54 Comments

1. Terrye:

Roger:

Maybe he will have Jimmy Carter make the deal for them. He could give them the same terms he gave to the North Koreans.

But he wants us to believe he and Kerry will be bigger and badder than the Bush team.

Aug 30, 2004 - 5:26 pm 2. Les Nessman:

Wonderful. Hey Senator Edwards, how’d that deal work out with North Korea, when the last Dem administration negotiated nukes?

Aug 30, 2004 - 5:26 pm 3. Knucklehead:

Are they really this stupid? Is it possible? Are there 10,000 people in the USA stupid enough to believe the Carter/Clinton deal with NK was a success or even a good idea? God help us.

Aug 30, 2004 - 5:44 pm 4. Robert Schwartz:

They would probably argue very earnestly that it is a great idea. My grandmother would kill it with a withering glance and a phrase “goyische kopf.”

Aug 30, 2004 - 5:49 pm 5. marek:

What’s the surprise? That’s the same idea that the sophisticated European leaders came up with several weeks ago. And isn’t Kerry as sophisticated as the French or some German?

Aug 30, 2004 - 5:49 pm 6. PeterUK:

Isn’t it time somebody got the Democrats to sign a non-proliferation treaty,they are worse than the French.This wouldn’t seem to be a vote winner with the anti-nuclear crowd parading in New York,or the average uncommitted voter.It would be rather choice if, after this proposal, the administration revealed the numbers or Iranians captured or killed in action in Iraq

On that point, if Kerry will give the Mullahs the opportunity to advance their nuclear capability,what will he give France,Canada?

The man is a pantaloon,give him his bells,his pigs bladder on a stick and send him on his way.

Aug 30, 2004 - 5:55 pm 7. holdfast:

Is it just me or is Edwards, who likely can’t even find Iran on a map, just the crash test dummy for this? This smacks of the nuanced thinking of Holbrooke, Beers et at. Ironically, some a friend of mine is helping with the suit against Iran for the death of the Canadian photojournalist in Iran – don’t suppose that’s a case Edwards would want to take?

PeterUK – Canada doesn’t need nuclear technology – after all, it was the CANDU reactor that allowed India to get the bomb. Those puppies give off plutonium like nobody’s business.

Aug 30, 2004 - 6:00 pm 8. jedrury:

Roger:

In gin & tonic veritas !

You hit the nail on the head, the club on the ball, the ball in the basket – when you wrote about Edwards. Someone better give “the Breck Curl’ a quick history lesson on Iran, the failed Clinton history on North Korea and other more challeging aspects of foreign policy.

Aug 30, 2004 - 6:14 pm 9. Roberts:

In case there is some doubt, yes, Edwards ( and Kerry ) is this stupid.

Aug 30, 2004 - 6:22 pm 10. Alan:

I don’t know that sounds good to me…it worked with North Korea. Jimmy Carter brokered that deal…nuclear power plants for the assurance the N.Koreans wouldn’t build nuclear weapons.

Is it any wonder why I’ve never voted Democratic?….it’s a party of naifs.

Aug 30, 2004 - 6:53 pm 11. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

This makes about as much sense as if we had agreed to provide Germany with advanced aircraft technology (turbochargers, for example) in 1940, so that they could “use them for civilian aviation.”

Aug 30, 2004 - 6:53 pm 12. Fresh Air:

Holdfast–

I don’t think you use the designated driver as the crash dummy. I guess if I was Kerry I might use, say, Sandy Berger instead.

Now I’m starting to become convinced: Karl Rove really is running Kerry’s campaign.

That Bob Shrum, doing everything he can to maintain a perfect, winless record. What a guy! Is Hillary prohibited from hiring him in advance?

Aug 30, 2004 - 6:56 pm 13. Fresh Air:

Photon–

What, you didn’t like the cut-rate tours to England the Germans were offering in the Me-262?

Aug 30, 2004 - 6:58 pm 14. Rick Ballard:

Fresh Air,

Karl Rove really is running Kerry’s campaign.

What a vicious unfounded rumor! Everyone knows that Bob and Karl have been good friends for many years and that their daily 6AM scheduled calls involve only non-political chit chat about family and common friends.

Aug 30, 2004 - 7:10 pm 15. Cathy Seipp:

Roger, tell NR they ought to have parties here in L.A. once in a while!

Aug 30, 2004 - 7:18 pm 16. richard mcenroe:

Fresh Air ó If you’re on a really tight budget, you can get the one way ticket in the ME-163… I understand Japan Air has the same deal for the Bakka…

Aug 30, 2004 - 7:37 pm 17. Charlie (Colorado):

Ron Silver’s remarks are pretty impressive, if you-all missed them.

Aug 30, 2004 - 7:39 pm 18. Barry Dauphin:

Either Edwards has had a few too many gin & tonics or he wants to lose the election. I mean, it can’t be that he actually meant what he said:>).

Aug 30, 2004 - 7:48 pm 19. Jamie Irons:

Ron Silver was great! Rudy Giuliani is terrific!

Jamie Irons

Aug 30, 2004 - 7:52 pm 20. Sandy P:

Rantburg has 145 comments on this wacky idea.

JMJ – he’s worse than Peanut.

Aug 30, 2004 - 7:54 pm 21. Sandy P:

Rantburg has 145 comments on this wacky idea.

JMJ – he’s worse than Peanut.

Aug 30, 2004 - 7:55 pm 22. Silicon valley Jim:

Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Edwards . . . all lawyers. Just something to keep in mind the next time you hear a lawyer claim that law school taught him to think, or hear a law professsor claim that that’s what it does.

Aug 30, 2004 - 8:03 pm 23. Ben:

The great failing of lawyers as leaders is that they tend to be too risk-averse to be successful leaders. Their job is to point out the legalities of a given situation to their clients, and thereby keep their clients out of trouble. Their mindset is to avoid potential problems rather than to seek out and exploit opportunities. A leader whose primary focus is to avoid potential failure is a leader who is unlikely to achieve great successes, which typically are gained only by taking risks.

I like lawyers, especially since I am one. That doesn’t mean, however, that I think lawyers are great leaders. Only a lawyer who is willing to think like a leader rather than like a lawyer is has the potential to be a great leader. George Bush is a leader who thinks like a leader. John Kerry, OTOH, is a lawyer who thinks like a lawyer. To my mind, the choice of who is best suited to lead this country in a time of war is President Bush, the candidate who recognizes that we are at war and intends to lead us to victory. From what I can tell, Kerry wants the US to be popular, at the expense of doing the right thing. He is no leader.

Aug 30, 2004 - 8:20 pm 24. thedragonflies:

The Dems are just in denial. They actually seem to think that they can go back to a 9/10 world. They, like their spiritual leader – Carter, live in a pretend world.

I pray that the country sees the suicidal foolishness of such pretense.

Aug 30, 2004 - 8:28 pm 25. Terrye:

For the first time in my life I watched the opening night of the Republican convention.

I liked the speeches. Giuliani was great.

Hey Roger, will you punch Moore in the nose for me? He is covering the convention for USA Today.

What biased media?

Aug 30, 2004 - 8:47 pm 26. bkochba:

what could have possessed him to say that?

he must be a republican plant.

Aug 30, 2004 - 8:56 pm 27. Syl:

I don’t think either Kerry or Edwards has the slightest idea who the enemy is at all. None.

Edwards may be bright but this is no time for puppy training.

Aug 30, 2004 - 8:57 pm 28. Barry Dauphin:

Rudy tied Kerry and Edwards together beautifully when he said the reason that Edwards talks about 2 Americas is because of Kerry’s changing his mind on the issues.

Nightline is now interviewing Edwards and encouraging him to make hay out of Bush’s comment to Matt Lauer re: WoT that you can’t “win it”, meaning in the conventional sense of a war with a surrender ceremony or even a defining event like the fall of the Wall. Koppel tries to lob some softballs for Edwards to hit, trying to make it seem as if Kerry/Edwards will be tougher than Bush on WoT.

Of course Koppel fails to appreciate the irony of his attempts to enhance Edwards as falling on the same day Edwards wants to deal with Iran. Edwards thinks that the mullahs are essentially OB/GYN’s who don’t want to be sued. Yes, if I were an OB/GYN, Edwards would scare me. But if I were an Iranian cleric, I would have him shine my shoes.

Aug 30, 2004 - 9:14 pm 29. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Robert Schwartz

“goyische kopf.”

Please remind your grandmother that there are sme goyim present.

Aug 30, 2004 - 9:40 pm 30. Kevin P:

Roger;

The Kerry-Edwards plan for Iran is a perfect example of why these lightweights CANNOT be allowed to run this country. There plan is to give the Iranians the first stage of the bomb making material and to trust that they won’t use it to develop the bomb.They still think that if you treat the Mullahs nicely and grovel at their feet they will treat us better in return. They ignore that the stated policy of this government is the elimination of Israel. This is not a wish for a two state system. this is not a ploy for better terms for negotiation. They see this as Allahs will and they would rather blow up the world then turn their backs on the demands of their God.

At the time you could give the Allbright plan for Korea some credence. Sometimes in foreign policy you have to reach out and take gambles. But after it has been a proven failure these dodo’s want to try it again in Korea and give it a go in Iran on top of it.At least Chamberlin realized after the German invasion of Europe that Munich was a failure. If the Berger, Albright, Kerry, Edwards team had been in charge then I guess they would have given Hitler a second bite of the apple.

Roger, I know a large portion of the Jewish voting block is Democratic but after today can’t they see that the Dems are going to give Iran the ability to take out Tel Aviv and finally achieve their oft stated wet dream of driving the Jews into the sea. If they don’t think these jihadi loving fanatics care whether they lose a few million of their people in a nuclear exchange with Israel they are fooling themselves. alarge portion of their leadership firmly believe that this is Gods will and that they will be judged harshly if they don’t achieve it.

Aug 30, 2004 - 9:41 pm 31. Birkel:

There is a reason Dick Cheney will be on the Republican ticket despite all the hand wringing by the party. (Oh, and all the Dems who want to see him go.) The contrast with John Edwards will highlight quite nicely, thank you, that the mommy party consists of the not-so-ready-for-prime-time players. Edwards is infantile in his approach. He seems moored to nothing other than reactionary, leftist vote grabbing. (Whoops, I mean Michael Moored.) Frankly I like him as an Ex-Senator from North Carolina very much and will support him in his efforts to continue in that role.

Get a good night’s sleep Mr. Simon.

Regards

Aug 30, 2004 - 9:44 pm 32. doug b:

I think this is the biggest difference between the two parties. The democrats view foreign policy in terms of treaties and take the production of international agreements as being the goal. The republicans are deeply skeptical of treaties and are as likely to view them as a trap than as a positive.

A republican could serve four years and not be bothered by not signing any major treaties or agreements, for the democrats this would be taken as the greatest possible failure.

Aug 30, 2004 - 9:44 pm 33. Kevin P:

doug b:

Exactly!! That is why Reagan trumped Gorby. Because he was willing to walk away without a treaty. The Mullahs would know that once a President Kerry,(forgive me for uttering such a nightmare inducing thought), sat down at the bargaining table he could not leave untill a treaty was signed. That is how the dear leader screwed Allbright in Korea, and that Mullahs will know that Kerry Edwards will be playing with the same playbook. When Bobby Thompson knew what pith Branca was going to throw he jacked it out of the park. The Mullahs are going to be on their knee’s during Fridays prayer time begging Allah to provide Kerry as our next prez.

Aug 30, 2004 - 9:53 pm 34. AST:

I heard you on Hugh’s show when you heard that report for the first time. Was that your jaw I heard dropping on the floor?

I guess we should all be grateful for this bit of concrete information about what Kerry means by “defending America.”

Shame on CBS, NBC and CBS for not showing these conventions. Aren’t liberals the ones always carping about greedy capitalists? The 2000 conventions weren’t worth watching, but this is after 9/11. You’d think our sense of interest in what is at stake would be greater.

I must say, I was very moved by the speeches of the survivors of three men who died on 9/11 and the tributes to the men and women serving in the military. These are the heroes today, not the guy who captained a Swift Boat in Vietnam who voted for $87 billion for the troops, before he voted against it.

Giuliani was terrific, but I don’t think the best soundbite will be used on the networks: “Thank God George Bush is president!”

Aug 30, 2004 - 10:00 pm 35. doug b:

In one of those programs on Reagan (might’ve been Frontline) Sec. of State Shultz was being questioned by a Democrat Senator. The questioner pointed out that the administration was in danger of being the first to not sign any major weapons agreements with the USSR. Shultz’s answer was a perfect “so be it.”

Aug 30, 2004 - 10:03 pm 36. jedrury:

In defense of lawyers:

Guilani’s speech will be remembered as impassioned, humorous, warm, personal, soul felt and a wonderfully crafted argument – delivered with the deft of a real trial lawyer’s closing argument. He said things no one else could say.

He drilled Kerry on his inconsistencies in a respectful manner while the bottom line of his points painted Kerry as an opportunist and a man not for this moment and time.

Whoever commented earlier about the failure of the networks in not televising the speeches of McCain and Rudi was so accurate. CNN, CSpan, MSNBC televised them. Hopefully, this marks the passing of the era when our news events are filtered through the liberal mouthings and interpretations of Dan, Peter and Tom.

Aug 31, 2004 - 1:22 am 37. DennisThePeasant:

So what we have here…

is Kerry’s campaign staff looking at polling numbers showing their boy tanking and somebody says,

“Hey, let’s appease Iran…on the same day Rudy is scheduled to give a speech at the convention! That’s the ticket!”

And everybody in the room goes,

“Yeah, that’s the ticket!”

You really can’t make this kind of stupid up.

Aug 31, 2004 - 5:26 am 38. DennisThePeasant:

And then…

The same guy goes,

“Make sure John’s wearing the pretty print bathing suit while he’s out wind surfing. It’s a photo op to show metrosexuality, you know!”

And everybody in the room goes,

“Yeah, pretty print bathing suit. Metrosexuality photo op!”

Aug 31, 2004 - 5:32 am 39. Bostonian:

Guys, the Kerry campaign has actually posted this idea on their web site. See http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/strategy.html

Also, good luck trying to find a “foreign policy” section on that web site!

BTW, I mentioned this idea to a friend of mine who gets news from NPR, and she did not instantly think it was a bad idea. I got her to agree maybe it wasn’t so bright, but I couldn’t get her to where I am: “that’s completely insane.”

Aug 31, 2004 - 5:45 am 40. Knucklehead:

Bostonian,

Do these Moonbats think its like a needle exchange program at the entrance to Pusher’s Park? Do they have any concept of perspective? And they keep telling us they are the Left Brain artsy types. What a bunch of dopes. It really is frustrating to have to share the planet with people so profoundly stupid.

Aug 31, 2004 - 6:04 am 41. Knucklehead:

DtP,

He didn’t really do a windsurfing photo-op schtick wearing a print suit, did he? Please tell me it wasn’t a speedo. Foogin Moonbats; can’t live with ‘em and can’t shoot ‘em. I’m falling into one of my Weary of Moonbats to My Very Bones phases. Good Golly, Miss Molly, they are relentlessly tedious.

Aug 31, 2004 - 6:09 am 42. pst314:

In the 70’s Kerry displayed what could with great generosity be described as naivete regarding the North Vietnamese. Today he sees Iran’s mullahs in a similar light.

I am reminded of what Talleyrand said about the Bourbons: “They have learned nothing, and they have forgotten nothing.”

Aug 31, 2004 - 6:50 am 43. jerry:

I choose not to interpret Kerry’s activities in 70’s as naive. He believes that the United States as the leading proponent of Democracy and Markets as an evil and disruptive force in the world. As a socialist he sees the future in terms of promoting “peoples democracies” as the proper goal. Like many leftwing extremists, he has transferred his animus toward the American Republican form of political and economic organization by finding affinity with radical Islam.

Aug 31, 2004 - 7:22 am 44. Kevin P:

Roger:

The Kerry-Edwards lets give the Mullahs the bomb plan is a direct result of the Left’s inability to come to terms with the fact that there are evil people in this world and no amount of therapy, negotiations, and treaty’s will change them. To recognize evil and confront it is too unnuanced for them to handle. When Reagan called the Soviet Union a “Evil Empire” the left and their PR agents in the MSM howled at the intellectual weakness of our President. They considered this term a relic of the stone age and a hinderance to world peace. They neglected to face the fact that the USSR was a evil system, that it had shackled millions of people in a slave state and if we had followed the Kerry nuclear freeze crowd they would still be ruling half the world. They still can’t beleive that their religous like faith that the USSR was a fact of life that would never go away and that the only way to deal with reality was to accept the Soviet government as it was. They take the same thinking into their middle east policy. They think that the muslims in the middle east are incapable of ever having a democratic and free government so they ridicule any effort to achieve this goal. The fact that they are insulting every Muslim and arab citizen in the world by taking the real politic decision that they are somehow unable to live in freedom does not register in their in intellectually frozen minds.

