Our Congress is going to repeat the their abdication of their oath's of office. Just as they passed the Healthcare Bill without reading it, they now are going to allow an agreement that was fashioned in a manner designed to give Iran an express lane to both nuclear weapons AND ICBMs while also releasing Billions of Dollars to help Iran fund terrorism around the world.
The Administration continues to claim how tough this agreement is. Really? Even they acknowledge that they have not read ANY print, much less fine print, of the side agreements that the IAEA and Iran have signed and which are incorporated by reference into the multi-party agreement now being considered by Congress. So, if Congress were really doing its job, it would refuse to even consider the matter as the entire agreement has NOT been submitted to Congress and the Administration admits that neither they or anyone on the negotiating team have seen these "secret" agreements.
No sane person would ever sign an agreement that did not state in writing ALL the conditions. Would you sign a car loan that didn't say what constituted being late on a payment? If you were told you had 30 days, but suddenly two days after it was due and while your payment was en-route they repossessed your car, would you be happy? But it would be your own fault for not insisting that ALL the terms were there for you to read and understand. But this is what Congress is doing, however, and they are being pushed by our Administration, which is saying, in effect, "Trust me...and them!"
Viewing Iran's behavior over the last 35 years, there is no basis for any degree of trust. And this agreement has nothing in it that can be verified as requiring timely effective inspections. So it is toothless and ineffective until or unless provisions to the contrary are shown in writing.
Yet our duly elected representatives are going to drink the Kool-aide; they will fail to over-ride the President's veto of their probably disapproval of this farce of an agreement. And Iran has already stated, through their leader, that Israel will not exist within 25 years. That is NOT an empty threat. And with the ICBM development that this "agreement" allows, America will also be in range.
When the mushroom cloud does occur, a proper memorial should give credit to every administration member and elected member of Congress who did not vote to stop this farce.
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Iranian Nuclear "Deal": Part III
If you wrote this as a fictional novel, not one publisher would touch it; they would claim it is too unbelievable for any reader to think that any leaders of any major country could possible be so blatantly naive...or inept.
Apparently News Reports that one of the major "side" agreements to the overall "agreement" provides for the Iranians to self-inspect their military sites. Perhaps a review of past history of Iranian adherence to promises made might be in order? Feels a little bit like the Police allowing a known Drug Distributor checking his own premises and/or warehouse and assuring them that there are no drugs being moved in or out of there...it leaves a shock of disbelief at the core of your being.
Yet...this is precisely what Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama are approving as sufficient assurance that Iran will not develop a nuclear device. What they actually are trying to get approved constitutes an express lane for Iran to develop the "bomb."
There are only three possible explanations for this:
1. As previously suggested, everyone on our side of the table is naive and inept;
2. America's representative at the table are anxious to have Iran eliminate all opposition to controlling the Middle East; or
3. Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama are so blinded by their narcissistic need for a legacy that it is the creation of any agreement that is important, not the content of that agreement.
If the reports of this side agreement's contents is confirmed, then it strikes me that the act of recommending approval of our government to the "deal" would constitute treason.
I further suggest that if confirmation is obtained, the same charge would be in order against any Representative or Senator who votes to approve the "agreement."
Each of my Senators and Representative have been put on notice by me in writing that I will hold them directly accountable for the results if they vote for the United States to accept this agreement. And I suspect a lot of folks around the country will be watching and noting their own Senators' and Representatives' vote on this matter.
Apparently News Reports that one of the major "side" agreements to the overall "agreement" provides for the Iranians to self-inspect their military sites. Perhaps a review of past history of Iranian adherence to promises made might be in order? Feels a little bit like the Police allowing a known Drug Distributor checking his own premises and/or warehouse and assuring them that there are no drugs being moved in or out of there...it leaves a shock of disbelief at the core of your being.
Yet...this is precisely what Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama are approving as sufficient assurance that Iran will not develop a nuclear device. What they actually are trying to get approved constitutes an express lane for Iran to develop the "bomb."
There are only three possible explanations for this:
1. As previously suggested, everyone on our side of the table is naive and inept;
2. America's representative at the table are anxious to have Iran eliminate all opposition to controlling the Middle East; or
3. Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama are so blinded by their narcissistic need for a legacy that it is the creation of any agreement that is important, not the content of that agreement.
