Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Foreign Policy, Iran, Middle East, National Security, Politics, Progressivism, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: A Nuclear Iran, John Kerry, Nuclear Negotiations
Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor at The Washington Post asked “Can President Obama sell an Iran deal at home?’
If his negotiators strike an agreement next month, we already know that it will be far from ideal: Rather than eradicating Iran’s nuclear-weapons potential, as once was hoped, a pact would seek to control Iran’s activities for some limited number of years.
Such a deal might be defensible on the grounds that it is better than any alternative, given that most experts believe a military “solution” would be at best temporary and possibly counterproductive.
But making that kind of lesser-evil defense would be challenging in any circumstances. Three conditions will make it particularly hard for Obama to persuade Congress and the nation to accept his assurances in this case: the suspicious, poisonous partisanship of the moment here, with Israeli politics mixed in; worries that he wants a deal too much; and the record of his past assurances.
Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be anything in any proposed “deal” that would control Iran’s activities for any significant period whatsoever. Straw Man. What experts believe that a military “solution”would be counterproductive? The scare quotes around solution are probably deserved. Blame all on partisanship? Sorry, Republicans are not in doubt of Obama and Kerry as negotiators because of their party preferences, but because from the past history with the mullahs of Iran, we know that you cannot believe anything they say, only consider the evidence of what they do.
To give Mr. Hiatt credit, he goes through, gently, a list of Obama’s “unfulfilled assurances” that are “less than a case of Nixonian deception than a product of wishful thinking and stubborn adherence to policies after they have faded. But before anyone can suggest that he is not following the party line,He hastens to include successes like the killing of Osama bin Laden and a “potentially groundbreaking” agreement with China on global warming. That one is utterly meaningless. There is not much anyone can say in favor of the negotiations with Iran.
Iran is being granted the “right to enrich.” It will be allowed to retain and spin thousands more centrifuges. It could continue construction of the Arak plutonium reactor.Obama has accepted Iran’s demand that any restrictions on their program remain time-limited. Assuming that they would pay any attention to time limits anyway.
Did you know that Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program is subject to no restrictions at all? It is not a part of the negotiations. So why do you suppose Iran is building intercontinental ballistic missiles anyway? Does that question not trouble either Mr Kerry or Mr, Obama? The key word there is “intercontinental.”
Iran cannot be trusted at any time, or for any reason.
The sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table, but inexplicably Obama lifter them as soon as Iran demanded it. He’s really not much good at negotiating much of anything is he. That was before oil prices collapsed, which would heighten the effect of sanctions. Iran has plenty of oil for their own energy needs, less you think they are pursuing the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
They keep saying that Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s “new, more moderate president”, but have offered no evidence that he is more moderate, except that he smiles more than his predecessor. He said “Let anyone make his own reading, but this right is clearly stated in the text of the agreement that Iran can continue its enrichment, and I announce to our people that our enrichment activities will continue as before.” Kerry countered that “nothing is agreed on until everything is agreed on.”
An Iranian dissident group known for exposing key aspects of Iran’s secret nuclear work claims it now has evidence of “an active and secret parallel nuclear program” operated by Tehran. John Kerry said ‘We know about that.’
At the core of the Obama policy is an ideological aversion to American power. there’s some belief that everyone is reasonable and wants the same things.
“Obama’s approach to the world is predicated first and foremost on his bedrock intention to be a “transformational” president. The transformation is largely domestic—hence his preoccupation with the Affordable Care Act, which remakes a rather large swath of the American economy. Abroad and in aid of the main focus on his domestic agenda (‘nation-building at home”), the president’s overwhelming objective has been to keep international affairs at bay. But when world events do inevitably impose themselves, Obama is no less confident of his unique ability to exert a transformational impact.”
Is the “transformational impact” of this self-infatuated narcissist going to be a large hole in the United States where the nation’s capitol used to be?
Here’s some of the essential reading:
Obama’s Secret Iran Strategy by Michael Doran
What the President Thinks He’s Doing by Elliott Abrams
The Obama Doctrine by Eric Edelman
The Reform Delusion by Reuel Marc Gerecht
Now we know who to believe on Iran by David Horovitz
There’s Nothing Unpatriotic About Challenging Obama on Iran by David Harsanyi
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Islam, Middle East | Tags: Bashar Assad, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Obama, Syria
In Syria, the Assad regime made a fateful decision this week. They used their army —even including tanks —to kill civilians protesting peacefully. Bashar Assad made the decision that it was better to kill hundreds of unarmed Syrian citizens than to risk the fall of his regime. This is the man whom Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton thought was a peaceful reformer. As Elliott Abrams says:
In Syria and Lebanon, there is confusion about the American position. Many believe we are Assad well-wishers, and certainly Obama’s policy for 2009 and 2010 lent credence to that view. Now, the administration is coy: It talks of new sanctions but does not impose them yet. It talks of U.N. action but it is the U.K. and France that introduce the resolution, not the United States. It will not recall the U.S. ambassador who was so foolishly dispatched to Damascus late last year.
Two weeks ago, al Jazeera turned against Assad and is doing what it did in Egypt — broadcasting whatever it can get its hands on about the brutality of the regime and the courage of the protesters. The Amir of Qatar owns the station.
Syria is closely allied with Shia Iran, and with Hamas and Hezbollah, but the Syrian population is 74 percent Sunni. If the Alawite regime were to fall, it would be widely interpreted as a step toward the fall of the ayatollahs, so what happens in Syria is hugely important for American interests in the region. The president is, um, testing the wind, thinking about sanctions. He could recall our ambassador. He could pressure Turkey very hard to distance itself from the regime. He did say that Mubarak and Quaddafi must step down, he hasn’t even suggested that Bashar should.
He did issue a travelers’ warning.
Filed under: Conservatism, Election 2008, Liberalism, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear, Politics | Tags: Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain, Obama, Polls, President Bush
Many Republicans are fretting over recent polling (RCP average Obama +5.9) in the presidential election, fearing, as some pundit on CNN declared, “the election is over”. Liberals, on the other hand, are quite cocky.
But let’s hold on for just a second and put things in persepective. A quick google search indicates things may not be as dire as Republicans fear and liberals, and the media (redundant, I know) would have us believe. Let’s take a little trip back in the time machine:
Newsweek Sept 30-Oct 2, 2004: Kerry 49 Bush 46
AP/Ipsos October 4-6, 2004: Kerry 50 Bush 46
Reuters/Zogby October 6-8, 2004: Kerry 46 Bush 45
Gallup Sept 30-Oct 2, 2000: Gore: 47 Bush 39
And there is more reason for optimism. As HotAir reports, the McCain campaign is saying it’s going to take the gloves off and start calling attention to Obama’s nefarious associations with criminals and radicals since the MSM won’t.
If they also start pointing the finger at Obama and Democrats for the financial crisis, and drawing attention to the big bucks and advisers Obama got from Fannie Mae, then things might actually turn around.
Filed under: Election 2008, Politics | Tags: John Kerry, John McCain, Obama
I’ve been meaning for some time to look up how Obama’s performance compares to Kerry’s at this point in the race, but as James Robbins at the Corner reports, naturally, someone’s already beat me to it:
A handy feature on the electoral-vote.com web site is a one-click comparison of the current electoral map projections with those on the same date four years ago. Today’s map shows Obama with a projected 275 votes to McCain’s 250, with 13 up for grabs. Four years ago — Kerry 317, Bush 202, and 19 tied. Interesting.
And we all know how that election turned out.
Seems to me that Democrats always fare far better in early polling. But the closer the elections get, and the more people start paying attention, the better Republicans do. Happened with George Bush in both his elections, happened with Reagan and Carter.
