Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Democrats, Republicans, and Mushroom Clouds

 

shutterstock_164761160The Democratic Party has been weak-minded on defense for decades, but with the Iran capitulation, they’ve achieved a new threshold of cowardice and treachery.

While it’s true that an honorable handful of Democrats have resisted the president’s pressure, the overwhelming majority have chosen to go over the cliff with Mr. Obama, a president who never met an enemy he didn’t wish to conciliate or an ally he didn’t seek to betray.

Democrats have long tended toward appeasement of aggressors. Throughout the Cold War, they scared themselves (and everyone else) silly conjuring specters of nuclear holocaust. Then-Senator John Kerry was one of many prominent Democrats who endorsed the “nuclear freeze.” It wasn’t America’s enemies that we should fear, the Democrats argued, but the weapons themselves.

Democrats rejected the insight of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and others that the surest way to prevent war was “peace through strength.” Reagan was regularly accused of courting Armageddon because he described the Soviets accurately (something liberals were too intimidated to do) and because he declined unilaterally to disarm. The dumbfounding reality is that the Democrats have never acknowledged that Reagan’s approach succeeded. Instead, with Iran as our chief enemy now, they hope to replay the Cold War so that this time we fully surrender.

At least the Soviets made it easy for them, playing up the “peace” angle at every opportunity and investing heavily in organizations with names like the “World Peace Council” and the “International Institute for Peace.” Soviet leaders and propagandists of the 1970s and 1980s spoke silkily of their desire for “peaceful coexistence” with the West even as, behind the curtain, they were engaged in every form of subversion, terror, espionage, and violence.

Iran, by contrast, doesn’t bother to disguise its hatred for our country. There is no disingenuous talk of coexistence. “Death to America” is their motto, and the Supreme Leader (not some mythical “hardliners” in the background) has repeated it with grinning audacity even as his negotiators sat across from John Kerry in Vienna.

No regime on Earth has been as diligent in executing attacks on Americans since 1979 as Iran. By itself or through proxies, the Islamic Republic took Americans hostage, bombed our embassy and the Marine barracks in Beirut, bombed our embassy in Kuwait, and destroyed the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia housing U.S. servicemen. Hezbollah’s tentacles extend far beyond the Middle East, with a flourishing branch in the tri-border area (Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil) of South America. During the Iraq War, Iran’s IEDs accounted for up to a quarter of the 4,400 casualties we suffered there. Even members of the Obama Administration acknowledge that Iran has an ongoing cooperative arrangement with Al Qaeda — though the administration declines to publish the extended evidence discovered at bin Laden’s bunker.

The world’s leading terror state is expanding its hegemony and contributing, through its brutal support of Syria’s Assad, to the horrific refugee crisis now swamping Europe. Even the grotesque Sunni extremist group ISIS owes part of its success to Iran, which has so frightened the Sunnis that some have been willing to support such monsters of their own sect. And the Islamic Republic has threatened, unabashedly and consistently, to annihilate the state of Israel.

This is the regime the Obama Democrats propose to enrich, to grant international legitimacy to as a nuclear threshold state, and to invite to monitor its own nuclear sites. No other signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is permitted to enrich uranium. This is beyond naiveté — it is sheer lunacy. The Democratic Party has forfeited any claim to national leadership.

Republicans cannot simply shrug and announce that they lack the votes to stop this catastrophe. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has a reputation as a shrewd inside player. He has many possible options. 1) Pass a rule by simple majority declaring that the filibuster cannot be used for grave matters of national security; 2) Announce, as David Rivkin and Rep. Mike Pompeo have proposed, that since the president is not in compliance with the Corker/Menendez legislation (which requires that all side deals be submitted to Congress), the 60 day review period has not yet begun; and/or 3) Decide (as Andy McCarthy has suggested) that this agreement — so crucial to the security of the nation and the world — is clearly a treaty and can only be considered by Congress as such, requiring a two-thirds vote in both chambers for passage.

If this is not a time for considering every possible Congressional strategy, what is? The Democrats trashed the filibuster for some second-tier appointments. Republicans can revise it to prevent terrorists from getting the bomb.

There are 32 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. BrentB67 Inactive

    Great analysis.

    Imagine if we were as militant about defending our borders from invasion via illegal immigration as we are about ensuring global peace through strength and keeping Iran locked down.

    • #1
    • September 9, 2015, at 9:05 AM PDT
    • Like
  2. genferei Member
    genferei Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Rivkin, not Rivlin.

    • #2
    • September 9, 2015, at 9:10 AM PDT
    • Like
  3. Bob Thompson Member

    BrentB67:Great analysis.

    Imagine if we were as militant about defending our borders from invasion via illegal immigration as we are about ensuring global peace through strength and keeping Iran locked down.

    Are we not? Both approach zero as a limit!

    • #3
    • September 9, 2015, at 9:10 AM PDT
    • Like
  4. Mona Charen Contributor
    Mona Charen

    genferei:Rivkin, not Rivlin.

    Thank you. Will get it fixed.

    • #4
    • September 9, 2015, at 9:18 AM PDT
    • Like
  5. The (apathetic) King Prawn Inactive

    This deal is Obama’s legacy. Ironically, it tells of him the story many of us on the right have been trying to convey his entire presidency. Were it not for the actual danger I’d rejoice in him wallowing in the muck of his own creation.

    • #5
    • September 9, 2015, at 9:22 AM PDT
    • Like
  6. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member

    I think that many Democrats during the Cold War were worse than MC suggests. I will grant that some were motivated toward appeasement by fear of nuclear war. I think that many more were motivated by fundamental sympathy for the Communist enemy and hatred of the US.

    • #6
    • September 9, 2015, at 9:23 AM PDT
    • Like
  7. BrentB67 Inactive

    The King Prawn:This deal is Obama’s legacy. Ironically, it tells of him the story many of us on the right have been trying to convey his entire presidency. Were it not for the actual danger I’d rejoice in him wallowing in the muck of his own creation.

    I hope you are correct King Prawn. I think it depends on Iran, but it could be the kind of thing that sends democrats to the dark ages of appeasement for a generation.

    • #7
    • September 9, 2015, at 9:27 AM PDT
    • Like
  8. Bob Thompson Member

    Arizona Patriot:I think that many Democrats during the Cold War were worse than MC suggests. I will grant that some were motivated toward appeasement by fear of nuclear war. I think that many more were motivated by fundamental sympathy for the Communist enemy and hatred of the US.

    Looks that way now, does it not. After serving in the military in the sixties, including being on full alert for transport to Cuba during the missile crisis and supporting President Reagan’s strategy throughout, I am late reaching this conclusion.

    • #8
    • September 9, 2015, at 9:30 AM PDT
    • Like
  9. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member

    It drives me a bit batty when the Dems hear Iranian leaders saying “Death to America” and react by assuring us that they don’t really mean it.

    Maybe they don’t mean it, but we should treat them as if they do. There is a great Biblical teaching about this in 2 Samuel.

    At the end of 1 Samuel, King Saul killed himself after losing a battle on Mount Gilboa, to avoid capture. The first chapter of 2 Samuel describes an Amalekite (a foreigner) who came to King David to report the death of Saul. Seeking to curry favor with David, the Amalekite claimed that he killed Saul himself, at Saul’s request.

    David took this as a confession of having murdered the king, and put the Amalekite to death.

    • #9
    • September 9, 2015, at 9:31 AM PDT
    • Like
  10. The (apathetic) King Prawn Inactive

    BrentB67:

    The King Prawn:This deal is Obama’s legacy. Ironically, it tells of him the story many of us on the right have been trying to convey his entire presidency. Were it not for the actual danger I’d rejoice in him wallowing in the muck of his own creation.

    I hope you are correct King Prawn. I think it depends on Iran, but it could be the kind of thing that sends democrats to the dark ages of appeasement for a generation.

    There exists a possibility (as Mona pointed out) for McConnell to do some of that legendary senatoring and force this deal onto the rubbish pile where it belongs. However, much of the non-nuclear damage has already been done. Iran was still getting the bomb either way, but now that the UN has cleared the way for Iran to reengage with other nations the money from trade will enliven their efforts. The best we can hope for now is to not be complicit in helping them get there. Obama whined a lot about the mess he was left, but he’s leaving an even larger and deadlier one for his successor.

    • #10
    • September 9, 2015, at 9:32 AM PDT
    • Like
  11. James Gawron Thatcher
    James Gawron Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Mona,

    What sentence or paragraph in your well written post do Congressional Democrats not understand. I am sorry to say many are Jewish. The American Jewish community has responded strongly but mostly from its long silenced right. Even Schumer and AIPAC have been much too interested in not offending anybody’s sensibilities considering the gravity of the threat.

    Thank you Mona. This is an honest assessment with no punches pulled.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #11
    • September 9, 2015, at 9:37 AM PDT
    • Like
  12. Bob Thompson Member

    Arizona Patriot:I think that many Democrats during the Cold War were worse than MC suggests. I will grant that some were motivated toward appeasement by fear of nuclear war. I think that many more were motivated by fundamental sympathy for the Communist enemy and hatred of the US.

    More on this. The appeasement behavior of Western leaders reminds us of Neville Chamberlain’s approach to Hitler and the general view of the Democrats in our government and their supporters is reminiscent of Communists in the US in the thirties, which we called ‘fellow travelers’ during the Cold War since they didn’t dare pose themselves as actual ‘commies’. Look at what happened recently to Curt Schilling for his expression of opinion.

    • #12
    • September 9, 2015, at 9:47 AM PDT
    • Like
  13. Fritz Member

    it could be the kind of thing that sends democrats to the dark ages of appeasement for a generation.

    That’s not what worries me. What worries me is that this deal empowers Iran to pursue sending the entire western world into the dark ages, having given these maniacs carte blanche for ICBMs and the nukes to tip them with. Thanks Obama.

    • #13
    • September 9, 2015, at 9:52 AM PDT
    • Like
  14. Retail Lawyer Member

    When somebody says repeatedly that they are going to kill you, is it not the grossest of gross negligence to not take the threat seriously?

    I must admit surprise on this issue. As the details of the negotiations trickled out, I comforted myself with the thought that this will never pass muster with the legislature. Not even 41 Democratic Senators will be this negligent, I thought.

    It appears that I have overestimated the loyal opposition.

    • #14
    • September 9, 2015, at 10:09 AM PDT
    • Like
  15. BastiatJunior Member

    The despicable behavior of the Democrats is sickening enough. Then you realize that most of them will be easily reelected. That is, a large portion of our population hates this country enough to allow terrorists to have nukes.

    Maybe it was always thus, but it seems the haters are more open about it these days. Will they still get indignant if we question their patriotism?

    • #15
    • September 9, 2015, at 11:08 AM PDT
    • Like
  16. Bob Thompson Member

    Locked into our 2-Party electoral system as we are, can the appeasement behavior of Democrats be dealt with while we have the division between the traditional Republican base and the modern Republican establishment?

    • #16
    • September 9, 2015, at 11:36 AM PDT
    • Like
  17. SilentCal Inactive

    When Neville Chamberlain waved the piece of paper in the air after his meeting with Hitler in Munich, it is reported that later Chamberlain said “I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Now I recommend you go home, and sleep quietly in your beds.”

    Obama is claiming the same thing with his deal with Iran but is giving Iran as much as 150 billion dollars in addition to a piece of paper to appease them. I don’t believe anyone is going to go home, and sleep quietly in their beds. 

    • #17
    • September 9, 2015, at 11:49 AM PDT
    • Like
  18. Roadrunner Inactive

    Let’s be honest. Republicans found a way to support this agreement and play like they were against it. Corker passed 98-1.

    • #18
    • September 9, 2015, at 11:59 AM PDT
    • Like
  19. ToryWarWriter Thatcher

    I would just simply ask any Democrat Lawmaker who is planning on voting for this to explain to me what are they going to do if they are wrong? What are they going to do if they are wrong, Iran gets the bomb and then chooses to use it. Say on Tel Aviv or worse yet, New York city? How are they going to be able to sleep at night knowing that their actions have led to the deaths of millions. Whether they are Jews or their fellow citizens? What are they going to do? Are they going to eat a bullet? Resign? Sleep peacefully at night?

     

    It will probably be millions dead though. The counterstrike by the United States against Iran or Isreal will be terrible.  It will probably kill millions of Iranians. Not to mention everyone else on the planet as the background radiation and fall out takes years perhaps decades to clean up.

     

    Also can we stop using Munich. This is not Munich. I might have to write a whole piece on why this is so much worse than Munich.

    • #19
    • September 9, 2015, at 12:25 PM PDT
    • Like
  20. John Walker Contributor

    Mona Charen: No other signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is permitted to enrich uranium.

    This is incorrect. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) recognises two categories of states which have ratified or acceded to the treaty: nuclear weapon states and non nuclear weapon states. Nuclear weapon states recognised under the treaty are the U.S., Russia, the U.K., France, and China. Other states known or believed to possess nuclear weapons (Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea) have either never acceded to the treaty or withdrawn from it (North Korea).

    All of the declared nuclear weapons states which are signatories to the treaty have uranium enrichment programs. In addition, the following NPT signatories which are not nuclear weapon states have domestic uranium enrichment facilities: Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Iran, Japan, and the Netherlands.

    The statement should be that no non nuclear weapons state which is a signatory to the NPT is permitted to enrich uranium to weapons grade. Enrichment to reactor grade is explicitly permitted under the treaty, subject to IAEA monitoring of enrichment facilities.

    • #20
    • September 9, 2015, at 12:37 PM PDT
    • Like
  21. billy Inactive

    Roadrunner:Let’s be honest. Republicans found a way to support this agreement and play like they were against it. Corker passed 98-1.

    I completely agree with you. What I don’t understand is why?

    Were they really so naive as to believe that when the details of this deal were released, it would be favorable to the U.S.?

    Are Republicans really that stupid?

    • #21
    • September 9, 2015, at 12:53 PM PDT
    • Like
  22. BastiatJunior Member

    ToryWarWriter: Also can we stop using Munich. This is not Munich. I might have to write a whole piece on why this is so much worse than Munich.

    Agree with your whole comment.

    Neville Chamberlain eventually saw the error of his ways, and rallied the cabinet to support Churchill and the war against Hitler. At the end, Chamberlain was a staunch war supporter.

    Most pacifists seem incapable of learning, but Chamberlain learned.

    • #22
    • September 9, 2015, at 1:08 PM PDT
    • Like
  23. BastiatJunior Member

    Accidental double post

    • #23
    • September 9, 2015, at 1:16 PM PDT
    • Like
  24. civil westman Inactive

    Whether or not the Republican leadership pulls out all the stops- as Mona Charen suggests they could- really is the ultimate test of their value as an opposition party. Consider, for a moment, all the minuscule dangers from which Washington is forever insisting we require protection. Consider, also, the weight of coercion applied to us as citizens. Would that such concern and burden were laid on Iran in this non-treaty.

    Much of the analysis seems to rely on the fact that we have a large nuclear arsenal and Iran will have only a few nuclear weapons. I don’t believe this president (sic) would use them to retaliate even if it were used with a calling card… and when used (not if), it will not be so accompanied.

    9/11, we have been told, was not prevented due to a failure of imagination on our part. Sitting here on my couch, I can imagine several relatively low-tech scenarios whereby an Iranian nuclear device can be used against us with deniability plausible enough to paralyze us. Should the imagined use come in the form of a high-altitude EMP device (from which our ever-vigilant government has seen fit to not protect us), that paralysis would not only involve policy, rather, everything electrical and electronic upon which modern life depends. This risk, it seems, our government is willing to risk on our behalf and the Republicans likely to remain flaccidly complicit.

    • #24
    • September 9, 2015, at 2:02 PM PDT
    • Like
  25. Petty Boozswha Member

    …During the Iraq War, Iran’s IEDs accounted for up to a quarter of the 4,400 casualties we suffered there…

    Maybe this is slightly off topic of this excellent post, but why didn’t Bush and Rumsfeld retaliate for the use of these weapons? These bombs were capable of squirting molten copper through two inches of depleted uranium plate on an American armored vehicle, there was no confusing them with something slapped together out of washing machine parts. Why didn’t our party’s leaders level every IRGC base and barracks in retaliation?

