Stirring The Middle Eastern Pot

Every once in awhile I grit my teeth and tune in to Greta Van Susteren. I don't watch her more for a couple of reasons.  One, and I'll admit it's a pretty stupid reason, is I find her voice extremely annoying.  The other is that she's like a dog with a toy she refuses to relinquish.  Even when a guest answers her question every which way but naught she continues to press until I'm ready to shout, "Stop and listen!"

On the other hand, her tenacity is a good thing.  She doesn't let her guests off easy and if they're avoiding a straight answer she hounds them until they give one.

Last night she had an interview with the Libyan ambassador which was enlightening.  It applies not only to the turmoil in Libya but all middle eastern countries that are heavily Muslim.  It shows, really, how little we pay attention to their culture, where they're coming from.  Something I harp on often.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the offensive video was the cause of the ongoing outrage against all things American rather than the most recent convenient excuse.  I think the riots were going to happen anyway, but for now that's beside the point.

Van Susteren asked if the Libyan people didn't understand that the American people as a whole and the American government weren't  responsible for the video.  She seemed genuinely taken aback when he told her they didn't see it that way and attributed it to the difference in our systems of governing.  Hello?  It's a big 'duh' moment isn't it?

In their countries everything is controlled by the government therefore the government is at fault.  That's their reality. He agrees with his people, too, that the film maker is a terrorist as much as those who stormed our properties.  Admitting the attackers were a very small group of 'stupid' people, he could reasonably equate Terry Jones and the film maker as a very small group of 'stupid' people.  But terrorists never-the-less, right along with the government.  They don't grasp the separation of the two because they've never known it.

That a lot of information is now coming out about our having been forewarned, etc. doesn't bring me any comfort when it comes to how savvy we are on handling our interests in the middle east.  The one thing that is clear is how they view us and why.

Jane As Nancy - Inspired Or Insulting?

My initial reaction when I read the headline was that some things just shouldn't be.  One is Jane Fonda playing Nancy Reagan in a movie.

Granted there has been a lot of misinformation about Ms. Fonda, never to be forgotten by a certain generation as Hanoi Jane.  She has been accused of deeds that supposedly led to torture and even the deaths of men who were prisoners of war.
These have been rebutted by many who were named.  Thank heavens for that.

It does not dispel the fact that she was the guest of the North Vietnamese during the war and photographed sitting by an anti aircraft gun.  A Hollywood star should certainly understand the power of images, but she explained she was tired from her trip and didn't realize until afterwards the implications of that photograph.

So why did she go?  She was against the war.  So was most of the nation.  Did she really think she could help?

I wonder about Hollywood types who are political activists in the first place.  As private people they certainly have the right, but to use their celebrity  seems to be of little value in most cases.  It gives them no credibility what-so-ever other than a recognizable name.  It always generates publicity, good or bad, as if that's the most important thing to them.  Perhaps it is.  Mostly we ignore them.  That seems fitting.  But in Ms. Fonda's case, true or not, she appeared to be consorting with the enemy and all the denials in the world will not change that perception.

So to cast her in a movie as Nancy Reagan astounds me.  Mrs. Reagan, widow of one of the most popular of our recent Presidents,  took on as one of her many  causes the welfare of  Vietnam veterans as well as fundraising and lobbying for former prisoners of war and those missing in action.  She even donated proceeds from a syndicated column to The National League of Families of American POW-MIAs.

Normally I'd think little of casting.  Meryl Streep as Julia Child seemed a stretch just like Tom Selleck as Eisenhower, but that's Hollywood.  Both did stellar jobs in those roles.

There are, though, some things that just shouldn't be.  I think Jane Fonda playing Nancy Reagan is one of them.  At least they didn't cast her as Margaret Thatcher.  Another role that went to Streep.  Bet she could play Nancy Reagan too, just as well and without the baggage.
   

Apologies Don't Win Wars

I've been harping on the need to pay attention to foreign policy for some time.  It has now come to a head.  Three situations have come together at such a time and in such a state that shivers should be shooting up your spine.

