"How do you look in a skirt? I'm high on Carly.....but you might do. As you are needing votes, count me in. m------"
"I already have my “Dick for President” campaign button from your retirement party. I was saving it for just this occasion! S-----" (My associate threw a party for me when I turned 65 and the theme was Dick for President.)
"I am 82 too but not running for president, but you can count on me to vote for YOU. Amen. E-----"
"When do I get the socks?! J----" (I buy my friend GW socks for his birthday.)
"If you ran I would vote for you. Though we do not agree on all things, you are wise and have strong character. Two very important traits for a leader. P------"
"To the Sage of Savannah, the voice of the loyal opposition. Hopefully soon the spokesperson for the majority. Of course. Keep up the good works. J--"
"You go, sir! I'm on your side, on your team. You beat the heck out of anything I've seen out there thus far.
S------"
"You look very presidential---for 82 years old!!!!- M------" (I responded, looks are deceiving.)
"Dick and Lynn,
While Dick's running for US President is a noble thought, who would write the objective, unbiased
daily commentaries about "The Prez" and the world affairs? In that Lynn has exercised the diplomacy
of several saints saint through the years, and like it or not, a woman candidate who could trump(the verb)
Trump (the noun) with you as financial advisor could be quite attractive duo! Abby could list the
White House on the MLS and down size for a location lesser known or relocate home base to Savannah so the
South can rise again! Such possibilities! Love, S-----" (From a relative.)
"Berkowitz, he never quits, until the job is done.
And when it’s done, just stick around,
The party will be fun.
He’ll grab each challenge by its throat,
That’s why he gets my vote.
( You can send me the standard PR consulting fee from (I’m sure) your mounting campaign chest) H-----"
Your ground swell of support is definitely an inspiration for even a radical liberal!! Despite your sometime standing to the right of Attila the Hun I must open my checkbook and support your cause for sanity in government. My only problem, being born in Mississippi, is does your Alabama birth certificate qualify as being born in the USA. I can see the "birthers" now questioning the validity! Best wishes B----
"If you could get Rubio to be your VP, you can run the table in Florida! In Any case Carole has agreed to switch from Trump and throw all her supporters to you!! Shame you can't be in the debate tonight R------"
"Richard, how we wish you would run. What do you think of the debacle with our Prime Minister being ousted. A huge mistake. I for one approved of Tony Abbott.
We are stlll on the Bear hunt, freezing our butts off in northern Canada. Reward is lots of photos of Polar Bears......A Mishigas!!!! xxxxxxE-----" ( I responded the only Polar Bears left have prickly heat rashes.)
"Dick, I've always wanted to be a part of a presidential campaign. I'm at your disposal B----"
"I would be happy to support you but I am going to offer the King of Thailand. He was born in Mass General Hosp and therefore is native born. We need an authentic King to run this country. The imperial presidency has not worked. G-----"
"Dick, You can count on our support and we will gladly contribute $4.00 with no strings attached! B------ & A---"
"You have my whole-hearted support! I'll even go door-to-door with you!!! With best regards,C===="
As for The Donald:
He is not an authentic conservative but he is not running as a conservative. He is running as a successful wealthy business man who has solutions (Make America Great Again) and in that regard he is authentic and it seems no one cares about the rest because his message of victory resonates. We have become a people downed by the last 6 years and by a president who has proven a disaster by any objective measure. Obama promised hope and gave us change we did not expect and/or want. Trump offers to restore us to the place from which Obama found us and most long to return to so The Donald has been able to escape severe scrutiny.
In the final analysis, there is much that The Donald offers that appeals but until such time as he fleshes out some of the specifics behind his braggadocio the real question we all have to ask ourselves is he, like Obama, just another smoke and mirror fraud. Perhaps tonight will provide more answers.
The biggest tragedy of all is there are several other candidates who are, avowedly, qualified, are not smoke and mirror types. Lamentably, they have been brushed aside because the media and press dolts would rather focus on glitz, star power and the inane. Woe is us. The spill over effect on The Republican Party could prove catastrophic, particularly because prospects of victory appear their's for the taking.
Stay tuned!
===
No debate on the most important "treaty" of our time because Demwits chose to prevent same so their "majestic king" would not have to veto same.
The Iran Deal is a Trojan Horse for which Israel will be billed. (See 1 and 1a below.)
Think about this: http://www.youtube.com/embed/6-3X5hIFXYU
===
Some bad humor: After 100 years lying on the sea bed, Irish divers were amazed to find that the Titanic?s swimming pool was still full!
===
ENJOY THE DEBATES!
