Mark R. Levin@marklevinshow
WHAT TO THINK OF THE MOU AND MORE ...
I start from the proposition that this is among the worst places to have a reasoned and substantive discussion. It is one of the most uncivil places in our civil society. Not because of the platform itself, but because unbridled freedom, without some basic guiderails, attracts the good, the bad, and the ugly from all corners of the world, where the bad and the ugly are able to predominate. It's a form of hit-and-run anarchy. It's more French Revolution than American Revolution. From a governing perspective, that is why our Framers established a republic and not a pure democracy.
Therefore, when it comes to discussing the MOU, there are some very good and thoughtful posts, including some I disagree with, but too much that has little to do with the substance of the MOU. I do not confuse legitimate criticism, even strongly worded criticism, with some of the vile bigotry and disinformation campaigns here, of which there is way too much. And the comment sections on many posts are of a kind that are truly hideous, and not all of it is from foreign bots. It is what it is.
Further prefacing my thoughts on the MOU, I understand that the Democrat Party media and Democrat politicians, like the Woke Right and others, are less interested in the substance of the MOU and legitimate engagement than uninhibited political exploitation, opportunism, and ambition. The intent by some of these actors is to squelch open debate not promote it. As a practical matter, others undoubtedly feel somewhat hemmed in by concerns over friendships, alliances, social circumstances, connections in the administration, etc. Again, it is what it is.
Understanding all of this, I urge those with serious and substantive opinions to keep at it. Don't be intimidated by any of it.
I want to address some of the basics about the MOU from my perspective. I'll do so in parts, given the nature of the platform:
1. The roll out was unhelpful. I am not sure why the MOU was not released when signed, with the appropriate level of explanation and engagement with the public, but the result was too much debate about the debate and admonishment of those commenting on available public information, including from legitimate media sources and administration leaks, not to mention the vice president's ubiquitous public appearances. As it turns out, much of what was discussed by serious people was fairly accurate. And since the MOU would eventually be released anyway, it was a mistake to start with the bravado before its release.
2. I start from the premise that there is a stubborn disinterest, by too many officials and media commentators, in truly understanding the nature of this enemy, its political-theocratic ideology, its history of negotiating techniques and objectives, and decades of manipulation of Western leaders and diplomats, which has infected every diplomatic engagement and outcome with it, in small ways and large, for nearly half a century. There is an abundance of publicly available information, including books, essays, speeches, and the like, explaining in detail the cause, revolution, and mindset of this enemy -- produced and circulated by the enemy itself as well as those who have studied its behavior in earnest. The enemy repeatedly defines itself. But beyond the usual sloganeering in the media about how bad the enemy is, I hear few explanations to the public with any depth.
I draw at least three conclusions from this (I'm sure more will come to mind as the day goes on): a) too few understand precisely what we are dealing with, and that is/was by choice; b) it is thought to be, or may well be, too difficult politically to, in the end, effectively tackle what is an existential threat once it is fully understood; c). few of those who do see clearly what is ahead understand what Winston Churchill meant by his wilderness years and choose to avoid it. This goes to a bigger issue of much greater concern: Do we, as a people, have the will to destroy an enemy that exists to annihilate us and do our politicians and diplomats simply reflect this. Polling suggests we do not and most of our ruling class lives and dies by polling.
3. Before commenting directly on the MOU, context here is critical. When President Trump decided to go to war with the Iranian regime, it was a courageous decision by every measure. He has known and made clear for decades that Iran poses a grave threat to our country and criticized the failure of presidents to deal with it. Indeed, I first met President Trump in September 2015 at a rally of the Tea Party Patriots on the steps of the Capitol Building. Several of us spoke that day to a crowd of many thousands against the Obama nuclear deal and urged Congress to defeat it. The most eloquent and inspiring speech was delivered by Donald Trump. He made the moral and national security case for defeating the Iranian regime and against Obama's sellout. He knew intuitively and by watching what the Iranian regime was doing and had done that it must be denied nuclear weapons no matter the cost. Despite the knowingly false allegations of very evil propagandists, the president has never wavered from this position and was not convinced or pulled dragging and kicking by Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, or "the Jews" to fight this war.
MORE TO COME ...
