Earlier this week I was involved in a discussion with a handful of Romney supporters favoring immediate military action against Iran. When I mentioned that I opposed Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu's attempt to interfere with our electoral process by demanding a meeting with Obama with a demand the US issue an immediate "red line in the sand" as it relates to Iran, I was met with a barrage of voices. How dare you? Israel is under attack and Netanyahu has every right to do and say what he thinks is best for Israel. Ironically, I agreed with them. I simply cannot abide by the notion that Netanyahu or ANY foreign leader dictate US policy or interfere in our electoral process. Not one of these folks could answer the obvious question...what if the Prime Minister of France demanded a meeting with Obama and an oppositional party demanded he so meet with him/her? What if the Prime Minister from Taiwan demanded we make open threats to China and the president refused?
Now I know Israel is not Taiwan or France, but the principle is the same. NO foreign leader shall dictate to a US President, ever! It amazes me further that these are the same folks that then claimed Obama "apologizes" and "appeases" foreign leaders, but see none of the hypocrisy in demanding he do so to Netanyahu. What gives? One's answer was that "Obama will never step up to protect Israel" and that alone is a wedge issue they will be voting on in November. Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But the twist from this point in the discussion is that it became a full bore pile on (me). When I indicated that it was my belief that Obama's hands in the Iranian matter are tied until after the election because any action before then would be perceived as being a "political ploy" to steal the election from Romney, I was verbally attacked on two fronts. The first was "HOW CAN YOU SAY THIS?" When I indicated that I made an assumption based upon the fact no Commander in Chief in our Nation's history has ever lost re-election when the US was engaged in a"hot war" I was attacked because I made an assumption. "BUT HOW CAN YOU MAKE THIS ASSUMPTION?" was the first attack. I have to admit, I am no politician, so when someone ignorantly questions my assumptions that are based upon my knowledge of American History, I get a bit "peeved" and I was. So I demanded that anyone in the group tell me when an incumbent president lost a re-election bid during wartime. Their collective response? Silence. One claimed Johnson lost because of the Tet Offensive in Viet Nam. I found that particularly interesting because contrary to popular belief, we were victorious in repelling the Tet Offensive, we did NOT lose. More importantly President Johnson DID NOT RUN FOR RE-ELECTION in 1968. Reluctantly, my point was accepted.
The next aspect was confirmed by Romney himself. Seems Romney claims we need to fight China on their "unfair trade practices." What does Obama do this week? He files a complaint with the World Trade Organization (not the first complaint filed by the Obama Administration). And what did Romney do in response? Claim Obama is "politicizing" the matter only because he (Romney) was complaining about Obama's failure to complain about China earlier. Catch my point. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Does anyone (other than the folks confronting me) really think military action initiated before November 6 would not be seized by the Romney and GOP Camp as "politicizing" war? You bet they would, just like they just did with the WTO complaint.
The other real issue was the emergence of a collective and larger assumption that Obama "will NEVER attack Iran and will allow it to possess nuclear weapons so it can destroy Israel." Geesh. See the hypocrisy folks. I make an educated assumption and they discredit me, yet they assume Mitt Romney will immediately carpet bomb Iran if elected. Isn't is a stretch to actually think Obama will allow Iran to go nuclear? Iran has been asking for it since the Hostage Crisis and has been engaged in world wide terrorism resulting in the death of Americans for decades. So I suppose these folks think the war ships currently sitting in the Strait of Hormuz are their for "window dressing?" For Israel's sake, for the World's Sake, and the the United States, I can only hope Obama finds a way to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, allow Israel to destroy Hezbollah in Lebanon and prove that not all assumptions can be valid due to emotions, for emotions get in the way of objectivity. Iran has to be punished. When it happens, will Obama's opponents give him credit or accuse him of "politicizing" war?
Now I know Israel is not Taiwan or France, but the principle is the same. NO foreign leader shall dictate to a US President, ever! It amazes me further that these are the same folks that then claimed Obama "apologizes" and "appeases" foreign leaders, but see none of the hypocrisy in demanding he do so to Netanyahu. What gives? One's answer was that "Obama will never step up to protect Israel" and that alone is a wedge issue they will be voting on in November. Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But the twist from this point in the discussion is that it became a full bore pile on (me). When I indicated that it was my belief that Obama's hands in the Iranian matter are tied until after the election because any action before then would be perceived as being a "political ploy" to steal the election from Romney, I was verbally attacked on two fronts. The first was "HOW CAN YOU SAY THIS?" When I indicated that I made an assumption based upon the fact no Commander in Chief in our Nation's history has ever lost re-election when the US was engaged in a"hot war" I was attacked because I made an assumption. "BUT HOW CAN YOU MAKE THIS ASSUMPTION?" was the first attack. I have to admit, I am no politician, so when someone ignorantly questions my assumptions that are based upon my knowledge of American History, I get a bit "peeved" and I was. So I demanded that anyone in the group tell me when an incumbent president lost a re-election bid during wartime. Their collective response? Silence. One claimed Johnson lost because of the Tet Offensive in Viet Nam. I found that particularly interesting because contrary to popular belief, we were victorious in repelling the Tet Offensive, we did NOT lose. More importantly President Johnson DID NOT RUN FOR RE-ELECTION in 1968. Reluctantly, my point was accepted.
The next aspect was confirmed by Romney himself. Seems Romney claims we need to fight China on their "unfair trade practices." What does Obama do this week? He files a complaint with the World Trade Organization (not the first complaint filed by the Obama Administration). And what did Romney do in response? Claim Obama is "politicizing" the matter only because he (Romney) was complaining about Obama's failure to complain about China earlier. Catch my point. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Does anyone (other than the folks confronting me) really think military action initiated before November 6 would not be seized by the Romney and GOP Camp as "politicizing" war? You bet they would, just like they just did with the WTO complaint.
The other real issue was the emergence of a collective and larger assumption that Obama "will NEVER attack Iran and will allow it to possess nuclear weapons so it can destroy Israel." Geesh. See the hypocrisy folks. I make an educated assumption and they discredit me, yet they assume Mitt Romney will immediately carpet bomb Iran if elected. Isn't is a stretch to actually think Obama will allow Iran to go nuclear? Iran has been asking for it since the Hostage Crisis and has been engaged in world wide terrorism resulting in the death of Americans for decades. So I suppose these folks think the war ships currently sitting in the Strait of Hormuz are their for "window dressing?" For Israel's sake, for the World's Sake, and the the United States, I can only hope Obama finds a way to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, allow Israel to destroy Hezbollah in Lebanon and prove that not all assumptions can be valid due to emotions, for emotions get in the way of objectivity. Iran has to be punished. When it happens, will Obama's opponents give him credit or accuse him of "politicizing" war?
RSS Feed
