Garrett Taken to the Woodshed by Obama

Fox News’ White House Correspondent Major Garrett should not only get “credit” for the way he challenged Obama; he should receive some sort of Courage in Journalism award for belling the cat.

Garrett’s full question (mind you, his full question) was this:

“As you well know, there are four Americans in Iran, three held on trumped up charges, and according to your administration, one whereabouts unknown. Can you tell the country, sir, why you are content with all the fanfare around this deal to leave the conscience of this nation, the strength of this nation, unaccounted for in relation to these four Americans? And last week, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said under no circumstances should there be any relief for Iran in terms of ballistic missiles or conventional weapons. It is perceived that that was a last-minute capitulation in these negotiations. Many in the Pentagon feel you have left the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff hung out to dry. Would you comment?”

Obama certainly couldn’t respond to Garrett’s question by quoting the standard American foreign policy line, “The United States doesn’t negotiate with terrorists,” because in closing the deal with Iran, that’s precisely what he’s done.

Instead, he scolded Garrett the way he would admonish a student journalist:

“I gotta give you credit, Major, for how you craft those questions. The notion that I’m ‘content’ as I ‘celebrate’ with American citizens languishing in Iranian jails? Major, that’s nonsense and you should know better.”

Garrett never used the word “celebrate.”

“Nobody’s content,” Obama continued. “Our diplomats and our teams are working diligently to try to get them out. Now, if the question is why we did not tie the negotiations to their release, think about the logic that that creates: suddenly Iran realizes, ‘You know what? Maybe we can get additional concessions out of the Americans by holding these individuals.” Makes it much more difficult for us to walk away if Iran somehow thinks that a nuclear deal is dependent in some fashion on the nuclear deal [sic]. And, by the way, if we had walked away from the nuclear deal, we’d still be pushing them just as hard to get these folks out. That’s why those issues are not connected.”

Far from speaking rashly or “unartfully”, judging by Obama’s mistake in the second-to-last paragraph of the above-statement, Garrett had rattled Obama’s cage.

If Iran thought that holding these Americans hostage, it would be more difficult for the American negotiators to walk away from the table? By this statement, he basically admitted that the Iranians are terrorists who think nothing of holding people hostage.

Why, then, consent to their regaining ground on their nuclear development? It certainly wasn’t to free our American hostages. According to Obama’s past “crafted” statements, America doesn’t have the right to tell another nation that it can’t defend itself. That would make us an “evil” Superpower, the Policeman of the World.

What an insult to all those Americans who died overseas protecting our allies in other countries from the encroachment of tyranny, communism, and fascism. Isolationism was the fashion between World Wars I and II. Americans, sickened by the grisly aspects of modern warfare, didn’t want their sons to die yet again on foreign soil. Had Europe not inflicted onerous reparations upon Germany for the First World War (America was not a signatory to the Versailles Treaty; the U.S. Senate rejected it), helping to plunge Germany into an economic depression (aggravated by Germany’s secret military build-up) and if Great Britain had paid attention to Winston Churchill’s admonitions, there would not have been a World War II.

We’re being positioned for failure socially, economically, educationally, and militarily. Obama has been playing his part during his two terms as office, but the ripping of the fabric of American society can be traced all the way back to the late 19th Century. With the achievement of this treaty with Iran, he has moved, with deliberate errancy, the final piece in this game of nuclear chess, allowing Iran to checkmate us. His strategy has brilliantly placed us in jeopardy.

What will happen next depends greatly on who is elected our next president. Hillary Clinton has sabotaged her own campaign; it’s hard to imagine anyone but addle-headed women voting for her. The Democrat Party has yet to put forward any other viable candidate for whom the much-vaunted Independents. Bernie Sanders? Seriously?

The most likely Democrat candidate is the hero of the Iranian “negotiations” – John Kerry. Slick in his expensive suits, he now has a foreign policy “victory” to flaunt, in addition to his “service” in Vietnam and his subsequent protestation of that very same war.

War with Iran will break out no matter whom America votes into the White House. Iran is hoping for a first-strike from Israel, to give them the excuse to launch an allegedly “justified” battle with nukes. Another scenario shows the Israelis “allowing” a missile to get through their Iron Dome, taking out the Muslim Temple in Jerusalem.

