Time to Draw "Red Line" in Iran to Avoid a More Horrible War?

Gadaffi of Libya, no friend, had to go; he was threatening to kill his own people. Assad of Syria, no friend, kills in excess 30,000 of this own people; he gets to stay. Mubarak of Egypt, a friend, had to go; he was an undemocratic dictator.

The nicest thing anybody can say about the Obama/Clinton Mideast policy is that it is utterly incoherent. Consider the administration's drawing of "red lines."

The president has drawn a red line in reference to Syria's chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. Crossing that line will result in "enormous consequences" for Syria. But what about Iran?

On Aug. 21, President Obama said, "That's an issue that doesn't not just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling in the hand of the wrong people. We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a 'red line' for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemicals moving around or being utilized. ... We have put together a range of contingency plans. We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the area that that's a red line for us. And that there would be enormous consequences if we starts seeing movement on the chemical weapons or the use of chemical weapons."

At the same time, the president cannot bring himself to draw a red line in reference to Iran's efforts to build a nuclear weapon of mass destruction. Compare the red line language, and the "enormous consequences" language concerning Syria with what the president has said about Iran and nuclear weapons.

"(The Iranian government) ... props up a dictator in Damascus, and supports terrorist groups abroad. ... it has failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate that its nuclear program is peaceful, and to meet its obligations to the United Nations.

"Let me be clear: America wants to resolve this issue through diplomacy, and we believe that there is still time ... But that time is not unlimited. We respect the right of nations to access peaceful nuclear power, but one of the purposes of the United Nations is to see that we harness that power for peace. Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained. It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty. That is why a coalition of countries is holding the Iranian government accountable. And that is why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

It is sound policy for the U.S. to "do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." But it draws no red line short of Iran actually acquiring a nuclear bomb. Just how far will Iran be permitted to go before the "U.S. visits "enormous consequence?"

Do we know? Does Israel know? Does the world know? Do the Iranians know?
Why not draw the red line at a point where if we must strike Iran they will not have the bomb to retaliate?
The latest round of anti-American riot, should make it patently clear that the Mideast is a tender box. Islamist fanatics are coming to power throughout the region.

But what may not be clear is that today's Middle Eastern countries have weapons with more fire power than France, Britain or America had at the time they entered WWII. Already Syria and Iran have biological and chemical WMDs. Israel has the bomb. All have powerful jet fighters. We are on the verge of a Middle East war that could dwarf WWII.

Iran has threatened to eliminate Israel repeatedly. Syria, with its chemical and biological weapons, sits unstably across the the border from Israel.
Iran has supplied Hezbollah and Hamas with rockets to fire into Israel from Lebanon. Egypt is now in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. Libya is in chaos. Iraq is heading there. So is it hard to understand why Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has drawn his own red line?

In the 1930s, France was the strongest military power in Europe. Germany was disarmed. Treaties favored France. There were many places where France could have drawn the red line before Hitler's Germany could become al threat to France. When Hitler breached the Versailles Treaty and reinstituted conscription, France could have crushed the tiny German "army" and shipped Herr Hitler to Devil's Island at relatively no cost. When Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland, France could have smashed the then insignificant German "army," and hung Hitler.

Then, too, France could have mobilized with England and Russia to prevent Hitler from dismembering Czechoslovakia. Instead, she vacillated, allowed Germany to rearm and crush France in six weeks.

The president was right to warn the world that "a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained." He was right when he said, "It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy."

And he's right when he says, "It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty." But he is wrong to allow Iran to refuse nuclear inspections without suffering "enormous consequences." While we vacillate, Iran may secretly finish its bomb, and then it may be too late to avoid a much more horrible war.

Posted Online: :   Oct. 25, 2012, 3:19 pm  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

The President Must Be More Than a “Stump Speaker”

    This is the season for “stump speeches.”

