United States Set to Sell Billions in Weaponry to Radical Muslims

We can all agree that radical extremists of any religion should not be sold high-tech weaponry on a large scale. Yet this is exactly what the Obama administration is going to do in the next couple of weeks. A remnant of the Bush era (so that we don't get red vs. blue hysteria going), the deal breaks down like this: Saudi Arabia floods our coffers with $60 billion ($90 if a side-deal on KSA's naval upgrades goes through) and we sell the radical Islamist state a bunch of U.S.-made fighter jets and military helicopters. The justification for this? America's weakened economy. It seems that our government was right, except for the wrong reasons.

RIght-Wingers vs. Right-Wingers

Frank Rich had a very insightful op-ed in the Times yesterday on the hatred that percolates from the right wing in the United States. Indeed, while conservative policies are often deleterious to average Americans, we find huge swaths of support for such policies in public polls, thanks largely to the masterful messaging of political conservatives, messages often predicated upon fear and hatred.

Recently, conservatives have evoked the notion of progressive policies being similar to the policies of Hitler, in an ironic twist of logic. And lo and behold, we find the same sort of demagoguery coming from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is attributing "Hitler-style techniques" to his political rivals. It is no coincidence that conservatives in the United States and conservatives in Iran are using similar tactics to manipulate their electorates. They are both understandably successful at garnering support after using such fear-inducing language (I still find it painfully hypocritical, though, that Ahmadinejad evokes Hitler as an epitomization of evil while continuing to deny the Holocaust).

One glaring consequence of this extremist conservatism is that as it intensifies and gains influence, in whatever country, it makes the world a more hate-filled and consequently dangerous place. Since his groundbreaking speech in Cairo, Obama has been barraged by conservatives as being too "apologetic" to the Muslim world. In his speech, however, he not only made no semblance of an apology, but addressed the need for Middle Eastern nations to reject authoritanism and establish true democracies, governmental shifts that would serve to weaken the hate-mongering right wing extremists in those countries. Yet the analogous extremists in the United States, who purport to cherish freedom and democracy, decry the President for his less-than-hawkish tone, calling him weak and ultimately harmful for America.

As these extremists convince their fellow citizens to elect politicians who espouse their views—as they have in the cases of George W. Bush, Vladimir Putin, Ahmadinejad, and recently Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman in Israel—the inflammatory tone in each of these countries is increasingly amplified, until a tipping point is reached. In the case of Israel and Iran, frighteningly enough, that tipping point could come in the form of war, and even nuclear war.

Politicians like Obama, who are wise to strike a more tempered tone, help to ease some of the tensions, anger, and hatred that can so easily be tapped for political gain. While Obama may receive criticism for his words, he is ultimately making the world a more peaceful place. He is helping to avoid the unnecessary violence brought about by right-wingers who, in their hatred for right-wingers in other nations, engage in an arms race, both figuratively and literally, sending the level of discourse spiralling downward and increasing the propensity for confrontation and war. Too often, people believe that the only way to deal with incendiary leaders like Ahmadinejad is to elevate incendiary leaders of our own. But maybe the path to world peace is by backing away from the "tough guy" persona and actually engaging our supposed enemies.

Images: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (truthdig.com), nuclear warhead (howstuffworks.com), Obama in Egypt (publicradio.org)

Uncertainty About the Middle East Conflict

There are lots of issues that I have no problem speaking out about, like the ones I’ve covered so far in my posts. Then there are others, like abortion or illegal immigration, about which I don’t feel confident enough in my opinions to assert them publicly. One of these issues is the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, which has escalated to warfare in the past week.

This Israeli-Palestinian conflict has always been a sticky one for me, especially being a Jew and being conditioned in Hebrew school from a young age to believe in everything Israel without a second thought. It seems like the more “liberal” take on the conflict is a more peace-oriented one, calling for a two-state solution, for Israel to withdraw from settlements in the Gaza strip and the West Bank, and for Israel to maintain peace with the Palestinians, including Hamas-controlled Gaza, no matter what the circumstances.

