.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Heavy-Handed Politics

"€œGod willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world
without the United States and Zionism."€ -- Iran President Ahmadi-Nejad

Thursday, August 25, 2005

From the Opinion Journal

Nancy Reid and Harry Pelosi, the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate (though not necessarily in that order), have an op-ed in USA Today criticizing the Bush administration for being "passive" with respect to Iran's and North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons: "The administration's policy has been one of 'hands off' and 'it's someone else's problem,' " they complain.

It's true that anyone who expected the administration to resolve the Iran and North Korea nuclear questions has thus far been disappointed, and we know of no reason to expect that will change soon. But is this the administration's fault? Or, to put the question another way, to what extent is the problem amenable to a U.S.-led solution, and to what extent is it intractable?If you think the U.S. can solve the problem, your argument will be a lot more persuasive if you have a plausible explanation as to how. So what approach would Reid and Pelosi take? Here's what they say:

We propose a program of "carrots" combined with an old-fashioned, American "big stick." That means pursuing diplomacy and trying to convince these nations to act in their own best interests. But it also means backing that up with a real commitment to use whatever form of pressure is most likely to produce results.

A real commitment to . . . whatever! Brilliant, huh?

Now, just because Reid and Pelosi don't know how to solve the problem doesn't mean it can't be done. Maybe a solution is possible but no one's thought of it yet. But if airy truisms are the best Reid and Pelosi have to offer by way of an alternative policy, it seems fair to put their criticisms of the administration down to sheer partisanship.


  • I know, I know, I know!!!, Let's send Jimmy Carter there to negotiate. We could,..., let's see,..., offer them missle guidance technology in exchange for their promise not to pursue nuclear weapons.

    Oh yeah, we did that didn't we and they renigged on their promise and then sent a missle over Japan. I thought we should have used a Patriot missle to blow that test/warning/dare out of the sky. Wonder if Nancy and Harry woulkd have supported that move?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:08 AM  

  • Do I detect sarcasm Mr.ANOTMO? Hmmmm?
    As you already know, when Harry met Sally... er... Nancy, to discuss any and all such possible actions of this nature, they concluded there was no manuever that they could support under George Bush's watch.

    All imaginable solutions, no matter how laughable, is acceptable under a Dem's watch - and of course the more passive, the better. Their formula is one big group hug ='s 10 BIG bombs.

    By Blogger HeavyHanded, at 4:12 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home