1Sa
25:14 KJV But
one of the young men told Abigail, Nabal's wife, saying, Behold, David sent messengers out
of the wilderness to salute our master; and he [Nabal] railed on them.
The
Spitefulness of Little Men
N.B. Re: National impotence: 'These words, uttered by a credible candidate
for the prime ministership of one of America’s longest-standing allies are
astonishing as the Pope musing about the possibility of converting to Islam.
But why should Turnbull not consider these options? He knows the cavalry won’t
come, any more than it wil for Ukraine, or the Syrian rebels or anyone else who
relies on the “leader of the free world”.'
N.B. Re: Impotence of reason: 'Netanyahu didn’t come there to get something
from Obama because he knows the president will give him nothing. And besides the cupboard, truth be told, is
probably bare. He came for old time’s sake; with a sadness in his heart that Nancy
Pelosi couldn’t even begin to imagine; with the kind of grief that comes from
seeing something once beautiful and powerful now broken down and grubbing at
the level of the petty, malicious, lying politicians who dominate it.
He came to warn anyone who would listen to wake up, though his words were
doubtless wasted on the sleeping.'
Excerpts are from article copied and linked below.
Excerpts are from article copied and linked below.
Illustrations are from Lucianne.com, pictures of the day for 3 and 4 March 2015.
The Spitefulness of Little Men - PJ Media by Richard Fernandez March 4th, 2015 - 3:23 am http://j.mp/0MicroManO or http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/03/04/the-spitefulness-of-little-men/
The Spitefulness of Little Men - PJ Media by Richard Fernandez March 4th, 2015 - 3:23 am http://j.mp/0MicroManO or http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/03/04/the-spitefulness-of-little-men/
Despite Benjamin Netanyahu’s protestations to
the contrary, his speech before the joint session of Congress contained an
element of obvious defiance to president Obama.
After all, Obama all but forbade him to give the speech and still he
gave it. Yet Netanyahu was the hardly
the first western leader to exhibit insubordination. The old reliables have been falling away for
some time. As the New York Times put it,
Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel “split” with Obama over the question of
arming the Ukraine.
The pointed exchanges laid bare the divisions
within the West’s ranks and did not provide a sense of how the United States
and its European allies hoped to fashion a common strategy that might persuade
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to honor an agreement negotiated in
Minsk, Belarus, in September.
Prior to that readers may remember how the
British House of Commons refused to authorize participation in Obama’s military
strike on Syria — actually refused to follow him into combat — in August 2013
by a vote of 285 to 272. The Washington
Post noted it marked the first time since the Suez Crisis “that a British
opposition party has rejected a government motion for military
intervention.” The Daily Beast pointed
out that “it was the first time a British prime minister had lost a vote on
waging war since 1782, when parliament effectively called an end to the War of
Independence and conceded that the American rebellion had succeeded.”
It’s no fluke. Recently in Australia, Malcolm
Turnbull, the man who might be its next Prime Minister started tongues wagging
when he suggested that he might pivot to China.
Turnbull said that ”an Australian government needs to be careful not to
allow a doe-eyed fascination with the leader of the free world to distract from
the reality that our national interest requires us to truly (and not just
rhetorically) maintain both an ally in Washington and a good friend in
Beijing.”
And finally, Turnbull recognises that all this
means Australia has to rethink its place in Asia from the ground up. We cannot
assume, he has said, that “the strategic and diplomatic posture that served us
in the past can and will serve us unchanged in the future; or that it doesn’t
matter if our strategic and economic messages to our region are somewhat
contradictory”.
These words, uttered by a credible candidate
for the prime ministership of one of America’s longest-standing allies are
astonishing as the Pope musing about the possibility of converting to Islam.
But why should Turnbull not consider these options? He knows the cavalry won’t
come, any more than it wil for Ukraine, or the Syrian rebels or anyone else who
relies on the “leader of the free world”.
In the universe outside the Beltway nations
feel actual fear — of China, Russia or Iran
– as the case may be. Germany,
France, the UK, Japan and Australia need to survive and require more than
dramatic poses from the lectern. In the absence of something more substantial
they tend to make their own arrangements; if need be they conclude a separate
peace.
It’s almost as if there were two parallel
universes. The real one in which the
rest of the world lives and the fantasy land bounded by the Beltway and the
media capitals. Perhaps American allies of long standing are starting to
suspect that there is no president in the White House. To be sure there is
someone who calls himself ‘president’ and never ceases to remind the public at
large of his awesome magnificence. Yet
in actuality there is little concrete evidence of his majesty’s existence. For
example after trumpeting an impending assault on Mosul, the Associated Press
for example notes that the “US [is] on [the] sidelines of key Iraqi battle
against IS”.
