Why I'm Switching My Vote to Romney

 

Secret tape unearthed by leftwing magazine Mother Jones.

I tried to explain why I'm voting for Romney, but it wasn't really sufficient because it was more about why I'm not supporting Obama any longer -- he -- and more importantly, his supporters and comrades in office -- have lurched too far to the left. I don't usually blog on national politics, and I especially hate discussing them with people in Second Life with wildly variable degrees of knowledge, education and experience which you can't see in the anonymous virtual world. That's a strength and weakness of virtuality, but I don't expect to convince anyone in that shrill and raucous echo chamber. Rather, I merely seek to do my own thinking, find like-minded, and maybe, over their shoulders, reach somebody undecided.

The revelation of the "47%" tape by Mother Jones' Washington correspondent David Corn has the blogosphere roiling, but other news still percolates through -- 6 million people will have to pay fines of something like $1200 or more a year if they don't accept the coercion of Obama care, and a majority of people are unhappy with Obama's foreign policy. I'll say -- when our ambassador and diplomats are killed abroad!

I remember attending socialist meetings with David Corn 30 years ago (!), we were acquaintances long ago. Now we're both middle-aged and grey. I've always thought that he was an accomplished writer and journalist though his politics have always been too leftward for me. We used to have more in common, like concern for Poland's Solidarity and nuclear missile deployments in Europe. Today, I look at his piece and I frown -- it doesn't seem like journalism to me, but op research, that frenzied industry both parties pay for to discredit each other.

It starts -- like so many things these days -- with a Youtube snippet. The POV of the snippet is from behind the water carafe with caterers moving to and fro clanking dishes -- suggesting that it was filmed by one of the wait staff. (AP thinks it's the bartender, but the waiters could have planted it behind the water). The fund-raisers were all sitting at the table, and it's unlikely any of them would go all the way to the back of the room to set up a hidden camera -- but who knows. It's odd. Of all people, Jimmy Carter's grandson (!), James Carter IV, who is unemployed and apparently living off family wealth, found the snippet because he constantly trawls for stuff that could help the Democratic Party, to which he is fervently devoted. He then digs up the source -- not sure how, probably Googling and IRC channeling a lot or something. Finally, the reluctant source talks and eventually he gets him to give the whole tape to David Corn, who is in a race with MSNBC for it, as they've gotten on to it.

None of this has been covered critically except by Breitbart, but in Breitbart's hands, there's just too much chortling about how the left has suddenly endorsed hidden tapes, when they didn't like it when Bretibart did it, and too much of the sort of dark woven narrative you find on the right-wing sites. Fleep asked me if I endorsed what some American Spectator piece said. It was written in that same over-the-top dark narrative style seeing plots and malevolence everywhere. No, it doesn't resonate with me. Yes, some of it is persuasive. I get the Nation *and* Breitbart every day in my email box so I can compare and *think*. You know, like you all should be doing?

There are a lot of questions to ask about this film.The first thing I noticed is that Romney, a first-time presidential candidate, seems to make a lot of uses of percentages as a kind of rhetorical device -- "95 percent of life" is being born in America he says, and notes other percentages as you can see in the transcript.

But the big question is this, to the film-maker and others in the chain long before it got to Corn: You had it in May, guys. Why did you wait this long? Were you engaging in political activism to throw the election at a crucial time? Or really doing journalism here? It's original producer used it to bang on Romney over Bain's plant in China. Yet Bain had nothing to hide there, told the story honestly, and said honestly that the workers would rather be there, even under those conditions, than be worse off. Unless you want higher prices for your i-phones and other toys, kids, what's your solution?

