Questions for Martha McSally on Iran negotiations, and war

The Arizona Daily Star’s Tim Steller gave Rep. Martha McSally (R-Raytheon) some grief after Benjamin Netanyahu’s campaign speech before Congress for sounding a little too much like National Review columnist Rich Lowry, after Sarah Palin’s wink during the 2008 Vice Presidential debate:

I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, “Hey, I think she just winked at me.” And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America.

Still creepy, Dude. Steller wrote:

We residents of Congressional District 2 were fully aware we’d elected a Republican when Martha McSally won November’s election.

I, for one, wasn’t aware we’d also elected a Likudnik.

It was dismaying for me to see McSally react with complete credulousness to the speech this week in the House of Representatives by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a member of that country’s Likud Party. Here’s how she began her star-struck statement on Netanyahu’s visit:

“I was honored to be present for Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech, shake his hand, and hear his unfiltered perspective at such a critical time. He is exactly right when he says one of the greatest dangers facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons, and the deal being worked on by the Administration would quicken that marriage.”

You don’t have to believe in Iran’s honesty, or even to think our negotiation with Iran is yielding optimal results, to see problems with her statement.

First, I expect someone of McSally’s intelligence to keep a critical eye open at all times, but especially in dealing with matters of war and peace. There were the politics of Netanyahu’s speech — allowing him to speak to Congress was a breach of protocol and a Republican tweak of Obama. It also was an attempt to boost the prime minister’s electoral hopes.

[In fact, Bibi Using Congressional Address In New Campaign Ad, Just As Crtics Warned.]

Finally, his arguments echo what he and others said more than a decade ago, arguing in favor of the U.S. going to war against Iraq. And it all seems to have gone over McSally’s head.

I considered Netanyahu’s speech an anti-American event, not because it criticized the president’s approach, but because it undermined the foreign policy of the administration we elected, and it placed another country’s interests above our own. Israel and America may be good friends, but our interests don’t always align.

McSally’s naive regurgitation of the Republican/Likud party line on Iran was disappointingly partisan.

Steller followed up his column the other day, commenting:

Some readers were taken aback by my strong opinion in last Friday’s column against Rep. Martha McSally‘s glowing review of the speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

This week, I feel vindicated. The letter signed by 47 Republican senators attempting to scuttle U.S. negotiations with Iran was clearly out of line, but it was just a logical extension of the Netanyahu speech in Congress. It was just a more starkly partisan effort to interfere with the difficult nuclear negotiations that are U.S. foreign policy.

Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake split on the letter. McCain signed on, though later backpedaled on that decision, and Flake said did not sign, saying the letter was inappropriate.

Apparently Rep. McSally did not think so. She told the Fort Huachuca 50 Dinner in Sierra Vista last week, McSally: Sequestration harming defense capabilities:

As the American government struggles with budget issues, sometimes of their own making, they have to look beyond America’s borders and see the ever-growing threats, McSally said.

One of those threats are members of the Iranian Republican Guard, also known as Quds — the holy name of Jerusalem — which are currently in Iraq providing support to Shi’ite Muslims in countering ISIS, the congresswoman said.

“They are heading the charge in Iraq … providing direction and support … and we are just watching it happen,” she said. “Are we coordinating with Iran or are we not coordinating with Iran?”

The issue is “bizarre” because America is dealing “with a state-sponsored terrorism” group, McSally said.

As to ongoing negotiations with the Iranian government over its nuclear program, McSally said, “the (Obama) administration is not thinking straight from my perspective.”

So, some “Questions for Martha McSally”:

You are not a member of the U.S. Senate, but if asked, would you have signed onto Sen. “Tehran Tom” Cotton’s letter seeking to sabotage the current negotiations between the United Nations six powers and Iran?

Do you understand that such a move is unprecedented in U.S. history and is entirely inappropriate, as numerous editorial boards have made the point in excoriating the 47 Senators who were foolish enough to sign this letter?

Do you understand that this is a complex negotiation between the United Nations Security Council six powers and Iran, and is not a one-to-one negotiation between the U.S. and Iran, as Republicans suggest with their partisan rhetoric?

Do you really believe that the U.S. and our European allies — Britain, France, and Germany — would all agree to enter into a “bad deal” as Republicans suggest with their partisan rhetoric? Do you really have so little faith in the diplomatic and intelligence corps of the U.S. and our allies? Is a military response always your first response?

Do you, like Neocon war monger Sen. John McCain, want a war with Iran so that he can get his war on and Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran?

If you want a war with Iran, will you ask for a formal declaration of war pursuant to the U.S. Constitution? Or will you simply turn a blind eye and rely on the outdated AUMF from 2001 and 2002 for George Bush’s wars as authority for a war with Iran to avoid any congressional debate?

If you want a war with Iran, will you call for reinstatement of the selective service draft? Those who are in the military service have already served above and beyond the call of duty with an unprecedented number of tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those “chickenhawk” Americans who love war as long as someone else volunteers to go fight it, now it’s their turn to serve their country — and this will not be a short or easy war. Are you willing to commit the U.S. to a generational war?

If you want a war with Iran, will you call for a “war tax” surcharge to pay for the cost of this war? Will you tax the war profiteers of Wall Street?

Do you understand that a war with Iran can quickly escalate into a regional war throughout the Middle East and Asia? The Russians have a military cooperation agreement with Iran, Russia and Iran sign military cooperation agreement, and Russia built and supplies Iran’s nuclear reactors. Russia Reaches Deal With Iran to Construct Nuclear Plants. The U.S. has a military cooperation agreement with Israel, which is the only country in the region that actually possesses a nuclear arsenal. The truth about Israel’s secret nuclear arsenal. Do you understand that a war with Iran could cascade from a proxy war to a nuclear confrontation between nuclear superpowers?

Have you even though about the blow-back and new terrorism around the world that such a war could unleash? Such a war would play right into the hands of the radical Islamic terrorists like ISIS, and give them exactly what they want — they want to draw the U.S. into a clash between civilizations.

And what about you? Are you one of those Christian Zionist end-timers who want to bring about the end of days and the rapture? Is there a religious motivation for your support for a war with Iran?  People have the right to know, because that is just crazy.