Quote Of The Day: 2015 is the new 1938 edition

September 12, 2015
x

The fruit of appeasement

National Review’s David French on Democrats voting for the Iran deal:

It’s entirely appropriate that the Democrats filibustered Republican efforts to block the Iran Deal on September 10. After all, the Democrats — now fully the party of jihadist appeasement — are the primary political repository of September 10 thinking, but without the excuse of ignorance. We know what jihadists are capable of. We know their war aims. And yet the Democrats overwhelmingly voted to grant the world’s most powerful terrorist state a $150 billion economic stimulus, access to international arms markets, and access to ballistic missile technology – without even stopping their nuclear program or establishing a viable inspection program

Remember that. Democrats know just how bad a deal Obama and Kerry have crafted: that’s why they filibustered the cloture motion — the cowards didn’t want to be on record voting to let genocidal maniacs in Tehran get their hands on nuclear weapons. It doesn’t matter, however; the public knows the Democrats own this fiasco-in-the-making.

And for those who forget, we’ll make sure to remind them. This is unforgivable.

To paraphrase Cato the Elder: Factio Democratica delenda est.

PS: Click through to the original post for video explaining the subject line.


(Video) How the #IranDeal is worse in some ways than even the Munich Agreement

August 3, 2015

From Praeger University:

I have nothing to add, save that you can assume my total agreement.


Diplomacy: Iran already accusing us of breaking Obama’s Big Deal

August 2, 2015
Supreme Thug

Next, we give him our lunch money.

Oh, sure. This will keep them from getting a bomb. As if the agreement wasn’t farcical enough as it stands, Iran is already laying the groundwork for walking out:

The Iranian complaint cited White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest’s press briefing from July 17. (The annotation is taken from the complaint.):

“The military option would remain on the table, but the fact is, that military option would be enhanced because we’d been spending the intervening number of years gathering significantly more detail about Iran’s nuclear program. So when it comes to the targeting decisions that would be made by military officials either in Israel or the United States, those targeting decisions would be significantly informed, and our capabilities improved, based on the knowledge that has been gained in the intervening years through this inspections regime.” [Emphasis added].

After quoting Earnest’s statement, the complaint explained:

The threat or use of force under any circumstances except in self-defense is a violation of the fundamental principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, and such statements constitute a breach of erga omnes obligations under Article 2(4) of the Charter. Moreover, at a time when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is successfully concluded between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the P5+1, such a statement is totally unwarranted and seriously undermines the very basic principles required for its implementation that is expected to begin soon. These statements amount to a material breach of the commitments just undertaken by all JCPOA participants …

This was no threat issued by Earnest but rather a hypothetical. Earnest was responding to a question about what would happen if Iran was found to be cheating and he answered that the information the United States (and the P5+1 nations) would obtain by the monitoring would give it the means to strike at those parts of Iran’s illicit nuclear program that had been discovered.

Given that the complaint is total nonsense, why would Iran lodge it?

Read the rest at Legal Insurrection for four plausible reasons why Iran is doing this. I’ll add a fifth:

Because they can.

Iran long ago realized that Obama will do anything to reach an agreement so he can claim a foreign policy legacy (well, something more than the ruin of Iraq…) and that Kerry will do almost anything to make his boss’ dream come true. Honestly, with the American willingness to humiliate itself so plain, I’m surprised Khamenei hasn’t demanded Obama fly to Tehran to prostrate himself like a good dhimmi. I half think he might agree, so strong is Obama’s belief that, if you show nothing but good intentions, the other guy just has to come around, eventually. (1)

Not only is this a warning to the Obama administration that Iran could walk away from this deal at any time (2), but they’re also doing this because it feels so good. It’s human nature: America is your greatest enemy, so why not pluck a feather from the eagle and wave it in his face. What’s he going to do about it?

Nothing, and we all know it.

Footnotes:
(1) “Kupchanism,” a school of thought in foreign affairs highly influential in Obamite circles. I really have to write about this one day.
(2) After they’ve had the UN sanctions lifted, of course, and they have their hands on all that lovely European money. The “snap-back” talk of reimposing those sanctions is a bad joke by the administration. They’ll never be put back in place.


Sleep easy: If Iran gets the Bomb, so will Saudi Arabia

May 18, 2015
x

Some deal, Barack.

Of the many fatuous reasons President Obama has offered in support of his nuclear giveaway deal, one of the big ones has been an exercise in scaremongering that runs something like this: “Congress has to approve this deal because, if we don’t, it will set off a nuclear arms race in the region.”