Frustratingly, some of the tape is missing -- right at the mark about the 47%. I dont' think that Corn cut it out (Breitbart does) nor even James the IV. Did the original film-maker cut it? Quite possibly, for any number of reasons. He -- or she, and much more likely she as the wait staff in the film are females -- could have actually been *bored* when Romney began talking about what later became a sensation and forgot to change the tape. But wait. For a speech like this, you wouldn't risk a 30-minute cassette, you'd put in a 60 minute cassette. Or wait again. Casettes? Those are so 1990s. A digital tape recorder wouldn't need changing, and that's what you'd need to be able to upload to Youtube. So why is it missing? Likely it was cut, because it may have exonerated Romney, or at least put it into context. His response was not to duck and hide but to say "maybe it could have been more elegant," but for all of it to be put up. It wasn't, and likely won't be -- or is being saved for the October Surprise. But all in all, this entire strange social media operation with so many links in the chain is the sort of collectivized and dumbed-down journalism that new media in fact delivers, even to skilled hands. It's just not the Deep Throat story that one would expect to really be significant. And it won't be.

Romney is not ashamed, no. And I don't see what the big deal is. Yes, half the country voted for Gore, and half for Bush, and yes, the country is split and will be split again. And that split indeed does revolve on the faith question of whether you believe in redistributive economy or you believe in the generative economy -- full stop. Socialism or capitalism -- truly, that's what it's about. You cannot hide it. Timothy Noah tries to hide it. The "progressives" always do, because they know what a stigma rightly attaches to the s-word. Too bad. Noah can't face the end game of redistribution -- exhaustion of resources. The Soviet Union could tell you this. Without generative entities in the economy, there's nothing for the socialists even to get their paws on to redistribute. That's why socialism always leads to crime and corruption and collapse. Everyone in America knows this, even if everyone in Europe or Latin America doesn't.

All Romney did was call it correctly. He didn't call this percentage lazy, parasitic, moochers, blood-suckers, or anything of the sort luridly claimed in the liberal media. He just said they wouldn't vote for him because they were dependent -- and we are! -- and he had to target the swing votes among independents or disenchanted Democrats. And he does.

So lets look at foreign policy, which is paramount about why I'm switching my vote:

Iran is an authoritarian murderous state killing its own people and its emigres abroad as well as foreigners; it supports terrorism and violence in its region and around the world. It sharply contrasts with Israel, a democratic liberal state under the rule of law. In Iran, a few mullahs decide nuclear policy, much like Stalin and Beria. In Israel, there are powerful constituencies opposing any pre-emptive move. Israel having the bomb, surrounded by murderous, violent Arab states that attack it and undermine it constantly, isn't destablizing -- those Arab states' violence and extremism are. Iran having the bomb is scary for everybody. They might bomb Israel -- they might also -- or instead -- bomb countries in Central Asia with American presences, like Turkmenistan or Kyrgyzstan -- they might do anything. They are unpredictable and uncooperative -- the entire world community, even the third-worlders who hate America -- haven't gotten them to cooperate. Russia sort of tried for a time, even, although not really, under Medvedev -- now they are actively back to supporting their long-time fellow authoritarian ally.

Obama's "no conditions" approach to Iran, complete with a Novruz video tape greeting and largely silence on the crackdown on the democracy demonstrators, didn't work. It barely got our hikers out. Nothing works. The sanctions didn't work. Endless UN interventions don't work.

So I'm with Ed Koch, the quintessential Democratic New York mayor, who said the other day at a Jewish holiday talk at a synogogue that the US has to say that they have Israel's back. They have to say that if Iran bombs Israel, the US will bomb Iran.

Note what this is about. It's not about saying "let's all pre-emptively bomb Iran just in case". Or "let's bomb Iran just because we bomb things" (which is how the usual ignorant forums' lout describes it). It's  "let's let Iran know its bad behaviour has consequences".

Romney hasn't exactly articulated the Koch position. But he's for taking a strong stand on Iran. And we need to, as they are bad in and of themselves, a threat to their people, a threat to Israel, and a fueler of conflict all over the place with support of terrorism. The only credible deterrent is to say IF they bomb Israel (or for that matter, anything), we will bomb them. I have no idea what the throw-weights and ballistics are on that, and obviously one reason the US wants installations in Europe is to repel Iranian missile attacks should it come to an exchange of that nature.

