PRESIDENT TRUMP STRENGTHENING AMERICA AND FORGING NEW INTERNATIONAL ORDER

The hard crucial choice for Americans: Triumph with an indomitably strong leadership or fail with a weak one.

“Great men have always done well, when they made use of their power before their enemies reached a position where they could tie their hands and destroy their power.” (Frederick The Great).

By Con George-Kotzabasis October 10, 2017

It is not the last time that in critical times, unexpectedly, men of gigantic ability, will-power, moral strength, and celerity in decisiveness emerge phoenix–like and take in their firm hands the reins of power to save their countries from dangers that threaten their existence. And certainly such men are out of the normal mould and crash against the conventional establishment that often makes them its bete noire. It is precisely this “unexpectedness,” especially in a climate of political correctness, that dumbfounds a sizeable part of the intelligentsia, that an outsider out of their own clan has the chutzpah and audaciousness to gate crash “their” political turf.

Such an outsider is ostensibly clear, is Donald Trump, whose entry into the oval office has shocked and appalled the liberal intelligentsia and a great part of the media that embodies and expresses their views and opinions. That the Fourth Estate and its liberal patrons have reacted against this out-of-the-norm new president with such unprecedented vehemence, using the ignoble and sordid means of vilification, defamation, lies, “fake news,” and sinister conspiracies, reveals that the opposition against President Trump will be vigorous, durational and unendingly dirty.

The democratic liberals, accustomed to having weak presidents who could be easily manoeuvred to adopt their own policies through the corridors of power, are dismayed and anguished that before a relentlessly strong president, such as Trump, they would lose the power to formulate the political agenda of the country. Up till now, “munching” happily on the weak “pop-corn presidency” of Barak Obama, and his two similarly weak predecessors, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, who had adopted and implemented all the economic, political, and moral tenets of the liberals that, according to the latter, had broken the backbone of an imperial America, they now feel threatened that with the Trump administration, they will lose the influence to determine the course of the country, and more widely, of the world. By being swept out of commandeering the ship of state, that the changing tempestuous winds of the Trump administration has brought on the political “seascape,” and the terrifying event of being sunk into the depths of oceanic oblivion, the liberal leftist intelligentsia, its media cohorts, and the politically immature young of the drop-outs and others of academe–who are used as storm-troopers of the left–are reacting with inordinate vituperation against the president. Hence, the liberal establishment is releasing all its viperous furies against Donald Trump; and in this ferocious attack against this “dangerous outsider,” they will not hesitate to use all the fiendish and vile means to remove him from the White House.

The attacks on all the policies of President Trump since taking office by this condominium of liberals and the mass media, evince, that this fight will take no prisoners and will triumph only on the cadaver of the president. His critics are even prepared to sacrifice policies that would make America stronger and safer on the altar of their righteousness. Their repudiation of the “travel ban” on countries that breed terrorists; their criticism of the President’s stand toward Europe and NATO, wherein the Europeans should share a greater part of the costs of the continent’s security and should not continue to depend on American largesse; their condemnation of his withdrawal from the Paris agreement on CO2 emissions, on the reasonable grounds that such an agreement would lead with certainty to the loss of jobs contra the uncertainty of perilous climate change; their assertion that during the election campaign Trump colluded with the Russians with the purpose to win the election, despite the fact that the court found no collusion; and their latest attempt to charge the president with obstruction of justice in regard to the investigation of the dismissal of the director of the FBI. All these censures of his detractors, even if they are found to be legal chicanery (The Supreme Court has fully justified President Trump on his “travel ban” by reversing the lower court’s decision and hence making it legal and hence exonerate the president from any impeachment), have the aim of generating such a mountainous negative public opinion against President Trump that would oust him from the oval office.

Nonetheless Atlas, the creative individualistic dynamism of the United States, is not to be “Shrugged”, under the strong and savvy leadership of President Trump. In appointing to key positions of his administration the strongest and the brightest, picking them exclusively from the most robust institution of the country, i.e., the armed forces of the USA, the president is determined to place America on a new course as the guardian of Western values and as the protector of civilized life against all implacable enemies who pose an existential threat to it. And just as importantly, President Trump “knows thy enemy,” the Islamist fanatics whose godly-agenda is to destroy the “great Satan” America and all the other transcontinental infidels. Moreover, he is aware that this enemy is irreconcilable and cannot be appeased by any change in the foreign policy of the USA that would apparently be favourable to this enemy. On the contrary, it would consider such a change as weakness on the part of the USA.

Such an enemy not only has to be defeated but also annihilated on the battlefield. This is the reason why President Trump has pointed his focus on his military personnel and placed generals James Mattis, John Kelly, and Herbert McMaster, as Secretary of Defence, Chief-of-Staff, and National Security Advisor, respectively. This will be a military and militant Administration, especially, as apparently anticipated by Trump, in light of the possibility that weapons of mass destruction or even nuclear ones could strike America. With the possibility of such an attack the president will have to declare a state of martial law, to defend America not only against an external enemy but also against an internal one, due to the large number of Muslims living in the country amongst whom there is a sizeable part of Islamist Jihadists who would be willing martyrs to the destruction of the United States. In such circumstances, ordinary laws will have to be suspended and replaced by an active military dictatorship, under the orders of the president, as only the latter will be effective in protecting the country from this deadly internal enemy.

Already a dress rehearsal of the new vital role that the military is going to play in this war against the Islamists or any other foe (as is shown by the threat of North Korea) is illustrated by President Trump’s speech on the war in Afghanistan a month ago. After mulling over on his initial stand to withdraw US military forces from Afghanistan he admitted, that he was finally persuaded by his military advisors to abandon this position and on the contrary to increase the US expeditionary force in its fight against the Taliban. And he made it clear, apparently again on the advice of his military councillors, that the pre-eminent role in this war would be played by military professionals.

In his speech, he sketched a radical transformation in the military strategy of the USA that no previous president dared to think, and least of all practice. He declared, that national building is over and there will be no micro-management of the war from Washington. The military will determine the strategy to win the war and conditions on the ground will determine US strategy, no arbitrary timetables made on the golf course of Washington a la Obama.

The Great Threat of North Korea

The nuclear-rattling of Kim Jong-un and his portentous tongue-in-cheek threats that he is making against the USA, are not going to be taken lightly by President Trump. If these threats are not to be consummated in the immediate future they will remain imminent for the near future. That is why the Trump Administration will not risk such a possible nuclear attack by North Korea and will have to resort to a massive overwhelming pre-emptive nuclear attack against the latter and totally destroy its capability to launch even one nuclear missile against the USA. It will be a pre-emptive strike that will end the war before it starts; unlike the Australian strategic analyst David Kilcullen, who is concerned about the great danger that it will be an exchange of nuclear missiles by the warring parties. US strategists will ensure, with algorithmic precision, that no such exchange will occur. And if it does, the missiles of North Korea will be destroyed in mid air.

In circumstances where a nation faces an existential threat, as America is, humane sentiments toward a deadly foe take a back seat. North Korea can avoid such an annihilating nuclear attack by the United States only if it completely dismantles all of its nuclear developmental facilities, under the meticulous observation of a United Nations agency that will make absolutely sure that these facilities are clearly destroyed, with no possibility of their clandestine restoration in the future. The question is whether this toddler leader of N. Korea will abandon playing with his nuclear toys and will abide with the demands of the United Nations to destroy them.

Another great concern of the Trump Administration is the flawed agreement that his predecessor Obama clinched with the Islamists of Iran, in order to prevent the latter from acquiring nuclear weapons. This agreement has so many holes through which the mullahs can wriggle through and ultimately produce a nuclear bomb. It is for this reason that President Trump wants to revise this agreement that will render the Americans with a rigorous surveillance by which they will make sure that the Iranians will be totally deprived of the capacity to secretly develop a nuclear bomb.

President Trump’s awareness and astuteness in discerning the above dangers that threaten the existence of Western Civilization perforce put his presidency at the Archimedean point that will move the world in a new direction. Under his strong leadership and administration he will confront and annihilate these satanic forces, whose goal is to destroy all infidels and their economic, political, scientific, and social achievements. President Trump, by strengthening the USA and forging a new international peaceful order will guarantee the economic prosperity of all nations and peoples, who steadfastly affirm the liberal tenets of the free market and who are engaged in creating the institutions and business enterprises that will fulfil this laudable goal.

