===
Several months old but as true today, if not more so, than when Newt made this address.
===
Obama lies again. (See 1 below.)
And more immaturity and pissy fanny nonsense from the Obama White House. How sad that we have adolescents running the store.
Obama is more concerned about being slighted than he is the threat from ISIS and Iran.
Obama cannot love America because he only loves himself. (See 2 below.)
===
Steinitz suggests Kerry may not know all that Netanyahu and the Israelis know regarding Iran's nuclear program.
I suspect Steinitz is correct because Kerry is one of the dumbest Sec. of States we have had since Albright. Hillary was not dumb just ineffective. Nothing she said or did has proven correct. (See 3 below.)
Americans are an impatient lot. We like action - 'come on something!'
In the case of Obama and an Iranian deal, he will settle for anything and Iran's leaders know it and to make matters worse he will lie about it and Americans will believe him. (See 3a below.)
===
Today the independent FCC will do what Obama wants and intrude government further into control of the internet.
Government has become an all encompassing octopus and everything its tentacles touches it makes worse and we sit helpless as bureaucrats strip away our freedoms of choice, restrict our initiatives and cripple our independence.
If we knew our nation's history we would know our founders warned us of what is happening but 'getting and spending we lay waste our powers.' We allowed PC'ism to control our destiny in the name of fairness and equal misery.
===
Leaving for Orlando tomorrow and Blake's 1st birthday. Returning Sunday. No more memos until I return.
Have a great weekend.
===
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Obama's Chilling Iran Nuke Lie!
By Michael Goodwin
Reports that President Obama agrees Iran should be free to make a nuclear bomb in about 10 years put the lie to his repeated vow never to allow an Iranian nuke. The broken promise is the international twin to his domestic whopper that you “can keep your doctor.”
You can’t, but Iran can keep its enriched uranium, making this lie an even bigger bombshell. As in, bombs away.
It is impossible to overstate the potential catastrophe of the emerging deal. If the terms reported by the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal and others become final, it would mean the United States and leading UN powers give their blessing for the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism to have the ultimate weapon, effectively rewarding Iran for decades of criminal behavior and acts of war against America, Israel and others.
The deal also would launch a new round of nuclear proliferation among Arab states, with Saudi Arabia long promising to get a bomb if Iran does. Others fearful of Iran’s dominance are sure to follow, escalating the tit-for-tat patterns in the region into a nuclear nightmare.
In addition, an unbound Iranian nuclear industry and spreading enrichment technology make it likely that one or more of the Islamic terror groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Boko Haram and Islamic State, is likely to get the bomb. And there is no doubt they would use it.
In short, the unfolding nuclear landscape presents the whole of mankind with unprecedented peril.
The terms of the developing agreement, as explained to reporters by negotiators, vindicates concerns that Obama would surrender to Iranian demands while claiming otherwise. He caved in with a deal that envisions a decade-long phase-out of restrictions, allowing Obama to say that there will be no bomb on his watch.
In reality, that is meaningless. The American stamp of approval for a nuclear Iran instantly reshapes geopolitical strategies.
Israel faces a new era of extreme risk, simultaneously in the cross hairs of a genocidal enemy and betrayed by its longest and closest ally. The betrayal continued even yesterday, with Secretary of State John Kerry blasting critics, presumably including Benjamin Netanyahu.
“Anyone running around right now, jumping to say we don’t like the deal, or this or that, doesn’t know what the deal is,” Kerry said in Senate testimony. “There is no deal yet.”
That’s only technically accurate because Obama and Kerry are keeping the details secret. The scam recalls how the White House hid the details of ObamaCare until the bill was passed; it’s what the FCC is doing with Internet regulations.
The timing is especially suspect, with the nuclear deal moving toward finality on the eve of Netanyahu’s planned speech to Congress next week. Iran recently said the US was “desperate” for an agreement, and the reasons are obvious. Getting Iran’s signature on a document, any document, before the visit would allow Obama to take the steam out of Netanyahu’s warning by spinning the settlement as the best possible and making it seem unstoppable.
