War, Ash Wednesday, and William Shatner

Rev. Michael Carter makes comments on Ash Wednesday

The assertion that President Obama may have botched his chance for reelection in November because he didn't start a war during the week of February 19 to 25 may sound absurd as that week comes to an end, but how will the President's spin specialists respond if, right before the 2012 Presidential Election is held, the Republican candidate tells the voters that it is too late to stop Iran from developing an atomic weapon and that the last chance to prevent that development came during the last full week in February?

Usually avoiding American involvement in a new war is portrayed as a wise course of action, but with the Republicans this year the standard rules of political conduct seem to be in disarray, if not total chaos, and that leaves open the chance that the candidate who eventually wins the Republican Party's nomination and who will attempt to limit President Obama to one term in office may not hesitate to point back at the last full week in February of 2012 and say that was when President Obama had the last chance available to use a surgical military strike to put a halt to the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

During the week of February 19 to 25, pundits and or journalists suggested that Iran might want to use a preemptive strike to protect their own country.   The news media in the USA ran a story suggesting that Iran had individuals inside the USA doing scouting reports for possible terrorist activity.  

If a President has solid intelligence asserting that another country is going to launch a preemptive strike against the USA, doesn't that mean that the President should launch a preemptive strike against them to defend America from a new Pearl Harbor-type attack?

Some altruistic personalities were suggesting that the week would have been a good time to launch humanitarian air strikes against Syria to protect their citizens in much the same way as the war for humanitarian reasons helped diminish the carnage in Libya last year.

Now that the principle of war for humanitarian reason has been established (by President Obama) can any Democrat rationally defend a choice to skip waging a new war for humanitarian reasons?  

The Republicans love to frame the issues and debates for the Presidential elections and so if they make the assertion that a surgical strike against Iran should have been launched this past week, then the Presidential campaign might be based on the idea that the winner should be the one who can most duplicate the war-like attitude of George W. Bush.

Wouldn't it be uber-ironic if George W. Bush's brother used that bit of inverted logic to win the Presidency in November of this year?

If President Obama doesn't attack some country soon, his fall reelection campaign might sound like a flashback to San Francisco in the Sixties.   "Make Love, not War" and all that.

It seems that Occupy San Francisco has faded into history.   The Republicans love to treat a problem by removing the symptoms.   Where have all the Occupy Protesters gone?

Next Page  1  |  2