I rest on my oars: Your turn now.

 

 

Reply to American To Miss Opportunity for Rapprochement with Iran Will Have Big Consequences

By Con George-Kotzabasis

It will have even bigger consequences if it succeeds by wishful thinking.  Rapprochement in itself is meaningless unless there is clear and unambiguous understanding and agreement between the parties about the conditions of such rapprochement. It would be a mistake to deduce from the rhetorically conciliatory statements of President Rouhani that Iran has abandoned its desire to acquire nuclear weapons. And to differentiate himself from the holocaustian statements of his predecessor, Ahmadinejad, is hardly an indication that the new regime is repudiating its clandestine goal to develop a nuclear weapon. Only if Rouhani allows open and rigorous inspections in all areas of Iran where Western intelligence cogently suspects the secret development of a nuclear weapon will the experts be convinced that Iran has changed tack in regard to its nuclear arsenal.

It is more probable, because Rouhani perceives a weak president in the United States, he will be exploiting that weakness to achieve Iran’s historic and Islamic aim to enter the nuclear club by persuading Obama about the peaceful purpose of Iran’s nuclear build-up. Rouhani is aware that Obama needs and desires a suspension of tensions so he will have the excuse to take all options off the table and thus as an incompetent and effete president tranquilize himself by false hopes. And Rouhani and his advisors know, that this détente can be achieved on promissory notes that will never be cashed. Thus by providing Obama the confidence that he can come to a reasonable agreement with Iran, Rouhani achieves two diplomatic goals. (1) He defers USA action from resolving speedily and decisively the issue of nuclear weapons by creating the euphoria that this matter can be resolved by prolonged negotiations, a dilatoriness that Obama is most happy to accept as he desires to push the hard options, if they are needed, in the future ahead with the hope that they will never be used, and which also suits Rouhani perfectly as it will give Iran more time to achieve its strategic goal to build the bomb. And (2) weakening Israel’s resolve to unilaterally attack Iran’s nuclear installations, if other Western states are found to be wanting in stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear armaments, by isolating Israel from its major ally, the USA, and from other Western nations, and thus making it more difficult for Israel to strike.

It is for this reason that Clemons should be more restrained in his optimism of the opportunity of reaching a rapprochement with Iran when a more sinister and malign opportunity could be hidden behind the apparently benign talk of Rouhani.

 

Obama The Jilted Bride

By Con George-Kotzabasis

Obama’s diplomatic engagement with Iran is a jilted bride. The groom in the form of President Ahmadinejad or the Taliban, and the recalcitrant fanatical Muslims in general, will never walk the aisle of diplomacy and Obama will be the jilted bride, who will keep inviolate his immaculate political virginity. It would be highly dangerous for America and the rest of the free civilized world to have such a politically naive and weak president for another four years in the White House.

Attack on Iran: Two Strategic Strikes one Waiting in the Wings

I’m republishing the following article, that was written on August 2008,  in view of the latest position of Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic Studies, whom, The Washington Post pundit, Charles Krauthammer, praises for giving “the sagest advice,” on Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. Cordesman instructs that the USA should “ostentatiously let Iran know about the range and power of our capacities how deep and extensive campaign we could conduct, extending beyond just nuclear facilities to military industrial targets, refineries, power grids and other concentrations of regime power,” in other words, the total annihilation of Iran’s theocratic leadership. This is exactly what my article suggested four years ago, as you will see.

By Con George-Kotzabasis reply to:

 The Lies Of Hiroshima Are The Lies Of Today

By John Pilger

On Line opinion, August 14, 2008

The historical fact is, which Pilger deliberately brushes over so he can make his intellectually disingenuous and moral argument, that the fear at the time was that the Germans might get the bomb first not that “Russia was our enemy,” quoting misleadingly General Groves, who was in charge of the Manhattan Project. Roosevelt had an amicable relationship with Stalin and believed their two countries after the war could reach a modus vivendi and indeed, cooperation. Moreover, the head of the Manhattan Project, Oppenheimer, and some of its other scientists, was a financial supporter, if not a clandestine member, like his brother, of the Communist Party of the USA, and hardly would have taken the directorship of the project if the bomb was to be used “to browbeat the Russians,” as Pilger claims.

The intelligent errors of the CIA and all of its European counterparts in their estimates that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, Pilger cleverly transforms them into lies, appealing to the conventional wisdom of the hoi polloi, so he can do his own disinformation in regards to Iran’s covert planning to acquire nuclear weapons, by dubbing it also as a lie, manufactured by the “discredited CIA-sponsored Iranian opposition, the MEK”, according to him, so he can give credibility to his own lies.

For what strategic reason would the US and its ally Israel attack Iran, whilst the former is involved at the moment in two long wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, other than the great threat that a nuclear Iran would pose to the region and to the strategic interests of the one and to the existence of the other? Whom the US would have “to browbeat” by letting loose from their silos their nuclear missiles against Iran, other than the latter?

In my opinion, if Iran is going to be attacked either by the US or Israel or both the strategic planning of the attack would be made up with two strikes. The first one would be to attack Iran with a devastating “rain” of conventional weapons that would target not only its nuclear plants but also its civilian, military, and religious leadership with the aim of decimating them. If however, its triangular leadership miraculously escapes its destruction and retaliates either against the naval and land forces of the US or Israel or any of the other Gulf States, then such retaliatory action by Iran would call a second strike executed either by Israel or the US with tactical nuclear weapons. And it’s in this dual strike, if it becomes evident to the Iranian leadership of American or Israeli determination and resolve to use their powerful armaments against Iran, that a real possibility exists of a palace revolt among its leadership that would oust the radicals and replace them with moderates who would be prone to accept the international community’s demand that Iran ceases the enrichment of uranium.

Over to you

Left is Wrong: Deterrence Will Not Work

By Con George-Kotzabasis April 3, 2012

A reply to: Right is Wrong: Deterrence Will Work by Fareed Zakaria

The Australian March 20, 2012

The American political commentator, Fareed Zakaria argues in the above titled article in The Australian that even if sanctions against Iran fail to prevent the latter from acquiring a nuclear arsenal, it can be deterred from using it by the preponderance of the U.S.A. in the firepower of its own nuclear weapons. Therefore, such a policy, according to Zakaria is better and safer than a policy of preventative military action with all the imponderable dangers that would stem from it. And he ridicules and is scornful of the conservative right, such as The Heritage Foundation and The American Enterprise Institute, for arguing of the ineffectiveness and futility of deterrence against the regime of the Mullahs, and, therefore, proposes a major military strike to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. In support of his policy of deterrence he quotes the conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, from an article the latter wrote in The New Republic in the eighties—while making fun of him since Krauthammer now is in favour of a military strike–that “deterrence, like old age, is intolerable until one considers the alternative.” Topping up his argument or should I rather say bottoming it down, Zakaria alleges that a strike against Iran would only delay its nuclear programme by only “a few years while driving up domestic support for the government in Tehran.” And he sedately poses the question that “if deterrence does not work then why are we not preparing preventative war against Russia which still has a fearsome arsenal of nuclear weapons?”

Zakaria completely disregards the fact that Russia today is not a deadly enemy of the West as it was in the past, unlike the Theocracy of Iran which clearly is. Further, as a serious commentator surprisingly he does not make a distinction between attacking a country that is fully armed with nuclear weapons that would open the doors of the MAD house to both combatants as such attack would lead to their Mutual Assured Destruction, and a country that lacks a nuclear stockpile as Iran at this stage is. It was precisely this mutual annihilation hovering like a Damocles Sword over the heads of the two rational superpowers that prevented them from attacking each other during the cold war. And the Cuban crisis was a limpid illustration of how both superpowers withdrew from the brink of this mutual destruction. But in the case of a nuclear armed Iran, one would have to be highly optimistic against the grim fact that the animus of a religious fanatic leadership, whose aim is to set up the new Caliphate of the twelfth imam Mahdi, would be supplanted by the dictates of reason and would desist, either directly or through its terrorist proxies, to launch a nuclear attack.