If the reports of this side agreement's contents is confirmed, then it strikes me that the act of recommending approval of our government to the "deal" would constitute treason.
I further suggest that if confirmation is obtained, the same charge would be in order against any Representative or Senator who votes to approve the "agreement."
Each of my Senators and Representative have been put on notice by me in writing that I will hold them directly accountable for the results if they vote for the United States to accept this agreement. And I suspect a lot of folks around the country will be watching and noting their own Senators' and Representatives' vote on this matter.
Saturday, August 1, 2015
Iranian Nuclear "Agreement": continued
Apparently the Administration is presenting the Iranian Nuclear "Agreement" to Congress in a manner and form that looks more and more like the AHCA (Obamacare) on steroids. Anyone who remembers that debacle recalls Ms. Pelosi declaring, "We have to pass it to find out what's in it." Sure! Did that ever work out. As I recall, there were...and remain...so many errors in that bill that it continues to reward our citizens with pain and disappointment. Not only were there technical errors that required a subservient Supreme Court of the United States to abandon legal analysis and assume the role of proof reader for Congress to bail them out, but the failure to thoroughly think through how the new bill would affect everyone left many with higher costs and higher deductible after being "promised" that this would not happen.
But...back to the Iranian "Agreement"...notice that we now know that two diametrically opposed conditions have been established; 1) We have a written agreement that when carefully read and analyzed fails to provide for inspection of Iranian Military locations under any conditions; and/or 2) We have been told of two "secret" side agreements, not subject to examination by Congress or known to U.S.citizens that are alleged to proved some sort of examination of Iranian Military sites under written conditions and terms that will NOT be made available to Congress, although promises have been made that oral assertions as to the contents will be made known to our "Representatives" (as if they really do that..."represent" us) in classified sessions.
So...the real and proper choices for Congress would be the two following scenarios: First, judge the Agreement ONLY on the written portion presented and made public, fully available to all to read and interpret; and, Second, judge the Agreement on assertions of "Trust Us" made by the Administration without their even knowing (according to their sworn testimony before Congress) the written details, but relying on assertions by the AEIA...the equivalent of Ms. Pelosi's assertion, "We have to pass it before we can know what is in it"...except that in this case we will NEVER know what is in the secret side deals.
I don't know what others think, but I have already contacted my Congressional Representative in both he House and the Senate informing them that I still have not forgotten their passing the Healthcare bill without reading it...an obligation on their part that they failed to perform...and that any vote by them to approve the Agreement with Iran would constitute a far worse abdication of their duty to protect the country. The written "Agreement" is inadequate; the alleged side "secret" agreements must be considered inadequate until and unless they can be examined in their written executed forms for specifics and analysis. Minus such detail, there is no way any individual would bind him or herself to such obligations...why would any official do the same to an entire country?
This entire matter only serves to reveal the incompetency and amateurishness of our Administration...and perhaps also their desparation.
But...back to the Iranian "Agreement"...notice that we now know that two diametrically opposed conditions have been established; 1) We have a written agreement that when carefully read and analyzed fails to provide for inspection of Iranian Military locations under any conditions; and/or 2) We have been told of two "secret" side agreements, not subject to examination by Congress or known to U.S.citizens that are alleged to proved some sort of examination of Iranian Military sites under written conditions and terms that will NOT be made available to Congress, although promises have been made that oral assertions as to the contents will be made known to our "Representatives" (as if they really do that..."represent" us) in classified sessions.
So...the real and proper choices for Congress would be the two following scenarios: First, judge the Agreement ONLY on the written portion presented and made public, fully available to all to read and interpret; and, Second, judge the Agreement on assertions of "Trust Us" made by the Administration without their even knowing (according to their sworn testimony before Congress) the written details, but relying on assertions by the AEIA...the equivalent of Ms. Pelosi's assertion, "We have to pass it before we can know what is in it"...except that in this case we will NEVER know what is in the secret side deals.
