There is an ongoing discussion on whether Gen. Petraeus should, or should not, have resigned. Then there is the back and forth on Susan Rice, who Obama would like to see confirmed as Sec of State, and now we have the "fiscal cliff." These subjects are really much simpler to diagnose than all the talk we've been hearing.
Gen. Petraeus: Since he is no longer in military service, the service code of conduct no longer applies. There is really no chargeable offense. Doing something stupid is not a crime. Having an affair does make a CIA head susceptible to blackmail. But, fortunately no such attempt was ever made.
So, should Petraeus have resigned? That call can only be made by one man, his boss, and his boss was Obama. Word has it that Petraeus and Obama were never that close. For Obama to have dumped him comes as no great surprise. And, that's how that goes.
Susan Rice as a candidate for appointment to the position of Secretary of State: I have very little idea as to whether Ms. Rice is up to the job or not. But clearly the Benghazi affair with the death of four fine Americans in Libya does present a problem for this appointment.
The Benghazi affair presents us with several issues, but the one most relevant to the Rice appointment is her misleading statement made immediately after the assassination of our ambassador to Libya. She announced that his death resulted from a demonstration by Libyans incensed over a film produced in the United States about the life of Muhammad. This was false. The CIA knew almost immediately that this was an assassination by al Qaida.
So why did she give out the false story? As I understand it, based on what is being presented to the American public, the CIA passed the information up the line. Somewhere (up the line) there is a group whose function it is to take such confidential information and create talking points for dissemination to the public. It is here that we run into our first problem. If the administration didn't want to reveal that they knew it was a planned assassination, why not simply say that they were not in possession of all the facts, but that they would provide the facts as soon as they became available? (That should have given them as much time as they should have reasonably needed.)
It is suspected that they made up the story about the demonstration simply to keep Obama's reputation as the one who had finished off al Qaida's from being tarnished. In short, Ms. Rice gave out a story that was known to be false simply to further the political advantage of the Obama administration at the time of an election.
There is another possibility; namely, that the assassination attempt on our ambassador succeeded only because of the ineptitude on the part of either our state department or our security forces. But that too would have reflected poorly on the Obama administration.
Okay, perhaps the culpability for devious behavior lies elsewhere in the administration. But, at the very least, this makes Ms. Rice little more than a courier for others. Is that what Americans want as secretary of state? ..... a courier?
The rapidly approaching fiscal cliff: If Congress does not respond to the fiscal mess we're in, it will get much uglier. The Republicans don't want to see taxes go up in a vain attempt to contain runaway entitlements. Democrats don't want any reduction in entitlements. Unless this issue is resolved the national debt will continue to balloon. A solution can only come through compromise.
Compromise means Republicans and Democrats negotiating. Such negotiations will require the full participation of the president. But how is this to be done if the president won't roll up his sleeves and get busy negotiating with the Republican legislators? Can tweeting with the American public serve as a substitute to negotiating? I don't think so.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Thursday, November 22, 2012
For The Palestinians It Will Always Be 1948
I'm as happy as any peace-lover that a truce has been struck between Hamas and Israel. But, will this lead to a lasting peace? Hardly, and here's why.
I just heard on the radio that Abbas congratulated Hamas on their victory. Victory? I don't believe Hamas did gain a victory, but even if they did, and let's suppose they did? Is that what you say to further peace? When the Union troops defeated the Confederate troops in the course of our Civil War, was Lincoln in a celebratory mood such as that express by Abbas? Did Lincoln cry out , "We won. Hurray. Hurray?"
The Civil War ended the idea that the slavery of blacks was acceptable. But, it didn't end the mindset that blacks were inferior to whites. The Civil War was followed by decades of Jim Crow. Only through the peaceful efforts of black leaders like Martin Luther King and their white supporters were federal laws passed that put the spike into heart of segregation.
No such efforts have been begun in the middle east. Hamas doesn't even agree that Israel has a right to exist. They call Israel the aggressor ... and this after launching hundreds of rockets prior to Israel's response. The children in Palestinian classrooms continue to be taught to hate Jews and Israelis. Egyptian reporters, who want to see for themselves what Israel and Israelis are like, and who manage to visit Israel, are treated like pariahs and traitors to the Muslim cause when they return to Egypt.
I was listening to a person who had put his defense of Israel on YouTube. Listed besides his clip was the response of a Palestinian. To me the defense of Israel was straightforward. I had heard it often before. I was in total agreement. The Palestinian response struck me as bizarre. Israel was the aggressor. The Palestinians were the "resisters." They were responding to Israeli aggression and repression. It all sounded like Alice in Wonderland conversing with the Queen.
But, if we assume that the Palestinians believe in what they are saying and if indeed they are not demented, how do we make sense of their response. The key is to realize that the Palestinians continue to live in 1948. As they see it, a bunch of Europeans sat around a table and decided to give Arab territory away to the Jews. And, indeed, there is a rational for this view. But, it's a view that is so nearsighted and so out of step with all that went on before in Palestine and all that followed that, while dividing the territory of Palestine between the Jews and the Arabs seems out of step with how we today think things should be done, it is not out of step with history.
