Let’s don’t let the Jewish lobby run our foreign policy; Obama birth confusion strange…

Blogging from the road, from a big truck — relax, I’m parked, not driving — is a new experience and a work in progress for me. I’m having to get used to a new computer and have just had to figure out a way to get comfortable doing this. I already found out that the way my truck is set up doing it from the driver’s seat does not work so well. I’m propped up with a pillow in my sleeper, and this seems to work. 

Just took a scan of the news and I see pretend Democrat, Independent or wannabe Republican Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut (and to think he ran for vp awhile back — all I recall is him doing some type of comedy monologue in a t-shirt) apparently wants us to go to war in Yemen because that guy who apparently tried to blow up an airliner over Detroit the other day has some connection with terrorist groups there.


ADD 1:

As I wrote in a previos blog post I’ve been almost, not totally, out of touch with much of the news for the past several months, and now I realize from reading a newspaper (yeah a newspaper, real paper, that we’re already waging military strikes, supposedly secret, in Yemen.  And while I  would not care to see the U.S. start up new wars or military campaigns anywhere and everywhere there might be folks plotting against us or thinking bad things about us, I do have to say that once we are committed to a war it seems only logical that we go after the enemy (which should be clearly defined) where the enemy is. For example, if we are to continue our fight against the 9/11-related forces in Afghanistan and they have moved to the hills of Pakistan, then it seems logical that there we must go. Pakistan can hardly call itself our ally if it harbors our enemies. So it can either help us or get out of our way. I’d have to go back and read my history (even though I was around at the time), but I never could understand why Nixon was condemned for going after the Viet Cong and/or NVA forces in Cambodia. If the object is not to go after and defeat the enemy, then what is the point of a war? As I recall he did it on the sneak as I guess Obama is doing in Yemen now. I never was a fan of Nixon’s politics, his domestic politics and dirty tricks in particular.

ADD 2:

And yes I know we are already taking on the enemy in Pakistan with drones although we don’t officially comment on that or that is the government does not. I see that there has just been another strike reported. While I think there is room for debate as to whether we should continue to fight a war with seemingly no end, if we are to fight it at all, the Pakistan attacks must continue as long as the enemy stages its forces there.


Meanwhile, columnist Charles Krauthammer is writing that Israel may have to attack Iran to detroy their budding nuclear capability if we don’t. He’s tired of Obama’s nice nice talk and what he said was Obama’s reference to the “Islamic Republic of Iran”, thus legitimizing the violent and dictatorial regime there. 

And to stray for a second, I note the reports of more bold protests from the opposition in Iran, even in the face of police who are firing live bullets at them and the report that a nephew of the main opposition leader was killed in the demonstrations.

Krauthammer says that Obama’s nice nice talk and recognition of the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic, especially his use of its full name,  is wrong, that the opposition needs his support.

In some respects I see Krauthammer’s point. And while I like the diplomatic tone Obama uses when addressing the Islamic world, I agree that he could be careful to not give too much support to the current Iranian regime, other than to recognize the obvious, that they currently hold the power there. I’m also not fond of apologies to the world for things I did not do, for things even Obama did not do. And while I detest the ways of the former president Bush, I don’t think it does much good to dwell on what he did or did not do. 

Note that both Lieberman and Krauthammer are Jewish — not that there is anything wrong with that — and I think the U.S. has spent far too much time falling all over itself to do the bidding of the Jewish political lobby that throws millions of dollars at our senators and representatives each year.
While I don’t want to see the likes of Amadinajad of Iran, or whatever his name is, or anyone else, destroying the state of Israel, I don’t care to see Israel or any other nation run our foreign policy. 
I’m sure the U.S. would ultimately go to the defense of Israel if need be, and the world knows it, but I wonder if we might do well to play it cool and almost play a neutral role in the never-ending rivalry between the Arab world and Israel.
Add 3:
After my original post, I bought a book called “Power, Faith and Fantasy”, by Michael B. Oren. It’s about the long history of the U.S. in the Middle East. Thumbing through it, keeping my contention that the Jewish lobby seems to often run our foreign policy in mind, a few lines on page 536 of the book jumped out at me:
The author said that President Gerald Ford, who took over after Nixon resigned, had proclaimed his administration would go through a “reassessment” of American support for the Jewish state. But he had to change course. “Though founded in 1953 (the Jewish lobby) had only now, in the mid 1970s, achieved the financial and political clout necessary to sway congressional opinion. Confronted with opposition from both houses of Congress, Ford Rescinded his ‘reassessment’.”
The latest terrorist incident on an airliner, which was almost a complete disaster, underscores the fact that this terror thing seems here to stay. But let’s don’t use each incident as a pretext for war — we’re stretched to thin as it is and when we do so we fall right into the terrorists’ hands, weakening ourselves — in his heart of hearts George W. could admit that — maybe. 
And like a stuck record or someone who has nothing new or original to say, I will nonetheless say again, as Teddy Roosevelt once suggested: “Speak softy and carry a big stick”. 
I understand that was actually from an African proverb. Obama might like that, or at least half of him might. 
And what is with these billboards I see, paid for by the so-called “birthers” , that say “produce the birth certificate“? I know that there is a contingent that claims Obama was not born in the U.S. and therefore was not eligible to become president. And to support their contention they say something the effect that he has only produced something like a “certificate of live birth” but not the official birth certificate. First of all I would think it is a moot point now that he is well into his presidency. Second of all, I don’t really know what proves your natural citizenship — lots of people have lost, or courthouses have lost, their original birth certificates. And third, I do have to wonder why Obama could not have or could not now just submit the necessary paper work for public review. All very strange. 

And wouldn’t it be ironic if the Islamic revolution in Iran was brought down by a new Islamic revolution. I note the news reports said the protestors were using support from Islamic religious beliefs as they interpret them. And isn’t that what organized religion is all about — someone’s interpretation?

One Response to Let’s don’t let the Jewish lobby run our foreign policy; Obama birth confusion strange…

  1. Ignacio says:

    Krauthammer is an idiot. Do we really want World War III?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: