The Supreme Court Nomination Conundrum. The Syrian Mess. Truman - Ford and Israel!

If Establishment Republicans allow Democrats, the likes of Reid, Schumer etc., to paint them into the obstructionist corner over Scalia's death and their desire to thwart an Obama radical appointment, then they are damn incompetent fools.

On the other hand, Sen.McConnell must be aware that a loss of the 2016 Presidential Election could also result in the loss of The Senate thus allowing the Democrats to appoint Scalia's successor.

Obama has every right to nominate a person of his choice and those who control the Senate have every right to consider and reject and/or approve.

They should not reject a truly qualified nominee who has the promise of being objective. They should allow an up or down vote.  If Obama nominates an objectionable candidate, rejection is the proper course and they must keep the ball rolling past the election and his leaving office.  This would mean a stalemated Supreme Court for what could be two years. (See 1 below.)
===
Meanwhile, the Syrian mess. (See 2 below.)
===
Holding the Senate?  (See 3 below.)
===
I am reporting on Dennis Ross' book: "Doomed To Succeed" and have read through President Ford
and decided to review up to this period.(See 4 below.)
===
Dick
========================================================================
1)For those who think the Republicans are out of line on their stance to hold up approving an Obama nominee to succeed Justice Scalia, please read the editorial below which reminds us of the behavior of the Democratic Party not that long ago...

Greatest Democratic Judicial Hits

What Republicans learned from Harry Reid and Barack Obama.

ENLARGE

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid in Reno, Nevada on Feb. 17 where he spoke about the future of the Supreme Court. PHOTO: ASSOCIATED 

PRESS

Senate Democrats haven’t made much progress shaming Republicans into yielding on President Obama’s

upcoming Supreme Court nominee, and no wonder. As much as they’re trying, they can’t erase their own 

abusive history of double and sometimes triple standards in confirmation politics.

Earlier this week we chronicled New York Senator Chuck Schumer’s faked alibi for his categorical 2007 

demand that Democrats reject any George W. Bush nominee if a vacancy had emerged in his last 18 

months in office. But there is so much more to recall:

• When Democrats ran the Senate from June 2001 to January 2003, they denied even a hearing before the Judiciary Committee to 32 of Mr. Bush’s nominees. When Republicans regained a 51-49 majority in

the next Congress, Democrats broke the then-longstanding Senate norm of granting nominees an 

up-or-down vote. Before 2003, only one judicial nominee had been blocked with a filibuster, and that was

the bipartisan 1968 rebellion against promoting the ethically challenged Justice Abe Fortas to Chief 

Justice

.

Democrats applied the higher 60-vote standard to a rainbow coalition of Bush nominees, judging them not

by traditional measures like experience or temperament or even “diversity.” They simply didn’t like their 

politics.

The targets included Priscilla Owen (a woman), Janice Rogers Brown (a black woman) and Miguel Estrada

(a Hispanic). The 28-month Estrada filibuster was especially egregious because Democrats feared the 

smart young attorney’s ethnic background might make him formidable Supreme Court material if he served

on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

• When Mr. Bush nominated Samuel Alito to the High Court in 2005, Democrats attempted to give him the

same treatment. Some 25 Senators voted to support a filibuster, including Barack Obama, Joe Biden, 

Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, John Kerry,Pat Leahy and Mr. Schumer.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest this week described Mr. Obama’s filibuster as merely a “symbolic 

vote” to protest Mr. Bush. He added that Mr. Obama “regrets the vote” because Democrats “shouldn’t have

looked for a way to just throw sand in the gears of the process. And, frankly, looking back on it, the 

President believes that he should have just followed his own advice and made a strong public case on the merits.” No doubt he does—now.

• After blockading Mr. Bush’s judicial slate, Mr. Reid as Senate Majority Leader changed the rules for Mr. Obama’s nominees on a partisan vote. Senate rules require a two-thirds vote to change its rules in 

mid-session, but in 2013 Mr. Reid forced through a change solely with a narrow Democratic majority.

This allowed him to trigger the “nuclear option” lowering the Senate threshold for appellate but not 

Supreme Court nominees to 51 from 60. The goal was to pack the D.C. Circuit with left-leaning judges 

who would bless Mr. Obama’s abuses of power, especially on health care and climate regulation. Mr. 

