Who Hijacked Our Country

Thursday, September 05, 2013

Ted Cruz, Rand Paul — You Go Guys

No, I haven’t turned into a teabagger or anything.  Like they say, a broken clock is right twice a day.  And this whole Syria controversy is sure making some strange bedfellows.

For once I’m glad to see congressional Republicans obstructing Obama‘s agenda, even if it’s for all the wrong reasons (i.e. “if that there Kenyan Muslim is for it, we’s agin’ it”).  And the civil war between GOP factions is as amusing as ever.  Newt Gingrich has urged Congress to vote No on the authorization to attack Syria.  John McCain says whatever Obama wants to do in Syria, it’s too little too late.  And Donald Rumsfeld — “I think with the brain I have, not the brain I wish I had” — says Obama is a pitiful weakling for not bombing Syria into smithereens yesterday.

Ted Cruz nailed it by calling the U.S. military “al Qaeda’s air force” if we attack Syria.  We have absolutely no idea who’s who over there.  They know a lot more about us than we know about them.  The Sun Tzu command to “Know Your Enemy” is followed almost everywhere in the world except here.  If we stage a “surgical strike” against Syria, it’ll be the umpteenth time we’ve waded into somebody else’s civil war and “helped” a group of “victims” who later turn on us.  Either that, or we end up supporting the most corrupt bloodthirsty dictator in the world just because he’s anti- (Communist, Muslim — whoever our villain of the moment happens to be).

Rand Paul insists he’s not going to filibuster the authorization bill, which probably means he IS planning to.  Either that or he’s hoping to muster up enough votes against the bill to make a filibuster unnecessary.

And what’s with this Syrian Electronic Army we keep hearing about?  It this just an urban legend?  Supposedly Syria has an “army” of computer hackers who will hack into America’s computer systems — the computers that control all of our weapons, banks, all commercial websites, you name it — if we attack Syria.

I first heard of this concept about twenty years ago, when Mainland China kept threatening to “re-unite with” (i.e. invade) Taiwan.  (This was before China had made their huge technological advances.)  Taiwan supposedly had an army of hackers who were ready at a moment’s notice to disable China’s missile systems and aircraft and stop them dead in their tracks.

I never knew if that was true, and I have no idea whether the Syrian Electronic Army is for real or not.  But I hope so.  It has a great deterrent effect.  It’s like the NRA’s famous slogan about “an armed society is a polite society.”  If every country in the world — no matter how poor, how small — is able to hack and disable every other country’s military and financial institutions, there won’t be much incentive for large countries to prey on smaller ones.  A world armed with hackers is a polite world.

Labels: , , ,

5 Comments:

Blogger Demeur said...

I'd agree with you Tom but they said the same things about nuclear weapons many years ago and it still hasn't stopped wars. Let's face it this is all for the benefit of corporations who could give a tinkers damn about human lives.

September 6, 2013 at 9:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What gets me is Rand and Cruz want to be President, and this is not to the way to get support from the right wing on foreign policy should they look into running.

People used to laugh at the Old Soviet Union for using vacuum tubes as a backup to their defense systems. They were concerned about two things - Electro Magnetic Waves from a Nuclear Device and Electronic Intrusion.

Erik

September 6, 2013 at 10:23 AM  
Anonymous Muffins anyone? said...

Great post Tom. I hadn't considered that we don't know Syria and I bet Barry is onto that.

My opinion, today, is that if we don't bomb, which is entirely possible, it will be great for world peace prospects, Obama, and Democrats. Kerry is willingly falling under the bus, like LBJ. Ironic as shit!

I heard some analysis that I thought was interesting, that chem. weapons are looked down upon by "corporations" because they just suck, as weapons. Perhaps you touched on this.

September 6, 2013 at 7:29 PM  
Blogger Snave said...

I don't like us mucking about in the Middle East to begin with, and I'm not sure the administration really has any strategy afoot with bombing Syria other than just to say "don't mess with us" and "we kept our word about the red line".

I don't think bombing a few selected targets is going to stop Assad and his buddies from further mayhem, and at this point we might as well tell them which targets we plan to bomb. So maybe we might as well just bag the whole idea. If we do otherwise and Obama persists, I think that whole region will blow up into a regional war, Russia will get involved, etc. I hate that Assad is using chemical weapons, but I also don't want any World War III.

I detest people like Paul and Cruz, even when I find I agree with them on some things. But I've been sending emails to my elected representatives urging to side with those fellows and vote "no". Will that destroy our credibility? Probably not in the Middle East, because I'm not sure we have any credibility over there anyway.

Would it make any difference if Congress says "no" to Obama? Will he go ahead and exercise his authority and order bombing anyway? I wonder if he just might. For a guy who campaigned for "no war", he sure seems to have a jones for it lately.

September 6, 2013 at 10:46 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Demeur: You're right, "defense" contractors are about the only people who want war with Syria. As Alan Grayson put it, the Military Industrial Complex wants to go to war with Syria, the American people don't.

Erik: Nope, being an isolationist is definitely not the route to the White House. There may be a lot of conservatives who don't want to get quagmired in the Middle East again, but they don't match the political clout of the warmongers and chickenhawks.

Muffins: Thanks. I agree that it will be a win win for world peace and the Democrats if we don't bomb Syria.

Snave: Jon Stewart had a hilarious speech the other night about the absurdity of a "surgical strike." It's only a surgical strike if it happens someplace else far away. If your own city or neighborhood gets bombed, you're not gonna say "Oh, that? That was just a surgical strike. I'm not worried about it."

I don't know what Obama is trying to do here. So far in his second term he's used up most of his political capital on guns and immigration -- two issues that I don't even have an opinion on. And now this.

I too detest Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, and I hate it when I have to agree with their occasional moments of sanity.

September 7, 2013 at 1:26 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home