The ignorance of Kerry and Edwards and their refusal to learn from history defy comprehension. They want to reach an agreement with Iran that sounds remarkably similar to the failed agreement with North Korea.
Kerry aides said that, if elected, his administration, in cooperation with the European Union, would offer a deal to Iran that would allow the Islamic republic to retain its nuclear facilities. In return, Teheran would have to pledge to return all imported nuclear fuel acquired for its reactor at Bushehr.Do any Democrats find it unseemly for their candidate to be making foreign policy announcements before winning the election? I believe this is without precedent.
"If we are engaging with Iranians in an effort to reach this great bargain and if in fact this is a bluff that they are trying to develop nuclear weapons capability, then we know that our European friends will stand with us," Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards said.And we know this how? All of Europe opposed Israel's strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981, and they haven't been too keen on helping us do anything else recently. Oh wait, he said "friends"... I was thinking of France and Germany.
"At the end of the day [Bush officials] can argue all they want about their policies," Edwards said. "But the test is: Have they worked? And Iran is further along in developing a nuclear weapon than they were when George Bush came into office."Dude, can we please just attack a few countries at a time? We've got troops surrounding Iran now, which you forgot to mention, so just give the President a little bit of a break.
Meanwhile, John Kerry gives us a detailed explanation of how he would have handled Iraq.
Under fire from some in his own party for failing to draw crisp and clear differences with Bush over the war in Iraq, military service and terrorism, the Democratic nominee offered one of his sharpest and most detailed explanations of how he would have handled the conflict and its aftermath differently. "When it comes to Iraq, it's not that I would have done one thing differently, I would have done almost everything differently," Kerry told the national convention of the American Legion here.Whoa, don't overwhelm me with so many details.
Kerry said that the only aspect of the invasion on which he agreed with Bush was how swiftly and decisively the United States would win the initial war with Iraq. After that, Kerry said, Bush failed the "most solemn obligation" as commander in chief: "to make certain we had a plan to win the peace." He faulted Bush for stubbornly ignoring the advice of military commanders on the ground and politicians back home, dismissing the State Department's concerns about a postwar Iraq, and failing to secure Iraq's borders and draw in allies to relieve the burden on U.S. troops. Once inside Iraq, he said, the president botched opportunities to share responsibility with NATO or the United Nations, train indigenous Iraqi forces, safely secure prisoners of war and adequately guard nuclear waste and ammunition storage sites. Kerry said he would have not made those mistakes -- which Republicans counter is easy to say in hindsight.Those aren't details of what he would have done differently, that's just a list of things that went wrong. Well duh, it would have been nice if they hadn't. If I had been President I would have converted Saddam's army to our side and handed out candy canes to everyone. But what would have been the cost of re-allocating resources to avoid these problems? Doing so might have fulfilled even more dire predictions.