Obama was cheering him on all the way.

• Mr. Reid now argues that the Senate’s “constitutional duty” is to give nominees an up-or-down vote, but

in a May 2005 speech on Mr. Bush’s judges, he offered a different interpretation: “The duties of the 

Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty

to give Presidential appointees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of 

the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.”

It’s impossible to know what Mr. Reid really believes, because whatever he claims to believe at any 

moment is whatever will maximize his own political power. Mr. Obama does have the power under the Constitution to nominate a replacement for JusticeAntonin Scalia, but Senate Republicans also have the

 right to ignore it or vote to confirm or deny.

Republicans have no obligation to submit to Democratic judicial ultimatums, which change with the political seasons.

=========================================================================

2)

Another Step Toward Iran Détente

By JONATHAN S. TOBIN 

The futility of U.S. diplomatic efforts aimed at ending the Syrian civil war has long been apparent, but the display of American weakness is reaching new heights this week. The Assad regime’s Russian, Iranian, and Hezbollah allies have been pushing hard against non-ISIS rebels solidifying Damascus’s position while also spilling untold amounts of blood. Separately the U.S. and some of its allies are fighting their own war against ISIS with little evidence of success. As our Noah Rothman noted earlier this week, Secretary of State John Kerry’s strategy is primarily one based on little more than a vain hope that negotiations among the parties will miraculously create a cease-fire.

The basic problem is one that all the hope and good will in the world cannot erase. Though the first round of peace talks collapsed almost as soon as they began, other negotiating efforts continue aimed at helping facilitate the delivery of aid and military cooperation among the various powers there.

That the U.S. is asking nicely that Russia not bomb American combat teams on the ground is a sign of just how powerful Moscow’s position has become. The U.S. goal in Syria is to unite all of the other forces in the country in a war against ISIS. But that is not the goal the other powers involved share. So long as Assad remains in power in Damascus, the Syrian rebels will keep fighting, and ISIS will continue to be seen as a champion of Sunni Muslims against foreign invaders, as well as the dictator in Damascus. By acquiescing to Russian demands that ensure Assad’s survival, the administration is also guaranteeing that the war will continue. Rather than weaken or isolate ISIS, the furious diplomatic activity seems to benefit no one but Assad and his allies and renders any united offensive against the Islamic State virtually impossible.

That’s bad enough, especially when you consider the scale of the ongoing slaughter in Syria, the hardships faced by those in the battle zone under Russian air assault and the millions of refugees created by the fighting. Secretary Kerry believes the talks in Geneva are worth the effort because there doesn’t appear to be a viable diplomatic alternative. But merely wishing for a war to end when the parties involved have a vested interest in continuing to fight is a fool’s errand. Nor can President Obama escape the blame for the situation since it was his feckless retreat from his past determination to oust Assad and to punish him for the use of chemical weapons that helped bring Russia into the fighting and legitimized its standing as the nation that is, more than any other, calling the shots in Syria.

But there is one more problem to the latest round of talks about military cooperation that began today. As the AP reports, these negotiations will mark the first time that U.S. military personnel will sit down to coordinate their efforts with Iranian personnel.

This seems like a smart idea since it is in every nation’s interests that the forces on the ground in Syria not blunder into each other. But while America’s interest in the talks is limited to that one problem, the Iranians have broader goals and the rest of the Middle East is watching and taking note of their accomplishments.

As the AP reports:

Administration officials insist Iran’s presence at the talks does not mean the two countries are “cooperating or coordinating” on military matters.

Yet the ceasefire discussion in Geneva is intrinsically military. And it could put the U.S. delegation in Geneva in the uncomfortable position of poring over battlefield maps with members of Iran’s military or its Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The problem here is not just that it is uncomfortable for the U.S. to be sitting down to share information with the same nation that humiliated our sailors last month or which continues to violate UN resolution about missiles. It’s that Iran continues to be the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, as certified again just last summer by the State Department. The IRGC is the leading edge of Iranian terror as is their Lebanese Hezbollah auxiliaries. Yet rather than seeking to stop these terrorists, the U.S. will be tacitly recognizing their legitimacy even as they play an outsized role in the very atrocities in Syria that the U.S. effort is aimed at stopping.

