“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Barak is calling Israeli attention to two facts. The first is that militarily taking out Iranian facilities would be difficult, and the second is that attempting to do so would affect relations with Israel's indispensible ally, the United States

Israel: The Case Against Attacking Iran 

  

 Text Size 
On Aug. 21, Israeli Channel 2 Television aired a recording of Ehud Barak, Israel's former defense minister and former prime minister, saying that on three separate occasions, Israel had planned to attack Iran's nuclear facilities but canceled the attacks. According to Barak, in 2010 Israel's chief of staff at the time, Gabi Ashkenazi, refused to approve an attack plan. Israeli Cabinet members Moshe Yaalon and Yuval Steinitz backed out of another plan, and in 2012 an attack was canceled because it coincided with planned U.S.-Israeli military exercises and a visit from then-U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
The fact that the interview was released at all is odd. Barak claimed to have believed that the tape would not be aired, and he supposedly tried unsuccessfully to stop the broadcast. It would seem that Barak didn't have enough clout to pressure the censor to block it, which I suppose is possible. 
Yaalon, like Ashkenazi, was once chief of staff of Israel Defense Forces but was also vice premier and Barak's successor as defense minister. Steinitz had been finance minister and was vocal in his concerns about Iran. What Barak is saying, therefore, is that a chief of staff and a vice premier and former chief of staff blocked the planned attacks. As to the coinciding of a U.S.-Israeli exercise with a planned attack, that is quite puzzling, because such exercises are planned well in advance. Perhaps there was some weakness in Iranian defenses that opened and closed periodically, and that drove the timing of the attack. Or perhaps Barak was just confusing the issue.
A number of points are worth noting: Ehud Barak is not a man to speak casually about highly classified matters, certainly not while being recorded. Moreover, the idea that Barak was unable to persuade the military censor to block the airing of the recording is highly improbable. For some reason, Barak wanted to say this, and he wanted it broadcast.
Part of the reason might have been to explain why Israel, so concerned about Iran, didn't take action against Iran's nuclear facilities. Given the current debate in the U.S. Congress, that is a question that is undoubtedly being asked. The explanation Barak is giving seems to be that senior military and defense officials blocked the plans and that the Israelis didn't want to upset the Americans by attacking during a joint exercise. The problem with this explanation is that it is well known that Israeli military and intelligence officials had argued against an Israeli strike and that the United States would have been upset whether or not joint exercises were occurring.
It would seem, intentionally or unintentionally, that Barak is calling Israeli attention to two facts. The first is that militarily taking out Iranian facilities would be difficult, and the second is that attempting to do so would affect relations with Israel's indispensible ally, the United States. Military leaders' opposition to the strikes had been rumored and hinted at in public statements by retired military and intelligence heads; Barak is confirming that those objections were the decisive reason Israel did not attack. The military was not sure it could succeed.

The Potential for Disastrous Failure

A military operation, like anything else in life, must be judged in two ways. First, what are the consequences of failure? Second, how likely is failure? Take, for example, the failure of the U.S. hostage rescue operation in 1980. Apart from the obvious costs, the failure gave the Iranian government reason to reduce its respect for U.S. power and thus potentially emboldened Iran to take more risks. Even more important, it enhanced the reputation of the Iranian government in the eyes of its people, both demonstrating that the United States threatened Iranian sovereignty and increasing the credibility of the government's ability to defend Iran. Finally, it eroded confidence in U.S. political and military leaders among the U.S. public. In reducing the threat and the perception of threat, the failure of the operation gave the Iranian regime more room to maneuver.
For the Israelis, the price of failure in an attack on Iranian nuclear sites would have been substantial. One of Israel's major strategic political assets is the public's belief in its military competence. Forged during the 1967 war, the IDF's public image has survived a number of stalemates and setbacks. A failure in Iran would damage that image even if, in reality, the military's strength remained intact. Far more important, it would, as the failed U.S. operation did in 1980, enhance Iran's position. Given the nature of the targets, any attack would likely require a special operations component along with airstrikes, and any casualties, downed pilots or commandos taken prisoner would create an impression of Israeli weakness contrasting with Iranian strength. That perception would be an immeasurable advantage for Iran in its efforts to accrue power in the region. Thus for Israel, the cost of failure would be extreme.
This must be measured against the possibility of success. In war, as in everything, the most obvious successes can evolve into failure. There were several potential points for failure in an attack on Iran. How confident were the Israelis that their intelligence on locations, fortifications and defenses were accurate? How confident were they that they could destroy the right targets? More important, perhaps, how certain could they be that the strikes had destroyed the targets? Finally, and most important, did they know what Iran's recuperative capabilities were? How quickly could the Iranians restore their program? Frequently, an operationally successful assault does not deal with the strategic problem. The goal of an attack was to make Iran incapable of building a nuclear weapon; would destroying all known targets achieve that strategic goal?
One of the things to bear in mind is that the Iranians were as obsessed with Israeli and U.S. intelligence efforts as the Israelis and Americans were obsessed with the Iranian programs. Iran's facilities were built to be protected from attack. The Iranians were also sophisticated in deception; knowing that they were being watched, they made efforts to confuse and mislead their observers. The Israelis could never be certain that they were not deceived by every supposedly reliable source, every satellite image and every intercepted phone call. Even if only one or two sources of information were actually misleading, which sources were they?
A failed Israeli assault on Iran would cause a major readjustment among other regional players in the way they perceive Israel and Iran. And for Israel, the perception of its military effectiveness is a strategic asset. There was a high risk of damaging that strategic asset in a failed operation, coupled with a strong chance that Israeli actions could unintentionally bolster Iran's power in the region. The likelihood of success was thrown into question by Israel's dependence on intelligence. In war, intelligence failure is a given. The issue is how great the failure will be — and there is no way to know until after the strike. Furthermore, operational success may not yield strategic success. Therefore, the ratio of potential risk versus reward argued against an attack.

Considering Iran's Capabilities

There is another side to this equation: What exactly were the Iranians capable of? As I have argued before, enriched uranium is a necessary but insufficient component for a nuclear weapon. It is enough to create a device that can be detonated underground in controlled conditions. But the development of a weapon, as opposed to a device, requires extensive technology in miniaturization and ruggedization to ensure the weapon reaches its target. Those who fixated on progress in uranium enrichment failed to consider the other technologies necessary to create nuclear weaponry. Some, including myself, argued that the constant delays in completing a weapon were rooted both in the lack of critical technologies and in Iranian concerns about the consequence of failure.
Then there is the question of timing. A nuclear weapon would be most vulnerable at the moment it was completed and mounted on its delivery system. At that point, it would no longer be underground, and the Israelis would have an opportunity to strike when Iranians were in the process of marrying the weapon to the delivery device. Israel, and to an even greater extent the United States, has reconnaissance capabilities. The Iranians know that the final phase of weapon development is when they most risk detection and attack. The Israelis may have felt that, as risky as a future operation may seem, it was far less likely to fail than a premature attack.

Barak's Motivations

Whether intentionally or not (and I suspect intentionally) Barak was calling attention, not to prior plans for an attack on Iran, but to the decision to abandon those plans. He pointed out that an Israeli chief of staff blocked one plan, a former chief of staff blocked a second plan and concern for U.S. sensibilities blocked a third. To put it in different terms, the Israelis considered and abandoned attacks on Iran on several occasions, when senior commanders or Cabinet members with significant military experience refused to approve the plan. Unmentioned was that neither the prime minister nor the Cabinet overruled them. Their judgment — and the judgment of many others — was that an attack shouldn't be executed, at least not at that time.
Barak's statement can be read as an argument for sanctions. If the generals have insufficient confidence in an attack, or if an attack can be permanently canceled because of an exercise with the Americans, then the only option is to increase sanctions. But Barak also knows that pain will not always bring capitulation. Sanctions might be politically satisfying to countries unable to achieve their ends through military action or covert means. As Barak undoubtedly knows, imposing further restrictions on Iran's economy makes everyone feel something useful is being done. But sanctions, like military action, can produce unwelcome results. Measures far more painful than economic sanctions still failed to force capitulation in the United Kingdom or Germany, and did so in Japan only after atomic weapons were used. The bombing of North Vietnam did not cause capitulation. Sanctions on South Africa did work, but that was a deeply split nation with a majority in favor of the economic measures. Sanctions have not prompted Russia to change its policy. Imposing pain frequently unites a country and empowers the government. Moreover, unless sanctions rapidly lead to a collapse, they would not give Iran any motivation not to complete a nuclear weapon.
I don't think Barak was making the case for sanctions. What he was saying is that every time the Israelis thought of military action against Iran, they decided not to do it. And he wasn't really saying that the generals, ministers or the Americans blocked it. In actuality, he was saying that ultimately, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blocked it, because in the end, Netanyahu was in a position to force the issue if he wanted to. Barak was saying that Israel did not have a military option. He was not attacking Netanyahu for this decision; he was simply making it known. 
It's unlikely that Barak believes sanctions will compel Iran to abandon its nuclear program, any more the current agreement does. My guess is that for him, both are irrelevant. Either the Iranians do not have the ability or desire to build a bomb, or there will come a point when they can no longer hide the program — and that is the point when they will be most vulnerable to attack. It is at that moment, when the Iranians are seen arming a delivery system, that an Israeli or U.S. submarine will fire a missile and end the issue.
If Barak didn't want a strike on Iran, if Netanyahu didn't want a strike and if Barak has no confidence in agreements or sanctions, then Barak must have something in mind for dealing with an Iranian nuclear weapon — if it ever does appear. Barak is an old soldier who knows how to refrain from firing until he is most certain of success, even if the delay makes everyone else nervous. He is not a believer in diplomatic solutions, gestures to indirectly inflict pain or operations destined for failure. At any rate, he has revealed that Israel did not have an effective military option to hamper Iran's nuclear program. And I find it impossible to believe he would rely on sanctions or diplomacy. Rather, he would wait to strike until Iran had committed to arming a delivery system, leaving itself wide open to attack — a nerve-racking solution, but one with the best chance of success.  

"Israel: The Case Against Attacking Iran is republished with permission of Stratfor."

71 comments:

  1. August 27, 2015
    190 Generals and Admirals Sign Letter to Congress: Reject the Defective Iran Deal
    By Carol Greenwald

    Yesterday, Aug. 25, a letter (text and signatories belowas delivered to the Republican and Democratic Senate and House leadership, signed by 190 retired United States Generals and Admirals which called upon the Congress to reject the "defective" Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the Iran deal) because it "would threaten the national security and vital interests of the United States.."

    President Obama last week trumpeted that he was able to find 36 retired flag officers who supported his agreement to "give diplomacy a chance." The media explained away this paltry number of signers by saying that " retired brass avoid firm positions on Iranian nuke deal."

    We proved the lie to that excuse. Four to five volunteers from around the country in less than a week got 190 generals and admirals to sign a letter which urges Congress to reject the JCPOA because " this agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous, render the Mideast still more unstable and introduce new threats to American interests as well as our allies."

    The flag officers called the removing of sanctions and the releasing of billions of dollars to the regime "unconscionable." They point out in the letter that even the Obama administration acknowledges that some portion of the funds will be used to support terrorism and that "these actions will be made all the more deadly since the JCPOA will lift international embargoes on Iran's access to advanced conventional weapons and ballistic missile technology. " Just signing the deal has given Russia the green light to sell advanced missile weapons to Iran, as announced in the last few weeks.

    The generals and admirals contradict the President's assertion that the agreement will "cut off every pathway" for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. " Just like Netanyahu has been saying, the generals and admirals conclude that ".. it actually provides Iran with a legitimate path " to acquiring nuclear weapons just "by abiding by the deal.".............................

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/08/190_generals_and_admirals_sign_letter_to_congress_reject_the_defective_iran_deal_.html#ixzz3k0pXpigT
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. August 27, 2015
      Iran is Buying Democrat Congress (They Already Bought Kerry, Clinton and Biden)
      By Karin McQuillan

      Frontpage Magazine has published a bombshell report that has been met with total silence by the media. Daniel Greenfield’s piece is entitled “Traitor Senators Took Money from Iran Lobby, Back Iran Nukes.”

      Our politicians bought by Iran don’t just include a list of Senators and Congressmen about to vote on the Iran Deal. Recipients of Iran’s largess for their campaigns include President Obama, Joe Biden, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

      Both of Obama’s secretaries of state were involved in Iran Lobby cash controversies, as was his vice president and his former secretary of defense. Obama was also the beneficiary of sizable donations from the Iran Lobby.

      Iranian-American activists against the mullah’s regime in Iran correctly described IAPAC as a "lobby group for a terrorist regime.”

      Hillary Clinton hired one of the founders and trustees of the Iran Lobby (IAPAC) an unsavory fellow named Hassan Namazee, as her national campaign finance director in her first run for President.

      President Obama himself accepted $50,000 from one of the Iran Lobby founders.

      From the Frontpage article:

      Namazee was Hillary’s national campaign finance director who had raised a fortune for both her and Kerry before pleading guilty to a fraud scheme encompassing hundreds of millions of dollars. Namazee had been an IAPAC trustee and had helped set up the organization.

      Bill Clinton had nominated Hassan Nemazee as the US ambassador to Argentina when he had only been a citizen for two years. A spoilsport Senate didn’t allow Clinton to make a member of the Iran Lobby into a US ambassador, but Nemazee remained a steady presence on the Dem fundraising circuit.

      Nemazee had donated to Gillibrand and had also kicked in money to help the Franken Recount Fund scour all the cemeteries for freshly dead votes, as well as to Barbara Boxer, who also came out for the Iran nuke deal. Boxer had also received money more directly from IAPAC.

      Delete
    2. The article goes on to list other Senators and Congressmen who have come out in support of our new policy of, handing Iran a $120 billion to spend on terrorism (40 times our military aid to Israel or Egypt), letting Iran go nuclear and setting Iran up as the hegemon of the Middle East. They have all been lavished with money from IAPAC for their campaigns.

      Point of interest: the Israel Lobby, AIPAC, does not make direct campaign contributions.

      Some on Greenfield’s list of traitors are not surprise. Senator Markey got the maximum campaign contribution from the Iranians and has announced his support for the Iran deal. So did Al Franken. Senator Jeanne Shaheen did it for half price.

      Then there are the surprises:

      The Iran Lobby had even tried, and failed, to turn Arizona Republican Jeff Flake…and invested a good deal of time and money into Schumer, but that effort also failed….

      Still these donations were only the tip of the Iran Lobby iceberg.

      Gillibrand had also picked up money from the Iran Lobby’s Hassan Nemazee.

      But the Iran Lobby’s biggest wins … when two of their biggest politicians, Joe Biden and John Kerry, had moved into prime positions in the administration. Not only IAPAC, but key Iran Lobby figures had been major donors to both men.

      That list includes Housang Amirahmadi, the founder of the American Iranian Council, who had spoken of a campaign to “conquer Obama’s heart and mind” and had described himself as “the Iranian lobby in the United States.” It includes the Iranian Muslim Association of North America (IMAN) board members who had fundraised for Biden. And it includes the aforementioned Hassan Nemazee.

      A member of Iran’s opposition had accused Biden’s campaigns of being “financed by Islamic charities of the Iranian regime based in California and by the Silicon Iran network.” Biden’s affinity for the terrorist regime in Tehran was so extreme that after 9/11 he had suggested, “Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran”.

      … Questions about donations from the Iran Lobby had haunted Kerry’s campaign. Back then Kerry had been accused of supporting an agreement favorable to Iran. The parameters of that controversial proposal however were less generous than the one that Obama and Kerry are trying to sell now.

      This is a little known story from Kerry’s Presidential bid.

      Insight Magazine reporter and author Kenneth Timmerman charged that the Kerry campaign had violated the law by taking contributions from Susan Akbarpour, a pro-regime fund-raised who was neither a citizen nor possessed a green card at that time.

      During a Presidential debate, Democrat candidate Kerry suggested that the U.S. should provide nuclear fuel to Iran.

      Greenfield calls the Iran Deal by its real name: treason.

      Obama and his allies, Iranian and domestic, have accused opponents of his dirty Iran deal of making “common cause” with that same terror regime and of treason. The ugly truth is that he and his political accomplices were the traitors all along.

      Democrats in favor of a deal … have broken their oath by taking bribes from a regime whose leaders chant, “Death to America”. …

      This deal has come down from Iran Lobby influenced politicians like Kerry and is being waved through by members of Congress who have taken money from the Iran Lobby. That is treason plain and simple.


      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/08/iran_is_buying_democrat_congress_they_already_bought_kerry_clinton_and_biden.html#ixzz3k0qn3I1D
      Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

      Delete
  2. Rather, he would wait to strike until Iran had committed to arming a delivery system, leaving itself wide open to attack — a nerve-racking solution, but one with the best chance of success.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Iran is not a trustworthy nation. It has violated every agreement it has ever signed.

      It is a matter of when not if that they are caught violating this most appeasing "deal".

      When they are caught?

      What will be the action by the leader of the free world?

      Obama has already covered up North Korean assistance to Iran on violations of previous UNSC resolutions.

      Sanctions are effectively dead.

      Whether I like it or not? It is the reality, Iran will have hundreds of BILLIONs of dollars to fund terrorists and to supply them with illegal arms.

      The West (and the world) has given up on stopping Iran from conventionally arming it's proxies with massive amounts of missiles, rockets and assorted other logistics.

      Israel will have to go it alone in protecting it's self against the jihadists of Iran and it's proxies. As Iran grows in it's hegemony across the region? Hundreds of thousands of Sunnis, Christians and others will die. Hundreds of thousands already have died.

      Iran is directly responsible for it's proxies in Iraq, Syria and Yemen murder of civilians. Under Iran's guidance 15 -20 million are now refugees. There has never been more refugees anywhere in the world.

      Delete
  3. .

    I would respond to some of the silly posts put up here this morning but since they are likely to be disappeared soon mine would simply be a monologue.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  4. .

    I don't often agree with Aaron David Miller but when I do it's with articles such as this.

    http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/2015/08/obama_failure_to_learn_in_the_middle_east_111388.html

    Miller talks of the four issues on which he bases his premise, the Israeli-Palestinian 'peace process', Syria and Assad, ISIS, and the Iranian nuclear deal. Libya was left out, I guess, because some would say it is not part of the ME. At any rate, Miller points out that in all four instances Obama has over-promised and under-delivered.

    Even though I happen to agree with the results of one of Obama's initiatives, I do generally agree with Millers premise.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only Rat declared Libya not part of the middle east, many maps show it to be...

      Any rational person, who understands the politics of the region, includes Libya.

      Delete
  5. Why is this post silly?

    it aint.

    Idaho BobThu Aug 27, 07:04:00 AM EDT
    August 27, 2015
    190 Generals and Admirals Sign Letter to Congress: Reject the Defective Iran Deal
    By Carol Greenwald

    Yesterday, Aug. 25, a letter (text and signatories belowas delivered to the Republican and Democratic Senate and House leadership, signed by 190 retired United States Generals and Admirals which called upon the Congress to reject the "defective" Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the Iran deal) because it "would threaten the national security and vital interests of the United States.."

    President Obama last week trumpeted that he was able to find 36 retired flag officers who supported his agreement to "give diplomacy a chance." The media explained away this paltry number of signers by saying that " retired brass avoid firm positions on Iranian nuke deal."

    We proved the lie to that excuse. Four to five volunteers from around the country in less than a week got 190 generals and admirals to sign a letter which urges Congress to reject the JCPOA because " this agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous, render the Mideast still more unstable and introduce new threats to American interests as well as our allies."

    The flag officers called the removing of sanctions and the releasing of billions of dollars to the regime "unconscionable." They point out in the letter that even the Obama administration acknowledges that some portion of the funds will be used to support terrorism and that "these actions will be made all the more deadly since the JCPOA will lift international embargoes on Iran's access to advanced conventional weapons and ballistic missile technology. " Just signing the deal has given Russia the green light to sell advanced missile weapons to Iran, as announced in the last few weeks.

    The generals and admirals contradict the President's assertion that the agreement will "cut off every pathway" for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. " Just like Netanyahu has been saying, the generals and admirals conclude that ".. it actually provides Iran with a legitimate path " to acquiring nuclear weapons just "by abiding by the deal.".............................

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/08/190_generals_and_admirals_sign_letter_to_congress_reject_the_defective_iran_deal_.html#ixzz3k0pXpigT
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course you can defame and trash the American Thinker if your arguments are weak.

      Delete
    2. .

      Why silly? Here is an example,

      ...the generals and admirals conclude that ".. it actually provides Iran with a legitimate path " to acquiring nuclear weapons just "by abiding by the deal."

      A bunch of brass mouthing talking points. Nothing in the Iran agreement does anything to remove Iran's obligations under the NPT. Nothing in the agreement stops other nations from using the full range of responses should Iran not abide by the terms of this agreement OR of the NPT. So much with the 'legitimate' argument.

      Their arguments regarding Iran advancing peripherally on weapons programs is legitimate but if that happens it will happen independent on whether this agreement passes or not. Many countries cooperated with the sanctions program because of US promises they would force Iran to negotiate a nuclear agreement. We have that agreement. If it is shot down in Congress, the US will be isolated and the sanction regime structure in the rest of the world will fall apart as the rest of the world moves on.

      Those that think they can force Iran back to the table to negotiate 'a better deal' at this stage are batshit crazy.

      .

      .

      Delete
    3. .

      I don't need to trash the American Thinker as they do it to themselves with most of the articles they run. The only thing interesting about the American Thinker is in trying to figure out where they come up with some of the nuts they publish.

      .

      Delete
  6. .

    Obama's Iran deal leaves American business on sidelines

    President Obama's Iran agreement was designed to address nuclear weapons proliferation, but the sanctions relief it provides will disadvantage U.S. business in ways that few people have discussed. Even though the U.S. led the negotiations, companies in other countries will have the ability to capitalize on the economic opportunities the accord will open up. U.S. companies will be forced to stand on the sidelines watching their competitors in Europe, Russia and China reap the economic benefits.

    Why? Iran has been hostile to the United States for decades. Sanctions have been imposed since 1995 targeting Iran’s weapons of mass destruction and missile proliferation activities, support for international terrorism, and human rights practices.

    In the latest negotiations, Iran wanted all sanctions to be lifted immediately. The U.S. insisted that it would only lift its nuclear-related sanctions, though in a final effort to seal the deal it agreed to lift the arms embargo after five years and the missile embargo after eight. Other U.S. sanctions will remain in place.

    The nuclear-related sanctions that the U.S. will lift target foreign, rather than U.S., companies. They prohibit foreign companies from, among other things, investing in Iran’s oil sector, trading oil, and financing and insuring such transactions, as well as doing business with Iranian banks and other companies designated by the sanctions.

    Unlike the nuclear sanctions, the other U.S.-imposed sanctions — the ones that will remain in place — are all direct sanctions that prohibit U.S. companies from doing business with Iran...


    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      And these competitors’ economic gains will be locked in because the so-called snapback of sanctions if Iran violates the nuclear terms of the deal is not really a snapback at all. Even if sanctions are re-imposed, contracts entered into by EU, Russian and Chinese companies during the period of sanctions relief will not be affected.

      None of this is to say that U.S. companies are advocating lifting the remaining U.S. sanctions. They most definitely are not. There are good reasons to impose sanctions on Iran; the issues at stake transcend commercial interests. Even so, there is a growing sense that the Obama administration sold U.S. companies down the river in order to achieve its foreign policy goals.


      [Christopher R. Wall is senior international trade partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman. He was assistant secretary of Commerce for export administration under the George W. Bush administration.]

      .

      Delete
    2. Obama has killed any and all sanctions that Congress had worked for 20 years to impose starting with Jimmy Carter.

      Delete
    3. Since sanctions are gone?

      Military action is all that is left.

      Delete
    4. Of course, Iran will set up shop in iraq and syria....

      once again.

      thus not "violating any agreement"

      And of course, these sites will be bombed (again)

      Delete
    5. .

      Military action is all that is left.

      More silliness.

      Military experts here and in Israel say that military action would at most set back any Iranian nuclear program a couple years while at the same time providing them any incentive they need to develop a bomb quickly. The agreement sets back that breakout potential for more than 10 years, yet, Sheldon Adelson and some here argue

      Military action is all that is left.

      .

      Delete
  7. Iran has and does spend money on warping the American system of governance.

    it's not silly

    Idaho BobThu Aug 27, 07:08:00 AM EDT
    August 27, 2015
    Iran is Buying Democrat Congress (They Already Bought Kerry, Clinton and Biden)
    By Karin McQuillan

    Frontpage Magazine has published a bombshell report that has been met with total silence by the media. Daniel Greenfield’s piece is entitled “Traitor Senators Took Money from Iran Lobby, Back Iran Nukes.”

    Our politicians bought by Iran don’t just include a list of Senators and Congressmen about to vote on the Iran Deal. Recipients of Iran’s largess for their campaigns include President Obama, Joe Biden, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

    Both of Obama’s secretaries of state were involved in Iran Lobby cash controversies, as was his vice president and his former secretary of defense. Obama was also the beneficiary of sizable donations from the Iran Lobby.

    Iranian-American activists against the mullah’s regime in Iran correctly described IAPAC as a "lobby group for a terrorist regime.”

    Hillary Clinton hired one of the founders and trustees of the Iran Lobby (IAPAC) an unsavory fellow named Hassan Namazee, as her national campaign finance director in her first run for President.

    President Obama himself accepted $50,000 from one of the Iran Lobby founders.

    From the Frontpage article:

    Namazee was Hillary’s national campaign finance director who had raised a fortune for both her and Kerry before pleading guilty to a fraud scheme encompassing hundreds of millions of dollars. Namazee had been an IAPAC trustee and had helped set up the organization.

    Bill Clinton had nominated Hassan Nemazee as the US ambassador to Argentina when he had only been a citizen for two years. A spoilsport Senate didn’t allow Clinton to make a member of the Iran Lobby into a US ambassador, but Nemazee remained a steady presence on the Dem fundraising circuit.

    Nemazee had donated to Gillibrand and had also kicked in money to help the Franken Recount Fund scour all the cemeteries for freshly dead votes, as well as to Barbara Boxer, who also came out for the Iran nuke deal. Boxer had also received money more directly from IAPAC.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Again, reasoned points, not silly...

    Idaho BobThu Aug 27, 07:09:00 AM EDT
    The article goes on to list other Senators and Congressmen who have come out in support of our new policy of, handing Iran a $120 billion to spend on terrorism (40 times our military aid to Israel or Egypt), letting Iran go nuclear and setting Iran up as the hegemon of the Middle East. They have all been lavished with money from IAPAC for their campaigns.

    Point of interest: the Israel Lobby, AIPAC, does not make direct campaign contributions.

    Some on Greenfield’s list of traitors are not surprise. Senator Markey got the maximum campaign contribution from the Iranians and has announced his support for the Iran deal. So did Al Franken. Senator Jeanne Shaheen did it for half price.

    Then there are the surprises:

    The Iran Lobby had even tried, and failed, to turn Arizona Republican Jeff Flake…and invested a good deal of time and money into Schumer, but that effort also failed….

    Still these donations were only the tip of the Iran Lobby iceberg.

    Gillibrand had also picked up money from the Iran Lobby’s Hassan Nemazee.

    But the Iran Lobby’s biggest wins … when two of their biggest politicians, Joe Biden and John Kerry, had moved into prime positions in the administration. Not only IAPAC, but key Iran Lobby figures had been major donors to both men.

    That list includes Housang Amirahmadi, the founder of the American Iranian Council, who had spoken of a campaign to “conquer Obama’s heart and mind” and had described himself as “the Iranian lobby in the United States.” It includes the Iranian Muslim Association of North America (IMAN) board members who had fundraised for Biden. And it includes the aforementioned Hassan Nemazee.

    A member of Iran’s opposition had accused Biden’s campaigns of being “financed by Islamic charities of the Iranian regime based in California and by the Silicon Iran network.” Biden’s affinity for the terrorist regime in Tehran was so extreme that after 9/11 he had suggested, “Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran”.

    … Questions about donations from the Iran Lobby had haunted Kerry’s campaign. Back then Kerry had been accused of supporting an agreement favorable to Iran. The parameters of that controversial proposal however were less generous than the one that Obama and Kerry are trying to sell now.

    This is a little known story from Kerry’s Presidential bid.

    Insight Magazine reporter and author Kenneth Timmerman charged that the Kerry campaign had violated the law by taking contributions from Susan Akbarpour, a pro-regime fund-raised who was neither a citizen nor possessed a green card at that time.

    During a Presidential debate, Democrat candidate Kerry suggested that the U.S. should provide nuclear fuel to Iran.

    Greenfield calls the Iran Deal by its real name: treason.

    Obama and his allies, Iranian and domestic, have accused opponents of his dirty Iran deal of making “common cause” with that same terror regime and of treason. The ugly truth is that he and his political accomplices were the traitors all along.

    Democrats in favor of a deal … have broken their oath by taking bribes from a regime whose leaders chant, “Death to America”. …

    This deal has come down from Iran Lobby influenced politicians like Kerry and is being waved through by members of Congress who have taken money from the Iran Lobby. That is treason plain and simple.


    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/08/iran_is_buying_democrat_congress_they_already_bought_kerry_clinton_and_biden.html#ixzz3k0qn3I1D
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook



    Have at it quirk...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Surely you are kidding.

      I had never even heard of the IAPAC and had to look it up only to find it is simply a political action committee. Now, I am against political action committees in general as they have developed today. I think the Citizens United decision was absurd. As for IAPAC, just as with AIPAC, since it appears to be promoting the interests of a foreign country, I think it should be registered under FARA.

      That being said, I can only ask "Are you kidding me?"

      Accoring to the release, the IAPAC (established in 2002) "has been a registered non-connected bipartisan political action committee. IAPAC focuses exclusively on domestic policy issues such as civil rights and immigration, and encourages Americans of Iranian descent to actively participate in political and civic affairs. Since its inception, IAPAC has contributed to 34 candidates, including nine Iranian American candidates."[6]

      http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Public_Affairs_Alliance_of_Iranian_Americans

      34 candidates? Heck, AIPAC just sent double that number of US congressmen and senators on an expenses paid junket to Israel this month at a cost of about $18,000 per. That was for a single group hug, one of many. The article you posted didn't mention how much IAPAC has contributed but I'd suspect it is a lot less than Lobby contributed to them, especially when I see names on there like Schumer and Franken.

      The fact that you would bring up IAPAC political contributions shows how divorced with you are with reality. Heck, the lobby is currently spending about $40 million to defeat the Iran deal. $40 million on a single issue. Get real.

      .

      Delete
    2. .

      From antiwar.com

      US Lobby Groups Try to Squash Iran Deal

      But the most compelling reason that so many elected officials will oppose the deal is the power of lobby groups and think tanks, backed by hawkish billionaires who are determined to quash a deal they see as bad for Israel.

      Little known to the public, here are some of the groups:

      United Against Nuclear Iran: Founded in 2008, UANI boasts a bipartisan powerhouse advisory board of former politicians, intelligence officials and policy experts. Cofounders Richard Holbrooke and Dennis Ross, and its president Gary Samore, have all worked in Obama’s White House.

      In June, UANI announced a multimillion-dollar TV, print, radio, and digital campaign with the message that “America Can’t Trust Iran, Concessions have gone too far.” Mark Wallace, UANI’s chairman and George Bush’s US ambassador to the UN, said, “We have a multi-million-dollar budget and we are in it for the long haul. Money continues to pour in.”

      Secure America Now. Founded in 2011 by pollsters John McLaughlin and Pat Cadell, it is linked to right-wing pro-Israel factions in the US and abroad. The Advisory Board includes Col. Richard Kemp, who denounces the “global conspiracy of propaganda aimed at the total de-legitimization of the state of Israel” and former UN Ambassador John Bolton, who insists that “the biggest threat to our national security is sitting in the White House.”

      The group labels Iran “the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism” and recently launched its own $1 million ad campaign against the nuclear deal. One ad features an American woman saying her father was killed by an IED in Iraq, followed by a menacing voice claiming “Iran has single-handedly supplied thousands of IEDs that have killed or maimed America’s troops overseas. Today, negotiators are pushing for a nuclear deal with Iran that would give them access to nuclear weapons.” It tells Americans to call their Senators and “speak out against a bad deal.”

      Foundation for the Defense of Democracies: Founded just after the 9/11 attacks, this neoconservative think tank pushes for an aggressive military response in the Middle East and also follows a hawkish pro-Israel line. It advocates for crippling sanctions on Iran, including medicines, as a way to cause domestic hardship and internal turmoil and its experts are leading advocates for a US military strike on Iran.

      American Security Initiative: This is a new group, also bipartisan, formed in 2015 by three former senators: Norm Coleman, Evan Bayh and Saxby Chambliss. In 2014 Norm Coleman, a Republican from Minnesota, became a registered lobbyist for the repressive Saudi regime, providing the Saudis with legal services on issues including “policy developments involving Iran.”

      Its first campaign was a successful effort to pass the Corker-Menendez bill, which forces President Obama to submit the agreement to Congress before signing it. In March, the group launched a $1.4 million ad campaign aimed at Senator Schumer and other key senators with the message that the deal (which had not even been released) is “great for Iran, and dangerous for us.” One over-the-top, fear-mongering ad showed a suicide-bombing truck driver in an American city detonating a nuclear bomb, apparently on behalf of Iran. The message, albeit a crazy one, is that if Iran is allowed to get a nuclear weapon, it will attack the US...


      .

      Delete
    3. .

      {...}

      AIPAC: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is the largest pro-Israel lobby group. AIPAC, too, has been pushing sanctions and opposing the nuclear deal. It claims that Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terror and is racing toward a nuclear weapons capability. AIPAC spends millions of dollars lobbying but its real financial clout lies with the pro-Israel Political Action Committees (PACs) it is tied to.

      In addition to lobbying against a deal in Washington, over the past several years AIPAC has also been promoting state-level bills mandating divestment of public funds from foreign companies doing business with Iran.

      Dozens of states have passed such bills, and many are likely to stay in place even after a nuclear deal, complicating the federal sanctions relief that is a key element of the negotiations.

      What is the source of the millions of dollars now being poured into the effort to squash the nuclear deal? Most comes from a handful of super-wealthy individuals. Home Depot founder Bernard Marcus gave over $10 million to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Other multimillion donors are hedge fund billionaire and Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs board member Paul Singer, and Charles Bronfman of the Seagram liquor empire and board chair of Koor Industries, one of Israel’s largest investment holding companies.

      The largest donor is Sheldon Adelson, a casino and business magnate who contributed almost $100 million to conservative candidates in the 2012 presidential campaign, outspending any other individual or organization. He publicly advocated for the Obama administration to bomb Iran. Peter Beinart, a contributing editor at

      The Atlantic, said “Every Republican politician knows that Adelson conditions his checks on their Iran vote...”


      .

      Delete
  9. quirk, defending the Iranians says:

    The fact that you would bring up IAPAC political contributions shows how divorced with you are with reality. Heck, the lobby is currently spending about $40 million to defeat the Iran deal. $40 million on a single issue. Get real.


    Iran has received over 11.8 BILLION in cash already. And another 150 BILLON very soon...

    Just how much will be spent on US lobbying?

    No one knows.

    40 million by the Jews...

    150,000 million in the hands of the Iranians to kill Jews..

    just doesn't seem fair.. the Jews get so much to defend their lives with...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Iran has received over 11.8 BILLION in cash already. And another 150 BILLON very soon...

      What don't you get about the fact that we are not 'giving' Iran anything. This is their money that we have frozen.

      150,000 million in the hands of the Iranians to kill Jews..

      just doesn't seem fair.. the Jews get so much to defend their lives with...


      Doesn't seem fair? What chutzpah. In one case, we are returning money we have captured. In the other we continue to 'give' Israel billions each year, over $25 since Obama took office, not to mention loans forgiven, not to mention the fact that we provide Israel with our latest military improvements to assure Israel maintains a qualitative military edge over its neighbors. We give Israel more than any other country.

      Doesn't seem fair? I agree but not for the same reasons you do.

      .



      Delete
  10. Not to worry...

    VIENNA - Iran appears to have built an extension to part of its Parchin military site since May, the UN nuclear watchdog said in a report on Thursday delving into a major part of its inquiry into possible military dimensions to Tehran's past atomic activity.

    A resolution of the International Atomic Energy Agency's Parchin file, which includes a demand for IAEA access to the site, is a symbolically important issue that could help make or break Tehran's July 14 nuclear deal with six world powers.

    The confidential IAEA report, obtained by Reuters, said: "Since (our) previous report (in May), at a particular location at the Parchin site, the agency has continued to observe, through satellite imagery, the presence of vehicles, equipment, and probable construction materials. In addition, a small extension to an existing building appears to have constructed."


    LOL

    those Iranians are going to spend their new found cash? On BOMBs not ballets...

    well that is a relief.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The fact that you, Quirk, had never heard of IAPAC comes as no surprise whatsoever.

    It would have been a big surprise if you had heard of it, living alone in your cottage as you do.

    Thank you Deuce, for allowing me to continue to participate.

    I promise to try not to malign anyone personally, except Quirk, as I did before.

    He deserves it.




    ReplyDelete
  12. The Republicans in disarray ?

    They are circling the blood in the water like sharks, and anyone can see it.

    Since Hillary is going off to Prison, the dems turn their longing eyes to ol' Drunken Joe Biden..........

    What a sad state of affairs, and joke, but "Jumpin Joe" looks to be jumpin' in.

    That last time around he got 1% of the vote before being laughed off the stage for egregious plagiarism......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quirk, are you still considering voting for Hillary?

      All political insiders are longing to know.

      Or are you switching to Drunken Joe Biden ?

      Delete
  13. Quirk your reading comprehension is going downhill, must be your anti-depression pills…


    QuirkThu Aug 27, 09:43:00 AM EDT
    ME: Iran has received over 11.8 BILLION in cash already. And another 150 BILLON very soon...

    What don't you get about the fact that we are not 'giving' Iran anything. This is their money that we have frozen.


    Sure, I mention that they were frozen assets a DOZEN times, the sanctions and freezing of assets started with Carter. Much of the assets were frozen in RESPONSE to Iranian TERROR and violations of UNSC.

    Iran gets its money back without having to curb it's enthusiasm for terror funding and international piracy……



    ME: 150,000 million in the hands of the Iranians to kill Jews..

    just doesn't seem fair.. the Jews get so much to defend their lives with… 40 million…


    The Iranian get 150,000 MILLION or 150+ billion and the Jews? Spend 40 million…. That addressed your specific issue of the 40 million being spent


    Quirk goes on a rampage: Doesn't seem fair? What chutzpah. In one case, we are returning money we have captured. In the other we continue to 'give' Israel billions each year, over $25 since Obama took office, not to mention loans forgiven, not to mention the fact that we provide Israel with our latest military improvements to assure Israel maintains a qualitative military edge over its neighbors. We give Israel more than any other country.


    Actually Quirk not true, but it's an accounting gimmick. We (America) give the Arabs much more in resources and cash than Israel ever got or will get. Tally up the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the costs of keeping the shipping lanes open, the costs of propping up the egyptians, jordanians, palestinians, saudis etc and you will see that America spends many times more than 3 billion a year on the arabs. Now sure I am being dishonest and saying israel verses the "arab world" verses your specific tiny point of Israel verses any other "specific" arab nation. But in the macro? Your point is masturbation.

    The funds that Israel gets? the vast majority are spent in the good ole USA providing jobs. The vast majority of aid/assistance/cash/treasure spent propping up and or protecting the arab world? Is a drain. Heck we don't even get oil discounted from the nations we SAVE….

    Now about how Israel gets the latest and greatest USA military stuff…

    Bullshit. Israel get a decent level of quality for sure but Israel has been denied resupply by Obama of munitions DURING A WAR. Want to talk about Iron Dome and USA funding? Well sure, after Israel invented the system, the USA decided it wanted the technology so it made an offer of additional funding for Israel to "share" its innovation with the USA.

    America gets it's money's worth investing in Israel. No crime on either parties part...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. quirk: Obama took office, not to mention loans forgiven, not to mention the fact that we provide Israel with our latest military improvements to assure Israel maintains a qualitative military edge over its neighbors. We give Israel more than any other country.
      Doesn't seem fair? I agree but not for the same reasons you do.

      What loans by Obama were forgiven?

      If you are discussing military loans that were converted to grants? Hardly a forgiven loan, but structured from the beginning of the agreement to be converted into a grant.

      I though you'd be more precise.

      and finally: Doesn't seem fair? I agree but not for the same reasons you do.

      I was making the point that 40 million verses 1.8 billion was unfair as the Israel POV was way over funded.

      The majority of Americans do not support the deal, nor the appeasing of Iran's mullah. A few grand is all that is needed to make the point.

      Iran and it's mullahs are untrustworthy, they execute women, kids, christians and jews.

      It supports terrorists that hate America.

      But you and others support the deal, and the giving up on sanctions and restrictions to the Mullah's of Iran. You have unleashed a genocidal killer on the world…

      May G-d have mercy on your ignorant, foolish soul

      Delete
    2. .

      But you and others support the deal, and the giving up on sanctions and restrictions to the Mullah's of Iran. You have unleashed a genocidal killer on the world…

      May G-d have mercy on your ignorant, foolish soul



      I have unleashed it, eh.

      Right, I'm waiting for my daily call from Obama so I can tell tell what his next moves are.

      You, sir, are hysterical in every sense of the word.

      .

      Delete
    3. LOL

      Hardly Quirk…

      But you must be held responsible for your choices.

      I simply say that G-d will judge you.

      Obama? He's not fit to judge my fecal consistency.

      Delete
    4. You, Rufus and Deuce are vocal supports of Hezbollah and Hamas and Iran

      Own it.

      Delete
    5. .

      WiO, when you were a child you thought as a child.

      Unfortunately, you still do.

      .

      Delete
  14. LOVE the premise of the thread….

    Because America (under Jimmy Carter) failed in a military exercise against Iran. Israel should be scared it if doesn't pull off a total success.

    Hmm…

    I guess Israel should just surrender now?

    ReplyDelete
  15. More good news from Quirk's, Rufus's and Deuce's new Best Buddies the Iranians..

    Iran executed a Kurdish activist on Wednesday accused of killing a public prosecutor, the second such case this month, rights groups said, as Iran, unsettled by Kurdish gains in the region, tightens the screws on its Kurdish minority.

    Behrouz Alkhani, 30, was convicted in 2011 of having ties to the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK), an outlawed group that seeks self-governance for Iran's Kurds and has links to Turkey's militant Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK).

    He was also found guilty of being involved in the shooting of a public prosecutor in West Azerbaijan Province in 2010, which the authorities blamed on the PJAK.

    His brother, Peyman Alkhani, confirmed to Reuters that he was a member of PJAK, but said he never took up arms.

    Amnesty International called Alkhani's trial "grossly unfair" and said his execution was a "denigration" of both Iranian and international law because his sentence was under appeal at the Supreme Court.


    Just you wait, give Iran the freedom to sell 20 BILLION a year in oil and remove all sanctions? Think of the scores of dead this will create…

    Thanks Quirk, Thanks Rufus, Thanks Deuce….

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK)

    Now this is a group that should be getting rockets, missiles and arms!!!!

    They should be encouraged to bomb the civilians of Iran….

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Iran–PJAK conflict, or Iran-Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan conflict is an armed conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the ethnic secessionist Kurdish guerrilla group Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), which began in 2004. The group had been carrying out attacks in the Kurdistan Province of Iran and other Kurdish-inhabited areas, and is closely affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers' Party operating against Turkey.[11] Following large clashes in summer 2011, a cease-fire was declared between the parties, with Iran claiming victory and PJAK ending all armed operations as of 29 September 2011. Since then, several violent incidents have occurred, including the Baneh clash in December 2011 and another clash in April 2012. In 2013, confrontations renewed, including clashes in May 2013, August battle in Sardasht border area and more events in October.

      In line with the Turkish PKK's goals, PJAK leaders say their long-term goals are to establish an autonomous Kurdish region within the Iranian state.[12] It is mainly focused on replacing Iran's theocracy with a democratic and federal government, where self-rule is granted to all ethnic minorities of Iran, including Sunni Arabs, Azeris, and Kurds.[13] Many however refer to PJAK as a strictly separatist organization, pursuing a complete disengagement of the Kurdish regions from Iran and alliance with neighbouring Kurdish regions in Iraq, Turkey and Syria.

      They are under occupation by Iran..

      Delete
    2. .

      It's always interesting, at least in a clinical sense, to see how you pick and choose which terrorist groups are 'good terrorists' and which are 'bad'.

      Since February 2009, PJAK has even been blacklisted as a terrorist organization by the US government, freezing any assets the PJAK has under U.S. jurisdiction and prohibiting American citizens from doing business with the organization.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_Free_Life_of_Kurdistan

      .

      Delete
    3. It's always interesting, at least in a clinical sense, to see how you pick and choose which terrorist groups are 'good terrorists' and which are 'bad'.

      At last count you and the gang that could shoot straight support Hezbollah and Hamas.

      Nuff said..

      Delete
    4. Since February 2009, PJAK has even been blacklisted as a terrorist organization by the US government, freezing any assets the PJAK has under U.S. jurisdiction and prohibiting American citizens from doing business with the organization.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_Free_Life_of_Kurdistan

      .
      This coming from a government that doesn't recognize the Moslem Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.

      Hmmm

      nuff said.

      Delete
  17. SO IRAN IS GETTING 150 BILLION BACK

    Plus 11.8 billon already released by Obama

    Plus the ability to sell oil for about 20 billion a year.

    one billion is 1,000 million
    10 billion is 10,000 million
    100 billion is 100,000 million
    180 billion is 180,000 million dollars….

    Iran's entire military budget is about 15 billion a year.

    How many innocent folks can be murdered for that kind of cash?

    After all they have had a pretty good success rate at funding the slaughter in Iraq by their Sadr militias 550,000, funding slaughter in syria (with Hezbollah) 360,000 (11 million refugees) funding and supplying Hamas and Hezbollah (not to good at mass genocide of the Jews, they cheat and fight back)

    so how many more will die?

    do you care?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do mass murderers get to keep their cash?

      Ask the Mullahs

      Delete
  18. In this morning's Quinnipiac Poll, Hillary is beating Bush and Trump, even though the poll is weighted 666 to 647 in favor of the Republicans.

    Poll

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hillary is not only doing a couple of points better than Obama among white voters, she's beating Bush with Hispanics by 65-35.

      Delete
    2. .

      666

      This is the number of the Dems, right?

      .

      Delete
    3. .

      Just jerking your chain galopn2.

      (Although, I did misread it)

      :o)

      .

      Delete
  19. Hillary is toast.

    Quirk may yet vote for her, but she is toast..

    People are starting to 'catch on'.

    She has been a criminal for nearly thisry years now.

    Huma is a criminal, too.

    When the underlings go down, the fat lady will begin to sing in pain.

    Hillary is toast.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Drunken Joe Biden, the nation turns its longing eyes to thee.....


      What a hell of a fix the Democrats are in now.

      Delete
  20. Replies

    1. Uh oh. New poll shows first word people associate with Hillary Clinton is “Liar”
      Aug 27, 2015 9:21 AM by Jazz Shaw
      129 Comments »

      I suppose it’s better than “thief”

      Delete
  21. They've got Fauxcahontas.............................

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fauxca got all that free education money, and other goodies, by claiming she was part red skin, when she wasn't.

      Hillary claimed to have been named after Sir Edmund Hillary, who hadn't climbed Everest when she was born, and was a total unknown at the time.

      This is called personal myth making.

      My grandfather, for instance, founded the University of Idaho, even though he never got past the firth grade in Sweden fore he left.

      He also founded the University of Montana in Missoula.

      This is called mythic enhancement.

      Gramps was never in Missoula in his life....

      Delete
  22. 'Quartt's Law' about to be signed by Michigan Guv.

    AP -Quartt's Law - Qualia unenhanced alcoholic roat trial test - is loosely modeled on the Iran/USA nuclear "deal", activists here say.

    If pulled over for suspected DUI by a State Trooper, the suspect has 24 days to provided his/her own urine or blood sample, and to a lab of his/her choosing, too.

    The law has been pushed by the state's drunks, and convicted drunken motorists, to 'make things right again' according to a man only identified as 'Q', who was leading a rally on the grounds of the Governor's Mansion.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 9,000 Australians, plus some New Zealanders and Canadians have arrived in my area to help fight the forest fires, all started naturally.

    In my life I have never seen it so smokey for so long....

    ReplyDelete
  24. How many Jews will die because of those that support the Iran deal?

    Iran’s foreign ministry on Wednesday reiterated its support for Hamas and other anti-Israel terrorist groups and said that aiding those who “stand against the Zionist regime is a principle of Iran’s policy.”

    The Islamic Republic’s renewed backing of Hamas comes amid reports that relations between the two have been strained in recent months. However, Iran denies that this is the case and made clear this week that it will continue to back terrorist entities that seek Israel’s destruction.

    “Iran’s support for all resistance groups continues similar to the past,” said Marzieh Afkham, a spokeswoman for Iran’s foreign ministry, to reporters in Tehran when asked whether the country’s position on Hamas had shifted.

    Afkham went on to stress that “supporting members of the resistance front and those who stand against the Zionist regime is a principle of Iran’s policy,” according to Iran’s state-controlled Fars News Agency.

    These terrorist groups, with Iran’s support, will “stand on the frontline of war against the Zionist regime [and] would maintain their unity and integrity.”

    Iran’s renewed interest in and public support for Hamas is a sign that the Islamic Republic has no intention of moderating its extremist views in light of the recently secured nuclear deal, which officials in the Obama administration claimed would bring Iran into the global community of nations.

    However, senior Iranian officials have claimed in recent weeks that Iran will expand its global terrorism agenda as a result of the deal.

    Iran will “continue providing weapons to support the Middle Eastern countries fighting terrorism,” Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, was recently quoted as saying by Iran’s state-controlled press.

    Following the nuclear deal, Iran will “preserve its defensive capabilities and send weapons to its regional allies,” according to Zarif.

    Meanwhile, members of Hamas have praised Iran in recent comments and thanked the Islamic Republic for its support.

    Mousa Abu Marzouk, a senior Hamas official, praised Iran for enabling his group’s war against Israel.

    “Iran’s various supports for Palestine have been precious, abundant and greatly influenced the Palestinian resistance,” Marzouk is reported to have said earlier this year.

    More than 70 members of the Iranian parliament recently petitioned President Hassan Rouhani to increase “Iranian support for the regional resistance front after the nuclear agreement,” according to the report.

    These Iranian lawmakers “called on the president to use the ministries of defense and foreign affairs to send aid to the Palestinians in accordance with instructions from the Supreme Leader to arm the Palestinians in the West Bank.”

    Another top Iranian national security official, Javad Karimi Qoddousi, demanded this month that “all the senior Iranian officials … support aid for the Palestinian people and the resistance front so that the nuclear agreement [is not] exploited to strengthen Israel’s security.”



    ReplyDelete
  25. "American politics has become a Circus Maximus. I think I'm beginning to be
    with wife.....who supports a military coup now, rather than later, and we
    can get back to the hard work of rebuilding the Constitution, which is
    badly in need of repair.

    She is seeking to avoid Aristotle's last stage, mob rule....."

    from Letter To Niece

    Try Hindu politics if you think we got problems.....

    Eighty million to 100 million dead Hindus at the hands of the muzz.....

    To say the least, my Niece doesn't think highly of these people.........

    I would ask anyone here in favor of a "Palestinian State" to reconsider the idea with input from my Niece, who knows more than all of you put together, WiO excepted, about the actual REALITY of Islam....................

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those that are in favor of a "Palestinian State", with its repression of women, it's true apartheid, its insanity, it mandated Koranic aggression, its desire for genocide, Koranic mandated, are truly disgusting to me.

      And to my Niece, who wouldn't support it at all, but thankfully she's got major somethings to do with her life....

      That is to say"

      Be creative....

      Delete
    2. My Niece, to clarify the above, thinks the idea of a "Palestinian State" is total insanity.

      She KNOWS.

      You do not, WiO excepted.

      Delete
  26. On a comment above, I noted that a letter on what we should do with Iran, signed by under 200 retired general and flag rank officers was meaningless. The signees represent less than 4% of the over 4700 retired US officers of similar rank and have no more insight to the Iran deal than Mike Huckabee, Sean Hannity or Sher.

    From Time:

    ...Last week, nearly 40 retired U.S. generals and admirals urged Congress to endorse the deal the U.S. and five other nations have struck with Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions. “We, the undersigned retired military officers, support the agreement as the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,” they wrote.

    The other side, nearly 200 strong, lobbed a return brass barrage Wednesday. “In our judgment as former senior military officers,” they said, the deal “would threaten the national security and vital interests of the United States and, therefore, should be disapproved by the Congress.”

    Sure, brigades of special interests, including arms-control organizations, foreign-policy shops and even rabbis have been urging Congress to vote the pact up or down. But these ex-military officers are different, aren’t they? They spent their careers fretting over national security. Maybe that’s why, if you doubt the deal makes sense, you squirmed over last week’s letter. But you cheered this week’s, with five times as many signatures.

    What’s a poor fence-sitting American to think? Not much, according to a sampling of retired general officers. “Having signed neither is about all I wish to say about this sort of thing,” says one former four-star, although he declined to say so on the record. “Those with the most insights and knowledge of the deal,” adds another, also speaking privately, “were not among the signatories.”

    “I’m convinced that 90% of the guys who signed the letter one way or the other don’t have any clue about whether it’s a good or bad deal,” says Anthony Zinni, a retired four-star Marine officer who says he refused requests from both sides to sign their letters. “They sign it because somebody’s asked them to sign it.”

    So how would he vote? Zinni says he can’t say, because he hasn’t had the closed-door intelligence briefings offered to lawmakers that he says would answer his two critical questions:

    First, how airtight is the inspection regime? The more intrusive the inspections, the better the deal for the U.S. and its negotiating allies.

