THE AGONY OF OLYMPIC POLITICS

Oct. 2, 2009
By
Joseph Chez

Olympic defeat for President Obama or political spin by his opponents?

This afternoon, the international Olympic Committee eliminated the United States as a potential host for the 2016 Olympic Games. Normally, such decision would have only been regrettable, but in this day and age of the Obama Administration, national politics have been sour - to say the least.

Unfortunately, President Obama decided to go before the Olympic Committee in Copehhagen to urged the commettee to consider Chigago to host the next Olympic Games. Sadly, in the end, the committee chose Rio de janeiro in Brazil as the next host.

Of course, many of President Obama's political opponents in this country ridiculed the President for traveling to Europe for this event, and even more so, on tax payer's expense. But what they really wanted, was for him to fail. Today's decision by the Olympic Committee simply solidified the opponent's antipathy towards the President. And as usual, even Rush Limbaugh sarcastically called it President Obama's worst day of his presidency. But really?

John F. Kennedy once said:
"after the dust of centuries has passed over ... we, too, will be remembered not for victories or defeats in battle or politics, but for our contribution to the human spirit".

Thus, President Obama's attempt to have the Olympics in Chicago, was never political in nature, but simply a desire to bring the essence of the Olympic Games spirit to our nation, which in these days, seems low. Nice try Mr. President. Anything you may do in behalf of our country is worthy of respect and admiration.

Of course, our hats go to Rio de Janeiro and to the Brazilian people. The American people bid them best wishes so that the flame of competition and human spirit may forever be alive.

A bigger question on this non-issue is, whether the Republicans can dance the Samba or the Bassa Nova? For it takes some liberal leanings to have style in dancing with the stars.

U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE UMBRELLA FOR US AND EUROPE FIZZLES AND NEO-CONS LAMENT

U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE UMBRELLA FOR U.S AND EUROPE FIZZLES AND NEO-CONS LAMENT

By
Joseph Chez

September 17, 2009

Today, President Obama announced that the missile defense umbrella that was to be set up for the protection of our European allies and for the homeland will not be put into place due to cost-saving measures and the understanding that present U.S. capability is enough to deter the threat of any missile attack from Iran.

However, to the discredit of the Bush Administration, it must be pointed out that one of his greatest misdeeds was his attempt to make a case that Iran’s nuclear pursuit would ultimately lead to a major threat to Europe and to the United States of America. Thus, his administration argued, that the imminent threat of a missile attack from Iran warranted placing a missile defense umbrella for the defense of Europe. His concern and reaction was reminiscent of the case made before the United Nations during the “smoking gun” of Iraq. Nonetheless, he initiated the plan and rallied support from European allies for this endeavor. To no one’s surprise, most NATO members were skeptical of the perceived threat from Iran and this proposal even placed NATO at odds with one of its own members – the US. Further, notwithstanding the economic and diplomatic ties Europe and Russia had mended since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Bush Administration was hell-bent with his missile defense plan for Europe. It should also be noted that the Bush Administration was chuck-full of neo-cons who believed that after the US had defeated the Soviet Union, the United States of America stood alone as the leader of the free world - unchallenged. However, for Putin’s Russia, Bush’s attempt to minimize Russia did not go unnoticed or unchallenged. Thus, the proposed missile shield for Europe instead became a major thorn in Russian, NATO, and US diplomatic relations. Needless to day, the specter of another cold war thus became too real once again.

Certainly, the Russians were not surprised or amused, but were instead determined to confront any attempt by the United States to place nuclear ballistic missiles butt-up to their fence with the West. True, Russia had lost a mighty empire and for military purposes, Russia was seen militarily impotent. Notwithstanding, Russia responded by threatening to change the directional coordinates of its missiles to be directed towards Europe itself. Russia was certainly a wounded bear, but the Kremlin remained unyielding in its defense; armed and dangerous. Still, the Bush Administration pushed for the missile defense system despite the protracted recriminations. Much to the displeasure of the Bush Administration, Germany openly broke ranks and adopted a “Moscow first” policy approach. Thus, a profound difference in foreign policy threatened the formidable NATO alliance and the Siberian chill was once again felt - akin to another cold war era. In fact, aging “bear” airplane bombers began flights hugging US costal waters. Moreover, arms reductions talks (START) between the US and Russia were placed in jeopardy.

Undeterred, the Bush Administration continued with its plans and coaxed poor Eastern European countries to house the proposed missile defense batteries. Some of the poorest eastern nations salivated at the prospect of infusion of American dollars into their economies, but a deal was struck with Poland and the Czech Republic – whose location incidentally bordered Russia.

Yet, a fundamental questioned remains; whether the Bush Administration’s assertion of an imminent missile attack on Europe or the US, by a crazed-nuclear Iran, was a credible threat or deserving a U.S. missile defense system for Europe, even when European nations were skeptical of the need for such missile defense umbrella?

