Democrats Back the Nutjob

It is difficult to define how moronic Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Richardson sounded today when they urged continued dialogue with Iran.

"In this vacuum, Tehran continues its progress toward developing nuclear weapons and increasing its influence in the region," Clinton told the Center for a New American Security. "After initial talks with Iran and Syria on Iraq, the administration says it isn't sure that we need any more discussions with either of them. I think we should keep talking."

Richardson was even more ridiculous. According to AP: Richardson, who served as U.N. ambassador for Clinton's husband, said that instead of lecturing Iran's leadership, the United States should talk with them without preconditions. And instead of using inflammatory names, such as "Axis of Evil," the U.S. and its allies should seek and find common ground, particularly with moderates unhappy with the current leadership.

What is showing here is their appalling ignorance in the face of facts and a partisanship that more than matches the Bush White House's for shrillness.

In fact, had either Richardson or Clinton bothered reading or listening to the news today, they would have learned that Iranians were rioting over new gas prices and rationing. If either of them had more than oatmeal for brains, they would have known that Iran has been increasingly intolerant of its dissidents and is cracking down hard, has sent its religious police into the streets to crush any sign of non-islamic behaviour and is seizing and holding foreigners including British sailors and, at the moment, 4 Americans.

There is plenty of dissatisfaction in Iran right now and today's actions only brought some of that to light. The pressure, exerted by US-led sanctions, is working. If Iranians rise up and throw the crazy bastards out of power before the crazies get too close to building nukes, it would be the best possible outcome.

Richardson also doesn't seem to have listed any common ground that the US currently shares with Iran. Let's see: one is a secular democracy and the other is a madman-run theocracy. One extends protections to all its citizens, the other is run by decree. One wants to wipe out another nation, the other is a close friend of that nation. One supports Lebanese democracy, the other wants to hand it over to Syria...etc, etc. There is no relevant common ground for Iran and the US at the moment and Richardson's rhetoric doesn't change one iota of that very basic fact.

Further, how dare Clinton, who wouldn't even be able to show her face in public if she lived in Iran, support bolstering such a system with meaningless talks? Iran has not lived by a single condition set for it by the UN. Further, Mahmoud Ahmamadman has given no indications whatsoever that he would abide by any future conditions. And, the "vacuum" she speaks of that has led to continued development of nuclear weapons by Iran are the conditions set by China and Russia, not the US. Harsher sanctions may well have achieved their desired goal by now.

Sadly, some Democrat candidates have reached the point where they will pander to the worst human elements on the planet before they will agree with any of Bush's policies. It's a horrible mistake for them to be making but one I guess we've all become accustomed to and, hopefully, one that will come back to haunt them.