The National Interest: Seyed Hossein Mousavian: How to Fix The Syrian Mess

Source:The New Democrat

I think I found an issue where I agree with Senator John McCain on. Someone who when it comes to foreign policy we rarely agree on anything. It is about Syria where four years ago I believe a NATO no fly zone was a good idea to stop the Assad Regime from murdering its own people, simply because they opposed the Assad Regime and made those feelings public. A no fly zone over Syria or at least parts of it would give the Syrian rebels a fighting chance, literally of taking out the current government there. Or at least bring President Bashar Al-Assad to the negotiating table and negotiate how he would step down from power peacefully.

One of the mistakes that America made in Iraq in 2003, is the same mistake that both America and Europe made in Libya in 2011. Which was to take out the current government including the military without anything to go in and immediately replace the government. So the country could function while they are transitioning and building their new country. So knocking out Bashar in Syria shouldn’t be the ultimate goal at least through military means. But to bring him to the negotiating table to get him to step down from power. And transition to a new government that could and would govern the country responsibly and respect the human rights of their people.

Bashar Al-Assad can’t govern a united Syria now or into the future. He’s lost the ability and credibility to do that. And leaving him in power even to help us take out ISIS there wouldn’t work either. Because he would go back to doing what he’s done before which started the crisis in the first place. All he’s interested in is staying in power at all costs. So what America and Europe could do is to aid the Syrian rebels in the air, but not arm them with lethal weapons. As the Syrian rebels take on the Assad Regime and at least bring Bashar to the negotiating table. But without destroying the government. Especially the military and law enforcement.

Larry Schweikart: 'A Patriot's History of The Modern World'

Source:The New Democrat

Even though I’m favor of Freedom of Religion in America, even as an Agnostic, I have a hard time agreeing that what makes America great at least up to the 20th Century is because of how many Christians are in the country. Or as Larry Schweikart put it, our Protestant Christianity. What makes us better and different from a lot of countries is our Freedom of Religion, period. The ability for people to practice or not practice their religion of your choice, or not practice at all, like in my case. And then raise their kids under their religious values and pass it on to their kids.

What makes America great, is our individualism, our freedom both personal and economic and how those things are protected by our Constitution. Our Constitution by the way, not just the best liberal in the classical as well as real sense, political and governmental document that has ever been written anywhere. Because of all the individual freedom that it protects. And then our diversity. How many countries in the world especially big countries are there that get along with each other better than America. That is as developed as America and as free as America, that are as diverse as America?

And I could add our Federal Republic and federalist form of government. Where most of the power in the country is not centralized in one individual or political party or even one government in the nation’s capital. But throughout the country where national responsibilities and things that go on in between states are handled by the Federal Government. But where the states and localities are responsible for what goes on in their states and localities.

These are the things that makes America great and exceptional. And I would add to that you won’t find another country where more freedom and opportunity for more people can be created in than America. And for so many different people where we don’t have a defining race, ethnicity or religion in this country. Because we represent the whole world, unlike anyone else. Or find a country that is so secure as well and as independent when it comes to our security. And yet we also protect our constitutional rights and civil liberties at the same time.

Frost/Nixon Interviews: Full Interview About Watergate

Source:The New Democrat

I covered this last week, but the White House coverup of Watergate was about ending a story that the Nixon White House thought could explode in their faces. Which was an attempted burglary of Democratic National Headquarters. Even though the President, Vice President or White House Chief of Staff weren’t directly involved in the operation. But they were worried that this story would play in the media as if the Nixon Campaign in 1972 was involved in the Watergate burglary. When what they should’ve done was to say, “here’s this local Washington burglary of Democratic National Headquarters, lets let the Washington Police handle it. Because we’re not involved.”

Had Richard Nixon had a sounder more sober mind, not as far as intelligence, because he was really a brilliant man and perhaps the smartest president we’ve ever had, but a more sober mind in the sense that he could see things for what they are and act accordingly, he would’ve said, “Watergate is not our problem. And even if some of our people on the campaign are involved in it, the police will find those people and act accordingly.” Now President Nixon didn’t know that his own Attorney General John Mitchell was involved in Watergate. And I and others believed he ordered the operation when he was running the reelection campaign. But again the police would’ve figured that out and the President would’ve fired him.

But that is not what President Nixon and his White House team did. They played it like they were ones who not only knew about the Watergate operation, but ordered it. They acted as if they were the criminals in this story and because of their behavior they became the criminals and defendants in this story. All of the career lawyers and some of them former prosecutors who became defendants in this case and did time in prison. Like John Erlichman, John Dean, Chuck Colson and perhaps some others. Instead of just letting the story play to its natural conclusion and moving on with the business of the country.