First, Palestine was a territory, not a nation. As a nation, it had been part of the Ottoman Empire. As a territory, it had been lived in by Druze, Christians, Jews, Circassians and a number of other ethnic groups. Under Ottoman rule, Palestine became a Muslim country. (It might be noted that Saladin, the Muslim conquerer of Palestine as well as other territories that fell under his sword, was a Kurd -- a relatively minor player in today's Islamic world.) And, while even as a Muslim state, Palestine contained Jews and Christians, these other ethnic groups were viewed as second-class citizens with lesser civil rights than the Muslims. While that might have been acceptable in those days, it's not acceptable today. Nevertheless, most Muslim countries e.g. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc., don't get that, even today.
What really galls the Muslims is that Palestine was Judah before it was Palestine. Indeed, many Muslims today deny that Jerusalem was ever a Jewish city or that the Western Wall was ever a part of a Jewish temple. These denials are especially strange, not simply because they fly in the face of history, but because they serve to alienate the world's Christians for whom these are historical cornerstones and are critical elements of their faith. In the Judah of the Torah, or in that land in the time of the Christian's New Testament, there were Philistines and Samaritans and perhaps some others, but there were no Muslims. Mohammed had not yet been born.
There have been territorial changes almost without number. Parts of Poland were given to Russia. Parts of Germany were given to Poland. China still maintains that Taiwan is part of China. Korea was arbitrarily divided between a North and a South. Turkey grabbed a corner of Cypress. Puerto Rico and the Philippines were removed from Spain, who had earlier taken them from their native populations.
And, so the list goes on and on. The Arabs in the Middle East had allied themselves with the Nazis and, for this reason those whose territories were part of the Ottoman Empire found their lands arbitrarily subdivided and rearranged. That was not only true of Palestine but also of Syria, Iraq and other lands.
The fact that the State of Israel has been established and has survived and grown culturally, militarily, and economically over the last 60 plus years is a reality that can probably be changed only through a successful atomic strike by the Iranians. The fact that Palestinians, indeed all Muslim nations, would serve their people far better by working in harmony with Israel and emulating in their own lands what the Israelis have done in theirs, can hardly be contested. Let the Palestinians celebrate, or mourn, their Nakba. But, if they become obsessed with it to the exclusion of all else, it will poison the well of prosperity for them and for all the people in the region.
Today, the middle east is more or less five parties dancing on the edge of a knife. At one end you have Israel. At the other, you have Hamas, Fatah, Morsi of Egypt, Iran. You also have the U.S., in there somewhere. But, where? The U.S. understands the danger Iran represents, but seem to have no clear idea as to how to deal with Iran as that countries pursues its nuclear ambitions. America does have some leverage over Egypt through their foreign aid. And, it is true that they have judged Hamas to be a terrorist organization. But then they seem to be on the side of the Palestinians, and Abbas, in their negotiations -- or what passes for negotiations -- with the Israelis.
Good luck in working out this Rubic's cube.
I just heard on the radio that Abbas congratulated Hamas on their victory. Victory? I don't believe Hamas did gain a victory, but even if they did, and let's suppose they did? Is that what you say to further peace? When the Union troops defeated the Confederate troops in the course of our Civil War, was Lincoln in a celebratory mood such as that express by Abbas? Did Lincoln cry out , "We won. Hurray. Hurray?"
The Civil War ended the idea that the slavery of blacks was acceptable. But, it didn't end the mindset that blacks were inferior to whites. The Civil War was followed by decades of Jim Crow. Only through the peaceful efforts of black leaders like Martin Luther King and their white supporters were federal laws passed that put the spike into heart of segregation.
No such efforts have been begun in the middle east. Hamas doesn't even agree that Israel has a right to exist. They call Israel the aggressor ... and this after launching hundreds of rockets prior to Israel's response. The children in Palestinian classrooms continue to be taught to hate Jews and Israelis. Egyptian reporters, who want to see for themselves what Israel and Israelis are like, and who manage to visit Israel, are treated like pariahs and traitors to the Muslim cause when they return to Egypt.
I was listening to a person who had put his defense of Israel on YouTube. Listed besides his clip was the response of a Palestinian. To me the defense of Israel was straightforward. I had heard it often before. I was in total agreement. The Palestinian response struck me as bizarre. Israel was the aggressor. The Palestinians were the "resisters." They were responding to Israeli aggression and repression. It all sounded like Alice in Wonderland conversing with the Queen.
But, if we assume that the Palestinians believe in what they are saying and if indeed they are not demented, how do we make sense of their response. The key is to realize that the Palestinians continue to live in 1948. As they see it, a bunch of Europeans sat around a table and decided to give Arab territory away to the Jews. And, indeed, there is a rational for this view. But, it's a view that is so nearsighted and so out of step with all that went on before in Palestine and all that followed that, while dividing the territory of Palestine between the Jews and the Arabs seems out of step with how we today think things should be done, it is not out of step with history.