Then there are the more traditionally “conservative” arguments, which seem to devote unconditional support to Israel, being the sole free-trading, America-loving democracy in the Middle East (and it’s not an Arab or Muslim country, to boot). And now, with Bush’s presidency drawing to a close, Israel may in fact be undertaking this military offensive while they know they still have a staunch ally at the helm in the US, with Obama claiming to be a strong supporter, but his true convictions on the matter being yet untested.

Hearing about all the Palestinian civilians who have been killed and injured is heartbreaking. And with so few Israelis having died on the other end, it’s not surprising that there have been protests worldwide (including in New York on Saturday) against Israel’s aggression, as well as some pretty damning press. While Israeli spokespeople claim that Israel is doing everything it possibly can to avoid civilian casualties and only hit Gaza in militarily strategic areas, there have been hospitals, schools, and mosques hit by airstrikes, and dozens, if not hundreds, of civilians killed.

The Israeli argument centers around Hamas’s rockets that have been launched into Israel fairly incessantly over the past several weeks and months, even during the cease fire. Children living in Israeli towns near the Gaza strip, as my friend Leo has recently seen firsthand, are experiencing a constant fear and panic as to where and when the rockets will hit next. If the United States were at the receiving end of rocket fire from Mexico, you can bet your life that our army would be in there in no time to carry out whatever operation was necessary to cease any further attacks. Is that a bad thing, as many liberals might contend? In that instance, should we be strictly seeking diplomatic negotiations, and not getting our military involved? Is it a flaw of Israel’s and the United States’ that our solution to violence is a robust militaristic response?

This is where I’m not sure how I feel. American Jews tend to be more in tune with Israel’s response because they feel connected to the land and can empathize more easily with the Israeli people, just as any American, even most liberals, I would guess, would support military action in response to the Mexico scenario. But war is never a positive thing, and so I cringe when I find myself tacitly approving of it.

Still, for many in the Arab world (and elsewhere), the conflict has less to do with the current hostilities and more to do with Israel’s fundamental right to exist. That is a completely different discussion, and one that I don’t think is relevant to finding a solution to what is happening right now. But no matter who is right and who is wrong, I hope the fighting ends as soon as possible. No one deserves the fate, or even the fearful lives, that countless Palestinians and Israelis are experiencing.

I’d love to hear what you have to say. Please comment.

Photos: Israeli soldier (Associated Press), Palestinians carrying injured man (BBC), Israel Map (State Department)

Kristol Monday: So Close

Reading Bill Kristol's column today, I thought to myself, "Wow, I'm not going to have anything to write about because a) I do not know enough about the Israel-Hamas conflict to say he is wrong and b) he is actually making sense!" But then came his last two paragraphs and suddenly I realized why I'm not a fan of Kristol's writing. While in one breath saying that the United States has succeeded in Iraq - an impossible statement when the stated goals were few and far between and no one in the Bush Administration (or anyone, for that matter) has bothered to define what "victory" or "success" in Iraq would look like - he then begins to beat the war drum for military action against Iran. Damnit, Kristol, do you not learn from your mistakes?

I am going to keep this post brief because the past few ditties I've written have been about Kristol and it is the same thing over and over: either taking potshots at the left while making backhanded compliments to make it look like Kristol is open-minded or being utterly and completely wrong about Iraq while hoping for war with Iran. We all know Bill Kristol's assertions about what war with Iraq would look like: Kristol said that the war would only need 75,000 troops in the immediate aftermath of the invasion, that it would only cost $16 billion a year, and that after a year or two we would only need a few thousand troops in the country. On August 7, 2007 - more than four years after the initial invasion of Iraq - there were 162,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. That is more than twice the number Kristol used for the immediate aftermath and 54 times what he predicted would be needed a few years after the invasion. The cost of the war in Iraq so far has been more than $585 billion. Divide that by the five years we've been there, and that's more than $117 billion per year ($9.75 billion per month), which is, needless to say, incredibly higher than Bill Kristol's estimate of $16 billion a year.



So success in Iraq, being undefined, is impossible to gauge. If we define success as meeting one's goals or predictions for something, then, at least in terms of Bill Kristol, Iraq has been anything but successful. More U.S. troops have died in Iraq (4,221) than Kristol predicted would be needed in the years after the invasion. If there is anyone in this country who should not be talking about going to war, it is Bill Kristol. Would you take car manufacturing advice from Bob Lutz? Then why would you take war-waging advice from Bill Kristol? Peace.

