Dead Cant Rant

MSNBC interviews John Edwards: Kerry would offer Iran nuke ‘bargain’.

A John F. Kerry administration would propose to Iran that the Islamic state be allowed to keep its nuclear power plants in exchange for giving up the right to retain the nuclear fuel that could be used for bomb-making, Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards said in an interview yesterday.

Edwards said that if Iran failed to take what he called a “great bargain,” it would essentially confirm that it is building nuclear weapons under the cover of a supposedly peaceful nuclear power initiative.

The Kerry administration would provide one of the most brutal, terroristic, Islamofascist nations in the world with the key ingredients to the most destructive weaponry in the history of mankind in the hope that they will not use these weapons against the American population. Jimmy Carter’s “peace in our time” visit to North Korea should have proven the folly of such a proposition.

Liberals are history’s fools. Anyone who is even remotely familiar with World War II will recall the guarantees Hitler made to Stalin in exchange for oil, grain, phosphates (for explosives), iron, and many other resources to Hitler’s war effort. Stalin’s payment? 28 million dead.

He said that, if elected, Kerry would ensure that European allies were prepared to join the United States in levying heavy sanctions if Iran rejected the proposal. “If we are engaging with Iranians in an effort to reach this great bargain and if in fact this is a bluff that they are trying to develop nuclear weapons capability, then we know that our European friends will stand with us,” Edwards said.

Our “European friends” — meaning France and Germany — have never turned their backs on us in favor of cheaper oil. We can be certain they “will stand with us,” just as Czechoslovakia’s European “friends” stood with her during the 1938 Munich agreement, in which they surrendered part of Czechoslovakian territory in exchange for a “pledge of peace” from Hitler — a pledge which was broken in less than six months. Czechoslovakia was not a party in the Munich negotiations.

The Franco-Czech Alliance obligated France to defend Czechoslovakia against invasion. Perhaps this explains why Kerry is so enamored with the French: they promised to protect Czechoslovakia before they decided to forsake them.

Besides, what, exactly, would we sanction? We have had no diplomatic or economic relations with Iran for the past 25 years. Unlike the North Koreans, the last time we checked Iranians were not exactly eating grass three meals a day. Iran has normal trade relations with other countries, especially ones that are not keen on supporting a U.S.-demanded sanction against a fellow Islamic state. And as Iraq has shown through the “oil-for-food” scam and its cheap-oil pipeline deal with Syria, as well as Pakistan’s nuclear black market deals with North Korea and other nations, sanctions are not a weapon: they are a paper tiger.

Edwards’s notion of proposing such a bargain with Iran, combined with Kerry’s statement in December that he was prepared to explore “areas of mutual interest” with Iran, suggest that Kerry would take a sharply different approach with Iran than President Bush. The United States has not had diplomatic relations with Iran since its 1979 revolution, and Iran was part of Bush’s “axis of evil” that included North Korea and the former government of Iraq. Earlier this month, Bush demanded that Iran “must abandon her nuclear ambitions.”

What “areas of mutual interest” could we possibly have with a bloody theocracy that foments terror and perpetrates the wanton death and destruction of civilian lives? By making this statement, Kerry has revealed — once again — his view of America: we are no different than a country that calls for the death of every American.

Edwards, interviewed yesterday in the living room of his Georgetown townhouse as he sipped a Diet Coke, said that in Afghanistan, Kerry would push to expand NATO forces beyond Kabul to enhance security and would double the $123 million in funds to counter the drug trade that the administration spent in 2004 in Afghanistan. He said that despite the problems NATO has had in meeting its commitment in Afghanistan, Kerry would push NATO to add troops there and perhaps military equipment, but that the U.S. force of 20,000 would not be expanded.

“NATO has made promises that have not been kept by some of the NATO countries in getting the equipment — helicopters, etc. — that are needed there,” Edwards said. “But we believe that with a president who treats NATO and the NATO countries the way they should be treated, and with a fresh start, we have a real chance of getting NATO more involved.”

Edwards also said the Democrats would be able to obtain greater NATO involvement in Iraq for the same reason, even though NATO officials have said it will be difficult for the organization to undertake a major mission in Iraq until its work in Afghanistan is completed.

The Kerry plan is to “[treat] NATO and the NATO countries the way they should be treated” and they will magically produce more troops. We suppose by this he means demanding that NATO provide more support for a mission outside of their theatre of operations, even though they have stated flatly that they simply cannot fulfill this expectation. Given that NATO countries spend only an average of 2.3% of GDP on defense — with Germany spending a meager 1% — combined with their manpower shortfalls and new commitments to the emerging European Union forces, this proposal is laughable. Or would be, if we weren’t discussing the possible future leader of the only Superpower on the planet.

Iranian experts have long speculated that some sort of “grand bargain” that would cover the nuclear programs, a lifting of sanctions and renewed relations with the United States would help solve the impasse between the two countries.

Again, this sounds distressingly identical to the North Korean plan; the same plan that Kim Jong-il reneged on before the ink was dry.

In the December speech, Kerry criticized Bush for failing to “conduct a realistic, nonconfrontational policy with Iran.”

What purpose would a “nonconfrontational” stance serve? You cannot negotiate from a position of weakness. There is an old Arab saying: You can negotiate with gold, or you can negotiate with a sword, and the first is worthless.

Kerry has the carrot/stick strategy backwards: the carrot is too large, but his stick is inadequate.

His constantly-changing stances on every issue show that he has only one conviction: he will say and do anything to be president. Perhaps if Kerry had a few more convictions — say, for treason and aiding the enemy in a time of war — the American voter might have a viable Democratic candidate who would provide a more plausible approach to such vitally-important issues. Instead, he is faced with the Kerry/Edwards ticket, two men who can’t fight their way out of a paper sack, much less fight against radical Islamofascists who feel they finally have the means to avenge Abraham’s ostracism of Ishmael within their grasp and will do anything to achieve that goal.

The average citizen may not realize this, but John Kerry does — and he doesn’t care that he is playing games with your life.