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
The Iran deal bait-and-switch
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
The Boston Globe
BARACK OBAMA has never made a secret of his determination to reach a deal with Iran regarding its nuclear program. Very early in his run for the White House, he announced that he was prepared to meet, without preconditions, with the rulers of Iran and other hostile regimes. "I think it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them," he said during a 2007 debate with Hillary Clinton. As president, Obama's outreach to Tehran began on Day 1. "We will extend a hand," he promised in his inaugural address, "if you are willing to unclench your fist." By 2011, he had dispatched then-Senator John Kerry to open a secret dialogue with Iran.
It has long been clear that Obama envisions a grand nuclear bargain with Iran as a cornerstone of his presidential legacy. "It's my name on this," he says. "I have a personal interest in locking this down."
But the terms of that bargain haven't been so clear. Far from being "locked down," the goals and guarantees of the Iran nuclear deal have been a moving target. In one critical area after another, the nuclear accord so enticingly advertised doesn't resemble the nuclear accord actually on the table. When unscrupulous merchants do that, it's called bait-and-switch. The seller may clinch the sale, but customers resent being conned.
Similarly, while Obama's nuclear deal will almost certainly survive a congressional vote of disapproval, public skepticism runs deep. A Pew Research poll released Tuesday found just 21 percent support for the agreement. Gallup reports only one in three Americans approve Obama's handling of US policy toward Iran. That's not typical — the public usually backs presidents on arms-control agreements. But voters don't like being conned any more than shoppers do.
How has the administration engaged in bait-and-switch on the Iran deal? Here are five ways.
Inspections . The White House claimed any agreement with Iran would supply international weapons inspectors with the ultimate all-access pass — round-the-clock authority to enter any suspected nuclear site. In a CNN interview in April, Obama's deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, confirmed that "under this deal, you will have anywhere/anytime, 24/7 access as it relates to the nuclear facilities that Iran has." When a leading Iranian general scoffed at the suggestion that foreigners would be permitted to investigate possible nuclear activity at Iranian military sites, the Obama administration pushed back. "We expect to have anywhere/anytime access," Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz reiterated bluntly.
But in the final accord, "anywhere/anytime" is nowhere to be found. The administration claimed it had never existed. (Switch!) "We never sought in this negotiation the capacity for so-called anytime/anywhere," Rhodes told CNN's Erin Burnett. Secretary of State Kerry went even further. "There's no such thing in arms control as anytime/anywhere," he insisted. "This is a term that, honestly, I never heard."
Sanctions snap back . The administration acknowledged that stiff economic sanctions had brought the Iranians to the negotiating table. It repeatedly assured skeptics that sanctions would automatically "snap back" into effect if Iran violated any terms of the nuclear accord. "The UN sanctions that initially brought Iran to the table can and will snap right back into place," Kerry told reporters in Vienna. That echoed what his boss had been saying all along. "We can crank that dial back up," Obama told an interviewer in 2013. "We don't have to trust them."
Yet now they sell the deal as a last chance to salvage some Iranian compliance from a sanctions regime that is crumbling anyway. (Switch!) Our allies "certainly are not going to agree to enforce existing sanctions for another 5, 10, 15 years," Obama said in his American University speech last month. And in any case, "sanctions alone are not going to force Iran to completely dismantle all vestiges of its nuclear infrastructure." Snap back? That was merely bait.
Right to enrich . A deal with Iran absolutely would not invest the Islamic Republic with a right to enrich uranium, the administration firmly asserted. "No — there is no right to enrich," Kerry declared. "In the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it's very, very clear that there is no right to enrich." This was a key point, since Iran insisted not only that it did have a right to enrich uranium, but that the West must acknowledge that right, or there would be no deal.
Before long, however, Kerry had changed his tune. "The NPT is silent on the issue," he conceded in testimony before a House committee. The final deal authorizes Iran to operate 6,000 centrifuges and to continue enriching uranium. "We understood that any final deal was going to involve some domestic enrichment capability," a senior administration official told The Wall Street Journal in April. "We always anticipated that." (Switch!)
Military option . Over and over and over, Obama proclaimed that he meant to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and that all options — including military attack — were "on the table." But that assurance has gone down the memory hole. (Switch!) As he lobbied for the nuclear deal that was signed in Vienna, his message was reversed. A military option is not on the table and will not eliminate an Iranian nuclear threat, Obama told Israeli TV. "A military solution will not fix it. Even if the United States participates, it would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program but it will not eliminate it."
Deal or no deal . But perhaps the most egregious bait-and-switch of all involves the standard by which any accord with a deadly regime like Tehran's should be assessed. From President Obama on down, administration officials used to affirm constantly that "no deal is better than a bad deal."
They were right. And the deal they produced is indeed a bad deal. It does not dismantle Iran's nuclear program, nor constrain its murderous ambitions, nor lessen its influence. It will not enhance the security of America and its allies, nor make the world more peaceful.
Yet the president and his allies have abandoned their old standard. Their case for this bad agreement comes down to: It could be worse. It may be flawed and far from what was promised, but any deal with Iran is better than no deal. Most Americans, and most members of Congress, don't agree. And the bait-and-switch that was used to clinch this sale is going to leave a bad taste in a lot of mouths for a long time to come.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).
1a)
|
| There may be a threatening quid pro quo on the horizon for Israel, namely that the truly consequential armaments it needs to defend itself will be withheld unless Israel concedes to a Palestinian state. There has been an unexamined consensus in Congress that Israel will automatically be given a dramatic increase in both the quantity and quality of military aid to make up for the dangers the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has created for it. Those dangers include a strengthened Hamas and Hezbollah, the increasing presence of more dangerous conventional missiles and the looming threat of an Iranian nuclear-tipped missile directed toward the Jewish state. There is no doubt more aid is forthcoming, if for no other reason than to give cover to Democratic members of Congress who will vote with the president on the deal, but will soon be seeking campaign donations from concerned pro-Israel political donors. But what is not appreciated is that there will likely be a huge price Israel will be asked to pay to receive what it needs to survive. Pundits following the Iran deal have misunderstood what the deal is really about. Almost everyone has been focused on the nuclear weapons aspect of the deal, but that is not primarily what this agreement (JCPOA) is all about. If it were, we would have negotiated a much better deal. This deal is just the first step in President Barack Obama’s vision for creating a new Middle East. It began with Iranian rapprochement, but it will not end until a Palestinian state is created, a passionately held desire of the president, his advisors and his progressive supporters. The president and his allies, for example J Street, still believe that the Israeli- Palestinian conflict is the Middle East’s primary problem. Israel to them is the linchpin, and Israel remains to its critics the intransigent and immoral party in the dispute. There is little doubt that resolving the conflict in some way that secures Israel would have positive consequences. But to focus attention here is to miss the point that almost all of the problems of the Middle East, from Islamic State (IS) to the Sunni- Shi’ite divide, have nothing to do with Israel, except for Israel’s role as a convenient scapegoat. For all of the administration’s condemnations of the Bush administration agenda – trying to bring democracy to the region with American hubris and exceptionalism – this president’s plan is in actuality much more ambitious: to transform the region with an American progressive footprint. The more the president protests that this deal is just about nuclear weapons, the less you should believe it. You just have to look at the dramatic concessions made on conventional and ballistic missiles. The Iran deal is less about nuclear weapons and more about strengthening Shi’ite Iran as a counterweight to balance the power of the Sunni Gulf states before moving on to solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the same progressive footprint. If the president thinks his pivot to Iran reassures the other regional players, he is dangerously mistaken. The half a trillion dollars in money freed up with sanctions relief over the next five years will ignite the Sunni-Shi’ite world, not quiet it. American aid to the Sunni world in turn is simply kerosene being thrown in the Sunni-Shi’ite fire, with American soldiers likely to end up being killed as a result. The president’s wishful thinking is that Iran will work with the US against IS, help resolve the genocidal Syrian civil war, and with billions in economic relief choose butter over guns to revitalize its domestic economy, rather than beef up its military and that of its proxies. Good luck with that. To the president, this deal is not so much about nuclear weapons. It’s about the president’s outreach to the Muslim people as articulated in both his Cairo speech of 2009 and in other statements. So after Congress fails to override the president’s veto, he will turn to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is directly related to the Iran deal as part of an overall strategic vision. It will next be about pressuring Israel to accept a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines, which until the Obama administration was the Palestinian starting point for negotiations. The Israeli view is secure and defensible borders. The American stick to Israel will be the threat to abstain from vetoing an expected French proposal in the UN Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state. The carrot is the advanced military aid Israel needs in response to the concessions the JCPOA created. For the real consequential military “goodies” that Israel needs, there will be a quid pro quo: bend to our vision of resolving the conflict or pay the price. The author is the director of MEPIN™ (Middle East Political and Information Network™), and a regular contributor to The Jerusalem Post. MEPIN™ is a Middle East research analysis read by members of Congress, their foreign policy advisors, members of the Knesset, journalists and organizational leaders. He regularly briefs members of Congress on issues related to the Middle East. |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment