The R and the D: Destroying America to Win in ’16.

The R and the D: Destroying America to Win in ’16. March 12, 2015
Photo Source: Flickr Creative Commons by DonkeyHotey https://www.flickr.com/photos/donkeyhotey/
Photo Source: Flickr Creative Commons by DonkeyHotey https://www.flickr.com/photos/donkeyhotey/

Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu gave a stirring speech to a joint session of Congress.

Fifty Democratic members of Congress decided to boycott the speech because they didn’t want to involve the United States Congress in politics. That is a little like a doctor boycotting his patients because he doesn’t want his practice involved in medicine.

After that, (and we’ll get to this in detail in the next post) 47 Republican Senators of equal concern for this country to the Ds who boycotted the speech decided to send an open letter to Iran. Yeah. You heard that right. They sent an open letter to Iran about an agreement that hasn’t been made yet. Evidently, they forgot they were in the United States Senate.

All this leads back to the question I asked in an earlier post: Is beltway partisanship going to get us killed? 

We deserve better than the government we’re getting people. I mean from both political parties.

Now, back to Prime Minister Netanyahu and his excellent speech. What’d he say that caused all this ruckus?

Nothing.

I’m not saying that he said nothing. I’m saying that nothing he said should have caused this childish, destructive and utterly disgusting behavior on the part of our elected officials. Prime Minister Netanyahu did exactly what he should have done. He gave a stirring speech on behalf of the interests of the nation that he clearly cares about, his own country, Israel. I only wish that members of our Congress cared so much about America.

His concern in the speech was based on his fear of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. No one on any side of this situation argues that Iran is working to do this. There seems to be only one question: What are we going to do about it?

Before I get into the speech in a bit more detail, I want to backtrack a few years to our totally useless and ultimately destructive to everybody invasion of the nation of Iraq.

Before I do that, I want to back track a couple of decades to the first war in Iraq.

We fought the first war in Iraq under the leadership of President Bush 1. President Bush 1 did a lot of things right. First, he went to Congress and got actual, legal authorization for a war. Second, he put together a real coalition of allies. Third, he went into the war with clear military objectives.

The result was that we got the thing done quickly and got back out.

The salient phrase there is that we got back out. Why, when we had Iraq down for the count, didn’t Bush 1 go ahead and finish off Iraq? I think there were a couple of reasons. First, this was not the objective he had given the American people, Congress or our allies. Second — and this is the one that applies to our discussion today — Iraq served as a stopper in the bottle where Iran was concerned. With Iraq in place, there was a counterbalance to Iran, which kept America from having to be so exposed to the need to military intervention in that part of the world.

He did it for the now seemingly quaint and never considered reason in American politics of preserving future peace and saving the lives of American soldiers.

Enter Bush 2 and our pyrrhic “victory” in Iraq. People have been dying in that region of the world because of this ham-handed and destructive war ever since we engaged in it. Not only did President Bush 2 needlessly kill American troops, he created a political and military vacuum that has led directly to the slaughter under ISIS. He also pulled the stopper out of the bottle that was holding Iran in place.

Now, we are faced with the possibility of a nuclear Iran, which is to say with a possible conflagration of unimaginable proportions. Would Iran use such a weapon to kill on a mass scale immediately after obtaining it? Maybe not. But, given the instability of governments in the Middle East, and the obvious willingness of the various Islamic radical groups to kill, kidnap, torture, enslave on a mass scale, plus their evident love of genocide as a practice of domination, that is not reassuring.

From Prime Minster Netanyahu’s viewpoint, the first and most pressing fear concerning a nuclear Iran is the resulting change in the balance of power in the Middle East. Israel has the bomb. If Iran has the bomb, what would that do to Israel? Will we see another holocaut of the Jews?

That is clearly what Prime Minster Netanyahu fears.

Enter President Obama. Unlike every other president we’ve had, President Obama is opaque to the American people. I think that is the real reason why the people of this country distrust him on such a fundamental level. He does not make sense to us. I think the reason for that is that his history is not our history. He spent his formative years living in other countries as a native of those countries. He attended Muslim schools in Indonesia and clearly has a greater and more sympathetic understanding of the Muslim outlook than he does that of most of Christian America,

He spent the rest of his growing-up time in Hawaii. He attended Harvard, and then settled in Chicago. All this is to say that his experience of America is bi-coastal and, in terms of the life experiences of the vast majority of the American people, non-existent.

What does this mean to the questions surrounding Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech? It means that President Obama, for all his great speech-making ability, cannot communicate on the essential unspoken level where trust is built with the American people. This is nothing to do with his dark skin and everything to do with his almost total lack of an American ethos.

If he was an African American president, he’d be fine. But he’s more of an African-International president. American’s don’t “feel” him the way they have every other president. They don’t understand him, don’t “read” him on an unspoken level. He just doesn’t give off recognizable American vibes.

President Obama has done a good job of keeping America out of troop entanglement in the Middle East. He has done an excellent job of encouraging the countries of the Middle East to take on ISIS and wage war against them directly. This has done something that the war-sellers don’t seem to consider at all. It has saved American lives.

Now, he is engaged in an attempt of some sort to negotiate an agreement (not, notice a treaty) with Iran about the development of nuclear weapons by Iran.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is so alarmed by the potential for this agreement to let the nuclear Iran genie out of the bottle that he came across the ocean to address a joint session of Congress. Congress, for its part, doesn’t care very much about American lives or nuclear genies. They just want to poke the prez in the eye so that they can position things for the ’16 elections,

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech made three points: First, this agreement the President Obama is working to create will not stop Iran from developing nuclear weapon. Second, the agreement will enable Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Third, Iran cannot be trusted, as its interests are always antithetical to those of the United States.

The third point has certainly been true in the history of the past few decades, both for the United States and Israel. But is it always going to be true?

One question for America is how can we change that dynamic, without pulling another plug out of another bottle and setting off a holocaust of the Jews in Israel, as well as a third world war?

President Obama was trying to work out his agreement in secret, without informing the American people, or dealing with Congress.

He was outraged that Congress allowed Prime Minister Netanyahu to speak. Personally, I’m concerned that it took the speech of the head of another nation to inform the American people.

I don’t know enough about what our president is trying to accomplish to have a clear opinion of it, and that is the rub. We the people have a right to know. But I am very concerned about this new idea — which is being pushed by the press, by the way — that keeping the people in the dark about their government is patriotic.

I am also concerned about the total breakdown of governance in Congress. Even more than that, I am concerned about what these two political parties and their unending partisan power struggles are doing to all of us and to the future of this nation.

They are destroying America. They are dismantling and exporting our industry, keeping us constantly at war, bankrupting us with their constant war-time economy and allowing the nation to wallow and slowly degrade.

The only thing they care about is jockeying for the next election. I know people who were ecstatic after the election last November. They honestly thought that this new Congress was going to take any number of actions. These trusting souls actually believed the campaign rhetoric.

I knew this was not true. I knew that the only focus our newly elected Congress was going to have was the next election. The campaign for ’16 started the day after the votes were counted in ’14.

Now, this vicious, mindless and totally destructive partisanship has invaded foreign policy. I want to ask this Congress the same question that was once asked of Senator Joseph McCarthy: Have you no shame?

The bottom line is that this constant partisan bickering shows no sign whatsoever of abating. It is getting worse. If it doesn’t stop, it is going to get us killed.

"I didn't state that very well, sorry. Nothing wrong with the link, I just couldn't ..."

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."
"You don't remember Lyndon Johnson doing any such thing because he didn't do any such ..."

Dr Christine Ford in Hiding Because ..."
"I haven't had the opportunity to read the FBI investigation. I'm not in the habit ..."

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."
"Was there something wrong with the link?"

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."

Browse Our Archives

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

17 responses to “The R and the D: Destroying America to Win in ’16.”

  1. First, intelligence reports indicate that Saddam Hussein was murdering about 100,000 people a month, before and after we did anything. There were WMDs there. Troops and international observers have found them. He was also co-opting and corrupting (not hard, I know) the UN. He was also shooting at our planes.
    There was not Pyrrhic victory till Pres Obama precipitously pulled out and refused to negotiate a SOFA. You can disagree in hindsight about the original invasion but those are facts.
    The situation is dangerous and dangerously political. But, it did not begin with the invasion of Iraq. Part of it started with France repatriating Ayatollah Khomeini in 1978 and the feckless Jimmy Carter falling all over himself.
    The Israelis destroyed nuclear facilities south of Bagdad in 1981. There is a lot of complicated history here and it may not have any straight line answers, but what is going on is not going to work. The balance of power will shift if Iran gets a nuclear weapon and they may get help from Russia, China and North Korea.
    Finally, I think the letter from Sen Cotton was a warning to remind Iran what happened in 1981 at Ronald Reagan’s inauguration. I think that some of our politicians are playing games, others are playing shutes and ladders while Iran plays chess and others are navel gazing, but some are serious. Punishing the U.S. for being the leader is wrong and I think, is the biggest problem.
    I do not want Congress or the Executive branch getting any more involved in private industry. They just pick winners who pay them and corrupt everything. Solyndra and GM ring bells. We need the economy to be reenvigorated and the best the government can do is get out of the way.
    Btw, did you hear what the mayor of Selma, Alabama said about work, jobs and unemployment, this morning?

