• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

I’m sure it wasn’t high on the list of priorities for most pre-New
Year’s Day celebrants, but various news services on Friday reported that
a 1995 agreement between the U.S. and Russia, calling for Moscow to curb
its sales of military hardware to Iran, is now effectively moot.

According to Newsline USA,

even usually-reserved State Department
officials have declared the agreement
moot,
though just weeks ago — prior to the Nov. 7 election — some of these same Clinton administration wags were declaring this agreement in full force, and the best thing to happen between Russia and the U.S. since sliced bread.

Yet, as WND reported, it turns out

that the U.S. never
considered Russia’s arms agreement with
Iran
binding on Russia.

Well — did we or didn’t we? One never knows when the Clinton administration is involved. That’s because liberal ideologues don’t know diddly about foreign policy.

With the Russians, I suppose it doesn’t matter now what they do, as far as Clinton is concerned; he’s leaving and it sure seems like Russia is going to sell weapons to Iran anyway. Those weapons, reportedly, will include submarines, missile systems and associated components, aircraft, and perhaps even nuclear information — just as the Middle East is exploding already.

What this means is that our government, in effect, is looking the other way as a great power breaks an earlier agreement with us.

No big deal, right? Right — as long as you have a death wish.

The Russia example is just the latest; there are other major Clinton foreign policy failures to note as well:

  • Earlier in the administration, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright “agreed” with the North Koreans that Pyongyang, in exchange for lots of U.S. and Western goodies, would end its nuclear and missile programs, too. They didn’t — in fact, work on nuclear power programs continues, as do sales of North Korean missile systems to potential U.S. enemies.

  • China also has not been living up to earlier agreements not to sell weapons of mass destruction, though ideologues on the Clinton foreign policy team assured us all that Beijing was “serious” about its “commitment” to “curbing” sales of such weapons.

  • When the U.S. found out earlier this year that China had sold missile components and systems to Pakistan, the Clinton administration sanctioned Islamabad, not Beijing. Go figure; obviously Pakistani officials hadn’t invested as much money in the Clinton regime as did Beijing’s communist leaders.

  • Despite the obvious and growing threats Clinton ignored, he also ignored U.S. national security by deciding, earlier this year, to delay development of our national missile defense program. So, while he allows nations to proliferate missiles, he delays development of a program designed specifically to protect Americans from missile threats. Swell.

While the foreign campaign fundraising angle is particular to the Clintonites, in general, liberals don’t understand two key factors when dealing with U.S. foreign policy: 1) that nations — including ours — only make and abide by deals that suit their own ends; and 2) refer back to point No. 1.

The Bush administration — filled to the brim with talented foreign policy and defense experts — fully understands points 1 and 2 above.

There is a difference between “hoping” the world doesn’t blow us up and working to prevent that from happening. Conservatives understand that unequaled strength promises peace, and that such strength ensures our “partners in peace” — our potential enemies — will be too weak to challenge us.

Liberals have never known this or, at a minimum, have never accepted it.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.