AEI: Arthur Brooks & Robert Doar: Welfare Reform & Lessons From The United Kingdom

Source:The New Democrat

I don’t agree with U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions on much if anything. But C-SPAN was covering the Senate Budget Committee markup yesterday and I saw part of that as the committee was voting on amendments to Senate Republicans budget plan for this year. Senator Sessions Republican from Alabama had a Welfare amendment to the Republican budget. And his basic point which I think is sound was that its been about twenty-years since Congress passed Welfare Reform. And twenty years since they worked on major reforms to our social insurance system. And its time for Congress to reexamine our federal Welfare programs.

When Republicans won back the House of Representatives in 2010 and took over in 2011 there was that famous Ryan budget. Offered by Representative Paul Ryan then Chairman of the House Budget Committee and now he’s Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. A big part of House Republicans deficit reduction strategy had to do with the American safety net. They argued that since the Great Recession America has spent billions of dollars on our public assistance programs. And these programs have grown so much in size and since we now have this deficit and debt, its time to cut back on them. Of course not realizing or acknowledging that the reason for the growth in those programs has to do the Great Recession itself. Not because Americans have quit work to jump on Welfare.

I’m all for reducing the size and need of our social insurance system. But you don’t do that by cutting and running or slashing and burning. You just make the problems worst and make people desperate who are simply looking to survive. What you do is you move those people off the those programs and into the workforce with good jobs. You make work pay and pay more than not working and that means increasing the minimum wage for workers and making that higher than what would someone get whose on Welfare and is not working. You don’t just make education and job training available for low-income workers and non-workers. But you make them requirements that if you’re on Welfare that part of what you’re going to do while you’re on Welfare is finish your education. Whether you’re working or not.

The way to reduce Welfare spending is to have fewer people in poverty. You do that by having a larger middle class and more people who are economically independent. That comes through things like more economic development and infrastructure investment in low-income communities. Education and job training for low-income workers and non-workers. Making work pay and pay than not working. Increasing today’s minimum wage for workers and applying the old minimum wage to non-workers on Welfare. Which will send a great message to people especially with kids. That they can make more money working than not working even at service jobs and still collect the public assistance they need. Including education to be able to move up and get out of poverty. That is how you reform Welfare.

Secular Talk: Senator Tom Cotton First U.S. Senate Floor Speech

Source:The New Democrat

I saw about twenty-minutes of Senator Tom Cotton’s first U.S. Senate floor speech. (Thank God for C-SPAN) And twenty-minutes was about all as I could take from the freshman Senator, who sounded like a freshman in his first ever Senate speech. You would think a military veteran who served in the Iraq War, would have a hell of a lot more intelligence and knowledge about American foreign policy and national security. But maybe that is a topic of a different debate. But his first speech was about American foreign policy and national security. Which is perfectly legitimate especially from a military veteran. But all he had I guess thanks to the Heritage Foundation, was neoconservative talking points. Which I’m about to get into.

I’ve argued before that the Neoconservative is not conservative. Conservatives move cautiously and shows a lot of restraint, especially fiscally. One of the big points about being conservative is that you move, you know conservatively. The Neoconservative is right-wing Utopian. With all sorts of grand utopian ideas about how how great the world would be if America just ran it. And tends to see money as no object that their grand world strategy is such a wonderful thing that you don’t even have to pay for it. Because if anything it will pay for itself. The Iraq War and the Afghanistan War are excellent examples of that. For the first time America decided not to pay for its war operations upfront. And we’ve paid for it ever since on our national debt card.

The Neoconservative judges military strength by the size of the military budget. Doesn’t sound very conservative does it. That the more you spend on your military the stronger your military is. That it is not about what you spend when it comes to your military budget and what you spend it on and what you get from that spending, but how much you spend. And the Neoconservative also judges military strength by the size of the military budget in relation of gross national product. So the Neoconservative would say, “ten years ago we spend six-percent of our GDP on the military and now we spend 3.8%. So based on that our military is now weaker, because the budget is smaller.” Instead of judging the military by the capability of the military. What we are capable of doing now, as opposed to back when. Are we stronger and more capable in these areas, based on what we are actually able to do.

Senator John McCain, whose also a military veteran and a decorated one, is called and criticized by the Left, especially the Far-Left as a Neoconservative on foreign policy. And part of that is accurate as for as his belief in the use of force and military strength. But one of the reasons why he has so much bipartisan respect in Congress and on the outside is because he’s also one of the first members of Congress to point out military waste in the budget. Like when a senator or representative sticks in funding for a plane that can’t fly, that the military didn’t ask for, he’ll point that out and even name the member who put in that amendment on the Senate floor. That is why he can get away with a lot of his neo-con positions on the military, because he’s someone who knows what he’s talking about.

According to the Neoconservative, there’s no such thing as military waste. That every part of the military budget is sacrosanct. And even if there’s something not working properly with the military budget, it’s because its underfunded. I mean they almost sound like Social Democrats or Socialists even when it comes to how they prioritize the spending that they love. If a public school is not working well, or a social program is not performing well, the Socialist will automatically say, “it’s because its underfunded. That if we just spend more money on it and raise taxes that will fix the program.” The Neoconservative takes that same logic, but implies it to military spending instead of social welfare spending.

Just look at Senator Cotton’s speech and I suggest you watch the whole thing. That you could do either on C-SPAN’s website or go to the Senator’s website and you could watch it there. He goes through the military budget and how little we are spending here and there. And as a result we are now weaker when it comes to our national defense. Because back in the day we spent more money on this defense program or that one. According to Senator Cotton, instead of laying how capable we are here and there and what are military is physically capable of doing now. I’m sure a lot of Neoconservatives love him, Dick Cheney and others may encourage him to run for president in 2020. But that is not how you judge government budgets military or otherwise. You judge them based on capability and results. Not by how much you spend.

Frost/Nixon The Complete Interviews: Foreign Policy

Source:The New Democrat

The real genius of the Nixon Presidency was the foreign policy. President Nixon and his National Security Director, could simply see things happening twenty-years in advance. I don’t believe we’ve ever had two people that high up in the U.S. Government that knew so much about foreign policy and national security than Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. But President George H.W. Bush and his National Security Adviser, perhaps come close. Nixon/Kissinger, looked at both the world that they wanted and the world the way it was. And based on those two things tried to make the world as safe as possible.

Nixon/Kissinger, saw the Soviet Union, a country back then of around four-hundred-million people and physically the largest country in the world and the People’s Republic of China, already with a billion people back then and physically the fourth largest country in the world, just behind the United States, as trading partners. Even though we were enemies with both of them. But they believed the way you get bad guys to behave well is for their people to see what your country has to offer and how other countries govern themselves. I don’t believe the democratic awakening in the Slavic States in Eastern Europe like Poland happens in the late 1970s and 80s, without Russia being opened up in the early 1970s.

Nixon/Kissinger saw a day without the Soviet Union in the early 1970s. It happened twenty-years later, but they saw the end of the Soviet Union by the early 1970s. And wanted to open a relationship and dialogue between the two government’s and people’s before that day came and if anything to speed up that transition. While everyone else Left and Right was talking about containment of Russia in the early 1970s, President Nixon was interested in actually defeating Russian communism politically and economically. Let the Russian people know how bad their form of government and economic system is. And give them incentive to look at other systems around the world.

Ronald Reagan did not win the Cold War. No one President can win a war like that by themselves. President Reagan presided over the end of the Cold War in the 1980s and put in policies to see that happen. Like continuing with the military buildup, which actually started under President Gerald Ford and continued with President Jimmy Carter. And with the nuclear arms agreements with Russia. And with President Mikhail Gorbachev of the Soviet Union, putting in economic polices to move Russia passed Marxism economically.

The ending of the Cold War started under the President Nixon. And even Russia did have a military buildup in the late 1970s and were on the move in the Middle East and Central Asia, like in Afghanistan, they weren’t economically strong enough to sustain that. Their economy was already collapsing then because they were spending so much on defense and were going through economic shortages as a result. Not saying that President saw all of this happening, but opening up a country that huge and letting their people see your country, gave the Russian people a chance to see what a wealthy free country looks like. And President Nixon and Henry Kissinger deserve a lot of credit for that.

Frost/Nixon The Complete Interviews: Watergate

Source:The New Democrat

Richard Nixon being the very smart if not brilliant politician that he was, knew about the dangers of Watergate as soon as he heard about it and what the burglars were breaking in to. I mean think about it, you have Republican operatives who are at the very least connected with the Nixon reelection campaign accused of breaking in to the Democratic National Headquarters. Richard Nixon is President of the United States at the time of course and obviously a Republican, so of course the media is going to want to know what involvement did the Nixon White House have if any in the burglary.

So what President Nixon wanted to do at least early in the story, was to get the story finished and over with. So no one could make it look like someone in the White House ordered the operation, especially the President. And that the Nixon Campaign wasn’t breaking into Democratic Headquarters illegally to steal information and use it against the George McGovern Campaign. President Nixon saw Watergate as a time bomb that could blow up his reelection campaign and turn what was a runaway blowout victory, into a close election with Senator McGovern and perhaps even hurt his presidency.

So when President Nixon tells his Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman to tell the FBI, “not to go into Watergate any further, period”, he was trying to put an end to the story and get the country passed Watergate and back to the issues that his administration was focusing on. And his reelection campaign and back on pace to his forty-nine state victory and winning 3-5 of the popular vote in 1972. The facts are, Watergate didn’t hurt President Nixon at all in 1972. Its early 1973 when Watergate becomes a big story and when Congress gets involved in it starting in the Senate with their bipartisan investigation of the story in the summer of 1973.

The Washington Post led by Ben Bradlee, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were focused on Watergate from the beginning. And to a certain extent CBS News and The New York Times. But The Post was really where the action was in this story from the beginning. And when they started breaking stories and getting hard information about the story, the other major national news organizations, network news and the papers and Congress as well started looking into this story. And the more facts that came out about it and the fact that the White House was trying to cover it up, the worst President Nixon looked.