iranians to freeze their nuclear program. This week, the Iranians resumed operations at their uranium conversion facility at Isfahan.
We lost credibility in the world’s eyes? Please, senator. The people who lost credibility in the world prior to the invasion of Iraq was the UN. The UN, despite being told to pound sand for twelve years by Saddam Hussein, refused to enforce the sanctions against him. They did not want us going into Iraq because we would find all the dirty little secrets they had been hiding. We found the French jets buried in the desert with state-of-the-art technology in the cockpits. We found the mobile chemical weapons labs supplied by Germany. Granted, yes, they were clean, but the fact of the matter is that they were there. We found records showing the shady deals he cut with France, Germany, and Russia. And we found records that blew the lid off of the Oil-For-Food scandal.
As for our partners, I am sure we will have plenty that will be willing to help. There are about forty nations with us in Iraq. Sixty contributed to our efforts in Afghanistan. And at the risk of turning the Middle East into a possible nuclear hot zone, I am sure we would get plenty of nations to help us. But I guess he missed the intelligence report showing that Iran, once again, is restarting its nuclear program. Why do they need this? They claim they want nuclear power for electricity. Okay, that is fine, but you have seven reactors that do precisely that. So, why are they negotiating with the EU and Russia for a heavy-water reactor? There is only one feasible use for such a reactor in Iran, and that is to create nuclear fissionable materials.
"You need to move toward something and what are we moving toward here? I don't see where we're moving toward anything. In fact, I think we're eroding a base of strength that we still have here. We have got to get inside this thing, because this is a very dangerous problem," Hagel said. "I think we're actually losing altitude, I think we're actually making it more dangerous."
It is so nice to see Mr. Wobbly here has grabbed a hold of the MoveOn.org talking points about making things more dangerous in the Middle East. What will make things more dangerous in the Middle East is the sort of diplomacy that Sen. Hagel is endorsing with a terrorist-sponsoring nation like Iran; a virtual theocracy that embraces the most blood-thirsty themes from the "religion of peace." It is intolerable that this moron is even sitting in the Senate, and is getting away with making comments like this. Where is the GOP leadership in the Senate to rein this old fool in? Oh, I forgot. The newly cloned spines from England have not arrived yet.
This man is supposedly a foreign policy expert. Honestly, his foreign policy knowledge seems to be the equivalent of the previous administration, which was disastrous. I prefer to trust Secretary Rice and President Bush when it comes to handling foreign policy, especially with such a dangerous animal, as Iran is.
The Bunny ;)
Senator Chuck Hagel seems to think he knows more about how to deal with Iran than the administration does. And with idi...er, friends like him, who needs enemies? (Hat-tip: LittleGreenFootballs.)
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/19/MTFH94171_2005-08-19_16-46-53_WRI960027.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican Party foreign policy expert Sen. Chuck Hagel is calling for the United States to open talks with Iran's new president and has dismissed President George W. Bush's talk of a military option against Tehran as an empty and foolish threat.
Empty and foolish, huh? I am sure that Saddam thought something similar to that prior to us removing him from power. And I would like to point out that the president did not say that a move militarily was the only option. He said "all options are on the table."
In an interview with Reuters during a trip across his home state on Wednesday, Hagel said the United States should greet the new Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with a bold diplomatic stroke.
"You've got a new president, a new opportunity to do something bold here. Why not take that opportunity and do something bold? Iran is going to be a major influence in the future of Iraq. It already is. Who are we kidding when we think that they're not? They are."
A bold diplomatic stroke? Like what? Would Sen. Hagel like to see a deal similar to the one with North Korea in 1994? Is he now jumping on the John Kerry bandwagon? Kerry said in the presidential debates that he would give Iran the fuel they wanted. He had no "trust, but verify" method to keep Iran in line, and not allow them to build their nuclear weapons, but he would have done it anyway. Is this the move that Sen. Hagel is proposing?
He is right that Iran is involved in Iraq. We saw that with Muqtada al-Sadr. We know that Iran has sent terrorists and weapons into Iraq. Yes, they are involved, in all the wrong ways. Diplomacy works for nations that are serious about maintaining such relations. Iran does not want regular, diplomatic relations with us. If they did, they would quit interfering in Iraq. Further, this new president has made it clear that when Iran has a nuke, they are willing to unilaterally attack Israel with it. Did Sen. Hagel forget that Israel is an ally of ours, and that such diplomacy could be dangerous for that ally?
"Quite frankly, what is the military option, what are we talking about here? We lose credibility in the face of the world when we say things like, 'Well just don't forget what happened to Iraq could happen to you Iran. We could invade you, we could bomb you.'
"Oh come on now. First of all, where are we going to get the troops? Who's going to go with us? Where are our partners going to be with Iran?"
The United States has been working through its allies, France, Britain and Germany, in an effort to persuade the Iranians to freeze their nuclear program. This week, the Iranians resumed operations at their uranium conversion facility at Isfahan.
We lost credibility in the world’s eyes? Please, senator. The people who lost credibility in the world prior to the invasion of Iraq was the UN. The UN, despite being told to pound sand for twelve years by Saddam Hussein, refused to enforce the sanctions against him. They did not want us going into Iraq because we would find all the dirty little secrets they had been hiding. We found the French jets buried in the desert with state-of-the-art technology in the cockpits. We found the mobile chemical weapons labs supplied by Germany. Granted, yes, they were clean, but the fact of the matter is that they were there. We found records showing the shady deals he cut with France, Germany, and Russia. And we found records that blew the lid off of the Oil-For-Food scandal.
As for our partners, I am sure we will have plenty that will be willing to help. There are about forty nations with us in Iraq. Sixty contributed to our efforts in Afghanistan. And at the risk of turning the Middle East into a possible nuclear hot zone, I am sure we would get plenty of nations to help us. But I guess he missed the intelligence report showing that Iran, once again, is restarting its nuclear program. Why do they need this? They claim they want nuclear power for electricity. Okay, that is fine, but you have seven reactors that do precisely that. So, why are they negotiating with the EU and Russia for a heavy-water reactor? There is only one feasible use for such a reactor in Iran, and that is to create nuclear fissionable materials.
"You need to move toward something and what are we moving toward here? I don't see where we're moving toward anything. In fact, I think we're eroding a base of strength that we still have here. We have got to get inside this thing, because this is a very dangerous problem," Hagel said. "I think we're actually losing altitude, I think we're actually making it more dangerous."
It is so nice to see Mr. Wobbly here has grabbed a hold of the MoveOn.org talking points about making things more dangerous in the Middle East. What will make things more dangerous in the Middle East is the sort of diplomacy that Sen. Hagel is endorsing with a terrorist-sponsoring nation like Iran; a virtual theocracy that embraces the most blood-thirsty themes from the "religion of peace." It is intolerable that this moron is even sitting in the Senate, and is getting away with making comments like this. Where is the GOP leadership in the Senate to rein this old fool in? Oh, I forgot. The newly cloned spines from England have not arrived yet.
This man is supposedly a foreign policy expert. Honestly, his foreign policy knowledge seems to be the equivalent of the previous administration, which was disastrous. I prefer to trust Secretary Rice and President Bush when it comes to handling foreign policy, especially with such a dangerous animal, as Iran is.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:06 PM
1 Comments:
Well thought out and written. Hagel reminds me of Chamlerlain's diplomacy with Hitler. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home