Why conventional wisdom and “Republican strategists” are wrong

The Hill magazine has recently published an article profiling Sen. Kelly Ayotte’s rise in stature in the Senate and the ranks of the GOP, primarily due to her study of, and hard work on, defense and FP issues. She has been especially outspoken about the dangers – military and economic – of sequestration, which would cut $600 bn (not $500 bn as the Hill claims) out of the defense budget over the next decade on top of the 487 bn cuts already mandated by the First Tier of the Budget Control Act:

“Freshman Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) has turned the threat of $500 billion in defense cuts into her signature political issue, raising her Senate profile and sparking speculation that she could become Mitt Romney’s running mate.

Her focus on defense has helped her carve out a unique space among the vice presidential contenders; she’s frequently mentioned as a sleeper pick behind a top tier that includes her colleagues Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).

And her work has given her a platform alongside big-name defense hawks like Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

McCain, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, has praised her efforts, even throwing in some flattery on the Senate floor on Friday.

“Our most eloquent member has arrived on the floor,” McCain said of Ayotte. “Not to mention other attributes that we are lacking in.””

However, as the Hill notes, several (if not most) “Republican strategists” are still propagating the conventional wisdom that the economy is the sole issue of this election (or at least one that the GOP ticket needs to obsessively focus on) and that defense and FP issues are unimportant, if not irrelevant. For that reason, they are dismissing Ayotte and other figures who specialize in defense and FP:

“This is an economic election, and while she is from a battleground state and that’s important, her credentials may not match up with what the campaign really needs, which is a No. 2 who can speak eloquently on the economy,” said one Republican strategist.

“If this was post-9/11, she would be a perfect VP candidate,” the strategist said. “I’m not saying she’s not qualified — she could do a very good job — but her skill set is only part of what’s needed, not all.”

But they and Washington conventional wisdom are wrong, as usual.

Firstly, while the economy is the #1 issue of this election, it isn’t the only one, nor is it one that eclipses all others in terms of importance. There are also several other crucial issues which the GOP ticket MUST be prepared to credibly address. Defense and foreign policy are two such issues.

Secondly, knowing Romney’s limited knowledge of and experience in foreign policy, the Obama team plans to savagely attack him on this issue. They will be merciless and will not, unlike Republicans, restrict themselves in any way – whether in terms of the scope of topics they will discuss nor in terms of the blatant lies they will state and methods of attack they will employ.

If Romney does not educate himself adequately on defense issues before the presidential debates, he will be savagely attacked and may lose the election. And you can take that one to the bank.

OTOH, if Romney picks a person knowledgeable about defense and FP, such as Ayotte or Kyl, he will gain a credible defender on that front, will inoculate himself against such criticism, and will even be able to credibly attack Barack Obama. Which brings me to my next point.

Barack Obama’s national security record, as I have documented here and elsewhere, is disastrous. Not just bad; it’s downright disastrous. (For the latest examples of that, see here, here, and here.) It gives Republicans a HUGE opening to attack and defeat Obama – if they are willing to do so and know how. If they do so competently, they can add greatly to Obama’s woes and defeat him. Attacking him on defense foreign policy is even more important given that Romney cannot credibly criticize Obama on socialized medicine – because he instituted the prototype of Obama’s scheme in Massachusetts in 2006. It would be a foolish mistake, one which would cost Republicans the election, to waste this great opportunity to pound on Obama’s disastrous national security record.

Those Republican strategists and Washington conventional wisdom are wrong. Romney does not need a veep who can eloquently speak on economic issues. Romney can do that himself, and is an expert on the subject. He already has the economic front covered, so to speak.

But Romney is very inexperienced in, and not knowledgeable about, foreign policy – and Obama will exploit that weakness mercilessly unless Romney selects a defense/FP expert as his running mate.

The only thing that disqualifies Kelly Ayotte – although it’s really a disqualifier – is her lack of experience and proper vetting. She’s been a Senator for just 1.5 years, and this is her first elected office. Prior to that, she was an appointed AG of New Hampshire. She has little political experience and has not yet gained the stature of John C. Stennis, Barry Goldwater, John Warner, John McCain, or Jon Kyl. And, due to her short (so far) stint on the national stage, she has not been properly vetted yet. Nominating her for vice president would cause the American people to doubt Ayotte’s qualifications for the Vice Presidency and Romney’s wisdom and decision-making skills.