As with almost everything else our president says, he gets it all backwards:

Saudi Arabia telegraphed further opposition to the Obama administration’s ongoing push for the nuclear deal with Iran this week. This took place only days after the nation’s leader “snubbed” the president’s Persian Gulf Summit at Camp David.

The nation’s former head of intelligence argued the Sauds would match Iran’s nuclear capabilities as a matter of national security: “We can’t sit back … as Iran is allowed to retain much of its capability…” Further, Prince Turki bin Faisal has said they will not fall behind: “Whatever the Iranians have, we will have, too,” he declared at a recent conference in South Korea.

Emphasis added. Keep something in mind: Saudi Arabia may be famously corrupt; the Saudis may hypocritically enforce a particularly retrograde interpretation of Islamic law; they may tolerate slavery and treat their women like cattle; and they certainly export that same aggressive Islam and jihadism and have played a key role in the rise of the modern jihadist movement. They are all that. But they are also something else.

They are damn scared of Iran and they have all the wealth required to buy whatever weapons technology they feel they need to protect themselves against their hated Shiite foes.

Prince Turki is a very serious man and he sees the United States abandoning its traditional patronage of Saudi Arabia to appease the Saudis’ mortal enemies. If he says the Kingdom will have whatever the Iranians have (1), bank on it.

Barack Obama and John Kerry are creating the very thing they wanted to avoid in the Middle East: a nuclear arms race.

Footnote:
(1) And so will the Gulf states and Egypt, at a minimum.


(Video) At last: Andrew Klavan explains the Iran nuclear deal

May 1, 2015

I think this gets to the heart of it:

For their next condition, Iran will demand our lunch money.


Why the ten-year period of the Iran “deal” is meaningless

April 9, 2015
"It's all good. No worries!"

“It’s all good. No worries!”

The President recently gave an interview to NPR in which he explained the reasoning behind the deal framework whatever-it-was reached with Iran over its nuclear program. Most analysts concentrated on Obama’s comments about the possible situation in the years just after the ten-year period (1) expires:

Under the framework announced last week, Iran would be kept at least one year away from a bomb for the first decade of the deal, Obama said as he sought to sell the deal to skeptics. Yet that constraint would stay in place only for 10 years, at which point some restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities would be eased.

“Essentially, we’re purchasing for 13, 14, 15 years assurances that the breakout is at least a year,” Obama said in an NPR News interview. “And then in years 13 and 14, it is possible that those breakout times would have been much shorter. But at that point we have much better ideas about what it is that their program involves.

Analysts have pointed out several legitimate reasons for concern: Iran has already said it will deploy improved centrifuges, meaning they can generate more enriched uranium even with the fewer devices allowed under the agreement. Iran will not permit inspection of military facilities, meaning all sorts of secret work could go on in those. (And what happens if Fordow and other sites are declared “military?”) They are not giving up their ballistic missile program. And though Obama and Kerry assure us that sanctions can be reapplied in the event Iran is caught cheating (not “if,” but “when,” in my opinion), the fact is that sanctions would take months of negotiations with our allies (and the Russians and Chinese) to reapply –if they can be reapplied– and then about another year to actually bite. Under Obama’s forecast, then Iran would then have plenty of time to build a bomb even after the ten-year wait, just by having everything else ready to go.

So, yes, there are many, many major problems with this agreement no one agrees on. ( I pointed out a few others here)

But there’s another flaw few seem to be commenting on, even though, if true, it renders the whole process not just meaningless, but a farce. From that same AP article, see if you can spot the problem:

Breakout time refers to how long it would take to build a bomb if Iran decided to pursue one full-bore — in other words, how long the rest of the world would have to stop it. U.S. intelligence officials estimate Iran’s breakout time is currently two to three months.

I made it too easy, didn’t I?

Hello? Anyone home? The arrangement reached in Lausanne is supposed to lead to a final deal in –ahem– roughly two months. Who here doesn’t think Iran will find ways to stretch that to three, four, or five or more months? It will be easy, because the Obama administration wants a deal more than a junkie wants his next fix, and Tehran knows this. And yet our intelligence services estimate they are no more than three months from a nuclear weapon, should they give the final order to build one?

Who the hell gives a damn about ten years from now when we’re talking potentially of a matter of weeks?

The Obama administration has conceded that Iran will get a bomb, and these negotiations are just a clown show to keep us distracted until it’s a fait accompli.

And there will be Hell to pay because of it.

via Jim Geraghty, who also noticed that little detail.

RELATED: Why the deal isn’t a deal, by Jonah Goldberg.

Footnote:
(1) If you don’t know why it’s significant that Islamic hardliners would agree to a ten-year deal, I suggest you read up on something called “hudna.”