Such a strike would unite the Middle Eastern nations, if there any nations left who are not already under the auspices of ISIS. They’ve claimed a much wider territory than we care to admit. Turkey may not like their Persian neighbor; Turkey sees itself as the seat of the caliphate. But Iran isn’t looking to be the capital of Islam; they’re looking to bring about the return of its ruler. Unite the Middle East first; worry about color the Mahdi’s palace curtains should be later.

If Iran doesn’t intend for the seat of the caliphate to lie within its own territory, neither does it envision the capital being in Turkey. Their goal is al Quds – Jerusalem to the apostates and infidels. Destroy the golden dome that Osama Bin Laden’s father built and there will be revenge.

For America to be struck, we must have a president willing to stand up for its ideals and challenge Iran, with nuclear weapons if need be. This president must be an ally of the supposed Middle Eastern allies (Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Jordan; Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, and Lebanon, in case anyone didn’t notice, are already lost). Saudi Arabia is an ally of this group, not necessarily of America. Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Mohammed. No one can seriously think that their alliance with Israel will last once Iran is dispatched. Morocco, sitting on the Western rim of the “Caliphate” will easily capitulate to the victor.

That leaves Jordan, the only truly Westernized Middle Eastern nation (with a bitter population who are agitating for the overthrow of their westernized king).

Of the long, long list of Republican candidates, how many of them would truly be willing to risk war with Iran? Bush, Mr. Moderate himself? Noooo. Rand Paul, an anti-military guy? Hardly. Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Marco Rubio are great to middling Conservatives, but they’re mainly concerned with domestic policies, as well they should be. We are also on the verge of economic collapse, thanks to our trillions in debt. If our doom must come, the nuclear option would probably be more merciful than an economic collapse that would leave thousands homeless and starving.

The others? I have to Google to even see who is in the middle of the pack, which doesn’t bode well for their candidacies, if they so insufficient in name recognition. Skip Andrews? Michael Bickelmeyer (love the fact that he wants to go after drug traffickers). Kerry Bowers? Dale Christensen? Brooks Cullision? John Dummett, Jr.? Mark Everson? Jack Fellure (a candidate who proposes reinstating Prohibition)? Jim Hayden? Chris Hill? Michael Kinlaw? Dennis Michael Lynch? K. Ross Newland? Michael Petyo? Brian Russell? Jefferson Sherman? Shawna Sterling? Carly Fiorina? Insiders have heard of her, but not average Americans.

Some of the candidates have interesting platforms. But no one’s ever heard of them. They have the right to run, of course, and more power to them. The likelihood of them winning is problematic, however.

A few other names on the list have recognition, if not electability: Dr. Ben Carson. Everyone loves him. But closer examination of his platform shows less Conservatism and more Moderation than we thought. Rick Santorum. I would have gladly voted for him the last time if he hadn’t bowed out. What has changed since the last time he ran? Ditto, Mike Huckabee.

George Pataki, the former governor of New York? He’s past his due-date and his platform on social issues is strictly Liberal (that’s how he won in a Blue state, just like N.J.’s Gov. Christie). Gov. of Ohio, John Kasich. There’s a guy with a strong chance, although he didn’t reject Obamacare strongly enough. Ohio is a crucial electoral state and when the GOP has stopped kidding itself about Jeb Bush’s real chances of winning, they may just consider Kasich. We could do worse.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. Very popular among Conservatives, especially for a minority candidate.

So who have we got, realistically, on the short list? Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Bobby Jindal. And Chris Christie. Yes, Christie. The George Washington Bridge scandal notwithstanding – he’s been exonerated in three investigations and Conservatives and commuters in the state living west of Paterson can tell you the whole thing is a tempest in a Progressive teapot. The dainty citizens of Fort Lee, with their one-way streets and high-rise towers sitting within earshot of Manhattan, got what they deserved – he does, in fact, stand a better chance than pundits might think.

