Those are the harsh words that Ron Paul directed at fellow Presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann last Friday night during an interview on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. This bold accusation ratcheted up tensions that have been on the rise between the two candidates in recent days, tensions that started with a heated clash about Iran's nuclear ambitions during the GOP Presidential debate sponsored by Fox News and the Republican Party of Iowa. During that debate, the concepts non-interventionism and American exceptionalism came into sharp focus. Paul, an avid isolationist, said that bombing Iran's nuclear facilities would be an unnecessary act that would drag the United States into another costly war. He also emphasized his belief that using the military to meddle in the affairs of other nations is wrong, and that we should simply "mind our own business" when it comes to issues such as Iran and the Arab Spring. Michele Bachmann, on the other hand, strongly supported the notion of bombing Iran's nuclear facilities, saying that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a grave and troubling threat to the Western World. She was adamant in her belief that Iran will eventually nuke Israel and the United States, and she seemed to be greatly offended by Paul's laissez-faire foreign policy.
Clearly, these two highly opinionated candidates are deeply entrenched in their perspectives of Iran. When it comes to factual evidence, though, Congressman Paul's position is far and away the more logical one. Whereas Paul cited history and personal experience, Bachmann engaged in her typical process of making up phony facts on the fly, in an attempt to appeal to the emotion-driven minds of her hawkish base of supporters. In the span of a few minutes, Bachmann voiced four major factual fallacies to a national TV audience. Although Ron Paul attempted to refute those claims, he became too emotional and ended up stuttering and stammering his way through a less than convincing indictment of Bachmann's lies. I tend to agree with Congressman's Paul's position, and I believe that it is important that Congresswoman Bachmann's pseudo facts should be adequately exposed for the fibs that they are. So I would like to address each of Bachmann's claims and highlight the inaccuracies in each of them.
Claim #1: "Without a shadow of a doubt, Iran will take a nuclear weapon, they will use it to wipe our ally Israel off the face of the map and they've stated that they will use it against the United States of America"
First off, it is absolutely impossible for Bachmann to make such an apocalyptic claim "without a shadow of a doubt". In order to do so, she would have to liken herself to Nostradamus (or, more likely in her case, the author of the Book of Revelation). Trying to play the role of prophet in a political campaign is simply humorous. Secondly, Iran has never unequivocally stated that they would nuke Israel or the United States if they had a nuclear bomb. Sure, they have engaged in some callous and shameless saber rattling, but that hardly constitutes as evidence of an Iranian plot to carry out an attack that would essentially be a national suicide mission. The whole concept of Israel being "wiped off the map" by Iran stems from an interview Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave to the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) in October 2005. Some English translations of the interview suggest that Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be "wiped off the map" or "wiped off the face of the Earth". However, many Middle Eastern and linguist experts believe that this translation is inadequate. They point out that there is no Persian version of the mainly English idiom "wiped off the map". They also assert that Ahmadinejad was simply agreeing with a quote that the Ayatollah Khomeini made concerning Israel decades ago, rather than stating a new, aggressive policy towards Iran. According to these experts, a more appropriate translation of Ahmadinejad's quote would be "The Imam [Khomeini] said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". A rather unfriendly message, but an empty one that was only being regurgitated by a newly elected Iranian President who knows that blatant Antisemitism would appeal to his new constituency. Political appeals to regional rivalries hardly constitute as evidence of a plot to destroy Israel.
Claim #2: "Look no further than the Iranian constitution, which states unequivocally that their mission is to extend jihad across the world and eventually set up a worldwide Caliphate."
Again, Bachmann's unrestrained bravado completely destroys any coherent point here. There is a bit of militant language in Iran's constitution, but there is much more language that promotes sovereignty and non interventionism on the part of the Iranian regime. There is certainly nothing "unequivocal" about Iran's supposed support for jihad and a Caliphate within the language of their constitution. For example, in Articles 154 of the Iranian constitution, they state that they are to "scrupulously [refrain] from all forms of interference in the internal affairs of other nations". That hardly sounds like the mentality of a suicidal, jihad-fueled regime. Article 155 does leave the door open for some interventional policies though, because it says that "Iran supports the struggles of the oppressed against the oppressors in every corner of the globe". However, in this instance they are really the same as the United States. We too claim to stand with the oppressed around the world, but that doesn't mean we are going to swoop in and take out "oppressors" wherever they are. When we take out "oppressors", we do it because it is politically expedient to our own needs (see Iraq and Vietnam). However, we will also side with the so-called "oppressors" when it is in our benefit to do so (see Egypt and China) The Iranians do the same thing, since evidence has shown that Vladimir Putin, known for his political oppression and crackdowns on the free press, has been giving the Iran assistance in building up its nuclear facilities. Simply put, there are no global, active ambitions on Iran's part to conquer the world. Just localized and self serving ambitions. And don't even get me started on the "Caliphate" hogwash. There is no evidence to suggest Iran wants to establish a global Islamic leader who will eventually rule the Middle East and the world. Glenn Beck sponsored paranoia shouldn't be a centerpiece of a political campaign.
Claim #3: "[Ignoring Iran] would be the greatest under reaction in world history if we have an avowed madman who uses that nuclear weapon to wipe nations off the face of the Earth"
Even if Iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon, it wouldn't usher in Armageddon. Sorry Bible thumpers, no four horseman for you. Bachmann's idea that a nuclear armed Iran would somehow immediately spark World War III just goes to show how ill-informed she really is. When America's greatest arch rival, the Soviet Union, got "the bomb" in 1949, we didn't launch a crusade against them. Tensions were high for decades, but both sides were sensible enough not to hurl nukes at each other. Even through the darkest hours of the Cuban Missile Crisis, diplomacy prevailed, a point that Ron Paul brought up at the debate. Bachmann should also note that quite a few "avowed madmen" have had nuclear weapons for quite some time, (the late Kim Jong Il, the ISI in Pakistan) and yet not a single mushroom cloud has risen over any city since WWII. Although it's unfavorable to have zealots and egomaniacs in control of the world's deadliest weapon, that does not mean we have to sacrifice American lives and resources on a totally unecessary preemptive strike on Iran. You would think that she would have learned something from the WMD debacle in Iraq. Apparently not.
Claim #4: "We have an IAEA report that just recently came out that said that said literally that Iran is within just months of being able to obtain that weapon".
Ron Paul replied to this claim with a blunt "That's not true", and he's right. Although the report indicates that Iran has increased their investments into nuclear research, and that they are attempting to develop a long range missile, IAEA officials have admitted that there is no "smoking gun" that clearly shows that Iran is within months of acquiring a nuclear weapon. There also isn't enough evidence to put two and two together and link the development of nuclear technology to the development of a long range missile. If anything, the intel gathered by the IAEA is no more convincing than the WMD intel shown to the world before the Iraq War. And we all know how that turned out...
To me, it seems perfectly clear that Congressman Paul's levelheadedness in regards to the issue of Iran's nuclear program is much more preferable than the blatant fear mongering that Congresswoman Bachmann is ripping right out of Dick Cheney's playbook. Iowa voters also seem to be comfortable with Paul's position too, since recent polling suggests that he is pulling ahead of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich in Iowa, which will hold its caucus in just a couple of weeks. Hopefully, this rejection of the "bomb first, ask questions later" philosophy that has been touted by the GOP for years continues into the primary season. And in regards to Paul's claim that Bachmann hates Muslims, I think that she is incapable of hating anyone.
After all, how can somebody develop a systemic hate of a particular group of people when they are changing the facts about them and everybody else so often?
No comments:
Post a Comment