ANDY MARTIN: The 2010 election is 1966 all over again

Political analyst Andy Martin explains why 2010 is not the 1994 election year. Rather, Martin suggests that 2010 is going to prove more analogous to 1966. And 2011? Fasten your seat belts: 1979 is coming back for another go-around. Like Jimmy Carter in 1979, Barack Obama is about to be tested. And tested hard. By America’s enemies. And especially by our “frenemies.”

Internet Powerhouse Andy Martin says “Wait till next year; Obama’s problems are just beginning”

Martin says the old Viet-Nam era refrain “The whole world is watching” may come back to bite Obama

ContrarianCommentary.com
“The Internet Powerhouse”
Andy Martin
Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

ANDY MARTIN SAYS PREDICTS THAT A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS WILL BE THE LEAST OF BARACK OBAMA’S WORRIES IN 2011

MARTIN LOOKS AHEAD TO WHAT AMERICANS CAN EXPECT IN 2011; THE PICTURE IS NOT PRETTY

ANDY MARTIN, AMERICAN’S MOST INFLUENTIAL OPINION WRITER AND BARACK OBAMA’S FORMIDABLE INTERNET OPPONENT FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS, SAYS OBAMA HAS A LOT OF CHICKENS COMING HOME TO ROOST (NOW WHERE DID WE HEAR THAT BEFORE?)

ANDY PREDICTS WE ARE HEADING FOR 1966, AND THEN STRAIGHT ON TO 1979

(Note: during the days leading up to the election look for us to be everywhere. But don’t be confused. First, we are still committed to defeating Mark Kirk in Illinois; we have been working on an “undercover” story on Kirk for release next week. Second, we are following the overall national political situation. Finally, we will be doing what we do best: predicting the future by making informed assessments and assumptions about where our politics and foreign policy are headed in 2011.)

(NEW YORK)(October 22, 2010) Barack Obama’s former spiritual director, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, became notorious for predicting that “America’s chickens were coming home to roost.” Well, the chickens may be heading for the Obama White House in 2011. And that’s not chicken feed.

At a time when ordinary media are completely focused on Election Day, we would like to introduce a long-term analysis of where the 2010 election will be leading us in 2011.

Cable TV bobbleheads probably feel that Washington will be returning to “business as usual” on November 3rd.

The Capitol will have to absorb many new conservative legislators. Gridlock will be in season. And Bumbling Barry Obama will, well, bumble through. e may think that iHe may think that if he’s lucky he can “triangulate” against Republican opposition and get reelected as president in 2012. It ain’t happening.

As my readers know, I am both a political analyst and political activist. So I look at matters from both sides of the lens. And while I accidentally became best known as the writer who first exposed Barack Obama as a poseur, my original specialty was and continues to be military, intelligence and foreign policy analysis.

I worked in Washington in 1966, on Capitol Hill, and in close proximity to the White House. I saw the 89th Congress dissolve into the chaos of the late 1960’s.

Most writers have tried to say that 2010 is “another 1994.” Not really. Although power changed hands in 1994 the direction of the country changed only minimally. President Bill Clinton managed to rope-a-dope the Republicans into reelection, and the tension between the White House and Capitol Hill created a hydraulic balance. 2010 is not going to be 1994.

Rather, 2010 is gong to be 1966, all over again. Only bigger and more dangerous. In January, 1966, no one in Washington had any inkling that the Democratic Party and the Great Society were about to be dismembered. The 89th Congress continued to legislate.

Amazingly, The American public felt the tremors of Viet-Nam before the Washingtonians did. Perhaps that is because casualties began to mount rapidly, and the draft began to suck more and more Americans into the growing Indochina war.

My senator, Senator Paul Douglas, knew as early as August 1966 that things were not going well for him. Because I was the low man in the office (below now-billionaire businessman Ron Gidwitz) I got to drive the senator around Washington. The senator and I spent a lot of time alone talking politics, talking the future, talking about the ups and downs of life. Douglas had seen World War I, survived the Depression, and been grievously wounded and crippled in World War II. He was one of the first “Cold warriors.” Douglas sensed the coming tsunami before the media did.

The 1966 election changed the fundamental direction of the United States for a generation. The Republican Party, which had been declared “dead” only two years earlier in 1964 (sound familiar?), roared back and erased the Democratic gains of 1964 in 1966. 1966 led to 1968, and 1968 led to the upheavals that are only now being felt with full force in American government.