Aug 31, 2004 - 7:42 am 45. Charlie (Colorado):

Jerry, don’t you think the “Kerry as committed socialist” idea flies in the face of his apparent inability to form and hold an opinion?

Seriously, the distinction between “committed socialist” and “I’ll promise ‘panem et’ and Peace in Our Time and I’ll get to live in the Big House as I was meant to” can be hard to spot….

Aug 31, 2004 - 8:01 am 46. Roll:

This is proof positive of John Kerry having told the truth! He HAS met with foreign leaders, and they DO support him rather than Bush.

Aug 31, 2004 - 8:15 am 47. IcePilot:

One definition of insanity is to repeat an action and expect a different outcome. It represents a detachment from reality.

One very positive outcome of the war in Iraq is that when Bush says that the U.S. will not allow Iran to develop nukes, both the mullahs and quislings in Europe start to think – “Oh sh**…..”. It’s the ONLY way to get Iran to back down without having to resort to military action. It’s the Reagan way.

Aug 31, 2004 - 8:56 am 48. Kevin P:

Roger:

Kerry is committed to one thing and one thing only. Getting in the White House.Period. This is why he can say one day that voting against the 87 billion would be “iresponsible” and then weeks later doing that irresponsible thing himself. And to any Kerry defenders don’t bring up the tax case to defend your flip flopping windsurfer. His attempt to fund the 87 billion for the troops by rescinding the tax cuts had already failed and was not going to be brought back. The only reason he decided to do the “irresponsible” thing and vote against the 87 billion was because Dean was whipping his ass and he could not afford to be seen as to pro-war. He decided to leave the troops undefended because the polls told him he needed to vote that way to beat Dean.He held his finger to the wind, saw which way the political winds were blowing, and decided after all that the troops didn’t need those bullets or vests. Kerry as weathervain is a spot on description.

Aug 31, 2004 - 9:11 am 49. ricpic:

Yes Mr. Mullahs and all associated Sheiks, Potentates and All Round Thugs, you have nothing to fear from us, we gaurantee not to impugn your dignity, we swear now, even before our election, that we will do everything possible to be the weak horse, leaving your subjects to your oh so tender mercies.

Kissing your feet (or wherever else you desire),

Kerry/Edwards

Aug 31, 2004 - 10:12 am 50. anachronda:

Sen. John Kerry would offer Iran a deal allowing it to keep its nuclear power plants if it gave up the right to retain bomb-making nuclear fuel

Anyone know what Kerry plans to do with spent Iranian nuclear fuel? Bury in in Yucca Mountain?

Aug 31, 2004 - 10:14 am 51. PeterUK:

Holdfast,When I wrote “what will he give France,Canada?” I meant would he give Canada to France,Kerry would have a lot of apologising,In french of course,and kissy kissy to get Jacques to smile on him.

Aug 31, 2004 - 10:43 am 52. jerry:

Charlie:

Yes, I believe Kerry is a committed Socialist. The history of socialist politicians is that they take two steps forward and one step back. Yes, Kerry’s #1 goal is election but once elected he will move to the extreme left just as his voting record indicates.

Aug 31, 2004 - 10:49 am 53. Pat Curley:

If there is one thing that is consistent about John Kerry’s foreign policy it’s that he doesn’t believe that we have enemies, just friends that we haven’t apologized to profusely enough.

Aug 31, 2004 - 10:49 am 54. J_Crater:

I think that this is a cruel joke and a prime example of environmental-racism. Kerry and Edwards would never allow nuclear plants in the US, but is happy to help the Iran procure these dangerous technologies that will poison the children of Iran with waste emmisions from these toxic energy plants.

Kerry and Edwards should be ashamed of themselves.

I call on all members of the Sierra Club, GreenPeace and other enviromentally friendly groups to condemn this environmental-racism.

Aug 31, 2004 - 11:53 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: