RCBlogs Archive

Debates & Discussions
Tasergate: Did Police Go Too Far at Kerry Speech?
Michelle Malkin | GTL vs. The Newshoggers | Mahablog
Missed Moment: Should Hillary Have Denounced MoveOn?
Betsy Newmark, Betsy's Page vs. Steve, No More Mr. Nice Blog
Shihab Showdown: Is Iran Preparing to Attack Israel?
In From the Cold | Israel Matzav | Glittering Eye | MTC
Debates & Discussions Archive

Home Page

World Could Abide Blogger Double Standards

If the blogosphere had been around in the early 1980's, would we have fewer nuclear weapons in the world? While some have kind of humorously blamed Jane Fonda for global warming, it would appear that the Left has come to terms with nuclear armed regimes.

According to retired Army general, and former CENTCOM commander John Abizaid, the world could abide the threat posed by a nuclear Iran. Left-Wing bloggers have jumped all over this, agreeing (for some reason) with the general's partial assessment.

I say partial, because here is what Abizaid actually said about our options in preventing the Islamic Republic from going nuclear:

"We need to press the international community as hard as we possibly can, and the Iranians, to cease and desist on the development of a nuclear weapon and we should not preclude any option that we may have to deal with it,"

Some bloggers on the Left have disregarded this component of the general's statements, instead taking the general's comments as a dose of international "realism."

However, Carl of Israel Matzav warns us not to assume that a nuclear-capable Iran would be the same as a nuclear Soviet Union:

The problem with Iran is precisely that it is an undemocratic state with a government that is not a rational actor. As I have noted previously, the reason why nuclear deterrence between the US and the Soviets worked in the 1960's, 70's and 80's was because with two rational actors, mutually assured destruction gave both sides an interest in not setting off a nuclear war. Iran is not a rational actor and its leaders' statements must be taken seriously and at face value and not discounted.

Several months ago, I blogged an article in which I explained why the Iranian nuclear threat against Israel is "madder than MAD," with MAD being mutually assured destruction, which is what kept the US and Russia from going after each other in the 1970's.

Non-proliferation is apparently too passé for the Netroots these days. But why is it that when one general talks policy he's accused of political hackery, yet when another talks policy he's applauded for being a "realist"?

Is it a double standard?

Election 2008RepublicansDemocrats
New Hampshire
South Carolina
Charts (D) | Charts (R) | Dem vs. Rep | Latest Polls
Politics & Election 2008 Videos