Unlike Bill Clinton, Barack Obama was not a Viet-Nam era candidate, despite Obama’s Zelig-like claims to have been everywhere and involved in everything. But today, this nation is still run predominantly by Viet-Nam era individuals.

And so, my first prediction: this election is a “1966” turning point, a far stronger change in direction than 1994. (So far as I am aware, only George Will has recognized the 1966 parallel.)

1966 led to 1968, and 1968 led to? Watergate. What did Watergate lead to? Foreign policy disasters that are still bedeviling Americans. Watergate led to President Jimmy Carter. And Jimmy Carter led to? Chaos. While some may unwittingly connect Carter’s haplessness to Obama’s, they have not yet seen the real connection between the two men and the gathering storm abroad.

Ironically, Jimmy Carter was a lot like George Bush. Both men are decent and honorable. But both men were naïve in the ways of the world, and both men led American into foreign policy disasters. In the case of Carter, the nation was saved by the emergence of President Ronald Reagan. Who will save us in 2012? No one has appeared on the horizon that manifests the manifest destiny of Reagan.

So why is 2011 going to be a replay of 1979? The 1978 election saw Republican gains. Jimmy Carter was exposed as a weak leader. Then 1979 exploded. The supposedly-invincible “Pahlavi Dynasty” was toppled in Iran, after Carter abandoned the Shah. We began what has morphed into four decades of Islamic fundamentalism. Seeing Carter helpless and befuddled, the Russians then moved into Afghanistan and started the First Afghan War. I first went to Iran in 1979, and to Afghanistan in 1980. I saw the gathering storm up close.

Carter’s inability to deal with international chaos elected Reagan. That is why if Obama thinks that he can pull a 1996 Clinton-style reelection he is mistaken. Now you know why I believe 2010 is 1966, and why 2011 is inexorably going to become a replay of 1979.

The evidence that America is endangered is out there in the open. But no one is paying attention. At least most Americans are not paying attention. Attention must be paid. Activists are focused on reelecting Democrats and electing Republicans. But Republican legislators will be as helpless to deal with international chaos as the Usurper-in-Chief.

The desperation of 2011 may create conditions for another radical change: Democrats will likely panic and dump Obama. Barry O may think he has a fair chance at being reelected. I think he should do what he does best: leave office and resume being the greatest entertainer in the world. His term as a “leader” is coming to an early end. I won’t predict Hillary Clinton will be the 2012 presidential candidate; but her reemergence would not surprise me. Democrats will not make the same mistake in 2012 they made in 1980.

So why am I so pessimistic? What do I see out there? What will you be seeing next year?

1. Iraq. Obama took credit for the “peace” in Iraq. But there is no peace. The United States pulled out, but left behind 50,000 American hostages to Iraq’s very possible collapse into chaos. With the American leadership gone, Sunnis are once again gravitating away from Baghdad into the resistance.

Prime Minister Al-Maliki’s recent trip to the holy city of Qum (a city that I became familiar with during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis) is a sign that he is pandering to the most anti-American elements in the region. Al-Maliki may not have yet emerged as an anti-American leader. But the possibility that he could become hostile to the 50,000 Americans left in Iraq is not impossible or even unlikely.

Almost eight months after the March election in Iraq, there is still no government. It looks increasingly as though the regime that will emerge will not be a friendly one.

What will Obama do when American forces In Iraq come under attack? If he stays to fight, a new war begins. If he cuts and runs, he tumbles into the dustbin of history even sooner than anyone expects. Iraq is a time bomb waiting to explode.

2. Iran. Iran is a genuine threat. But I disagree with our Iranian policies. In reality, the Iranian regime’s best friends are Republican Party politicians like Mark Kirk who are constantly beating the drums for “sanctions” against Iran. Sanctions are a dream-come-true for the Persian regime.

Mr. Ahmadinejad is becoming increasingly bold, and increasingly welcome throughout the Middle East. Ahmadinejad’s recent reception in Lebanon was a wake-up call to the snoozing White House.

So what about Iran? On the one hand, Iran is not going to launch a war. Because of the anti-Iranian vitriol in our politics we ignore the fact that although the United States reacted to the hostage crisis by invading Iran, using our then-proxy in Baghdad Saddam Hussein, Iran is seeking regional hegemony, not territorial expansion. If Iran starts a war, which I doubt, it will be a failure for their regime, not a success.

3. Israel. Israel presents two possible risks. First, the failed “peace process” may embolden the Israelis to crack down on Palestinians. On the other hand, Palestinians and the world community are clearly inching closer to the Andy Martin Peace Plan which I put forward in 2000: Recognition first, negotiation second. Netanyahu may think that he can make a power grab while Obama is politically weak. Ironically, I think this may be the one area where Obama can strike back. And will.

More dangerously, Israeli generals may think that they can launch an attack on Iran while Obama is distracted. Israel cannot win a war against Iran. But a lot of Israelis think they can. Israeli overconfidence could trigger a suicide mission. Unfortunately, if Israel commits national suicide, we get dragged in.

4. Afghanistan-Pakistan. Afghanistan is a mess. The Karzai regime is a joke. Here at home, patience is wearing thin with the endless, even though endless war on a reduced level may be preferable to endless chaos and unending risk to our global interests. Pakistan is a failed state with nuclear weapons. The area is a disaster zone. Need I say more?

5. China? China would seem to be our greatest foreign policy worry. But in light of the crazies in the Middle East, the threats posed by China will pale by comparison. At least the Chinese are rational, if only barely so.

Still China is preparing to confront Obama in 2011. He is not up to that challenge. I expect we will see the same ruinous Chinese export policies, trying to drive the American people into peonage. But Americans are waking up. They are sick of kowtowing to Chinese imperialists. But while public opinion may support a confrontation with China, Obama is not the man to do the job. It will have to wait for the next president. In the meantime, the Chinese will be seeking to undermine us at every opportunity. China is a disaster waiting to happen. A military threat is inevitable.

You know things are going to be bad in 2011 when I list the Chinese as one of our lesser problems; China is a mega-problem for the United States. The time for playing “pretend” with China is over.

The foregoing problems are just “for starters.” We have a scary list without adding anything new or currently invisible.

Will the Republicans be any better at dealing with the chaos of 2011 than the Democrats? Strangely no. Foreign policy is uniquely one area where only a president can lead, and must lead decisively. Obama is not the man for the job.

My mom and dad were products of World War II. As I was growing up, while other parents exposed their kids to baseball I was exposed to the Holocaust, to World War II, to Korea, and to the Middle East.

During my adult life, whether I was in Viet-Nam or Hong Kong, Baghdad or Tehran, Cairo or Riyadh, I worked to develop an independent network of international sources. Anyone who followed my reporting from “My Year in Baghdad” knows I can point an antenna in the right direction. Based on a lifetime of foreign experience, 2011 scares me.

Baseball fans like to say, “Wait until next year.” And we began these observations with the old Vietnam refrain, “The Whole World is Watching.” I do not think Barack Obama and his “crew” of Chicago cronies are up to the job. Barack Obama, not our enemies, is the greatest threat to our national security. Who will emerge as the strong leader to replace him in 2012? Right now, I don’t have a clue.

---------
If you would like to see some of my foreign policy views and match them up with subsequent developments, take a look at:

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/
insidestory/2009/09/200992713548502678.html

-------------------------------------
ABOUT ANDY: Chicago Public Radio calls Andy Martin a “boisterous Internet activist.” Andy is the legendary New York and Chicago-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of background in radio and television and is the dean of Illinois media and communications. He promotes his best-selling book, “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” and his Internet movie "Obama: The Hawai'i years." Martin has been a leading corruption fighter in Illinois for over forty years. He is currently sponsoring www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com
Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” http://www.contrariancommentary.com/. He comments on regional, national and world events with decades of investigative and analytical experience. He has over forty years of familiarity with Asia and the Middle East; he is regarded overseas as one of America’s most respected independent foreign policy, military and intelligence analysts.

He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).

UPDATES: www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSAwww.facebook.com/AndyMartin Andy's columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com.
contrariancommentary.typepad.com[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in this story on our blogs; find our latest edition there.]

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com © Copyright by Andy Martin 2010

ANDY MARTIN: Michael Steele was right, John McCain is wrong on Afghanistan

Middle East expert Andy Martin rips geezer Senator John McCain and warrior-wannabe candidate Mark Kirk to shreds for attacking Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele over Steele’s remarks concerning “Obama’s war.” Martin joins Ann Coulter in defending Steele.