      • Rebecca, I wasn’t accusing you. I just cannot see how Barbara Boxer and Dick Durbin can live with themselves. They are stopping a piece of legislation for the benefit of another exploitative industry and for whose benefit? Who owns them?

  2. Sorry, Rebecca, you are plainly wrong on a couple of things. First, I back everything that Anne G. had to say about Iraq. I remember it well. I followed events through then nineties and it became clear to me that Saddam Husssein – a brute as vicious as any IS thug, whose political hero was Joe Stalin – was managing to unpick one by one all the elements of the settlement imposed on him, and which he had never agreed – IIRC, there never was a treaty of any sort, only a ceasefire followed by conditions imposed by the allies. By the year 2000, the coalition was dead. According to the usually well-informed Private Eye magazine, Baghdad swarmed with French emissaries positioning France to make a killing on Iraqi oil as and when, as seemed certain, the oil sanctions finally collapsed. (France, you will remember, was led at the time by the amazingly dishonest Jacques Chirac, to whom a few million dead foreigners were no problem in the pursuit of a financially advantageous and pleasantly bribe-laden deal.) The only thing left was the Anglo-American no-fly zone, and Saddam was poking at it every day.

    Saddam’s actions had shown that he would never give up war, for any reason. The trashing of ’91 had not deterred him for one second. You don’t understand the man. He was, apart from the hideous Stalinist methods he favoured, a genuine throwback to the nineteenth century or earlier, a man convinced that war and territorial expansion were what rule is all about. He came to absolute power in 1978; by 1980 he was at war with Iraq, and as soon as he had been rebuffed there, he turned on Kuwait – all the while meddling destructively in Lebanon, where he backed Michel Aoun’s desperate attempt to become the Christian leader. War was the whole of Saddam Hussein’s policy; open war as often as he could, covert preparations for war so long as he had the Anglo’Americans looking at him. Once war in Afghanistan had become inevitable, America simply could not afford to leave another sworn enemy in charge. Saddam had to go. Bush II could have managed it better (I blame the idiot Rumsfeld, who needlessly insulted possible allies), but any American president in the same situation would have taken the same action/

    Saddam a bulwark against Iran? Apart that he had been tried and found wanting, you might consider that as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran was, for a while, bracketed by American troops – a more trustworthy sort of bulwark than the unreliable troops of a murderous tyrant. The gift to IS (and possibly to the Taleban) was made by Obama, when he withdrew them all.

    Obama’s policy against IS is only a success if November 1929 counts as a successful month in American economic history. Even if the policy of getting the locals to fight IS were not an excuse for doing nothing, it would not cover the fact that Libya is now in IS hands, and that Boko Haram have joined forces with them, turning a dozen African states including huge Nigeria into battlefields. Meanwhile, the Kurds are receiving hundreds of Western volunteers – evidently not everyone has as poor an idea of the IS threat as Obama does – but are begging, unheard, for heavy weapons and tanks. This is the same policy Obama followed in Ukraine: the Ukrainans, faced with thousands of men with tanks and artillery, begged America for support – and received MREs and advice. Not losing American lives may sound nice, but it is only the prelude to losing a lot more lives in two or three continents, because you have not suppressed an evident evil when you could have, posterity will call it by a different name.

    • The information about WMDs was classified at the time. They did not want people looking for caches in the desert. I know they were found. I just can’t tell you how I know.

      • “I just can’t tell you how I know.”

        ? I recall a big stir last year when the NYT did openly report there were thousands of chemical weapons in Iraq. I would agree that they exist. Or were you referring to “They did not want people looking for caches in the desert”?

        I believe you when you say both things, but the former has public evidence now.

  3. By corrupting the UN I was also referring to bribes to Kofi Anon’s son to make deals, trades and evade sanctions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.