Monday, February 8, 2016
Four days to New Hampshire Presidential derby: What Republican Candidates promised America on their eighth GOP debate?
Keywords or Terms: ABC NEWS; Eighth 2016 Republican Presidential Debate; White House; Waterboarding; Muslims; Christians; International Treaties; Guantanamo Base, Cuba; Marco Rubio; Ted Cruz; Donald Trumps; America’s Enemies; North Korea; United Nations; Affordable Care Act
If you missed ABC News televised eighth GOP presidential candidates’ debate on Saturday relax, nothing much has changed in their usual rhetoric. Excellent examples of violation of international laws and decorum spiced up many of the presidential candidates’ claims; with good old Donald Trump alleging so much has been done to Christians that he is ready to do more than waterboarding people, to correct for disenfranchisement. For all the allegations against the last Republican Administration in the White House, none was so significant or reminiscent of a need for change in the way America handles her enemies, as the one now being proposed. Left to the Republican front runner, real estate mogul Donald Trump, relations with the rest of the world, especially Muslim countries are waste of time and there hardly a need to respect international treaties, civil liberties and human decency in dealing with foreign policies and or attempting to fight international terrorism for national security's sake. How about the third runner up Republican Candidate, Marco Rubio, the supposedly establishment preference in light of the shakeup in Republican race for the White House? Well here is his vision of Guantanamo base, Cuba, that ill-repute land of concentration for suspected terrorists: “[America] should be putting people into Guantanamo, not emptying it out, and we shouldn’t be releasing these killers who are rejoining the battlefield against the United States.” The more extreme America gets in fighting global terrorism for national security sake, the better for Republicans. Donald Trump appears to have reinforced his continued dictate for addressing religious differences or the constitutional separation of state and religion; and Marco Rubio has hunkered down on the most recent Republican White House’s belligerence in fighting terrorism.
While the outcome of Saturday’s debate has set in motion another hot topic debate over entering or entertaining foreign wars by America, it appears that the claim of who advised against the Iraq war in the first place or later instances, became a football for nearly all the seven candidates on the rostrum. Interestingly, Donald Trump in his usual narcissistic approach at representing his “own” facts: “I’m the only one up here, when the War in Iraq, I was the one who said, don’t go, don’t do it, you’re going to destabilize the Middle East. So I’m not the one with the trigger.” If the question was, was it actually true that the reality show host made his opposition to America entering into foreign war in Iraq by August 2004 or earlier, no one can actually say; however, few people can hardly or truly appreciate that he considers some offshoot of America’s effort to fight global terrorism, including entering into two foreign wars, essentially characterized by some abuse of human decency and civil liberties as contained in America’s signed UN international treaties, as permissible or dismal. Rather than reflect on the past and conceive of a more humane posture in addressing issues of hostilities from the outside world, Mr. Trump promises more hostile, if not more completely inhuman policies and behaviors to seek information from America’s enemy or punish their actions.
This is not satire, to be sure, the first time I heard Republican aspirants at the eighth GOP debate on ABC News discuss federal responsibility regarding immigration and naturalization issues, a hot button issue considering that many republican aspirants promised a more anti-immigration stance in current campaign cycle, and the front runner, Donald Trump, further articulates building a huge and long wall to separate the Americas, North from South, in the bid to control “invasion” of undocumented Mexicans, the estimation of how recent past Democratic and Republican White Houses in last two decades had ramped up effort at deportation, were relatively subject to inquisition; or for lack of better words, further clarification. Indeed, Ted Cruz, the winner of the Iowa Caucuses, declared: “In eight years, Bill Clinton deported 12 million people. In eight years, George W. Bush deported 10 million people.” If Administrators of US Department of Homeland Security have listened to data flung around regarding voluntary and involuntary deportation of undocumented immigrants by the Republican candidates in the debate, they probably would have been dismayed.
Whether Republican candidates understood what constituted formal deportation or not is very much debatable; however, from policymakers who know better, there has actually been a growing number of formal deportation occurring during the current White House Administration, more than at any comparative time with the George Bush and Bill Clinton’s White Houses, just as patterns in immigration and deportation policies have shown a relative decline in the number of undocumented immigrants that were deported and has no other opportunity of re-entry, excepts committing a felony. Then, as in now, there has been active effort to maintain an increasing level of removal of undocumented immigrants from the United States. The parallel comparisons of effort to remove undocumented immigrants from US, served as a fodder for unsubstantiated claims by Republicans discussing the issues or resorting to deportation to address the issue of large numbers of undocumented immigrants living among us.
