Bobby Jindal is again trying to out-red the Rednecks that
populate the swampy bayous in his neck of the woods. He is doing this in the
hope of gaining their confidence and win their votes in the upcoming election
cycle. One thing he did to advance his dream is to write: “Iran Isn't Iraq , and This Isn't 2003,” an
article that was published on May 20, 2015 in National Review Online.
In taking this approach, Jindal does to himself what the
apartheid regime of South
Africa used to do to people of color. When
it could not keep the White professionals from leaving the country, and could
not attract enough White immigrants to replace those it was losing, the regime
labeled the Asian applicants honorary Whites and welcomed them into the
country. In a similar fashion, Bobby Jindal wants the world to believe he is
now an honorary Redneck whose neck can turn as red as that of a turkey at the
start of the mating cycle.
The one area in which the human turkeys of the bayous have
gained special notoriety, is the combination of ignorance and cowardice that is
said to power their political activities. Unlike the conservatives everywhere
else in the world who campaign by explaining to their constituents what parts
of the old wisdom they will conserve, and how they will adapt them to better
serve the modern era, the redneck conservatives of America promise their
constituents to make them feel exceptional by doing things which are
exceptionally dumb; things like send American boys and girls to far away places
where they hope to kick asses, and in return, get kicked in the ass … a symbol,
perhaps, of lowering America's standing in the eyes of the world.
So then, what can a self-proclaimed honorary Redneck do to
endear himself to his new constituents? Well, he can begin his article like
this: “Instead of rehashing the Iraq War, let's face today's much more serious
threat from Iran .”
And if you want to know why that is, he tells you why. It is because hindsight
is 20/20, and that Monday-morning quarterbacking is useless, he says.
Being the agreeable and easy going fellow that you are, you
say fine. You accept Bobby Jindal's presentation, and promise to adapt your
thinking to see things the way he sees them. You take a deep breath and ask:
What now, Bobby? And he tells you what. Speaking of President Obama, he says
this: So unwilling to contemplate a military engagement in the Middle East is he, he appears scared of his shadow.”
Well, you don't tell this to Bobby, but you think to yourself that if Mr. Obama
is scared, he is not scared of being wounded or dying himself; he is scared for
the American boys and girls whom, as their commander in chief, he would be
sending to get wounded or die.
True to character, you restrain yourself long enough to
calmly ask the next question: What does it all mean, Bobby? And he tells you
what. Doing his own quarterbacking in hindsight, he references the two wars of
the Twentieth Century saying this: “After the horrors of Verdun … Neville
Chamberlain and his contemporaries so feared the outbreak of another Great War
for years they handsomely rewarded aggression in their midst – setting the
stage for an even bloodier global conflict.”
This is where you almost burst with anger, and feel tempted
to confront him. But lucky for you, he comes to the rescue by saying something
so primitive, you cool off instantly, feeling it is not worth getting exercised
over a turkey that will probably not make it into the league of rednecks. It is
that speaking of Hillary Clinton, he tells you this: “it's how she and the
president have learned the wrong lesson from the [Iraq ] conflict.”
And the lesson, according to him, is this: “Because this
decade's answer to an Iraqi regime that did not possess chemical or biological
weapons is not to leave Iran
within striking distance of a nuclear bomb.” Fine, you say, but where is the
lesson that says America
must do something about Iran ?
In response, Jindal makes his point by reminding you of the words that were
spoken by Mr. Obama when he was a senator.
He says that at the time, Mr. Obama said he believed that
Saddam Hussein posed no imminent and direct threat to the US or his neighbors,
that the Iraqi economy was in shambles, that the Iraqi military was a fraction
of its former strength, and that the international community could contain a
petty dictator … all of which proved to be true, says history, now that a
decade has passed. So you want to know, what point is Jindal trying to make? It
is this: “Contrast his [Obama's] comments about Iraq
then to the situation in Iran
now.” He goes on: “Iran is
much more of a threat now than Iraq
was then.”
You recall that he got you to this point to explain why he
says Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama learned the wrong lesson. It is that Clinton was wrong because
she voted for the war, and then admitted she made a mistake, he had said. It is
also that Obama was wrong because he opposed the war from he start, he had
said. And so, he can now assert that he, Bobby Jindal, who approved of the
attack on Saddam and does not regret it, is in a position to opine that Iran cannot be contained … which is euphemism
that means Iran
must be bombed into the Stone Age. This is the kind of redneckism that the
authentic rednecks of the bayous will reject.