There may be such a thing as absolute truth, but evil is, without question, a relative commodity, especially when it comes to elections. I rejected Hillary Clinton as a suitable presidential candidate because of her penchant for kissing up to the neocons. She was going hook, line and sinker for their Iran narrative the same way she took the bait on Iraq. As president of the United States, John McCain would be the most dangerous human being in the history of civilization, so he made for an even worse candidate than Hillary.
On May 19, the (then) least of three evils made the most rational foreign policy statement uttered by a presidential candidate since World War II: “Iran, Cuba, Venezuela–these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.”
Perhaps more importantly, Barack Obama displayed a greater aptitude for the commander in chief job than McCain and Clinton combined when he said that Iran spends “one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen.”
Indeed, who in his right mind would consider it a sign of weakness to listen to a nation that, to paraphrase former Central Command chief William Fallon, we could crush like ants if we needed to? McCain thinks it’s a sign of weakness, of course, but remember; the question stipulated “right mind,” so “Gramps” doesn’t count as a correct answer.
McCain returned fire, noting that his opponent’s awareness of Iran’s military insignificance shows “the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment.” McCain’s rant was pretty comical, in fact, up until the moment Obama made the mistake of taking him seriously and answered, “Let me be absolutely clear: Iran is a grave threat.”
That’s the kind of remark that makes you wish Obama’s foreign policy advisers would take him aside and tell him, “Don’t say dumb stuff like that, huh?” Unfortunately, a couple of Obama’s top foreign policy advisers have been saying some pretty dumb stuff themselves.
Bad Company
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) is a pro-Israeli think tank founded in 1985 by Martin Indyk, a former research director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). High profile neoconservatives Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and James R. Woolsey serve on WINEP’s advisory board.
WINEP’s Presidential Task Force on the Future of U.S.-Israel Relations recently released a report titled How to Deepen U.S.-Israel Cooperation on the Iranian Nuclear Challenge. The report stated among other things that the U.S. and Israel should discuss policy options that include “preventive military action” against Iran.
Signatories to the report included, not surprisingly, McCain advisers Woolsey and Vin Weber. Obama supporters should find it disconcerting that the signatories also included two of their candidate’s foreign policy experts: Tony Lake and Susan Rice.
For somebody who talks constantly of making a “change” in the way America plays with the rest of the world, Obama sure sounds at times like he’s up to the same old shell game. Despite his often moderate, rational sounding statements about Iran, Obama seems to have accepted the neocons’ Iran bashing nonsense from the outset of his presidential bid. In September 2004 he said that missile strikes might be a viable option to destroy nuclear sites in Iran. In March 2007, speaking to a pro-Israeli audience in Chicago, he called Iran “a threat to all of us.” Now his proxies are agreeing that the U.S. and Israel should consider preemptive deterrence measures against Iran.
All this because of the wholly unsubstantiated neoconservative claims that Iran is arming and training Iraqi militias and has ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons. The Bush administration promised in January 2007 to provide proof of Iran’s direct role in killing U.S. troops in Iraq. A year and a half later, it has yet to produce a stitch of credible evidence. The most compelling testimony we have that the Iranians ever pursued nuclear weapons is the recent National Intelligence Estimate that says they abandoned their program in the fall of 2003. Since Russia only started building Iran’s first reactor in the fall of 2002, whatever nuclear weapons program Iran had must have been the kind of thing Spanky and Alfalfa could have slapped together in Darla’s back yard over summer vacation.
So what in the wide world of sports, arts and sciences are two of Obama’s key foreign affairs advisers doing at a conference with a neocon infested, AIPAC affiliated think tank and signing off on its Persian Peril policy?
If Club Obama plans to let Israel keep leading us around by the foreign policy tool, we might just as well hand the keys to McCain. With Gramps behind the wheel, there’s at least a chance he’ll doze off before he backs out of the driveway.
Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes at Pen and Sword . Jeff’s novel Bathtub Admirals (Kunati Books), a lampoon on America’s rise to global dominance, is on sale now. Also catch Russ Wellen’s interview with Jeff at The Huffington Post and Scholars and Rogues.
Jeff, delivered as promised. I’m just as disappointed by this. Do you think it’s just ‘fear’ of losing voters that causes this change? How come Israel has such power over candidates? They receive money from the US and not the other way around..
it baffles me. Other than suspecting it’s domestic politics at work, I don’t understand. Even if it is a feature of not wanting to be seen as ‘weak’ or inexperienced, does the Jewish voting bloc/money have such a reach? I checked out Jerusalem Post last night and noticed that ‘Iranian Threat’ is a separate page altogether. And McCain with his poll-ad as to do you want them talking to Iran (forget the exact wording, you’ve seen it I’m sure; Ahmadjanidad and Obama pics with a quasi poll to ‘check’ whether you want them talking or not) is a major ad on top of the first page. Israeli newspapers seem to feeding this just as much, of course, only a ‘chomsky’ will go counter that official public line in Israel.
Ingrid
.
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
Jewish Americans have set up an impressive array of organisations to influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and best known. In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People, but ahead of the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place (tied with AARP) in the Washington `muscle rankings’.
The US form of government offers activists many ways of influencing the policy process. Interest groups can lobby elected representatives and members of the executive branch, make campaign contributions, vote in elections, try to mould public opinion etc. They enjoy a disproportionate amount of influence when they are committed to an issue to which the bulk of the population is indifferent.
Defense Policy Influence – Douglas Feith
● Obama and AIPAC
● Dutch Documentary ‘The Israel lobby – The influence of AIPAC on US Foreign Policy’
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Ahead of AFL/CIO. Just amazing.
Jeff
Btw Jeff, after I emigrated to Canada, and started studying politics, I found out about lobby groups. In Canada they are (I would assume still, since I haven’t lived there since the late 90s) illegal. It is so bizarre that lobbying is considered no big deal here. Of course the ‘usual suspects’ of the left persuasion are but why not ordinary Republicans? Or why is there not more noise coming from Republican voters about lobbyists?
Ingrid
Dank je Oui. I’ll check it out when I have no distractions..
Ingrid
…They’re taking America in on Iran the way they did on Iraq. Israel has us by the nose, and our politicians keep following. I’m in horror.
Jeff
well said. Obama reeks with disappointing talk.
But in the practice of politics, Bush just gave Obama cover on Iran. Engage in direct talks.
Bush did not need to bomb North Korea into abandoning their nuclear weapons aspiration or to remove them from the State sponsored terror list.
But then our foreign policy in the ME is dictated by AIPAC.
Dual standards. Israel first.
Oh, what was my joke from a few years back..
If you don’t have nukes but won’t admit it, America will invade you.
If you don’t have nukes and say you don’t want nukes, America will threaten to bomb you.
If you have nukes and brag about it, American will conduct diplomacy with you.
Brilliant, eh?
A history Lesson for Dickie Cheney:
expedient to Bush’s legacy, off-setting the smell of his war-mongering.
JCoS Chairman, General Mullen is in Israel this week. Mullen wants “A healthy dialogue with Iran because engagement would offer an opportunity to understand each other.”He can point to North Korea as a reason to cease the saber-rattling on Iran.
And the neocons smell fear. As they should. They now have Obama running scared.
Obama will “be forced” to talk tough against Iran as Bush and the gang step up the pressure even further. Of course Obama will say he would do it differently than Bush and wouldn’t have resorted to force so quickly. But he has to support the troops in harms way so he will reserve judgment until hostilities are done. Then he will basically promise to “fix it” when he’s in the White House. He will not try to actually stop an attack. When Bush uses some ham-haned legal justification for his war crimes Obama will not call it by it’s name; an extra-constitutional war crime committed by the president (and an impeachable offense). No, he will hem and haw and say he has questions about the legality and promise to not do such things when he’s in office.
The neocons and those that want war with Iran know this dynamic all too well. They will push and push and push. And Obama just showed he can be pushed around–so here we go.
I can’t believe we’re here again either. Just as ignorant and full of piss and vinegar as last time. God Bless America.
I’m afraid you’re right. He needs some spine on this issue.
Fear mongering is all they got to offer.
Thinkprogress: Hewitt joins Bolton
Hewitt: U.S. will get ‘blown up by the Islamists under Obama’
On his radio show yesterday, conservative talker Hugh Hewitt announced that he was “living for” the Sept. 13 football game between USC and Ohio State, adding that he predicts that it will be the last game played before the United States “gets blown up by the Islamists under Obama.”:
you factor THIS in?
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12475
Granting the same columnist changes his mind a month later:
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12944
… do you think AIPAC would really fully trust Obama, after that stuff mentioned in March?
Heh, don’t get me started on Justin.
? is he inconsistent or something?
…don’t get me started.