Fortunately, Romney does not have to choose between an experienced running mate and one who is knowledgeable about defense and foreign policy. Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl meets both requirements, and also has no skeletons in his closet.

Jon Kyl should be Romney’s running mate.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/236029-tough-defense-talk-ups-ayottes-veep-creds

Memo to the paulbots: Go away. The GOP doesn’t need you.

In a recent laughable screed published on the Fox News website in the Opinion section, a senior Reason magazine editor whose name I do not recall claimed that because Ron Paul has made supposedly large gains, the GOP will now have to reach out to his supporters, ask for their votes, and pay a price for these votes in the form of significant policy concessions on issues foreign and domestic.

What concessions does he demand?

Cutting down the US military to a force capable of defending only the US proper, withdrawing all troops from foreign countries, closing all overseas bases, terminating all defense commitments, and all aid programs, to all of America’s allies, never intervening militarily abroad, closing the Fed, legalizing drugs, and reinstating the gold standard.

He claims that these concessions would be “a small price to pay” for the votes of Ron Paul supporters.

But he’s completely wrong.

Other than closing the Fed and legalizing drugs, such concessions would amount to a HUGE, UNACCEPTABLE price to pay, as they would be detrimental for the Republic, for the conservative movement, and for the GOP.

Agreeing to cutting the US military down to a constabulary force capable of, at most, defending only US territory and nothing else would be the most disastrous concession of all, and the worst mistake that the GOP and the conservative movement could make. That, by itself, is a reason to reject the Reason magazine guy’s demands. It would mean cutting the US military down to a small size, cutting its modernization programs, and thus dramatically weakening it. But because the same kind of military capabilities useful for defending America’s allies (such air and naval superiority, missile defense, nuclear deterrence, ground superiority, tactical strike, long range strike, etc.) are also needed for defending America, there is no way to cut the military to make it unable or useless for defending allies while not making it incapable of defending America itself.

Cutting the military, especially deeply, will weaken it and make it unable to defend AMERICA as well as its allies.

There is no way that you can honestly propose to cut it and make it unable to defend America’s allies but capable of defending America itself.

Withdrawing US troops from all foreign countries where they are currently stationed, closing all (as opposed to some) overseas bases, and abandoning all defense commitments to all of America’s allies – including the most loyal ones – would be a great betrayal of them and a shot in the foot for America itself. It would leave America’s enemies (such as China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran) free to perpetrate aggression and conquer country after country, coming ever closer to the US itself, while dramatically reducing America’s influence in the world and the world’s, as well as America’s, security.

It would also dramatically cut America’s power projection capabilities, for which overseas bases and troops stationed in them are needed. If America ever again needs, for example, to punish terrorists for attacking the US, or to prevent terrorists or a rogue state from obtaining weapons of mass murder, it will not have any overseas bases to project power from, and will have to rely on an aging, shrinking fleet of carriers, amphib ships, and strategic airlifters, plus a tiny fleet of mostly nonstealthy bombers.

Cutting off aid to programs such as Egypt and Pakistan, which are not true allies of the US, makes sense. But cutting off aid to allies such as Israel would be unjust and would undermine their security.

Foreswearing ANY military interventions abroad, as opposed to only military interventions in irrelevant countries and where the US should not take sides, is also a foolish, suicidal policy. It’s one thing to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and avoid intervening in Syria. It’s one thing to say that the US should never intervene military abroad, anywhere, under any circumstances, even if, for example, North Korea invades the South or Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. Even libertarian columnist and AmSpec Associate Editor W. James Antle admits that neither a policy of intervening everywhere nor  a rigid foreswearing of any interventions anywhere is a wise policy. Promising that America would never intervene anywhere, under any circumstances, would be as foolish and suicidal as abandoning all defense commitments to all of America’s allies – it would be a license for America’s enemies and for troublemakers and thugs around the world to perpetrate aggression, conquer America’s allies, harbor terrorist organizations unpunished, develop WMDs unpunished, and make America less secure.

Adopting the gold standard would be disastrous for the US economy. It would mean tying the dollar to gold, thus producing deflation and a recession (if not a depression) and making the dollar dependent on the very volatile price of gold. If its price dips, so will the value of the dollar.

No, that would not be “a small price to pay” for Ron Paul supporters’ votes.