Photo - Bill Kristol (New York Times)

Joe the Unlicensed Contractor, Sarah Palin, and McCain's Hypocrisy: A Trifecta of Scare Tactics

While the main headline grabber yesterday was Obama's 30 minute informercial (which was done surprisingly well and not as schticky as I thought it would be), the McCain campaign yesterday still managed to make waves in the news world. The newly minted McCain campaign's Sabbatai Zevi (read: Joe the Unlicensed Contractor) dropped a bombshell yesterday at a McCain campaign supported bus tour in which he agreed with a member of the audience asking questions who stated that a vote for Barack Obama would mean the death of Israel. The scare tactics continue.

Later when Joe the Unlicensed Contractor was on Fox News with Shepard Smith (of Jenny from the Block Blowjob fame) he was pressed to explain why he felt that a vote for Barack Obama was a vote for the death of Israel. He could not explain why he felt that way beyond saying that Obama has stated that he would sit down with the President of Iran without preconditions (something "Joe" mistakenly labeled as an action and not just words when, in reality, saying you will do something manifests itself in the form of words):



Joe said an interesting thing in the phone conversation. When asked what Obama's stance on Israel was, he avoided the question and stated, "Let people go out and find it...Find out why they would think that I would say that...You don't want my opinion on foreign policy; I know just enough probably to be dangerous." I think I know why Sam would say something like that. It's probably because he has no idea what he's talking about and cannot state Obama's stances on Israel. And Joe/Sam is right, we don't want his opinions on foreign policy.

All of this continues with the scare tactics of the McCain campaign (who, after Joe/Sam's recent fear mongering put out a statement essentially backing Joe's comments). But rule number one when trying to smear a distinguished professor in order to get a barb or two in about your political opponent: know how to pronounce the guy's name (skip to 2:25 if you don't want to watch the whole thing).



If Sarah Palin knows so little about Rashid Khalidi that she cannot even pronounce his name correctly, why are we supposed to listen to her assertions that Khalidi was a former PLO spokesman? Additionally, as the Olbermann tape above mentioned, in 1998 the International Republican Institute (IRI) gave $448,873 in a grant to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies (CPRS) (page 14 of the PDF, grant # 5180). The interesting thing about 1998 is that John McCain was the chairman of the board of the IRI and Rashid Khalidi was one of the founders of CPRS. In a statement yesterday the IRI stated that, "We understand that Rashid Khalidi was one of the many founders of CPRS, and we understand that he was for some (unclear) amount of time a board member. IRI did not in the 1990s conduct background checks of grantees’ founders or board members. IRI did on a number of occasions vet CPRS as an organization, including, as was our custom, with the Israeli government, and we were given no cause for concern." No concern, of course, until John McCain can try to use it as a smear against Obama.

So while Joe/Sam the Unlicensed Contractor seems to be Sarah Palin's male counterpart (not vetted properly, entirely unready for national attention, saying stupid things in front of the media, and embraced by the McCain campaign), a bigger McCain issue is his own hypocrisy. I understand that McCain could not have possibly remembered giving money (albeit half a million dollars) to Khalidi's organization, but don't the speechwriters at the McCain campaign factcheck or make sure there are no conflicts of interest or overt hypocrisy? If this is the competency level of the campaign with less than a week to go until Election Day, it makes you wonder how ready any member of that camp, nevermind the higher-ups, would be to run one of the most powerful countries in the world. Peace.

