Poor Iran

The Washington Post reports on the conflicting signals sent by Iran, whose “various Iranian officials made positive comments about a new diplomatic outreach by the United States and its allies[,]” even while the country recently carried out missile tests and threatened more in the future. According to the Post, “demonstrating strength before negotiations also is a long-tested diplomatic formula, suggesting the missile launches and harsh rhetoric could be a sign that Iran is suddenly open to bargaining.”

Unless, of course, such demonstrations of strength are carried out by the United States, which are routinely depicted as nothing more than dangerous, simplistic Cowboy Diplomacy. According to this narrative, US demonstration of strength, rather being than a “long-tested diplomatic formula,” is the cause of belligerent behavior by other countries. In fact – surprise, surprise – it turns out that this narrative holds true in this very case, as the Post report:

Thomas Fingar, head of the National Intelligence Council, said Wednesday at the Center for National Policy that Iran “has reason to feel insecure” because it “lives in a tough neighborhood.” He added that “recognizing that Iran has real security needs is a useful starting point. . . . We are part of the reason why Iran feels insecure, rightly or wrongly.”

Something tells me it won’t be America’s fault if Obama is elected.

Clueless Democrats

“I didn’t see anything unfair about it. I didn’t even know it was a deal.” Charlie Rangel

“I did not…know that I was receiving a discount.” Kent Conrad

“There was no red flag to me that we were getting special treatment.” Chris Dodd

Since Democrats continue to admit that they don’t know anything about mortgages and regulations, what’s the basis again for their claim to regulate the American economy?

Pro-Worker?

The Democrats continue to oppose a trade deal with our (for the time being) staunch ally Columbia. As the New York Times explains:

If approved by Congress, it would open a new market for American produce and manufactured goods. Unlike other trade deals, it would not threaten American jobs, because imports from Colombia are already coming in nearly duty-free.

But Democrats oppose the bill because…they want more support (i.e, Government spending) for US workers. Soooo, Democrats purportedly want to help US workers by killing a deal that would make it easier for US-made goods to be sold abroad.

Then again, maybe that’s not the real reason:

Opposition to the Colombia deal is not rooted in organized labor’s fear of lost jobs, the issue behind unions’ opposition to past trade deals like Nafta. Rather, it is over the killings of labor advocates in more than two decades of Colombia’s long civil wars.

As this story states, however, since Uribe took office in 2002, “the number of killings of union members has dropped sharply….”

No matter – most Democrats are more concerned with keeping union bosses happy than in doing something that would actually benefit American workers.