I don't know what others think, but I have already contacted my Congressional Representative in both he House and the Senate informing them that I still have not forgotten their passing the Healthcare bill without reading it...an obligation on their part that they failed to perform...and that any vote by them to approve the Agreement with Iran would constitute a far worse abdication of their duty to protect the country. The written "Agreement" is inadequate; the alleged side "secret" agreements must be considered inadequate until and unless they can be examined in their written executed forms for specifics and analysis. Minus such detail, there is no way any individual would bind him or herself to such obligations...why would any official do the same to an entire country?
This entire matter only serves to reveal the incompetency and amateurishness of our Administration...and perhaps also their desparation.
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Iranian Nuclear Agreement: Accidental or Purposeful Fraud Untruthfully Presented?
Diplomats lie. They don't lie legally and could never be prosecuted for "lying under oath" or any related concept; they lie by implication and invited assumptions on the part of the listener (or reader). They, and their Masters, know and depend on others who wish a particular outcome to see and hear what they wish to be true as existing in any agreement or pronouncement. It has been going on for centuries at least.
That does NOT make it right!
It does NOT make it right when the people doing it, are doing it to citizens of countries to which the perpetrators have sworn an oath to protect and defend.
Compounding the danger to all normal citizens of any country is that the Masters that direct Diplomats are usually Politicians. Mark Twain once said, "It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress." As I recall, both our current "President" and our Secretary of State at the negotiating table are past members of Congress, although it seems that the category could be applied to a greater and greater percentage of all people who are employed by our Government in general, whether in Congress or in any other branch of the Federal Government. And it seems even more and more applicable as we remember just how many criminals are never caught or convicted, much less accused.
There have been articles in great number is various publications that have pointed out the lies that have been perpetrated in claiming what the proposed agreement does and does not do. It is clear that one of the things that is is most unlikely to do is prevent Iran from developing the capability to make and deploy a nuclear weapon. As to the details withing the agreement, those supporting it are raising as many verbal statements and promises that allegedly clarify actual clauses in the agreement that would, if true and enforceable, improve any interpretation of the actual writing. But interpretation is exactly what those who wish to avoid conduct the agreement seems to mandate use to "skate" without consequences.
There are lies in the goals to be achieved as parties prepare to negotiate. Remember the one about preventing Iran from becoming a Nuclear Power? That one seems now not to be remembered, although at the time it was promised as an absolute.
And current articles in publication and by people on multiple ideological tracks point out the lies and issuance of invitations to make positive assumptions even as a careful examination of the sentence and phrase used shows no such enforceable promise.
While my angst will no doubt force a revisit to this subject, let me make this last point today: Kerry, in sworn testimony before the Senate earlier this week pointed out that our "allies" were close to abandoning the current sanctions that he claimed were so effective in bringing Iran to the negotiating table and also that no military action was possible that would have stopped Iran's progress toward Nuclear capability. Yet, when pressed on just what responses would be available should Iran violate or fail to abide by the letter and intent of the agreement, he claimed that sanctions would "snap" back.
The term "snap" implies an immediacy that clearly does not exist. And he already claimed that there was no military option. So...we have our own Government signing an agreement that provides Iran with exactly what our Government promised us...the American People...that it would not allow. Further, that our Government believes that in addition to being powerless to keep its promise to us (no real surprise there!) it is inferring an Iranian "trust me" promise in the face of a track record of Iranian perfidy.
Except when I am the subject, I can appreciate a really good con job even as I strive to punish it. But this does not qualify as "really good" and smacks of coarse, in-artful and even disrespectful treatment of the American Public.
That does NOT make it right!
It does NOT make it right when the people doing it, are doing it to citizens of countries to which the perpetrators have sworn an oath to protect and defend.
Compounding the danger to all normal citizens of any country is that the Masters that direct Diplomats are usually Politicians. Mark Twain once said, "It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress." As I recall, both our current "President" and our Secretary of State at the negotiating table are past members of Congress, although it seems that the category could be applied to a greater and greater percentage of all people who are employed by our Government in general, whether in Congress or in any other branch of the Federal Government. And it seems even more and more applicable as we remember just how many criminals are never caught or convicted, much less accused.
