Thoughts on the Kent departure.

First thought:

I live in what would have been, had he not twice lost to Glusenkamp-Perez, his district (WA03). 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, 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?

The Iran and nuclear weapon issue.

An influencer came across the timeline today and he's effectively pissed off, as some in Congress claim to be, that we might find ourselves embroiled in the Iran nuke issue.  To which, I responded thusly:

So, Tim.... what would you have us do?

A mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv means it's probably a little late to act.

Are you suggesting the Iran is NOT doing their best to develop a nuclear weapon?

Is waiting until they have one or some the best plan? And then what? A sternly worded letter?

Serious question.

It's easy to blow holes in what someone else is doing. But both the US and Israel do not have the luxury of being wrong here on this issue. We only have to be wrong once. There will be no do-overs. But indisputable evidence that Iran is doing all they can to get a nuke is just that: indisputable.

Iran has been chanting death to US and to the Israelis for decades. Are you suggesting that such a foreign policy goal for Iran is acceptable?

What would you have us do in the alternative? If this is doing it wrong, then what do we need to do to make it right?

I don't expect a viable... or any.... response.

But when you're confronted with a country who wants the destruction of the Great Satan (US) AND Israel... a country where diplomacy has failed for decades... what else is left to do? Whining about taking this option without providing a different, viable option is truly fringe-left at it's core.

Doing nothing is the wrong thing. And he damned well knows it. 

Obama invites non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction attack, plus double miles if they use American Express.

.
Time and time again, our president has proven himself to be a clueless idiot in almost every area of both foreign and domestic policy.

Yesterday, he effectively sent out an invitation for those who would destroy us to come on in and do it.

For some not paying attention, that sounds a bit over-the-top. But one of the main reasons this country has been mostly safe from these attacks has been, I believe, our overwhelming nuclear deterrence.

And much of that deterrence was taken off the table yesterday by the ACORN-in-Chief, who even after all these months STILL doesn't get that most nations around the world will only respect strength instead of weakness.

So, this simple moron announced to the world yesterday that only SOME efforts to destroy this country and our 330,000,000 people qualify for nuclear attack response.

From the fringe left paper of record, the New York Times:

For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use
nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with
biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

With a little editing, this is what that paragraph REALLY means:

For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing to encourage our
enemies to attack us if the attack is launched from nonnuclear states that
are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they
attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a
crippling cyberattack.

So, using the scenario of the Tom Clancy books "Executive Orders and "Rainbow 6," some country paying lip service to a piece of paper that doesn't even involve biological, chemical or internet attacks (and face it, Chinese hackers have been coming after us for years without any known retaliation of any kind) can feel free from the fear of the past penalties that could be invoked for using non-nuclear weapons of mass-destruction.

What's a few tens of millions of casualties and the crippling of this country to this moron?

Based on his most recent babble, it ain't much. And I'm just giddy at the prospects that those who would destroy us view this most recent collapse of common sense as precisely the kind of gesture from this empty suit that will make us weaker... while making them stronger.

Aren't you?
.