First is the refusal of the President to sit down once again with Netanyahu to discuss the options regarding Iran.  We don't seem to grasp how nervous Israel is over how close the Iranians are to making their first nuclear weapon.  If we sat as close as they do perhaps we would.  After all, they don't like us any better than they like the Israelis. But no.  I just don't think the President has the stomach for anything as complex and difficult as making a decision.

Second is the attack on the embassy in Cairo, the destruction of our flag and the raising of the al Qaeda flag in its place in protest to a video on You Tube supposedly insulting Mohammad.  We've been through this before.  Are we handling it correctly?  Each time a pastor in Florida with a minuscule congregation seems to be at the heart of it.  Our officials plead with him to stop because it puts our people at great risk.

It is his right, by our laws, to say what he wishes.  Perhaps we ought to do as Karzai has so often done.  Demand an apology for their behavior rather than apologizing for ours!  I'm not saying its right or in good taste or anything positive - but we do have free speech.  They want us to respect them, their religion, their prophet.  Should we not expect, no, demand, the same in return?  Freedom has its untidy consequences.  Would you rather be without it?

Third is the attack and murder of consulate personnel in Benghazi.  This was no mob angry over a video.  This was deliberate,  called for and well planned revenge for taking out one of theirs.  This is an act of war.  Not a declaration, an act.  The war has been going on for years and is escalating, not winding down. It's moving beyond the borders within which we've been fighting.  That makes it worse, not better. It is not the time for platitudes.  It is not the time to apologize for some nut's insensitivity to religion. It is the time to admit to exactly what's happening.  We are at war.  When are we going to fight it to win it?

It is time to get some backbone. No more leading from behind or ignoring what's going on under our nose. If we're going to maintain a presence in countries who have shown time and again we're not welcome, then we'd better set some conditions.  One, as a diplomatic guest in said countries it is the responsibility of those governments to protect our people and property.  It happened neither in Egypt nor Libya.

We pour billions of dollars into those countries and their brethren.  Tell them if they don't live up to their responsibilities, the open wallet will close.  Then close it.  They don't believe we will.  Will we?

It is time for this administration to admit sweet talk and extended time lines, or no time lines,  don't work in our favor but in the enemies.

I think you'd find Mr. Netanyahu would agree with that.

It is time to pay attention to what's happening in the middle east.  They've chosen the anniversary of their greatest success against us, 9/11, to ramp up activity.  I don't expect to see a change in how the current administration handles such situations.  Feigned outrage from the Secretary of State then nothing.

Will this be the time it's different?  Will al Qaeda decide to quit toying with us and do some real damage?  Is killing our soldiers getting boring because it's so easy?  Now they'll try for ambassadors and our civilian personnel because it takes some creative planning and coordination?

It's time to quit parsing words.   War is terror.  We've been purposely attacked.  Tsk tsk, we're sorry if we've offended you no longer cuts it.

Let's Not Forget The Others Running For Office

The pollsters are polling, the surrogates are sniping and the candidates striving to hit just the right pitch.  It really isn't going to matter which man wins unless we get the right people in Congress.  If we don't, it will be the usual stalemate complete with name calling and finger pointing and nothing getting done.

I don't mean a Republican majority nor a Democratic majority.  What we need are men and women who are willing to work together and get something concrete done.  What a tired cliche that has become!

It is said we need more taxes.  That's probably true if for no other reason than the cost of doing the country's business is going up.  Just like tending to our own.  Food, gas, all that stuff equates with the cost of building and upgrading infrastructure.  It's getting more expensive.  Understand that taking more from the rich isn't the answer.  Nor is making those who pay nothing pay something going to solve the whole problem.  There needs to be a formula to incorporate both so everyone has a stake in the taxing process.  That's fair.  The Robin Hood method is not.

It is said we're spending more than we bring in.  True.  But understand, even cuts are going to take time to make a dent in the debt.  Plus, we all spend more than we take in.  At least you do if you have a mortgage or a car payment.  You owe.  Period.  How long does it take for you to clear your debt? A while.

We're over regulated.  True, but that doesn't mean every regulation is bad.  There needs to be oversight to keep those with the power to regulate from running amok. No unelected official should be without oversight.  The elected officials have it - us.