There have been articles in great number is various publications that have pointed out the lies that have been perpetrated in claiming what the proposed agreement does and does not do. It is clear that one of the things that is is most unlikely to do is prevent Iran from developing the capability to make and deploy a nuclear weapon. As to the details withing the agreement, those supporting it are raising as many verbal statements and promises that allegedly clarify actual clauses in the agreement that would, if true and enforceable, improve any interpretation of the actual writing. But interpretation is exactly what those who wish to avoid conduct the agreement seems to mandate use to "skate" without consequences.
There are lies in the goals to be achieved as parties prepare to negotiate. Remember the one about preventing Iran from becoming a Nuclear Power? That one seems now not to be remembered, although at the time it was promised as an absolute.
And current articles in publication and by people on multiple ideological tracks point out the lies and issuance of invitations to make positive assumptions even as a careful examination of the sentence and phrase used shows no such enforceable promise.
While my angst will no doubt force a revisit to this subject, let me make this last point today: Kerry, in sworn testimony before the Senate earlier this week pointed out that our "allies" were close to abandoning the current sanctions that he claimed were so effective in bringing Iran to the negotiating table and also that no military action was possible that would have stopped Iran's progress toward Nuclear capability. Yet, when pressed on just what responses would be available should Iran violate or fail to abide by the letter and intent of the agreement, he claimed that sanctions would "snap" back.
The term "snap" implies an immediacy that clearly does not exist. And he already claimed that there was no military option. So...we have our own Government signing an agreement that provides Iran with exactly what our Government promised us...the American People...that it would not allow. Further, that our Government believes that in addition to being powerless to keep its promise to us (no real surprise there!) it is inferring an Iranian "trust me" promise in the face of a track record of Iranian perfidy.
Except when I am the subject, I can appreciate a really good con job even as I strive to punish it. But this does not qualify as "really good" and smacks of coarse, in-artful and even disrespectful treatment of the American Public.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Is the concept of "Consequences" being eradicated around the world?
Sometimes I get so overwhelmed that writing seems as if it increases the pain and the disappointment in the world around us; that even commenting on it increases the clarity of the error(s) of our ways and makes it even more unlikely that there ever will be a Financial-like correction in our moral compass, bringing us back to something like a meaningful society.
But, eventually the words and thoughts build up and demand their freedom...a release, even if without effect, to flow into the universe looking for fertile soil in which the thoughts contained may take root and be discussed with other, compared, and considered.
So...today my thoughts center around what seems to be a general consensus of the majority that there should be no such things as Consequences.
Friends and acquaintances have said that I am over-reacting; that consequences are still the norm. They point out that there are laws and, when broken, that they are enforced to settle consequences on the law breakers. They suggest that generally, despite the exceptions, those who do evil and wrong things are held to account.
My response it that not only does it not happen often enough, but that the frequency of it happening is in decline. Moreover, when people do the right thing, more often than not they are criticized for "getting involved." Millions of people are cheating on their taxes; few are ever made to suffer any consequences, nor do they lose the approbation of their neighbors and associates...many of these miscreants are actually held in high esteem by those that know their actions. Just yesterday a gang rape took place on a Florida Beach, surrounded by multitudes of young people drinking beer and partying, and not one person interfered with the attack. Only because of the fact that someone actually filmed video of the event was any police action taken...if not accidental, then just sign of the fact that such behavior is acceptable.
There are some people who are psychopaths who will ignore laws in favor of their own wishes and desires. There are others who need no laws to motivate them; they will do all they can to help others and make life better for their fellow man. But the vast majority in the middle are remarkably responsive to the general behavior and general definition of acceptance in the ordering of their lives...they won't rock the boat. And it seems clear to me that the boat may be deserving of some rocking...not that I have much hope that such action will happen anytime soon.
Some of my friends suggest that this is simply a natural phenomenon; such a fall occurred to the Greeks as well as the Roman Empire and therefore it is inevitable that it happens to the United States of America. I used to agree in major part with this view.
But now I wonder if it is not far more extensive that just an American phenomenon. It seems to be spreading to the International Stage...to the entire world. My friends say I am nuts...which, of course, may or may not be true and a subject that may be worthy of a full discussion at a later point...but I am not convinced.
