Misusing History

"...We were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at a time when they were saying 'we're going to wipe you off the planet.' "
Senator Barack Obama in Pendleton, Oregon, May 18, 2008 (Assoc. Press)

The President of the United States has much more power over foreign and military policy than over domestic issues. Moreover, Congress can act as a restraining influence on a President whose actions are considered too aggressive and militaristic, but can do nothing when the President is too timid and accomodating toward hostile powers. For these reasons, statements such as that quoted above by Senator Obama are troubling, especially to those who usually support the Democratic presidential nominee.

First, I do not believe that any Soviet top leader ever made a public threat to "wipe you (US) off the planet." Even Premier Nikita Khrushchev's famous prophecy that "we will bury you" pales in comparison, and was meant (according to Khrushchev) economically, not militarily.

Although we know that the Soviet nuclear arsenal was developed and deployed for potential use against the United States, it is significant that Soviet rhetoric was far more restrained than Obama would have us believe. This is important because US-Soviet diplomacy was conducted in a more civil context than the relationship between this country and Iran, with whom Obama intends to confer.

Between the time that President Franklin Roosevelt established diplomatic relations with the USSR and its collapse the American Embassy in Moscow was never taken over, nor were US diplomats ever taken hostage or otherwise harmed. (1) Even during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the most dangerous time of the Cold War, both formal and informal contacts between the great powers continued, and they led to a peaceful resolution of the crisis.

Obama uses the historical precedent of diplomatic contact with the Soviet Union to support his willingness to meet with leaders of Iran and other "rogue nations." If he believes that he can personally persuade Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to moderate his policies, the Illinois senator vastly overestimates his persuasive powers. Although frequently noting the willingness of Presidents Kennedy and Reagan to meet Soviet leaders, he never mentions that of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to meet Adolph Hitler in Munich, where Chamberlain not only failed to influence Hitler, but seriously misread the Fuehrer's intentions. Similarly the Kennedy-Khrushchev summit in Vienna in 1961 was a disaster, as the Soviet leader perceived Kennedy as weak.

Our history with Iran since the 1978 Islamic Revolution is far more relevant to the question of how to deal with the nation than any stretched historical analogy. The fact is that the Iranian regime permitted a gang of thugs to invade the US Embassy in 1979 and hold its staff hostage for more than a year. Despite being branded as "The Great Satan, " the United States initiated contacts with Iran under the leadership of President Ronald Reagan, and even sold Hawk missiles to the Islamic Republic. (2)

The US has held low-level talks with Iran (about Afghanistan and Iraq), even in the absence of diplomatic relations, until Iran broke off these contacts in March. In this context, an offer by the President of the United States to meet with the President of Iran might not even be accepted. Worse yet, if such a meeting did take place, it would boost the standing of Ahmadinejad with his own people and make his re-election in 2009 more likely. (The best hope for peace in the Middle East is that he is replaced with a more reasonable man.)

In dealing with an adversary, such as Iran, diplomacy has its value if (and only if) it is backed-up by the credible prospect of military action. The blockade of Cuba by President Kennedy in 1962 was an example of this. Senator Lloyd Bentsen once remarked that Dan Quayle was "no John F Kennedy." Unfortunately, neither is Barack Obama.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The KGB did, however, bug the US Embassy in Moscow.

(2) Although a great fan of former President Reagan, Senator John McCain never mentions "The Gipper's" sale of weapons to Iran, which none of the current presidential candidates favors today.

Hillary Echoes JFK

"It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon a nation in this hemisphere launched from Cuba as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union."
President John F Kennedy, October, 1962

" (If Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons) we will attack Iran....we would be able to totally obliterate them."
Senator Hillary Clinton, May, 2008 (1)

"It is not the language we need right now."
Senator Barrack Obama, May, 2008 (1)

For those pundits who have said that there are no real policy differences between Democratic candidates Clinton and Obama, the real difference cited above must have come as a shock. Mrs. Clinton, who once promised retaliation as her first response to another terrorist attack on the US, is clearly positioning herself as the more hawkish contender. Perhaps she is overcompensating for the presumption that a female president would be less likely to use military force. If so, it is working.

Despite the obvious similarity to the warning made by President Kennedy, Barrack Obama characterized her threat as "language reflective of George Bush." To have compared her to fellow Democrat John F Kennedy might have solidified her standing with those Democrats who never accepted the McGovern/Carter preference for appeasement over confrontation. The Illinois senator, who favors a dialogue with Iran, Syria and other Middle East powers, has aligned himself with the dovish wing of his party.

