Tuesday evening, virtually no one watched the Democratic presidential debate on MSNBC, because by and large, it was virtually unwatchable.  But there was one section that caught my eye, and if you are someone who cares about the continued existence of the state of Israel, regardless of which political party you belong to, it should have caught your eye as well.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is well known for his apocalyptic speeches about how the Zion state cannot continue, how they must be wiped off the map, etc.  So when a Holocaust-denying, religious zealot is in a position of importance in a country who is trying to obtain nuclear weapons capabilities, when that same country is supplying or training many of the main terrorist organizations in the world today, when that country is interfering in the metamorphasis of Iraq by supplying weaponry that has killed our troops, you would naturally conclude that Iran is a growing threat, is not showing any signs of cowering to international sanctions, and could indeed grow into a threat that will require a military solution to stop an unthinkable genocide. 

Foreign policy experts from the center, right and left do see Iran as a threat that might ultimately require military action.  Most recently, Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations appeared this past Friday on the Hugh Hewitt Show, saying, "Should we reach a point where we have to make a choice between a nuclear Iran or some kind of military action, then I think it’s pretty clear that a military action is where we’d have to go."

Tuesday night at Drexel University, Brian Williams asked the Democratic candidates about their position on Iran.  While they all postured their way into attacking frontrunner Hillary Clinton and/or George Bush, John Edwards took his critique into the land of the Jewish conspiracy. 



The Silky Pony got worked up because Hillary and the rest of the Democrats won't stand up to the president and say no, we're not going to let you do this.  He wasn't saying this about the Iranian president, mind you, the one who wants to go nuclear and make Israel glow in the dark.  He was saying this about our president.  Ahmadinejad doesn't seem to bother him as much as the twice-referred neocons (or as the left wing blogs call them, the Jooooos).  Edwards doesn't seem to get the concept that our military has in its custody members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, captured in Iraq trying to kill our troops by assisting insurgents.  I'm sure Israel supporters all over the world are not exactly looking forward to the Edwards presidency. 

After all the candidates thought they handled their obligatory Iran policy question, Tim Russert, to his credit, visually stunned them all by making them all answer a simple yes or no follow up question.  Russert asked all of them individually if they would take a pledge tonight to the American people that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while they are president. Here is how Hillary responded.  

 

Standard Clintonian double-speak.  She will only pledge to try.  But if they do become a nuclear power, well, Israel, it sucks to be you. 

Next up to take the pledge was John Edwards.




He must have been worn out looking for neocons around every corner. Short and sweet, but not taking the pledge.  He's a trial lawyer. You get no guarantees, Israel.

Barack Obama was next up in Russert's hot seat.

 


When the audience starts laughing uncontrollably at what you consider a serious answer, you've got a credibility problem on this issue, Senator Obama.  No pledge, then immediately deviate to Bush bashing, government by fear, Iraq never should have been fought, why aren't we talking about domestic issues like civil liberties.  Israel, President Obama is not going to let fear get in the way of Iran going nuclear.  You're on your own.
 
The spotlight turned next to Slow Joe Biden.




Biden won't offer a pledge.  Why should we worry about Iran when we need to worry about Pakistan falling apart?  In a Biden administration, he's going to have all he can handle, foreign policy-wise, by sitting around and wondering what to do if the Pakistani government collapses.  There's just not enough time left over to worry about Iran going nuclear.  Sorry, Israel, Joe can apparently handle only one potential crisis at a time.

What about Christopher Dodd?




Dodd won't even address the pledge. Four words in his response to Russert's question, he's worried about who on this stage is more experienced to address these types of problems, marshall resources, put together a team.  So if Iran approaches critical mass under President Dodd's watch, at least Israel can feel better knowing that at least Dodd will be working feverishly to make sure that everyone sitting in on the Cabinet meetings is part of the Dodd team of experience.  What will he do about Iran? He doesn't know, but at least he'll have a team, by God. 

The award for going the farthest astray on a yes or no question easily goes to New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.




He would make the pledge, but only through diplomacy.  He will talk Ahmadinejad into submission.  Mahmoud will be so tired of talking that he'll just give up his nuclear ambition of annihilating Israel.  But then he goes prop and deviates away from Iran and points out a person he brought in the fourth row who he personally rescued from the prison in Abu Ghraib, and how his lifetime of being a diplomat will help him solve North Korea.  In other words, Iran may be about to go nuclear, but at least Richardson has a shiny yellow pencil and he has Give Peace A Chance on his I-Pod.  It's about as relevant.  But at least he made the pledge, Israel.  He will talk his way out of a madman acquiring nuclear weapons.

But the piece de resistance has to be Dennis Kucinich.




He won't take the pledge, and instead goes after Tim Russert for daring to ask that question in that kind of way.  Everyone knows if we just rid the world of all nuclear power, period, then in the spirit of love and harmony, the Iranians will follow suit and global utopia can finally be achieved. 

So there you have it. Not one Democrat views Iran as a serious enough threat to even think about preventing them, by using military force, if they're about to go nuclear.  Just to show that there really is a difference between the two parties, here's what the top two Republican candidates have said about the specter of Iran going nuclear under their watch.

Rudy Giuliani in a Reuters story from just this last Friday said, "America will not allow them to become a nuclear power," and "the military option is not off the table and the Iranians should understand that, that America will not allow them to become a nuclear power."  Notice the use of the phrase will not allow.  That's a pledge, something the Democrats just couldn't bring themselves to say.

Mitt Romney on his campaign website, quoting from a speech earlier this year:

The Iranian regime threatens not only Israel, but also every other nation in the region, and ultimately the world. And that threat would take on an entirely new dimension if Iran were allowed to become a nuclear power. And just think of the signal a nuclear Iran would send to other rogue regimes with nuclear ambitions – this could be a tipping point in the development and proliferation of nuclear regimes. . . It is time for the world to plainly speak three truths: One, Iran must be stopped. Two, Iran can be stopped. And three, Iran will be stopped.

 
Again, will be stopped.  No equivocation. 

I'm pretty sure I know which party Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would prefer to see in the White House in 2009.  The question is are you going to support that party as well by sitting out the next election if your candidate doesn't win the nomination?