The Free Exchange (15-012)

The Free Exchange is a series dedicated solely to answering comments from you. I appreciate your reading and always enjoy hearing from you, even when you disagree. Thank you for your participation.

Iran Deal Epitomizes the Wrong Way to Encourage Peace

Black and Red Fan writes:


Sigh… This naive approach to Iran and many other bad guys shows the leftists’ dangerousness and cluelessness. I think the bottom line is that these leftists truly do not understand the nature of evil and have not dealt with them.

What do you think fuels their thinking? I am sure they mean well and would want to do the right thing. But how can they be this wrong? I mean this leftist president did order the killing of Bin Laden and asked for the death penalty for the Boston Bomber, both of which were conservative moves that I applauded. (I was especially pleasantly surprised about Bin Laden anuthorization since many leftists such as Michael Moore said there was no trial for Bin Laden and also that Bin Laden did not personally kill anyone that we know about.) And yet here he is doing this half-ass, looks-like-a-deal-but-not-really-a-deal with Iran but with but bigger stakes for the world.

I would love to hear what you think is the motivation behind their thinking. Another great piece but a subject matter that angers and worries me. I am sure that Israel feels very isolated and alone. They deserve our prayers.


J Hunter:


Indeed Israel needs our prayers. I’m sure they’d greatly appreciate our unwavering support for once, too.


Liberals want to believe that the Republicans fabricated enemies and oversold threats in order to win elections and start wars for corporate gain. Some of them believe that nonsense, and believe that the first step toward a more peaceful world is by reconsidering who America’s enemies are. The Left believes that America’s enemy is the Right. Everyone else is a lesser threat, by their estimation.


Maybe that has nothing to do with President Obama’s dealings with Iran. In that instance, perhaps the President is trying to get a foreign policy win. He hasn’t had one. A peace deal with Iran could justify his Nobel Peace Prize. It could, at least, distract attention from his infamous reliance on drone strikes.


I can think of a million reasons why the President may be engaging with Iran the way that he is, but the truth is, we may never know. What we do know, is that every step must be taken to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. If we think Iran is dangerous now, it’ll be leagues worse armed.


Thank you for your comments!

The Liberal Creed (A Bit of Satire)

Black and Red Fan writes:

This is great stuff! And so I’m curious, what made you write this piece and in this satire form? I always find the origins of inspiration fascinating. And do you really think she’ll be more hawkish/interventionist than Obama? Id be curious to hear your thoughts.


J Hunter:


I’m glad you liked this.

It was just dumb luck that on a Monday, still thinking about the Sunday church service, I was switching my brain over to look at political news and conflated the Democrats’ 1 candidate with the Nicene Creed. I wrote it and tested it with my wife and brother and then posted it. Interestingly enough, it’s the most popular piece on the site. I guess there isn’t a thirst for debate over political theory.


On Clinton’s hawkishness, I suspect she’d be much more hawkish than Obama. That’s because of a couple of assumptions and stereotypes that surround our politics: The first, is that because people understand Democrats to be nice, they must show themselves to be tough to earn respect. Conversely, Republicans have a reputation for being tough, so the most successful ones are those who come off as nice. As a Democrat, Clinton must be tough.


Also, though, Hillary is very obviously a woman. As such, she may want to highlight her collaborative abilities–a skill associated with femininity–but (as the first female president) she also has to prove to history that she has the ability to use military force successfully, to diminish the reputation women have for avoiding conflict and war at all costs.
I look forward to your thoughts on this.


Please consider supporting Black & Red online by following me on TWITTER, liking me on FACEBOOK, or distributing these articles any way you can.

For your readership and support, I thank you.

One thought on “The Free Exchange (15-012)”

  1. Fascinating thoughts about the possible Obama motivations. My guess is that he is doing it just to say that he did something. That fits with a trend of this president that’s I’ve seen for the past 6 years. I used to think that he was this soldier for the leftist cause. Then I saw that Obama interview with Bret Baier in 2010 about Obamacare right before it passed. The bottom line of that interview was that Obama had no idea what was in the bill right before it passed. This was stunning, as his Democrats had virtually a supermajority in the House and the Senate. And so they were writing the bill, altering it, amending it, and doing whatever they wanted. And so the widely held assumption was that Obama was in constant coordination with Reid and Pelosi about what part should be in the bill.

    But instead, Obama had no idea.

    He constantly evaded the question and Baier to his credit pursued; until it was clear that Obama has no idea.

    I mean this was his legacy and his crowning achievement that he falsely touts to this day. And he left Reid & Pelosi to craft the final version that the House was going to vote on? That’s when I realized that Obama was all about Obama, much like Clinton. Yet he is farther left, more incompetent, has a more corrupt administration, and he would not/doesn’t know how to work with the Republicans. He is still a leftist but he cares more about his own image and ego than his leftist agenda. Someone like Michael Moore or Bill Maher are truly leftist soldiers. Obama’s default is leftism and the most leftist president ever. But he would rather party with Paul McCartney and other leftist celebrities, appear on late night comedy shows, make campaign speeches on college campuses to those who already agree with him, and study the March Madness bracket than study leftist policy and economics and his security briefings. He’s a pretty lazy, unimpressive narcissist who constantly wants to be adored and impress other people. And so doing the Iran deal just to do something half-ass fits perfectly within my assessment of him.

    In terms of Hillary and her hawkishness, I really have no idea. When we say “hawk,” obviously we mean military intervention into foreign countries, although not necessarily boots on the ground. The reasons you give are all valid and I agree; however these are all political reasons. And although presidents do things for political reasons and Hillary would care a lot about her image etc, I find that the president’s moral values best reflect their hawkishness. With his lukewarm and hazy morals, Obama couldn’t care less about the Iraqi people including children that he left behind to be tortured, raped, and die. I think Hillary will be more like the Obama foreign policy than we realize. Some will point to her previous time in the White House as first lady and Secretary of State. But none of that trumps her leftist values which will always triumph. The bottom line is that no one knows of course; and she probably will be a little more interventionist than Obama but I don’t think by much. Any thought are more than welcome as usual.


Comments are closed.