But saying that if Iran behaves badly, we will retaliate and treat an attack on Israel as an attack on the US, Israel's key ally, is a verbal and moral position. It requires no installation of anything. It just requires determination. And it needs to be done. Iran has to be contained and deterred because it's a threat to international peace and security. The UN can't cope with the double veto in practice more than ever before from Russia and China.

Obama will never say anything like this -- instead, his Administration has been busy helping Iran, consciously or passively. First, there was the theft of a contractor's laptop with the president's helicopter plans on it (!). There was -- as I said -- the silence around the elections and the endless quiet diplomacy. There was insufficient clarity to Israel. Then there was leaking of the Stuxnet story. That was sure imprudent. If you're going to attack another country's computer systems -- which, BTW, I'm not for doing, and I think we need to start a treaty against this -- then you shouldn't announce it. It got leaked, and not as a form of deterrence. Then there was yet another strange leak -- a claim that Israel and Azerbaijan were conspiring for Israel to put a base on Azerbaijan to help it make that strike on Iran, next door to Azerbaijan. I felt that was really odd, because Azerbaijan would never put in jeopardy one fourth of the population of Iran -- the Azeris of Iran -- who would suffer retaliation (and already do). They wouldn't get involved. And there's a problem if you study the flight patterns. Really, Israel is going on this bomb run over that much distance out of a foreign country? It didn't seem viable. And the story may have been fake, or only some think-tank hypothesis. But it was deliberately leaked by Obama-ites -- the White House is like a sieve -- to force the president's hand  -- his own constantly tug him to the anti-Israel left -- or he himself ensured it was leaked, who knows...

Now, what if Israel says that they will unilaterally bomb Iran whenever they think its nuclear capacity is dangerous enough, to pre-empt it? Well, they may mutter this or even scold with this at times, but it's a function of another vacuum: ours. Once we say to the world, "Iran, if you bomb Israel, we bomb you," we fix that problem for Israel of uneasiness about what we might do and where our courage might wilt. And it's a deterrence, a credible once, and once it's in place, Israel will feel less need for pre-emptive bombing. In any event, the pressure that will need to be put on the parts of this equation belong overwhelmingly on Iran, not Israel.

So to gain progress, clarity, and effectiveness on Iran, we can't vote for Obama. And Iran is really our biggest problem because of the nuclear element and the murderous nature of this regime -- they already help attack our troops everywhere, as they did in Iraq for years and even in Afghanistan.

I've written about Russia extensively on my Minding Russia blog and how awful the Obama Administration has been in every way. In short, we have to simply concede that Russia has made us our enemy, admit -- as Romney has handsomely done already -- that Russia is our enemy, and resume the Cold War -- which was a good thing. Cold is what you need to be with murderous regimes -- and Russia has supported the worst mass murder in our time by backing the Syria regime with $1 billion in arms. We need to retire the Jackson-Vanik application (not the law itself, which is still relevant) because we need to follow the rule of law ourselves, but then we have to pass the Magnitsky Act which will be at least some hedge to impunity by sanctioning officials directly involved in the death of the lawyer Sergei Magnitsky in detention in a trumped-up case, and others like him.

Obama is personally opposed to the Magnitsky Act because it doesn't fit with his very long-held socialist politics that always see something faintly "progressive" about this "enemy of my enemy who is my friend". He also thinks there's something "statesmanlike" about getting along with Russia pragmatically. Baloney. Russia is an enemy. It has not made once concession to the US in endless talks and yet Obama -- outrageously -- adopted a position that in fact was a staple of Soviet propaganda circa 1982 in the Andropov era, when Obama was cutting his teeth at the Socialist Scholars Conference (which I also attended). That propagandistic fake claim was about "no first use of nuclear weapons". Easy to say for the Soviets when they had tank superiority in Europe. There's no objective need for the US to adopt this old Soviet chesnut and deprive itself of deterrence. It serves no value in peace talks as the Russians aren't cooperative. They are our enemies. That means a Cold War. A cold war is better than proxy wars or hot wars.

I certainly don't cry for USAID, and I call for the US to remove RT employee visas in the US because they in fact serve the function that the Kremlin imagines USAID served -- aiding and abetting the opponents of the US government, including Julian Assange, who is paid by this Kremlin TV station to run a talk show, featuring terrorists like Hezbollah.