It will be — unless Congress finds a spine. The White House says Obama does not plan to send the agreement to the Senate for ratification, arguing it falls outside the definition of a treaty.
That shouldn’t fly, given the stakes to us, Israel and our Arab allies. But that all depends on whether Democrats continue to put loyalty to Obama ahead of their duty to America’s national security.
Even a handful of Dems joining with majority Republicans would be enough to reject any terms that allow Iran to get a nuke. In doing so, those senators would be enforcing the refrain that no deal is better than a bad deal.
And make no mistake — Obama has produced a very bad deal. Bad for America, and bad for the world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
Susan Rice: Netanyahu’s speech ‘destructive’
National security adviser Susan Rice denounced Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's upcoming address to a joint meeting of Congress, calling it "destructive" to the relationship between the United States and Israel.
Rice, appearing on "Charlie Rose," said that Netanyahu's decision to accept the invitation of House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) to offer critical views of a potential nuclear deal with Iran shortly before the Israeli elections has "injected a degree of partisanship, which is not only unfortunate. I think it's destructive of the fabric of the relationship." Netanyahu is scheduled to speak March 3; the Israeli elections are March 17.
"It's always been bipartisan. We need to keep it that way. We want it that way. I think Israel wants it that way. The American people want it that way. And when it becomes injected or infused with politics, that's a problem," Rice said Tuesday, using the strongest language yet from an Obama administration official regarding a visit that has rankled both sides and strained ties between the countries.
Netanyahu on Wednesday brushed off mounting criticism from Washington.
"I respect the White House and the president of the United States, but on such a fateful matter, that can determine whether or not we survive, I must do everything to prevent such a great danger for Israel," Netanyahu said in a speech before members of his Likud Party on Wednesday.
Netanyahu told his audience the Obama administration and the other world leaders negotiating with Iran no longer are willing to press the Islamic republic to surrender its nuclear ambitions.
"From the agreement that is forming it appears that they have given up on that commitment and are accepting that Iran will gradually, within a few years, develop capabilities to produce material for many nuclear weapons. They might accept this, but I am not willing to accept this," Netanyahu said.
When asked if she believes that Netanyahu is coming to the United States to influence the Israeli election, Rice said that she is "not going to ascribe motives to the prime minister."
"We want the relationship between the United States and Israel to be unquestionably strong, immutable, regardless of political seasons in either country, regardless of which party may be in charge in either country. We've worked very hard to have that, and we will work very hard to maintain that," she said.
President Obama has said that he will not meet with Netanyahu while he is in Washington, and Vice President Biden will be traveling abroad. High-ranking Democrats have said they will boycott the speech. Netanyahu has declined a meeting with Democratic lawmakers, writing in a letter that it "could compound the misperception of partisanship regarding my upcoming visit."
Obama has said that he would veto a bipartisan bill that would impose additional sanctions on Iran. The move, Obama said, would undermine talks over the nation's nuclear program and risk setting up a military confrontation.
Netanyahu wrote in a series of tweets and in a statement earlier this month that he wants to address Congress because it may have "an important role" in an Iranian nuclear deal.
Rice touched on a number of other issues in the wide-ranging interview. When asked if the United States should lift sanctions on Iran, Rice said the Iranians will not be able to "convince anybody on day one" that they have stopped enriching uranium. Instead, they will have to prove over time that they are holding up their end of a deal. Rice said that when the interim deal was entered into last year, there were questions over whether the Iranians would comply.
"They have enabled us to validate that they have, in fact, taken all the steps that they committed to take and that they're in full compliance. That model will need to be sustained in any comprehensive agreement," she said.
The United States and allies fear that Iran's uranium enrichment program could eventually lead to development of nuclear weapons. Iran says it only seeks to make nuclear fuel for energy-producing reactors and medical applications.