Why the P5+1 deal guarantees Iran a nuclear bomb

April 3, 2015
Supreme Thug

What’s the Farsi for “winning?”

I said yesterday that the interim agreement (1) guaranteed Iran would get “the Bomb.” I also wrote that the apparent Iranian concession regarding their underground, fortified research facility at Fordow was possibly a sign that Iran had backup facilities somewhere else, such that they could afford to “sacrifice” the publicly known one.

Turns out I was right about the first, but at least partially wrong (2) about the second. They will get the bomb, but because we’ve allowed them to keep sufficient centrifuges at Fordow to do the job. Via Power Line, blogger Omri Ceren, who’s followed the negotiations closely, explains:

But instead of spinning uranium, the centrifuges would be spinning germanium or similar non-nuclear elements. That’s the administration’s talking point: that there will not be any “enrichment” going on at Fordow. The claim is – bluntly – false. Centrifuges spin isotopes into lighter and heavier elements, thereby “enriching” the material. That’s what they do. In fact that’s all they do. The administration has gone all-in on a talking point can be defeated by a Google search for “centrifuges enrich germanium” (if you’re fastidious you can set the Google search to before the AP scoop, to make sure you’re not getting Fordow-specific articles).

This isn’t a minor point. The concession has the potential to gut the whole deal:

(1) Allows N-generation centrifuge R&D beyond the reach of the West – since the process is the exact same process, Iran will have a hardened facility where it will be able to research and develop N-generation centrifuges. Zarif bragged from the stage in Lausanne that Iranian R&D on centrifuges will continue on IR-4s, IR-5s, IR-6s, and IR-8s, and that the pace of research will be tied to Iranian scientific progress. The development of advanced centrifuges would give the Iranians a leg up if they decide to break out, and will put them instantly within a screw’s turn of a nuke when the deal expires.

(2) Leaves Iranian nuclear infrastructure running beyond the reach of the West – if the Iranians kick out inspectors and dare the world to respond, the West will have zero way to intervene. The Iranians will have a head start on enrichment, and a place to do it beyond the reach of Western weapons. The administration’s early pushback has been that the breakout time will still be a year, so they could in theory reimpose sanctions, but it takes more than a year for sanctions to take an economic toll. So: zero options to stop a breakout.

In other words, we’re allowing them to develop better and better centrifuges that would require a trivial effort to switch to uranium enrichment, all in a hard to attack facility.

But do they have enough centrifuges? The agreement allows them 6,000, far fewer than what they’re running now, roughly 20,000. But, according to former CIA deputy director Michael Morrell, that’s all they need:

“If you are going to have a nuclear weapons program, 5,000 is pretty much the number you need,” Morell, now a CBS analyst, said on Charlie Rose. “If you have a power program, you need a lot more. By limiting them to a small number of centrifuges, we are limiting them to the number you need for a weapon.”

Morell told PunditFact he said 5,000 because that was lowest number he had heard was in play. The number of centrifuges in place today is a hair over 20,000, and a likely goal is to cut that to about 5,000.

They decided to check his claim:

The consensus among the experts we reached is that Morell is on the money. Matthew Kroenig at Georgetown University told PunditFact the Morell is “is absolutely correct.” Ditto for Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association and David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security.

Matthew Bunn at Harvard agreed with his colleagues.

“People think surely you must need a bigger enrichment system to make 90 percent enriched material for bombs than to make 4-5 percent enriched material for power reactors,” Bunn said. “But exactly the opposite is true.”

Bunn said there are two reasons. First, you need tens of tons of material to fuel a power reactor for a year, but just tens of kilograms to make a bomb. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the threshold amount for a bomb is about 25 kilograms of the most highly enriched U-235.

And while yes, it’s harder to make 90 percent enriched uranium (bomb) than 4-5 percent enriched uranium (power), it’s not that much harder, Bunn said.

So, while the administration is trying to sell the Fordow portion of the agreement as proof that they’re stopping Iran from getting a bomb because no uranium will be enriched there under the agreement, it turns out that is irrelevant; they will have all the technology they need when (not if) they decide to “break out.”

This just gets better and better.

Footnotes:
(1) Turns out this is a rough agreement on the way to a final one, the deadline for which is in June. The difference is minimal, though; today’s agreement sets the parameters for the final agreement. They can only get worse from here.
(2) It’s of course possible Iran has a parallel facility in North Korea — I would, if I were them. But they’re obviously not sacrificing Fordow.


US makes worst deal since Hitler said “trust me” to Chamberlain

April 2, 2015
x

Once again, “peace in our time.”

Heckuva busy day today, but I can’t let this one go by unremarked. It looks like the US and its negotiating partners have reached an agreement with Iran over its nuclear program. Based on Bridget Johnson’s reporting at PJMedia, it looks as bad as I suspected it would be. Here are some key points:

The P5+1 agreed to the “key parameters” of a nuclear deal with Iran after marathon talks in Switzerland, including “ceasing application” of all sanctions — a must-have demand of Iran at the negotiating table.

EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Federica Mogherini, appearing at a press conference with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, said parties agreed to a “comprehensive lifting of all sanctions” in the deal that is “laying the agreed basis for the final text for the Joint Plan of Action.”

So we give up our strongest card before Iran gives up anything.

The deal will be for 10 years and allow Iran to keep about 6,000 centrifuges.

So they can keep enriching.

Mogherini said the agreement leaves “no other enrichment facility than Natanz” and allows International Atomic Energy Agency inspections that are “mutually agreed” upon.

Oh, I can’t wait to see the negotiations over that schedule. Should be the best since they argued over the shape of the table at the Paris Peace Talks.

Fordow will become “a nuclear physics and technology center,” she said. “There will not be any fissile material at Fordow.”

Fordow is a fortified underground site, and inspections have to be on an agreed upon schedule. I wonder if the Iranians were giggling when they agreed to that.

Construction of the Arak heavy water reactor will continue; Mogherini said it “will not produce weapons-grade plutonium.”

“Trust us.”

They agreed on a “set of measures to monitor provisions” of the deal, including “announced access” to permit IAEA inspections.

Announced access? Is that part of the schedule they have to mutually agree on? Oh, yeah. We can rely on that.

The European Union and the United States “will cease the application of all sanctions,” Mogherini said, upon verification by IAEA of implementation.

Oh, yeah. We’ll stick to that. I predict more negotiations with a “compromise” to follow.

“None of those measures include closing our facilities; the proud people of Iran will not accept that. We will continue enriching,” Zarif declared. “…We will focus our enrichment in Natanz” and “focus on other activities” at Fordow while keeping centrifuges there.

“When we implement our measures, there will be no sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

And for that we agree to lift all sanctions. No word on if Kerry left without his pants, too.

Notice what wasn’t mentioned? Any prior declaration of the extent of Iran’s program. This “deal” covers only what we know about — who knows if the mullahs have nuclear research facilities elsewhere in Iran that they aren’t mentioning? And if we suspect a location? Oh, sure, they’ll let us inspect it.

This deal guarantees Iran will get a nuclear weapon. It also certainly means a nuclear arms race in the Middle East (You think the Saudis, the Gulf States, and the Egyptians are going to sit still over this? Think again.) and hugely increases the risk of war. It is an absolute sellout of our allies, especially Israel, the one lone liberal democracy in the region. One can only hope the opposition in Congress has the brass to wreck this deal, which would be far better than letting it stand.

What Churchill said about Chamberlain after Munich in 1938 could apply as well to Barack Obama and John Kerry:

“You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.”

I fear so.

PS: Remember what I wrote the other day about Iran perhaps having a backup program in North Korea? The promise to keep Fordow clear of weapons research, after Iran had insisted they be allowed to run centrifuges there, makes me wonder if I was right. Let’s see if they allow inspections at Fordow. If they do…


Iranian defector: US acting as Tehran’s advocates in nuclear negotiations

March 28, 2015
x

Such a deal…

I’ll admit to confirmation bias: I’ve suspected this all along —

In his television interview, Mr Mottaghi also gave succour to western critics of the proposed nuclear deal, which has seen the White House pursue a more conciliatory line with Tehran than some of America’s European allies in the negotiating team, comprising the five permanent members of the UN security council and Germany.

“The US negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal,” he said.

Amir Hossein Mottaghi was a close aide to Iranian President Rouhani and ran his campaign’s public relations. He defected when he decided it was impossible to work as a real journalist anymore, rather than as a parrot for the regime. (1) So, he defected in Switzerland when he went their ostensibly to cover the negotiations. (2)

Defector reports are always to be taken with several grains of salt, since they have reason to say things their hosts want to hear, but this is credible to me, given the insane concessions we seem to be making.

It’s a strange thing when I find myself rooting for the failure of an American president’s diplomacy and his consequent embarrassment, but that’s the blunt truth. If Mottaghi is right, we’ve gone from appeasement to collusion against our own interests and those of our allies. This is shaping up to be a horrifically bad deal with potentially catastrophic consequences; the humiliation of Barack Obama to thwart it would be a small price to pay.

via Daniel Halper

Footnote:
(1) It took him this long to realize this?
(2) Good thing he didn’t defect at our embassy. Obama might have been tempted to return him to show our “good faith.” And I’m only half-joking.


