ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Sunday, April 16, 2006

The Democratic Message On Iran

Given our situation with Iran, it's important to understand how the domestic opposition party views the situation - especially given that they don't subscribe to the position which is being pursued by our government.

Here is the Democrat message on Iran, according to AmericaBlog. It's infused with Bush Derangement Syndrome throughout... Can we seriously consider putting in power a political organization with these positions on such a fundamental question?

Here is the Democratic message on Iran
by John in DC - 4/13/2006 11:49:00 AM

George Bush has decided to use Iran as a foil to help his sagging poll numbers and to help Republicans in the fall congressional elections. I'm going to discuss why this is true, and what the Dems should do about it.

Iran is ten years away from developing nukes.

I'll say it again, TEN YEARS away. That would be TEN YEARS at the earliest, according to the best estimate we have. And that's not according to some peacenik liberal, it's according to the best estimate of US intelligence.
[...]
Iran is a convenient way to change the subject
[...]
Start saber-rattling about how Iran is going to nuke America's babies, and people may very well forget all the other problems on their plate. Bringing up Iran now is a convenient way to help Republicans in the fall congressional elections

There's a second benefit to this strategy as well. Bush can again look presidential - the strong leader taking on more evil dark-skinned false-god worshippers. Bush's hope is that all of this will help the Republicans sagging poll numbers, and thus help them retain the House and Senate in the fall.

Comforting that your view of foreign policy is always primarily focused on the implications on domestic political results....
[...]
So how should Democrats respond to the issue of Iran's nuclear threat?

Let me suggestion a number of possible talking points and positions.

1) George Bush is the wrong man to be launching yet another war.

President? Check... I seem to recall that position also being referred to as Commander-In-Chief
2) Slow down, we've got ten years.
And what if the "experts" are wrong, as they were with Saddam in 1991 and Saddam in 2003?
3) Since we have ten years, we can at the very least wait seven months until the congressional elections this fall.
4) It is ridiculous to consider any congressional resolution on Iran until after the fall elections.

Ahh, yes... mustn't bring up important foreign policy issues which voters should actually consider when voting in the Congressional elections... would be very undemocratic to have discuss issues prior to an election, right?
5) There is no reason we need to even go to war until Bush has left office.

Huh? That's just stupid. Only someone suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) would make such an argument
6) Bush is the not the president we want exercising the nuclear option.

I would prefer that no president exercise the nuclear option... But, if a president does have to make that decision, I certainly won't be looking at party affiliation. Again, a clear sign of BDS.
7) Bush either lied to us, or was unable to determine the truth, about Iraq's WMD program (which we now know didn't exist). Why should we believe claims from the same president and same intelligence agencies about Iran's WMD program? We need more than President Bush's assurances.

How about we rely upon the words of the President of Iran? Or the "moderates" in the regime? Or the IAEA? Or the UN? Or that's right, even though they agreed with us as well, it was only Bush that lied to us. (BDS yet again!)
8) What military and what money are we going to use to launch a war against Iran?

The military accounts for a small portion of our federal budget. I've got a suggestion... why don't we move the billions (and future trillions) dedicated to that program towards an effort that requires our full support and attention?
9) Why is it always us?

Clearly you do not understand the reality of the word as it is today. Perhaps you should review the defense expenditures of the major countries in the world (at least those that could possibly be considered on the right side of history). Woops, I've gotten all judgemental, haven't I....

And if you think that AmericaBlog is a lone outpost of moonbattery, see this post on Huffington's site which echoes this very scary sentiment:
1. Iran presently has a strong, rational incentive to get nukes.
[...]
2. Iran has acted rationally and can be reasoned with.
[...]
3. There is plenty of time to negotiate.
[...]
4. The Bush Administration's word is not credible.
[...]
5. The way to stop Iran, without causing more death, destruction and instability, is to remove the incentives for Iran to go nuclear, and negotiate.
[...]

Yep... this sounds like the gameplan that we used to great effect during the 1990s... resulting in the first WTC attack, Khobar, the USS Cole attack, African embassies, Somalia, etc, etc.

I just wish there was an American message on Iran. Unfortunately, those suffering from BDS are unwilling to understand the impact of their words. At some point, I feel a tinge of guilt that Another Rovian Conspiracy might have contributed to their affliction.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler