There is no evidence Iran has built the cascade to raise LEU to highly enriched weapons-grade uranium, or that the facilities even exist to do this. The Iranian regime has declared it has no intention of building nuclear weapons, indeed, that their possession would be a violation of Koranic law.
And the United States has not rescinded its own National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 that Iran, in 2003, abandoned its weapons program.
Israel has been saying for years an Iranian bomb is months away.
Where is the proof? Where is the evidence to justify a new U.S. war in the Middle East to destroy weapons of mass destruction that may not exist in Iran, as they did not exist in Iraq?
Iran may wish to have a nuclear deterrent, considering what happened to neighbor Iraq, which did not. But the idea that the regime, having built a nuclear weapon, would launch it on Tel Aviv and bring massive retaliation by scores of Israeli nukes on Teheran and other cities, killing millions of Iranians and all the leaders and their families of all factions of this disputatious people, seems like total madness.
For Israel to launch a war on such reasoning would seem to meet Bismarck’s definition of preemptive war as “committing suicide out of fear of death.”
America lived for decades under a threat of nuclear annihilation. We relied on a policy of containment and deterrence, outlasted the Soviet regime in a 40-year Cold War, and are now at peace with Russia.
Ahmadinejad is not so tough a customer as Stalin, Khrushchev or Mao, who talked of accepting 300 million dead in a nuclear exchange. Moreover, Ahmadinejad has no nukes, no authority to take Iran to war, and is looking like a very lame duck before his second term has begun.
And when one looks to U.S. and Iranian interests, they coincide as much as they conflict. Iran detested the Taliban before we took them down, and no more wants them back than do we. Iran is even more pleased with the Shia regime we brought to power in Baghdad than we are.
Iran needs technology to restore its depleted oil and gas fields, and an end to sanctions to restore an economy whose disintegration helped put the regime in crisis and lose it the support of its young.
Obama should tell the Israelis, “Cool the jets!” literally.
Tag: Foreign Policy
Secretary Clinton: Iran's Pursuit of Nukes 'Futile'
If you would have told me, a year ago, that I would be praising Hillary Clinton for something she said; I would have asked you what kind drugs you were on and to share some of it with me! (I kid about the drugs, but this still is a very good story.)
First the Video:
Quote:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that Iran will never achieve its goal of obtaining a nuclear weapon, declaring to Tehran: “Your pursuit is futile.”
“What we want to do is to send a message to whoever is making these decisions, that if you’re pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we’re not going to let that happen,” Clinton said.
“First, we’re going to do everything we can to prevent you from ever getting a nuclear weapon. But your pursuit is futile, because we will never let Iran — nuclear-armed, not nuclear-armed — it is something that we view with great concern, and that’s why we’re doing everything we can to prevent that from ever happening. … We believe, as a matter of policy, it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons.”
As a security summit in Thailand earlier this week, Clinton raised the possibility of a “defense umbrella” over the Middle East to protect other nations from a nuclear-armed Iran, marking the first time a senior administration official has publicly broached the prospect of the Persian nation succeeding in building a nuclear weapon.
Clinton said the Obama administration might still engage with Iran’s regime, even though she thinks the people there “deserve better than what they’re getting.”
via Hillary Clinton: Iran’s pursuit of nukes ‘futile’ – Mike Allen and Daniel Libit – POLITICO.com.
The only question that I might have is this; Does President Obama agree with this position? Another concern that I have is that this could be a signal of War drums beating. I am sure that the Secretary knows, that our forces are still fighting in Afghanistan and that we do still have forces in Iraq and that the job there is still not entirely done yet.
However, I do commend Secretary Clinton for her tough stance towards Iran’s terrible President and Islamic Oligarchy.
I just hope that President Obama agrees with Secretary Clinton and does not try and back-peddle that stance and play the role of terrorist appeaser. If he does, it would mean the total discrediting of Secretary Clinton and further more of America’s leadership role in the World.
Update: No Quarter, who is a Pro-Hillary liberal Blogger; links in. Hey, we might not agree on politics. But I’ll any kind of linkie love that I can get! 😛 😀
Update #2: John over at Powerline disagrees:
In other words, negotiating with Iran at this time would indeed betray the protesters, but we’ve done this before and want to do it again now.
Fair enough, perhaps. Our experiences with the Soviet Union and China do establish that we have at times negotiated with repressive regimes. But it doesn’t follow that we should negotiate with Iran at this time.
In any event, this much is certain: our negotiations with the Soviet Union and China did not cause either power to eschew nuclear weapons. Indeed, to my knowledge negotiations have never induced any nation that was aggressively pursuing nukes to change its mind. That kind of persuasion takes a massive show of force (Libya and arguably Iraq) or regime change.