This is not an endorsement; simply a forecast. Cruz is my favorite candidate, with Walker in a virtual tie in the Belle Poll. Rubio has a good identity in Conservative minds as a Latino than Cruz, having been born to Cuban parents. He’s unambiguously Conservative, therefore the GOP will never nominate him. He’s great, but Cruz has even better credentials: his father was a former political prisoner of Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista and is regarded as the most prominent member of the intellectual spine of the Tea Party movement. The staunchly conservative Latino is also frequently spoken of as one of the most brilliant members of the current Congress. But, like Rubio, the Republican Party, despite his Latino heritage, will never nominate him.

That leaves Scott Walker, John Kasich, and Bobby Jindal. All great candidates. Isn’t wonderful to have such a solidly Conservative field for a change? Kasich’s name is well-known, and as noted before, is the governor of a key electoral state. Scott Walker has made himself a terrific name, but not much is known about his foreign policy platform. His victories have been domestic. Can he withstand the foreign policy debate challenge from a Candidate Clinton or (more likely) a candidate Kerry? Rubio’s one weakness is that he places himself, in terms of foreign policy between “Rand Paul’s isolationism and John McCain’s active interventionism”.

John McCain, an active interventionist – meaning, “I’d institute a policy that I call ‘rogue state rollback,’” McCain said. “I would arm, train, equip both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically- elected governments”?

McCain was in favor of deposing Saddam Hussein. However, despite his seemingly hawkish positions, he advocated the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Lebanon in 1982 (prior to the attack on the Marine barracks), Somalia in 1993, and Haiti in 1994. He was one of only 27 Republicans to vote against President Reagan’s decision to put peacekeeping troops into Lebanon, saying in a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives that: “It is said we are there to aid the government. I ask, ‘What government?’” The absence of a democratic government was precisely why we were there in Lebanon – and Somalia, Haiti, and Iraq – to restore one or at least create democracies where they hadn’t existed, much good it did those countries or the world.

So where does Rubio stand, exactly, in relation to McCain’s “active interventionism”?

The fact that all these candidates identify “Conservative” is exactly why, other than Kasich they probably won’t make it past the Republican Convention in Cleveland. There’s a clue as to who the GOP may have in mind.   They’re holding the convention in Ohio.

Still, it’s Donald Trump, of all people, who’s the front-running candidate. The low-information voters (who don’t realize he’s Pro-Abortion, Pro-Amnesty, and Pro-Oprah – well, we really don’t care about that last thing) have latched onto him, in light of Obama’s overwhelming treachery. Of course they’re going to cheer him. No one else has spoken up for America the way he has, in spite of his previous record.

Will Trump win? No. But he’s going to get amazing Nielsen’s.

So now, when we sift further, we find Cruz, Kasich, and the seemingly lagging Christie. What could doom Cruz and Kasich? Their Conservatism, of course. Cruz will fall off, although Kasich will hang in there thanks to his Ohio advantage. Now the fight is down to Kasich versus Christie for the GOP nomination.

The New Jersey electoral vote is inconsequential. The GOP wrote us off long ago as a Lost Cause, a permanently Blue state that’s getting Bluer all the time as Conservatives flee for the greener pastures of North Carolina (as long as they are bilingual in Spanish).

But wait – Christie is a Red governor who won in a Blue state. He’s an excellent uncompromising compromiser. He has no qualms about telling anyone who tries to usurp his agenda to sit down and shut up. As for foreign policy, he’s a personal friend of the popular King of Jordan. The Press will do its best to negate him. It’s hard to argue with someone who has such a royal ally in the midst of the teeming Middle East.

With all due respect to the King of Jordan, it will prove to be a mistake. Military action is, indeed, called for. I support a strong military and strong military action. We should do everything we can to support Israel’s right to exist. However, Iran isn’t just fighting for territory; it wants to fight the Battle of Armageddon and conquer Israel; we should (or I should say, should have) deny it any and every opportunity to do so.

Unfortunately, Obama has just handed the Iranians the keys to the nuclear silo. Diplomacy has not only failed; it was never attempted in the first place. We may have little choice now but to resort to military action.

In the words of Robert Mitchum’s character in The Longest Day: “God help us now!”

Advertisements
Published in: on July 16, 2015 at 5:21 pm  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://belleofliberty.wordpress.com/2015/07/16/garrett-taken-to-the-woodshed-by-obama/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: