My last piece that looked at Buchanan's position on Trump got me reading a few other pieces he's written recently.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-question-is-asked-is-trump-false.html
He is for the Iran deal and with President Obama it turns out. If anything he thinks that Obama and Biden need to put Netanyahu in his place for blatantly interfering in US affairs.
In his desperation to sink the Iran nuclear deal, Bibi Netanyahu is taking a hellish gamble.
"Israel depends upon the United States for $3 billion a year in military aid and diplomatic cover in forums where she is often treated like a pariah state. Israel has also been the beneficiary of almost all the U.S. vetoes in the Security Council."
"America is indispensable to Israel. The reverse is not true."
"Yet, without telling the White House, Bibi had his U.S. ambassador arrange for him to address a joint session of Congress in March — to rip up the president’s Iran nuclear deal before it was even completed."
"The day the deal was signed, using what The Washington Post calls “stark apocalyptic language,” Bibi accused John Kerry of giving the mullahs a “sure path to a nuclear weapon” and a “cash bonanza of hundreds of billions of dollars … to pursue its aggression and terror.”
:Bibi has since inspired and led the campaign to get Congress to kill the deal, the altarpiece of the Obama presidency."
"Israel Ambassador Ron Dermer, a former Republican operative now cast in the role of “Citizen Genet,” has intensively lobbied the Hill to get Congress to pass a resolution of rejection."
"If that resolution passes, as it appears it will, Obama will veto it."
"Then Israel, the Israeli lobby AIPAC, and all its allies and auxiliaries in the think tanks and on op-ed pages will conduct a full-court press to have Congress override the Obama veto and kill his nuclear deal."
"Has Bibi, have the Israelis, considered what would happen should they succeed? Certainly, there would be rejoicing in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and Bibi would be crowned King of Capitol Hill."
"But they will have humiliated an American president by crushing him by two-to-one in his own legislature. Such a defeat could break the Obama presidency and force the resignation of John Kerry, who would have become a laughing stock in international forums."
"The message would go out to the world. In any clash between the United States and Israel over U.S. policy in the Middle East, bet on Bibi. Bet on Israel. America is Israel’s poodle now."
"With the Gulf nations having joined Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia in backing the deal, Israel is isolated in its opposition. And, two weeks ago, Kerry warned that if Congress rejects the deal, “Israel could end up being more isolated and more blamed.”
"Hardly an outrageous remark."
"When the U.S. and Israel disagree over U.S. policy in the Mideast, who decides for America? Them or us?"
"Why does Barack Obama take this? Why does John Kerry take this?"
"One can only imagine what President Eisenhower would have done had he seen Bibi at the rostrum of the U.S. House of Representatives, ripping apart his Middle East policy. Or had Ike learned that an Israeli ambassador was working the halls of Congress to kill an arms deal he and John Foster Dulles had just negotiated."
"Lest we forget, Ike told his wartime colleague, Prime Minister Anthony Eden, to get his army out of Suez or he would sink the British pound. Ike then told Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to get his army out of Sinai or face U.S. economic reprisals."
"Eden and Ben-Gurion did as they were told."
"That was an America respected by friend and foe alike."
"When Harry Truman felt that Gen. Douglas MacArthur had been insubordinate in resisting presidential restrictions on his actions in Korea, Truman fired the general and astounded the nation."
"Yet this president and John Kerry have been wimpishly seeking for weeks to placate Netanyahu. And Bibi is no Douglas MacArthur."
"Time to stop acting like wusses."
"The president should declare Dermer persona non grata and send him packing, then tell the Israeli government we will discuss a new arms package when you have a prime minister who understands that no nation interferes in the internal affairs of the United States. None."
"That could bring Bibi’s government, with its single-vote majority, crashing down. And why not? After all, Bibi was a virtual surrogate for Mitt Romney when Mitt was trying to bring down Obama."
"Obama and Kerry are never running again. Deep down, they would surely relish taking Bibi down. And they could do it."
"Deal or no deal, it is time America started acted like America again."
http://buchanan.org/blog/obama-v-bibi-fight-to-the-finish-16336
There's obviously a lot to unpack here-and yes object to. Buchanan is a notorious racist and Anti-Semite. Indeed, no doubt it's his Antisemitism that makes him anti-Israel. Still, in this case he has a point.
You should also bear in mind that the reason that the Religious Right is so unthinkingly pro-Israel is because they think the Jews must occupy Jerusalem for to be ready for the Biblical prophecy of fire destroying Israel.
I notice another man of the Right-Scott Sumner-is also for the Iran deal. Splendid. The more the merrier. Actually in this interesting piece he admits that he'd rather be a liberal than a 'libertarian.'
