In today’s show, we will look at an array of recent stories and invite your calls and emails.   The show is broadcast on WPKN 89.5 FM from Bridgeport, Connecticut and streams live at www.wpkn.org.  We’ll announce the call-in number at the beginning of the show and you can email us before or during the show at ken@mdrtalk.org.

In our episode for the War Report, we talked with Marchand about the bombings in Georgia and India that took place yesterday. They appear to have been targeting Israeli diplomats and have been blamed on Iran and Hizbollah, though there are some apparent flaws in the stories that raise questions.

In the first segment we talk about Ron Paul and the recent election news. We spend a bit talking about Mitt Romney and his qualifications as a hedge fund manager and how that relates to the economy. We break down the CNN exit polls from Florida and Nevada to see what they say about the mindset of republican voters and how they contradict the polls for the general election. In the second segment we are joined by our military affairs commentator Marchand to discuss Iran, Syria, Russia, China and the potential for a 3rd world war brewing in the middle east.

Both Newt and Mitt agree with each other and yet Rep. Ron Paul wasn’t even consulted to weigh in on the topic even though everyone knows he would have had an opposing view. Shouldn’t it be considered good debate moderation to allow opposing views to be heard and solicited in the spirit of actual debate of controversial issues?

The poor guy who asked the question was treated very callously and must have felt like he was a criminal the way he was treated. Romney almost appeared offended by the question even being asked. Yet he asked a question about a very complex and multi-faceted issue. Unfortunately for everyone though, the answer he was given was quite un-complex and one dimensional. He was essentially told that neither candidate would support peace with Palestine unless the Palestinians make more concessions and stop fighting back. This is easy for chicken-hawks like Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney to say since they’ve never lived in ghettos without access to medicine, jobs, food and freedom of travel. The Israeli’s are after all the ones who are continuing to build settlements in Palestinian territory in blatant disregard to all U.N. rulings and pleas by outside parties attempting to help negotiate peace. Ever seen all the videos of the Israeli army guarding guarding chainsaw operators as they cut down Palestinian olive trees on private property?

The Israelis encroach on private property day after day, pushing the Palestinians into a small corner and act indignant when they are attacked, either with gun or something as simple as rocks. Clearly, there cannot be peace as long as some Palestinian leaders say things like they want the eradication of Israelis and  the Palestinians MUST act and reject this kind of speech because it only does them a disservice by promoting violence and portraying them as aggressors.

Saying that we can’t have peace until the Palestinians stop fighting back is like like blaming someone who is being smothered with a pillow for flailing their arms. “Not until this person stops flailing their arms while we have peace! Of course, he will be dead, but we will have peace nonetheless.” The Palestinians are being occupied, just like the Afghans and Iraqis. What is the constant theme amongst occupations? Insurgency. Until we get this point, we won’t understand foreign policy and won’t be fit to be called the “leaders of the free world”. This is like having a tax cheat as our secretary of the treasury. Oh wait, we already have that.

This method has been used ad nauseam over the past 60 years and has done nothing but cause an endless cycle of violence and destruction. It has been used in South American, Asia, Africa and in the Middle East over and over again, and yet we are still having the same conversation. Ron Paul is the only candidate that actually wants to try something else and yet he is counted as someone outside the mainstream whose foreign policy is a weakness. Are we to deduce from that logic that using the same failed policies of the past 60 years is supposed to represent strength? This would be akin to attempting to tear down a brick wall by using one’s forehead because it would prove a great feat of strength. It sure would, but since it’s impossible you might as well just try something more appropriate. Instead of representing strength, it instead represents arrogance and a narrow view of history. Ron Paul should challenge Santorum to show examples of where CIA sponsored regime changes have lead to continued prosperity over decades. Our policies in Iraq and Iran have given us our current quagmire by overthrowing Iran’s democratically elected government in 1953. Kermit Roosevelt led operation Ajax, a CIA coup to reinstate the Shah and re-privatize the oil industry so that American and British oil companies could reap huge profits. American policy instated Saddam Hussein and yet it was seen as a noble mission to free Iraqis from his iron grip. Inversely, the Soviet Union fell not because of a war or a bloody revolution but because of economic reasons. They just couldn’t afford  it anymore. Even China, while still completely authoritarian, has had to allow more freedom in their economy in order to prevent a collapse and has profited greatly from trading with the USA. There are many other problems with that scenario, too many for the scope of this article, but I raise it as an example because there is an inlet made in China where the citizens have been exposed to outside communication and know how exploited they are. It is really only a matter of time before they take a significant portion of the power back into the hands of the people.

Rick Santorum’s constant belaboring of his fear of Islamic extremists is almost comically reminiscent of the crusades. Or, it would be comical if it weren’t so frightening. His irrational fear of islam is something he’s going to have to come to terms with eventually, given that muslims make up roughly 20% of the entire world’s population. I think Santorum would be just as happy to blow off the entire eastern hemisphere and send it hurtling towards the sun. I’m sure in his mind, losing the tip of Alaska is a small price to pay. Israel, of course, can have Newt Gingrich’s moon colony and be our 51st state.

I am not a muslim, but I am with Ron Paul in my support for all people’s right to religion and self expression. There is no reason that the United States cannot stand as a nation where all people worship as they wish as long as they respect our laws, constitution and bill of rights. A non-interventionist foreign policy, something we haven’t practiced in many, many years would be not only a boon for our economy but it would be a boon for our liberties and foreign relations. People in other countries would be heartened to emulate us by adopting our constitution because of the example we would set. They would see that it’s possible for people to live side by side and worship in the way they wish without having to be ruled by an oppressive dictator who restricts individual liberties. Rick Santorum and people like him, are so blinded by their personal beliefs that they cannot even see the lessons that history has taught us. That peace cannot be and result of force. That someone has to first offer an apology and a hand of friendship before it can be accepted. He has to be willing to see that the attacks of 9/11, as dubious and full of unanswered questions as they are, were not an unprovoked frontal assault on our freedoms like that of a comic book villain hell bent on causing mischief for its own sake.

We must first start with a clean slate that treats everyone fairly and Ron Paul has a pretty good plan. No foreign aid for anyone, no undermining elections, no US sponsored regime changes, free trade with everyone, in short: no favoritism. Favoring one over another, either militarily or economically is essentially a subversive act of war. Rick Santorum thinks that this is our divine right as Americans to shape the world as we see fit and anyone who disagrees is either naive or a coward. But to undermine another country’s sovereignty because our corporations demand higher profits and not expect blowback is the most naive position possible. It’s hard to really put a finger on what Santorum believes since he only ever gets skin deep with his well rehearsed rhetoric, but it sounds like he believes he has the right to poke someone in the eye and then be insulted that they have the insolence to be angry about it.