Here’s an important column by Tony Blankley of the Washington Times about the threat posed by Iran and North Korea. Blankley’s thesis is that Bush and Kerry are both talking around the issue when they debate which diplomatic approach is preferable, since it’s very likely that neither Iran nor North Korea can effectively be dealt with through diplomacy. Says Blankley, “It is understandable that in a closely fought presidential election, neither candidate would find it appealing to talk of his contingent plans for war with a possible nuclear adversary. It would be even less appealing, one supposes, for either candidate to admit that if it came to it, he would just accept the nuclear status of Iran and North Korea and hope for the best. But I, for one, would like to know which candidate, if either, would acquiesce to such conditions and which, if either, would be prepared to fight.”
Blankley’s point is well taken. However, as Blankley notes, we do know which candidate opposes the development of nuclear bunker-buster technology, perhaps our best hope for taking out Iranian or North Korean nukes. And we know which candidate first fully recognized the danger posed by these two countries when he assigned them their places along the axis of evil. Is there really much doubt about which candidate would be more likely to fight Iran or North Korea and which would be more likely to acquiesce?
- Subscribe now!... Get rid of ADs!Support Power Line...VIP MembershipPresentsPower Line
Most Read on Power Line
Subscribe to Power Line by Email
Find us on Facebook
“Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” Winston Churchill
“Proclaim Liberty throughout All the land unto All the Inhabitants Thereof.” Inscription on the Liberty Bell