I worry about large majorities in either house.  I especially worry about one party holding both houses and the Presidency.  Obama wasted an opportunity when he had both for two years.  I guarantee he won't make that mistake again should that be the outcome this cycle.

I feel just as strongly about the Republicans.  Both sides have too many extreme ideologies that would be far too easy to push through.  Look at how Obama got Obamacare through.  Once is enough.  Do we really want people who have a grasp of rape like Representative Akin writing abortion legislation?  I think not.

I have the feeling things will change dramatically if Romney loses.  I think we will see the demise of the Republican Party as we know it today.  And maybe the Democrats to go along with it. The far left and the far right will go their own way. It just may bring about the third party many of us would like to see.  Somewhere along the line some one, or few, or many, will have the gumption to say, "Enough! I don't agree with this and I'm not going to back it!"

We recently had a very prominent member of our community change her voting registration from Republican to unaffiliated.  She just got tired of being backed into supporting positions with which she disagreed all for the sake of the 'party'.

If  a prominent member of the community, one which is heavily Republican, has the fortitude to do so and make it public, why not a politician?  Surely there must be some who care more about their country than their 'career'.

The country needs such people to step forward, regardless of affiliation, and stand together.  I think they'd be surprised how many of we voters would stand with them!

My Take

Well.  It has been quite a slog hasn't it?  I've spent more time reading Fact Check than anything else for the past couple of weeks and find neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have been exactly pristine with facts.

What I do know is that we have a tremendously important choice to make.  More important than how much we like a particular candidate, but rather how we view government's role.

If we want less government in our lives, fewer regulations,  more opportunity for the little guy to succeed we lean Republican.

If we want government to regulate everything, even to the extent of corporations not being allowed to have profits a la Elizabeth Warren, then we lean toward the Democrats.

Both parties have huge downsides.  The Republicans are being over run by Christian Conservatives whose focus on social issues sticks in my craw. Too many are personal and no business of a political party. The Democrats are dictatorial and too intent on having everything equal.  That means the more ambitious and better equipped are obligated to share their successes with the lazy or those lesser equipped.  There are no allowances for the reasons that may be contributory.  Lazy of course is self explanatory.  Less well equipped can mean anything from IQ to opportunity.  It is not an equal hand.

Both parties have less than inspirational candidates for the top job.  Mr. Romney is probably  quite capable.  The problem is the Republicans haven't yet been able to articulate, at least to my satisfaction, what they are going to do and why they think it will work.  From the economy to jobs to strengthening the military to regaining our status in the world.  Do their policies now differ enough from previous Republican administrations to be effective?  In theory they should but there is certainly no guarantee.

President Obama was ill equipped for the job when he was elected and seems not to have grown into the job as Bill Clinton did.  To say that he 'Peter Principled' as President is pretty accurate.  That is he has reached his level of incompetence.  If anything, he has left legislation to the far left of his party with no guidance from himself nor any controls.  We have chaos.

Choosing between the two parties to me is a no brainer considering what is at stake - the country and how it is governed.  However, no matter which is your preference, the choice of a leader is bleak.  Both parties had to scramble to avert disaster at their conventions.  The Republicans for the way they treated Ron Paul and his delegates plus the abortion issue in their platform that their candidate will ignor.

The Democrats in their platform too with the leaving out God and further irritating the Jews  by not stating that Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel.  It's a pander to be sure, it's really not our business but it's been done for decades as a nicety more than anything because of our bond with the Jewish state.

The tone of the Democratic convention seemed to waver between uncertainty, lackluster performances and nastiness toward their opponants.  The Republicans was more rah rah but lacking in specifics. Why didn't they spell out their policies and demand the Democrats do the same?

We are left with uncertainty no matter which way we vote.  Will the far left or the far right prevail?  Will the moderates from either side have a voice or will they be forever silenced?

The future is bleak.  There is no sense of enthusiasm about the prospects for the future for our children or for ourselves.  Just resignation that little will probably change and we'll keep slogging along as best we can.  What has happened to my America? It's no longer quite as beautiful as it once was.  If the Democrats want us to share, then let us all share the blame.