IRAN -- PANETTA'S DECLARATION -- RATIONALE?

I have asked my military friends, whose wisdom in affairs military I trust more than my own, "What can be the rationale for the Defense Secretary making such a declaration as "Israel will attack Iran in a few months?" They agree with my opinion that it is unwise and worse.

Then comes the pronouncement that "Iran is likely to attack the USA [ in some way]." This is equally unwise, foolish and more. Inexplicable? Maybe, maybe not!

It was speculated some time ago that President Obama might attack Iran as a political October surprise. Of course, this didn't make the news and I do not remember the source. Could find it but don't think it's necessary because I believe sincerely that it would be within his capability if it was deemed to show strength and win a portion of voters he can't reach now --- knowing his left base, likely ones to object the most, will not abandon him. He could also see it as icing down the Jewish vote, some of which he is reported to be losing. While I am one who believes he will maintain most of the Jewish vote, 80% of which has always voted Democrat, some polls show the support dropping to 67%.

So, I'll take the liberty to let my thoughts wonder to the notion that Panetta is not acting alone and that he is making a political calculation that will get a portion of a voter block committed. If the pronouncement backfires, then the October surprise could be taken off the strategy agenda. Yes, I know the media will play it differently, but that will be their assignment -- to set us up for what's coming.

I remember a few months ago when MSNBC ran a spot with Professor Alan Lichtman of American University proclaiming that Obama could not be defeated with one major reason being he "had no scandals" in his administration. Really??

This came just ahead of the revelation of the Solyndra fraud and about the time "Fast and Furious" gun running to Mexico was elevating to a major scandal. While Solyndra and more solar deals are surely fraudulent, I state up front that it would likely never be adjudicated with AG Holder in charge. At least DOE head, Steven Chu, and even Obama, should be held accountable but it's not likely to happen. 

And, while congress is now going through the motions of trying to get to the bottom of the "Fast and Furious" scandal, it is likely to fall short of holding anyone of power accountable. AG Holder shows little interest in solving the problem and, in fact, shows little interest in The Rule of Law. You know other examples I would hope.

So, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that we are being set up by Panetta on the Iran issue as we have been on scandals.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

AMERICAN AIRLINES -- MORE ABOUT UNIONS AND CH 11

I apologize for the structure of the post below, with no segmentation, but the system refuses to do it my way. To my post yesterday re AMR's chapter 11 filing relating my experiences over many years flying with AA, an AA pilot wrote a thoughtful comment that caused me to think a bit more about the precursors to conditions of their bankruptcy. Frankly, I have what is perhaps too much experience with trade unions and their excesses, but know less about others such as the airlines. After learning more about the negotiations of AA with their unions, I now think it's justifiable to post the comments below. I've seen too many industries destroyed by union excesses coupled with management incompetence in caving to excess demands. Start with coal (dead for many years), steel, textiles, shoes, electronics manufacturing, and more.  The Detroit 3 (once the big 3) deserves special mention. As their costs rose to $72/hour (fully loaded) and costs in the southern industry w
Read more

LEFTIST MIND-SET OF TODAY -- REFLEXIVE, THOUGHTLESS SUPPORT FOR THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

"Trying to persuade a prejudiced mind is as Sisyphean as trying to open a closed mind is Quixotic." Mann, May 2012 In a blog post herein below on May 1, 2013, I outlined what we who manage people and enterprises know as absolutes about performances of people who are put into management and supervisory positions for which they haven't requisite qualifications. For those who have progressed through several jobs to their level of incompetence, this is known as the Peter Principle as defined by Laurence J. Peter. In all likelihood, all who have managed people for any length of time have seen this principle played out. While Peter's observation applies to progression through multiple job levels, if a person is put into any job for which he is unqualified, the concept is also valid. Elective political positions is where I see this most often played out. The election of Barack Obama as President of the United States is the most significant example of this in my lif
Read more

ETHANOL -- The worst mandate ever gets even worse

When politicians get control of science and the inept or dishonest scientists, nothing good comes of it. There are many examples -- global warming (aka climate change) is the most prominent. The ethanol mandate, although a part of the climate change mania, stands on its own as arguably the most ridiculous mandate of all time. President Jimmy Carter, who was influenced by a misguided college professor, can be charged with the mistake of promulgating the ethanol mandate.  Of course, Al Gore is the politician who played the global warming issue like a drum and has benefited financially from it. Use of ethanol in motor fuel is not a net positive either in costs or in impact on the environment.... enormous hype to the contrary notwithstanding. Ethanol does not have the positive effect on the environment as touted. It has only about 60% of the specific energy of petroleum fuel, which begs use of more fuel to achieve the same energy as petroleum fuel. And, so it does. I have my own experie
Read more