What about Afghanistan, which Romney didn't even mention? Well, that's unfortunate but it doesn't mean he doesn't somehow support the troops there. Obama is supposedly bringing them home -- possibly for when he's no longer there. Romney might keep them there. I don't see that the way they've been there, they should be kept there, and I don't see any reason to stop the withdrawal. This is a longer discussion about how America needs to have a Cold War against Islamism and become smart about how to defeat it everywhere with means other than war. People think Cold Wars are evil and drain resources and cause extermism and blah blah. I might have been persuaded more of this in my youth -- no longer. Compare and contrast how much was spent under Reagan and Carter and the rest on the Cold War, and how much we've spent on wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya -- and most importantly, compare the number of people who died. And don't just look at the Vietnam War period in isolation, compare the different periods -- detente, Reagan, etc. -- and see really what's involved.

We put extraordinarily dedicated, talented, and credentialed people like Ambassador Stevens into the field -- and they either fail or are killed. I feel this is because we have started from a premise that terrorists had unhappy childhoods, and if we can just open up more hospitals or reach more hearts and minds with farming or education programs, they will like us. Maybe some will, but we will always remain surrounded by those whose minds are crystallized, as Joseph Conrad character said in Heart of Darkness, "like a diamond". That means a Cold War against Islamist fundamentalism. And if we have four more years of Obama, that means further weakness and a Cold War coming *anyway*. The Democrats would do better to prepare their own Cold War Democrat in the coming four years. They will need him.

P.S. A comment in response to Luna Bliss, who is weeping in the comments that are now getting buried from view in the previous post. The case of the murder of the gay man Matthew Shepherd is indeed tragic. But it happend in 1998 under Bill Clinton's second term. So it's not about presidential politics. This gay man was murdered on Clinton's watch, although he did nothing hostile to gays whatsoever. Your notion that a Romney administration would mean the death of gays is unsupported. It's just ranting and raving. Also, please find a case of a teenager who has died in a back-alley abortion that dates from recent times, and not, oh, the 1960s. Again, get a grip. All of you, wherever you are in America, can have sex when you want, with whom you want, with or without birth control, and can seek timely abortions afterward. So no edge-casing and fear-mongering, please, it's irrelevant.

Below is the section on the notorious tape about foreign policy. And I have to say I agree with it, as a restorative of balance to undo the damage of Obama and even Bush. I agree with just about everything in it, although I'm not sure that expanded military might is necessarily the answer -- I think it really is more about rhetoric, law, actions at the UN, legislation at home, and a sturdy Cold War program of everything from language training to circumvention technology and assistant to dissidents.

I'll give the specifics about Iran, and then maybe talk more broadly about foreign policy. The specific on Iran is that we should have put in place crippling sanctions at the beginning of the president's term. We did not. He will say, "Yes, but Russian wouldn't go along with us." Well, he gave Russia their No. 1 foreign objective: For a decade, all they've cared about is getting the missile defense sites out of Poland, and he gave them that and got nothing in return. He could have—I presume—gotten them to agree to crippling sanctions on Iran. He did not, which is in my opinion, one of the greatest foreign policy errors of the modern time. And by the way, if he could not have gotten that from Russia, he should have kept the missile defense sites in Poland, just to keep a bargaining chip on table. I mean, put nothing in if he wants—I would have kept them, I wouldn't have traded them away, but that's where he was.

No. 2, we should have been aggressively supporting the voices of dissent in Iran, and when there was an effort towards revolution there we should been aggressively supporting. And finally we should have made it clear, at least by now, that we have military plans to potentially remove their nuclear capabilities. That doesn't mean we actually pull the trigger, but it means we communicate to them that we're ready to do so. And that it is unacceptable to America to have a nuclear Iran. Instead what this administration has done is communicate to the Iranians that we're more worried about Israel attacking them than we are about them becoming nuclear. It's extraordinary. So those are some thoughts directly at Iran.

