I’m paraphrasing here, but if you watched and paid attention, you’ll know what I’m talking about.
On Iraq, Edwards touted the meme of no countries backing us on the Iraq war. An obvious reference to France and Germany voting against the war.
Only a few minutes later the question of Iran was brought up. Cheney mentioned that the US was working with GB, France, and Germany on the Iranian nuclear program.
Then Edwards responded by trying to hammer Cheney for leaving it up to the Europeans to handle the situation.
So my question is this. Is the Kerry/Edwards ticket for or against allowing Europe to be involved in US national security?
I’m trying to not be too confrontational here, it’s a legit question. However, the nature of the question will land the thread here anyway. So what’s the Dem position?
No, they’re not against European involvement. What he Edwards was remarking on was how the US has essentially shunned ALL contact with Iran since Bush’s axis of evil speech. This has had the effect of leaving us out of the loop on Iranian nuclear proliferation for nearly two years. It’s not European initiative that’s the problem, it’s OUR lack of initiative.
It was kind of a strange comment though. He bashed Chaney on the US taking charge and acting in Iraq…and then turned around and bashed Chaney that the US has let Europe handle Iran, and that we SHOULD act in Iran. Huh? Act how? Sanctions? Thought Iran was ALREADY under sanction by the US (could be mis-remembering there). Why SHOULDN’T the Europeans take a more active part…and why DOES the US have to be in the lead about Iran? Especially now, with the present situation?
For 25 years we’ve taken the road of negotiations/appeasement of Iranian mullah’s (sp?) to try to win over Iranians. It’s an admittedly long term approach, but an important one. And over the last decade it seems to be taking hold. The younger Iranians that have access to the internet and world news want some freedom. They see what they’re missing out on. Cultural changes from the 6th century to the 21st take more than a few years. With Iran, we’re just giving them a reason to think it may be best to accelerate reform.
And by lumping them into the “axis of evil” gives a clear warning that if they want to violate any “deals” made with the UN, as in nuclear weapons, Big Poppa Sam will lay down the law.
I think the biggest victims of al-Queda are Muslims. Yes, the world is losing thousands of lives every year because of these fruitcake cowards strapping bombs to children. But it sets up mistrust around the world of followers of Islam. I can’t look at an Arab without wondering if he or she is carrying a bomb.
Is that fair? No. Growing up I had friends from both Egypt and Pakistan whose familie’s were muslim. We got along like all get-out.
These days, living in a city that has a top-flight aerospace University that has students from Saudi Arabia (19 of 20), I’m more than a little suspicious of arabs. Sorry ACLU, but sometimes suspicion is warranted. And fishing doesn’t hurt.
Here’s the write-up on Dvorak. He was at a nighclub and knocked out a Saudi thinking he and his friends were possible terrorists. Later it turned out that the Saudi was caught in a conspiracy where others were taking the qualifying tests to stay in the US and he was deported. (I’ll post the link when I can find it)
He didn’t bash Cheney for the U.S. “taking charge” in Iraq. He blasted them for acting so unilaterally. (Yes, I know, there was Britain and Australia and Poland…whose prime minister now says he feels he was misled.)
See, leadership is more than just acting. It is also about listening and working together with other people. Even Bush 1, who certainly wasn’t my favorite President but is looking mighty fine by comparison these days, was capable of really building a broader coalition and of not alienating our traditional allies like Germany and France.
I think the Kerry/Edwards message is consistent because what has happened is really two sides of the same coin. In one case, the U.S. just took over and railroaded a policy without listening to our allies who ended up to be right when we were wrong. In another case, we didn’t really work with our allies either…We just totally abdicated responsibility on the issue. (I suppose that is better than the first…Because, the less Bush gets involved in something, the better it is likely to turn out. But neither is necessarily the right approach.)