Nor is it necessary. As poll after poll, and as the results of all primaries conducted this year, have irrefutably proven, Paul supporters are just a small band of rabid libertarians who worship Ron Paul. And as their statements, and those of Ron Paul (who, in 2008, refused to endorse John McCain and instead endorsed the Big Government socialist 9/11 truther Cynthia McKinney), irrefutably prove, they would never vote for a Republican presidential candidate (other than Ron Paul) anyway. The GOP doesn’t need them, shouldn’t appease them, and even if it tried to, it would fail to win their votes.

But if the GOP does try to appease paulbots and does accede to their demands of the policy concessions listed above, it will antagonize and disenfranchise tens of millions of conservative voters who believe in a strong national defense, a confident foreign policy, free market economics, traditional American values, and supporting Israel, and who don’t want the GOP to be turned into a radical libertarian party in Paul’s image. This would mean losing tens of millions of voters, and as a result, losing every future Presidential and Congressional election, even if all Ron Paul supporters started voting for the GOP (which they never will).

So thus, the GOP would be shooting itself in the foot: antagonizing people who would likely cast their ballots for the GOP while appeasing people who would never vote for it.

The GOP must not do this. It must not make ANY policy concessions to Ron Paul or his supporters, and neither should Mitt Romney. It, and Mitt Romney, should avoid Ron Paul voters like the lepers that they are.

My message to the paulbots is: Go away. The GOP doesn’t need you and doesn’t want you.

Why CPAC is a fraud

On February 8th, I stated on Twitter that “CPAC isn’t worth anyone’s time. It’s nothing more than an anti-defense hatefest feat. libert.[arian] loons.”

That statement cost me a friend who was very friendly to me 15 minutes before I said this, and after I wrote that tweet, she started to hate me.

I sincerely apologized for it TWICE, but after learning a few days ago what I have learned from John Ziegler, I have discovered that I was right about CPAC after all.

Firstly, why did I state that in the first place? Because a paranoid, conspiracy-theory-peddling, extremely anti-defense group called the Committee for the Republic, led by Bruce Fein (himself an implacable enemy of a strong defense) was allowed to stage not one, not two, not three, but FOUR events at this year’s CPAC, including one at the very beginning of the conference, on its first day at 9AM. These events featured none other than Bruce Fein and his fellow Committee members James Henry and John Henry. These events were intended to mislead CPAC attendees (the vast majority of whom are young and therefore prone to disinformation and manipulation) that the US is a militaristic, aggressive, oppressive empire that invades other countries at whim, is occupying over 100 countries with hundreds of thousands of troops, is run by a military-industrial complex led by a cabal of defense industry execs making themselves richer, and  spends $1 trillion or some other astronomical sum on the military per year. All of these claims are lies, yet this was the misinformation the Committee peddled to young conservative activists at this year’s CPAC. If it hadn’t been for the pro-defense analysts and figures who attended CPAC as well, and for three young pro-defense Republican politicians who delivered landmark speeches there (Rubio, Ryan, and Palin), CPAC’12 would’ve turned into the same nasty anti-defense hatefest as last year’s CPAC.

I wondered why was this anti-defense, anti-conservative group (which chastises conservatives on its website for refusing to believe that defense is a Big Government program, which it isn’t) allowed to stage any event at CPAC at all, let alone four. I wonder who or what caused it to be allowed to do so.

Thanks to John Ziegler, who opened my eyes and provided me with first-hand knowledge of the subject, I now know the answer.

Ziegler was a cosponsor of CPAC’09, where he staged an event promoting his film, Media Malpractice. As such, he was invovled in the planning of the conference and has first-hand knowledge about who and why gets allowed to stage events at CPAC. Says Ziegler:

“The most significant truth people need to understand about CPAC is that, like far too many entities in the conservative realm, it is business pretending to be promoting a cause. (…) Mike Huckabee has described CPAC as a “pay for play” organization and he is absolutely correct, except he understates the inherently corrupt nature of the event.

When I was a co-sponsor I sat in all of the planning meetings to determine who would speak when and about what topics. At the time (not yet having gone through the maelstrom that would be the effort to promote Media Malpractice), I was remarkably naïve. I actually thought that speakers were chosen based on their credibility, loyalty to the movement, accomplishments and ability to give a good speech. I might as well have thought that the contestants in Trump’s Miss Universe pageant are selected purely based on their SAT scores.