    The term “Stump speech” refers to the often raucous speech delivered by a politician

running for office. The term came into usage in the 19th century, when such speeches were

often made by the candidates as he on a stood tree stumps to allow himself to be seen and

heard, in an era before the voice could be amplified electronically. 



    The Historians, Morison and Commanger, in The Growth of the American
Republic, v. 1,  wrote of President Lincoln’s successor, President Andrew  Johnson, as follows:

    “In the 1866 campaigning Republicans brandished reports of such atrocities

    to warn that the South was robbing  [the people of the North] of their hard-

    won victory at war. ... Johnson [advocating Lincoln’s policy of tolerant

    Reconstruction] warned of the consequences of the Republican policy [of

    “Radical Reconstruction’]; “Southerners, he said, ‘cannot be treated as

    subjugated people or vassal colonies, without  a germ of hatred being introduced,

    which will some day or other though the time may be distant, develop into

    mischief of the most serious character.’ ”


    Morison and Commanger then wrote something that has stuck with me since

the day I read it at Notre Dame.

    “Johnson proved to be an inept campaigner. He seemed incapable of

    advocating a policy of tolerance in a tolerant manner, and his ... stumping

    tour of the Middle West, became in many an exercise in vituperation.

    “I would ask you ,” the President shouted on 3 September 1866 in

    Cleveland, “Why not hang Thad Stevens and Wendell Phillips?” [Radical

    Republican leaders].” Johnson was, said [Secretary of State] Seward, the

    “best stump speaker in the country,” but as Secretary [of the Navy] Wells

    shrewdly remarked, “the President should not be a stump speaker.””


    So what is legitimate in a “stump speech” delivered by candidate for the office of

the Presidency? At what point does a presidential candidate demean himself and the

office he is seeking? At what point does the candidate appear “un-presidential?”


    Many Americans decry “negative campaigning.” But there are two very distinct

varieties of “negative campaigning,” and the line between them, is a very bright line. So,

is it wrong to paint your opponent as “un-Presidential?” “Dishonest?” “Stupid?” “Ineffective?”

Is it wrong to label his policies or his positions as “ineffective?” “Wasteful?” “Cronyism?”

“Marxist?” “Predatory Capitalism?”

   
    The answer is simple. If the allegations are truthful, then “going negative” serves a

legitimate public purpose. If the candidate is a tax cheat, a philander, a communist flying

under false colors, or a thief, the public needs to be told. If the allegations are baseless,

the “negative campaigning” becomes a lie and it is impermissible.


    The First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution guarantees free speech, and it guarantees

first and foremost political speech. If the voters are to intelligently select the best candidates,

and vote correctly on the issues, nothing is more important than that the candidates and their

supporters tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.


    In 21st century America the issues are complex. Candidates like Ronald Reagan and

Bill Clinton has a way of making the hard stuff understandable to the voters. When a candidate

tells the truth and makes the hard stuff understandable, he does the voters a great service. If he

lies or indulges in half-truths, he obfuscates the issues, confuses the voters and undermines the

proper workings of democracy.


    My mother despised liar. She frequently told me that if you tell one lie, you will have

to tell another and another to cover it up.


    I am not so naive as to believe a President must always tell the truth. In war-time, no

president in his right mind would tell the enemy our battle plans. But in matters of domestic

politics - such as, which plan is best calculated to save Medicare and/or Social Security - there is

no reason to lie, unless the candidate is putting party over country. But any candidate,

Republican or Democrat, that does that is unworthy of high office and public trust. Indeed,

why would any reasonable voter trust a liar? Why would a Republican trust a Republican liar?

Why would a Democrat trust a Democrat liar?


    What I am suggesting is that there is no way to fix the present mess if the American

people continue to put people in high office who don’t tell the truth. I want a President who

puts forth a coherent plan, and who means what he says and says what he means.  If we continue

to elect politicians who continue to “bribe us” with government largess to get our votes,

we will go the way of Europe. We will not have to have a candidate “push us off a cliff;” we

will eventually walk off under our own power in pursuit of the next handout.

Copyright 2012

 John Donald O'Shea
   


   


   

   

Reducing the Deficit: Government Jobs vs. Private Sector Jobs

President Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney have two very different visions of how the U. S. government should "raise the revenues" it needs to pay the nation's debts, and to provide for the common defense and the general welfare.

Assume for a minute

-- a. That the U.S. government needed revenues in the sum of $2,000 to do all of the above,

-- b. That there were only two American citizens,

-- c. That the "First Citizen" has a salary of $5,000 and pays $1,000 in federal income tax, and

-- d. That the "Second Citizen" is unemployed, has no income and pays no federal income tax.

I use this simple "two citizen" example for ease of understanding because nearly half of the American people (47 percent ) presently pay no federal income tax while the other half (53 percent) do.

So, assuming the government needs $2,000 in revenues to meet its needs. What are the government's options? There are only four:

-- Run the printing presses, and print more money;

-- Reduce government expenses to $1,000;

-- Raise taxes on First Citizen from $1,000 to $2,000;

-- Create a job for Second Citizen that pays him $5,000, and have him pay the same $1,000 in taxes that is already being paid by First Citizen.

Neither the Mr. Obama nor Mr. Romney advocates "running the printing presses." That may be implied in their policies, but neither would dare overtly advocate it. To do so they would also have to espouse "inflation" which always follows "running the presses."

As to "reducing government expenses," the record of the "$1 trillion-plus (!) deficits for the last four years demonstrates that President Obama is less likely to "cut government spending" than the Cubs are to win the pennant.

Mr. Romney may cut some spending, but he is candid enough not to tell the voters that he can eliminate the deficit simply by cutting expenses.

As to the third alternative, "raising taxes on the rich (about 3 percent)," President Obama tells America that this is his plan to eliminate the deficit. Gov. Romney says he will lower federal income tax rates for middle class and wealthy Americans, but eliminate deductions for richer Americans. But the governor states that his tax reforms will be "revenue neutral."

Gov. Romney's honestly admits his tax revision plan will not eliminate the deficit. The president's claim that that he can eliminate deficit by taxing the rich and extra 3 percent is utter nonsense. You can run the numbers yourself.

If the deficit is to be eliminated, it will have to be eliminated by creating good paying jobs, and by getting those who are presently not paying income taxes onto the federal tax rolls.

President Obama's solution seems to be to create more "government" jobs by hiring more teachers, more policeman and more government workers. If you hire a teacher and pay that teacher $50,000 a year, and if he then pays $10,000 a year in federal income tax, you have spent $50,000 in federal revenues (tax dollars) for a return of $10,000! You are merely redistributing tax dollars taken from First Citizens and giving them to the Second Citizens.

This is what Mr. Romney describes as Mr. Obama's plan "Government trickle-down economics." (This does not mean that teachers and policemen are not "necessary;" but it does mean that tax dollars are spent to hire them.)

Gov. Romney's solution is to let the private sector to create the new "good paying" jobs. One example of how he would do it, is seen in his energy policy. He would drill for more gas and oil, and dig for more coal. Under Mr. Romney's plan, the wages of the people who drill for gas and oil, and dig for coal wouldn't be paid by the American taxpayer. They would be paid by private industry. If the oil worker was paid a salary of $50,000, it would come from his employer, without cost to the government. But that individual would still pay $10,000 in federal income tax.

Under Mr. Obama's "government" employment plan, the government loses $40,000. ($50,000 to pay salary generating $10,000 in taxes). Under Mr. Romney's Plan the government has a net gain of $10,000 (no government salary generating $10,000 in taxes.)

If 50 percent of the American people pay $1 trillion in taxes, the goal should be to get 100 percent of the American people paying $2 trillion -- without cost to the government!

Posted Online: :   Oct. 09, 2012, 2:46 pm  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea