It's been obvious for some time that the Right wishes to
impeach Barack Obama. If they're able to capture the Senate in November then
the rhetoric will increase. In fact you're already seeing some who are trying
to push the House to go ahead and draft the articles of Impeachment right now.
The more politically savvy in the Republican party are
waiting to see which way the wind blows and are leery of drafting those
articles before the election lest it should turn some away from them or
motivate a larger voting block to come to the aid of the president and his
political allies.
If they capture the Senate, there's still no guarantee an impeachment strategy would work. We may see a repeat of 1998-99 where the House votes to impeach, but the Senate can't put together enough votes. Who can say? The parties are certainly more polarized today even when compared to the late Clinton era when the Republican establishment was hyperventilating and out for blood.
They've tried for almost two years to stir the pot over the
Benghazi attacks but despite all the noise there doesn't seem to be much of
anything there. Standing in the shoes of a militant nationalist it could
perhaps be argued there was some incompetence or lack of due diligence in the
realm of preparing for contingencies but if that's the case, the mistakes have
not risen to the degree of criminal negligence. I suppose they would say
otherwise.
Obama has handed them a new issue which is already been
successfully employed and is quickly whipping up the masses. This of course is
the release of the five Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo in exchange for
Bergdahl an American soldier accused by some of being a deserter or traitor.
Of course as a Christian who rejects America's imperial wars
and Christian participation in war, these issues are viewed a bit differently.
While I understand the army cannot allow desertion (if that's even what
happened) as Christians we should be the last people out for blood or pouring
vitriol on this man who (perhaps) could no longer morally support the immoral invasion
and occupation of that country.
That said, while I hardly want to defend the schemes and
machinations of political leaders it must be argued that no one gives up
something for nothing. They've been content to let the guy sit for five years.
Why negotiate for his release and give up the Taliban prisoners, who by the way
have never represented any threat to the United States? If the US leaves
Afghanistan they have no intention of moving on the US.
Of course 13 years of war has certainly generated plenty of
new enemies as well as several new versions of the Taliban. It is actually the
Pakistani Taliban that is (at this point) the greater threat to the wider
region.
Nevertheless I have to believe the release and the
subsequent lack of elaboration point to some other reality. One wonders, was
one of the Taliban members 'flipped' to the American side? Releasing just one
would make him an object of suspicion among the Taliban. Releasing him in a
group would help him to blend in.
By releasing them and monitoring them are they hoping to
locate other Taliban officials who will promptly removed by a drone strike?
Does anyone think it improbable that these men might have been implanted with
microchips or nano-technological tracking devices?
Something is going on, but a simple release of five Taliban
prisoners... that's not likely.
I'm not defending any of it. I'm simply saying you have to
think like a political creature in order to understand their actions.
All of this said I do find it somewhat outrageous that the
Right goes after Obama but no one stops and considers the actions of the
Right's modern messianic hero...Ronald Reagan.
Consider the following.
In order to circumvent explicit congressional legislation
regarding aid to the Contras in Nicaragua, the Reagan administration attempted
to kill two birds with one stone. This developed into what became known as the
Iran-Contra Scandal.
For those of us who remember, the nightly news in the 1980's
frequently included updates and video footage of the many captives in Lebanon.
The long complicated Lebanese Civil War was dragging on and we frequently saw
footage of Israelis, Syrians and Palestinians, Maronite 'Christian' militias
and of course the growing Shiite fanaticism of groups that would become
Hezbollah. Many Western hostages were taken and it was source of constant frustration
and embarrassment to western powers.
After Arafat and the PLO were evacuated to Tunisia the US
and others sent in troops to try and pacify the situation. Two massive attacks
on the US embassy and Marine barracks drove the US out. Reagan the warrior
president literally seemed to turn tail and run.
Of course in his defense it must be remembered this was a
mere eight years after the conclusion of Vietnam and the White House knew
Lebanon was certainly a quagmire potentially every bit as destructive as what
happened in Southeast Asia.
That said, Reagan's retreat hardly fits the conservative
narrative concerning a heroic Commander in Chief. I cannot imagine how such an
incident would be treated if Obama were to act in a similar fashion.
What followed though is stunning and all the more so when
you consider how these events are ignored or spun by the Right.
The Reagan White House was being damaged by the hostage
crisis and looking pretty impotent when it came to dealing with the situation
in the Middle East. The shockwaves of the 1979 Iranian Revolution were growing.
Reagan was capitalizing on this in Afghanistan as even Shiite hating Sunni
Jihadists were inspired by the Iranian Revolution to rise up in the name of
Islam and fight its enemies. In Afghanistan it was the USSR, but in the Middle
East it was the Israeli-American alliance.
The White House and CIA connected crew that was running a
largely clandestine foreign policy in Latin America, Asia and Africa approached
Iran and offered to sell them weapons in exchange for hostages being released.
Iran who was engaged in a brutal war against American backed
Iraq took the deal. The US was hardly alone in funding both sides. It's an old
cynical trick and the war led to over a million dead. The US wanted both sides
to lose but especially Iran.