Photo - Joe the Unlicensed Contractor (who apparently may be in line for a country music deal) (popwatch.ew.com)

Bush Takes Subliminal Shot at Democrats, Further Hones his Hypocrisy

As this country's blind loyalty to Israel continues, George W. Bush aired out some of America's political dirty laundry in front of a foreign nation and the backlash has been severe (and warranted). In a Knesset speech on May 15, 2008 Bush compared the policies of "some" in American politics who have stated that we should open up diplomatic relations with nations like Iran or territories like Palestine to those involved with Nazi appeasement in the late 1930s and early 1940s. It was then later acknowledged by White House staffers that these comments were directed at prominent American figures like Barack Obama and former President Jimmy Carter. Obama has been vocal about his support to sit down and open up diplomatic relations with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Carter has pushed for negotiations with Hamas. President Bush has said that no "ingenious argument" will cause the violent tendencies of these groups to cease. Of course, this is coming from a president who doesn't even try diplomacy and has plunged this country into a five year war in Iraq that has undoubtedly destabilized a massive region of the Middle East. On the other side of Bush's argument is a president who put his ass on the line to reach the Camp David Accords with Middle Eastern countries without having to fire a shot, but Bush does not like, as we were told do to in kindergarten, to "use his words."

The facts are clear: Ahmadinejad is nuts. Hamas seems pretty determined to get rid of Israel. One link is missing here, however. Bush continues to alienate these factions by refusing to talk with them and instead using the neo-conservative rhetoric of preemptive military action (thanks Wolfowitz) instead of using good old-fashioned diplomacy. It could be that diplomacy will not work, but how will we ever know if we do not try? Sure, GE and Northrup-Grumman won't be getting multi-billion dollar government contracts for defense spending, but thousands of lives could be saved and maybe the rest of the world won't look at America as an arrogant, war-mongering country.

Beyond the politics of everything, however, lays a deeper layer of hypocrisy. To begin with, George W. Bush appears to be a born-again Christian. Christians, for the most part, believe that those who do not seek salvation in Jesus Christ and take him as their savior as mortals here on Earth will perish in the depths of hell for eternity. Thus, as Bush was speaking to a group of Israelis - the majority of whom were probably Jewish - his beliefs and faith dictated that they were all going to hell for not recognizing that Jesus was the son of God and salvation is found in undying devotion and faith in him. I do not see myself as a Christian scholar at all, but from going to church as a kid (where the teachers specifically told my brother that his Jewish friends were going to hell when he asked about them) and from reading parts of the Bible, this is what I have gleaned.

Then there is the Prescott Bush connection. Bush, of course, is father to George H. W. Bush and grandfather to George W. Bush. Prescott Bush was a major businessman and American senator in the first part of the 20th century in America. Prescott Bush also was linked to numerous German companies who both financed Hitler's rise to power and the rearming of the German state (in direct defiance of the Treaty of Versailles), as well as benefited from Nazi slave labor at the beginning of World War II. It was at this point that the U.S. government stepped in and seized the assets under the Trading with the Enemy Act, established during the Great War. In addition to all of this, Bush was involved in a plot to overthrow Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933 and establish a fascist state in America based on Hitler's and Mussolini's model in order to combat the Great Depression. So while Obama and Carter may want to sit down and talk with leaders like Ahmadinejad and groups like Hamas, they still oppose what they do and are not supporting them - financially or otherwise - like George W. Bush's own grandfather did with Hitler's Nazism. I understand that you cannot choose your family, but if Bush wants to compare Obama to Hitler appeasers, then he should at least condemn his grandfather's actions prior to (and during) World War II.

Thus, despite George W. Bush's pledge to keep himself out of the 2008 presidential race, he has thrust himself into it. While McCain did not compare Obama to the Western powers that appeased Hitler prior to World War II (the American government being one of them), he did say that Obama was "naive" and "inexperienced" because he wanted to try out diplomacy before, in McCain's own songful words, "bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb[ing] Iran" if necessary. Beyond the complete idiocy and divisiveness of Bush's words, it is completely inappropriate to put down another member of the American government in front of a foreign gathering for political purposes. This is one of the reasons that people think Americans have little class, as Bush appears to be just like school in the summertime (no class). I think in the end, this might hurt the Republicans because it is very extreme to invoke Hitler into modern day politics in any light. To compare one of the more liberal presidential candidates in a long time to one who would appease Hitler is out there and really does not make sense. But Bush is not exactly one to follow that fickle law of "logic." Peace.

Photos - Bush before Israel's Knesset on May 15 (www.bloomberg.com), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran (www.msnbc.msn.com), Prescott Bush and George W. Bush (www.tsl.state.tx.us)