Moreover, Zakaria is oblivious of two substantial factors that make incomparable the situation existing during the cold war and the present situation of the hot war of multi-franchised ‘anarchic’ terror, in regards to deterrence. One of them is technological and the other is the strategically unidentifiable non-recognizable enemy until the moment he acts. Advanced technological knowhow is being easily accessed through the internet by the masses giving any individual with rudimentary knowledge the ability to construct lethal weapons, and, indeed, nuclear ones once their components are provided by rogue states, and has at the same time opened variable avenues to their portability to the countries against which they can be used. The second factor is the ample supply of Islamist mujahedin martyrs, in their ardent chase of the seventy-two virgins, camouflaged in civilian clothes, has also opened innumerable strategically invisible conduits for the delivery of these lethal weapons that can be used by any Islamist regime against the ‘Great Satan’, America, and its offspring in the West. Iran therefore can use stealthily these terrorists as ‘rocket launchers’ laden with nuclear weapons against any Western country it wishes to attack without identifying itself as the culprit that would immediately trigger a counterattack by the West. In such a situation therefore deterrence is totally a futile and ineffective strategy, and most dangerous to boot, in preventing an Islamist regime to launch a nuclear attack on America or on any other Western country. How can anyone deter fanatics from becoming nuclear weapon carriers in their pursuit of God-given paradisiac boudoirs? How can anyone deter the Islamist theocracy of Iran, with its virile libido dominandi to be the dominant power in the region and the paramount leader of Islam, from recruiting terrorists, with the cult of death as their banner, and ‘donning’ them with a panoply of nuclear weapons to be used against the infidels of the West? Or use them directly against Israel and thus fulfil its Godly agenda in annihilating the Jews? Zakaria by not seeing, and even not contemplating, this changed war milieu that exists presently in comparison to the cold war, makes his strategy of deterrence against Iran a folly of unprecedented magnitude in the annals of strategic thinking.

As to his comment, that a strike against Iran would only delay its nuclear programme while lending support to the Mullahcratic regime, he is blind to the great potential that such a surgical strike, whose target will not only be its nuclear facilities but also will have in its scope to effectively destroy the hated leadership of Tehran and the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, the Quds Force, contrary to his dire prediction, could bring on its heel a regime change by ushering the Opposition in power that would be friendly and amicable to the West and would accept and conform to the requests of the latter to stop all Iran’s activities toward developing nuclear weapons in the future. Another great danger, of which Zakaria appears to be unconcerned, is that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran would start a nuclear race by other nations in the region to acquire them too and hence would augment the probability of a nuclear war either by deliberation or by accident. No deterrence could nullify the calculus of probability based on increasing numbers. The acquisition of nuclear weapons by a greater number of nations would lead with mathematical precision to a first strike by a nuclear device. Zakaria’s proposal of deterrence as an effective strategic instrument against Iran is not worthy of consideration by serious policymakers.

I rest on my oars: your turn now…

 

Obama Diminished Trust of his Allies and Increased Confidence of his Enemies

By Con George-Kotzabasis

Barack Obama has been elected as president of the most powerful nation in the world that since the end of the Second World War has been the bulwark of freedom against its infernal enemies, i.e., the former Soviet Union and its allies. In the twentieth-first century Western civilization is threatened by a new implacable and irreconcilable enemy, fanatical Islam; and the USA is the only nation in the world that can defeat this foe. But president Obama has already failed both tests of “knowing thy enemy,” and as a sagacious strong respectful leader. He has weakened America both before the eyes of its friends and allies and, most dangerously, its enemies.

The nations of Eastern Europe are rapidly losing their trust toward the US that the latter will protect and defend their interests and security, since Obama’s withdrawal of the missile defence shield from Poland and Czechoslovakia and his concessions to the Russians. And the enemies of America, such as Iran and its multiple terrorist proxies are heartened and have increased their confidence that in Obama they have before them a giant eunuch who is incapable and unwilling to use force, even as a last resort, against them. Since Obama has replaced America’s superpower ‘Jupiterian’ bolt diplomacy with olive branches toward them.

The “dangerous scenarios,” of which you are concerned with, are already in their incubatory stage: a nuclear armed Iran that would start a proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region with all the great dangers that would issue from such proliferation, especially in a region that is replete with the votaries of fanatical Islam. Thus to your question what kind of advice one would give to Obama in such an impending crisis, it would be the most heavily ‘armed advice’ that would fall on his shoulders. But Obama has neither the spine nor the balls to carry such heavy advice on his morally rickety frame, and least of all bring it to fruition as a last resort. Thus any strong advice given to a congenitally weak president would be a barren exercise.

