Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Did I Actually Agree With Good Hair?

I am playing a bit of hooky today and just kind of hanging around. I had opportunity a couple hours back to catch Good Hair giving a speech on television. I was astounded that I actually agree with most of what he was saying this fine morning.

The topic, for the most part, was statehood for the "Palestinians." Now Perry was speaking apparently to a predominantly Jewish audience and anyone who has observed Good Hair throughout the years can point out that pandering is his strong, (perhaps his only strong), suit. It would be easy to write this off as just the latest group he panders to. I am not so sure that he was not being genuine though. He is, after all, running for the highest office in the land and not just trying to keep his figurehead job as the Governor of Texas. One would think that simple pandering would not be recommended when he is in such a position. Of course Rick is Rick and he may have just been doing what he does best.

There were very few points that Good Hair made on the "Palestinian" issue that I disagree with. Perhaps the major one is that the door is left open for some sort of recognized state of "Palestine." If I were him I would just let folk know that the very idea of statehood for the unfortunates of the region is, (as they say), a non starter. After all I just don't think that Good Hair will be getting very many Mohammedan votes anyway.

Perry also  rightfully pointed out that Israel is an allied nation and the only true democracy in the region. He pointed out the strategic importance to the United States that is Israel. He also pointed out the folly of the current administration in supporting some elements of the so called "Arab Spring." He was right. It does seem that the Obama administration has a rather naive outlook on the realities of the world. This naivety, by the way, is often a typically American trait in the realm of foreign policy. It can not be argued that leadership of this country often makes mistakes in this arena. I have thought it because we, collectively as a people, tend to seek out the good in others and act accordingly. I digress. Another topic for another time perhaps.

Now as one who knows who and what this Good Hair is, I find it rather interesting that I agree wholeheartedly with his statements today. I have hope, since he may well be the next POTUS, that he was genuine. I also wonder if he thought all of this up by himself. He did after all have a meeting with "Hair" Trump last week. A meeting of the hairs if you will.

 Say what you will about Trump but I tend to think the man "gets it."


Jayhawk said...

Not to take any positin on the Palestinian issue, but...

"Perry also rightfully pointed out that Israel is an allied nation..."
Actually, he is in error there. We do not have and have never had any treaties of any sort with Isreal, so to call it an "allied nation" is incorrect.

"He pointed out the strategic importance to the United States that is Israel."
Name one thing, just one thing, that Israel has ever done that was to the direct benefit of the United States.

Bartender Cabbie said...

The proximity of Israel to the Suez Canal is strategic. We do, as far as I know, have no formal alliance with the State but having a reliable (although somewhat unpredicatble), militarily powerful, "friend" in the region is important I think.

Jayhawk said...

Again, Cabbie, what has Israel ever done that has been a direct benefit to the US?

It attacked and almost sank the USS Liberty, but we'll overlook that in the name of "friendship" will we?

What can Israel do that would be of direct benefit to the US? Please don't suggest that they would stick their necks out defending the Suez for us, and please do recall that the last time they fought Hezbollah in southern Lebanon they could not defeat them.

Bartender Cabbie said...

Your comment on the attack on the USS Liberty noted. I have in the past written that, at the time, this incident was not taken care of in the manner in which it should have been. A retaliatory strike. I was a child at the time and do not recall the episode but I do know that my father was never a "fan,"(to say the least), of Israel; probably due solely to this attack. I have read that the commander of naval forces in the area was preparing for a counter strike but was ordered to "stand down." I do not know if that is the true story or not.

That being said, I think that Israel is of strategic importance to the West. I will refrain from stating that they would "take" the Suez if it becomes a requirement in the strategic interests of Western Civilization, but I will point out that a friendly nation in the region would be an asset to the West in any mission that may be required. I do indeed believe that there will be such a requirement in the future. When? Hard to say.

I am not a huge supporter of Israel, but I do recall vividly the rejoice in the region from those in "Palestine" and elsewhere after the attacks of Sept 11. As far as their "war" with Hezbollah; Israel could not, for public relations reasons, unleash the dogs. It was a very limited conflict, with most of those "limitations" being the self restraint of the IDF.

Again, I am not a huge fan of the State. If Israel were not located in a strategic (for the West) region, then it would matter little what the outcome of the Jewish/Muslim conflict would be. It would be of no more interest or importance than a conflict in Sub Saharan Africa.