Monday, May 03, 2010

Obtuse "Times"

There is an op-ed today in the NY Times about our founding fathers having had experience at governance. It is seemingly trying to make a point, op-ed pieces are usually written for that purpose, but the point never actually becomes readily apparent. It also contains this little gem,

Although federal term limits have been confined to the presidency, the fear of entrenched and far-removed political power, as the present anti-incumbency mood suggests, remains very much part of American popular culture.

It seems to me that Gordon Wood, who is apparently a retired history professor, might be slightly detached from reality if he thinks that an electorate which steadily returns 94% of Congress to office is "fearful of entrenched power." So even if he was able to make a point I'm not sure I'd give it much weight.

The Times also has a feature story about the Obama Administration trying to prevent a nuclear arms race in the Mideast. Obama, as did Bush before him, has been preaching for a long time that, "If Iran developed a nuclear weapon it would start an arms race..." My jaw drops every time I hear that.

Hello? There already is a nuclear arms race in the Mideast.

At least there is if you accept the premise that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. Israel already has a couple hundred nuclear weapons, and if Iran has a nuclear weapons program as we claim and despite evidence to the contrary, then the race is on and it is Israel, not Iran who started it.

But we don't, of course, acknowledge that Israel has nuclear weapons because our foreign policy is based on denying what 6 billion people on this planet know to be true, and making inflammatory speeches based on that denial. How clever is that?

1 comment:

Arthur said...

May I point out to Jayhawk, or at least his readers, that the nuclear arms race is both wider-spread and more entrenched than he points out?
Iran has a neighbor who repeatedly attacked it with chemical and possibly biological weapons; and was known to be trying to acquire nuclear weapons. That fact G. H. W. Bush stopped Iraq from doing the latter, and that his son pretty much destroyed it as a functional country, does not mean that Iran does not remember, and fear Iraq's future return to belligerency.
Further, Iran currently HAS a nuclear-armed neighbor; one which may not be in full control of its nuclear weapons. And Iran has good reason to fear Pakistan. In addition to a long history of not always cordial relations, Pakistan has an unstable government that Wahabbi extremists (i.e., Al-Qaeda & the Taliban) would like to over-throw. In this context, may I remind his readers what I know that Jayhawk knows -- that al Qaeda was not initially established to attack either Israel or the USA? Al Qaeda was originally founded to over-throw the royal family of Saudi Arabia. They quickly added returning heretics, violently if necessary, to the true faith of Suni Islam. And Shi'ites (the official religion of Iran) are the worst of all possible heretics.

There is and has been a nuclear arms race in the near & middle east for a long time, and Israel is only one part of the picture, in my opinion the smallest part.
That pundits don't mention this is merely proof that they are ignorant of the realities on the ground, or that they are toadies for the people who want to crush Iran.

Post a Comment