Instead, it was extremely clear that speakers were chosen based only on who could do the most for CPAC/ACU as an organization. The hierarchy of qualities to qualify one for a prime speaking slot seemed to be, in reverse order of importance: friendship with the organizers, sponsorship of the event, and the ability to create positive publicity for the conference.

So, in reality, it isn’t really “pay for play,” but something which is even worse. One’s celebrity within the movement or ability to get coverage for the conference, as well as one’s personal relationships with the ACU, are what really rule how the conference operates. If it was purely based on “pay for play,” at least then everyone would at least know what the rules are, but this is not the case.”

So in order to get to speak, or stage events, at CPAC, it doesn’t matter if you’re a conservative or if you are devoted to the conservative cause. Nor does it matter if you have done anything to further it (the Committee has done nothing; in fact, it is harming it). All that matters is ability to get publicity for the conference, donations, and friendship with the organizers. And how did the Committee for the Republic get to stage FOUR events at CPAC?

I didn’t see any coverage of their events, or of the group itself, in the media at the time of the conference, although admittedly, I didn’t look hard for it, so maybe there was some. So the only possibilities are that the Committee made a huge donation to the ACU (which hosts the annual CPAC) or is friends with ACU leaders, or both.

David Keene, who, until last year, was ACU’s chairman, does indeed have ties to the Committee: he has signed its anti-defense petitions and may be a member (or even a leader) of it. He is also known to be a member of some of Ron Paul’s libertarian groups, a supporter of Paul’s loony national-security policies, and a guy who is calling on Republicans to accept Ron Paul supporters within the GOP’s ranks.

But that, by itself, could not have been enough to get the C4TR permission to stage FOUR events at CPAC, when most groups are allowed to stage only one.

So the only possible explanation is that, while Keene’s ties to the Committee may have helped, the Committee made a huge donation to the ACU prior to this year’s CPAC, and THAT is why it was allowed to stage FOUR anti-defense events at the conference, conservatism and Reagan’s three-legged stool be damned. As Ziegler has made clear, ACU leaders (who organize the annual CPAC) care only about money and publicity, and couldn’t care less about conservatism or defense. Money is more important to them (and to the leaders of most other “conservative” groups) than anything else. So why would they refuse a huge donation to defend conservatism and their own credibility? Besides, the Committee is trying to redefine conservatism into something it never was, into a pacifist, anti-defense, fiscally-conservative-only ideology. So what would’ve been the problem for them?

And the Committee is hardly the only example. Why else were liberals Joe Scarborough and Jerome Corsi allowed to speak at a CPAC, and GOProud (a gay, liberal group) allowed to sponsor last year’s conference? Why was Donald Trump allowed to speak last year? Why has Grover Norquist successfully kept jihad-exposing, anti-Sharia events out of the schedule for many years? Why has he managed to prevent many anti-Sharia experts from being invited to speak? Because for most people, money speaks louder than principles, ideology, and integrity.

In short, this is what likely happened: the Committee gave the ACU a huge donation and in return for that donation, it was allowed to stage FOUR anti-defense events at CPAC, thus managing to mislead and misinform (i.e. brainwash) tens of thousands of young conservative activists prone to disinformation, manipulation, and false prophets.

In other words, John Ziegler is right: CPAC is a fraud. I sincerely hopes he succeeds in informing conservative activists about that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ziegler/cpac-2012_b_1261528.html

My proposal of a defense/foreign policy consensus

There is currently a debate ongoing in the Republican Party and in the American electorate at large whether or not to cut defense spending, and if so, by how much; what weapon systems to nix, if any; which missions and commitments to end; how to size the military; which allies to defend; and when, if ever, to intervene militarily abroad.

Unsurprisingly, extremists on both sides of the spectrum are demanding extremist, damaging policies. Libertarians and liberals want to deeply cut defense spending (while claiming it that it still hasn’t been cut), modernization programs, the military’s force structure, and end strength; end all commitments to all of America’s allies; and renounce military interventions abroad completely, hiding behind oceans and retrenching into an illusory “Fortress America”, despite the fact that one nuclear weapon, delivered by a Chinese, Russian, or North Korean ICBM at a high altitude above the US, would set America back to the dark age. On the other hand, neocon promiscous interventionists want the US to involve itself in every war around the world without Congressional authorization.

Both of these sides are wrong. Both of their policies are wrong and unfeasible. However, contrary to the claims of those like Jarrett Steppman of HE who claim that these are the only foreign policy options available to the US government and to the voters, there is a third option, which is much better than the other two. I first outlined this foreign policy philosophy on Conservatives4Palin.com in early 2011 and repeated it, in more detail, in the pages of the American Thinker in October.