Glaringly absent are the U.S.-led coalition forces
whose air campaign since last summer has nearly halted the Islamic State
rampage across Iraq. Pentagon spokesman Army Col. Steve Warren said this week
that the U.S. is not providing air power in the Tikrit operation “simply
because the Iraqis haven’t requested us to.” …
However, more of a concern for the U.S.-led
coalition is Iran’s prominent role in the fight against the Islamic State
militants. Iran has long been influential in Iraq, but never so much so as over
the past year, when the Iraqi military collapsed in the face of the Sunni
extremists’ onslaught. Iraqi officials have noted Iran’s quick response to
their urgent requests for weapons and frontline assistance even as they accuse
the coalition of falling short on commitments on the ground.
People notice these things. They remember that only a few years ago the
US had proconsular power in Iraq. Now it doesn’t even get the time of day. The
fact the man in charge operations against ISIS in the region appears to be
Qassem Suleimani, chief of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, must make even the
ordinary man start to have his doubts.
And it’s not just Iraq, but elsewhere. A few
years ago the US counted Egypt as its staunch ally. In 2011 Hillary Clinton
trumpeted the liberation of Libya. Now Egypt is estranged from America and the consulate in Benghazi charred ruin with
its ambassador dead. Only a few months ago the Obama administration touted
Yemen as its counterinsurgency model.
Yet Yemen, according to Captain
Robert A. Newson, a (SEAL) officer who
spent time there, was “a fantasy”. “This ‘CT concept’,” he wrote ” – the
solution that some people champion where the main or whole effort is drone
strikes and special operations raids – is a fantasy. It may be cheaper and
safer, but without broader efforts it is like mowing the grass in the
jungle.” Today the American embassy in
Sana’a has been abandoned to an Iranian-backed militia.
When Netanyahu enumerated these well-known
setbacks Nancy Pelosi declared herself “near tears” at the “insult”. Yet even
the president could not dispute the facts. All the president could say was
there was “nothing new” in the speech. And in that Obama is undoubtedly right.
Readers will note that there was hardly a major point in Netanyahu’s speech
that was not anticipated in yesterday’s Belmont Club post (and the
comments). But that did not require
genius because it’s all so obvious. What’s really astonishing is that none of
the undisputed facts seemed to matter to the administration.
Iran’s goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon,
its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three
tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Backed by
Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Backed by Iran, Houthis are
seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the
Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second
choke-point on the world’s oil supply.
Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a
military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That’s just last
week, while they’re having nuclear talks with the United States. But
unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran’s attacks against the United States
have been anything but mock. And the targets have been all too real.
Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in
Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was
responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
How long can you watch your fighter take it on
the chin before you grudgingly admit that he’s a bum? In their own way the
media admit the case. When the Beltway press says that America is “still” the
most important country on the planet; when talk show hosts re-assure us that
the United States is “still” the indispensable country, the “still” betrays the
game; it is an adjective used to describe an asset that is wasting away. Nobody
who is ascendant assures his listeners that he can “still” pay for his
hamburger. But people in long decline use the word frequently and the press has
been using it all too often. President Obama is the president of the “still”.
Still boasting, still failing and still hoping to land his knockout deal.
Chris Matthews reacted to the prime minister’s
speech by accusing Netanyahu of trying to “wrest power from Obama”. Matthews
said:
“This man from a foreign government walked into
the United States legislative chamber and tried to take over U.S. foreign
policy. He said, ‘You should trust me, not your president on this. I am the man
you should trust. I’m your true leader on this question of U.S. geopolitics. To
protect yourself, you must listen to me and not to this president.’”
Would that it were so. Like most mainstream
commmentators Matthews still thinks Obama sits in the center of the old
universe, the one that is vanishing. From that accustomed vantage Matthews sees
everyone as coveting the power of the King from which the cornucopia flows.
Matthews cannot see that things have changed. Quite perceptibly the periphery
of American influence — even its core — is falling away. And it will keep crumbling away for as long
as reason is subordinated to the vanity of political leaders.
Netanyahu didn’t come there to get something
from Obama because he knows the president will give him nothing. And besides the cupboard, truth be told, is
probably bare. He came for old time’s sake; with a sadness in his heart that
Nancy Pelosi couldn’t even begin to imagine; with the kind of grief that comes
from seeing something once beautiful and powerful now broken down and grubbing
at the level of the petty, malicious, lying politicians who dominate it. He came
to warn anyone who would listen to wake up, though his words were doubtless
wasted on the sleeping.
It would be asking too much for the
administration’s supporters to agree with Netanyahu. But perhaps it might be
permissible to request that they remember what he said, so that in the coming
months, as the disasters unfold and things go ever more wrong, they might cast
their minds back and ask: “could he have been right?”
Ernest Hemingway observed that people who have
always had money never believe they’ll run out. In the Sun Also Rises two of
his characters describe the experience of going bust.
“How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked.
“Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then
suddenly.”
Like Detroit. And that’s the way it will be for
Nancy Pelosi and the whole gang. They’ll be kings of the world until suddenly
they’re not.
I2C 150304aa 1Sa25v14 Small men | I2C | 150304 1435
et | 1Sa25v14 Small men
