IRAN -- PANETTA'S DECLARATION -- RATIONALE?

I have asked my military friends, whose wisdom in affairs military I trust more than my own, "What can be the rationale for the Defense Secretary making such a declaration as "Israel will attack Iran in a few months?" They agree with my opinion that it is unwise and worse.

Then comes the pronouncement that "Iran is likely to attack the USA [ in some way]." This is equally unwise, foolish and more. Inexplicable? Maybe, maybe not!

It was speculated some time ago that President Obama might attack Iran as a political October surprise. Of course, this didn't make the news and I do not remember the source. Could find it but don't think it's necessary because I believe sincerely that it would be within his capability if it was deemed to show strength and win a portion of voters he can't reach now --- knowing his left base, likely ones to object the most, will not abandon him. He could also see it as icing down the Jewish vote, some of which he is reported to be losing. While I am one who believes he will maintain most of the Jewish vote, 80% of which has always voted Democrat, some polls show the support dropping to 67%.

So, I'll take the liberty to let my thoughts wonder to the notion that Panetta is not acting alone and that he is making a political calculation that will get a portion of a voter block committed. If the pronouncement backfires, then the October surprise could be taken off the strategy agenda. Yes, I know the media will play it differently, but that will be their assignment -- to set us up for what's coming.

I remember a few months ago when MSNBC ran a spot with Professor Alan Lichtman of American University proclaiming that Obama could not be defeated with one major reason being he "had no scandals" in his administration. Really??

This came just ahead of the revelation of the Solyndra fraud and about the time "Fast and Furious" gun running to Mexico was elevating to a major scandal. While Solyndra and more solar deals are surely fraudulent, I state up front that it would likely never be adjudicated with AG Holder in charge. At least DOE head, Steven Chu, and even Obama, should be held accountable but it's not likely to happen. 

And, while congress is now going through the motions of trying to get to the bottom of the "Fast and Furious" scandal, it is likely to fall short of holding anyone of power accountable. AG Holder shows little interest in solving the problem and, in fact, shows little interest in The Rule of Law. You know other examples I would hope.

So, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that we are being set up by Panetta on the Iran issue as we have been on scandals.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

LEFTIST MIND-SET OF TODAY -- REFLEXIVE, THOUGHTLESS SUPPORT FOR THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

AMERICAN AIRLINES -- MORE ABOUT UNIONS AND CH 11

OBAMA'S COSTLY VACATIONS AND CAMPAIGNING ON THE US TREASURY