    Secondly, how united are the allies in re-imposing economic sanctions if Iran is found to be cheating? The weaker the prospect of future sanctions, the worse the deal is for Washington.

    “Everyone is speculating on worst case or best case,” says Zinni, who oversaw U.S. military dealings with Iran from 1997 to 2000 as chief of U.S. Central Command. “The guys who like the deal are saying `It’ll all work!’,” he says. Among those signing are Marine general James Cartwright (vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, 2007-2011), Marine general Joseph Hoar (chief of Central Command, 1991-1994) and Air Force general Merrill McPeak (Air Force chief of staff, 1990-1994).

    “Those who oppose it,” Zinni adds, “are saying `They can cheat here, and here, and there!’” Opponents include Navy admiral Leon Edney (vice chief of naval operations, 1988-1990), Navy admiral Timothy Keating (chief of U.S. Pacific Command, 2007-2009) and Air Force general William Bigert (commander, Pacific Air Forces, 2001-2004)

    Their views, Zinni argues, are driven largely by their politics. “It’s basically a Democrat-Republican issue,” he says. Like the lawmakers they are trying to influence, the signers who oppose the deal tend to be conservative. Those supporting it lean liberal (at least for retired military officers). It’s no surprise the generals against the deal outnumber those who support it. Surveys show that conservative military officers handily outnumber their liberal comrades.

    ReplyDelete
  27. It’s looking more and more like Benjamin Netanyahu committed a strategic blunder in so ferociously opposing the Iran nuclear deal and in rallying his American allies to spend all their resources on a campaign to kill the deal in Congress.

    If current trends hold, the Israeli prime minister and his stateside lobbyists—mainly AIPAC—are set to lose this fight. It’s politically risky for Israel’s head of state to go up against the president of his only big ally and benefactor; it’s catastrophic to do so and come away with nothing. Similarly, it’s a huge defeat for AIPAC, whose power derives from an image of invincibility. American politicians and donors might get the idea that the group isn’t so invincible after all, that they can defy its wishes, now and then, without great risk.

    It would have been better for Netanyahu—and for Israel—had he maybe grumbled about the Iran deal but not opposed it outright, let alone so brazenly. He could have pried many more favors from Obama in exchange for his scowl-faced neutrality. Not that Obama, or any other American president, will cut Israel off; but relations will remain more strained, and requests for other favors (for more or bigger weapons, or for certain votes in international forums) will be scrutinized more warily, than they would have been.

    If the House and Senate do vote down the deal next month, Obama will impose a veto. To override the veto, his opponents would need to muster a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress. As even many of these opponents admit, they are unlikely to do so. There is even a fair chance that they’ll fall short of the 60 votes needed to block the threat of a Democratic filibuster.

    Something interesting has happened the past few weeks. Many lawmakers have read the 159-page deal, known as the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,” signed by Iran and the P5+1 nations (the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany). Many more have been briefed on the deal’s fine points by the American negotiators and technical specialists, as well as by Western ambassadors. And many of them—those who aren’t bound by GOP discipline or constituents’ pressure (and even a few who are)—have concluded that this is a good deal.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2015/08/iran_deal_congress_will_not_have_enough_votes_to_override_a_veto.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. America and the world will lose if the deal is passed.

      However some of us have the moral courage to speak truth to power.

      Delete
  28. I have also argued that any decisions made by the ass clowns in the GOP and the US Conga Line are meaningless because the UN and the EU and anyone else that matters are all dropping the sanctions and will be only too happy to deal with Iran minus the US.


    As the US Congress debates the deal struck between Iran and six world powers to curb Tehran’s nuclear program, many of those who oppose the agreement expect Europeans to fall into line if Washington rejects it. Some US senators, claiming unrealistically that a better deal is possible, think they will be able to persuade or coerce European allies into renegotiating. Their assumption is unlikely to hold, though, and could have damaging repercussions for trans-Atlantic relations. At this stage it would be challenging for the US legislature to reverse the political momentum clearly underway between Europe and Iran.

    That’s because after years of intensive nuclear negotiations, an overwhelming number of experts and policymakers in Europe believe that the deal struck in July is as good as it gets. Europe’s most advanced nuclear states, France and Great Britain, have determined that it meets their tough technical standards on non-proliferation. By obsessing over a fantasy alternative, instead of focusing on implementing the deal, members of Congress risk undermining Western unity on Iran and future US-European cooperation over sanctions.

    The Iran deal has been unanimously endorsed by the European Union’s 28 member states. Exchanges over the past month between Iran and Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy, and EU High Representative Federica Mogherini have clearly outlined a roadmap for deepening political and economic relations. By reopening its embassy in Tehran on Sunday, the British government sent a strong signal that diplomatic ties with Iran were improving regardless of what moves the US Congress makes.
    ...

    If the US Congress spoils the Iran deal, a difficult debate will take place among Europeans as to their options. Europe could succumb to economic pressure, align itself with Congress and renege on the deal. But at a time when European relations with Tehran have warmed, and in a situation where Congress has obstructed the deal without giving it a chance to succeed, Europeans are likely to sympathize with Iran and forcefully stand against the US legislature.

    If the US Congress wrecks the deal, Europeans will need to provide Iran with a package that offers economic easing from EU sanctions on the condition that Iran curtails its nuclear program. They will also need to protect their companies from US secondary sanctions by exerting the type of political pressure used to resist the Clinton administration’s extra-territorial sanctions on Libya and Iran in the 1990s. And whether Europe aligns itself with an anti-deal US Congress or not, it will incur costs and have to prepare to deal with the consequences of another military confrontation in the Middle East.

    As Obama correctly noted, if Congress rejects the Iran deal it is inconceivable that America’s partners in Europe would then say “we’ll just do what [Arkansas Republican Sen.] Tom Cotton has to say with respect to our geopolitical interests.” US members of Congress opposed to the deal must be alert that their threats against Europe, and insistence on reaching a fantasy deal, are troubling many of their allies. This risks undermining trans-Atlantic unity and ultimately Western leverage, while inadvertently strengthening China and Russia. It’s understandable that Congress may see itself as omnipotent on domestic issues, but it would be dangerous for it to take a similar stance with world powers regarding matters of global security.


    It’s over. The World is moving on by normalizing relations with Iran. No one in their right mind, which excludes the GOP and the religious fanatics in the Israeli regime are interested in another ME war. The Neocons and their trollops in Aipac blew it.

    http://thebulletin.org/europe-wont-bow-anti-iran-deal-us-congress8685

    ReplyDelete
  29. WHAT DO SANE JEWS THINK?

    The Anti-Defamation League said the backlash against congressmen who announced their support for the nuclear deal with Iran has crossed the line, especially noting Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who suffered “obscene and offensive comments."

    "Hateful rhetoric that invokes Nazism and demonizes an individual is unacceptable. It has absolutely no place in public discourse, particularly when referring to a widely respected public servant like Mr. Nadler," said a statement, issued on Wednesday by ADL National Director Jonathan A. Greenblatt and Evan R. Bernstein, ADL New York regional director.

    The statement listed several of the comments found on Nadler’s Facebook page, posted after he announced his support of the deal, saying they were "replete with Nazi analogies, vulgarities and obscenities, including references to him as a 'stinking kapo,' a coward and traitor to the U.S. and Israel, and one particularly appalling statement that read, 'When you die there no place for you on Jewish cemetery.'"

    The ADL criticized the "vicious, ad hominem attacks," saying these are unacceptable, "no matter one's politics or views on the Iran deal."
    ADL urged political leaders, opinion leaders and public figures “across the spectrum" to reject this sort of "dehumanizing" language and speak out against it.

    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.673167

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Love your "have you stopped beating your wife opening line".

      WHAT DO SANE JEWS THINK?

      They think that giving Iran 150 billion dollars is insane.

      Delete