Politicians Are Often Their Own Worst Enemies

Politicians Are Often Their Own Worst Enemies ———————

A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                Will the current flap over Hillary Rodham Clinton’s use of a private email account to communicate official  business, much of it certainly containing sensitive information, while serving as Secretary of State derail her chances to become the nation’s first female president? Are you kidding? The Clintons have survived bigger flaps. In fact, they are experts at surviving scandals and mini-scandals. Survival skills are in their genes.

But the GOP can derail its own chances of capturing the presidency in 2016 without any help at all from the Democrats if they continue their self-defeating, suicidal behavior even before the campaign for the nomination  begins in earnest, during which, they will probably savage each other again as they did in 2012. The latest demonstration of this behavior is the letter signed by 47 Republican senators, addressed to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran, warning that the next president could undo any agreement made by this president without the advice and consent of the Senate. That’s probably a moot point though, because at this rate the next president will likely be another Democrat.

The proposed agreement with Iran regarding its nuclear program may be a bad deal for the United States and its allies, but the letter was also a bad idea, instigated by a freshman senator who apparently isn’t ready for prime time. It may also have violated the Logan Act which dates back to 1799 and forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign powers having a dispute with the U.S. That is exclusively the responsibility of the chief of state. Imagine a committee of 100, who can’t agree on much of anything, negotiating agreements with other countries. Moreover, the letter accomplishes no good purpose whatsoever and could undercut the credibility of future presidents of either party. It is also an affront to the other nations that are joined with us in these negotiations. If the negotiations fail, everyone can now blame the Republicans who, they will claim, poisoned the negotiations.

Actually, the Obama Administration can take some of the blame itself for exacerbating the ongoing rift between the Democratic White House and the Republican-controlled Legislative Branch by attempting to rule by fiat, substituting executive actions for legislation and bypassing Congress whenever it decides that Congress is standing in its way. But that doesn’t justify the letter.

Space constraints preclude a detailed account of the various Clinton scandals and mini-scandals but a brief summary would include Bill’s assorted sexual adventures while serving in public office and his difficulty in telling the truth about them, especially the affair with a young White House intern (“I did not have sex with that woman.”). And then there was the Paula Jones lawsuit , the subsequent impeachment proceedings, the Lincoln bedroom scandal while Hillary was First Lady, the Whitewater land deal, Hillary’s remarkable success as a first-time commodities investor, the donations to the Clinton Foundation by Arab governments and other foreigners while she served as our top diplomat, the Benghazi disaster and the death of an American ambassador and now the commingling of official and personal emails with little apparent regard for security and her insistence on keeping private those that she alone decides should not be made public.

There’s more, but I’m running out of space and, as Hillary once famously said, “What difference does it make?” The public still loves them, warts and all, those feisty Clintons, Bill and Hill. And besides, who else would the democrats run, Joe Biden? Please! Elizabeth Warren? The GOP should be so lucky.

Hillary would probably still get the majority of the female vote if she came out against abortion and birth control. The black vote, as usual, is a given. And probably the only way that Hillary or any Democrat, for that matter, could manage to not win a majority of the Hispanic vote would be for the Republicans to nominate a Hispanic candidate who supports a path to citizenship for illegals. The truth is the demographics are increasingly stacked against most likely Republican presidential candidate.

So the GOP presidential prospects are tough enough, in spite of the Clinton baggage and dissatisfaction with Obama, without the party shooting itself in the foot by dumb actions like the letter to the ayatollahs and by continuing to demonstrate that they are really two factions within a single party, each struggling for control of it. Their prospects will likely be made worse by another bare knuckle battle for the nomination during which the candidates will say things about one another that they will later regret, which will damage each candidate and provide ammunition to the Democrats during the election campaign.

March 16, 2015

Iran Cannot be Trusted

Iran Cannot be Trusted————————————

                A commentary

                By J.F. Kelly, Jr.

Supporters of President Barack Obama’s increasingly desperate negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program now respond to critics that there are no other good options. But there are. Things are in a deplorable state indeed when the leader of the western world feels that he has no other options in dealing with a tyrannical theocratic Islamic regime than an agreement that concedes much of what he previously said was non-negotiable. The economic sanctions on Iran, coupled with plunging oil prices, have taken a heavy toll on the Iranian economy and the general wellbeing of the Iranian people, raising internal discontent. They should be significantly increased for starters.

The Obama Administration, however, insists that the sanctions are not working and increasing them would only harden opposition among Tehran’s hard liners who oppose any negotiations with the Great Satan. Perhaps I’m missing something but it’s hard to imagine how that opposition could be any more hardened than it already is.

There are additional options beyond sanctions, of course, but the administration no longer mentions them. They include the use of military force to strike many of Iran’s strategic sites which would slow and perhaps even discourage further progress toward acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. But it’s become clear that this administration would never have the stomach for such an escalation even if Iran were on the brink of achieving that objective. In other words, Mr. Obama and his mentors have apparently accepted the inevitability of Iran becoming a member of the nuclear club, something they had previously declared was unacceptable.

