If you get 80 percent through the New York Times story on Romney’s foreign policy speech, you will arrive at this sentence:
Mr. Romney went further, seeming to tie America’s decisions about whether and when to take military action to decisions made in Israel.
“The world must never see any daylight between our two nations,” he said. He left open the question of how he would handle the relationship when national interests diverge, and some Middle East experts have described that formulation as having the potential to lead the United States into war, given the bellicose statements the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has made about Iran.
Indeed. If our (erstwhile) ally Pakistan were demanding that the United States start a war with India, or if our NATO ally Greece were demanding that the U.S. start a war with Turkey, or vice versa, it would be an issue. You can bet the candidate tying America’s most vital decisions about war and peace to the whims of a foreign leader would come in for some criticism.
Does the Obama campaign mention this? Not a chance. Instead, Madeleine Albright, of “we think the price is worth it” fame, is trotted out to say that Romney’s speech was “free of substance.” Free of substance? That American decisions about war and peace will be entrusted to Bibi Netanyahu. They must be kidding.
It’s interesting that he made the statement, “between our two nations” as if he is a citizen of both and that the two are wholly owned subsidiaries of the same entity.
In order to appreciate the ownership context, all that’s necessary is to follow the money.
Nothing could make it clearer that America’s interests, as perceived by the elites who own both duopoly parties, are no longer those of Americans on Main Street, but are the province of an entirely different set of controlling interests.