JBlog Carnival Updates, HH, KCC & JPIX

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Don't "Stand By" Me and The Dangers of Democracy

After hearing and watching ad nauseum the clips from the third Obama vs Romney Debate, I'm bristling.  Is that the word to use?  OK, maybe seething is better?  Guess what bothers me:

Yes, it's in the title, and I'm sure I'm not the only English/language/literature teacher to have done my best to train my students to always first read and understand the title.

Both Mitt Romney and Barack Hussein Obama pledged to "stand by" or "stand with Israel if attacked."  I know they both meant well in their ways.  But none of their words made me feel reassured. 
"If Israel is attacked, we have their back, not just diplomatically, not just culturally, but militarily," Romney said. "I will stand with Israel if they are attacked," Obama said. Both were responding to a question on whether they would consider an attack on Israel an attack on the United States. (complete article)

First of all, we all know that they mean it figuratively, not literally.  That means that they'll do nothing to prevent an attack. They wouldn't endanger American lives.  Obama at a different point in the debate said that instead of concentrating on policing the world he wants to concentrate on "rebuilding America."

We all know that when push comes to shove,  if Israel would G-d forbid be attacked, it would be standing alone. No Americans government or military would come here to fight and absorb the blows, the missiles nor the bullets.  I don't expect them to do.

I see them as an audience tsk, tsking away.

The only reassuring thing about all the mention of Israel is that both candidates wanted to give the impression that Israel is important to them.  Considering how small our country is and how few Jews there are in the United States, you really have to be impressed by the focus on Israel by both Obama and Romney.

I suggest you read Ruthie Blum's Israel HaYom article about the debate.  She makes some very important points.
The most blatant example of this during the debate was Obama's claims that he was tough on the Iranian regime and its race for nuclear weapons. Listening to the appeasement king of the West assert that he laid down the law to the mullahs from the get-go, that his sanctions have been working, and that he will never allow Tehran to proceed toward completing the bomb, one might conceivably be lulled into forgetting what he has been up to.

Romney did make an attempt to counter Obama’s claims here, by reminding viewers that Obama had abandoned the Iranian revolutionaries when they tried to topple President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his ayatollahs. But the Republican contender had neither the time nor the tactical approach that would allow for throwing the president’s bald-faced prevarications in his face.

There's something very frightening in the entire American electoral system. That's the ignorance of the voters. 

Obama Supporters Have No Idea About Benghazi Attack

Democracy is a very dangerous business.

No comments: