Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Democrat Debates:

Unwatchable for a Reason

Duane Patterson, on the Hugh Hewitt blog at Town Hall must have the ability to read minds. He puts pixels to what millions were thinking:
Tuesday evening, virtually no one watched the Democratic presidential debate on MSNBC, because by and large, it was virtually unwatchable. But there was one section that caught my eye, and if you are someone who cares about the continued existence of the state of Israel, regardless of which political party you belong to, it should have caught your eye as well.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is well known for his apocalyptic speeches about how the Zion state cannot continue, how they must be wiped off the map, etc. So when a Holocaust-denying, religious zealot is in a position of importance in a country who is trying to obtain nuclear weapons capabilities, when that same country is supplying or training many of the main terrorist organizations in the world today, when that country is interfering in the metamorphasis of Iraq by supplying weaponry that has killed our troops, you would naturally conclude that Iran is a growing threat, is not showing any signs of cowering to international sanctions, and could indeed grow into a threat that will require a military solution to stop an unthinkable genocide.
Exactly. When military options are ruled out, the only options left are nagging and hand-wringing. Admittedly, the Democrats are proficient at both, but that doesn't mean either will slow down the Iranian mullahs on their way to turning the Zionist Entity into a nuclear-tinged parking lot for Syria.

For example, Democrat candidate Bill Richardson called for a "diplomatic Surge" after a speedy American troop withdrawal. Diplomatic surge? Only in a Democrat war room could such a phrase be uttered without everyone present collapsing in laughter.

What's this "diplomatic surge" going to offer the Iranians that would make them pause in their nuclear ambitions? Royalty rights to Richardson's next UFO paperback?

The Democrats are all dancing on the head of a defeatist pin.

If the other side doesn't think there's any consequences to behavior that might offend, then offensive behavior carries no penalties for them. Somehow, one guesses that Tehran will survive both a diplomatic surge and the next Dem hand-wringing offensive. Iraqi and Israeli citizens won't be so lucky.

As Patterson puts the Clintonesque "stand/clarification/waffle/today's position":
Standard Clintonian double-speak. She will only pledge to try. But if they do become a nuclear power, well, Israel, it sucks to be you.

The Democrat debates were unwatchable. In Israel and most of Iraq, they were unthinkable.

The Democrats debate firm stands on military options.
Edwards' take on Clinton's stand on her Iran war vote:
Asked whether he stood by his characterization of Clinton’s rhetoric as “doubletalk,” Edwards replied firmly, “I do.”

by Mondoreb


Back to Front Page.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave your name/nic.
We've changed the comments section to allow non-registered users to comment.
We'll continue like that until it's being abused.
We reserve the right to delete all abusive or otherwise inappropriate comments.