|
The Antix of Rubio
[SPECTATOR.ORG] If the posturing was pure politics, it seems like stupid politics. First off, Senator Marco Rubio The diminutive 13-year-old Republican U.S. Senator from Florida...didn’t give John F. I was in Vietnam, you knowKerry Former Senator-for-Life from Massachussetts, self-defined war hero, speaker of French, owner of a lucky hat,conqueror of Cambodia, unsuccessful presidential candidate, and utterly failed Secretary of State... this difficult of a time and one could reasonably argue that Kerry’s behavior regarding the Vietnam war was disloyal or treasonous. Second, does Mr. Rubio want to start off with the new president from a position of hostility, and who is giving him this genius advice? Third, if he sets up a purely adversarial role now, how will later concessions look to his loyal fans? ... if any. Taking Mr. Rubio literally, and assuming that he is genuinely concerned that we have a potential Secretary of State who doesn’t care about human rights ...which are often intentionally defined so widely as to be meaningless... , war crimes, and is a completely driven instead by profit, what did he expect Mr. Tillerson to say? Piss off, kid." If Mr. Tillerson is morally obtuse, he’s not going to say anything bad about Putin or Soddy Arabia ...a kingdom taking up the bulk of the Arabian peninsula. Its primary economic activity involves exporting oil and soaking Islamic rubes on the annual hajj pilgrimage. The country supports a large number of princes in whatcha might call princely splendor. When the oil runs out the rest of the world is going to kick sand in the Soddy national face... n’s 10th century treatment of women. If, as is more likely, Mr. Tillerson sees this bad behavior but must negotiate with these world leaders and countries, he cannot say anything needlessly provocative either. Unlike Marco, he doesn't have to make a name for himself. There are different world views at play. I’m in the conservative camp who feels that it was wrong to foment civil war in Libya, that a tyrant friendly to America was preferable to civil war. I kinda sorta disagree, because Qadaffy was a nut. Lockerby sez he wasn't a friend of the U.S. The Berlin disco bombing sez he wasn't. He happened to be cowed by the Gulf War, but he wasn't the kind of fellow you could repose a lot of trust in. Same goes for Egypt and the Soros-funded Moslem Brüderbund debacle. That since we committed to Iraq, we should leave forces there so a power vacuum wasn’t created. I thought it was terrible weakness to not put a defensive shield in Poland. It was stupid to not push the Castros harder. It was folly to fund and arm Iran. It’s plain evil to treat Israel as the enemy. I believe that's the governing phrase. We've seen Evil itself erupt, Nazis without the nifty uniforms. Any point of compromise is dwindling from view in the rear view mirror. Strength does not have to mean constant tinkering and meddling. It can mean innovation, overwhelming power, and distinct but strategic uses of that power. That’s a big change from nation-fussing. It tends to be more, well, Reaganesque. Rhetorically strong, backed up with overwhelming military might, and less intervention. Way back then we thought democracy was possible in that part of the world. We've now proven it isn't, to everyone's satisfaction. Time to replace the old dictator with a new dictator, but it's not the sort of thing you announce up front. Now is the time to launch a program of quietly but ruthlessly undermining the Evil emanating from Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistain, and to recognize the potential neo-Ottoman Evil arising in Turkey... Tillerson may be the more pragmatic, less interventionist type. Is that a bad thing? Posted by: Fred 2017-01-14 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=478414 |