December 27, 2003
Who's the snotty world leader now?
UPDATE: This is what I get for waiting until I'm home to post and not reading Kashei's 5 o'clock entry. Nonetheless, enjoy the analysis. Sorry K! :)
After all the talk of George Bush "alienating our allies" and the outcry at US rejection of European control over its defenses, what will the friendship-minded Democratic presidential candidates say to this?
The earthquake, which Iranian agencies measured at 6.3 and American agencies at 6.7, rocked Bam, 610 miles southeast of the capital, Tehran, at 5:28 a.m. Friday.
Government spokesmen said that foreign aid workers would not need entry visas and that aid would be welcome from everywhere but Israel.
Look, I see the reasoning. Iran believes that Israel is a rogue nation. Wrong, but fair enough -- Iran is itself a sovereign nation and has the right to make compromises for its own security. If it believes Israeli aid would bring with it greater threats, that's its business, and the international community could object if it wanted to.
But right or wrong, Iran is snubbing the greatest power in its region -- for free, no-strings-attached emergency aid, nonetheless. Will those who whine that President Bush's decision to maintain sovereignty over US foreign affairs be as upset about this same violation in principle by Iran?
No. Kerry, Dean, We'll-Ask-You-First Wesley and the rest of the left will only praise this Irani decision (if it's mentioned at all), because "diplomacy" is not and has never been the issue. The issue is ideology, and Israel being an ally of the US, the anti-Americans will see no problem with this dismissal of potential Israeli goodwill, just as they saw no reason not to give the most anti-American nation in history complete control over our international affairs.
Posted by Karol at December 27, 2003 09:35 PM
give the most anti-American nation in history complete control over our international affairs
The Link went to a post about "the right of first refusal" comment made by Clark. Where does it talk about Israeli and Iranian relations? Me confused.
What does this part mean?
"just as they saw no reason not to give the most anti-American nation in history complete control over our international affairs."
France. Or haven't you been reading Le Monde?
Oh Lord ... I hope that's hyperbole ... K., you lived in the most anti-American nation in history -- you know, the one that said "we will bury you" and had thousands of nukes pointed right at us.
Joe, I'm not the author of this post, it is the opinion of guest blogger Candace. I think 'most' anti-American nation 'in history' is giving France too much credit but I agree with the overall point: giving such power to a country that hates us isn't in our best interest.
Ah, OK I got confused.
Yeah, blogging lends itself to hyperbole.
For example, look at all the morons who make George W. Bush : Adolph Hitler analogies. God, next time I see that crap, I might just through up.
oh, ok i see now. Too many double negatives in that sentence had my brain spinning backward.
yeah, it's hyperbole -- sorry, that's what you get from me late at night some time. also, my personal political history most strongly covers the last five years. but the point is that i don't think sovereign nations should be forced to accept input or even aid from other countries, especially ones they do not believe have their best interest in mind.
although if you wanted to make the case for russia being the most anti-american nation in history, it wouldn't necessarily change the situation all that much. WC did call russia "one of our staunchest allies" in a debate not that long ago, and reamed bush for their disapproval of the iraq war.
there you go, sorry for the lack of edit on that paragraph.
Wesley Clark. Also, conveniently, an abbreve for water closet, which his policies are looking like more and more these days.
okay, so we're clear:
1) water closet is also the british euphemism for toilet (the room).
2) clark was not talking about iran/israel relations; that wasn't the point. the point is about sovereign nations being able to define their foreign policies, particularly when it comes to issues of defense. apparently clark doesn't think that's appropriate. under the same line of reasoning, iran would be forced to accept israeli aid. that was the point.