I'll step back on foreign policy: The president's foreign policy, in my opinion, is formed in part by a perception that he has that his magnetism and his charm and his persuasiveness is so compelling that he can sit down with people like Putin, Chávez, and Ahmadinejad. And that they'll find we're such wonderful people that they'll go on with us. And they'll stop doing bad things. And it's an extraordinarily naive perception, and it has led to huge errors in North Korea, in Iraq, obviously in Iran, in Egypt, around the world. My own view is that that the centerpiece of American foreign policy has to be strength. Everything I do will be calculated to increasing America's strength. When you stand by your allies, you increase your strength. When you attack your allies, you become weaker. When you stand by your principles, you get stronger. When you have a big military—that's bigger than anyone else's—you're stronger. [Unintelligible.] When you have a strong economy, you build America's strength. For me, everything is about strength and communicating to people what is and is not acceptable. It's speaking softly but carrying a very, very, very big stick. And this president instead speaks loudly and carries a tiny stick. And that is, you know, that's not the right course for a foreign policy. I saw Dr. Kissinger in New York—you're not eating! [Audience laughs.]

 

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Audience member: I'm mesmerized! [unintelligible]

Romney: He's bored to tears. [Audience laughs.] I saw Dr. Kissinger; I said to him, "How are we perceived around the world?" And he said, "One word: VEAK!" [Audience laughs.] We are weak, and that's how this president is perceived, by our friends and, unfortunately, by our foes. And it's no wonder that people like Kim Jong Un, the new leader of North Korea, announces a long-range missile test only a week after he said he wouldn't. Because, it's like, what's this president going to do about it?

Comments

[c3]

we could elect a puppy to the role of president... but iran knows.. as does i gotta believe everyone in the world.. that if they bomb Israel, we bomb them.

there was a "reason" that all the scuds tossed at israel during the gulf war--didnt- have any gas in them... Saddam like Ahmadinejad had/has an endgame... keep power. not suicide.

veak.... i dont think the world sees the US as militarily weak... they see us as talking on iphones , eating fast food, and watching jersey shore... weak in spirit.. weak in previous "making shit".. weak to deal with little terrors... but you know what... NO ONE CAN... and that scres them as well... thats been the lesson of the arab rebellions...--- people in little tribes can fuck you up in the age of media... IF you beleive in images....

but they know we can still " spend 10 years bombing villages and trashing middle eastern cities if we want/had too .....

all sides act "delusional" to the "image" today... but everyone is also scared as shit ..when /if someone GETS real...

so i still see no reason to really vote for this guy...

keep up the delusions... seems like that way we may make it another 60 years with nuclear geek toys.

[Micha Sass]

"we could elect a puppy to the role of president... but iran knows.. as does i gotta believe everyone in the world.. that if they bomb Israel, we bomb them."

C3 hits the nail on the head. Mitts manifesto on Iran is very wishy-washy. He makes no promise of a pre-emptive strike (which would be futile, if the goal is to stop Iran gaining nukes). Mitt only promises to 'sabre-rattle', which would suit the Israeli government just fine. Israel is in a terrifying position, being so close to a country who has made threatening statements and who now appear to be developing WMD. However many people forget that Iran is much like Israel in so much as they are not Arabs. The are isolated in a region dominated by people of a different sect. Iran is viewed as an enemy to Arabs in a similar way as the US or Israel. Many Arabs believe wild conspiracy theories about Iran being a shady ally of the US and Zionist entities. Increased tension between Iran and the US is perceived by some Ba'ath party spokespeople as a smokescreen. Many older Ba'athists consider the fall of the Shah (who praised the concept of Arab unity) an Imperialist plot.

Maybe some Americans will vote for Mitt based on his stance on Iran and Israel. They will be very disappointed methinks. There will be no war, and that is a good thing. I just feel sorry for the occupants of the MENA who are endlessly fooled by power hungry leaders from both sides of the Atlantic.

[Micha Sass]

BTW, the impeccably english accented reporters who work for Russia Today are gleefully announcing (on UK cable networks) that Iran is doing just fine, even with the sanctions. The UK media have also reported that Iraq is helping Iran to bypass the sanctions, via corrupt deals made through Iraqi business.

