The Broken Telegraph

Many of our nation’s political figures have become fire-breathing opportunists. They condescendingly point fingers during town hall meetings, or threaten other nations and then smile. 

This country used to elect imperfect people who, despite personal flaws and often failed policy- still practiced restraint and favored diplomacy, especially in regards to matters of foreign policy. 

Not anymore. In this post 9/11 era, we hear threats far more frequently from our own politicians than even Al Qaeda. Remember what Representative (and ‘08 GOP presidential candidate) Tom Tancredo once told a radio show host?  He said a Tomcredo presidency would “take out their holy sites” should Islamic terrorists pull off a multi-city nuclear attack on our soil. Yes, he actually clarified that he was talking about bombing Mecca. Way to distinguish between criminals and innocent Saudis, Tom. Innocent until stereotyped, I guess.

During the GOP presidential debates, the rhetoric had a vengeful tone. Mitt Romney had this to say about the lasting value of one of the not-so-bright spots in recent American history- the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp:

“I am glad [detainees] are at Guantanamo. I don’t want them on our soil. I want them on Guantanamo, where they don’t get the access to lawyers they get when they’re on our soil. I don’t want them in our prisons, I want them there. Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is we ought to double Guantanamo,” and later “Guantanamo is a symbol of our resolve.” Romney got his applause, but should’ve (at the very least) listened to the guys that he modeled his foreign policy after:

“If you just look at how we are perceived in the world and the kind of criticism we have taken over Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and renditions,” Colin Powell said in an interview, “whether we believe it or not, people are now starting to question whether we’re following our own high standards…Suppose North Korea or somebody else wants to redefine or ‘clarify’ ” Geneva Conventions provisions prohibiting “outrages against personal dignity” and “humiliating and degrading treatment” of prisoners…The world…is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.” Even George W. Bush disagrees with Romney, and has said “I’d like to close Guantanamo.” Oh well, Romney got his applause.

Moving on. Rudy Giuliani offered glimpses of his very ghoulish foreign policy during his recent attempt at the White House. Here’s an example: “Iran is not going to be allowed to [become] a nuclear power. If they get to a point where they’re going to become a nuclear power, we will prevent them; we will set them back eight to 10 years. That is not said as a threat; that should be said as a promise.” Giuliani’s foreign policy was so aggressive that even The American Conservative gave him this cover (it is not a fake):

Mrs. Clinton is up to bat next. Following what she called our “massive retaliation” should Iran strike Israel, Hillary buckled her Kevlar pantsuit and proceeded to fire another warning shot: “We will attack Iran…we would be able to totally obliterate them. That’s a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that.”  If it’s terrible, then why are you saying it, Hillary? Why not something along these lines: “we have confidence that a new administration will be able to re-open dialogue with Iran so that such an outcome is never even approached. We want to build relationships with countries like Iran; not alienate and threaten them.” A bully doesn’t just fight, but also tries to provoke and intimidate, and it’s not great to see it coming from so many of our presidential candidates.

Okay John McCain- will you one-up Hillary by promising to slowly lower the entire country of Iran into molten lava, or at least flatten, decimate and perhaps blast it back to the stone age? No, not in those words, but he did jokingly sing about bombing Iran, and also likes to take the threat of terrorism personally:

“I will follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell and I will shoot him with your products,” he said. Whoops! Here’s a clarification on that recklessness: “I certainly didn’t mean I would actually shoot him. I am certainly angry at him, but I was only speaking in a way that was trying to emphasize my point…I would not shoot him myself.” Thank you McCain, you too are so butch. Does he actually think that the American public will vote for him based on where his anger is focused? That’s the last thing I want- an angry President with the world’s most powerful military at his disposal.

These so-called Reagan Republicans sound pretty out of touch with the guy they frequently salute, and would be wise to remember his quotes:

“We the people” tell the government what to do, it doesn’t tell us.”

“History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.”

“The only way there could be war is if they start it; we’re not going to start a war.”

“Peace is not absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means.”

“The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor.” 

Of course, in an attempt to officiate a civil war, Reagan did send marines into Lebanon, but even he “cut and ran” when things went sour there. His foreign policy is not worthy of unchecked praise as there were other blunders over those eight years, but again- this country used to elect imperfect people who, despite personal flaws and often failed policy- still practiced restraint and favored diplomacy- especially in regards to matters of foreign policy. 

Can we get back to that?

Stay tuned for the next installment…