Obama Fails the Test of Strength

I’m republishing the following article which was written in late 2008.

Will the American electorate be susceptible to the false idealistic promptings of a confused weak leader?

 A reply by Con George-Kotzabasis to a Bush contrarian

Only the poverty of thought can make a statement such as the “poor republicans…through no fault of their own.” There is no virtue to be found in human beings not making mistakes. No one is infallible, especially in the multi-variable dimensions of war. The virtue lies in swiftly correcting these mistakes. And this is exactly what Bush did when he adopted and implemented the Surge turning a losing war into a potentially victorious one. This was the “major” and crucial policy that “was successfully implemented and carried out” with all the potential geopolitical developments that could flow into the region with the establishment of democracy in Iraq, and hence justifying fully the Bush Doctrine of democratizing the Middle East as a preventive cure for terrorism.

The liberal intelligentsia with their tongue stuck in the bitterness of being totally wrong with their gloomy prognostications about the outcome of the war, cannot and will not concede this ‘reversal of fortune’ for the Bush administration. But history, which has no taste either of bitterness or sweetness, will give the final verdict on Bush. And dare I say it will be a favourable one.

What Obama proposes to do is to deprive America of this tremendous strategic victory over the extremists of Islam by his pledge to pull out US forces from Iraq before the conditions for such a withdrawal are strategically ripe.

If you were an editor even in the most provincial newspaper and spelled out the obvious as news, you would not have held your position as editor for very long. Bigotry, irrational religious beliefs, and ignorance—like poverty—up to the present inflict even the best and most affluent societies. If educated prosperous America has this bane in its midst you can imagine other less educated and prosperous countries in what state they are in this area. To say however, that either McCain or Palin would select to govern for the irrational beliefs and ignorance of such minorities, is to show that one is completely politically naive and no one can take such person seriously.

And do you really believe that Obama has his “feet on the ground,” when he says that once America starts implementing its own values it will turn the present hate of the world for America into love, into a global loving circle of holding hands, including perhaps the fanatical jihadists?

Always bear in mind the great adage of Friedrich Nietzsche that the character of a person is revealed in critical circumstances, followed by my minuscule one that in hard times only the hard men/women prevail. Obama lacks the strength of character to lead a great nation in these most dangerous times. In the vocation of Statecraft according to his populist policies and faith in changing America he remains an infant and is the ultimate ‘mummy’s boy’. As the worst mummy’s boy is the one who had no mother. (His mother abandoned him when he was an infant to be brought up by his grandparents.) That is why he chose Biden for his vice president instead of the most savvy politically Hillary Clinton, because his wife Michelle didn’t want the latter. It’s Michelle that wears the pants, and if he wins, which I doubt, it will be the first ‘matriarchic’ presidency of the United States.

Your opinion

Carrots ‘Debased Currency’ in Diplomacy with Iran

Reply to: Remembering Our Goals In Iran

By Andrew Lebovich The Washington Note May 25, 2010

By Con George-Kotzabasis

One can trace a masochistic pleasure in Andrew Lebovich. He often has a craving to replace facts with fictional occurrences to his detriment, like in this case “…breakthroughs with hostile countries often occur not as a result of threats or harsh measures alone…” Present then a factual example where this has occurred, as Nadine asks.

Professor Kupchan’s proposal is a ludicrous absurdity. In this moonshine diplomacy with Iran he will be asking the latter to replace its libido dominandi to be the major power of the region and of the Muslim world with carrots, i.e., of “curbing the drug trade …which flows into Iran” and with  a “new security architecture in the Persian Gulf.” Is it conceivable to him that while Iran is risking even the great possibility of being bombed either by Israel or the U.S. in its determined pursuit to acquire nuclear weapons under whose carapace will render it supremacy in the region, it will negate this strategic goal by accepting Kupchan’s carrots?