First, Palestine was a territory, not a nation. As a nation, it had been part of the Ottoman Empire. As a territory, it had been lived in by Druze, Christians, Jews, Circassians and a number of other ethnic groups. Under Ottoman rule, Palestine became a Muslim country. (It might be noted that Saladin, the Muslim conquerer of Palestine as well as other territories that fell under his sword, was a Kurd -- a relatively minor player in today's Islamic world.) And, while even as a Muslim state, Palestine contained Jews and Christians, these other ethnic groups were viewed as second-class citizens with lesser civil rights than the Muslims. While that might have been acceptable in those days, it's not acceptable today. Nevertheless, most Muslim countries e.g. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc., don't get that, even today.
What really galls the Muslims is that Palestine was Judah before it was Palestine. Indeed, many Muslims today deny that Jerusalem was ever a Jewish city or that the Western Wall was ever a part of a Jewish temple. These denials are especially strange, not simply because they fly in the face of history, but because they serve to alienate the world's Christians for whom these are historical cornerstones and are critical elements of their faith. In the Judah of the Torah, or in that land in the time of the Christian's New Testament, there were Philistines and Samaritans and perhaps some others, but there were no Muslims. Mohammed had not yet been born.
There have been territorial changes almost without number. Parts of Poland were given to Russia. Parts of Germany were given to Poland. China still maintains that Taiwan is part of China. Korea was arbitrarily divided between a North and a South. Turkey grabbed a corner of Cypress. Puerto Rico and the Philippines were removed from Spain, who had earlier taken them from their native populations.
And, so the list goes on and on. The Arabs in the Middle East had allied themselves with the Nazis and, for this reason those whose territories were part of the Ottoman Empire found their lands arbitrarily subdivided and rearranged. That was not only true of Palestine but also of Syria, Iraq and other lands.
The fact that the State of Israel has been established and has survived and grown culturally, militarily, and economically over the last 60 plus years is a reality that can probably be changed only through a successful atomic strike by the Iranians. The fact that Palestinians, indeed all Muslim nations, would serve their people far better by working in harmony with Israel and emulating in their own lands what the Israelis have done in theirs, can hardly be contested. Let the Palestinians celebrate, or mourn, their Nakba. But, if they become obsessed with it to the exclusion of all else, it will poison the well of prosperity for them and for all the people in the region.
Today, the middle east is more or less five parties dancing on the edge of a knife. At one end you have Israel. At the other, you have Hamas, Fatah, Morsi of Egypt, Iran. You also have the U.S., in there somewhere. But, where? The U.S. understands the danger Iran represents, but seem to have no clear idea as to how to deal with Iran as that countries pursues its nuclear ambitions. America does have some leverage over Egypt through their foreign aid. And, it is true that they have judged Hamas to be a terrorist organization. But then they seem to be on the side of the Palestinians, and Abbas, in their negotiations -- or what passes for negotiations -- with the Israelis.
Good luck in working out this Rubic's cube.
Monday, November 19, 2012
I Was Right -- Damn It
On Sept 27, I predicted in Chuckling Over The Here And Now that Obama would win the election and, perhaps more important, why he would win. You now see -- everyone now sees -- I was right both as to the results as well as to the reasons. Why, oh why, didn't the Republicans read my blog?
Okay, so now we're here at the end of 2012. What do we see? We see Obama laying out the campaign for his party for the 2014 midterm elections. As to bipartisanship? You're excused. Go have yourself a good laugh and then come back in a couple of minutes.
The betting is now on whether an agreement can be reached between Obama and the Republican House. They either compromise or go over the fiscal cliff and to sequestration. ("Sequestration"; now there's a word only a politician could love.) Anyway, you know what it means; namely, cutting all items across the board by an equal percentage, even if some items are more worthy than others. My vote is that it will be sequestration.
Why? (1.) Obama will be able to blame the recalcitrant and uncooperative Congress and (2.) it does a lot of what Obama wants done anyway. It means raising taxes by way of the lapse of the Bush tax cuts and (3.) turning to a sequestered budget will lead to considerable chaos which Obama will enjoy. He'll blame it on the Republicans. As to the Republicans: Their attitude will be -- if that's what the bastard wants, give it to him.
Is this a good way to govern? No, but it's what you get if campaigning is more important than governing.
Okay, so now we're here at the end of 2012. What do we see? We see Obama laying out the campaign for his party for the 2014 midterm elections. As to bipartisanship? You're excused. Go have yourself a good laugh and then come back in a couple of minutes.
The betting is now on whether an agreement can be reached between Obama and the Republican House. They either compromise or go over the fiscal cliff and to sequestration. ("Sequestration"; now there's a word only a politician could love.) Anyway, you know what it means; namely, cutting all items across the board by an equal percentage, even if some items are more worthy than others. My vote is that it will be sequestration.
Why? (1.) Obama will be able to blame the recalcitrant and uncooperative Congress and (2.) it does a lot of what Obama wants done anyway. It means raising taxes by way of the lapse of the Bush tax cuts and (3.) turning to a sequestered budget will lead to considerable chaos which Obama will enjoy. He'll blame it on the Republicans. As to the Republicans: Their attitude will be -- if that's what the bastard wants, give it to him.
Is this a good way to govern? No, but it's what you get if campaigning is more important than governing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)