Skip to main content

Chris Murphy, Secretary of State?

Blumenthal and Murphy

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy is being touted by the progressive media as a possible secretary of state in the -- inevitable? -- presidential administration of Hunter Biden’s dad, Joe Biden.

Perhaps because he is a home state lad, Connecticut’s press has tended to speak of Murphy in the reverential tones formerly reserved for such giants of international diplomacy as John Foster Dulles, President Dwight Eisenhower’s Secretary of State, who is credited, according to The Department of State Office of the Historian, with solidifying a “general consensus in U.S. policy that peace could be maintained through the containment of communism.”

Any sound foreign policy negotiator will tell you that, as a general rule, it’s best to negotiate with an enemy that had been defeated and, even then, negotiations, particularly if they involve multi- nations, may conspicuously fail. Such was the case with Germany after both World Wars. Germany bowed to the terms of surrender following its defeat in World War 1, but the terms dictated were such as to pave the way for the rise to power of Adolf Hitler, while the terms of surrender following World War II benefited Stalinist Russia, which occupied half of Germany during the post-war years until the Berlin Wall came tumbling down in 1989.

However, it is nearly impossible, history convincingly demonstrates, to negotiate successfully with an undefeated enemy. In the ancient world, Sparta and Athens negotiated for thirty years before the Peloponnesian War was brought to a conclusion by a Spartan victory. Spartan terms were lenient enough to permit, much later, a cultural and military victory of Athens over Sparta.

Democrats have somehow got it into their heads that Western powers -- mostly Christian, placidly pacific, and averse, in the post-modern world, to colonization -- can successfully negotiate with Iran, a nation dominated  by Shia Islamic warriors who seek to achieve the peace of Islam through the sword of Mohammed. Peace with Iran can be accomplished only when its enemies such as “The Great Satan” -- i.e. the whole of Western civilization -- submits unconditionally to Islam, religiously, culturally and militarily. It is nearly impossible under these circumstances to negotiate successfully with Iran, a country that aims to position itself in the Middle East as a dominant theocratic and militaristic power.

Iran’s numerically superior Sunni neighbors know this; Israel, which the mullahs in Iran have vowed to push into the sea, knows this; and every thoughtful politician who is willing to learn from history in order to avoid making the same insane mistakes over and over again knows this.

During the latter part of his first term in office, “lead from behind” President Barack Obama negotiated a deal with Iran that, according to pre-second-term-campaign puffery, would result in a delay on the part of Iran of the production of fissionable material.

For its part, Iran agreed to sign a Neville Chamberlain like document swearing on a stack of Korans to put off for a time the production of nuclear missile technology, in return for… what?

Part of the deal involved a late night secret shipment of $1.3 billion in cash to Iran, a boodle that Iran no doubt disbursed to its terrorist proxies in Syria and Lebanon. The best way to achieve a temporary concordat with Islam on the march, Obama correctly realized, was to pay the mullahs off. And he did – handsomely. In November of 2012, Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were re-elected to a second term. During the same election, Murphy was hoisted into the U.S. Senate to join his Democrat colleague, Dick Blumenthal, first elected in 2010.

Pro-Obama Democrats have not denounced these secret payments. Was Murphy's meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif during a Munich Security Conference a secret meeting? The meeting, also attended by former Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry, was news to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. “If they met,” Pompeo said in answer to reporters’ questions, “I don’t know what they said. I hope they were reinforcing America’s foreign policy and not their own.”

Murphy, who acknowledged he had met with Zarif several times before, had used “a back channel facilitator to set up the meeting with the Iranian leader,” according to a story published at the time in a Hearst paper. A Murphy aide later said the State Department may have been “aware of Murphy’s interest in the meeting” because Murphy’s office had “informed the U.S. Embassy in Germany that Murphy was (all emphasis mine) potentially interested in meeting with Zarif in Munich. The embassy said it could not set up the meeting and Murphy would need to find another facilitator, Murphy’s staff said.”

President Donald Trump – who cannot be trusted at a barbeque because he has history of overdoing the meat as well as his rhetoric – accused Murphy of violating the Logan Act, a burnt to a crisp charge much overdone.

Even so, Murphy, masterful in foreign policy, should be asked, sometime before he is appointed as Secretary of State in a Biden administration, whether he would be pleased if Republican politicians were to arrange secret meetings with Iranians that might disturb delicate negotiations between the Great Satan and Iranian mullahs pledged to push the Great Satan and Israel into the sea.

 

Comments

HAHAHAHAHA... That would be an all new low for SeC-. Murphy is a pathetic DUNCE.
Dan Ryan Galt said…
As much as I would like our State to be rid of Mr Murphy and his nonsense, I would not wish him on the rest of the country. What an embarrassment.
Don Pesci said…
Unfortunately he's surrounded himself with "yes" men, the downfall of most third tier politicians.

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p