Mona Charen, idiot

I remember Mona Charen from the time that I would sometimes visit http://www.townhall.com/ and she would be among the radical shriekers despising all things Democrat and assuming that she had a better lock on all matters foreign policy wise.  As an example:  Spain faced an act of terrorism right before it elections were supposed to begin, a series of train bombings on the 11^th of March that ultimately killed hundreds of people and also injured hundreds more.  Spain had been an “ally” of sorts that GW pushed to enter his war of choice in Iraq.  Not that the people of Spain desired to enter such a war.  Nor did the Spanish government send all that many troops.  But after the terrorist attack and the Spanish people proceeded to elect a gvt that went on to pull out of the war in Iraq, Charen was certainly among the shriekers who attacked Spain as spineless, pro-terrorist and etc.  Why would I be surprised that Ms. Charen would then attack President Obama with the same language?

So, Ms. Charen starts off with repeating a “tasteless joke” (with obvious relish); as it will serve to “make her point” for the rest of her republished tirade found in the editorial pages of the Spokesman-Review:

A Taliban militant gets lost and is wandering around the desert looking for water. He finally arrives at a store run by a Jew and asks for water. The Jewish vendor tells him that he doesn’t have any water but can gladly sell him a tie. The Taliban militant begins to curse and yell. The Jew unmoved, offers the rude militant an idea: Beyond the hill, two miles down the road, there is a restaurant; they sell water. An hour later, the militant is back. He tells the merchant: “Your brother tells me I need a tie to get into the restaurant.”

And exactly what is it about the joke (that of course this being the twenty-first century and no one should be telling ethnic or religious, etc. jokes) that a self-proclaimed “conservative” such as Charen would take offense at?  General James Jones was expressing that a desperate member of the militant Taliban would have to do business with people he absolutely detests just because he needs water.  That’s why his audience gave the “tasteless joke” such a hearty laugh.  An audience that also comprised many Jews.  Oh, I am quite sure that the Jews laughed just as heartily as did the many members of the Gentile audience.  As they undoubtedly appreciated and definitely got the intent of the joke.  Not the “greedy Jew” joke.  But rather, is it possible for Taliban extremists to extend a hand and truly do business with people who not only are not of the faith but are also regarded as the enemies of the faith?  Only if you are a particularly liberal type, would you understand why the General chose to tell [that] joke.  But, if you are a Mona Charen who practices victimology, then you wouldn’t.

Of course the joke becomes the jumping off point for Charen to relentlessly attack Obama and his administration on all things Middle East as to American foreign policy.  The “two state solution” between Israel and the Palestinians?  Oh, well; that was only a continuation of what GW only proposed back when he was still president.  Iran closing on nuke weapons?  Iran had been closing on nuke weapons while GW was still in office.  And the American foreign policies during the time GW was in office was to draw successive lines in the sand, always in retreat to Iran’s intransigence.  But of course GW could do no wrong.  And was applauded as the guy who could always drive the “liberals” crazy.  Given GW’s own weak spine and dithering vis a vis Iran; then yes, the Iranian gvt could put hikers that mistakenly crossed the border in prison.  And Iran’s own intransigence as to those hikers, hostages against American foreign policy meddling too closely with their “internal affairs.”  In short, Iran I am sure wouldn’t mind pushing an act of war with the “great Satan” the U.S. of America.  However, given our tanking economy and budget busting measures to try to revive it, a wiser man won’t take Iran’s bait.  Not if other measures can be used first.  Precisely those diplomatic measures that Charen absolutely scorns because of who the administration is.  Those diplomatic measures that renders the Obama foreign policy vis a vis Iran, “spineless.”  Excuse me?  GW was spineless.  Those are the facts.  But without cooperation from Iran, those young prisoners aren’t coming home very soon.  And the likelihood of Iran cooperating with the U.S.?  About the same as a Taliban doing business with a Jew.  We can’t afford any more wars.  And that is not a “spineless” argument.

So, Obama makes a televised foreign policy gaff of bowing to a Saudi Royal.  Uh, he didn’t kneel or grovel as GW had when it came to oil prices spiking at $150.00 per bbl and the upward increases in oil prices did much to cripple the world economy.  It wasn’t until the Saudi Royals found out that Americans were prepared to engage in such resourceful and self-reliant activities as eschewing modes of transportation that required gasoline, that the Saudis began deliberately reducing the price of oil.  But, it wasn’t anything that GW did.  Given the partisan nature of Charen’s positions, I can only wonder if she took careful note of our foreign policy ditherings and failures under the last administration?  The political cartoonists lampooned GW, as he had coming some real and deserved criticism for his behavior to the Saudis.  I’ll take the “bow” that comes from a guy who wants this country to become energy independent over the groveling of the guy who wanted this nation to continue its dependence on Saudi oil.

Speaking of, I wonder if Charen ever considers just how much business interests figure into foreign policy?  If GW demonstrated dithering and spinelessness rather than that “manly” decisiveness when it came to Iran, is it not possible that foreign oil consortiums would not have cared to see Iran sanctioned in a way that would have interfered with their ability to obtain and sell a percentage of Iranian oil?  Never mind that a truly resourceful president who looked at the dangers that Iran posed, including the capacity of Iran to develop nuclear weapons, would begin the process of depriving Iran of the means to obtain.  The sanctions must be economic.  Precisely, to begin the work at long last of reducing our dependency on foreign energy such as oil and developing the cutting edge technology that would advance us beyond the need for fossil fuel.  If Iran can have no economic hold on us, only then can we present a decisive stand against their international militant behavior, especially toward foreign visitors on their soil.  GW wasn’t interested in doing that.  The business interests weren’t interested in doing that.  Obama is.  And because he is, he is hardly “spineless” in trying to push this country in the sort of economic direction that is as much about foreign policy as it is domestic.

A woman who can’t “get a joke” that Gen. Jones audience could, can’t “get the rest of it” either.