I regret that I failed to brew you any Coffee this past weekend, dear readers. And it has been five days since you’ve tasted the robust flavor of the MC. The wait is over. Here is your fix.
The Battle for New Hampshire:
Big news everyone: Hillary and McCain are not out of the running for President of the United States. Sense my enthusiasm? They both won a significant battle against their rivals in the Shire of New Hamp. Since people seem to put such large stock in Iowa and NH, we can safely say that now there is no real front runner in either party. I could probably spend a half an hour of your time (and two hours of mine) closely examining the inanity of this whole deal. But I won’t and will instead summarize. McCain won despite having been virtually left for dead last summer. Romney lost despite spending beau coup bucks (of his own) there (similarly of course, he lost in Iowa to a man (Huck) who spent virtually nothing in comparison). Huckabee had a pretty poor showing this time around, coming in third. Not a whole lot of Army of God, evangelical types in the ‘Shire I guess. When I went to bed last night (pathetically early) Fred Thompson had roughly 850 votes, which I found somewhat hilarious. He ended with 2,800 votes, or roughly 81,000 less than McCain. I hope he didn’t expect more; I’m not even running and I have a more robust campaign for President than he has. Ron Paul accrued ~18,000 votes, which actually makes me fear for the future of my country (see below).
Hillary won, and I wonder if it was mostly because people felt sorry for her; she was nearly in tears the other day when, for a whole news cycle, there was talk of her quitting the campaign (which I thought was grossly premature). But now, pundits are wondering if she, like her husband in 1992, is a “comeback kid.” Obama’s second place finish didn’t damper his spirits any, since he’s still “fired up and ready to go.” For a man like Joe Biden, who finished sixth, it’s got to be like a blow to the solar plexus though, to not only finish behind Dennis Kucinich, but to net a mere 616 votes. If Mickey Mouse were on the ballot, he would have probably scored higher than Biden, who seems to be fairly reasonable despite the paltry amount of press he gets. And like Huckabee, he’s got great one-liners, which as you know is a make or break skill for a President. In a 30 Oct debate he said of Rudy Giuliani, “There’s only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, a verb, and 9/11.” Pretty funny stuff Joe.
Iran in a Boat:
If you get your news from outlets other than the bitingly bitter Morning Coffee (which you should), you might have missed, in the din of the coverage of New Hampshire’s primary, the real big news of the day yesterday. Five Iranian high-speed boats intercepted and made aggressive, threatening maneuvers towards three US Navy ships (one destroyer, one cruiser, one frigate) operating in the Persian Gulf. The Iranian boats had three to four people in them and rapidly approached the Navy vessels and made a number of runs toward USS Hopper, the lead ship. The Hopper’s crew apparently heard a radio call that threatened that the US ships would explode, and two of the boats dumped unidentified boxes in the water. It is unclear whether or not the radio call came from the boats or a ground station, however. What is abundantly clear, however, is that the Iranian vessels were aggressive. How is this clear? Because the Navy recorded their actions on video, and has accompanying audio, which they have released to the public. I’ve seen it, and the Iranian boats acted in a way not conducive to peaceful interrogation of unidentified vessels. The Iranian boats fled the scene just as the Navy ships were preparing to open fire, i.e. obliterate them.
The Iranians, of course, have a different take: they were simply trying to identify the large, gray, armed ships, which flew American flags. In broad daylight. Despite the ships having been identified earlier in the day by another Iranian ship (possibly a Revolutionary Guard ship), two or three Iranian ground stations, and an Omani station.
This event is interesting for several reasons. Had the Navy ships opened fire on the Iranian vessels, tensions between the US and Iran would have increased exponentially. And one thing you could be sure of is that oil prices (and thus gas) would have skyrocketed, since a great deal of our oil travels through the very waters in which this confrontation took place. Additionally, the US could have been portrayed by Iran as the aggressor, since three honest-to-goodness warships opened fire and (likely) destroyed several poorly armed Iranian boats. But the professionalism of the US Navy prevented this from happening, although from the sounds of it, this very thing was mere moments from happening. These ships would have been justified in taking such action, but Iran would garner sympathy. These boats do pose a legitimate threat to ships as large as the three Navy ships (USS Cole, anyone?), but they’re small, and inept looking in comparison to modern destroyers and cruisers. It would be like a trained police officer shooting dead five 120lb weaklings who might have had grenades under their shirts. They kept running towards the man, only to swerve way at the last second and even shouted that they were going to blow him up. His buddy was killed previously by a 120lb weakling armed with a grenade under his shirt. The officer might have been justified, but people would have sympathized with the weaklings, especially if they perceived the police as bullies, which is exactly how the US military is perceived by many in the Middle East and elsewhere. Could this have been an instance where the Iranians were trying to goad the US into action? It think so.
