Kerry's Solution?

[SuperScout]

Sen. John Kerry was sharply critical of the Bush administration's handling of the war on terror during his appearance Sunday on ABC's "This Week." But while he complained about White House bungling of the North Korea nuclear crisis, Kerry was curiously silent on Iran. Why?

Probably because, had Kerry's previous advice on Iran been taken, the mullahs in Tehran would be even closer to obtaining nuclear weapons than they are now. During his first debate against President Bush on Sept. 30, 2004, the Massachusetts Democrat actually said it would be a good idea for the U.S. to give Iran the fuel they needed to make a nuclear bomb. The question from moderator Jim Lehrer: "Do you believe that diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the nuclear problems with North Korea and Iran?"

Kerry's answer: "With respect to Iran, the British, French, and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort without the United States, regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the nuclear possibilities in Iran. I believe we could have done better."

The top Democrat then urged: "I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel. Test them. See whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together." [In the meantime, if they did in fact develop a nuke weapon with the assistance we gave them, what would have been his response to that new crisis?]

Of course, with Iranian President Mahmoud Amhadinejad now threatening to "wipe Israel off the map" as he presses ahead with his country's nuclear program, it's clear Kerry's nuke fuel "test" would have been a staggering blunder. We can only shudder to contemplate how a Kerry presidency would have handled any crisis, with this "let's give the bad guys really bad toys, and see if they behave themselves" mentality.