I propose the following defense/foreign policy consensus:

1) The US must always have a strong defense and must generously fund it (so the defense cuts ordered by the debt ceiling deal and the sequester should be completely reversed), and equip it with all it needs. Funding should be prioritized and devoted first and foremost to those missions most critical to America’s survival: nuclear deterrence, missile defense, cyberdefense, long range strike, and homeland defense. However, other missions should be funded adequately, too.

2) That does not, however, mean that taxpayers should write a blank check to the Pentagon. Because the DOD has been tasked with the government’s most important function, waste at the DOD is even less excusable than waste at other government agencies. The Secretary of Defense must review the entire budget, line by line, excise everything that is not necessary, and reinvest the money in those programs that are critical to America’s survival. He should start with his own travel budget, which Secretary Panetta has been abusing.

3) The US should continue to defend its treaty allies, provided that they are willing to invest seriously in defending themselves. As President Nixon said, “We shall do our share in keeping peace around the world. But we shall expect others to do their share.”

4) The US should intervene militarily abroad only when its crucial interests or key allies are threatened and only if all non-war means of ending the crisis have been tried and failed. If there is an imminent threat to America (e.g. if enemy SSBNs have been detected off US shores, or if terrorists have acquired a nuclear weapon, or a rogue state is threatening an imminent launch of ballistic missiles), the President should intervene immediately; but if there is no imminent threat, the President must ask for Congressional authorization.

Those are the basic principles and policies of the defense/foreign affairs consensus that I’m proposing. You know who originally invented these ideas? It wasn’t me. It was President Reagan. His policy of rebuilding the military and funding it generously while intervening, after 1983, only in countries where the US REALLY needed to intervene was not only the right policy, it was a very popular policy which helped him win the presidential elections of 1980 and 1984 by a landslide. And I’m absolutely sure that it would be a very popular policy today, if embraced by a presidential candidate.

According to a recent poll, 82% of Americans oppose the sequester’s defense cuts and didn’t want the Super Committee  to impose any further budget cuts on the Pentagon, either. According to other polls, 52%-57% of Americans oppose any defense budget cuts. But at the same time, polls show that a majority of Americans wants American troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan and Iraq as soon as possible. So a majority of Americans – possibly even a huge majority – professes an opinion on these issues that is practically the same as my policy proposal.

I hope at least one Republican Presidential candidate will embrace it.

Yet more anti-American BS from ungrateful Israeli Likudnik Ted Belman

WHAT THE HELL WAS THOMAS LIFSON THINKING?

Today, the American Thinker (should be called that way any longer?) published a virulently anti-American piece of garbage written by Israeli Likudnik Ted Belman, who has written hateful anti-American screeds on AT before. In his latest ‘article’, however, Belman outdid even his own previous anti-American screeds, calling the US an enemy of Israel (where he lives, having immigrated there from Canada) and accusing it again of appeasing Arabs at Israel’s expense.

Belman claims that:

“Before the ’67 War, U.S. policy was mostly hostile in that the U.S. imposed an embargo on arms to Israel for 20 years, from ’47 to ’67; was passive during the War of Independence, expecting Israel to be defeated in short order; and ordered Israel out of Sinai after Israel conquered it in the Sinai Campaign.”

This is clearly wrong. The US was selling tons of weapons to Israel even before 1967 (under JFK, for example, it sold Israel weapons worth 5 times the weapons it sold to Arab countries); and during Israel’s War of Independence, which Israel won easily, President Truman recognized Israel as an independent state just 11 minutes after Ben Gurion announced its creation, and met with first Israeli President Chaim Weizmann. As for the 1956 Suez War, which Belman calls “the Sinai Campaign” and which was an unprovoked act of aggression against Egypt by three countries (Israel, France, and Britain), the US and the USSR together acted to stop this aggression, with the Soviet Union even threatening France and Britain with nuclear war. The Eisenhower Administration did the right thing.

Then, Belman claimed:

“This policy was ameliorated in the aftermath of the ’67 War as reflected in Res. 242 of the UNSC, which established the principle that Israel was entitled to secure and recognized borders before withdrawing from the conquered territories.”