Thus, while the administration may have its own motives for negotiating with Iran, there is no reason for Israel to believe that such negotiations will protect Israel’s interest (potentially a life-and-death one) in preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Clinton’s case that Israel should rely on U.S. attempts to pursuade Iran not to go nuclear, rather than taking matters into its own hands by attacking Iran, is not a powerful one.
President Barack Hussein Obama is now saying, "Victory" not a goal in Afghanistan
What more can we expect from a far lefty liberal who was friends with people like Bill Ayers?
First, The Video:
The Story via FOX NEWS:
President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy agenda, but “victory” in the war-torn country isn’t necessarily the United States’ goal, he said Thursday in a TV interview.
“I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur,” Obama told ABC News.
The enemy facing U.S. and Afghan forces isn’t so clearly defined, he explained.
“We’re not dealing with nation states at this point. We’re concerned with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Al Qaeda’s allies,” he said. “So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can’t attack the United States.”
The United States and Afghanistan are struggling to shore up security in the country, amid increasing violence. The Obama administration this year stepped up U.S. military operations in the country as the U.S. military presence begins to wind down in Iraq.
“We are confident that if we are assisting the Afghan people and improving their security situation, stabilizing their government, providing help on economic development … those things will continue to contract the ability of Al Qaeda to operate. And that is absolutely critical,” Obama told ABC News.
Want to know why Obama feels this way? This might have something to do with it:
Rising casualties in Afghanistan are raising doubts among U.S. allies about the conduct of the war, forcing some governments to defend publicly their commitments and foreshadowing possible long-term trouble for the U.S. effort to bring in more resources to defeat the Taliban.
Pressure from the public and opposition politicians is growing as soldiers’ bodies return home, and a poll released Thursday shows majorities in Britain, Germany and Canada oppose increasing their own troop levels in Afghanistan.
Europeans and Canadians are growing weary of the war — or at least their involvement in combat operations — even as Obama is shifting military resources to Afghanistan away from Iraq.
The United States, which runs the NATO-led force, has about 59,000 troops in Afghanistan — nearly double the number a year ago — and thousands more are on the way. There are about 32,000 other international troops in the country.
The new U.S. emphasis on Afghanistan has raised the level of fighting — and in turn, the number of casualties. July is already the deadliest month of the war for both U.S. and NATO forces with 63 international troops killed, including 35 Americans and 19 Britons. Most have been killed in southern Afghanistan, scene of major operations against Taliban fighters in areas that had long been sanctuaries.
The leaders of the largest contributors to the coalition find themselves having to justify both their reasons for deploying troops and their management of the war effort. Britain, Italy and Australia are among those adding forces ahead of Afghanistan’s Aug. 20 presidential election.
They say a Western pullout at this time would enable a resurgent Taliban to take over the country and give Al Qaeda more space to plan terror attacks against the West. Some emphasize humanitarian aspects of their missions, like development aid and civilian reconstruction.
So, in other words, Obama is now going to begin to try an appease the other Countries. Just like he wanted to appease the terrorists in Iraq as well. This President is nothing more than an appeaser of terrorists. Think it might have something to do with his middle name? Perhaps. Am I racist for say this? I hardly think so. I mean, the man is not a person that believes in going to war against our enemies, he would rather negotiate with them.
Simply put Obama is one of the radical Neo-Liberals who want to forge alliances with those who hate our Capitalistic system. The man was friends with Domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, who was and still is a sworn Communist. What else can we expect from this President?
Now, to be fair, Obama does have one valid point; and that is that we are not fighting actual Nations, but rather a network of Terrorists, that will stop at absolutely nothing to destroy our Nation. You would think that President Obama would love this Country; seeing that he has taken full advantage of our lovely capitalist system and has done very well at it, that he would stand up and tell these other Nations, “You are either with us or against us, in Afghanistan!” However, we are not dealing with a real God-Fearing, American-loving, President. We are dealing with a Far-Leftest Liberal Buffoon, who hates America’s values and hates the principles that this Country was founded upon.
Something tells me, that the next four years in America are going to some of the worst, when it comes to our Foreign Policy. God help us all.
Others: NewsBusters.org, BLACKFIVE, Stop The ACLU, Sweetness & Light, Commentary, Conservatives4Palin.com, THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS, : Mudville Gazette, Don Surber, Clayton Cramer’s BLOG and Weekly Standard
Next time someone tells you that Islam is a Religion of peace; Show them this video
The Synopsis of this video:
This is a video of David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi asking questions at Arabfest, Dearborn. The date is June 21st, 2009. There was a booth at the festival which had a banner titled “Islam: Got Questions? Get Answers.” From their table, we picked up a pamphlet claiming that Islam promotes peace. We noticed that it was full of poor logic and errors, so we decided to make a video refuting it. We went to the booth that gave us the pamphlet to give them the opportunity to defend their claims. Security, however, stepped in and forced us to turn off our camera.
We left the booth, received advice from police, and found out that the actions of the security guards were illegal. We went back to the booth to record a potential answer again. Realizing that the Muslims present had no answer, we left.
When we came outside, we were asked some questions by two young men, who had been sent by security to entrap us. While we responded to them, festival security started assaulting us, as you will see in this video. The conclusion of this video is a mob of festival security attacking our cameras, pushing us back, kicking our legs, and lying to the police.
We ask you, is it a coincidence that the city with the highest percentage of Muslims in the United States is the city where Christianity is not allowed to be represented (let alone preached) on a public sidewalk? Is it coincidence that in this city, people will say “No way!” when we say “This is the United States of America”?
Is this what will happen when Islam takes over the United States?
You see Ladies and Gents, THIS is what celebrating diversity does to you. It gets you attacked by Islamic terrorist THUGS! Rick Warren and his purpose driven life, “Let’s love everyone and not judge”, kind of Christianity is just that; it celebrates diversity. Islam, a religion of peace….. What a lie! 😡 This is why, if I ever was going to film, I would go armed. Any security person who approached me and tried to hurt me, would be killed.
Enjoy this video! (Via Gateway Pundit)
WAKE UP AMERICA to the LIE OF ISLAM!
Respected University Group in Iran: The Iranian Election was a fraud
Now this is a very interesting twist to this story:
An important group of religious leaders in Iran called the disputed presidential election and the new government illegitimate on Saturday, an act of defiance against the country’s supreme leader and the most public sign of a major split in the country’s clerical establishment.
A statement by the group, the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum, represents a significant, if so far symbolic, setback for the government and especially the authority of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose word is supposed to be final. The government has tried to paint the opposition and its top presidential candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, as criminals and traitors, a strategy that now becomes more difficult.
“This crack in the clerical establishment, and the fact they are siding with the people and Moussavi, in my view is the most historic crack in the 30 years of the Islamic republic,” said Abbas Milani, director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. “Remember, they are going against an election verified and sanctified by Khamenei.”
via Leading Clerics Defy Ayatollah on Disputed Iran Election – NYTimes.com.
My Friend Ed Morrissey says:
This puts Khamenei in a corner. He has repeatedly claimed that the election results were divinely authored, putting his religious credibility on the line to silence opposition. Khamenei has, through surrogates, accused Mousavi and other protesters of being foreign agents, enemies of the Islamic Republic that he claims authority from Allah to run. If the religious clerics that support that divine authority suddenly switch sides and accuse Khamenei and his Guardian Council of imposing illegitimate results on the nation, what does that do to his authority?
I would assume that the Government of Iran will do, what they’ve been doing ever since this story broke. Continue to kill those who rise up against them. Although, I highly doubt; at this point, that the Government will be able to quell the whole entire situation.
Andrew Sullivan, who provided, I felt, the best coverage of the entire Iran election says this:
This is not over. It is just beginning.
Indeed, and I look forward to covering it. 🙂
Report: North Korea has fired three missiles
With the news of Michael Jackson and the news of Sarah Palin this story is being ignored by the American Media. This causes a part of me to wonder; was it done intentionally?
Anyhow, here is the story.
First video via CNN:
The Story via CNN:
North Korea fired three short-range missiles toward the Sea of Japan, South Korea’s Yonhap news agency reported Saturday.
Quoting a South Korean government official, the agency said the missiles were apparently Scud-type missiles, estimated to have a range of about 500 km (310 miles). South Korean intelligence estimates that North Korea has about 700 such missiles in its arsenal.
Pyongyang test-fired four such missiles off the east coast on Thursday, Yonhap reported.
North Korea had issued a warning to mariners to avoid an area in the Sea of Japan at certain times between June 24 and July 9 because of a "military firing exercise," according to a U.S. military communication about the warning provided to CNN.
The recent firings come amid heightened tensions on the Korean peninsula. North Korea conducted a nuclear test in May, fired test rockets and threatened U.S. and South Korean ships near its territorial waters.
Earlier this week analyst Daniel Pinkston said the reported test might be training for a future test but it could also just be a routine military exercise.
"It is worrisome to some degree, but it is different from a ballistic missile launch," said Pinkston, of the International Crisis Group in Seoul, South Korea.
It’s part of military training, but there seem to be no movements of troops or anything that would suggest preparations for military operations.
"So yes, people are watching it, the military is watching it here, but I don’t think it’s related to any plans or operations to attack anyone."
Russia had a low-key reaction to the tests. Russian military experts are carefully studying the reports but the launches will not change the political situation, a spokesman for Russia’s Foreign Ministry said.
This should be a clear cut message to the Obama Administration that the sort of “Carrot and Stick” approach to North Korea is not working. It is time for action President Obama, what will you do? Of course, seeing what we are dealing with for President; I do not expect much of a change.
From the "Why am I not suprised?" Dept: U.S. to block Iran sanctions at G8 summit
Color me totally unsurprised:
The United States is opposed to enacting a new set of financial sanctions against Iran that are due to be discussed in the G8 summit next week, diplomatic officials in New York reported Friday.
According to officials, sanctions against Iran are expected to top the G8’s agenda. Sources are also predicting a pointed debate between the heads of the industrialized nations over an appropriate response to Iranian authorities’ suppression of reformist demonstrations in Iran led by Mir Hossein Mousavi and other Iranian opposition leaders.
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi hinted in a newspaper interview earlier in the week that the G8 is due to decide on new financial sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Berlusconi disclosed that he had spoken with the heads of the G8 nations and has discussed such steps with them.
According to the Italian prime minister, “the general leaning [among G8 leaders] is toward sanctions.”
However, diplomatic sources in New York reported that American officials are working behind the scenes to prevent new sanctions from being imposed against Iran.
via Report: U.S. to block Iran sanctions at G8 summit – Haaretz – Israel News.
Ordinarily, I would take things written by this news source with a grain of salt; but, seeing this idiotic administration has been on the damned wrong side of everything else, I find this story to be totally believable. Honduras and now Iran. What further proof do we need, that America elected an enemy to freedom?
Unbelievable. Just damn unbelievable.
It is going to be a long four to eight years in this country.
Don't believe the hype on the Coup in Honduras
That is what Octavio Sánchez is saying, and he should know; he’s there:
Tegucigalpa, Honduras – Sometimes, the whole world prefers a lie to the truth. The White House, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and much of the media have condemned the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this past weekend as a coup d’état.
That is nonsense.
In fact, what happened here is nothing short of the triumph of the rule of law.
[….]
Under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this past Sunday? Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who, the day before, through his own actions had stripped himself of the presidency.
These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the “Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly.” In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.
Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an “opinion poll” about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.
Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: “No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.”
Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says “immediately” – as in “instant,” as in “no trial required,” as in “no impeachment needed.”
Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America’s authoritarian tradition. The Constitution’s provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.
The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya’s arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day.
Don’t believe the coup myth. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. The military gained nothing but the respect of the nation by its actions.
But yet you have idiot douche bag Communist Liberals, like Hillary Clinton, Like President Obama and the U.N. trying to tell the people in Honduras; that this man was right for doing this. I guess Senator McCarthy was right after all. The Democratic Party has been taken over by the Socialists, who are basically Communist light. So, to this writer; is no big surprise that President Obama and his right hand lady Hillary Clinton took sides with the Communists.
Ramirez on Obama's meddling in Honduras
Man, is he ever right.
Somewhere, Cliff Kincaid is saying, “I told you so!”
Somewhere John McCain is smiling.
Change?: President Obama ready to sign order to Executive Order to Allow Indefinite Detention of Terror Suspects
This broke last night and the Liberal Blogosphere about went nuclear.
Via The Washington Post:
Obama administration officials, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, are crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.
Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that an order, which would bypass Congress, could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.
After months of internal debate over how to close the military facility in Cuba, White House officials are increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may be impossible. Several officials said there is concern in the White House that the administration may not be able to close the prison by the president’s January deadline.
White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said that there is no executive order and that the administration has not decided whether to issue one. But one administration official suggested that the White House is already trying to build support for an order.
“Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order,” the official said. Such an order could be rescinded and would not block later efforts to write legislation, but civil liberties groups generally oppose long-term detention, arguing that detainees should be prosecuted or released.
The Justice Department has declined to comment on the prospects for a long-term detention system while internal reviews of Guantanamo detainees’ cases are underway. One task force, which is assessing detainee policy, is expected to complete its work by July 21.
In a May speech, President Obama broached the need for a system of long-term detention and suggested that it would include congressional and judicial oversight. “We must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can’t be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone,” he said.
Shall we start calling him President George W. Obama? It sure sounds like it. When the Conservatives AND Liberals are calling this plan a disaster; something is dreadfully wrong.
Should be interesting to follow.
As always Memeorandum has the round up.