So after 10 years of wars and aggressive foreign policy based on having 'a big army' the area is still as confused and as corrupt as ever.

*FACEPALM*

[Micha Sass]

In Romneys manifesto for Iran, he says:

"The United States should restore the regular presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region simultaneously."

The fact Romney refers to the Persian Gulf as the Persian Gulf shows a deep respect for Iran. The Persian Gulf is a heavily contested body of water, many would refer to it as 'the Gulf' or even 'the Arabian Gulf'. The more I read the republican official texts, the more I feel safe that a republican government may really be OK. Do not believe the hype.

[Melissa Yeuxdoux]

"I get the Nation *and* Breitbart every day in my email box so I can compare and *think*. You know, like you all should be doing?"

Now *there's* something I can agree with. Well said.

[Ajax Manatiso]

What is Mitch Romney for? He won't say. All he will say is he's against Obama and won't worry about the Americans who are likely to vote for Obama. He's secrtive. Won't show his taxes. Won't reveal his plans. Won't say, won't give out numbers. He's the surprise package, and I DON'T like surprises.

[Prokofy Neva]

Romney has a lot of his positions out now, so this idea that he "won't say" is silly. And for further enlightenment, you now have a 50 minute film where he is off the record with his donors.

As for not providing his taxes, it's not required by law of candidates past certain years evidently.

I wonder more about Obama's school records. These are locked tight. I don't care if his marks aren't stellar. Gosh, neither were George Bush's. But the records are probably going to show a socialist tilt or something, or show that he came in as an international exchange student, which is going to plump up the birthers' perspective.

Something odd about that -- and in general his silence on the Columbia years.

The US has never made a formal statement as an official position that if they bomb Israel, the US will bomb them. It's worth making.

Is Romney too wishy-washy on Iran? Probably he's just prudent. It's not a policy to decide in isolation as a candidate.

I don't need a war with Iran. I don't see that coming from Romney. I see that coming more likely from Obama's weakness.

I don't care about paranoid Arab conspiracies. The answer to that is to keep confronting them. We don't do enough of that.

[Anna Leisen]

"The US has never made a formal statement as an official position that if they bomb Israel, the US will bomb them. It's worth making."

Why on earth should the US care about Israel? Israel is not a member of NATO, hence not a US ally. The US has no obligation to take part in Israel's wars in the Middle East. In fact, Israel has attacked US war ships and the US should have bombed Israel for that a long time ago. American interests are the opposite of Israel's interests. The US should concentrate on its relationship to its actual allies (NATO members). Israel's policies of apartheid and racism violate the principles upon which western societies are built.

[The Australian]

Wayne Swan (Australian Treasurer) will today launch a blistering attack on US Republicans, declaring "cranks and crazies" have taken over the party and have come to represent the No 1 threat to the world's biggest economy.

As the US presidential campaign enters its final weeks, the Treasurer will use a speech in Sydney to criticise the Republican Party's position on the US budget, warning that negotiations in the new year to prevent a "fiscal cliff" caused by a major withdrawal of government spending will be a key to the future direction of the global economy. "Let's be blunt and acknowledge the biggest threat to the world's biggest economy are the cranks and crazies that have taken over the Republican Party," he will tell a Financial Services Council function.

Link - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/mad-republicans-the-key-risk-treasurer-wayne-swan-warns/story-fn59niix-1226478452777

[ThisIsAmusing]

i love how prokofy is not posting argumentative comments (as usually she does), it seems she still has a faint clue of when to just shut up..

[Prokofy Neva]

I don't have all day to post comments.

Anna displays her appalling insularity and smugness in her little homogenous Scandinavian country. Ugh.

If you can't get why America supports a liberal democratic state in a sea of hostile Arab authoritarian regimes, I can't help you.

The idea that "Israel has attacked US warships" sounds like one of those trumped up forums-Fisking exercises that is based on some outrageously exaggerated story that has no basis in reality or little relevance to today.