Internet powerhouse Andy Martin defends RNC Chairman Michael Steele against attacks by Geezer John McCain and Weasel Mark Kirk

ContrarianCommentary.com
“The Internet Powerhouse”
Andy Martin
Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Andy Martin says Michael Steele told the truth about Barack Obama’s “ownership” of the war in Afghanistan

Martin says the Afghanistan mission is wrong and Steele is right

Andy slips into bed with Ann Coulter (uggh)

(NEW YORK)(July 8, 2010) This is a column I would prefer not to write.

I am not a particular supporter or admirer of Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. But in this instance I am defending Steele against the attacks of the Republican Party’s designated geezer John McCain and the comments of the party’s designated weasel Mark Kirk. (I actually sued Michael Steele last year for supporting America’s Biggest Liar, Mark Kirk, in the Illinois senate primary.)

Supporting Steele also puts me in bed with Ann Coulter, who is one of the more obnoxious stooges on Fox news.

But because I value truth more than party loyalty, here goes.

Last week Michael Steele told the truth. He said Afghanistan was “Obama’s war.” Steele also said the war was “not winnable.”

I am something of an expert on Afghanistan and southwest Asia. I first went to Afghanistan over 30 years ago. I was an early critic of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and I spent a good deal of 2003 in Baghdad. As a Republican candidate, I have consistently opposed escalation in Afghanistan. My views are informed by real experience on the ground all across Asia, and particularly the hotspots of Iraq and Afghanistan. And my views, for partially differing reasons, line up with Steele’s.

Unfortunately, my voice is drowned out by the extreme blowhard and increasingly incompetent Senator John McCain. McCain and his “war party” love Afghanistan because they claim an expanded war in Afghan is part of the global war against terror (which I strongly support). So can I be for the war against terror and against a buildup in Afghanistan? Absolutely. Read on.

There is a third party in bed with me and Ann Coulter (thankfully): General Stanley McChrystal. McChrystal and his staff knew that Barack Obama was a dilettante warrior who would tire of Afghanistan when it no longer suited his political purposes. That’s why McChrystal’s staff was so dismissive of Obama in the controversial Rolling Stone article.

Obama became a supporter of the Afghan war in 2008 when it suited his political agenda of opposing our involvement in Iraq. He characterized Afghanistan as a war of necessity. On the contrary, Obama’s “support” was pure expediency.

When Steele waded into this controversy last week he had the Afghan issue exactly right. Obama “adopted” Afghanistan during the 2008 campaign, and Obama has expanded an unwinnable war. (The war is unwinnable except in the vivid imagination of Mark Kirk, who previously claimed he “came under fire” in Kandahar, Afghanistan but yesterday “retreated” from his combat claim to say “read my efficiency reports.” Kirk is the greatest warrior in recent history, certainly greater than McChrystal, but it is all in Kirk’s vivid imagination; Kirk has no combat record in reality. He is a military imposter.)

Last week we had Grandpa John McCain, who is running for reelection in Arizona next month, wasting taxpayer’s money by going on a 4th of July junket to Afghanistan. From Kabul, McCain attacked Steele for telling the truth. With the notable exception of the 2007 “surge” in Iraq which McCain supported, McCain has always been totally wrong on Middle East military matters.

McCain, who appears to increasingly be out of touch with any reality, except his own vanity, strongly supports another unwinnable war, this time in Afghanistan. Weasel Mark Kirk chimed in by saying Steele should “reassess” his RNC role. (The only one who never “reassesses” is the “Closeted Congressman” himself, Mark Kirk. Kirk has made a laughingstock out of the Republican Party.) On and on they go.

To her credit, Ann Coulter gave one of the most precise and intelligent analyses of recent Republican miscues as she defended Michael Steele: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=176033

While Coulter and I disagree on the folly of invading Iraq (we could have taken down Saddam Hussein much more cheaply and easily) we agree totally on the mess in Afghanistan and Steele's take on our current role there.

So why are Republicans attacking Steele for telling the truth? As a Republican I am embarrassed to say that when it comes to foreign policy, Republicans are often as dumb, if not dumber, than the Democrats. In 2006 I ran a commercial across the State of Illinois warning President Bush that he had to pay more attention to Main Street and less attention to the Arab Street in Baghdad. Republicans viciously attacked me (I still have the e-mails). They were blindly loyal: to war. They could not see the developing 2006 electoral debacle.

The media encourage Republican stupidity. Liberal media honchos (and Fox News) promote Republican John McCain and his trio of castratos, Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman. Instead of going home for the Fourth of July, McCain and his buddies ripped off the taxpayers for tens of thousands of dollars to “inspect” Afghanistan. The trip was a publicity parade. McCain is looting our tax dollars to generate coverage for his primary reelection next month. It’s disgraceful. But because McCain serves the media as the Republican Party’s designated loser, no one questions his waste and abuse of taxpayer resources.

So what’s the bottom line?

First, the criticism of Steele that President Bush, not Obama, created the Afghanistan war is nonsense. That's the media's first lie and distortion. No one doubts that Bush authorized the successful attack in 2001. (Sadly, Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan and blundered into Iraq.) But Obama took ownership of the war in 2008, and it is increasingly “his” war.

Second, when Obama adopted the Afghan war in 2008 and made it “his war” he did so for purposes of political expediency. Obama has no problem playing politics with the lives of our men and women in uniform when it furthers his own political aggrandizement.

Third, General Stanley McChrystal was Obama’s man in Kabul. McChrystal was chosen for the Afghanistan mission by Obama’s team, not Bush’s. The general was following Obama’s orders, not Bush’s.

Fourth (I am writing myself into the story), last year and this year I have strongly opposed expanding the Afghanistan mission. More men mean fewer results. In order to succeed (not "win") in Afghanistan, we have to starve the mission and reduce our commitment. Afghanistan is a Special Forces and special ops conflict, not a “land war in Asia.”

Fifth, as long as the corrupt Karzai regime is in power, which we keep in power, Afghanistan is a sinkhole. Victory is impossible. “Karzai Corruption” is defeating our efforts much more than Taliban bullets.

Sixth, while Republicans should not play politics with war, they should start tuning their antennas to political reality: the majority of the Democratic Party in Congress is now voting against Afghanistan, and it is only a matter of time before Republicans are stranded high and dry and attacked as war mongers by Democratic candidates. Read My earlier column on McChrystal.

Seventh, it is possible to strongly support the global war against terror, as I do, and equally strongly oppose expanding the mission in Afghanistan. While the two share some common elements they are not one and the same.

Eighth, John McCain is ripping off American taxpayers by taking joyrides to Afghanistan and Iraq with his pals, all as part of his primary reelection campaign, none of which has any military or congressional oversight value. McCain is a delirious geezer whose views on military policy have been totally discredited with one notable exception (even broken clocks tell the right time twice a day).

Ninth, the liberal media have a real desire to demonize Michael Steele and to discredit him as a Republican Party leader. The media are “whipping” Steele because they want to “whip” African-Americans out of the idea that an African is welcome in the Republican Party. Most Republicans (except dodoes such as McCain) have nothing against Steele. But if you are going to invite diversity in a political party, you need to realize that people have diverse perspectives. And diverse opinions.

The natural home for African-Americans should be the Republican Party. Conservative cultural views and economic opportunity flow from Republican values. Democrats imprisoned blacks on welfare “plantations” in Chicago and other major cities for decades. So the media are working overtime to discredit Steele and to force him off the stage as a Republican leader. Republicans, wake up! (And yes, that goes for African-Americans too; it is time you woke up and abandoned the Democratic Party, unless you enjoy being perpetual victims and hostages of Democratic welfare programs.)

Thank you Michael Steele for telling the truth. If you had more guts, you would shove it right back at McCain and weenie Kirk, and the rest, and tell them they are wrong and their views are what got the Republican Party booted out of Congress and the White House in the first place (2006-2008). Memories are short.

When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?

As for blowhard geezer McCain, the fact that he is the favorite of the liberal media should tell you something. Wake up, Arizona Republicans!

And as for Coulter, I do have to salute her honesty and intelligence in defending Steele. But stop pulling the sheets, Ann.

-------------------------------------
ABOUT ANDY: Andy Martin is the legendary New York and Chicago-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of background in radio and television and is the dean of Illinois media and communications. He promotes his best-selling book, “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” and his Internet movie "Obama: The Hawai'i years." Martin has been a leading corruption fighter in Illinois for over forty years. He is currently sponsoring www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com
Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” http://www.contrariancommentary.com/. He comments on regional, national and world events with more than four decades of investigative and overseas experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).

UPDATES: www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSAwww.facebook.com/AndyMartin Andy's columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com.
contrariancommentary.typepad.com[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in this story on our blogs; find our latest edition there.]

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com © Copyright by Andy Martin 2010