Newt "Chickenhawk" Gingrich recently suggested the president should "eliminate" Iran's government if
it blocks the passage through a key oil route, adding that "any threat
to close the Straits of Hormuz would be considered an act of war." If
he were president today, according to his statements, he would have
already started a war with Iran.
And for the leader of the Republican race, Mitt Romney has been
critical of Obama's lack of tight sanctions and other precautions.
Recently, former Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry accurately pointed out that
Obama is in fact doing exactly what Romney suggested. In addition to
heavy sanctions on the country and it's citizens, Obama has been
increasing missile defense, according to Kerry.
This is all very reminiscent, to me, of Iraq in 2004. Do they have
a <strike>weapon of mass destruction</strike> nuclear
weapon? No. Is there any evidence they are developing one? No. In
all actuality as Newt Gingrich made clear, this is really about oil.
What also makes this so familiar is that it's the republicans that
are beating the drums of war, while the democrats appear to be
approaching the issue cautiously. Keep in mind all of the republican
candidates never served in the military despite being so quick to send
others to war. That is of course besides Ron Paul who served in the Air
Force and believes we should be much less involved in Middle Eastern
affairs.
Now where I think I may see a relation that others don't is in the
Democrats position. They, once again are being portrayed as the good
guys to anyone who thinks war is a bad thing, especially with young
people. In an odd twist of political views, the neoconservatives that
have been populating the republican party since the elder Bush years,
are once again promoting this aggressive foreign policy with aims to
make the world a better place. After all, if Iran gets a nuke that
doesn't mean they have any capabilities to bring it around the world to
drop it here; they have a pathetic navy and no air force to speak of.
These republicans haven't even suggested they could. The worry is
with Israel, who mind you has 300 nuclear bombs. They want to skip
a declaration of war made necessary by the Constitution and ignore the
advice of the founding fathers to stay out of entangling alliances,
which is in fact historically a democratic position made popular by
early progressives.
So it would look like we have a complete switch on the the parties,
and that isn't surprising considering it's happened before. But that's
not exactly the case here. The democrat mentioned earlier, John Kerry,
who ran against George W. Bush in 2004 was very outspoken on his
criticism on Bush's approach in Iraq, but he did in fact vote in favor
of the Iraq war in 2002 and has since stuck by his vote. He never really gave specifics on how he would have handled it differently.
With Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it's the same thing,
along with many democrats, even many of those who claimed to
be critical especially once it became public that there were no weapons
of mass destruction.
There are two important points to be taken from the politics of the
Iraq War that can be drawn to conclusions of this election cycle. One
is the so-called "patriotism" that encouraged many Americans to stay
obedient to their president and reelect him. Although this point isn't
really all that strong because Americans were actually pretty split.
Nevertheless, I firmly believe the Iraq War helped in Bush's reelection,
mainly by getting republicans to come out to vote instead of staying
home. This due to the meme that changing Commander in Chief can have a
devastating effect during wartime.
The other point is that after the war was over, or at least after
Bush's "victory" speech and after it was proven that the grounds for the
war were false (the war is arguable still on-going), Americans' views
on republicans became much more unfavorable than before. Independents
and young people voted in 2008 for "change" with Barack Obama.
So, now it's 2012 and the process to see who will be president for
the next four years is on. Obama's reelection campaign should be
looking at this history to achieve a reelection, and to maintain a good
image for himself and democrats going forward.
Given no evidence of weapon development in Iran, they need to use
to fear tactics used by the media to maintain their viewership to their
advantage. Instead of telling the truth, considering Americans would
never believe it while watching Fox News and CNN, Obama should be doing
exactly what he is. Strategically, that is, not necessarily morally.
By keeping war on the table,
but not actually engaging, Obama can play with the fear mongering yet,
remain the leader of the good-guy party. Besides of course, some
possible strategic bombing and covert missions, which Obama is so well
known for in Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan for the successful killing of
Osama bin Laden and countless civilians including women and children.
While the republicans play the radical card, they are doing a great
job of ensuring a second term. As long as they and their news
counterparts maintain the suppression of the one candidate who can get
the youth and independent vote, the republican establishment will do
it's part.
I'm suggesting that behind the scenes, the GOP doesn't actually
want to keep Obama from getting reelected. In 2016 we might actually
see a front-runner candidate who didn't create the guidelines for the
health care law and it's accompanied mandates that the republicans are
supposed to hate. And seriously, Rick Santorum? Newt Gingrich? My God!
Would you look at their records? And if that's not bad enough, listen
to what they say.
| 