I see Anna is a subscriber to the Durban lie about "apartheid" supposedly practiced in Israel. She'd do much better to look at the racism in Russia, her fellow Council of Europe member, which makes Caucasians second-class citizens.

Israel does not have racism as a state ideology or practice. The existence of some cases of racism doesn't mean it is an "apartheid" state. This is part of a vicious campaign to try to discredit Israel and it has been repudiated by many people as unacceptable. The clinging to this old ANC communist meme is itself racist.

I don't know who little Wayne Swan is, but he sounds like he's found a way to blame other people and countries for his problems. I can't see how he's relevant, or how the US elections are relevant to him, even in a global economy.

The two largest haters of America are the British and the Australians who speak English and come from the same Anglo culture. I guess there are objective reasons for this.

[The Australian]

My post cleary says - "Wayne Swan (Australian Treasurer)"

To help you learn a little more Wayne Swan is the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer of Australia. On 21 September 2011, Swan was named the World's Best Finance Minister by Euromoney magazine.

[Anna Leisen]

Exaggerated?

Israel *deliberately* (according to every single survivor of US Navy seamen) attacking a US ship, the aptly named USS Liberty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

Israel spying on and causing the United States serious damage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard

Israel has also committed acts of terrorism in Italy, Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillehammer_affair ) and many other countries.

Israel is not a friend to the United States (or to NATO in general). It's a most unreliably state, and not even western-aligned. It's dominated by largely criminal and politically extreme and racist immigrants from Russia, and has strong ties to Russia/the Soviet Union. It's not a liberal (give me a break) or democratic (Palestinians don't have equal rights) state. It's an authoritarian police and apartheid state built on a collective ideology resembling communism in many aspects.

The US has no reason to seek conflict with Arab states. Israel is responsible for threats to world peace, threats to security, international terrorism and more. It would be better both for the world and for the United States, militarily and economically, if there was no apartheid regime of Israel (but rather one single democratic state for those living in Palestine).

[Prokofy Neva]

I see you have a tiny, antisemitic mind, Anna, and fall for conspiracy theories that fit your essential hatred of Jews and Israel.

Wikipedia points out that Israel immediately notified the US, apologized, and compensated the victims. That doesn't sound like a state that "deliberately" attacked a US ship even though it supposedly saw a flag.

Survivors in a torpedoed ship are traumatized and are naturally going to feel any attack was deliberate.

The ADL does a good job of answering all the conspiracy theories:

http://www.adl.org/israel/uss.asp

But it's hilarious to conclude from this 1968 incident regardless that Israel is "not a friend". Of course it's a friend, and even Obama was forced to concede that on his term.

Israel isn't dominated by racist Russians -- there is a large Jewish Russian-speaking population from the Soviet Union, but they tend to be liberals. There are racists among them as with any population but they don't dominate.

Palestine is a terrorist's entity, not a state. It cannot get state hood through the UN until it ceases its violence and its non-recognition of Israel. Even Arab states understand this and tell Palestine to knock it off with their quest for statehood. You're ignorant about UN affairs; I'm informed.

A one-state solution would overrun the Jewish population with Palestinian refugees that Arab states would make sure returned in massive numbers -- from a world of authoritarianism and tribalism in which terrorism is accepted. It would destroy the liberal state of Israel and therefore is not an option.

Palestinians have equal rights in Israel. When they are ready to drop their terrorism and violence, they will make progress. An Arab Spring has been nearly everywhere but in Palestine!

Israel doesn't threaten world peace; Palestine and its Arab backers do.

I'm not interested in further discussion with you because you're ignorant, prejudiced, narrow-minded, and uneducated. But it's a good example of the problem of Europe.

[Maryam Afshar]

You're the terrorist entity, not the Palestinians. In fact you are both a terrorist entity, and a griefer, and a threat to world peace!

[Micha Sass]

"Israel doesn't threaten world peace; Palestine and its Arab backers do."