Consider the events in Foreign affairs in the last year or so. Terrorists killed our Ambassador to Lybia and others. One person was arrested. Have any of them been punished, much less caught? Russia has annexed through force a portion of the Ukraine. Has there been any uproar of any significance from the world nation states, much less those countries immediately surrounding the area? For years, Pirates have operated lucrative seizures of ships off the coast of Africa, making millions of dollars from the hijackings? Any serious repercussions to those pirates?
And more recently we have the rise of ISIL (or ISIS, or whatever they are calling themselves these days, as if it matters) and the killing of all believers in Christianity that they catch, as well as many of Islamic sects with which they disagree. Any serious repercussions? And some in the world see their cause as acceptable. Yes, there are words of condemnation but few indeed...and tiny if you look at the percentage of involvement...people involved in standing against it.
Consider the matter of Iran. Here is a nation-state that has a track record of lying and failure to abide by promises. A nation state that finances and supports with material and people terrorists around the world. Any consequences? Well, one of my friends argued that we do have economic sanctions in force which hurts them. Oh? Really? Who is hurt? The leaders? The ones who control the actions of Iran? Or is the people of Iran who suffer despite have very little, if any, control over the political decisions of Iran's leaders?
But that is the past and is almost an after-thought now. Now Iran is working toward developing a nuclear capability, which could include nuclear weaponry. So...what does the world do? It sits down with the powers in Iran and begins negotiating. Not declaring that such a development is unacceptable, which each participating nation had assured their own citizens up until a short time ago was not ever going to be allowed, but a timetable by which ultimately Iran would have the capability it desires...and also a lifting of sanctions. And all of this based on a written promise by Iran to limit their activity toward such an end. Doesn't anyone else see anything wrong with this picture? A country that has a consistent track record of breaking promises now is to get relief from sanctions on the basis of a written "promise" to play well with others? Really? Wonder what odds would be given by any professional Book-maker on Iran fulfilling that promise. And yet, multiple nation-states are actually seriously considering entering into such an agreement.
This is not only a failure of Consequences, but could be argued appears to be reverse consequences...a reward for bad behavior.
And the most recent event involves the Communist nations of Cuba. Cuba has been cut off from diplomatic ties to America ever since the Communists took control of that country. It has a proven record of human rights violations, has no freedom of the press, precious little freedom of religion and is a Dictatorship. No change at all. So...what are the consequences? America opens up talks to re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba. This amounts, also, to reverse consequences; a reward for continued bad behavior.
What I am raising for discussion is that fact that all around the world there seems to be a general acceptance that consequences for bad behavior can be done away with and there will be no adverse repercussions.
I think that is not possible. The balance that the world has heretofore acknowledged is that all people and nations should have the freedom to make decisions and choices for themselves....but that those choices have consequences. It is the consequences that check the unfettered expression of wants and desires. Freedoms without consequences becomes license...and that never turns out well for anyone.
But, eventually the words and thoughts build up and demand their freedom...a release, even if without effect, to flow into the universe looking for fertile soil in which the thoughts contained may take root and be discussed with other, compared, and considered.
So...today my thoughts center around what seems to be a general consensus of the majority that there should be no such things as Consequences.
Friends and acquaintances have said that I am over-reacting; that consequences are still the norm. They point out that there are laws and, when broken, that they are enforced to settle consequences on the law breakers. They suggest that generally, despite the exceptions, those who do evil and wrong things are held to account.
My response it that not only does it not happen often enough, but that the frequency of it happening is in decline. Moreover, when people do the right thing, more often than not they are criticized for "getting involved." Millions of people are cheating on their taxes; few are ever made to suffer any consequences, nor do they lose the approbation of their neighbors and associates...many of these miscreants are actually held in high esteem by those that know their actions. Just yesterday a gang rape took place on a Florida Beach, surrounded by multitudes of young people drinking beer and partying, and not one person interfered with the attack. Only because of the fact that someone actually filmed video of the event was any police action taken...if not accidental, then just sign of the fact that such behavior is acceptable.