Obama should have pondered the consequences of President Kennedy's threat to retaliate upon the Soviet Union. Like many Americans of the time, I was apprehensive during the week following the Kennedy speech. But then the missiles were withdrawn from Cuba, within a year the US concluded a treaty with the Soviets banning tests of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, then the architect of the Cuban missile initiative (Nikita Khrushchev) was deposed, and an era of detente followed. As it turned out, Kennedy's threat was precisely "the language we need(ed)" at that time.

Iran, to paraphrase the late Lloyd Bentsen, is no Soviet Union. At the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviet Union had rough parity with the US in both nuclear weapons and missiles. (2) Today, Iran has no nuclear weapons, and its nuclear development program is about where the Soviet Union's was around 1947. Moreover, Iran's efforts are under close scrutiny by both the US and Israel; it is more likely that Iran's nuclear facilities will be destroyed than it is that Iran will actually build atomic weapons.

Even if Hillary Clinton is not nominated for President, her threat to Iran is likely to become an issue in the presidential election; the nominees are sure to be asked about it during the debates. I believe that the ultimate powers in Iran (the Guardian Council and Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini) are now paying close attention to the American presidential campaign. If either John McCain or Hillary Clinton is elected President, look for the Iranian powers to dump President Ahmadinejad in 2009 in favor of a less bellicose leader. He is just too dangerous.

If the vitriolic Iranian President could get his hands on an Indiana Democratic primary ballot, I bet he would cast it for Barrack Obama.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Associated Press, May 5, 2008.

(2) Before being elected President, Kennedy claimed that the Soviet Union was actually ahead of the United States in missile technology.

Glazer's Law

"If you use your energy to refute all the bunk in this world,
You will run out of energy before the world runs out of bunk."
Glazer's Law of Bunk (1)

There really was a conspiracy to kill President Lincoln, and another one to cover-up the Watergate break-in. The trouble is that for every real conspiracy there seems to be about ten or more bunk-conspiracy theories around, and there is no shortage of gullible people to believe them. Here are a few current examples:

1. Death of a Princess and an Heir
Shortly after midnight in Paris on August 31, 1997, Diana, Princess of Wales, and her friend Dodi al Fayed were killed when the car in which they were riding crashed into a pillar and a wall. Their chauffeur,Henri Paul (who was also killed), had been drinking alcoholic beverages for hours before Dodi selected him to drive the couple to his apartment; boasting that he would outrun the mob of photographers vying for pictures, Paul reportedly drove far faster than Paris speed limits.
Mohammed al Fayed, the father of Dodi, still cannot accept the simple fact that his son was the victim of a DUI crash, despite thorough investigations by both French and British police. On February 18, the senior al Fayed asserted in a London courtroom that the crash was deliberately caused by Prince Phillip and his son Prince Charles, with the help of British and French secret services as well as the CIA.(2)
The first absurdity of this conspiracy theory is that driver Henri Paul would have thrown his own life away in order to kill Diana. Unlike the suicide bombers who willing die to kill others, Mr Paul was a Frenchman with no allegiance to the British Royal Family or other ideological motive to commit this suicide-murder.
Secondly, British intelligence services do not take their orders from the Royal Family, but rather from the Ministry of Defence. If Prince Phillip had tried to misuse them to commit a crime like this, it is not credible that they would have obeyed; more likely, someone would have leaked the story to the British tabloids.
So, will anyone still believe Mr al Fayed? Probably.

2. Oswald-Ruby Plot
The same day that the story above broke, the Dallas County District Attorney released a large collection of memorabilia from the JFK assassination case. Among them was a typed dialogue between accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald and the man who killed him, Jack Ruby. (3) The dialogue discusses the assassination as a Mafia-inspired plot.
Obviously the DA at that time, Henry Wade, placed no credence in the alleged transcript, since it was not passed on to the FBI or the Warren Commission. Although the conversation could not have taken place on the date cited in it (4), the current DA Craig Watkins commented that he did not know if the alleged conversation were real or fake. He added that the alleged dialogue will "open up debate " about a possible conspiracy to murder President Kennedy.
Actually Mr Watkins is remarkably reluctant to label the conversation an obvious hoax or proposed movie script. Even if these men really met to plot the assassination (which is very unlikely, since there is no evidence they even knew each other), why in the world would they have taped the session or had a transcript made? To make sure they would both be convicted?
Now that 44 years have passed since the crime, the numerous Kennedy conspiracy buffs seemed to be running out of steam, but the DA is right in predicting that this manuscript will revive their interest in the case.