"In this essay I argued that liberalism has always meant something close to "utilitarianism", and indeed I'd argue that even Johnson's "generous" meets that general description. When people like Mill changed their views over time, it wasn't because their values changed, but rather because they had different views on what sort of public policies best embodied those values. In Mill's case, he became somewhat more supportive of government intervention as he got older. Liberals born in 1950 tended to become less supportive of government intervention as they got older. . Liberals born in 1950 tended to become less supportive of government intervention as they got older. In my view, American liberals "really are" liberal, and I also believe that pragmatic libertarians (like me) really are liberal. We simply have different views on which policies best advance utilitarian goals."
"I'm not interested in reclaiming the meaning of liberal from 200 years ago, just as I have no interest in reclaiming the meaning of 'gay' from 100 years ago. Rather I favor what Klein is trying to do because (even today) in most of the world a liberal is a supporter of free market-oriented policies and social liberalism, and is also opposed to militarism. Those are also my views, and it would be nice to not have to constantly explain to my fellow Americans where I belong on the political spectrum. Unlike Senator Chuck Schumer, I favor legalizing drugs, free trade with China and the arms deal with Iran. And yet if I tell Americans that I'm more liberal than Schumer they get all confused. In addition, lots of non-Americans read my blog, so it would be nice if words meant roughly the same thing in the US as they do in Europe and South America."
"And let's be honest, 'liberal' sounds classier than 'libertarian'. If I tell people in Europe that I'm a liberal, they might picture a cosmopolitan, socially liberal businessman who favors free markets and reads the Economist. If I say I'm a libertarian they might picture a Ron Paul supporter storing gold, can goods, and guns in his basement. (Not that there's anything wrong with those activities.) are liberal. We simply have different views on which policies best advance utilitarian goals."
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/08/how_shall_we_de.html
Glad to hear he's for the Iran deal. I certainly think liberal is classier than libertarian though I also think it's classier than progressive. It seems to me that in part 'progressive' started being used around 1988 after 8 years of Reagan attacking 'liberals.'
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-question-is-asked-is-trump-false.html
He is for the Iran deal and with President Obama it turns out. If anything he thinks that Obama and Biden need to put Netanyahu in his place for blatantly interfering in US affairs.
In his desperation to sink the Iran nuclear deal, Bibi Netanyahu is taking a hellish gamble.
"Israel depends upon the United States for $3 billion a year in military aid and diplomatic cover in forums where she is often treated like a pariah state. Israel has also been the beneficiary of almost all the U.S. vetoes in the Security Council."
"America is indispensable to Israel. The reverse is not true."
"Yet, without telling the White House, Bibi had his U.S. ambassador arrange for him to address a joint session of Congress in March — to rip up the president’s Iran nuclear deal before it was even completed."
"The day the deal was signed, using what The Washington Post calls “stark apocalyptic language,” Bibi accused John Kerry of giving the mullahs a “sure path to a nuclear weapon” and a “cash bonanza of hundreds of billions of dollars … to pursue its aggression and terror.”
:Bibi has since inspired and led the campaign to get Congress to kill the deal, the altarpiece of the Obama presidency."
"Israel Ambassador Ron Dermer, a former Republican operative now cast in the role of “Citizen Genet,” has intensively lobbied the Hill to get Congress to pass a resolution of rejection."
"If that resolution passes, as it appears it will, Obama will veto it."
"Then Israel, the Israeli lobby AIPAC, and all its allies and auxiliaries in the think tanks and on op-ed pages will conduct a full-court press to have Congress override the Obama veto and kill his nuclear deal."
"Has Bibi, have the Israelis, considered what would happen should they succeed? Certainly, there would be rejoicing in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and Bibi would be crowned King of Capitol Hill."
"But they will have humiliated an American president by crushing him by two-to-one in his own legislature. Such a defeat could break the Obama presidency and force the resignation of John Kerry, who would have become a laughing stock in international forums."
"The message would go out to the world. In any clash between the United States and Israel over U.S. policy in the Middle East, bet on Bibi. Bet on Israel. America is Israel’s poodle now."
"With the Gulf nations having joined Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia in backing the deal, Israel is isolated in its opposition. And, two weeks ago, Kerry warned that if Congress rejects the deal, “Israel could end up being more isolated and more blamed.”
"Hardly an outrageous remark."
"When the U.S. and Israel disagree over U.S. policy in the Mideast, who decides for America? Them or us?"
"Why does Barack Obama take this? Why does John Kerry take this?"
"One can only imagine what President Eisenhower would have done had he seen Bibi at the rostrum of the U.S. House of Representatives, ripping apart his Middle East policy. Or had Ike learned that an Israeli ambassador was working the halls of Congress to kill an arms deal he and John Foster Dulles had just negotiated."