There are some people who are psychopaths who will ignore laws in favor of their own wishes and desires. There are others who need no laws to motivate them; they will do all they can to help others and make life better for their fellow man. But the vast majority in the middle are remarkably responsive to the general behavior and general definition of acceptance in the ordering of their lives...they won't rock the boat. And it seems clear to me that the boat may be deserving of some rocking...not that I have much hope that such action will happen anytime soon.
Some of my friends suggest that this is simply a natural phenomenon; such a fall occurred to the Greeks as well as the Roman Empire and therefore it is inevitable that it happens to the United States of America. I used to agree in major part with this view.
But now I wonder if it is not far more extensive that just an American phenomenon. It seems to be spreading to the International Stage...to the entire world. My friends say I am nuts...which, of course, may or may not be true and a subject that may be worthy of a full discussion at a later point...but I am not convinced.
Consider the events in Foreign affairs in the last year or so. Terrorists killed our Ambassador to Lybia and others. One person was arrested. Have any of them been punished, much less caught? Russia has annexed through force a portion of the Ukraine. Has there been any uproar of any significance from the world nation states, much less those countries immediately surrounding the area? For years, Pirates have operated lucrative seizures of ships off the coast of Africa, making millions of dollars from the hijackings? Any serious repercussions to those pirates?
And more recently we have the rise of ISIL (or ISIS, or whatever they are calling themselves these days, as if it matters) and the killing of all believers in Christianity that they catch, as well as many of Islamic sects with which they disagree. Any serious repercussions? And some in the world see their cause as acceptable. Yes, there are words of condemnation but few indeed...and tiny if you look at the percentage of involvement...people involved in standing against it.
Consider the matter of Iran. Here is a nation-state that has a track record of lying and failure to abide by promises. A nation state that finances and supports with material and people terrorists around the world. Any consequences? Well, one of my friends argued that we do have economic sanctions in force which hurts them. Oh? Really? Who is hurt? The leaders? The ones who control the actions of Iran? Or is the people of Iran who suffer despite have very little, if any, control over the political decisions of Iran's leaders?
But that is the past and is almost an after-thought now. Now Iran is working toward developing a nuclear capability, which could include nuclear weaponry. So...what does the world do? It sits down with the powers in Iran and begins negotiating. Not declaring that such a development is unacceptable, which each participating nation had assured their own citizens up until a short time ago was not ever going to be allowed, but a timetable by which ultimately Iran would have the capability it desires...and also a lifting of sanctions. And all of this based on a written promise by Iran to limit their activity toward such an end. Doesn't anyone else see anything wrong with this picture? A country that has a consistent track record of breaking promises now is to get relief from sanctions on the basis of a written "promise" to play well with others? Really? Wonder what odds would be given by any professional Book-maker on Iran fulfilling that promise. And yet, multiple nation-states are actually seriously considering entering into such an agreement.
This is not only a failure of Consequences, but could be argued appears to be reverse consequences...a reward for bad behavior.
And the most recent event involves the Communist nations of Cuba. Cuba has been cut off from diplomatic ties to America ever since the Communists took control of that country. It has a proven record of human rights violations, has no freedom of the press, precious little freedom of religion and is a Dictatorship. No change at all. So...what are the consequences? America opens up talks to re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba. This amounts, also, to reverse consequences; a reward for continued bad behavior.
What I am raising for discussion is that fact that all around the world there seems to be a general acceptance that consequences for bad behavior can be done away with and there will be no adverse repercussions.
I think that is not possible. The balance that the world has heretofore acknowledged is that all people and nations should have the freedom to make decisions and choices for themselves....but that those choices have consequences. It is the consequences that check the unfettered expression of wants and desires. Freedoms without consequences becomes license...and that never turns out well for anyone.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Debating Ahmadinejad may be Obama's Best move
He does this every chance he gets, but Iran's President has once again offered to debate our President on...how did he phrase it...”to see who has the best solutions for the world's problems,” I think it was. He was quoted in a Reuters' article as saying, “Toward the end of summer we will hopefully be there for the (U.N.) General Assembly and I will be ready for one-on-one talks with Mr. Obama, in front of the media of course."