That is also a lie. Resolution #242 of the UNSC requires Israel to withdraws from the occupied territories BEFORE a peace agreement is made, and established the principle that all countries in the Middle East – not just Israel – are entitled to secure and recognized borders. It gives such right to all countries in the Middle East, not just Israel. It furthermore makes it clear that Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories, termination of all states of belligerency, and respecting every ME country’s and territorial integrity is a PRE-CONDITION OF, and a BASIS FOR, any peace agreement, and that any peace agreement must be built on that foundation. John McHugo has already dealt with this common, but false, Israeli claim of the meaning of the Resolution in his landmark paper “Legal Reappraisal of the Israeli Right-Wing Interpretation of UNSC Resolution #242″.

Belman then continued to lie:

“By that resolution, the U.S. recognized that an agreement on borders had to be negotiated and that of necessity, Israel would be retaining some of the land.  Of course, a friend should have taken the position that Israel was entitled to keep all the land it had acquired in the defensive war.”

These are also blatant lies. Firstly, UNSC Resolution #242 does not require nor prohibit any land swaps; it does NOT, however, authorize Israel to retain any of the land conquered in 1967 by any means other than a negotiated peace agreement (if it authorized Israel to retain any land by virtue of conquest, it would have contradicted itself, because it affirms the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war). And no, a friend would not have to take the position that Israel was entitled to keep all the land it had acquired, or even any part of it. Israel was not entitled to that land.  As for the 1967 war – even if it were a defensive war, which it was not, it wouldn’t have mattered, because since the end of WW1, no country in the world has the right to acquire territory by war, even victims of aggression. The vexed question of who attacked whom during the various Israeli-Arab conflicts is therefore totally irrelevant.

And so we come to Belman’s most ridiculous claim, divided into a few sentences throughout the article:

“But the U.S. was committed to being friends with the Arabs, particularly Saudi Arabia, and this commitment excluded it.  That has always been U.S. policy, right up until today. (…) given this history, requiring Israel to return to the ’67 lines, even with swaps, suggests that she is really an enemy.”

Belman thus betrayed his real opinion: he considers the US an enemy of his country (Israel).

Thus, he’s an enemy of the United States.

The US has been consistently backing Israel since 1967, providing it with consistent diplomatic, financial, and military assistance not provided to any other country in the world. It has been selling (or giving for free, in the case of F-35 jets) the most modern weapons to Israel (many of which have ended up in China), and giving it intelligence information it denies to other allies. It doles out $4 bn per year of financial aid to the Israeli military, some of which is used to buy bulldozers and build settlements. It has fought wars for Israel’s benefit (vide the Iraqi war) and now, Obama is seriously considering launching the US into another disastrous war with another non-threat, Iran, solely for Israel’s sake. Since 1982, the US has vetoed 33 UNSC Resolutions (more than all other permanent UNSC members combined), all of which were vetoed solely because they were critical of Israel. At Camp David in 2000, by the admission of one participant of the 2000 summit, “far often we functioned as Israel’s lawyer.” US Administrations have expressed only muted concerns, and very rarely, about Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories. Yet, Belman is not grateful and calls the US an enemy of Israel?

How dare he?

What more does he want? The US bombing Iran and all Arab countries to the Stone Age (or annihilating them)? More American money to raze Palestinians’ homes and build settlements on Palestinian lands? More American blood and money to be spilled and spent in quagmires for Israel’s sake?

Actually, I don’t care what he wants. He’s not an American, and he’s an enemy of the United States. Moreover, his articles are anti-American BS. So it doesn’t matter what he wants. He should, and will be, ignored by every sane person. The only commenters who agree with him on AT are Israeli citizens and Israeli Firster traitors with American passports (they don’t even deserve to be called Americans) who have chosen Israel over the US. As Jesus rightly said, a servant cannot serve two masters. One cannot be loyal to two countries simoultaneously, one can be loyal to only one country, and it’s clear that the US isn’t the country these saboteurs are loyal to.

Belman also claimed that:

“Shortly thereafter, the U.S. quietly negotiated an agreement with Israel limiting Israeli construction in Judea and Samaria to infilling for natural growth.  I am sure Israel didn’t ask for such an agreement. During the intifada II, Sen. Mitchell was sent to study the Arab violence.  On April 30, 2001, he submitted the Mitchell Report, which rewarded the violence by demanding that settlement construction cease. (…) President Bush recanted a bit in his letter to Sharon in ’04 in which he referred to Res. 242 but not the Saudi Plan, which was then called the Arab Initiative, as the basis for negotiations.”

