Confronting Feinstein On Iran

Okay, it might be just a wee bit scarier confronting Feinstein than confronting Iran, but someone has to do it! Thank heavens California Conservative is on the case.

The biggest mistake we could make is in not considering a military option. Sen. Feinstein essentially kicked that option to the curb. Simply put, that’s inexcusable. It’s also why we can’t trust Democrats with national security. Their pacifistic positions are dangerous, especially in light of the war that we’re in.

And CC is right to confront her.

No one concerned about U.S. national security wants Iran to obtain a nuclear weapons capability. It would be a destabilizing force in the Middle East and throughout the world. That's exactly why we need strong American leadership, working toward a verifiable diplomatic solution.

Sadly, reading through Feinstein's piece reveals that she doesn't think Iran is the big problem. No, I'm sure the corrupt UN can handle Iran. Her real issue is Bush's concept of preemption.

First, it demands that our intelligence be right — every time. This is difficult, if not impossible, in the shadowy world of terrorism and WMD. As we've seen in Iraq, intelligence not only can be wrong, it can be manipulated. Our nation's credibility and stature have taken a huge hit as a result, and the U.S. is in no position to garner support in the international community for military confrontation based on preemption.

But put another way, if our intelligence can be wrong, then doesn't that mean combined with Iran's rhetoric and displayed Uranium, we might already have more to fear? But, no, not for Feinstein, all she fears is Bush. Good grief, does she post at Kos, too?

Second, the doctrine of preemption may lead to a less stable world in general — especially if our adversaries believe they are safe from preemptive action only if they possess nuclear weapons. Iran has no doubt noted the difference in our dealings with North Korea, which possesses nuclear weapons, and Iraq, which the administration believed was still developing them. So the administration may have encouraged the very proliferation it is seeking to prevent.

Of course Feinstein would just as soon have you forget that it was Democrat Clinton who all but handed North Korea nukes, or was it just the technology to launch them. North Korea is the problem it is precisely because of the strategy Feinstein advocates - let's talk and sit and wait. Now there's a wonderful plan.

Third, an overreliance on preemption can lead to the downplaying of diplomacy. By the administration's own account, Iran is years away from possessing nuclear weapons; there is time to engage in forceful diplomatic action.

Would that be the diplomacy we practice before or after the UN gets its greedy little hands in the game and undercuts any effective diplomatic action we might try to take? You know, like skirting an embargo for financial gain - not to mention that France, Russia, Germany and others also proved their capable of just the same.

Given that only their financial interests seems to drive some of our would be allies, what is forceful diplomacy - yelling at them?

The U.S. should engage Iran diplomatically. So far, England, France and Germany have led the negotiated effort to halt Iran's uranium enrichment, while Russia has explored other alternatives. It is time for the U.S. to lead such efforts, not stand by.

What a fool. As I recently posted:

What is the status of Europe's nuclear negotiations with Iran?

They are in trouble. Since October 2003, Iran and three members of the European Union (EU)--Britain, France, and Germany--have engaged in negotiations to ensure that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons. The Europeans have asked Iran to relinquish its uranium-enrichment program because the technology can easily be adapted for military uses. Iranians, however, say they will not give up what they see as their sovereign right to enrich uranium as part of a peaceful nuclear program. In recent weeks, the stances of both sides have toughened. A last-ditch attempt at reviving the talks will take place in Geneva May 25.

Iranian diplomats say that Europe has failed to offer incentives that would encourage them to modify their nuclear goals.

The strategy, if one can call it that, which Feinstein outlines has failed over the past several years while Iran has consistently moved forward, only taking time to lie to the world's face. And what does Feinstein say to that? Wonderful, let's have some number of years more of the very same.

Now there's a ticket back to Bedrock if I ever saw one. But then I imagine Feinstein would feel right at home in the stone age. After all, she appears to have rocks for a freaking brain. More here.

Comments

[Laertes]

That's the problem with crying "wolf." Sooner or later there IS wolf, and nobody believes you.

Sucks, but _I_ didn't vote for this guy.

[Sgt. York]

I'm less FRIGHTENED of Iran's attempts at low-level uranium enrichment as part of the fuel-cycle... than I am of Pakistan's actual NUC-BOMBS and North Korea's actual NUC-BOMBS. And I'm not frightened of Pakistan or North Korea at all.

Nine countries have nuc-weapons, twenty countries have nuc-power-reactors, thirty-two countries have nuc-reasearch-reactors. Big woop.

You folks are mighty frightened. Maybe a stint in the military would teach you to be less frightened of the world.

=====================

[Paulo]

Laertes:

I am not going to make this issue personal, and it is my belief that you should not as well. I do not care who you voted for any more than you should want to espouse it. This is why our voting procedures are done in private. So let's just keep it that way.

As for crying wolf, I am unable to see any relevance whatsoever. Moreover, if anything has come to the forefront as a result of this war is definitely that these people respond better to violence than diplomacy.

For over twelve years the USA as well as coalition partners tried to see to it that Iraq's government would adhere to the sanctions placed upon them by the United Nations. It is extremely important that you realize that it was in fact the UN who placed the sanctions on Iraq and not the USA. This is one of the areas I find that liberals have a hard time accepting. Most, if not all, want to point fingers at President Bush as if he had the ability to assemble roughly 250,000 troops, all military ordinance, and marching orders.

Somewhere someone forgot that 530 or so members of Congress lined up at the door to place their name in the history books in support of this war. Then again, somehow they have forgotten why they did it.

Realism should always advise on the caution of the worst possible scenario. Rather than rub faces in "faulty intelligence" it is certainly the opinion of most in this nation that intelligence matters had little or nothing to do with the decision to go to war with Iraq. The sooner that liberals admit this fact to themselves, the sooner we get to having people dealing with reality!

Always remember these important truths: 1)Diplomacy was indeed tried with Saddam Hussein, albeit to no avail; 2) It is definitely fact that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction (wmd) before the horn was sounded to march; 3) More than 3000 innocent folks went to work one morning and our nation was attacked by a foreign entity; 4) It certainly appears to me that the European Union has tried to negotiate and be diplomatic with Iran, however, Iran strutting around like they have a delivery system. These are facts. Please write to your beloved Sen. Feinstein and let her know "the facts."

Throughout history that particular region does not and never has been able to deal with diplomacy. I am not afraid to be a realist. This region and the people therein respond to violence above all else. Hell, strap on a bomb vest and let's go to a wedding and kill innocents! Let's fill our trucks, cars, and wagons with explosives and kill, kill, and kill as many as we can for Allah! Who needs the truck? Who needs the car? Hell, no one ever won anything by dying for it. One wins by being alive and killing the other guy. That's realism, get used to it. It hasn't changed since the dawn of humankind. It is not going to change for you or any other liberal who thinks one can negotiate with terrorists. Any questions?

[Laertes]

"1)Diplomacy was indeed tried with Saddam Hussein, albeit to no avail"

The sanctions were a humanitarian catastrophe. Sure kept him from building nukes, though.

"2) It is definitely fact that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction (wmd) before the horn was sounded to march"

Wrong.

"3) More than 3000 innocent folks went to work one morning and our nation was attacked by a foreign entity"

You're aware that there's more than one "foreign entity," right?

"4) It certainly appears to me that the European Union has tried to negotiate and be diplomatic with Iran, however, Iran strutting around like they have a delivery system."

They sure are acting crazy. Not sure what that proves. We already knew Iran's leaders were a special breed. These are people who clear minefields by sending children to run through them. You've just NOW figured out that they're nuts? I could've told you that years ago, back when we were getting ready to topple their biggest enemy and hand control of his country over to their clients. I'd love to play chess with the guys who cooked up that play.

Look, maybe they're near to having nukes and maybe they're not. Here's what I know for sure: Bush will hear what he wants to hear, and say what he wants to say, and any resemblance to the truth will be purely accidental.

If you can't see any relevance whatsoever to "crying wolf," then you either don't understand the story, or you haven't been paying attention.

Finally: Less talk about not getting personal, and more action, please.

[Paulo]

Goodness man, what side of the fence are you on? You write as though you'd re-elect Feinstein, or worse, pull some stunt like voting for John Kerry. Although predicated upon your writing, I think you might fit in well with those wafflers.

In regards to diplomacy I see we do agree. The "humanitarian catastrophe" you refer too is exactly my point. I do not see any relevance in your analogy vis-a-vie Saddam Hussein and nukes, unless you are admitting that he did have WMD. And this is the very reason it is easy being a realist; no smoke or mirrors, just plain old reality.

Unless one works in national security or in an intelligence agency, one should not be so fast to write "Wrong" regarding these very WMD's. (Ref: Your #2)

I'll skip the foreign entity bit because it is bait. I am a realist and what I was referring to was of course, September 11, 2001. Perhaps you can help me out with the "other" foreign entities that may have been involved?

I agree the leadership in Iran is acting crazy. Nothing new with that bit of news. I see you so cleverly run the bait again. It's nonsense even trying to discuss reality with the lot of you. Oddly however is the notion that we agree on so many issues, yes, primarily those that I wrote, yet you seem to want to come after me. Go figure.

You state, "less personal, and more action" so what do you have in mind for action? Is this some kind of b/s action Feinstein's referring too? Look, do us all a favor: Crack open a history book and read it…what a concept, eh? Study the behavior of the various regimes in the Middle East region. But whatever you do, don't draw a cartoon of any prophet or Holy man, hell, they'll put the double whammy hex of death on you.