Former Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D, MT) wants us to ‘cozy up’ to Iran.


His words, not mine. That first link is to the video: text below.

“What’s interesting is not that we are going to have a treaty with Iran, it’s going to tip the balance away from the Saudis and the Egyptians to the Persians, the enemies for the last 3,000 years to the Arabs,” he said, pointing out that he had lived in the Middle East for seven years. “Big changes are happening in the Middle East. If we cozy up to Iran, we are not going to need Saudis anymore. We will be energy independent.”

The bolding is mine; and I am just going to note here that if Gov. Schweitzer thinks that he can run for President on a platform of ‘cozying up’ to a regime that thinks Death to America and Death to Israel are perfectly normal and unobjectionable policy statements, then Gov. Schweitzer is free to try. And I’ll add this: rhetoric like that might work in a Democratic primary. It won’t fly in the general.



Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: We don’t particularly need to rely on foreign oil to be energy independent in the first place. I know that most of my readers already know this; I’m hoping that somebody will clue in Gov. Schweitzer.

10 thoughts on “Former Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D, MT) wants us to ‘cozy up’ to Iran.”

  1. Thanks Moe!!
    Schweitzer among other things is an isolationist. His position on Healthcare and Foreign Policy would carry him through the Primaries, while his position on “Drill Baby Drill” and Guns *could* carry him through the general provided we nominate someone who is very publically anti-2nd Amendment.

  2. Er, Persian oil has to go through the Straits of Hormuz. Both Iran and Dubai have the ability to block the straits; as would any power with the ability and will to place a few subs there.

    Iran’s oil goes ANYWHERE but Turkey, Russia, and Syria on the sufferance of the rest of the world.

  3. Somehow I doubt even the DEM’s would nominate him the only way he’d win is if he’s the only loose screw in the box.

    1. And to think I was genuinely concerned about Schweitzer being the nominee. Not anymore.

        1. Probably, but it makes him less likely to win the general. Keep in mind this guy thinks we started Afghanistan. That’s anti-war rhetoric that would get you destroyed against any semi-qualified debater. But there are many on the Left who thinks we should’ve just bent over after 9/11.

          1. In a just world, yes.
            I wish we lived there.
            There are two main problems:
            1) The public is apathetic. Only a small fraction of the populace follows the news, or thinks about foreign relations, and this is largely the same group that watches debates. Also, there’s a wide streak of Isolationism in the American character. It’s tough to convince the apathetic to care.
            2) The media wants both Republicans and Israel to die in a grease fire. They aren’t above fudging facts to help this along, and are certainly comfortable with papering over truths that would aid either.
            His statements should be disqualifying. But I doubt they will be.

  4. The only thing missing from this quote is “And after that we will no longer have to do the bidding of the JOOS”

Comments are closed.