New Hampshire U. S. Senate candidate Andy Martin is a
recognized expert on Iraq
and the Middle East. Andy lived in Iraq
in 2003. Andy was a critic of the Bush/Cheney invasion, a critic of the
occupation and critic of Barack Obama’s withdrawal. Andy did support the
“surge” in 2007 as the only means of bringing some sanity to the conflict. Jim
Rubens is now writing crack-pot guest columns for small town New
Hampshire newspapers. Rubens suggests that Americans
should essentially withdraw from the Middle East and
allow a Muslim Caliphate to be established in the region between Syria
and Iraq. This
is not the first time Rubens has published grossly incompetent foreign policy
views (another column is coming). Andy says Rubens can no longer be taken
seriously as candidate for U. S.
Senator.
News from:
Andy Martin
Republican for U.S. Senator
www.AndyMartin2014.com
you can call Andy:
(603) 518-7310
(603) 866-4343
you can email Andy:
andynewhampshire@aol.com
you can write Andy at:
fax (866) 214-3210, or
P. O.
Box 742
Manchester, NH 03105-0742
Blogs/web sites (partial):
NewHampshireRepublicans.wordpress.com
AndyMartin.com
FirstRespondersOnline.us
ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com
ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com
To become a regular subscriber to
our emails please send an email to AndyNewHampshire@aol.com and place “SUBSCRIBE” in the subject line.
FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Republican U. S. Senate candidate Andy Martin says
that Jim Rubens’ “foreign policy analysis” on Iraq is wacky
Andy says small town newspapers are publishing
Ruben’s crackpot analysis of the Iraq conflict without any debate
or response
Andy lived in Iraq in 2003 and is an expert on
what went wrong
Andy says that despite being a nice man, Rubens
cannot be taken seriously as a U. S. Senate candidate because
Rubens’ views are on the far left of the Democratic Party
(Manchester, NH)
(July 1, 2014)
Dear Republican:
Whenever I start commenting about Jim Rubens I usually
preface my remarks by saying I have met Mr. Rubens and he is a decent and
honorable man. I do so again today before providing the following criticism of one
of Mr. Rubens’ bizarre foreign policy pronouncements. My remarks are obviously
a little long; but please bear with me as we consider serious issues and the
danger to America
posed by political candidates that spew forth opinions without any valid
information to back them up.
Jim Rubens has published a column of his crackpot ideas and
solutions for the Middle East. The same column has
appeared in several small town newspapers (see the links below; the column is
the same in each newspaper).
Before we analyze Rubens’ views on Iraq,
let’s start with the obvious. Rubens has no foreign policy experience. He left
local Hew Hampshire politics in 1998 and took a sixteen year vacation from
public issues to make money as a Mitt Romney-style
Wall Street stock speculator. Ok.
By comparison, I have extensive experience in the Middle
East and lived in Iraq
in 2003. While Jim Rubens has never published any analysis prior to becoming a
candidate you can dig back into my published statements and find that I have
consistently and accurately analyzed and predicted the future of that region.
1. Background to the 2003 Iraq
invasion
At the bottom of these remarks is a separate synopsis of my
foreign policy experience. I was in New York
on September 11, 2001 and
saw the attack on that city. Later I went downtown to help. I will never forget
the chaos.
In response to 9/11 President Bush launched a counterattack against
Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
I strongly supported Bush’s actions. Al-Qaeda was headquartered in Afghanistan
so it made sense to attack the rats’ nest.
But Bush had no experience in foreign policy and he soon
came under the evil influence of Dick Chaney. Cheney wanted to attack Iraq
because of Cheney’s priorities, not America’s.
As recently as June, 2014, Cheney is still lying on Fox News and falsely
claiming that Iraq
was linked to 9/11. Cheney’s claim is a joke. Cheney manipulated Bush into retaliating
against Iraq
when Iraq had nothing
to do with 9/11.
When it became obvious that Bush had been inveigled into
attacking Iraq,
I wrote against his plans and marched against the proposed invasion. I knew
that an invasion of Iraq
would be a disaster for the United States
and would also endanger the survival of the State of Israel. In de facto exile today, Bush still
believes that history will take a kinder view of his Iraq
policy. Mr. Bush will be even more excoriated and reviled by history that he
has been in the present because of his disastrous Iraq
policy. Fortunately for Bush, his incompetence will always be laminated
together with that of his successor, Barack Obama, the two most incompetent presidents
in American history.
In a perverse way, Iraq’s
criminal leadership, led by psychopath Saddam Hussein and his psychopathic
sons, served our interests. Saddam was clearly a bulwark against expansion of
Iranian power into southern Iraq.
One could see that if Saddam fell, Iran
would fill the vacuum. Saddam fell and Iran
moved into southern Iraq.
It is important to restate these facts because Cheney
continues to lie and continues to distort the reality of what existed in March,
2003 when the invasion of Iraq
was launched. Bush had permitted a suicide mission for America
to begin.
2. Andy drives into Iraq
the week Saddam Hussein disappears
Hours after Saddam fell in 2003 I began preparations to go Baghdad.
I arrived there a few days after the collapse. No one knew what would happen to
Iraq. The
United Nations had hundreds of trucks loaded with emergency supplies on the
Jordanian border; they were unnecessary. Iraqis muddled through. There were
claims of mass starvation. Rations were short, but few, if any, starved.
I will give Dick Cheney one correct prediction. He has
always said that we would be “greeted as liberators.” And he was right. We
were. Sadly, Bush/Cheney fumbled away the welcome we received and turned smiles
into frowns. The Iraqi’s acquiescence to our invasion was tentative,
provisional and based on a “show me” attitude as to what would come in the days
ahead.
I was near the city of Kufa
the day General Jay Garner arrived in Iraq
(we had been living in Baghdad for
weeks, but the U. S.
said the city was too “dangerous” for our military commander.) The single
biggest mistake Bush/Cheney made was removing General Garner and replacing him
with Paul Bremer. Garner knew the Middle East. Bremer
knew nothing.
3. Andy becomes unpopular in the Green Zone for
highlighting American incompetence
I very soon began to criticize the incompetence of the
occupation. With each passing day, the military command - under the control of
“conservative” commissars from Washington
- began to squander the good will America
had received in April. The American response to everything was to build a wall,
create a security perimeter and set up a checkpoint, when the opposite was
needed.
Iraq
slowly came back to life. But it was Iraqis restarting their own economic engines,
not assistance from the Green Zone. Bush/Cheney did nothing but send their conservative
munchkins into Iraq
to remake the country.
I did what I had always done; I built a network of friends
and informants across the city and later across the country. When my source in
the hotel told me there were Ghurkas guarding the 13th floor, my lady friend
and I left the hotel and moved into an apartment. Shortly thereafter the hotel
was rocketed. Even in a “war zone,” normality soon returns. Almost every day I
walked into downtown Baghdad to buy
pastries, foods and other necessities, and to take the temperature of the city.
One reporter asked me if I was the unofficial “mayor of Baghdad.”
I smiled.
When soldiers guarding the hotel asked me to help one of “my”
puppies survive, I managed to find a veterinarian. The army colonel in charge
of downtown Baghdad and I became
friends. But at the top of the U. S.
presence, in the “Green Zone,” which I quickly called the “Emerald
City,” my criticism of Mr. Bremer
did not win me any friends.
4. Andy supports the “surge” in 2007 as the only way to
bring the horrible mistake to some conclusion
As the years dragged on and the United
States had no genuine Iraq
policy, the occupation, of course, turned into a disaster. I supported the
“surge” in 2007 as the only way to restore order and create an exit strategy.
At this point let me be crystal clear: I had vigorously and
vehemently opposed the 2003 invasion. But once the invasion was over, in the
unforgettable words of Colin Powell, “if you break it you own it.” And so,
despite my strong opposition to the 2003 invasion, I was constantly forced to evaluate
options for ending the occupation and continuing a policy that would allow Iraq
to survive and evolve. That was why I supported the surge. Order had to be
restored.
5. Andy opposes Barack Obama in 2008; where was Rubens?
I knew that Barack Obama would undo the tranquility America
had finally established in Iraq.
And so, as an analyst, I initially opposed Obama’s campaign for the presidency.
Later, because the McCain campaign collapsed and the Republican Party became
paralyzed by indecision and incompetence, by default I moved into the role of
an anti-Obama strategist. And, the more prominent I became as an opponent of
Obama, the greater the attacks he directed at me.
Where was Jim Rubens in 2008? (Hint: making money on Wall
Street) Where was Bob Smith? (Hint: sadly, we know; Smith was engaged in some
ditsy scheme in Florida). I was
on the front lines of opposing Obama. My 2014 primary adversaries were “missing
in action.”
6. Obama delivers Iraq
to Islamic extremists on a silver platter
After taking office Obama delivered Iraq
to Islamic extremists and Iranian ayatollahs. It was inevitable that if U. S.
Forces fell below adequate levels, the country would shudder and eventually
collapse. Which it has. Obama accepted Nouri Al-Maliki, originally enthroned during
the Bush regency. Al-Maliki promptly began to destroy national unity on behalf
of - surprise - Iran.
