While American politicians continue their unyielding support of Israel through actions such as the vote, disclosed by two congressional staff members on Friday, to spend an additional $680 million in 2015 to strengthen Israel’s short-range rocket shield, a plan crafted by Republicans from the House of Representatives, – the longstanding personal relationship between Willard Mitt Romney and Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu are called into question.
This is the subject of this week’s article by contributing writer, Susan Cardoza. The NY Times wrote about this last week, yet it received absolutely no mention in the mainstream media. Am I surprised? Not really…it is an issue that isn’t as appealing to most like repeating ad nauseam the Ted Nugent quotes, or President Obama’s comment about not being born with a silver spoon, or Mitt’s undying defensiveness over his and his family’s wealth.
No, this subject is about a very dangerous story of Mitt palling around with Bibi. Apparently that is not sexy enough to report on – after all it is merely about conflict and real life positions that involve war, nuclear weapons and an adherence to biblical prophecy. Yes, bible prophecy…remember President George Bush’s letter to then French President Chirac about Gog and Magog? This is part of this volatile puzzle that puts the global community at risk – and we aren’t paying attention. Andrew Brown of the Guardian wrote this…
“President Jacques Chirac wanted to know what the hell President Bush had been on about in their last conversation. Bush had then said that when he looked at the Middle East, he saw “Gog and Magog at work” and the biblical prophecies unfolding. But who the hell were Gog and Magog? Neither Chirac nor his office had any idea.
Bush seems to have taken the threat of Gog and Magog to Israel quite literally, and, if this story can be believed, to have launched a war to stop them.”
This developing situation between Israel and Iran, and the political Christian response is sounding far too reminiscent of Bush’s clarion call. This is why we are writing about this today in hopes that you will spread this article as far and wide as possible. This is deadly serious.
Just yesterday I wrote a piece about a gathering called “The Awakening” where over 60 political Christians will be speaking, including a video appearance by Netanyahu. This is significant to our discussion.
Another article I am linking back to from last week is about Mitt Romney and the Mormon tale of the White Horse Prophecy. Consider these when reading this article today as we talk about why we have serious concerns about this cozy relationship between these two – Mitt and Bibi.
Palling with Bibi
by Susan Cardoza
In an article published by the New York Times on April 7, 2012, Michael Barbaro wrote about an ongoing relationship between Benjamin Netanyahu and Republican presumptive nominee Mitt Romney. The piece seemed to be harmless to me however it seems the Ambassador to the U.S. for Israel, Michael Oren, took exception to the relationship being discussed and a particular telephone call that took place when Mr. Netanyahu was here in the United States to meet with the President.
Now why would Israel want to take such pains to correct the circumstances of a single telephone call between the two, a Prime Minister of Israel and a citizen of the U.S. (who just happens to be running for the highest office in the land)? Why would conservative magazine, The American Thinker, want to try to turn the piece into a gigantic conspiracy theory? What are the Israelis and The American Thinker hoping to gain by their actions? I can only guess.
Usually, when someone reacts in this manner, it is most often to discredit the original story, yet when Mitt Romney announces “we will not have an inch of difference between ourselves and our ally Israel,” he really means Mr. Netanyahu and his right-wing Likud coalition. For a President Romney’s America, that could make conflict with Iran much more likely and an Israeli peace agreement with the Palestinians virtually impossible.
In his letter to the editor of the NY Times, Ambassador Oren made it perfectly clear that there were no improprieties during the call – which makes me wonder if there were improprieties – so I began to look further. What I found were articles in other Israeli newspapers and conservative blogs and websites in America about the situation, all it would appear, in a desperate attempt to keep discrediting the NY Times.
Strangely, Mr. Romney has not kept their friendship quiet, he has made reference to his long talks with Mr. Netanyahu many times but between all the disputing articles, it would appear they are worried about the consequences of the relationship. The relationship does beg the question, is it appropriate for Mr. Romney, as the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party, to have even the hint of possible meetings with Mr. Netanyahu without telling the public? Is it a breech of national security for the two to be discussing Mideast policy between Israel and Iran? I submit that the answer is “yes” and is precisely why the Ambassador and others tried so hard to discredit the NY Times article.
I won’t go into the entire history of the relationship with the two, that can be read by going to the NY Times link, but I will give you some highlights you need in order to understand the relationship and the potential fallout for our country and Israel.
So what is the story? It seems that Netanyahu and Mitt Romney met in 1976 in the 16th-floor offices of the Boston Consulting Group, where both had been recruited as corporate advisers. That shared experience decades ago led to a warm friendship and many meetings between the two, unknown to outsiders. One can infer that such a close friendship would naturally lead to a degree of agreement on various subjects.
Consider the fact that Mr. Netanyahu is making the case for military action against Iran as Mr. Romney, the likely Republican presidential nominee, is attacking the Obama administration for not supporting Mr. Netanyahu more robustly. Is it a concerted attack by both sides? If so, President Obama does not appear to be concerned. But to get back to this friendship, it has spanned the decades since 1976. Over the years, they have had meetings both here in the U.S. and in Israel that entailed discussing political strategies and ideologies. According to the NY Times:
“When Mr. Romney was the governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Netanyahu offered him firsthand pointers on how to shrink the size of government. When Mr. Netanyahu wanted to encourage pension funds to divest from businesses tied to Iran, Mr. Romney counseled him on which American officials to meet with.
That is far too cozy, but the article goes on to share that they have discussions often enough to chat about everything from billionaire Sheldon Adelson’s financial backing of Newt Gingrich to the latest situation regarding Israel’s position on Iran. The NY Times goes on to quote…
“We can almost speak in shorthand,” Mr. Romney said in an interview. “We share common experiences and have a perspective and underpinning which is similar.” Mr. Netanyahu attributed their “easy communication” to what he called “B.C.G.’s intellectually rigorous boot camp.”
“So despite our very different backgrounds,” he said through an aide, “my sense is that we employ similar methods in analyzing problems and coming up with solutions for them.”
This sounds like a match made in heaven if you are a Dominionist or a Messianic Jew – but it is a recipe for disaster for millions upon millions who live on this planet who do not share their enthusiastic interpretation of biblical prophecy. Barbaro goes on to point out a very important perspective on this friendship…
The ties between Mr. Romney and Mr. Netanyahu stand out because there is little precedent for two politicians of their stature to have such a history together that predates their entry into government. And that history could well influence decision-making at a time when the United States may face crucial questions about whether to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities or support Israel in taking such an action on their own.
Mr. Romney has suggested that he would not make any significant policy decisions about Israel without consulting Mr. Netanyahu — a level of deference that could raise eyebrows given Mr. Netanyahu’s polarizing reputation, even as it appeals to the neoconservatives and evangelical Christians who are fiercely protective of Israel.
In a telling exchange during a debate in December, Mr. Romney criticized Mr. Gingrich for making a disparaging remark about Palestinians, declaring: “Before I made a statement of that nature, I’d get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say: ‘Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?’”
During Romney’s time as Governor of Massachusetts the two men sat down for a conversation where his friend Bibi outlined the new conservative view, recommending that Mitt follow the examples he laid having implemented in Israel …
“Mr. Netanyahu, who had recently stepped down as Israel’s finance minister, regaled Mr. Romney with stories of how, in the tradition of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, he had challenged unionized workers over control of their pensions, reduced taxes and privatized formerly government-run industries, reducing the role of government in private enterprise.”
Union-busting, privatization of government, lower taxes, a free and unregulated market – where are we hearing this? It sounds so familiar! Oh! Right…it smacks of the talking points by the Republican Party and their presumptive nominee – one Willard Mitt Romney. There is a great deal more to learn from reading Barbaro’s entire article that I have linked to in several places, giving an in-depth look into details about the relationship between these two men.
So, unlike The American Thinker’s contention that the NY Times was making a big deal out of nothing, there is plenty of factual evidence that Romney has acquiesced to Netanyahu’s persuasion. If Romney is willing to follow the advice his long-term friend, as he has demonstrated he will do, what would lead us to believe he would act more rationally and independently as President of the United States?
Romney has shown a predilection to making “off the cuff” proclamations that he later needs to walk back, although he seldom does. As President of the U.S. that is not something you can do, you need to make sure you are always offering well thought-out statements in the interest of National Security. We all know what happened when a President (e.g. GW Bush) makes idiotic statements that he obviously has not thought through completely and I am confident that none of us relish a repeat of that Presidency.
We must also consider the fact that Romney has surrounded himself with hawkish advisers from PNAC and the Bush administration. These advisors were the architects of the Iraqi war and in considering that fact, you also have to consider the cost of human life and the damage to our economy as a result of not paying for that war.
I wish that the average American voter would take the time to consider all the ramifications for any candidate seeking the highest office in our land, however that is rarely the case. At the very least, I would ask them to consider that President Obama has not brought these same people into the White House and during his administration we have put an end to the war in Iraq and are on schedule to end the war in Afghanistan.
The war proponents Romney surrounds himself with want the U.S. to be “the” empirical nation in the world so the idea of another war would work right in to their plans, despite the fact that trying out their philosophy in Iraq led to catastrophic results. The United States cannot sustain another era of “war mongering” in the world. If we do, we will either destroy this nation completely or be left “naked” on the world stage with most other nations pulling away.
Despite the PNAC’s notion that we could survive in this manner, history has always proven them dead wrong.