Not to say Republicans can relax. Obama is just an unqualified socialist. Kerry was an unbearable socialist. Just one more little reason for Democrats to worry, and for the rest of us to hold out Hope™ for America. (via Powerline)
Filed under: Election 2008, Foreign Policy, Liberalism, Politics | Tags: Democrats, John Kerry, Obama
With the Democrat Convention fast approaching, speculation is at a fever pitch over whom the Obamessiah will anoint his vice-presidential running mate. And since Kathleen Sebelius accidentally let slip earlier this week that the theme of the Democratic convention Wednesday night, the night the VP nominee will speak, will be national security and a tribute to veterans, the blogosphere has been a twitter with speculation that the theme is itself a hint to whom Obama will give his nod.
And so the chatter on teh interwebs, picked up by Drudge today, is that the anointed one might look to the annoying one — the “haughty, French-looking senator from Massachusetts who, by the way served in Vietnam” (James Taranto’s oft-repeated description) — to bolster his non-existent national security creds.
(By the way, I think the fact that this rumor made it to the top slot on Drudge suggests it might just be an actual trial-balloon.)
But for the same reason we made the graphic, I think the idea of Kerry as VP will be very appealing to the man who has waged the most image-centered, superficial campaign in American history. You’ve seen the posters, the logo’s, “O-Force One”, the presidential seal: Barack Obama is clearly a man who thinks he can graphic-design and photo-op his way into the White House without ever submitting to a substantial interview or debate. Indeed, I think the Berlin spectacle made it clear that it’s his strategy. It’s all branding. The man loves his “O”. I think whomever he picks, how it affects his “brand” will be of utmost importance to him. And what better to a campaign focused entirely on image than to turn the Obama “O” into “OK”.
Filed under: Election 2008, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Liberalism, Media Bias, Politics, Terrorism, Uncategorized | Tags: Democrat Corruption, Democrats, Harry Reid, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, John McCain, Obama
In another story not likely to see the light of day in the “mainstream” media, Barack Obama and the other Ministers of “Truth” in the Democrat party are none too happy with Joe Lieberman for exercizing his right to free speech. Lieberman, the former Democrat and current Independent senator from Connecticut, who is openly supporting John McCain for president, slammed Obama’s positions on Iraq and Israel in a conference call with reporters last week.
Turns out the self-styled messianic candidate of “hope” and “change” is having none of it, Roll Call observed the following exchange the day after Liberman’s latest comments:
“Obama dragged Lieberman by the hand to a far corner of the Senate chamber and engaged in what appeared to reporters in the gallery as an intense, three-minute conversation,” Roll Call reported.
“While it was unclear what the two were discussing, the body language suggested that Obama was trying to convince Lieberman of something and his stance appeared slightly intimidating.” [read more]
While no one but Lieberman and Obama know the content of that heated conversation for sure, it becomes fairly apparent in the context of not-so-veiled threats from Obama surrogates:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday left open the possibility that Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (Conn.) status as an influential chairman in the Democratic Conference may not be solid for the long term, even as he reiterated the Independent Democrat’s importance on key party priorities.
…”I’ve had a conversation with Joe Lieberman of some length — I’m not going to discuss those conversations here,” Reid told reporters, but he was quick to add that “we’ll let the future decide” Lieberman’s long-term role as a key party chairman and member of the Conference. [read more]
Democrats need Lieberman currently to maintain their slim 51-49 vote majority in the senate. If Lieberman were to instead caucus with Republicans, as was rumored for a while he might do, the GOP would retake the majority, since all 50-50 ties are broken by Vice President Dick Cheney.
But perhaps it is cocky anticipation of winning a larger majority this fall that has Democrats making it clear Lieberman could face some big time pay-back if he doesn’t quit criticizing the senator from Chicago:
“There’s a commonly held hope that he’s not going to be transformed into an attack dog for Republicans,” said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., an Obama supporter.
…While there’s no serious talk afoot about punishing Lieberman, Kerry said, “I can’t tell you what happens next year.” [read more]
Real subtle, Senator! There’s apparently no room for “mavericks” in Obama’s Democrat party. Funny, the more we hear of Obama’s “new kind of politics” the more they sound like the same old dirty Chicago-style politics Democrats have used for years.