Israel doesn’t even need these settlements to account for “natural population growth” and immigration; in any case, it has built far more settlements than it needed for this purpose; and it has built it on Palestinian land, where it has no right to build anything. Period. Sen. Mitchell was right to point out that the Palestinians were outraged because a foreign country was razing their homes, expelling them from the ruins of their homes, and building settlements on their own land. What would the American people do if Canada invaded the US, razed American homes, threw the American people out of these homes, and built settlements on US soil, on the ruins of these homes?

“Upon taking office, President Obama disavowed Res. 242, the longstanding agreement permitting infilling, and disavowed the Bush letter as binding.  He openly has embraced the Saudi Plan and has called for negotiations based on the ’67 armistice lines with swaps.  In doing so, he has pulled the rug out from under Israel — or, in today’s parlance, has thrown Israel under the bus.”

This is garbage. Obama has not expressed anything other than mute concern about settlements, has embraced UNSC Resolution #242 as a basis for negotiations, as have all previous US presidents, and negotating a peace agreement on the basis of the pre-1967 armistice lines with mutually-agreed land swaps has been the policy of EVERY US government since the Johnson Administration. Obama has not thrown Israel under the bus. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that Israeli-US cooperation under President Obama has been as good as ever, and Obama has been no worse for Israel than any previous President.

Belman has been known as a hateful enemy of the United States for quite some time. And in comments under his article, several people have shown their true colors. But what remains a mystery is why the American Thinker (or should it be called the Israeli Thinker?) published his hateful article. Why did this e-zin publish a hateful anti-American article from a foreigner? Why does it continually allow this anti-American foreigner to libel the US and express his hatred towards this country on its website?

AT Chief Editor Thomas Lifson and AT Submissions Editor Drew Belsky should be embarrassed. If they want to save whatever few shreds of credibility AT retains yet (if any), they will delete this article and apologize for it. If not, they will prove that AT is worthless and I will consequently cease submitting any article to that e-zin.

And if the Israelis really believe that the US is an enemy of Israel*, fine, let them cope without this “enemy”, then. The Congress should cut off all funding to Israel, and the US should stop selling any weapons to Israel. Let’s see how Israel will fare without the US.

Israel needs the US, but the US doesn’t need Israel for anything.

With America sinking in debt, and with draconian budget cuts being imposed on America’s own defense, its time to end subsidies for Israel.

*To be clear: I know that the vast majority of Israelis see the US as Israel’s ally, as does the Israeli Prime Minister, and that Ted Belman speaks for no one but himself and the fringe wing of the Likud Party. Nonetheless, his article is absolutely unacceptable, and AT’s Chief Editor should delete it immediately.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/is_the_us_a_friend_or_enemy_of_israel.html

Yet another laughable screed by Jack Hunter

Anti-defense liberal Jack Hunter has written yet another laughable screed at the DailyCaller.

This post is yet another laughable screed designed to cover up the fact that Ron Paul is weak on foreign policy and defense issues. This one, however, is deeply offensive to me, because in this one, the Offical Ron Paul Blogger claims Reagan’s mantle for Ron Paul and claims that Paul’s foreign policy of appeasement, isolationism, and unilateral disarmament is thoroughly Reaganesque (his screed is titled “Ron Paul’s Reaganesque foreign policy). Nothing could be further from the truth.

Don’t take my word from it. Read Ron Paul’s own resignation letter to Reagan and the GOP from 1987, in which he denounced Reagan’s foreign and defense policies in the strongest possible terms, saying that Reagan’s FP was “unconstitutional” and denouncing his defense spending as well as “spending on… warfare”. That same year, Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell denounced Reagan as a “warmonger” and called on the Congress to impeach him and remove him from office. And, throughout the 1980s, Ron Paul OPPOSED Reagan’s defense spending hikes, funding for the Nicaraguan contras, funding for other freedom fighters worldwide (e.g. the Solidarity trade union in Poland), and any interventions anywhere, including the interventions in Lebanon, Grenada, and Libya, as well as the shootdowns of Libyan aircraft in the Gulf of Sidra in 1981 and 1989. Lew Rockwell has recently said that “Ron Paul is not a Reaganite; he is much better than that” and denounced the B-1 bomber (which Ron Paul opposed) as a “killing machine”.

