Don't agree with any of that...
There's no real difference that matters, in policy, between the political parties in relation to $ from any such source... which is not to say that it doesn't matter whether you replace Obama by electing "pay in advance to play" Hillary... or Ted Cruz... or, even, Trump.
The key difference between the two political parties in context... the difference that matters today... isn't about the $ or about what the objective of policy is at all... but is only about the difference in the level of competence we've engaged in creation and implementation of policy. The Democrats are rank amateurs flailing in OJT while struggling with rectifying their ideological errors with reality. (And, that's not me saying that's a necessary function of their ideology, or that Democrats have always been and will always be amateurs, rather than pointing that out as a fact parallel with the ongoing process of devolution dominating the party today.)
The first reality in "the greatest foreign threat" to Americans... is that there is no country that realistically poses such a singular threat. Any proper prioritization of the threats we face... would have to put us at the top of the list, being our own worst enemies... with Obama leading the cadres of those intending and generating self inflicted injuries through sheer ignorance and stupidity.
Then, understanding that first item in context... Mexico and those in correspondence with Mexico are the greatest real physical threat to our national security... And, that's still true only if you're willing to wrongly discount that supra-national element in the general subversion of American interests that is enabled by the corruption worked through the sloshing of foreign money into American pockets, including "campaign contributions" and "foundation money" broadly... not to mention "pay to play" operating in advancing "business opportunities."
In a more conventional view of the world... still in context of the 'first reality'... the challenges we face from foreign countries aren't singular. You see the unavoidable awareness of the fact, at least by those in the know, being exposed in fact now, in the obvious coordination occurring between Iran, Syria, Russia and China... throw in fellow travelers in Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, North Korea, perhaps some in Pakistan and the Taliban... the Palestinians... add the Houthi's in Yemen, and other Shiites supported by Iran, with the random collections of whack jobs in Africa, hoping that a bold move in defending Syria from "the Arab Spring gone sour" now, might force Obama into folding his tent... which is no different in intent... than the tents of prior Presidents.
The commercial interest in Syria is pipeline access... which pipeline being built would help liberate Europeans from risk and concern with Russian coercion through monopoly control over access to energy supplies. The political interest is parallel... in a location controlling physical access to the conduit enabling Iran in supporting Hezbollah.
Perhaps ISIS is/was an American creation (perhaps run amok in an obvious instance of incompetence enabling blow back) that was once tolerated and illicitly supported by America or her allies as a risk worth tolerating, rather than being pro-actively undermined as fundamentally terroristic, in the hope that sustained chaos in Syria will lead to the end of the regime ? Or, perhaps that explains the "split" occurring between Washington and Riyahd as a function of disagreements over how to manage the issue in Syria. Then, either way, the primary difference between that effort and the comparable Reagan administration project in Afghanistan... is Obama and Kerry's glaring lack of competence. Or, compare it with the Bush (II) administration parallel in successfully removing the horror that was Saddam Hussein (and his Russian backers)... only to have Obama surrender the "win" for petty domestic political reasons, rather than anything we might properly have judged a larger value. ISIS couldn't exist if Obama didn't liberate Iraq FOR them and deliver it to them. Take that, George Bush... Obama trying to kill the legacy of that success attained... assuming it would make his... one of the few things he's been right about... if not in the way he'd hoped.
The Democrats two-faced "support" of the war in Iraq and subsequent fraud in posing opposition... tells you more about the transparent dynamic dominating their foreign policy decisions than anything else you can find that is that transparent. Contrast Obama's statements in the last week about the horrors of Assad's leadership in Syria... with his policy and political positions re the American conflict with Saddam... and then explain how that difference being made apparent makes a lick of sense in relation to any "consistent" policy ? For Democrats, at least, there is no foreign threat they weigh as more substantial than the domestic risks they face from the election of honest politicians and the writings of honest journalists... of which there are still far too few.
The kleptocracy that is the Obama administration... only one flavor of the potentials Democrats represent... which doesn't mean that the differences with Republicans are any more substantive than that... rather than differently opportunistic. The Democrats amateurs are focused on converting the party's electoral power to personal money... while others focus on converting their personal money into electoral power.
The reality that matters outside our politics... is that there is again a bi-polar world... pairing Russia and China in facing off against an expanded western influence block... that is so deeply engaged in navel gazing that they're still mostly pretending to not notice... at least, right up until the flood of refugees overtakes that ability.
|
