More on Paul and McCarthy, not the Beatle

http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/09/a-tale-of-two-conservatisms

Whenever individual rights are at stake, any legislation should be perfectly clear that individual rights are protected, even when it relates to war and terrorism. Perhaps in case of direct attack with America under siege from a foreign power, unusal steps should be taken, temporarily, to ensure success in repelling the attack. But to allow government to expand the power of the State to the point it's unclear that individual rights are protected during a quagmire such as the Afghanistan War is inviting soft tyranny that can become hard overnight. Rand Paul represents the New Republican returning to classical liberal principles, while McCarthy represents a perverted conservativism that trusts State power for no apparently good reason. The disease of neo-conservatism still infects the Republican Party -- Progressive interventionism is what it's always been -- neocons coupled with Progressive interventionists spell trouble for what's left of the Constitution.

The Iranian Plot

I read somewhere yesterday that Andrew McCarthy was comparing scepticism to the recent, alleged Iranian plot designed to kill a Saudi Arabian ambassador to 9/11 Truthers, because McCarthy thinks it's unbelievable that government officials would manipulate a situation for political purposes -- too many people have to go along is what McCarthy claimed, as I undertand it. I suppose it's unthinkable that most of the government officials are just going with the official version of the plot.

History is full of such manipulations, and many of them much more cloak and dagger than imagining high-level American government officials would manipulate a plot to put pressure on Iran. I doubt that Iran's leaders would have approved such a plot as the one claimed by Holder and the Obama administration -- this is what's unbelievable, because the repercussions would be so damaging to Iran if it had succeeded. Time will tell. But surely McCarthy has read his history and remembers the tripartite collusion when Britain, France and Israel designed a plot whereby Israel would attack Nasser's control of the Suez Canal so that Britain and France could come to make peace then gain control of the canal. This required much more secrecy and manipulation, and between three countries.

The manipulation of this Iranian plot, a plot supposedly to be carried out by a used-car salesman, is peanuts, if, indeed, it is a manipulation to squeeze Iran, which I think it is. Don't get me wrong -- I have no love for the Iranian government, but this revealed plot stinks. It's not hard to believe that an individual was convinced he could assassinate a Saudi Arabian ambassador, and the under-cover agents no doubt found it easy to lead him along, but to believe the Iranian government put their stamp of approval on this Mickey Mouse plot is asking too much.

Solyndra -- is government above the law?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/277512/solyndra-fraud-andrew-c-mccarthy

We'll have to see how investigations of Solyndra turn out, but if government officials slip through the cracks, we can admit that protected government officials are no longer held accountable for their actions, and that the bureacracy can hide all wrongdoing. This is a perfect example of why we need a separation of State and Economy -- when politics and cronyism trump economics, it's not long before the system implodes from corruption and waste.

McCarthy redefines extremism

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/272029/bachmann-not-radical-room-andrew-c-mccarthy?page=3

Andrew McCarthy has written a hard-hitting, no-nonsense article regarding the debt crisis and the depiction of Michele Bachmann as an extremist for not wanting to contribute to the debt crisis. McCarthy makes an excellent point -- in the future, who in this debate will historians tag as radical?

The other day I praised Paul Ryan for standing up against an onslaught of progressive badgering on Morning Joe, but McCarthy is right -- even Ryan's budget plan is sadly insufficient. In a very true sense, perhaps, radical is what we need -- radical reduction of the scope and power of government.

Andrew McCarthy on Iran

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271423/iran-war-us-andrew-c-mccarthy?page=2

When we first went into Iraq, I said that Iran is the real problem. I've even predicted that Iran could wind up temporarily contolling both Iraq and Afghanistan. I agree with McCarthy when he says if we are not in a war to win, then we should leave. We should leave because our involvement in the Mideast is basically a political undertaking, but our soldiers are in a war situation. America has no intention of winning, which would mean totally defeating an enemy and setting the terms of the peace. We're not real sure we can identify the enemy.

This is not the first time we've been in situations like this in the Mideast, and we should have learned from Britain's mistakes dealing with the Mideast during WWI -- the history would be comical if not so filled with needless death and destruction. Winston Churchill told the Prime Minister's daughter, Viloet Asquith, that "I think a curse should rest on me because I am so happy. I know this war is smashing and shattering the lives of thousands each moment-- and yet-- I cannot help it-- I enjoy every second I live." Well, the Ottoman war might have been invigorating to Churchill's ballistic spirit, but it wasn't good for Britian or Turkey. Our Mideast wars might be politically useful to our administration and a few congress people, but they're not good for our soldiers or our nation. If we were to leave, and if Iran managed to gain control of the Mideast, it wouldn't last. The Ottoman Empire never had complete control, and it disintegrated trying to maintain control. If America and other countries became energy independent, the whole region would collapse. I pity any nation that tries to control the Mideast -- it's a region propped up by oil money, and that can't last much longer.

Is Iran really capable of taking command of the Mideast and threatening the existence of Israel, then Europe, then America? It would be a suicide mission. Iran might want the image of a world power, but they don't want to be exterminated. First, they have to get the other nations, with all their diverse internal/cultural/religious squabbling, to go along with a Grand Scheme. How long would it take for the Mideast nations to turn on Iran? What would Turkey have to say? What would Russia's role be? How would India and China react? Much of the world outside the Mideast is now dependent on trade, not imperialist conquest. There's a lot at stake if another WW breaks out, and only the mad and insane would risk it. Even if Iranian leaders are mad, the rest of the world could quickly stop the threat.

We make a big deal over Israel being only a small country surrounded by large unfriendly nations, but they have the military capability to defend themselves, just as we could put all our military power in the state of Utah, and this little area of the world would be more than a match for the rest if nuclear war is the issue.

I don't know to solve the problem of Israel's physical position in the Mideast surrounded by unfriendly nations, but fighting political wars in 5 Mideast countries is not helping, and it's not making us any safer from a terrorist attack which can be planned and executed from anywhere in the world. So, what is the  plan? Destroy Iran completely and attempt to control the Mideast? It will be much easier to allow Iran to destroy itself.