He has done this before, of course. Specifically, he challenged President Bush the same way. Of course, one of his statements in the course of the challenge included claiming
Bush was scared to talk, but Iran preferred it, “We have always favored talks, Iranians have never, ever favored war."
On the face of Iran's continued provable terrible record on civil rights, Ahmadinejad's statements and position is laughable, undeserving of response, much less serious consideration.
But...
Maybe...just maybe...President Obama should take on the challenge. Why? Well, things have not been going well for the President recently. He campaigns well, but people are starting to talk. Why isn't he staying in the Oval Office and improving the still stagnant recovery? Why haven't his promised improvements in job development happened? Why are we perhaps on the verge of a “double-dip” recession? And other questions, still un-asked by most of the media remain quietly considered by voters. He is clearly not an accomplished administrator, so staying in the office is not his best option. So...what to do?
Perhaps he could turn support for him into a patriotic thing. Take on Ahmadinejad directly...at the UN...in a debate. He could put the clear facts that Ahmadinejad denies into a presentation that would be an “in-your-face” moment that would rally all of America to his side...at last, the President standing up for the inherent exceptional-ism and good of America and, in the process, making the idiocy of the Iranian President's claims clear to all...once and for all.
Doesn't it sound great? Of course, it will take a bit of work and preparation. Mr. Obama will first need to get all of his facts in order, memorize those facts and be able to talk on them from many different points of view and in different contexts, all without the aid of a teleprompter...this, after all, will be a no-holds debate, not a formal speech. And he will need to get used to getting into the face of his opponent at close range, dealing with yelling and challenges coming from close range and being able to show his emotion while remaining in control of his argument and presentation while avoiding his proven tendency to calm others by giving them what they want...approval or silence. But...if he can get that part down pat...what a show that would be. Single-handedly, he could bring American's back on board his bandwagon...and he might find out that he likes it, that being and acting strong has more going for it than waiting for others to play "nice."
Just think of it...I had a dream...a President standing up for America and all that is right in the face of one of the proven rights-denying representatives of a dictatorial regime.
Someone should call Rahm.
He has done this before, of course. Specifically, he challenged President Bush the same way. Of course, one of his statements in the course of the challenge included claiming
Bush was scared to talk, but Iran preferred it, “We have always favored talks, Iranians have never, ever favored war."
On the face of Iran's continued provable terrible record on civil rights, Ahmadinejad's statements and position is laughable, undeserving of response, much less serious consideration.
But...
Maybe...just maybe...President Obama should take on the challenge. Why? Well, things have not been going well for the President recently. He campaigns well, but people are starting to talk. Why isn't he staying in the Oval Office and improving the still stagnant recovery? Why haven't his promised improvements in job development happened? Why are we perhaps on the verge of a “double-dip” recession? And other questions, still un-asked by most of the media remain quietly considered by voters. He is clearly not an accomplished administrator, so staying in the office is not his best option. So...what to do?
Perhaps he could turn support for him into a patriotic thing. Take on Ahmadinejad directly...at the UN...in a debate. He could put the clear facts that Ahmadinejad denies into a presentation that would be an “in-your-face” moment that would rally all of America to his side...at last, the President standing up for the inherent exceptional-ism and good of America and, in the process, making the idiocy of the Iranian President's claims clear to all...once and for all.
Doesn't it sound great? Of course, it will take a bit of work and preparation. Mr. Obama will first need to get all of his facts in order, memorize those facts and be able to talk on them from many different points of view and in different contexts, all without the aid of a teleprompter...this, after all, will be a no-holds debate, not a formal speech. And he will need to get used to getting into the face of his opponent at close range, dealing with yelling and challenges coming from close range and being able to show his emotion while remaining in control of his argument and presentation while avoiding his proven tendency to calm others by giving them what they want...approval or silence. But...if he can get that part down pat...what a show that would be. Single-handedly, he could bring American's back on board his bandwagon...and he might find out that he likes it, that being and acting strong has more going for it than waiting for others to play "nice."
Just think of it...I had a dream...a President standing up for America and all that is right in the face of one of the proven rights-denying representatives of a dictatorial regime.
Someone should call Rahm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)