Today, Ron Paul supports MASSIVE defense cuts, to the tune of at least $1 trillion over a decade (including the elimination of the entire USAF bomber fleet), withdrawal of all American troops from all foreign countries (including staunch allies like Japan and South Korea, to whose defense Reagan was pledged), total isolationism (no interventions anywhere, not even if it’s necessary, and yes, Paulbots, sometimes it is necessary), and dumping all of America’s allies, as well as appeasing America’s enemies. He also opposed the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

So Ron Paul’s foreign policy is not only not Reaganesque, it’s the total OPPOSITE of the foreign policy that Ronald Reagan supported.

Now, what was Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy, actually?

For starters, I welcome the admission by Hunter and J Street propagandist Beinart that Ronald Reagan was not really a promiscous interventionist at all. That’s some progress. Beinart’s recitation of Reagan’s scant record of military interventions is 100% true.

But both Hunter and Beinart have omitted the biggest difference between Reagan’s foreign policy and Paul’s: Reagan supported (and actively fought for – before, during, and after his 8 years as President) strong defense as a means of both protecting America and preventing wars. Ron Paul opposed it at the time and opposes it now, as does Lew Rockwell. Throughout Reagan’s 8 years as President, Ron Paul fought against his defense policies. But how can one be surprised when Paul’s self-admitted biggest intellectual influence, Murray Rothbard, claimed that

“The United States was solely at fault for the Cold War and Russia was the aggrieved party.”?

As the Roman proverb goes, si vis pacem, pare bellum. If you want peace, prepare for war. Or, as George Washington said, “To be ready for war is one of the most effective means of keeping the peace.” Reagan invoked Washington’s words during the 1980s. Throughout that decade, even though liberals (and Ron Paul) were fighting tooth and nail every day against his defense budgets and defense policies, Reagan held firm and frequently spoke in defense of a strong defense and In Defense of Defense Spending, which is the title of my book on the subject. The Congress, including Ron Paul, repeatedly called on Reagan to cut defense spending as a means of balancing the budget, but he continually refused. At least twice, he delivered nationally-televised speeches to the public about why his defense budgets were necessary and why it would have been foolish to cut them. He explained, in simple terms that everyone could understand, why robust funding was necessary to rebuild the US military and counter America’s enemies. He countered anti-defense propaganda. He and his administration’s officials did, with words and deeds, more for the cause of a strong defense than anyone else during the last 50 years.

Indeed, Reagan has set the bar very high, and I’m badly disappointed that there is no Reagan now to fight for the cause of a strong defense and against defense cuts. Maybe Sarah Palin will do that, if she jumps into the race. Her foreign policy opinions are actually closest to Reagan’s, compared to all other candidates.

And what about the INF Treaty?

Throughout the 1980s, the US demanded the removal of Soviet IRBMs from the European continent and the signing of a verifiable INF Treaty. However, since 1983, the Soviet Union was placing an unreasonable condition: cancelling the SDI. The 1985 and 1986 American-Soviet summits ended with nothing because Reagan refused to give up the SDI. Liberals blamed him. However, Reagan held firm, and eventually the INF Treaty was signed (in 1987) WITHOUT a cancellation or even a slow-down of the SDI. In other words, Reagan won, and Gorbachev lost. The Soviet Union got NOTHING. The Treaty only ordered the elimination of all American and Soviet IRBMs. It did not say anything about the SDI. And as a result of that treaty, the USSR had to dismantle twice as many missiles as the US.

Compare that record to that of Obama, who sold missile defense to Russia in 2010 in return for a New START treaty unfavorable to the US.

Yes, a few conservatives denounced Reagan as an appeaser, but I don’t think anyone makes these ridiculous claims now.

True, he would’ve probably opposed the Iraqi and Libyan wars as well. Two of his most important Cold War era allies, William Buckley and General William Odom, opposed the Iraqi war. But the Iraqi and Libyan wars are hardly the only disagreements Ron Paul has with mainstream Republicans on the issue of foreign policy.

So, in short, Ron Paul’s foreign policy is the OPPOSITE of Reagan’s. Ronald Reagan never supported, and would have never supported if he were alive today, a policy of defense cuts, withdrawal from the world, isolationism, and appeasement. Reagan supported a strong defense, defending America’s loyal allies, standing up to America’s enemies, both Communist and Islamist, and intervening military abroad when (albeit ONLY when) necessary.