But as we see in Syria, war begets war. And of course
morally one most question the ethics of those who engage in such strategies.
Years ago the journalist Robert Kaplan caught some flak and raised some
eyebrows when he argued geopolitics must be conducted with a pagan worldview.
Kaplan a secular Jew at least understood that the Machiavellian foreign policy
of empire is incompatible with Christian ethics. I'm afraid most Christians in
the United States have baptized Machiavelli. Nevertheless his comments didn't
go down very well in any circles with the exception of the Neo-Conservatives.
The Reagan White House took the cash from the Iranian deal
and bought weapons for the Contras and supported them through their proxies Cordova
of Honduras and Noriega of Panama.
This was easily the equivalent of Watergate if not bigger.
The Democrats who grasped this backed down not wishing to put the country
through another Constitutional Crisis. Remember Iran-Contra broke only 12 or 13
years after Nixon's resignation. They let Reagan off the hook.
It was a flagrant violation of law, a complete railroading
of checks and balances and certainly in the minds of many... morally
treacherous and treasonous.
Of course his defenders could say he didn't remember.
Perhaps Alzheimer's was already in the process of destroying him? Certainly
many in his White House considered him to be a lazy detached and in fact rather
incompetent leader. He was great for dramatic scenes and frankly buffoonish
showboating but he was not an executive.
Some truly believed that he didn't know what has happening.
In fact Plausible Deniability was a key stratagem or device dating back to the Eisenhower
era. Eisenhower was the modern president who really stepped up clandestine
operations and they worked to create a system that would insulate the
president. It didn't work very well when the U2 was shot down but that at least
was and always has been the goal.
It worked with Reagan not because he was truly insulated,
but because the Democrats backed down.
But where's the outrage? If Obama had pulled a stunt like
that there would be hundreds of thousands of Tea Party marchers on the mall.
Glenn Beck would be having conniptions and fits on air. Sarah Palin would be
once again trying to get into the cycle of news coverage.
They would scream folly and treason. Trading hostages,
negotiating with terrorists? Giving arms to the regime that had attacked the US
embassy in 1979, the regime that created and backed the Shiite militias that
killed hundreds of Americans in Lebanon and were at war with Israel?
They wouldn't be calling for impeachment. They would be
calling for execution in the name of High Treason. I guarantee it.
But even if Reagan didn't know, where was the
accountability, where's the outrage over those who knowingly did it?
They have successfully spun this issue and focused solely on
the Contras. It was about the war against Global Communism. It was about aiding
these supposedly heroic Latin American freedom fighters.
All of this was pretty ridiculous and frankly obscene
especially when you look into the actual situation in Nicaragua.
But that said, they've chose to ignore the other side of the
Iran-Contra coin.
William Casey of course conveniently died before he had an
opportunity to testify and was replaced by Robert Gates. He was certainly one
of the chief architects of the scheme and Gates of course did his 'duty' and
continued to aid in the cover-up of what most would consider a treasonous
crime.
Former National Security Advisor John Poindexter who should
be hated as a traitor by American patriots was rewarded by the second Bush
administration when he was selected to implement and run the Orwellian TIA
(Total Information Awareness) programme. After public protest he backed down
and the programme was visibly scrapped though every bit of it continued in
secret and was simply hidden by other nomenclatures.
The fact that Bush would have selected Poindexter
demonstrates that the Right has no problem with what he did. The same actions
if conducted by a Democrat would be considered a capital offense.
And of course there's Oliver North. Is he viewed as a
traitor? Hardly. He's a genuine FOX news hero. They'll ignore his dealings with
the agents of the Ayatollah. Please remember and understand that Ayatollah
Khomeini was the Bin Laden figure of the 1980's. Can you imagine if a plot came
out wherein Democrats connected to the White House cut a deal with some of Bin
Laden's agents?
Of course many Americans will fail to understand the
difference between the Taliban and a group like Al Qaeda so it will seem one
and the same to them. Nevertheless where's their outrage over Iran-Contra?
Where's their outrage directed at Oliver North?
He's the hero who broke the law in order to fight communism?
Really? To others he's a classic double-dealing schemer who
worked with terrorists, drug dealers and some of the most unscrupulous people
out there. His ethic was one of the ends justifying the means and yet somehow
he's the one who is elevated by Christians who drink from the FOX news
wellspring.
I hardly wish to defend Obama and his administration but the
Reagan worshippers on the Right have no leg to stand on. If Obama is a traitor
then so was Ronald Reagan.
These are all evil men. It's much easier to understand
modern history once this is grasped. Lost people will erect their idols and
worship their heroes. Why are Christians behaving and thinking like they're
lost? Though many profess to think and offer commentary with a Christian
Worldview they are in fact syncretists who have blended Christianity with pagan
sentiments and ethics. For the Church these false prophets, and there are many
and they are often celebrities within our circles, are spiritually speaking the
Bin Laden's and Khomeini's of our day.
