He is intimidated and scared stiff but he is in denial.
That's Senator John Barrosso who says he is offended by the remark made by
Senator Chuck Hagel to the effect that “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of
people” on Capitol Hill. The occasion is that Mr. Hagel was nominated by
President Obama to be Secretary of Defense, and Mr. Barrosso will be asked to
give his “advice and consent,” something he does not seem too eager to do. And
he tells the reason why: “My national-security votes are based on America 's
national security – not lobbyists' issues, interests or intimidation.”
It would be nice to think of it that way. You may even have
wanted to accept his denial without question. But Barrosso did not only assert that
he bases his votes on America 's
national security interests, and he did not only deny that fear and
intimidation motivate him; he did more than that. What Barrosso did was write
an article under the title: “Chuck Hagel's Unsettling History” which also came
under the subtitle: “A senator on his doubts about the nominee's judgment
regarding Iran ,
missile defense and much else.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on
January 24, 2013.
What you encounter in that article tells you that Hagel is
correct and Barrosso is wrong. It also tells you why Barrosso dropped another
remark said to have been made by Hagel concurrently with the one he made about
the Jewish lobby. It was a remark to the effect that he is an American senator,
not an Israeli senator. All these realities hit you in the face like a
cannonball when you read the very first sentence in the Barrosso article. It is
this: “I recently returned from meeting in Israel with Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu.” No, John Barrosso does not take his orders from lobbyists; he only
listens to them, and then goes to get his orders directly from the horse's
mouth.
Yes, Barrosso did mention that he also went to Afghanistan and met with U.S. generals
and troops in the field. But you ask what did he get out of his one-on-one
meeting with Netanyahu? And what did he get out of his meeting with the many
generals and the many troops who assembled in a single field to be with him?
What did the Israeli Netanyahu say to Senator Barrosso, and what did the multitude
of Americans say to him?
In fact, the man tells you what he got out of those
meetings. Here it is: “The discussions touched on some common themes:
supporting Israel , America 's strongest ally in the region, and
protecting U.S. interests in
the Middle East .” You stop to think about it
only to come to the conclusion that Americans fighting in Afghanistan are not going to sit with a senator
and say they want America to
support Israel .
And they are not going to say they want to see America
protect its interests only in the Middle East
because what they live and die for is to protect their country everywhere in
the world.
As to Israel
being America 's
strongest ally in the region, you analyze this part in conjunction with what
else Barrosso says: “These talks have reinforced my understanding of the
tremendous challenges the next secretary of defense will face on a range of
national-security issues. Strong leadership and sound judgment will be required
day in and day out.” You see what it's all about, my friend? It's about fusing
the idea of “strong ally” with “strong leadership” so as to produce sound
judgment. So you ask: But will Chuck Hagel not deliver as much?
No, no, no says Barrosso. The proof is that Hagel the
American, made controversial statements which prove him to be less qualified
than the Israeli Netanyahu to judge what is good for America . From this point forward,
Barrosso goes on to echo-repeat the talking points concerning the reasons why
America must bomb Iran, and why it must prepare to get into a never ending war
against the rest of the world; something that Chuck Hagel has rejected.
Barrosso ends his article with this: “When we are faced with
unpredictable national-security crises, we can't afford to have a secretary of
defense who has unpredictable judgment.”
Well, there is nothing unpredictable in this matter for, it
can safely be predicted that Chuck Hagel will consult with Americans to find
out form them what is best for America
whereas John Barrosso will run to Netanyahu, throw himself at his feet and beg
the master to tell him what is good for America . For cover, Barrosso may
even assemble a few thousand Americans in one field and talk to them for a
minute or two so that he may swear he consulted with Americans too.
The truth of the matter is that
the man is terrified of the Jewish lobby, and he is in denial about it. He will
not admit it because if he did, he will want to go back being a medical doctor
again where he stands to do more good for his people than get together with
other dogs and bark the Netanyahu praises.