jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,904
Meh. I'm not a Stossel fan (I thought he did a horrid job defending Rand Paul on the Civil Rights Act) but I don't think he did a terrible job here. He did point out that trying to invade Iran to "pry the bomb from their cold dead hands" is "just as crazy" as saying that it's "fine" for them to have nukes. He forced O'Reilly to admit that sanctions don't work either. Okay, Stossel criticized Ron's use of the word "fine" (I'm not sure if Ron actually said that). Here's what Stossel could have done better from my "armchair quarterback" position.
1) In response to O'Reilly's point about "moral equivalency with Israel" Stossel should have said:
Pakistan has nukes. Based on all of the revelations about Pakistan do you really think that Pakistan is morally superior to Iran? And yet Pakistan has never used their nukes because Pakistan is not suicidal. North Korea also has nukes. North Korea is a horrid regime. Yet North Korea hasn't used their nukes because they are not suicidal. Iran has shown it's not suicidal either. Sure there's bellicose rhetoric from Ahmadinajad, but it's no more bellicose than what comes from Kim Jung Il. And unlike Kim, Ahmadinajad is not even in control of Iran's armed forces.
2) In response to O'Reilly's quip about Ron Paul wanting to give him a "3 hour history lesson on the middle east" Stossel should have said:
Here's a 30 second history of U.S. and Iran. According to the CIA's own website, in 1953 the U.S. government overthrew the then democratically elected government of Iran on behalf of British Petroleum. In 2003 Iran tried to form a new relationship with the U.S. by being the only Muslim nation to be part of the U.S. led coalition to overthrow the Taliban, as reported by Jane's Defense Weekly. That same year Iran through back channels made an offer to Bush to give up support for Hamas and Hezbollah, control of its nuclear program and even its hostility to Israel in exchange for guarantees that the U.S. would not attack Iran. They wanted the deal that Khaddafi got from Bush and that Obama has reneged on. That offer was ignored. So the olive branch figurehead president Khatami was replaced by the firebreathing Amadenijad. But no president of Iran has any control over the armed forces. The presidency is merely for show. For those who have real power in Iran, survival is the paramount concern.
(See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?308140-How-Ron-Paul-could-smack-down-Iran-critics)
3) In response to O'Reilly's quip that nobody wants to "trade with Iran":
Well that's odd. According to Fox News, during the Clinton years Dick Cheney pushed for trade with Iran. So are you saying that our own network was mistaken on that? Or are you suggesting that Dick Cheney is a "nobody"?
(See: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134836,00.html)
I watch the show a lot, and I've seen them bashing him and his supporters many times recently.