(Al-Maliki had lived in Iran
and was an Iranian stooge from the gitgo.)
7. Rubens’ analysis of the current situation in Iraq
is idiotic
Jim Rubens has published comments in several New
Hampshire newspapers saying Iraq
is a lost cause and we should just walk away and accept the creation of a
Muslim caliphate. Surprise! As I was writing these remarks, the “ISIS”
terrorists “officially” proclaimed an Islamic caliphate (see Washington Post
link below).
Adding to the Marx Brothers comedy aspects of matters in Baghdad,
the Russians have now appeared with ancient fighter jets and helicopters. And
Obama is still studying the situation.
If Rubens were a senator, his views on Iraq
would be on the far left of the Democratic Party, in bed with Obama. Rubens
talks of opposing “American boots on the ground.” Only he fears such a possibility;
no one is advocating a new invasion. Rubens says the Shiites “do not want
American troops in Iraq.”
But contrary to Rubens’ claims, other groups do. Now the Shiites are demanding America
return to Iraq
with weapons and expertise. So Rubens is wrong again.
Already the Iraqi military is claiming that newly-arrived U.
S. advisors have begun to have an impact on
the Iraqi counterattack against ISIS forces. Jim Rubens
is very misinformed, and he has been misinforming Granite
State voters. Rubens’ comments on Iraq,
like his remarks on other crucial issues, have betrayed that Rubens may be a
“Republican” in name but his actual views fall on the far left of the
Democratic Party.
8. A very important role of a U.s. Senator is to evaluate
foreign policy
As I write these words Monday morning I don’t know what
challenges a senator will face starting in 2015. Obviously, the Russians are a problem.
China? A big
problem. The newly-proclaimed “Islamic State?” A massive problem. Iran?
You know.
What I do know is that when people go to Washington without
any knowledge of or experience with foreign policy, intelligence and military
affairs, they quickly fall under the control of lobbyists and special interests
(as Scott Brown did in 2010).
You have just read my foregoing analysis. Whether you agree
or disagree with my views or conclusions, obviously I have thought deeply about
the problems we face in the Middle East. I have the experience
to deal with them. Do Rubens, Smith and Brown have any credible
experience? No. Voting for one of them
you are voting for inexperience and incompetence to determine the future of America’s
foreign policy.
9. The New Hampshire
and local media are robbing voters of a genuine primary debate over foreign
policy
I welcome the opportunity to debate Rubens, Smith and Brown.
But Brown, according to a report by Kathleen Ronayne in the Concord Monitor
(see link below) is trying to “starve his opponents of oxygen.” Unfortunately,
in starving his opponents of “oxygen,” and trying to deaden the primary
campaign, Brown is also starving New Hampshire’s
Republican and Independent voters of the real debate they deserve. Brown is
impoverishing the political process and allowing incompetent opinions such as
Rubens’ to flourish without any rejoinder.
Thanks to corrupt local media and the utterly corrupt and
incompetent New Hampshire Republican Party leadership, voters are being deprived
of a genuine primary.
10. Rubens’ proposals would mean the end of the state of Israel
If Jim Rubens’ views and Scott Brown’s (and probably Bob
Smith’s views as well) prevail in Washington,
Israel is
doomed.
Because she is an ignoramus, Jennifer Horn loves to run
around New Hampshire falsely
attacking me as anti-Semitic. On the contrary, I am the only intelligent and
informed supporter of Israel
in the primary. Eleven (11) years ago, I predicted that if America
invaded Iraq,
both America and
Israel would be
losers. I was correct. Who is stronger today? Islamic extremists and Iran,
or America and Israel?
I am a genuine supporter of Israel
because I am familiar with the challenges Israel
faces if it is to survive. If the Islamic extremists that Jim Rubens and many
others want to ignore do establish a radical Islamic “state,” a “caliphate” in Syria
and Iraq (which
as of Sunday they now claim to have done), Israel
could be doomed.
In some form or fashion the United
States can muddle through a collapse of the Middle
East. Israel
does not have that option. If you are truly a supporter of Israel,
then you need to send someone to Washington who understands the risks involved
and the path to survival for Israel.
I am the only candidate who can work to ensure the survival of Israel.
It’s that simple.
11. Conclusion
To summarize, George Bush made a tragic miscalculation in
2003 when he invaded Iraq.
Bush was betrayed by his closest associates. But by the time Bush left office, he
had cleaned up much of his mess. He left a relatively stable situation behind for
Barack Obama.
Obama took a stable situation and has created an even bigger
mess and a much more dangerous situation than Bush. Obama’s incompetence, or
intentions, have now led to the creation of an alleged radical Islamic “state”
at the center of the Middle East. Cleaning up Obama’s
mess will be a great challenge; we can’t trust people such as Rubens, Smith and
Brown to take on this task.
I hope that you will think seriously about the foregoing
facts and opinions. Once again, as it has done in the past, the New Hampshire
Republican Party is defrauding Granite State voters by promoting candidates
that are both manifestly unsuited to campaigning against Jeanne Shaheen and highly
unlikely to vote in an informed and intelligent manner in Washington. Scott Brown
knows nothing about foreign policy and Jim Rubens is a dingbat on the issue.
If you vote for one of my incompetent opponents, do not
complain afterwards when you get incompetence in Washington.
The lives of our men and women in uniform serving abroad, and the very survival
of our way of life here at home, are in jeopardy.
I respectfully ask you to give my credentials and
qualifications serious consideration.
Loyally,
Andy
P.S. After finishing thee above remarks I noticed that on Sunday
Tom Friedman in the New York Times also debunked Rubens’ fallacious beliefs
about Shiites and Sunnis (there is a link below).
-----
[How Andy became a foreign policy/military/intelligence and
counterterrorism expert:
Andy has forty-nine years of experience in Asia, Southwest Asia
and the Middle East; he is regarded overseas as one of America’s most respected independent foreign policy, military and
intelligence analysts. He is known as an “over-the-horizon” expert who
synthesizes conditions to prepare predictive opinions.
Andy first went to the Arab world in 1970 and has traveled
to almost every country in that region. Andy was in Iran
and Afghanistan
during the hostage crisis in 1979-80. He lived in Iraq
in 2003.
His analysis of the terrorist threat in Iran during 1979-80, and again in Iraq in 2003, were leading-edge predictions of what Americans
faced in the future. Andy has lived in or been in Israel,
Jordan, Libya,
Egypt, Saudi
Arabia, Lebanon,
Iraq, Iran,
Afghanistan, Viet-Nam,
Cambodia, Laos,
Thailand, Burma,
Hong Kong and the United
Kingdom.]
-----
ujntsman wasd reelected in November, 2008. A few
monrths later he resigned to serve
his president,” Barack Obama. SDo whyh was it so terrible that Palin resigned
and Hutsman served evenless of his secondterm? Can I say “double standard”
again.
What os this show us? Whetyher thessue s
resigfnaitonsor religion,th emedia shamlessly create double standards tgo favr
theiiberal medioa pets (fulldisclosure; I am ot aliberalmedia pet).
MEDIA
CONTACT: Andy Martin (603) 518-7310; CELL (603) 866-4343 or (917)
664-9329 E-MAIL:
AndyNewHampshire@aol.com
_______________________________
LINKS TO THIS STORY (cut and paste the entire link below and not
just the underlined portion):
http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140625/OPINION/406250350/-1/NEWSMAP
http://www.sentinelsource.com/opinion/columnists/guest/another-middle-east-war-quagmire/article_d1c85bfd-228c-5bb5-a66c-7f6906c6c36c.html
http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/12504459-95/my-turn-bombing-isil-is-wrong-path-to-take-in-iraq
http://www.concordmonitor.com/news/campaignmonitor/12550725-95/capital-beat-in-us-senate-race-brown-looks-beyond-primary-to-general-election
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/militants-repel-iraqi-forces-attempt-to-recapture-tikrit/2014/06/29/84a63712-ff88-11e3-b8ff-89afd3fad6bd_story.html?hpid=z3
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-who-is-setting-the-sectarian-fires-in-the-middle-east.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0
ABOUT ANDY:
Andy is a
legendary New Hampshire-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, talk
television pioneer, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. Andy’s
family immigrated to Manchester 100 years ago; today his home overlooks the Merrimack River and he lives around the corner from where
he played as a small boy. He has forty-five years of background in radio and
television. He is the author of “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask”
[www.OrangeStatePress.com] and he produced the Internet film "Obama: The
Hawaii’ Years” [www.BoycottHawaii.com]. Andy is the Executive Editor and
publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” www.ContrarianCommentary.com.
He comments on New Hampshire, national and international events with
more than four decades of investigative and analytical experience both in the USA and around the world. For more, go to:
www.AndyMartin.com
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/AndyMartinUSA
www.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 our stories; find the
latest version on our blogs.]
--------------------------
© Copyright by
Andy Martin 2014 – All Rights Reserved
--------------------------
