The Real Story Behind My Pinko Commie Patriotism

by Burr Deming

My patriotism is not attacked every day.

Joe McCarthy had come and gone by the time I had grown. Younger folks might not even remember reading about those times. Even back then, not every attack on someone’s love of country deserved a response.

But T. Paine and I have a history. He offered words of encouragement when our own young Marine was under fire in Afghanistan. He sent prayers and good wishes, worrying along with us when a beloved family member contracted a life-threatening illness. He entrusted me with confidences, with knowledge of similar catastrophic events in his own past.

So he deserves a response.

Even if none of that was true, there has been a change in our own political environment. History is engaged in its own way of rhyming. Not everything passes with time.

My President gave the traditional State of the Union Speech this year. At one point, he boasted that all-in-all, he was a remarkably great President.

He later described those who did not applaud.

They were like death. And unAmerican, unAmerican.

He explained why their lack of gratitude should be described as treason.

I mean they certainly didn’t seem to love our country very much.

My friend is seeking a bit of mileage out of a couple of past quotes, along with his own assertions. He sees evidence that at least some liberals, like me, are communist sympathizers from way back:

…when Russia was still Communist and many on the left adored them.

In fact, T. Paine reminds his readers that, back when we were still young, many of us on the left harbored such intense pro-Communist loyalties that, in his words, they, meaning we:

…thought their own country, particularly under Ronald Reagan, was the real threat to world peace and prosperity.

My friend presents his evidence, primarily in cartoon form.

President Barack Obama, caught on tape talking to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev:

This is my last election. After my re-election, I’ll have more flexibility.

Mr. Romney absolutely had a right to exploit that hot-mic capture. He certainly exercised that right during the campaign that year.

So thank you, Mr. Paine, may we have another?

After Mitt Romney insisted that our main adversary in the world was Russia, President Obama disagreed.

And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. Because the Cold War has been over for 20 years.

Mr. Romney has reason to gloat over the cyber-hacking that occurred since, subverting our democracy and helping the campaign of candidate Donald Trump.

I don’t see much there to indicate that I, or President Obama, or much of anyone else fits the description, “when Russia was still Communist and many on the left adored them.”

I suppose we do need to pull out some dusty old notes and explain it to my old friend.

It started, I suppose, with the assassination of a descendant of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. Enraged followers vowed revenge. And so, the Islamic community was divided. Those followers were called Shiites, the rest of Islam was Sunni. Think Hatfields and McCoys times a thousand over 1300 years. In fact, al Qaeda was organized largely to exterminate Shiites, along with any Sunnis with insufficient hatred toward them.

Sunnis outnumber Shiites by about 3 to 1, but Shia is the dominant religion in a number of countries. Iraq and Lebanon are mostly Shia.

And so is Iran.

In 2012, things were getting tense. Iran was developing a nuclear capability that had the potential of threatening Israel, then other nations in the region, Sunni nations. Iran kept denying it, but it was clear they were not telling the truth.

President Obama organized the world against Iran, with financial freezes of Iranian assets and restrictions on international trade. Iran eventually admitted they had been developing a nuclear capability and had not been entirely truthful about it. And they signed an agreement. They would stop development, surrender what capability they had already developed, and permit inspections to make sure they did as promised. Just take your foot off our neck.

Before that agreement, Obama had decided on a bigger foot.

When Iran was still in denial, when things were still hot and dangerous, Obama ordered the development of a ballistic system that could target and destroy any missiles Iran might build.

That bothered Russia. A lot.

Well before Putin, the old Soviet Union had had a preoccupation with nuclear war and with missiles.

In the 1950s, the United States kind of boasted that our nuclear weapons were only aimed at their military, not at civilians. But everyone eventually realized that this was a formula for nuclear war.

Both sides targeting cities was a deterrence. It would make both sides afraid to strike first.

Both sides targeting missiles and the military was a threat to deterrence. It would give victory to whoever would strike first. Both sides would then have an incentive to strike and to fear the other guy would attack.

Couldn’t have that.

When Ronald Reagan proposed Star-Wars, it was called destabilizing because it would prevent the other side from counter-striking. So the Soviet Union would have an incentive to launch first before Star Wars could prevent them from striking at all. When Gorbachev and Reagan met to design a new deal, it was to keep things stable and to reduce the nuclear threat. Star-Wars was abandoned, and everyone started reducing nuclear arms.

Whew!

Fast forward. In 2012 when President Obama was developing a system to blow up any missiles in Iran, Russia took notice.

Hey! Couldn’t that be used to eliminate our missiles? It was Star Wars all over again.

Obama assured Russia that we would only target Iran. So Russia asked for a guarantee. In writing.

And they asked for joint control over that American system. Obama said no to that part, but agreed to negotiate on the guarantee. Just not right away.

Putin was not yet President of Russia. The American election campaign was still going.

Here’s how Ben Rhodes, a national security advisor at the time, explained it:

Since 2012 is an election year in both countries, with an election and leadership transition in Russia and an election in the United States, it is clearly not a year in which we are going to achieve a breakthrough.

So Obama, thinking he was off-mic, explained it to Russia’s outgoing President.

A lot of the dialogue is drowned out by ambient noise.

This is my last election. After my re-election, I’ll have more flexibility.

Any part about Putin’s flexibility, not having formally been elected or assumed office, cannot be heard.

Later, the United States did put the guarantee in writing, Putin was not given any control, and everyone was able to sleep that night.

Seems like Mr. Obama’s remark, even out of context, ended as a good thing.

As for Mitt Romney’s fear of Russia? He never said he meant anything beyond military adventurism. If he did have some notion of a future cyber-attack, perhaps he ought to have mentioned it. Still, let’s give him credit for his foreknowledge.

I don’t think it backs up any of the current gloats from conservatives. But I can see their point. Does it really indicate a love for Russia or for communism by …well… anyone? At least anyone that supported that President?

I suppose while we’re at it, we ought to cover another point of Paine.

Conservatives have promoted for decades the narrative of personal corruption on the part of Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton gave them 20% of our uranium, gave Russia, for a big payment.

Donald Trump, reported on PBS, October 31, 2017

Problem is, the bribery and personal involvement simply did not happen.

This is how Joy Reid handled a Republican operative who peddled the story of a contributor bribing Hillary Clinton to approve uranium sales by contributing to the Clinton charity:

How many people sit on the committee?

Nine members.

How many have to approve a deal like this?

All nine of them.

How many approved this deal?

Nine of them.

Did he own any assets in Uranium One at the time that Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State?

You know, I don’t know that, but here’s what I would…

He did not. He sold them years before.

So what you’re talking about is a deal that nine members of CFIUS approved unanimously. None of whom was Hillary Clinton.

You have a donor who separately gave Hillary Clinton donations at a time when she was not Secretary of State.

The members of CFIUS have been very clear that Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with approving that deal. She would have had to strong-arm eight other people in order to get them to unanimously approve the deal and ultimately the President of the United States would intervene if they saw any problem.

There’s actually nothing about the deal that’s controversial.

Here’s the deal, Mr. Paine.

We do not object to my President because of hypocritical annoyance at an electoral loss. We do not object because of our one-time infatuation back “when Russia was still Communist and many on the left adored them.” We are not engaged in a fit of unrequited love for communism.

We on the left, and a few honest voices on the right object to a President giving a top level, eyes only, secrets to Russian spies in the Oval Office. This happened on May 10, 2017. We object to entrusting the security of the United States embassy in Moscow and the top-secret conversations that will happen inside, to a company run by Russian intelligence.

We object to the cyber-targeting of our nuclear facilities, our energy, commercial facilities, water, aviation, and manufacturing. We object to the targeting of our votes, the undermining of our democratic process. And we object the passive cooperation offered by our President.

There are dots to be connected. My President’s sleepy sort submission could be a misguided love for authoritarianism. Or some secret may lie hidden amid the convoluted financial entanglements that have enveloped him and his Russian sponsors. Or there could be an even deeper motivation.

The President of the United States has surrounded himself, at times, with self-described white nationalists, those with a different national loyalty, one based on race. There is a reason they seek to keep out immigrants from the wrong countries and let in only those from the right countries:

Why aren’t we letting people in from Europe?

Donald Trump at CPAC, March 15, 2013

They and our President find a kindred spirit in Mr. Putin.

We are forced to suspect that whatever the reason, the fervent loyalty of our President toward mother Russia is part of a larger pattern.

We can only hope honorable conservatives, including my long-time friend, will join us in resisting the destruction of our great national experiment as a democratic republic.

Many thanks, as always, to our partners at FairandUnbalanced.

Happy

0 0 %

Sad

0 0 %

Excited

0 0 %

Sleepy

0 0 %

Angry

0 0 %

Surprise

0 0 %