"Lest we forget, Ike told his wartime colleague, Prime Minister Anthony Eden, to get his army out of Suez or he would sink the British pound. Ike then told Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to get his army out of Sinai or face U.S. economic reprisals."
"Eden and Ben-Gurion did as they were told."
"That was an America respected by friend and foe alike."
"When Harry Truman felt that Gen. Douglas MacArthur had been insubordinate in resisting presidential restrictions on his actions in Korea, Truman fired the general and astounded the nation."
"Yet this president and John Kerry have been wimpishly seeking for weeks to placate Netanyahu. And Bibi is no Douglas MacArthur."
"Time to stop acting like wusses."
"The president should declare Dermer persona non grata and send him packing, then tell the Israeli government we will discuss a new arms package when you have a prime minister who understands that no nation interferes in the internal affairs of the United States. None."
"That could bring Bibi’s government, with its single-vote majority, crashing down. And why not? After all, Bibi was a virtual surrogate for Mitt Romney when Mitt was trying to bring down Obama."
"Obama and Kerry are never running again. Deep down, they would surely relish taking Bibi down. And they could do it."
"Deal or no deal, it is time America started acted like America again."
http://buchanan.org/blog/obama-v-bibi-fight-to-the-finish-16336
There's obviously a lot to unpack here-and yes object to. Buchanan is a notorious racist and Anti-Semite. Indeed, no doubt it's his Antisemitism that makes him anti-Israel. Still, in this case he has a point.
You should also bear in mind that the reason that the Religious Right is so unthinkingly pro-Israel is because they think the Jews must occupy Jerusalem for to be ready for the Biblical prophecy of fire destroying Israel.
I notice another man of the Right-Scott Sumner-is also for the Iran deal. Splendid. The more the merrier. Actually in this interesting piece he admits that he'd rather be a liberal than a 'libertarian.'
"In this essay I argued that liberalism has always meant something close to "utilitarianism", and indeed I'd argue that even Johnson's "generous" meets that general description. When people like Mill changed their views over time, it wasn't because their values changed, but rather because they had different views on what sort of public policies best embodied those values. In Mill's case, he became somewhat more supportive of government intervention as he got older. Liberals born in 1950 tended to become less supportive of government intervention as they got older. . Liberals born in 1950 tended to become less supportive of government intervention as they got older. In my view, American liberals "really are" liberal, and I also believe that pragmatic libertarians (like me) really are liberal. We simply have different views on which policies best advance utilitarian goals."
"I'm not interested in reclaiming the meaning of liberal from 200 years ago, just as I have no interest in reclaiming the meaning of 'gay' from 100 years ago. Rather I favor what Klein is trying to do because (even today) in most of the world a liberal is a supporter of free market-oriented policies and social liberalism, and is also opposed to militarism. Those are also my views, and it would be nice to not have to constantly explain to my fellow Americans where I belong on the political spectrum. Unlike Senator Chuck Schumer, I favor legalizing drugs, free trade with China and the arms deal with Iran. And yet if I tell Americans that I'm more liberal than Schumer they get all confused. In addition, lots of non-Americans read my blog, so it would be nice if words meant roughly the same thing in the US as they do in Europe and South America."
"And let's be honest, 'liberal' sounds classier than 'libertarian'. If I tell people in Europe that I'm a liberal, they might picture a cosmopolitan, socially liberal businessman who favors free markets and reads the Economist. If I say I'm a libertarian they might picture a Ron Paul supporter storing gold, can goods, and guns in his basement. (Not that there's anything wrong with those activities.) are liberal. We simply have different views on which policies best advance utilitarian goals."
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/08/how_shall_we_de.html
Glad to hear he's for the Iran deal. I certainly think liberal is classier than libertarian though I also think it's classier than progressive. It seems to me that in part 'progressive' started being used around 1988 after 8 years of Reagan attacking 'liberals.'
Remember Jean Kirkpatrick at the GOP convention of 1984 declaring that 'There are not liberals and conservatives there are only liberals and Americans.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv8L-cuq17s
A liberal in my mind is someone who believes in the free market-a lot of progressives seem to love no word in the English language more than 'socialism.' Which is a big part of Bernie's appeal.
So I'm for the free market but also for adequate regulation of it and a generous safety net. That to me is a good definition of a liberal. One of my real problems with libertarians is how few of them are social liberals like Sumner says he is.
They fall in line iwth the GOP's virulently anti-libertarian line. How does a libertarian fall in line with the crusade against Planned Parenthood?
No comments:
Post a Comment