3. Did OJ have help?
In the new book "If I Did It" by O J Simpson (5), the author claims that a mysterious man called "Charlie" (no last name given) visited him on the evening of June 12, 1994, and told him about his ex-wife Nicole "messing around with men" in the presence of their children. According the book, Charlie accompanied OJ to Nicole's condo, blocked Ron Goldman from leaving the condo sidewalk, and later disposed of the knife and the killer's bloody clothing.
The trouble with this story is that there were only one set of bloody footprints leaving the murder scene, and they were traced to Simpson's shoes. There is no physical evidence or witness account to support the claim that another man was there.
However, the knife and Simpson's bloody clothes were never found (despite extensive police searches of nearby areas) and he barely had enough time to return home and meet a limo that was scheduled to take him to the LA Airport. If someone else helped him get rid of these items, it would help explain how OJ got away with the crimes.
Meanwhile, OJ Simpson is awaiting trial for an armed robbery that took place in Las Vegas last year. Other men were definitely involved this time. The former star's book on that case just might be written in a prison cell. For a title, how about "If We Did It" ?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) A euphemism for bovine excrement, also beginning with "B", which cannot be identified in a family-oriented blog like the Glazerbeam.

(2)Associated Press, Feb.19, 2008.

(3) Dallas Morning News, Feb. 19, 2008.

(4) The conversation allegedly took place at Ruby's nightclub in Dallas on an evening when Oswald was known to be with his wife in Irving, Texas.

(5) The parents of victim Ronald Goldman won a money judgment against Simpson, which was never satisfied. The author's royalties for the book were originally intended to benefit Simpson's children, but the Goldmans got a court order transferring the rights to the manuscript to them, so that the proceeds of publication could be applied to the judgment.
The ghostwriter who actually wrote the text based on Simpson's words later stated that he did not believe "Charlie" ever existed.

Tale of Two Senators

Which of these two incidents involving US senators is the more serious?

Senator A, while driving a young woman to a boat-landing in the middle of the night, drove off the road and into a large pond. The senator managed to save himself, but was unable to extricate his passenger from the the partially-submerged car. Without bothering to call police or other rescue service, he went back to his hotel room, called his lawyer, and went to bed. In the morning the car and drowned passenger were found. The senator plead guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, and had his license suspended for 30 days. In a TV broadcast, he described his conduct as "inexcusable."

Senator B was arrested for "playing footsie" and making homosexual gestures to an undercover policeman in an airport men's room. He plead guilty to a charge of "disorderly conduct," paid a fine, and later publicly denied he was guilty of anything.

By now most readers would have recognized that A was Edward M Kennedy (D, MA) and B was Larry Craig (R, ID).

The most reprehensible aspect of the Kennedy case was his failure to summon police immediately. Even though he could not save the young lady himself, professional divers and paramedics might have saved her life. Then, why did he not call police? Possibly he was afraid they would administer a field sobriety-test, and he would would fail it. Then, if the victim died anyway, Kennedy could have been convicted of vehicular manslaughter, a felony. He would have lost his Senate seat, his law license, and even faced prison time. The risk was simply too great.

Despite all this, Democratic Senate leaders did not pressure Kennedy to resign his seat, and he was re-elected the next year (1970) and ever since.

In comparison, the Craig case pales into insignificance. Nobody got hurt, or even lost money. The "disorderly conduct" did not even create a public disturbance. At worst, his conduct was annoying and offensive, even obnoxious. Even if he did exactly what the arresting officer alleged, he could have challenged the law under which he was charged as
overly- broad (1) and enforced in a discriminatory way. Craig could have enlisted the ACLU and the entire "gay community" behind his defense if he had appealed his case on constitutional grounds.

The fact that he plead guilty, then denied any guilt, reduced his credibilty to zero. But why did the Republican leadership of the Senate pressure him into resigning his seat?

You might think that the Republicans, unlike Democrats, consider the violation of any law grounds for removal from Congress, but they did not hound Senator Robert Kasten (R, WI) out of the Senate when he was caught driving drunk in Washington. Unlike Craig, Kasten threatened the safety of other DC residents who happened to be on the streets that night. (2)

No, the reason that Larry Craig was driven out of the Senate by his colleagues is that the Republican Party considers homosexuality so loathsome that it cannot be tolerated. That is also the reason that Craig did not fight this case in court or challenge the validity of the law under which he was charged. In the cosmic struggle over the legal status of homosexual activity in this country, a Republican senator could not be on the "wrong side."

Some have condemned Craig as a hypocrite, since he voted to ban same-sex marriage in this country. But this is a bad rap------whatever the Idaho senator did in that toilet stall in the Minneapolis airport men's room, he most certainly did not propose marriage!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Courts have ruled that if a law does not clearly delineate what conduct is prohibited, or if it prohibits constitutionally-protected conduct (such as symbolic speech), the law is unconstitutional. Unequal enforcement of a valid law can also be challenged under the "equal-protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(2)Kasten was arrested after driving the wrong way on a one-way street and going through a stop-light. He failed a field-sobriety test, but plead guilty to a reduced charge of "reckless driving."