This is a capitulation by a superpower of epic proportions and one which will likely ignite a nuclear arms race by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE and perhaps others. North Korea and Pakistan will gladly provide them and the Arabs certainly have the money to buy them. As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned the American people in his speech to Congress, the proposed agreement is a very bad deal for all players involved except Iran. It does not address Iran’s robust intercontinental missile development program, the sole purpose of which is to deliver warheads on overseas targets. It legitimizes Iran’s path to acquire nukes, and as Mr. Netanyahu said, not only provides that path but paves it as well.

Mr. Obama has stated repeatedly that we do not negotiate with terrorists and yet he is doing just that. Tehran is a terrorist regime, acknowledged as being the world’s leading supporter of state-sponsored terrorism, which we are presumably at war with. Iran supports the terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah, both dedicated to the destruction of Israel, opposed to all things Western, and whose members celebrated 9/11. Iranian weapons killed more Americans and coalition forces in Iraq than those of any other source.

Iran is a theocratic Islamic regime that despises American culture and Western values. Its supporters and even its officials routinely chant “Death to Americans”. They torture and execute, deprive women and members of other religions of basic rights and persecute homosexuals. They have provided aid and support to the Assad regime in Syria and their agents have plotted assassinations and bombings throughout the world including here in the United States. They have lied repeatedly to UN inspectors and have denied access to sites of interest to them.

Given its record of deceit, sponsorship of terrorism, hatred of Americans, Jews and other Westerners and threats to annihilate Israel, how can we possibly trust them to abide by any agreement, even one that concedes as much to them as this one does? Tyrannical regimes routinely break treaties and agreements when they perceive it in their interest to do so. Will we ever learn this or will we continue to naively believe that they are motivated by the same high ethical standards that we are?

Mr. Obama says that any agreement is better than none. Not so. We simply cannot allow this hateful, anti-American, anti-Israeli, theocratic regime to acquire nuclear weapons ever, period. Stopping them five years ago would have been far easier than stopping them now, but stop them we must before it’s too late.

March 11, 2015

Administration’s Lack of Credibility Puts Us at Risk

Administration’s Lack of Credibility Puts Us at Risk—————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                Of the many words that have been written and spoken regarding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, the strangest by far were attributed to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Mrs. Pelosi was reported as saying that she was “near tears throughout the Prime Minister’s speech” because it was “an insult to the intelligence of the United States” She was, moreover, “saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran.”

Well, golly! I was saddened, too, not by any perceived condescension on the part of Mr. Netanyahu toward our country but rather by the action of fifty or so Democratic legislators in boycotting an important speech by the very knowledgeable head of state of one of our most important and most at-risk allies who may know more about the risks than our intelligence wizards do. And speaking of insults, I feel that our chief of state and commander-in-chief of the armed forces wins the prize for his petulant reaction to the speech and not even bothering to listen or grant an audience to Mr. Netanyahu.

By his juvenile reaction over House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to Mr. Netanyahu to address Congress without first consulting his majesty, he elevated the speech to one of worldwide prominence and impact. Nearly everyone, therefore, made it a point to listen or at least read it except, apparently, our president, that is, if you can take him at his word which few do anymore.

And therein lies much of a growing problem for this administration, its allies and for us as well. The president is no longer taken at his word. There have been too many broken promises, too many toothless ultimatums, too many meaningless resolutions, too many deadlines that come and go and too many lines in the sand that are crossed with impunity.

A superpower relies on the credibility of its leader and its willingness to back up its warnings and ultimatums. A potential adversary must believe that the ultimatums are real, that lines in the sand cannot be crossed without real consequences and that deadlines will not just be waypoints for starting over again with a new round of negotiations.

They know that they can never defeat the superpower in an all-out confrontation or match its power. But if they doubt the superpower leader’s resolve to use force if negotiations fail, they will be tempted to call his bluff. Iran’s mullahs are clearly calling Mr. Obama’s bluff. They know by now that the Obama Administration will go to any length to avoid war which they have reason to suspect is off the table in terms of presidential options.  The administration and its supporters have said negotiations are always better than war and any agreement, even a temporary one which gives the adversary what he wants in the end, is better than no agreement. These are the sentiments that have preceded some of the world’s most destructive wars, holocausts and the downfall of some of the world’s former great powers.

This administration’s foreign policy has been a disaster. It consists mainly of a continuous, six-year process of negotiation, speeches, platitudes and diplomacy leading mostly to broken promises, rejection and dead ends. Instead of speaking softly and carrying a big stick, it speaks softly except for hollow warnings and carries no stick at all, lest it frighten people or harden their hearts. It frequently warns that it reserves the right to all options and that the use of force is never off the table but most adversaries now doubt this. They expect that no matter how serious and imminent the threat, this administration would rule out the use of force and opt for further negotiations.

This administration, through fecklessness and appeasement, has lost credibility. Our allies and adversaries see it and it puts us and our allies at grave risk. That’s why Israel’s chief of state, who’s country’s very existence is at risk of Iranian nuclear weapons, felt he had to accept Speaker Boehner’s invitation to address the American people’s representatives in Congress directly since the Executive Branch won’t face up to the threat with anything but more words and concessions.

March 8, 2015