When asked on "Charlie Rose" if she takes Russian President Vladimir Putin's word that he wants fighting to end in Ukraine, Rice said, "How dumb do I look? No. In all seriousness, no. One cannot accept Vladimir Putin at his word because his actions have belied his words repeatedly, particularly in the context of Ukraine."
Appearing on ABC's "The View" Wednesday, Rice said the Islamic State has "completely bastardized the religion" of Islam, are "terrorists" and are "using violence for completely unacceptable ends."
Rice was asked how she handles the stress of her job and whether she sleeps.
"I actually sleep quite well," she said, adding that she exercises and has the support of family and friends, including two young children who "keep me honest."
William Booth contributed reporting from Jerusalem.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
Israel’s Minister of Strategic Affairs Yuval Steinitz responded on Wednesday to criticism that US Secretary of State John Kerry had apparently directed at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over his stance on how to address the Iranian nuclear threat, Israel’s NRG reported.
3)
Senior Israeli Minister Responds to Kerry’s Criticism of Netanyahu: ‘He Might Not Know What We Know’
Israel’s Minister of Strategic Affairs Yuval Steinitz responded on Wednesday to criticism that US Secretary of State John Kerry had apparently directed at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over his stance on how to address the Iranian nuclear threat, Israel’s NRG reported.
Steinitz, a key Netanyahu loyalist, said, “[Kerry] might not know everything we know,” referring to Kerry’s implication on Tuesday that being as Israel is not involved in the minutiae of the upcoming agreement with Tehran about its nuclear program,it therefore cannot comment on the nature of the agreement’s outcome.
Steinitz’ remarks followed comments made by Secretary Kerry in a hearing before the United States House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, where he argued that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s opposition to the agreement may be wrong.
Kerry claimed that despite the fact that Netanyahu, who is slated to address Congress next week, had previously expressed opposition to the Interim Agreement with Tehran, he later decided to support it after it was was clear that it succeeded in delaying Iran’s nuclear program.
Speaking at a conference of the research center “Mituim,” dealing with the question of Israel’s international isolation, Steinitz said that, “We know all that we need to know, and we have an excellent picture of the negotiations.” He said that Israel is in close contact with French negotiators who are in touch with Iran’s representatives and are well-versed in the content of the talks currently taking place between the parties. He added that the information that has reached Jerusalem so far is the cause for Israel’s concern, and that despite the US-Israel friendship – which is indeed a strategic asset – “when it comes to the security of the State, we are also ready to fight.”
On Netanyahu’s upcoming trip to the United States, Steinitz said that, “this is a critical issue for our existence, and so we need to make every effort to prevent the agreement, or at least ensure further modifications, improvements and conditions in order to prevent an even worse agreement.” When it comes to the possibility of a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Steinitz noted that “all options are on the table.”
3a)Iran: A Bad Deal Is (Much) Worse than No Deal
The Obama administration’s negotiations over nuclear matters are a disaster.
The administration’s defenders are vigorously rebutting allegations that President Obama has made too many concessions in the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. Their defense is a simple statement of fact: There is no agreement yet, so how can the critics be right? They assert that we must wait until the outcome is agreed upon before we can assess it. The concern, however, is both bipartisan and international — with many Democrats voicing alarm and with Israel and the Arab states alike frustrated that a seemingly desperate administration has placed Iran’s interests above those of its allies.
While Obama’s defenders are technically accurate in that Iran has not yet agreed to what has been placed on the negotiating table, press reports citing U.S. officials have provided information on the status of all key issues under consideration and the likely provisions of an agreement, if Tehran is ultimately able to take yes for an answer. Of course, if current negotiating trends continue, the terms could get even worse than described below.
They certainly won’t get better.
The concessions already acknowledged by U.S. officials include:
• There will be no limits on Iran’s ballistic-missile force, the presumed delivery means for its nuclear weapons. The U.S. position of seeking limits on the missile force was abandoned when the Supreme Leader objected.
• There will be no resolution of Iran’s weaponization activities — described as “very alarming” by the Obama White House in November 2011 — before an agreement is reached. Iran is likely to promise once again to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency in its investigation, but no serious observer would expect anything other than continued obstructionism by Iran. At one point, a resolution of weaponization activities was a precondition for an agreement. Now it is being treated as an implementation issue.
• Verification will likely be based primarily on Iran’s current safeguards agreement and a promise to implement the Additional Protocol — a promise Iran first made over a decade ago. Even if the Additional Protocol is observed, inspections will be by “managed access” based on Iran’s cooperation and good will. At one point, the U.S. insisted that effective verification required full access to facilities and people. Now, the U.S. and its P5+1 negotiating partners have settled for far less. There will be no unfettered inspections of suspected covert facilities such as the Lavizan-3 site revealed by the National Council of Resistance of Iran on Tuesday.
• The Arak heavy-water reactor will likely be modified in some fashion but not in any fundamental way that would prevent Iran from using it to produce plutonium for weapons. The initial U.S. position was that the reactor must be dismantled.
• The economic sanctions that were disrupting the Iranian economy will be lifted in a shorter period than the restrictions on the country’s nuclear program. In fact, Tehran has already received billions of dollars of sanctions relief for continuing the negotiations and observing several easily reversible constraints.
• The restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will reportedly be phased out after ten years, a period shorter than the time it has taken to negotiate the agreement. The original U.S. position was that restrictions would be permanent.
• And most important, Iran will be allowed to operate thousands of centrifuges to enrich uranium and to pursue research and development of more advanced models that are many times more efficient. The original U.S. position — backed by multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding complete suspension of all enrichment activities — was “zero enrichment” and “zero centrifuges.” Under President Obama, zero was abandoned as “unrealistic,” and the number of permitted centrifuges moved up in successive proposals from 1,000 to 4,500 to 6,000, and perhaps more. Iran has rejected each offer as insufficient, only to be rewarded with a better one.
The greatest concession in the negotiations has been the abandonment of the original U.S. goal of preventing Iran from having a nuclear-weapons capability. This was a consistent and firm position of the Bush administration. It was also the position of the Obama administration until November 2013, when it was given up to secure Iran’s consent to the Joint Plan of Action. Soon after that, Secretary of State Kerry described the new U.S. goal as taking Iran’s “breakout time” from two months to six to twelve months — as if we would know when the clock began, and as if we could do something effective to stop the breakout within that timeframe. The reality is that we have traded permanent concessions for temporary restrictions that will leave Iran as a threshold nuclear state able to build a nuclear weapon whenever it decides to do so. When the deal ends, Iran can openly go to the brink of nuclear weapons with the blessing of the international community.
The Obama administration will almost certainly try to portray its nuclear deal with Iran as better than no deal, and will accuse those who oppose the agreement as choosing war over peace. Nothing could be further from the truth. A bad deal is far worse than no deal. A bad deal leaves Iran with a nuclear-weapons capability, which would be far more destabilizing than a return to tough sanctions. A bad deal undermines the IAEA’s attempts to get to the bottom of Iran’s covert weapons work. A bad deal undermines the Nonproliferation Treaty, leading to additional dangers around the world. A bad deal is a step toward conflict and more nuclear proliferation in a region of vital U.S. interest.
Preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear-weapons capability is the surest way to prevent war and preserve peace. To that end, the negotiators should return to the table insisting upon limits that will permanently block Iran’s paths to nuclear weapons and resolve the IAEA’s concerns about Tehran’s nuclear-weapons work as a condition of an agreement. The real choice is not between the administration’s deal and war, but between preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and capitulation.
— Robert Joseph is senior scholar at the National Institute for Public Policy and a former undersecretary of state for arms control and international security. William Tobey is a senior fellow at the Belfer Center at Harvard University and a former deputy administrator for nuclear nonproliferation at the National Nuclear Security Administration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment