Marie Harf, chief SpokesTwit for the State Department, is the dumbest person on the planet.
But we’d also want to note that she is exactly the right person to be speaking out for the State Department and for the President on their foreign policy. For obvious reasons. Today, she’s Harfing about Iran:
Former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. They discussed in detail the “deal” that the Obama administration is attempting to cut with Iran. They were not gentle, and their meaning was not difficult to discern. Here’s their closing argument.
Nuclear arms must not be permitted to turn into conventional weapons. The passions of the region allied with weapons of mass destruction may impel deepening American involvement.
If the world is to be spared even worse turmoil, the U.S. must develop a strategic doctrine for the region. Stability requires an active American role. For Iran to be a valuable member of the international community, the prerequisite is that it accepts restraint on its ability to destabilize the Middle East and challenge the broader international order.
Until clarity on an American strategic political concept is reached, the projected nuclear agreement will reinforce, not resolve, the world’s challenges in the region. Rather than enabling American disengagement from the Middle East, the nuclear framework is more likely to necessitate deepening involvement there—on complex new terms. History will not do our work for us; it helps only those who seek to help themselves.
It’s early in the morning here in Phoenix and we just barely finished our 1st cup of coffee. Even though we’re somewhat caffeine challenged we had no problem figuring out what the Secretaries were saying.
First of all, the United States must take an active role in the Middle East. “Leading from behind” has been a disaster.Second, it’s obvious to even casual observers that the Obama administration hasn’t a clue what they’re trying to accomplish in the region. And their wandering in the wilderness is making things worse.
Now cut to Marie Harf:
Got that? “I didn’t hear a lot of alternatives. I heard a lot of–sort of a lot of big words and big thoughts in that piece, and certainly there is a place for that. But I didn’t hear a lot of alternatives about what they would do differently.”
No alternatives. That’s the hack response that the president and his hacks throw out every time one of their half-baked policies is challenged. There are a number of different alternatives that have been voiced but rejected out of hand by the president and his administration.
First and foremost there is the reinstatement of significant sanctions against Iran. It was sanctions that brought them to the bargaining table in the first place and the president’s first mistake was lifting major parts of those sanctions allowing the Iranians to revert to their delay and lie strategy. But then Pres. Obama has a long history of using and approving of a “delay and lie” strategy.
Second, there is a military option that this president refuses to put on the table.
The final line Kissinger and Schultz’s editorial perfectly describe the Obama administration. “History will not do our work for us; it only helps those who seek to help themselves.”
That is the perfect description of John Kerry, Barack Obama, and the Iranian government. Today, to paraphrase George W. Bush, those three make up the “Axis of Evil.”
Sign up to get alerts from Joe!