There were two fascinating claims from Republican Ted Cruz that needs more elucidation because of the coldness of the misinformation on China’s hegemony in Asia minor. For the Canadian-born Texas Senator, “[China] has total, absolute control, practically, of North Korea.” The reality of Chino-Korean relationship is totally different from the Senator’s conception. Because North Korean has remained defiant in its test of nuclear weapons and it appears that China considers North Koreans as its client state hardly bestows on the Chinese the complete right to undermine that nation’s choice of self-determination, no matter how we as Americans abhors many of the rogue state’s actions. Neither, can anyone truly know or understand the extent of Chinese relationship with the North Koreans. Past White House administrations’ attempts to bring North Korea to the fold of responsible nuclear states, through negotiations and a hash out of what is considered President William Clinton’s Agreed Framework, hardly served as a failure to act or a deliberate effort not to exploit Chinese hegemony over North Korea. The fact is, the Korean Peninsula has remained an unstable region due to insistent incursions from Northern Korea to South Korea; and, other indeterminable variables that have made reigning North Korea in, rather difficult. All proactive policies on North Korea from both past Democratic and Republican White Houses have not failed completely in their sense of purpose: making North Korean leaders responsible for their actions and holding them accountable for actions that we consider as detrimental to the stability of Asia minor and specifically, the Korean Peninsula. Offering a caviar to help tore the ice between the North and South Korea and calling upon China to exercise her prerogative relational influence on North Koreans are not weak endeavors or total failure of foreign policy in that region of the world. The fact that America is dealing with a reclusive or completely closed up society to the rest of the world has complicated matters further; and made foreign policy administration difficult in the context of a nuclear North Korea.
If Ted Cruz perceives North Korean détente as Chinese failure to enforce some degree of influence on that rogue nation to abide by international laws and rules of good behavior as broadly defined by the United Nations, and by default United States, maybe he could learn a thing or two about international diplomacy: you cannot achieve a leverage over other nations that you do not completely agree with their foreign policies or preferred national religious affiliation by carpet bombing them to oblivion. International politics and foreign affairs are different from running a resinous détente and deluded presidential campaign, tainted by bigotry and evangelic religiosity. Crucial part of decades of international entanglements in the Korean Peninsula is more than laying claim against China or defeating North Korea by throwing around unsubstantiated statements or falsehood. That North Korea took millions from a deal to assuage her behavior from a prior Democratic Administration is an issue subject to critical debates. United States has been forced to make concessions in some deals to achieve leverage over thorny issues of international conflict that appears as a shift in balance of power to the left, that could have readily put the interest of its allies and self in jeopardy, if otherwise; however, never a failure of common purpose. If a naïve Senator does not understand this intricate nature of foreign policy, maybe he has no business running for the White House oval office; especially when the question of his constitutional qualification for the office is still on the table.
Clinton’s email controversy once again, appears to be a piñata for the Republicans all over again. Even after known facts about the uncertainty of allegations why her private server had been used in transaction America’s foreign policies and other verified fact that other Secretaries of State, General Powell and Dr. Condoleezza Rice, had transmitted classified information over private email accounts. We are within the power to change some of the perceived short comings of how the State Department handles sensitive information; however, there is no room for crusification of one individual for political gains of a politician. If Republican aspirant Marco Rubio believes he knows better than the investigative bodies looking into the shortcomings of how US State Department communicates, maybe he should get a job with the body and not be running for the presidency. However, if he understands the difficulties of laying claims of wrong doing of public officials, maybe he should exercise restraint on the way he categorized Ms. Clinton’s probable error; generally saying that the former US Secretary of State purposely put classified emails unto a private server for any gains or a deliberate effort to skirt known US State Department practices, is probably going too far. For the records, other US Intelligence agencies have warned that some of the emails Republicans like Marco Rubio are asking to be released to the public are just too sensitive for public releases, must be acceded. It is not just in our national interest.
Finally, if Donald Trump is alleging that insurance companies are getting rich under OBAMACARE, maybe he should once again familiarize himself with insurance companies quarterly report. As reported by Moody’s and poor and some other financial reporting outlets, health insurance companies have been losing a heal of money since the institution of the Affordable Care Act. The truth of the matter is this: Affordable Care Act (ACA) was designed to cut down was designed to cut down on health care costs, including excessive premiums, bloating health insurance administrative costs and routine over-billing of American consumers. In the ear of the American consumers, ACA, is a life saver, even when and where Republicans are bent on overturning the law. Coming to a presidential debate to announce erroneously that insurance companies are making away under the Affordable Care Act, is a sign of dis- ingenuousness and the current state of disillusion over OBAMACARE by the Republicans, especially, their current polls' front runner.