Inside Walker's Divide and Conquer the World Foreign Policy

Scott Walker has been tagged “authoritarian,” “dictatorial,” and “dangerous” by reporters who’ve done their research on Wisconsin’s governor. And for good reason. Walker’s vision seems to include U.S. dominance over every nation in the world. Remember when he matter-of-factly said he would “put steel in the face of our enemies.” Like his supposed "enemies" in Wisconsin, that's a list that gets longer everyday. 

The idea that we’re seeing the rise of a very frightening candidate for president continues, with a piece by the Journal Sentinel’s Dan Bice.

Walker introduced Kevin Hermening — a former Iranian hostage — by name, offering the former U.S. Marine a nod and a salute. (Walker) cited Hermening when opposing the nuclear deal with Iran. Walker said Hermening had taught him that Iran "is not a place we should be doing business with."

Walker’s irrational opposition to any deal with Iran, which would only accelerate their development of nukes and result in war, was shaped by Kevin Hermening’s still extreme views, which are present in every Walker foreign policy statement:

In an inflammatory opinion piece for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in September 2001, just weeks after the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon … Hermening outlined a four-point plan that he described as "the only acceptable and appropriate responses" to the attacks.:

1. Hermening called for the "immediate and unequivocal deportation of every illegal alien and immigrant" … especially those with a Middle Eastern background and anyone who reacted "with glee" to the coordinated attacks by 19 al-Qaida terrorists.

2. A "prompt and massive military response that includes the destruction of the capitals of Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and Yemen." The only way out would be if these countries "agree unequivocally to support our efforts to kill Osama bin Laden. After the annihilation of each country's capitals, we can make them the same kind of financial offer we made to the leaders of Japan and Germany after World War II. Cooperate with us in the establishment of democratic governments, and we will assist you in every possible way. Don't cooperate, and your people will perpetually suffer — that ought to be our unspoken message. Every military response must be considered, including the use of nuclear warheads."

3. “The erection of security fences along the entire perimeter of the United States, with electronic and human monitoring to prevent tampering and illegal entry.”

4. “Step-up security efforts in our air transportation system…”

Hermening emphasized that the op-ed piece was written during an extremely emotional period in America. But he then went on to defend most of the column … But does Hermening still think destroying these seven capitals would have been an appropriate response to Sept. 11? Yes, he does.

Walker of course has now denied Hermening had anything to do with his own policy (he speaks for himself), despite being taught by Hermening that Iran is not a place to be doing business and the glaring similarities of his attitude toward Iran:

"I'll speak for myself," Walker told the Journal Sentinel on Monday. "The reference I made to Kevin Hermening was as one of the hostages, the youngest at the time, and pointed out the things that hadn't changed. My policy is very clear and it's not aligned with what he said in that particular column." He said he does not consider Hermening an adviser to his campaign.

Many forgot the reason why Iranian students took hostages: Blowback for U.S. meddling (medical attention for the Shah) and ouster of their countries leadership.

The immediate cause of this action was President Jimmy Carter’s decision to allow Iran’s deposed Shah, a pro-Western autocrat who had been expelled from his country some months before, to come to the United States for cancer treatment. However, the hostage-taking was about more than the Shah’s medical care: it was a dramatic way for the student revolutionaries to declare a break with Iran’s past and an end to American interference in its affairs.

Obama weak? What about the Bush/Cheney hard line policy against our enemies and terrorist? A myth.

As commander and chief, Obama had every right to make the decision to swap Taliban prisoners for an American prisoner. Sure he could have told congress, but he didn't. That makes authoritarians very angry.

At times Obama is a weak leader for using "soft diplomacy," at other times he's the imperial president for taking swift action. 

Republicans have a sick obsession about telling the world the U.S. is weak, and the president is a failure. Message sent, thank you very much. For future reference, that'll help boost the standing of U.S. presidents to come who are called on to help solve another humanitarian or political crisis? 

Researching my past blog posts on the Bush/Cheney no compromise hard line positions in foreign policy, I came across this May 2008 revealing contradiction to the GOP's blustery statements today: 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weak and hypocritical are the end results of the Bush administrations tough impossible stances with America’s perceived and real enemies. While the rest of the world looks on in disbelief, the administrations reversals and contradictions are viewed by the White House as having been part of the plan, or a misunderstood position.

The Washington Posts story, “Despite stance on negotiating with tyrants, U.S. lends Bashir an ear” highlights their “aw shucks, did we say that” attitude toward foreign policy.

