Do The Ones Who Write This Stuff Read It? Obama Cannot Cope With A Bruised Ego! The Flaw In The Deal! Ounce of Prevention Worth Pound of Cure!

Do the people who write this stuff ever read it and if they do they should not be allowed to vote!

===

Obama's ego has been bruised by the manner in which Netanyhu was invited to speak before Congress.

Obama truly does not like Netanyahu, first, because he is on the right and second, because Bibi is accomplished, served in an elite Israeli unit and rejects Obama's thinking and actions.

Tragically, Obama cannot sublimate his ego even  considering the seriousness of the issue Netanyahu is addressing , ie. the existential threat to his nation from Iran and the challenge to world stability.

 Obama seems not to  fear Iran, yet believes FOX is a greater  threat as does one of your readers.

I am sure what Netanyahu has to say is going to be worth listening to but many Democrats will not be present either because they are Obama lackeys and cannot  bring themselves to put the safety of our nation and respect for the leader of a democratic ally ahead of their blind allegiance..

In time, the Democrat Party will pay a severe price for their rebuke of and inelegance toward Netanyahu and their growing distaste for Israel and , for one, cannot wait. 

===

In response to my last memo from a dear friend and fellow memo reader: "Obama got elected because he beat a Republican for the Illinois Senate who was in the middle of a very messy divorce.  Then he beat all the other Democrats, all of whom voted for the Iraq war.  There just happened to be  a financial panic at the time which eliminated McCain.  Without that strange confluence of events you wouldn't even know who Barack Obama was today."

My response: You do not lose to Republicans in Illinois regardless of their marital status because they rig elections there.."

===

Fatal flaw. (See 1 and 1a below.)

Is this the way to resolve the flaw in Obama's proposed deal? Allow Iran develop a nuclear bomb and then let's see where that takes the world.  If it results in their continued threats to use it then Israel can eliminate them from the face of the earth.

 That is not a wise option.

 Ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure.

===

Dick

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1)

The fatal flaw in the Iran deal

President Hassan Rouhani waving to the crowd during his public speech at Massoumeh holy shrine in the religious Shiite Muslim city of Qom, on February 25, 2015. (Ho -/AFP/Getty Images)

By Charles Krauthammer

A sunset clause?

The news from the nuclear talks with Iran was already troubling. Iran was being granted the “right to enrich.” It would be allowed to retain and spin thousands of centrifuges. It could continue construction of the Arak plutonium reactor. Yet so thoroughly was Iran stonewalling International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors that just last Thursday the IAEA reported its concern “about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed . . . development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”

Bad enough. Then it got worse: News leaked Monday of the elements of a “sunset clause.” President Obama had accepted the Iranian demand that any restrictions on its program be time-limited. After which, the mullahs can crank up their nuclear program at will and produce as much enriched uranium as they want.

Sanctions lifted. Restrictions gone. Nuclear development legitimized. Iran would reenter the international community, as Obama suggested in an interview in December, as “a very successful regional power.” A few years — probably around 10 — of good behavior and Iran would be home free.

The agreement thus would provide a predictable path to an Iranian bomb. Indeed, a flourishing path, with trade resumed, oil pumping and foreign investment pouring into a restored economy.

Meanwhile, Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program is subject to no restrictions at all. It’s not even part of these negotiations.

Why is Iran building them? You don’t build ICBMs in order to deliver sticks of dynamite. Their only purpose is to carry nuclear warheads. Nor does Iran need an ICBM to hit Riyadh or Tel Aviv. Intercontinental missiles are for reaching, well, other continents. North America, for example.

Such an agreement also means the end of nonproliferation. When a rogue state defies the world, continues illegal enrichment and then gets the world to bless an eventual unrestricted industrial-level enrichment program, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is dead. And regional hyperproliferation becomes inevitable as Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others seek shelter in going nuclear themselves.

Wasn’t Obama’s great international cause a nuclear-free world? Within months of his swearing-in, he went to Prague to so declare. He then led a 50-party Nuclear Security Summit, one of whose proclaimed achievements was having Canada give up some enriched uranium.

Having disarmed the Canadian threat, Obama turned to Iran. The deal now on offer to the ayatollah would confer legitimacy on the nuclearization of the most rogue of rogue regimes: radically anti-American, deeply jihadist, purveyor of terrorism from Argentina to Bulgaria, puppeteer of a Syrian regime that specializes in dropping barrel bombs on civilians. In fact, the Iranian regime just this week, at the apex of these nuclear talks, staged a spectacular attack on a replica U.S. carrier near the Strait of Hormuz.

Well, say the administration apologists, what’s your alternative? Do you want war?

It’s Obama’s usual, subtle false-choice maneuver: It’s either appeasement or war.

It’s not. True, there are no good choices, but Obama’s prospective deal is the worst possible. Not only does Iran get a clear path to the bomb but it gets sanctions lifted, all pressure removed and international legitimacy.

There is a third choice. If you are not stopping Iran’s program, don’t give away the store. Keep the pressure, keep the sanctions. Indeed, increase them. After all, previous sanctions brought Iran to its knees and to the negotiating table in the first place. And that was before the collapse of oil prices, which would now vastly magnify the economic effect of heightened sanctions.

Congress is proposing precisely that. Combined with cheap oil, it could so destabilize the Iranian economy as to threaten the clerical regime. That’s the opening. Then offer to renew negotiations for sanctions relief but from a very different starting point — no enrichment. Or, if you like, with a few token centrifuges for face-saving purposes.

And no sunset.

That’s the carrot. As for the stick, make it quietly known that the United States will not stand in the way of any threatened nation that takes things into its own hands. We leave the regional threat to the regional powers, say, Israeli bombers overflying Saudi Arabia.

Consider where we began: six U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding an end to Iranian enrichment. Consider what we are now offering: an interim arrangement ending with a sunset clause that allows the mullahs a robust, industrial-strength, internationally sanctioned nuclear program.

Such a deal makes the Cuba normalization look good and the Ukrainian cease-fires positively brilliant. We are on the cusp of an epic capitulation. History will not be kind.