First, Iran has no real beef with Europe other than being seen as a follower of the US in its attempt to have the UN further impose economic sanctions. So, does it make sense that Iran would threaten Europe or the US with a nuclear missile attack, and would that be prudent and/or a proportional response to economic sanctions? Many experts believed not, as supported by the (IC) intelligence community and the consistent European skepticism of the Iranian threat. Second, the Iranian missile technology is limited in range and rather imprecise. Their indigenous technology is based on scud missile technology provided by the North Koreans and at present, it still lacks precision strike capabilities. In fact, just recently, the Pentagon acknowledged that Iran’s capability was previously overrated and that even though Iran is making progress, it does not pose a significant threat to our nation.

However, the untold story of this foreign policy folly is that neo-cons in the Bush Administration wanted the missile defense shield in Europe for reasons totally unrelated to the security of the United States or Europe. It is no secret that Israel wanted the Iranian nuclear threat to be seen as imminent and real in order to rally sympathy or support for an impending Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. It is also not a secret that the neo-con soaked Bush Administration also wanted to beef-up our strike capabilities around the world – and this was widely supported by the military industrial complex. But it does not end there; what still remains under the cover of classified information, is that neo-cons from the Vice President’s office of the Bush Administration, then put in place a policy of containment of Russia, in the event Russia was to decide to pose a threat to American oil interest in the former Soviet break-away provinces located in the Caspian Sea, such as Kazakhstan, or Azerbaijan.

But a foot note to history: in 1983 then student at Columbia, Barack Obama, wrote for his campus newspaper in his article, “Breaking the War Mentality” decrying the “military industrial interest.” In the same article, young Barack proposed for the elimination of all global nuclear arsenals. Today President Obama took us one step closer to such desirable dream and RESETING our foreign policy. Regrettably, neo-cons in Congress lamented the termination of the missile umbrella program, but immediately sounded the alarm from the threat of Iran’s potential terror against our nation. Of course, the expected Republican response was piggy-backed by Fox News broadcasting breaking news that Iran had now become capable of building atomic weapons.

Adlai E. Stevenson Jr. once wrote: “He (Richard Nixon) is the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation.” Today, Nixon’s spirit lives in the Republican mantra.

Bewail ye neo-cons.

ISSUE OF JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR IS A NON SEQUITUR

Non sequitur - It does not follow, the argument by Republicans that nominee for the United States Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, is a racist. Starved for attention and relevancy, Republican strategist and pundits have grabbed on to a statement made by Judge Sotomayor, and have taken it out of context to paint this nominee as a racist. Clearly, these "macaca" crowd have began a smear campaign against this eminent judge, solely for the purpose of derailing the nomination process. What's more, these aggrieved "white-male" Republicans are not only beating the war drums, but are also vent on character assassination of the nominee. Further, while they can only muster a charge of a perceived racist statement, these Republicans have prominently shown their cross and stars. One prominent Republican stated that Judge Sonia Sotomayor's name is too hard to pronounce and that she should change her name. Perhaps, he did not like the foreign sounding name. Another leading Republican and former candidate for the presidency even called the nominee by the wrong name and called her "Maria." Ooops! But one pundit stooped so low, that he called Judge Sotomayor an "affirmative pick."

So, while these Republicans can not attack Judge Sotomayor's eminent academic credentials or her skillful jurist temperament, they are acting like the crowd that they are; a group of grumpy white-males whose elephant emblem is fast transforming into a soon to be an extinct mammoth. Further, it is apparent by their actions, that usage of race innuendo and/or reference to her ethnicity is by all accounts - race baiting. Thus their argument that Judge Sotomayor's statements were racist, is simply a non sequitur (does not follow).

Further, it should be noted that Judge Sotomayor does not deny she ever made such a statement which included the term "white-male." However, she made such reference only in the context of wanting to distinguish her perspective as a Latina, as opposed to that of a "white male." Conversely, one would not infer or conclude that by using the phrase- "as a white-male, my perspective would be different from that of a Latina"- that such statement could be construed as derogatory against a white male making such statement. Therefore, it follows, that Judge Sonia Sotomayor's statement should not be construed as racist, for she is not known to be of such fabric. Thus, a legal maxims states: an act does not make a person guilty unless his mind (or intention) is guilty.

It does follow however, that nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor, an American, is eminently qualified to be a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. She brings to the Court eminent academic credentials, experience from the bench, proven intellect, a jurist temperament, but also brings a unique perspective to the Court that is lacking.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, ...bienvenida.

Joseph Chez

A LIBERAL VIEW: MADAM SPEAKER, STEP DOWN.

Madam Speaker,

During the Bush Administration when much concern was being shown regarding the abuse of power by the Executive Branch, you adamantly refused to entertain congressional hearings on many relevant issues, such as torture or even consider impeachment hearings for President Bush. In fact, you were too accommodating to the Republican opposition, not because you sided with them, but perhaps because you did not want to make waves or fight a conservative backlash.

Further, as a ranking democrat member in the intelligence committee, you caved in to the deceit by the Bush administration in not protesting the use or potential use of waterboarding. If however, the Republicans pulled one over on you and misled you, how could you have been so naive and abdicate your oversight responsibility? You therefore must now step down from your post as Speaker of the House and allow another Democrat who can robustly represent the Democratic agenda without flinching.

Joseph Chez