The Arabs are not commonly associated with backing Hamas. It is Tehran, Damascus and the Hezbollah of Lebanon who have been the traditional supporters of Hamas, none of which are considered Arabs. The recent Arab spring which has seen the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood is changing everything. Hamas appears to be shifting its support to the MB, and moving away from collaboration with Syria and Iran. Time will only tell if the MB will turn on Israel, now the status quo of former dictatorships is falling away. Egypt has already responded to the vacuum by deploying troops in the Sinai, the troop numbers exceed what was agreed by the Oslo accords. If Syria falls to the rebels it has been predicted that Hezbollah will follow. Only when the dust has settled will we be able to determine how the Arabs will treat Israel.

I support a two-state solution, although it would seem neither Israel or the PA want this outcome.

[Prokofy Neva]

Micha Sass, Middle Eastern expert!

This is a load of crap.

The Arab world, taken as a sum of its parts, or any one part, and the Muslim countries of North Africa and of course Iran *all oppose Israel*. They are all enemies of Israel. Whatever peace they have struck over the years brokered by the US or UN or whatever is obviously fragile and now worthless.

They all back Palestine; it doesn't matter whether it's Arafat or Hamas or whatever. It's silly to pretend there's a difference there, or that the problem is really only Iran, Syria and Lebanon's Hezbollah. Nonsense. All of them are in on it; some of it, like Saudis, pay for it; still others like Qatar run the TV for all of it.

The idea that "Israel doesn't want a two state solution" is one of those memes that the left always perpetrates and is not worth arguing over.

The problem is the OIC -- the Arab world and Iran. That's the problem. When they are ready to change for the good, the situation will change.

[GreenLantern Excelsior]

The blog says my post was saved, but when I refresh the page it is gone. I will try again later

[GreenLantern Excelsior]

A Cold War against islamism sounds interesting, but I would rather keep it a shooting war. Just keep those drones flying and continue to decimate the leadership of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. There is no negotiating with those people, because you can't reason with the unreasonable. One of the blogs I follow has videos of some of the air strikes against terrorists planting IEDs or firing mortars. It's worth watching and maybe it will act as a deterrent to the next guy who wants to bury some rifles in a farmer's field.

Breitbart has some great websites. I follow their Big Government and Big Journalism blogs, as well as many others. Maybe we should compare news sources some day.

Ajax, Mitt Romney is not a "surprise package." Everything he is and everything he plans is laid out on his campaign website. Give it a read and see if that changes your mind.

Romney should promise to release his tax records right after Obama releases his university records. Come on, Mitt, take the gloves off and punch a little harder.

One thing I've always advocated, that Romney seems to support too, is to provide aid for the opponents of our enemies, specifically the Iranian students and other opposition, some of whom were killed off in the Green Revolution (remember Neda). In my mind it would be far preferable to see an internal revolution in Iran than it would be to see the US and Israel raining down bunker busters on their nuclear complex. I understand that the Iranian people are very patriotic and also generally very young. Bomb their country and they will unite against us. Supply them with goodies and cash and they will unite against their religious leaders. The world will finally be safe when the last mullah has been strangled with the last burkah.

Anna seems to espouse the type of sick anti-semitism that is popular in Europe these days. Israel, a tiny country surrounded and attacked on all sides by enemies, is said to be a Great Fascist Oppressor State, beating up on the poor Palestinian refugees (who are actually Jordanians, and generally living in the midst of plenty). The stated goal is usually aligned with that of the Iranian government and the rest of islamists worldwide - to wipe Israel off the map. One would have to wonder whether these folks like to dress up in black uniforms and practice goose-stepping in front of the mirror when no one is watching.

I don't see how anyone could consider that Obama has the slightest chance of winning when we vote in 46 days from now. He can't run on his record because his performance has been terrible. He can't run on high employment numbers or a strong economy because the country has neither. He can't even point to his opponent's inexperience, because he himself was little more than a "community organizer" and a legislator who voted "present" too many times, rather than yes or no. It's looking more and more like a Romney landslide is in the making, and that will be a very good thing for America and the rest of the world.

[isfullofcrap]

Romney comes fairly close to a fascist.

[ThisIsAmusing]

hey Prokofy, can we have your opinions about Muslims now? or Russians?