It also could have been a simple probe of the Navy ships’ security measures; a simple test of the ships’ responses. Information gleaned from this could be used in a future conflict in the Gulf. Make no mistake about it, Iran’s navy is capable in the confined waters of the Straits of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf. There is no point in the Gulf that is not within range of Iran’s shore-based anti-ship missiles, which would be launched at ships in salvos which would overwhelm the ship’s defense systems. Iran’s small ships would engage in swarm tactics, much like yesterday’s incident, and would seek to attack larger, better armed targets by using a high number of these smaller vessels, possibly armed with RPGs or even in a suicide role. I know it’s popular to believe that the US Navy is only vulnerable by a comparable force, but that simply isn’t the case, especially when room for maneuverability and stand-off is so limited.
The Iranian Navy’s actions could presage similar actions with the goal of desensitizing the US Navy. This is a common tactic. Time after time these ships approach and push the confrontation to the brink, only to flee. The crews become inured to this, and are blindsided when the Iranian vessels don’t turn away at the last second and then damage or destroy a ship. While it is likely that the media will report, however ineptly, on Iranian action similar to this, it will not prevent Navy crews from becoming numb to the threat over time and let their guard down. Only their professionalism can prevent this.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming days and weeks.
The title of this section is a pun on peoples’ mispronunciation of Iran. It’s actually pronounced Ih-Ron rather than I-Ran.
The Deceived Cult of Paul:
Ron Paul became a legitimate Presidential candidate in the eyes of the media not through his policies, but through his successful grassroots internet effort to raise money. People were astounded at the haul he took in. He’s becoming less viable with every passing primary, despite his impressive bank account and impassioned supporters. The information contained within THIS article from The New Republic and others will do little to bolster his support, and might actually do what nothing has been able to do: drive away his fans.
The New Republic’s (TNR) article, “Angry White Man” is lengthy, so I don’t expect you to read it all on top of reading my long-winded diatribes. But in it, a few things will become painfully obvious. TNR reports that Paul has since 1978 published monthly newsletters with a variety of different monikers (Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, etc.). Many of the articles are published without bylines, so it’s hard to say who wrote them. Many of them are written in the first person, which gives the impression that, since the publication is “Ron Paul’s Something or Other”, that Paul wrote them. If not, one would think that Paul at least approves of these articles published in a newsletter with his name brand on it, which suggest that they reflect his views.
The problem is, the contents of many of the articles contained within these newsletters are very controversial, and in many cases downright racist and paranoid. Skim through to get an idea. It’s actually quite appalling, these being better suited to a Klan publication rather than one possessing the name of a viable Presidential candidate.
Paul’s campaign has apparently stated that Paul “had granted various levels of approval to what appeared in his publications.” Over the years his level of approval ran the gamut, from writing the articles himself to having no approval at all. Jesse Benton, the campaign spokesman, said, “A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no.” He said this after being read some of the passages. TNR makes a good point that this might be believable had these sorts of racist views popped up sporadically, or if the newsletter been around for but only a little while, but the newsletter has contained such content since its inception 30 years ago. A further issue I have, which is mentioned obliquely in the article, is that Paul apparently has no concern for what his subordinates do on his behalf and in his name. How good of a President will he be then, if one were to completely ignore the content of these newsletters and simply focus on the fact that Paul, for years, apparently had no knowledge of what “his” newsletter was saying. It had his name on it, for the love of the gods. Will underlings make statements on behalf of the United States that have not been approved by Paul? Will these statements be grossly out of touch with American sentiment (beyond the KKK that is)? Can we really elect a guy whose name is on a publication that says things such as, “Racial violence will fill our cities because mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves,'" regardless of whether or not he wrote it or believes it? I hope not. And thankfully after New Hampshire, I don’t think he has a prayer. But even though he will probably not be President, TNR points out that he has been “increasingly permitted inside the boundaries of respectable debate.” And in light of some of his passively sanctioned views, this is scary enough.
Word of the Day: Pertinacious (adjective): 1. Holding or adhering obstinately to an opinion, purpose, or design. 2. Stubbornly or perversely persistent.
On This Day in History: In a move that might have been supported by Ron Paul’s newsletter authors, the Jewish population of Basel, Switzerland is rounded up and incinerated because they are believed to have been the cause of the ongoing bubonic plague (1349).
“Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.” - Plato
No comments:
Post a Comment