Senator Schumer’s Correctness in Criticizing Obama’s Doltish and Inconsistent Diplomacy

By Con George-Kotzabasis

Would Edward Luce and Daniel Dombey, and by implication Clemons, expect Robert Gibbs to say that Barack Obama agrees “with what Senator Schumer said? It is astonishing to see Clemons diverting the issue of the total freeze of settlements, which Schumer correctly criticized as a grave error on the part of Obama contra Israel, to what Schumer’s stand was to Jesse Helms and to John Bolton “few years ago.”   

Clemons is entitled to his opinions but he is not entitled to his facts. The facts are that the foolish imposition of the total freeze of settlements on the Netanyahu government by the Obama administration’s lack of foresight that it would be politically unrealizable for Israel and that it would evolve and become for the Palestinians, as it did, a rigid condition for their participation with any talks with Israel, was the major factor that derailed Obama’s engine of diplomacy from its track that would bring the two belligerents to the negotiating table. It was precisely this quintessentially wrong and injudicious policy of Obama that Senator Schumer rightly criticized as being the reason of the administration’s abysmal failure in the Middle East. Another fact is that Obama’s diplomacy is inconsistent, rewarding his enemies and penalizing his friends. While he claims that his diplomacy is indiscriminate and is based on soft and smart power coming on doves’ feet and extends his hand in a velvet glove to the enemies of America, he carries a bludgeon in his hand in his relations with his strongest and most loyal ally, in this case Israel.

Throughout history there has never been a case when a nation engaged in war with implacable enemies would chastise and alienate its most steadfast and reliable ally for the purpose to placate its enemies. Obama will go down in history as the only leader who not only doltishly and doggedly opened the door of diplomacy to an enemy such as Iran which has been training in its own country members of the Taliban and supplying them with weapons–as well as its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah–to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan, but who was also willing to sacrifice the vital interests of his most staunch ally against Islamist terror, Israel, on the altar of this spineless, strategically unprincipled, and totally fallible diplomacy.

The above emitted the two following responses:

Posted by Dan Kervick, Apr 27 2010, 6:54AMLink

Kotzabasis, WigWag seemed to be wondering a few days ago why those posts in which you make a serious, debatable point are ignored. But can there be any doubt why people habitually turn you off, when so many of your posts consist in cowardly, third-person personal characterizations of other contributors, lamely shouted out to no one in particular?

 

Posted by WigWag, Apr 27 2010, 9:45AM – Link

Actually why the interesting point Kotz made is never debated is rather plain. His point was an astute one, but as I am sure Kotz would be the first to admit, it was hardly an original one. Kotz was making precisely the same point Schumer was; that by offering to conduct their negotiations for them, the Obama Administration provides an incentive for the Palestinians not to negotiate at all. Kotz, Schumer and many other sage observers have also made the point that by making demands on Israel that Obama knew, or should have known, that it wouldn’t comply with, it was Obama himself who was making his stated goal of getting negotiations started much more difficult.

Steve Clemons in his diatribe against Schumer never responded to this point and Dan Kervick hasn’t either. Neither has any other serious commentator as far as I can tell.

It seems to me that the lack of response to the Schumer/Kotz allegation is evidence of the fact that the point is irrefutable.

If it’s not, someone should give it a try.

Iranian Upheaval Turns American Progressive into a Counterrevolutionary

By Con George-Kotzabasis

Voila, we have a liberal atheist leftist educated American, in the person of Dan Kervick, who ostensibly supports Ahmadinejad and hopes that the obscurantist regime of the mullahs will “work out the right combination of concessions and firmness (killing its protesting young people in their struggle for freedom), reform and continuity to keep the lid” on the young educated masses, whom Kervick inferentially and derisively calls the “Persian pot,” who are presently engaged in a deadly “bouleversement” against the theocracy, all in the name of the ‘fearful’ unknowns revolutions generate. In this assessment of his he reveals his inner deep conservatism and vulgar cynicism of human nature that the latter’s actions would not lead to a better situation for mankind in the future but only to a worst one. Since he clearly infers from his post that the present evil that is embodied in the theocracy, i.e., killing its own people and boding a second holocaust for Jews, could only be replaced by a greater evil by this revolt of the young aspiring educated classes of Iran for freedom.

One can see Kervick, this comical liberal political ‘pantaloonist’, peregrinating in his colourful patched pantaloon on the internet with the slogan “down with all revolutions.”