    • #25
    • September 9, 2015, at 2:23 PM PDT
    • Like
  26. CuriousKevmo Member

    I just don’t get it. Even if I try and put myself in the shoes of that arrogant narcissist I can’t figure it out. What’s in it for him? Or them (the Democrats).

    If it all works out as Obama says….buh…nothing. It’s forgotten, a footnote in history.

    If it all goes horribly wrong then he is the worst President of all time hands down. Assuming any of us are left to write that history.

    • #26
    • September 9, 2015, at 4:56 PM PDT
    • Like
  27. billy Inactive

    CuriousKevmo:I just don’t get it. Even if I try and put myself in the shoes of that arrogant narcissist I can’t figure it out. What’s in it for him? Or them (the Democrats).

    If it all works out as Obama says….buh…nothing. It’s forgotten, a footnote in history.

    If it all goes horribly wrong then he is the worst President of all time hands down. Assuming any of us are left to write that history.

    Obama is of the school of thought that the greatest threat to stability and justice in the world is America’s status as a superpower. Anything that challenges that status, like an Iranian nuclear arsenal, is a key to world peace.

    For Democrats it is party loyalty, and that post-presidency, Obama will be a valuable fundraiser.

    What I don’t get is the Republicans. What do they get out of this?

    • #27
    • September 9, 2015, at 5:35 PM PDT
    • Like
  28. J. D. Fitzpatrick Member
    J. D. Fitzpatrick Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    CuriousKevmo:I just don’t get it. Even if I try and put myself in the shoes of that arrogant narcissist I can’t figure it out. What’s in it for him? Or them (the Democrats).

    I keep thinking he’s just got it in for Israel and this is his way of showing them who’s boss.

    • #28
    • September 9, 2015, at 6:04 PM PDT
    • Like
  29. GrannyDude Member

    Petty Boozswha:Why didn’t our party’s leaders level every IRGC base and barracks in retaliation?

    Yes, why didn’t they?

    For that matter, given that Iran has been, well, Iran for a very long time… Why didn’t Reagan, of sainted memory, get the mad mullahs under control back in his day, instead of trading arms for hostages? Why didn’t GWB broaden his war(s) to shatter the second spoke in his Axis of Evil?

    • #29
    • September 9, 2015, at 6:58 PM PDT
    • Like
  30. Lensman Thatcher
    Lensman Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Sorry to have to correct you, but treaties are made “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate” with a two-thirds vote concurring. Article II, Sec. 2, Clause 2. The House of Representatives has no role.

    The better approach to a possible filibuster in this case is for the majority of the Senate to uphold a ruling that a filibuster is not allowed for any matter that requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate. That would mean all treaties, constitutional amendments and impeachment trials. There may be another category, but I can’t think of it. The phrase “matters of national security” is too vague in my opinion. Another approach which has appeal is to say that any matter which the Senate has a constitutional duty to vote upon cannot be subject to a filibuster. That might cover appropriations bills. (The Defense Appropriates Act is currently being blocked by Harry Reid under the filibuster rule.)

    There is a very slight chance that Mitch McConnell will go with either approach. He seems to be too fond of having a small amount of power when he is a minority leader. That is the attitude of a loser who is always playing defense. We need leaders who are willing to take a majority given to them by the voters to end the ratcheting effect of Big Government/Leftist legislation — not to mention executive branch usurpation through “regulations” that are actually laws. We have had over 80 years of the Leftist agenda being passed by occasional Democrat super-majorities (i.e. a lot of Dems with weak sister Republicans). If we want to become just like Britain, then continue with McConnell’s do nothing approach.

    If you want to force Dems to vote in support of infanticide and billions for terrorists, then end the filibuster for everything. Yes, Obama can veto those bills. Dems should be made to own the destructive policies of their Chosen One.

    • #30
    • September 9, 2015, at 8:08 PM PDT
    • Like

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.