Posted on 01/20/2006 8:43:44 AM PST by Wrangler22
The hypocrisy of the left is once again the sound of “flip flop” on international issues. Ever since President Bush took us to war in Iraq after Saddam Hussein’s continued defiance of UN resolution after resolution, Democrats have labeled him a cowboy. They have repeatedly said that he was not interested in using the strength of the United Nations and the International Community to negotiate with Saddam.
The 2004 failed Kerry Presidential campaign was based on this premise. The Democrats continually point to Europe as a model for international policy, and the United Nations as the forum to conduct all foreign policy. Outspoken through this campaign, and taking a swipe at the Bush administration at every opportunity, was Hillary Clinton. She was very vocal about what she perceived as an out of control Administration rushing the nation to war without using every possible international negotiating option. My how the winds of politics have changed her tune on using the international community to negotiate with rogue nations.
Speaking at Princeton, on January 18th, Hillary took shots at the Bush Administration over their approach on Iran:
Though never mentioning President Bush by name, Clinton strongly criticized the current administration's policy toward Iran. "I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," Clinton said. Story http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/01/18/news/14290.shtml
So, let’s take stock of the flip flop. We have two rogue nations, both reportedly on a quest to produce weapons of mass destruction. Iraq, for whom Senator Clinton’s husband authorized regime change as official United States policy while he was President. After dismissing up-teen UN resolutions and orchestrating the UN Oil for Food scam, was clearly not yielding to international pressure. Bush takes us to War and is bashed for not “working” through all possible international negotiating options.
Now we take a look at Iran. A nation who was named as one of the three members of the Axis of Evil, along with Iraq and North Korea, in the President’s 2002 State of the Union Speech. In this matter the President and his administration are being criticized for “outsourcing” the negotiations! How does this woman maintain any credibility when she changes her position with the wind? It is because her position is to be in opposition to whatever moves this administration makes. This type of wind socking is what cost Kerry the 2004 election, and we should feel reassured that Senator Clinton seems content in following his game plan. The Democrats have only one position and only one strategy, to opposed Bush and to attack his Administration at every opportunity.
If President Bush had taken troops into Iran he would have been criticized for being a cowboy again and not exhausting all means of international negotiation. Since he has worked through the international community in this matter he has been criticized for not taking a more direct approach. Either way, he is in a no win situation. I am reassured that he is a man of faith who trusts his instincts and has shown that he will do everything possible to keep this nation safe.
I was arguing this exact point w/my brother in law the other day. He, of course, thinks we should "do something" about Iran. He thinks we should not have done anything with Iraq and of course, being a liberal, he cannot see the apparent conflict and inconsistency in his thinking.
It is a no win debate with liberals. My personal preference is SOCOM operations to take out Iran's nuclear operations. I hope that this is on the table, and I know Bush has the stones to authorize it.
Iraq and Iran are two very different countries and therefore require very different policies. Iran has been a far bigger thorn in the world's side over the years but Iraq needed a solution. Nearly a decade of sanctions and no fly zones?… Oil for Food?… What the hell was that? Looking back we had choices. Solving Iraq meant withdrawal, AKA surrender to a two-bit dictator, or victory, AKA a stable and democratic Iraq. Before the war, I was adamant that Iraq could not be solved without solving Iran first. It’s pointless however to wallow on what could’ve been. Old opportunities have been lost and new ones have come up. We will roll with the changes in the ME or lose everything there. Regional politics in the ME are arguably the most dynamic in the world. Since the invasion, the questions have change and by default, so have the answers. Unfortunately the Iran problem has grown substantially since the invasion of Iraq. Precisely because of its growth, the Iran problem is clearer now than it was at the outset of the war.
Honestly, I don't mind listening to "flops" that sound like a demand for a decisive policy on Iran. We need a decisive policy! I do however worry that, because Hillary has offered no alternative policy, she may be using GWB's lack of an Iran Policy as a partisan club. If that's the case, this is not a flip-flop but a morally bankrupt political maneuver. In my opinion, what we need on Iran is a good list of action items that can build broad consensus. Yes it will be risky but quantitatively and qualitatively less risky than living with a nuclear ready Iran. Everybody should be invited to the party to solve the Iran problem but the invitation should read, "Bring Your Own Policy", BYOP, and "HYPE and HOPE aren't Policy".
with Iraq, fairly easily occupied, we can set up a base for IRan, Pakistan and Syria operations, in addition to ongoing Iraq/Afghan operations.
It is perfectly positioned
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.