On Wednesday I had the distinct pleasure and honor of returning to Capitol Hill and the House floor and greeting my former colleagues — heck, I even had a nice chat with Rep. Charlie Rangel.
I addressed the Republican Study Committee on the topic of a 21st century military to combat the modern battlefield. To wrap up the evening, I attended the RNC Black Military Veterans award ceremony and reception at the African-American Civil War Memorial Museum where Commander Vincent McBeth (USN, Ret) was recognized for his distinguished service. I returned to the Batcave via a DC Metro ride — quite disconcerting that black teenage boys and girls have a hard time commanding the English language. Their comfort seems to be with profane expressions — loudly and publicly.
Walking back, I pondered what is happening in DC. There is a very public disdain, but it’s not towards our enemy. How is it that an American presidential administration finds such ease in inviting groups and individuals affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood into the oval office or our State Department?Why does this current administration find it easier to work and align with a Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt but does not support the will of the Egyptian people who overthrew the Islamist regime?
Why does the president react so vehemently to any possibility of reinstating economic sanctions against the number one Islamic terrorist sponsor in the world — after Iran has consistently delayed the process?
And why refer to the relationship with our ally Israel as being “destructive?”As reported by The Hill, “Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress is “destructive” to the relationship between the United States and Israel, national security advisor Susan Rice said Tuesday night. Appearing on PBS’s “Charlie Rose,” Rice said that the decision of Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to invite Netanyahu without consulting the White House, and Netanyahu’s decision to accept, had “injected a degree of partisanship” into the relationship between the two nations. “Which is not only unfortunate, I think it’s destructive of the fabric of the relationship,” she said.”
What is “destructive” about the Prime Minister of Israel addressing the American people and our elected representatives on the security situation in the Middle East?Could it be our administration doesnt want us to know how very dangerous the neighborhood is? I hate to be the one who breaks the hard and obvious truth — we can see the declining situation in the Middle East ourselves every night on the news.
And what is so threatening about Prime Minister Netanyahu speaking that has the Democrat party up in arms, many refusing to attend? What was up with certain Democrats asking for a private meeting with Netanyahu — can’t they just attend the speech? Is this truly all about some childish feeling of offence because no one asked for permission or begged for a “bye or leave” to have the prime minister of Israel speak?
How about the offense the American people feel when they’re told by the president “I heard the voices of the two-thirds of people who did not vote?” What about the offense in hearing the president state over 22 times that he could not take a unilateral action to change our immigration laws — and then he does, and tells the American people that he never said he couldn’t? What about the offense to the American people being told that they could keep their doctors and their health insurance — only to find out that was not true?
So what I find very “destructive” about this Obama administration is this selective hurt feelings when it comes to a very ominous threat of Iranian nuclear capability. How can we have insightful foreign policy from those who operate on the basis of emotion rather than reality? It’s as if President Obama and his administration are taking their toys and going home.
There is no aspect of partisanship being injected with Netanyahu’s speech. The Speaker of the US House of Representatives offered an opportunity for Netanyahu to speak before a joint session of Congress. The purpose is to ensure that our elected officials can make the best policy decisions about the situation with Iran. And I would hope the Obama administration would present this coming agreement with Iran to the American people in keeping with its promise of full transparency.
The reaction of the Obama administration to this speech invitation should concern us all as to their ability to develop trusting alliances with our allies — whom seem to trust us less. There can be no debate that our enemies are greatly emboldened.
The Hill reports, “The White House is reportedly considering ways to undermine the power of the prime minister’s visit, during which he is expected to issue a rebuke to the president’s Iran policy, including sending administration officials to the Sunday political talk shows. The administration also hasn’t yet said whether it will be sending a representative to the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.”
All of this comes to a head next week, and I pray that the Obama administration comes to realize the losing optics of these antics. This is the reaction of spoiled and petulant children — not the administration supposedly at the head of a great nation.
Sometimes, we have to just speak plainly. And in keeping with that task, if President Obama and his administration continue down this rather embarrassing path, the long-term strategic ramifications will be lasting.