Of course, holding hands with Iranian terrorists is not limited to these talks. It is a natural follow-up to the Iran nuclear deal the administration negotiated and then rammed through Congress via a Senate filibuster. As we noted repeatedly at the time, a deal that merely postponed rather than ended the Iranian nuclear threat was not the only goal of the talks. Rather, it was President Obama’s hope for a rapprochement with the Islamist regime that was at the heart of a negotiation that gave Tehran virtually everything it wanted — including sanctions relief and the legalization of an Iranian nuclear program that can easily obtain a bomb once the accord expires in a decade — in exchange for flimsy promises.

With the military talks in Geneva, the U.S. is now taking one more step toward normalization of relations with a bloody terrorist regime that is bent on achieving regional hegemony. Though the U.S. may say this cooperation is both necessary and limited, Sunni Arab nations are viewing the American embrace of Iran with understandable dismay. The U.S. has not only facilitated the funding of Islamist terror groups backed by Iran via the nuclear deal but it is now actively engaged in negotiations that treat these criminals as legitimate actors in Syria. While the president may have thought that Iran détente was a cost-free option, the Syrian people and the rest of the Arab world consider it to be a very costly and dangerous mistake.

Doing so not only undermines what little is left of President Obama’s credibility among the Syrian opposition but also in the Arab world. Iran is having its way in Syria and on the diplomatic front. We can’t know what the next 11 months will bring in Syria, but peace or even a lessening of the suffering doesn’t appear likely. Thanks to the administration’s mistakes and misjudgments, whoever it is that succeeds the president next January is sure to inherit an even bigger mess and a more dangerous military situation than the current catastrophe.

=================================================

3) Can Conservatives Keep the Senate?

Alaska:  In an unsurprising announcement, former Sen. Mark Begich (D) stated that he would not challenge Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) this year, nor run for any elective office.  He was also said to be considering a challenge to veteran Rep. Don Young (R-AK-AL).  Mr. Begich had formed a new consulting business in 2015 after his defeat and had been consistent in saying he planned to devote his time to developing his new venture.  He did not close the door on future runs, but will not be on the ballot in 2016.  Sen. Murkowski looks strong for both the general election and the primary at this point.  She was defeated in the 2010 Republican primary, only to win the office in the general election as a Write-In candidate.

North Carolina:  A new Public Policy Polling survey (2/14-16; 1,291 NC registered voters) again finds Sen. Richard Burr (R) leading his second tier Democratic opponents, but not by particularly impressive margins.  Against former state Rep. Deborah Ross (D), the Senator holds a 43-37% edge.  When paired with Spring Lake Mayor Chris Rey (D), Burr’s margin improves slightly to 43-36%.  Burr has a 10:1 cash-on-hand advantage over Ross, and 100:1 when compared to Rey’s receipts.  Sen. Burr should win a comfortable re-election against weak opposition despite what may be tighter than expected early polling.

Nevada:  The Gravis Marketing poll (2/14-15; 1,366 NV likely voters via Interactive Voice Response system) also tested the open Nevada Senate race.  Here, Rep. Joe Heck (R-Henderson) continues to lead former Attorney General Christine Cortez Masto (D), but with a much slimmer margin.  According to Gravis, Rep. Heck has a 44-41% edge, down from previous polls but still a positive sign for him in that the surveys consistently find him topping his Democratic opponent.  The Silver State race is critical to determining the majority party in the next Congress.  A Republican victory here, converting outgoing Minority Leader Harry Reid’s own seat, would further swing the balance of power in favor of the Republicans and make it very difficult for Democrats to re-claim the Senate majority.

Pennsylvania:  Candidate filing closed in the Keystone State, and official contenders for the important Senate contest are now filed.  For the Republicans, Sen. Pat Toomey is unopposed for re-nomination.  He is reporting just under $10 million in his campaign account.  Democrats are filing four candidates, two of whom will be in a strong battle for the nomination.  Former Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Delaware County) scored 49% against Toomey in 2010 and returns for a re-match despite major relationship problems with Democratic Party leaders.  Several noteworthy Democrats recruited former gubernatorial chief of state Katie McGinty to oppose Sestak.  Braddock Mayor Joe Fetterman is the third filed Democrat, while Joe Vodvarka will prove to be an also-ran.  Despite the state’s Democratic nature, Toomey begins as the early race favorite. 

