Thoughts on the Kent departure.

First thought:

The left, which has heretofore hated Kent and everything he stands for (go back and review the mailers, campaign ads and the comments from the fringe-left nutjobs during his congressional campaigns) will now lionize him for being a visionary who stands by his principles when, in fact, (like him or hate him) he's no different now than he ever was.

But if he opposes Trump on anything? Then suddenly they'll claim he's the greatest thing since canned beer.

Second thought:

Doesn't upset me.

Joe has to do what Joe believes he has to do.

I disagree with him on much of his take, but his position is his position... that's his privilege and my privilege to disagree.

I'm not going to try and make political hay out of it regardless.

I disagree with him on some issues. But I honor his service to this country and the sacrifices he's had to endure... which certainly exceed that of my own.

Post thoughts:

Sometimes, we should look beyond the politics.

I disagree with his claim that Iran is not an imminent threat... but I guess it depends on your definition of "imminent."

Thousands of Americans were killed and 10's of thousands were wounded, in everything from the Beirut bombing to both Iraq and Afghanistan using the explosives, weapons and ammo Iran supplied.

We SHOULD have attacked them the moment we found out Iran was providing weapons, etc to the Iraq/Afghan insurgents.

Hell, we SHOULD have done it when Iran took those American hostages, a total act of war.

For decades, Iran has chanted "Death to America" in conjunction with their ongoing development of nuclear weapons, development only temporarily halted by the air strikes months back... a nuclear program they insisted on rebuilding. That slogan is a bit more than a bumper sticker to them.

I'm reminded of the axiom that goes something like this:

When someone tells you who they really are; by word, by deed, or by thought?

Believe them.

The muslims running Iran don't care about "MAD."

They would cheerfully suffer the entire eradication/annihilation of Iran if they could first, using nuclear weapons, destroy or severely damage US first.

Their continued insistence on developing nuclear weapons after Trump warned them not to do so, does, IMHO, rise to the level of an "imminent threat."

So, what would Joe Kent have us do? Wait until they put a nuclear weapon or weapons together as they inevitably would have?

Little late then, isn't it?

Post WW2, we had a 5-year window where we were the only nuclear power.

We could have used that to end the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact and end communism in China, all of which would have meant no Korean War, no Vietnam War, likely no Iraq or Afghanistan War.

But we did nothing. And that didn't work out all that well for this country and the hundreds of thousands dead as a result of our lack of will and our foreign policy intransigence.

Trump is acting on a threat BOTH sides of the political spectrum have for decades indicated needed to be done. Kent, as far as I know, offered no viable alternative.

In my 30 odd years in politics, from legislative staff, to campaigns, to consulting private business, I heard a great many complaints about hundreds of issues.

What I rarely heard was a presentation of viable solutions.

Doing nothing, as Kent seems to advocate, solves nothing and risks a great deal.

Doing what we're doing now ALSO risks a great deal. But when compared to the prospect of a nuclear Iran?

I'll take Trump's action any day.

And militarily?

It's always more strategic to act when you WANT to, than it is when you HAVE to.

And isn't that a lesson we should have learned on December 7, 1941? to do what Joe believes he has to do.

I disagree with him on much of his take, but his position is his position... that's his privilege and my privilege to disagree. I'm not going to try and make political hay out of it regardless. I disagree with him on some issues. But I honor his service to this country and the sacrifices he's had to endure... which certainly exceed that of my own.

Doesn't upset me. Joe has to do what Joe believes he has to do. I disagree with him on much of his take, but his position is his position... that's his privilege and my privilege to disagree. I'm not going to try and make political hay out of it regardless. I disagree with him on some issues. But I honor his service to this country and the sacrifices he's had to endure... which certainly exceed that of my own.