Hypocrisy 101:

“It has at least provoked charges of hypocrisy, because Bush recently accused those advocating talks with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other radical figures of "appeasement…underscoring how White House policy has departed from his pointed public call to shun talks with radical tyrants and
dictators."

Appeasement #1:

“A special envoy of President Bush plans to meet with Sudanese President
Omar Hassan al-Bashir, whose government sheltered Osama bin Laden and pursued a scorched-earth policy in southern Sudan that resulted in more than 2 million deaths… spoken to or exchanged letters with Bashir on numerous occasions…reportedly offered the regime major concessions in exchange
for minor steps and rolled out the red carpet for some of its most reprehensible officials," said Susan Rice, who handled Africa policy in the Clinton administration and is a top adviser to the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).”

So Bush has offered letters, personal meetings and major concessions with a tyrant and mass murderer. That is the true definition of appeasement; giving something away in order to get something back. It’s interesting to note just who might have been tougher pursuing and punishing state sponsors of terrorism. “The Clinton administration…tried to isolate Sudan because of its ties to Osama bin Laden, imposed stiff sanctions against the government and placed it on the official list of state sponsors of terrorism.”

Appeasement #2, #3, #4, #5, #6:

His appointees have also pursued aggressive diplomacy with North Korea and
Libya and have even conducted limited business with Cuba, Syria and Iran.

I personally think the White House is really trying to desensitize us so we generally accept a certain level of “minor” corruption and incompetence. The more egregious misconduct in office charges have been successfully thwarted by simply not cooperating.

Paul Ryan's vision of America? Happy with most feared nation status.

A Green Bay crowd of 1,500, that was absolutely sold on the charismatic ranting of Paul Ryan, got the red meat they were so hungry for; the promise of a powerful world bully and blusterer. How did that work out for the Bush/Cheney administration? Looks like the Mittney/Ryan team is a repeat of that.



I put together this short two minute compilation showing how Obama predicted the Mittney/Ryan foreign policy bluster during the convention.

The American Worker Losing, American Industry Winning.

Young Terk Cenk Uygur, on MSNBC, takes a look at American incomes and what has been good for business but bad for us.

AP News Tries to Equate Palin with Obama!!! Does "He said/She said" Work With "nucular" Weapons Treaties?

AP reporter Liz Sidoti,wrote this headline: "Palin, Obama spar from a distance" as if to suggest there existed some equivalent comparison between the two politicians. A dumbass half term governor with a speech writer, and a president with experienced advisors that include the secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

Are Americans on a collective bad trip? Sidoti surrealistically writes:

"President Barack Obama and Republican Sarah Palin sparred from a distance over nuclear policy with each questioning the other's experience on the issue in a potential preview of the 2012 White House race."

It's as if Palin has any credibility, one shred of understanding, on the issue of "nukular" reduction treaties.

And Obama didn't really directly respond to Palin's bizarre opposition to the treaty, but was instead answering a question asked by an ABC News reporter about Palin's recent statement, like it really mattered.

Palin statement:

"No administration in America's history would, I think, ever have considered such a step that we just found out President Obama is supporting today."

I recall President Ronald Reagan saying once:

"We're not just discussing limits on a further increase of nuclear weapons, we seek to instead reduce their number. We seek a total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth."

What earth is Palin referring too? As far as Obama's answer:

"I really have no response. Because last I checked, Sarah Palin's not much of an expert on nuclear issues ... If the secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are comfortable with it, I'm probably going to take my advice from them and not from Sarah Palin."

Mocking the president, she (Palin) dismissed

"all the vast nuclear experience that he acquired as a community organizer."

How wrong is Palin? Check out Obama's EXTENSIVE experience below. Getting mileage now before Palin's bullshit completely disproved is a common conservative ploy. Obama is taking the advice of experts, by the way, he's not drawing from his experience as a community organizer.



And this is how the media will be treating the crazy lunatic anti-government Ayn Randers and Milton Friedman wanna-be's, the ones who had the ideological balls to create the Great Recession, and ignore it.


Simply put: What Palin, Gingrich and every other tea partier and Republican authoritarian wants to do is direct the threat of nuclear inhalation to anyone who dares to challenge us. The power of Lex Luthor on steroids.



Media Matters: In Senate, Obama worked on non-proliferation policy, co-authored "next critical step" on issue

Obama took fact-finding trip to former USSR to examine WMD stockpiles. In 2005, in his first foreign trip as a U.S. senator, Obama traveled to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan with Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), then-chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. The purpose of the trip was to examine facilities for the storage and destruction of conventional, biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Obama and Lugar subsequently co-wrote a December 2005 Washington Post op-ed on the issue and appeared together in a discussion at the Council on Foreign Relations on "Challenges Ahead For Cooperative Threat Reduction," in which Obama detailed ways to improve the U.S. program to control, secure, and dismantle weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union.

With Lugar, Obama co-authored non-proliferation initiative signed into law by President Bush. Obama and Lugar co-authored the "Lugar-Obama non-proliferation initiative," which "enhances U.S. efforts to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles and to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction throughout the world." The legislation was signed into law by President Bush in January 2007. According to a June 28, 2007, press release from Lugar, he and Obama subsequently secured "$36 million for programs to destroy heavy conventional weapons, $10 million for efforts to intercept weapons and materials of mass destruction, and $2 million for rapid response to proliferation detection and interdiction emergencies."

Lugar praised Obama's "productive" work on nonproliferation that took "next critical step" on the issue. In an August 2008 Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette op-ed (retrieved from the Nexis database), Lugar wrote that "Sen. Obama has worked with me, productively, on non-proliferation issues. We jointly introduced a bill that strengthened U.S. defenses against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

He further wrote: Sen. Obama joined me in developing legislation in 2005 -- long before he was a presidential candidate -- to address emerging proliferation risks. After significant study and site visits, it became clear to us that additional safeguards were required to strengthen the lines of defense between unsecured weapons of mass destruction and U.S. borders and to deal with vulnerable stockpiles of conventional weapons and hand-held anti-aircraft missiles. The Nunn-Lugar program has provided a solid foundation, valuable experience and measurable results. With the Lugar-Obama legislation, we took the next critical step forward to refocus and reinvigorate our country's non-proliferation mission.

In 2005, I traveled with Sen. Obama to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan to oversee a number of proliferation projects. In Russia, we visited Nunn-Lugar sites where nuclear weapons were being dismantled and stored. In Ukraine, we inspected the Donetsk State Chemical Production Plant, a conventional weapons destruction facility where the U.S. has taken the lead in a three-year NATO program to destroy the weapons. At that facility, more than 117,000 tons of ammunition and 1.1 million small arms and light weapons are slated for destruction within 12 years. During the visit we encouraged Ukrainian officials to expedite destruction efforts and expand cooperative threat reduction of conventional weapons. In Azerbaijan, we observed sea interdiction exercises in the Caspian Sea and encouraged leaders there to continue their cooperation with the United States.

These programs are ongoing. For a relatively small investment they are making a huge difference to U.S. and global security.

More Than Half of Afghanistan's People Paid Bribes to Public Officials. We're Fighting for What There?

President Obama must be aware of the systemic corruption problem in Afghanistan. It's time to turn away from nation building in countries that don't show any hope or promise for change.

The Economist: A survey by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime found that more than half of Afghanistan’s people had to pay a bribe to a public official last year. The police topped the list of bribe recipients. Nearly 60% of those surveyed saw corruption as a bigger problem than lack of security.

A survey conducted by the UN’s Office on Drugs and Crime found that half of the 7,600 Afghans interviewed had paid a bribe in the previous year (see chart), handing over on average $160 each time, about a third of average annual GDP per head. This extrapolates to about $2.5 billion worth of baksheesh nationally every year: roughly as large as Afghanistan’s opium economy, and a quarter of licit economic output.

For most Afghans, corruption outranks insecurity and unemployment as the country’s greatest challenge. Corruption corrodes Mr Karzai’s legitimacy; if he does not curb it, other problems may prove insoluble.

That Great Sucking Sound Set the Stage for Our Unemployment Numbers Today.

Watching this video will depress you greatly, and make you long for the good old pre-NAFTA days, when Americans made a good living. Ross Perot appeared pretty crazy at the time, and seemed a bit chaotic in his speaking style, which diminished his message and warning to working stiffs out there. This is the 1992 debate where Perot made his famous "sucking sound" comment that drew snickers from Bush, Clinton and the audience.

They Kept Us Safe...Except for 9/11! Otherwise....

Terry Jeffrey left himself wide open for criticism when he touted how the Bush administration protected us from even one terrorist attack. What is usually an unchallenged conservative declaration, Chris Matthews brought up the obvious question; who was in charge on 9/11? David Corn tries to get a word in but can't, fortunately for us, because he would have simply obscured the simple point Matthews was making to Jeffrey.

This is classic conservative finger pointing and denial.

Treason: DeMint's Republican Party.

A de facto minority Republican government entity, shadowing the current administration, has decided to undermine U.S. foreign policy in support of forcefully ousted democratically elected leaders via military coups. Sen. Jim DeMint and Sen. Mitch McConnell have eerily blamed their support of the Honduran coups on what they perceive as a violation of the Honduran constitution, which I'm sure they know inside and out.

I say eerily because isn't it the same argument echoed in our own country by tenthers and tea party "take our government back" protesters. Coincidence? Was it a not so subtle suggestion to the fringers, the only ones left in the Republican Party today, to do whatever is necessary to stop the current administration?

Think Progress notes: The Logan Act forbids “unauthorized citizens” from negotiating with foreign governments. The video clip features Rachel Maddow clearing laying out the case.



It appears the minority Republicans disagree with our "illegitimate" presidents policy:

Time: U.S. officials called the latest sanctions "a strong signal" that Obama has reversed Washington's historic tendency to abide if not back coups carried out against its foes (the leftist Zelaya is a critic of the U.S.) and that he's defending democratic process in the hemisphere.

But Obama made a huge mistake by not challenging the Republicans, the minority bullies, over their support of the new Honduran government. It's an error that could have set in motion a wave of future Central and South American coups.

According to Time Magazine: "...it was not technically a military coup. The main reason: even though soldiers threw Zelaya out of the country at gunpoint, in his pajamas, he was not replaced with a military leader. Instead, Micheletti, a civilian who headed Honduras' Congress, was made President ... critics ... fear Obama is keeping the Honduras coup designation downgraded to mollify conservative Republicans. In the future, restless militaries in other countries may look at the U.S.'s Honduras ruling and decide coups are worth chancing as long as they don't install a guy wearing epaulettes in the president's chair. Vicki Gass, a senior associate at the independent Washington Office on Latin America ... fears the U.S. has "created risks in other countries" by not designating Honduras' putsch as military.

When the military hauls away a democratically elected president, it's a military coup, period, regardless of who takes power afterward. It's a rule that needs to apply not just in Honduras, but whenever the U.S. has to take on coupsters.


Boston Globe, on "real American" Jim DeMint:
In June, Sen. Jim DeMint published a book called “Saving Freedom: We Can Stop America’s Slide into Socialism,’’ which attacked President Obama’s federal spending. In July, he told a conference call of fellow conservatives: “If we’re able to stop Obama on [health care], it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.’’

The same month, he compared the United States under Obama to Nazi Germany, telling an audience at the National Press Club: “We’re about where Germany was before World War II where they became a social democracy. You still had votes but the votes were just power grabs like you see in Iran, and other places in South America, like [Hugo] Chávez is running down in Venezuela.’’

Republican Talk of Being a Christian Nation Inflames Middle Eastern Interventions

I found this perspective on the effects of the religious rights influence on U.S. Middle Eastern policy an interesting one.

Newuniversity.org: Jack Miles won the Pulitzer Prize in 1996 for his book ‘GOD: A Biography,’ explores U.S.-Iraq relations in his work ‘A Clash of Proselytizations,’ which deals with the current war in Iraq and attempts by the U.S. government to convert, or ‘proselytize,’ the Iraqi people from a highly religious nation into a nation of secular patriots.

Miles asserted that there is a fundamental problem in how the United States and Iraq view each other. ‘We refer to them as Iraqi and ourselves as American, using national designators,’ Miles said. They refer to themselves as Mujahidin, and us as Crusaders and Jews using religious designations.’

In addition, Miles noted that the ”citizenship card’ [in Iraq] … may not function’ since many Iraqis do not desire to affiliate with political labels. When Jordanians were asked how they identify themselves, 63 percent replied that they were Muslim first and Jordanians second. It is this religious affiliation that causes much of the misunderstanding and lack of enthusiasm for the new Iraqi form of government.

Furthermore, because of the high importance of religion over nationalism for Muslims, many Iraqis see the U.S. government as trying to establish both a foreign form of government and of religion, namely Christianity, according to Miles. Miles pointed out many instances over the past few years in which public figures have asserted that the United States is a Christian country.