 ======================================================
4)

American State of Mind!
===

In "Doomed To Succeed," Dennis Ross discusses each president from Truman to Obama's relationship and policies with Israel.

Truman had two problems vis a vis Israel.  He believed, from a humanitarian standpoint,
Holocaust victims were entitled to relief and a home in Israel.  This put him in conflict with
 his own Sec.of State, Marshall, the entire State Department and Pentagon who believed
America should support Britain's position in The Middle East and not antagonize the Arab
 World.

Truman voted for Israel to become a nation but maintained his and America's distance.

Eisenhower and his Sec. of State, Dulles, were Arabists through and through. Eisenhower
saw no advantage in antagonizing Arabs by aligning America with Israel on virtually any
issue.

After Eisenhower retired from office he wrote that his position had proven to be short sighted because the Arabs basically played him like a violin.

Oil and strategic bases and concern of Russia burrowing into The Middle East drove Ike's
thinking and policies.

I would offer this thought.  Ike was also dragged kicking and screaming to enter the Civil
Right's Cause on the side of Black Americans. He ultimately did the right thing but was not
driven by some innate sense of morality.

Kennedy broke the mold and stated America and Israel were linked in many ways and Israel occupied a particular place, though, not formally declared, but conceptually akin to Britain.
Kennedy allowed the sale of defensive weapons to Israel which Eisenhower forbade
because he acknowledged the supply of Soviet weaponry had tilted the game towards Egypt. Kennedy also allowed for various economic assistance but was unhappy  he never
accomplished his desire for American nuclear experts to systematically inspect Israel's nuclear facilities at Dimona nor received from Israel a quid pro quo when it came to co-operation
with respect to various other demands.

Kennedy found out America's relationship with Israel never reached the level of concern
those in his State Department feared and the Arabs concluded Israel possessed nuclear arms
but would never use them unless they were absolutely justified by an existential threat.

American presidents have always allowed themselves to be played by Arabs and Israelis
because of their fear of tilting towards one and/or the other.  Their vision has always been
blurred by the prejudice favoring the Arabs by our State Department, our dependence on
Arab oil, the size of the Arab/Muslim population, the ability of the Arab nations to provide
us strategic bases and our desire to keep Russia out of The Middle East etc.

Johnson was biblically importuned in Israel's direction but Viet Nam occupied his entire
attention.Then along came the move by Nasser to introduce vast troops into the Sinai, the
withdrawal of UN troops at Sharm el Sheik and his blockade of the Straits of Teran.

Israel was placed in a very difficult position because it was forced to call up its citizen army
reserves thus, basically closing its economy.

Israel sought a commitment from Johnson to open the blockade. Johnson gave language that suggested he would but the plan of sending ships through failed making Israel more desirous
of executing a first strike which Johnson and most of his advisers opposed.

When it became evident it was not going to receive any help Israel struck and Johnson and his top advisers looked the other way.

In essence, Johnson's handling of Israel caused Israel to do what our president sought to avoid.

In his parting days, Johnson provided Israel with an overwhelming amount of offensive
military equipment including Phantom 4 planes etc.

Johnson was opposed continually by State Department seniors who feared assisting Israel
would harm us with our Arab relationships and that Israel was a strategic albatross.

I am of the view most Arab nations like Jordan, The Saudis and now, even Egypt, understand a strong and secure Israel is vital to their own survival as events in  The Middle East are
increasingly  driven by radical Islamists supported by Russia and Obama's abdication and/or
feckless responses to the many challenges.  Furthermore, as American dependence upon
Arab energy diminishes our ties to our Arab allies and, even Israel, will ebb. The only thing
that will maintain our interest will be a president who understands the strategic importance
of the Middle East and that it not be allowed to fall into Russia's lap and also, who controls
this region will have something critical to say about the spread of radical Islam.

Obama seems he wants to assist Iran in supplanting America as a pay back for Colonialism
 and American arrogance.

Nixon's first two years' attitude toward Israel was shaped by his Sec. of State, William Rogers. Roger's believed any relationship with Israel would reduce our influence with the Arabs.
Kissinger, who served as Nixon's  national security adviser, disagreed with Rogers and
constantly pointed out that seldom did America's relationship with Israel ever come up in
Arab negotiations and/or discussions. What Kissinger sought to emphasize was Arab-intra
discord presented us with more of a problem.

Over time, Nixon moved closer to Kissinger's view but the Watergate Trial, Nasser's
relationship with Russia and The Yom Kippur War all had significant impact on shaping
Nixon's thinking and actions.

From a strategic standpoint, Nixon wanted to keep Russian influence out of the area and
Nasser used Russia's weapon sales as a wedge to gain influence over Nixon. Kissinger
reminded Nixon that catering to Arabs had not won America anything and if Israel was not
supplied with offensive weaponry and were defeated Arabs would conclude they needed to
be on Russia's side.

When the Yom Kippur War began, Nixon was influenced by the State Department and CIA

crowd to stand down. In fact, the CIA had totally misread the evidence available and told
Nixon Sadat would not attack.  Israel suffered 2,500 killed in this war (you have to multiply
this by 50 to get a U.S equivalence), they lost a large number of aircraft and about 800 tanks.  Nixon eventually came through and America's response turned the tide.  Both Nixon and Kissinger expected Israel would bend when it came to post war negotiations but they remained
steadfast in how much territory they were willing to cede back etc.   Nixon concluded the 6
Day War was actually a gain for Russia but Nixon also saw Israel and America's interests
were pro-freedom and this caused Nixon to tilt towards Israel.

Prior to the Yom Kippur  war, Israel had agreed, at the request of Nixon, to come to Jordan's
defense but Jordan's King was able to defeat the PLO and Syria without Israel's aid.

During this period, the Saudis reduced the production of oil by 5% and this caused further
strains.  At the end of the oil boycott the Saudis took their " bonus money" and hired
American Companies to improve their infrastructure and gave very large purchase orders
for weapons.

Kissinger continue to point out to Nixon two important facts: a) the Saudis acted in their own self interest and were dependent upon American protection and b) It was evident to Egypt and
other Arab nations, who broke relations with America, only America has  influence over
Israel and could gain concessions, not Russia.

Nixon left office and President Ford came into The White House and his attitude was initially
fairly harsh towards Israel.  Early on Ford did agree to a significant increase in various forms
of aid executed  in a Memorandum of Agreement. Nevertheless, Ford  too believed a close relationship with Israel hurt America's interests in the region and he also believed Israel was ungrateful and needed to make more concessions. Ford was the first president to declare Israeli occupation settlements as "illegal."

His attitude towards Israel was also shaped by his belief America could not sustain another
oil embargo and, thus, it was imperative that America curry favor with the Arab.

Even so Ford's Memorandum, with Kissinger's assistance, was far reaching and beneficial to Israel
in many ways. 

Several recurring themes always seem at play in our relationship with Israel.

a) Israel and America share similar values and Truman's vote "birthing" the establishment of Israel serve to tip the scales and this has resulted in America feeling a special relationship and moral obligation.

b) "Real Politiks" has forced America to recognize the strategic influence of this geographical region and the world's dependency on Arab Oil has served to influence the attitude energy dependent nations have towards Arab nations.

c)  The fact that Israel exists among well over 100 million "enemies" and has survived, not only every war, but have also gained territory and strength, allows the defeated Arabs to argue they are disadvantaged and have been mistreated.

d)  Our own State Department has always had an anti-Israel bias and has consistently believed Israel is to blame for failing to accommodate Arab concerns.

e)  Various presidents respond differently to the domestic pressure and influence of the Jewish Vote, as it were, and this also influences their posture towards Israel.

f) As long as the Arabs remain in a constant state of inter-Arab rivalry and can get away with  blaming Israel for their misfortune, I see no end to the Middle East pot being stirred and, from time to time, boiling over.

g) Now that Obama has basically allowed Russia and Iran in the door as well as radical Islamists to spread their influence in pursuit of domination, the threat to our own security becomes a real one.  Add to this our porous borders, our weakened military posture and our overwhelming debt Obama has left the next president, whomever they may be, a full plate of rancid food to digest.

========================================================================