In early December noted GOP demagogue and Canadian-born (ineligible for the USD presidency) Senator, Ted Cruz, delivered a speech in Iowa that traipsed on violations of international law and skirted common human decency. While speaking about external threats to the United States, Cruz declared carpet bombing the city of Raaqa as a strategy for eliminating ISIS. Problem: Raaqa is the home of hundreds of thousands of Syrian citizens. Many of which have no affiliation with ISIS, and who are without doubt suffering under the oppression of ISIS tyranny.
Of course, the reality of murdering hundreds of thousands of olive-skinned non-Jewish Middle Easterners is of no concern to Cruz and his inhumane followers.
Cruz's Early December speech earmarked at the 14:12-minute mark. After the few seconds of American terror from Cruz, follow my lead; cut the video off. Carpet Bomb em!
Reasons dot com (linked to a piece that took exception to Obama's SOTU remarks regarding Cruz's promise to carpet bomb)
"we will have a president who will make clear we will utterly destroy ISIS. We will carpet bomb them into oblivion. I don't know if sand can glow in the dark, but we're going to find out."
Later that month, CNN's Wolf Blitzer pressed Cruz to clarify his remark during a debate:
"To be clear, Sen. Cruz, would you carpet-bomb Raqqa, the ISIS capital, where there are a lot of civilians? Yes or no?"
This was Cruz's reply:
"You would carpet bomb where ISIS is—not a city, but the location of the troops. You use air power directed—and you have embedded special forces to direction the air power. But the object isn't to level a city. The object is to kill the ISIS terrorists.
How disturbing to rational, non-jingoist Americans?
During last night's State of the Union Speech, President Obama's last SOTU, the president took effective (and professional) issue with Cruz's comment.
We need "more than tough talk or calls to carpet bomb civilians," Obama said, adding: "That may work as a TV sound bite, but it doesn’t pass muster on the world stage."
It should be noted the Reason's excerpt above is from a piece in which the author took exception to President Obama's addressing Cruz's comment. The author went through a rationalizing mental exercise on Cruz' actually meaning vs. his clear doubled-down on his statement. How would the same author have dealt with any comment from President Obama in a similar manner? The question is rhetorical: No, the author would attack any comment from the president regardless of personal interpretation. Ultimately, Cruz made the comment and doubled-down on the comment. Thus, it became fair game and required attention at the very international SOTU.
Cruz as one of the GOP's most prolific demagogues is not secret. He exhibited an even higher level of insane demagoguery during an interview after the SOTU. NBC's Lester Holt provided a literal political ad for Cruz, I suppose, under the guise of seeking good air-time for conservative viewers. Holt asked about the president's remarks.
Holt asked Cruz about the seizing of two US naval vessel by Iranian coast Gaurd ships. If should be noted, one of the naval vessels was reported to have veered into Iranian protectorate waters due to a malfunction. Cruz jumped to use of the word "hostages." The dirtiest of words when one considers Iran based on the Iranian takeover of the US embassy in the late 1970s.
Before the Cruz dog-whistle ("hostages"), let's accomplish a bit of true journalism. We offer a review of early details regarding the seized vessels.
MSNBC on what happened ingt he Persian Gulf near Farsi Island.
We should also note CNN was so full of US jingoist bluster as the network approached the SOTU.
The network filled its camera segments with talking heads who, in some cases, demanded president Obama address the Iranian seizure during the SOTU. How Republican and jingoist of David Gergen? MSNBC joined in with a phone interview of one of its most noted jingoist former General McCaffrey
The former general actually if the seizure an act of war the US should not tolerate. The network interviewer nor the former general made any reference to the prospect of the vessel veering off course and suffering the seizure. Wouldn't the US had done same with an intrusion into US waters?
As promised, the Iranians released the sailors this morning.
There was a time in US media when such jingoism and post released commentary would have centered on why the level of pure anger in the face of reports of a violation by US warships in the waters of a sovereign nation? I suspect most coverage of the incident is taking place with conservative guests on cable news with heavy doses of "Obama is weak."