What do I say now, Benjy?

A conversation that may happen:

President Obama: Mr. Ahemedinjad, I am happy that we have had this opportunity to meet face to face.
President Adhedinajad: Mr. Obama, it has been too long that our nations have not sat at the same table. We must do everything in our power to open the lines of communication.
Obama: As I told the students and the faculty at Notre Dame the other day, listening to those with whom we disagree is very important. We all have to learn to tolerate views that are not our own. My presence here is evidence that I do what I say I will do.
Ahmedinajad: Mr. President, we have watched you from a distance. You have a reputation of someone who does just that...you keep your word. And you come to us with no preconceived notions and a willingness to listen.
Obama: It is no secret that many of us in the West are fearful that the Iranians are trying to join the 'nuclear club' and acquire nuclear weapons. We do not believe that doing so would be in the best interests of the people of Iran, your neighbors or the rest of the world. I am here to persuade you to discontinue that search.
Ahmedinajad: Mr. President, I share your belief that nuclear weapons are not good. And I would do my best to persuade my people, the military and the mullahs that we should abandon our search. But there is one obstacle that I cannot overcome without your help.
Obama: What is that obstacle?
Ahmedinajad: I'm glad that you asked. You see, one of our neighbors, good friends of yours, have not signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and it is widely believed that they have already acquired nuclear weapons. Worse than that, these same friends of yours receive billions of dollars in military aid from the United States and you have never asked them to give up their nuclear weapons. Here is what I ask you to do: use the persuasiveness that you are so good at, use the billions of dollars in aid, use your veto at the UN and persuade them to give up their nuclear weapons and you will make my job much easier.
Obama: Let me get back to you on that.

Fuel for the fire

Let's see, we sell $20B worth of arms to the Saudis to get them to warm up to the idea of going to war with Iran. Then we sell even more and better weapons to the Israelis so that they won't be mad at us. All the while, we look at the Iranians as the bad guys because they want to arm themselves...maybe it's because they live in a bad neighborhood, surrounded by people who don't like them and who have a lot more weaponry than they do.

Don't get me wrong...I think we should demilitarize the entire area. Don't sell the Saudis any weapons, don't sell the Israelis any more weapons and while we're at it, we should tell the Israelis to come clean about their own nuclear arsenal. Then we can take away all of the nuclear weapons from everyone, including the Iranians and the Israelis.

Did I miss something? Or do we just like war that much?

Impure Thoughts

All of you who went to Catholic schools knew exactly what I was talking about, didn't you? Remember going to confession on Saturday, trembling in that dark booth and waiting for that screen to slide open. Then you said "Bless me Father, etc..." How the heck did we ever tell someone that we had impure thoughts? And why did we?

Now fast forward to 2007. Our illustrious President and the gnomes in the State Department want to take us to war because the Iranians had impure thoughts. Shame on them. They actually thought about building a nuclear weapon. No matter that their neighbors in Israel had them and don't tell anyone about it (the original kiss but don't tell) but can you imagine that the Iranians actually had such impure thoughts?

I wish someone would explain to me how we could take away the 'knowledge' that the Iranians may have gleaned about making nuclear weapons. Maybe we'll send Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith over there dressed in black with their little flashing memory erasers. That's it. We have the answer. No war, no more sanctions, we can just erase their memories.

If Father Kenny only knew that he could have erased my memory, I might not have had to say all of those Hail Marys.

What we really need

All of the chatter about the candidates (both parties) struck me today. The process is skewed, at best. We, the voters, are 'hiring' a new (fill in the blank) but for the purposes of today's note, let's use President. Unlike any other hiring process, we let the prospective employee tell us what he or she will do if we give her or him the job. Does that strike you as being a little backasswards?
By anyone's count, a substantial majority of us feel that the country is going in the wrong direction. The people we have 'hired' aren't getting the job done. We need to hire some new people...and we will.
I propose that we create the job description and give it to the prospective candidates and let them tell us whether or not they can do the job. In November 2006, we hired a bunch of people that we thought could get the job done and look how wrong we were then. We need to learn from our mistakes. Using the Democratic candidates as the example, there is not one amongst them that I dislike and on a purely personal basis, I'd hire any of them for the job. But if I use my demands (ending the war and soon, reducing the budget deficit, creating a healthcare finance plan that will work AND that we can afford, repairing our image in the world) the choice gets harder. Some of them will get some of these done but it is hard to find one that will get them all done. Rather than let the candidate dictate the goal, we need to set the goals, make them clear and then elect the one person who can get the job done. Let's not make the mistake that we made in 200.

The Elephant in the Room

If one were to listen to Condy and the rest of the administration's shills, one would think that the Iranians were the world's madmen trying to blow up the whole world. Let's call it like we see it, folks: the Iranians DO want a nuclear weapon. They, like the Pakistanis and Indians and the North Koreans and, wait a minute, the Israelis, want to have nuclear weapons for one reason and one reason only: Deterrent. Mutually Assured Destruction.

The Indians have had nuclear weapons since at least 1974 and have steadfastly refused to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. The Pakistanis have had nuclear weapons since at least 1998 and they, too,have refused to sign the NPT. The only other countries who have refused to sign the treaty are North Korea and Israel. We think we know what the North Koreans are doing and only the fools amongst us are naive enough to think that the Israelis don't have nuclear weapons.

Among the non signers of the treaty, the Indians and Pakistanis have each attacked one another with conventional weapons. They both know better than to use their nuclear arsenal on one another for obvious reasons. And we, the ultimate arbiter of ethics and morality, have deigned to help both countries in a number of ways, including nuclear help. We have bargained with the North Koreans.

Our friends and allies, the Israelis have nuclear weapons. The Israelis have shown a clear intention to strike first and ask questions later. They bombed facilities in Iraq, they bombed something in Syria and have rattled their sabres against the Iranians. So if you were the Iranians and saw that one of your neighbors had the ability and the will to attack first, what would you do? If your answer is anything but build a nuclear bomb, come on over to my house...I've got some things in my attic that I want to sell you.

Our position is not a sincere one and the Iranians and the rest of the world see it for what it is. We are not interested in nuclear disarmament. We are interested in disarming anyone who is not on our 'team'.

Here is a modest proposal that will work. Let's declare the Middle East a nuclear free zone. Disarm ALL of the countries. Force ALL of them to sign the NPT and abide by it. If the Iranians don't sign on to that, they will have exposed themselves and will attract the condemnation of the whole world. If the Israelis don't or won't go along, we'll know who the problem child really is.