For the good of the nation, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson should resign

February 19, 2015
Jeh Johnson

Jeh Johnson

It’s been tough to stomach the vacuous platitudes and the detached-from-all-reality prescriptions being offered at the White House’s three-day “summit” on “Countering Violent Extremism,” which is their latest laughable response to the threat from Islamic terrorism and jihad — though they’ll never use those words in a connected sense. It’s always an amorphous “violent extremism,” as if we should be just as worried about the threat from radical Presbyterians as much as the danger posed by Muslims waging jihad fi sabil Allah.

First there was the President’s own op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, in which, among other fatuities, he tells us we must deal with “legitimate grievances” that lead to “violent extremism,” perhaps meaning a Harf-ite jobs-for-jihadis program. I’m sure the fighters flocking to ISIS to burn people alive and buy sex slaves would lay down their arms if they only had a 9-5 with two weeks off.

Then there was Secretary of State Kerry’s blather about violent extremism and the need for unity and an “action agenda.” If anyone can find any intellectual substance behind his words, you’re a far better detective than I.

But those insults to our intelligence can be shrugged off as more of the mush that masquerades as a genuine foreign and national security policy in the administration. We’ve heard it all before, though it’s harder to take in such concentrated doses.

What can’t be shrugged off, however is a slanderous insult against the American people, especially when offered by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Speaking at the CVE summit, Secretary Jeh Johnson said:

[W]e in the administration and the government should give voice to the plight of Muslims living in this country and the discrimination that they face. And so I personally have committed to speak out about the situation that very often people in the Muslim community in this country face.

Excuse me? What “plight?” Considering the horror visited upon America on September 11th, 2001, Muslims in the US have been treated with remarkable restraint and even kindness, as many people went out of their way to show they weren’t holding them to blame for the massacre their co-religionists wrought. In fact, in the most recent figures available, the FBI reports that there are more than three-times as many hate-crimes against Jews as against Muslims.  (1)

Will Secretary Johnson “give voice” to the tragic plight of Jews in America, too?

Later in the same article, Power Line’s John Hinderaker writes:

This is simply insane. Does the Obama administration think that pleading guilty–falsely–to discriminating against Muslims is somehow going to pacify ISIS, al Qaeda, Hezbollah and the rest? And what, exactly, is the “plight” of American Muslims? How does it compare with the plight of Muslims who live in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Libya and elsewhere in the Islamic world?

Not to mention the plight of Christians and Jews who live in those places, to the extent there are any left. A funny thing about that: if, as Johnson assures us, “the Islamic faith is one about peace and brotherhood,” what, exactly, happened to all those Christians and Jews? The administration is delusional, but one constant, no matter the context, is its reflexive instinct to condemn America.

Like I said, it’s one thing for Obama and Kerry to spew nonsense; perhaps I’ve become jaded to their drivel, but Secretary Johnson is specifically charged with the protection of Americans in the American homeland. For him to abase himself before the conference attendees and lend credence to the Islamic victim narrative with false accusations against his own people is beyond excuse and renders him unfit for his office.

I’d say he should do the decent thing and resign, but I’ve long stopped expecting decency from the typical Obama appointee.

Footnote:
(1) The recent murders of three Muslims in North Carolina, which apologists from the president down to CAIR were quick to imply were rooted in “Islamophobia,” appear instead to have been the horrifying result of a dispute over parking. But even if they had been motivated by religion, they would have been among the strikingly few examples of anti-Islamic violence in the US.


(Video) Hitler and Chamberlain, Putin and Obama

June 2, 2014

Obama as Chamberlain

(Photo via Israel Matzav)

I’ve been saying for years, almost since the Jihadi War began, that the state of international relations gives me a “1930s vibe,” a feeling that we may be on a path toward another World War. That feeling has come and gone as the years passed, as I’m sure it did for those living in the 30s, but it’s never quite gone away. In fact, Russia’s predatory moves toward Ukraine have brought that feeling roaring back, the parallels being striking.

Bill Whittle has noticed the same trends and, in this video for Truth Revolt, compares a lion, a bear, and two lambs:

But it’s not Russia that worries me most, unless it’s in combination with other powers. Russia is a dying state, its demographic trends signalling serious future decline. Its military, outside of special elite units, just isn’t all that good, and, while they’ve made steps to rebuild, they’re still  a long way off. (They had trouble mobilizing the limited forces they used to assault Georgia in 2008.) Their economy is far too dependent on natural resources, especially oil, but Russian oil is notoriously expensive to extract. Fracking technology in the West promises to cut the legs out from under Putin and his successors as it drives the price of oil and gas down, making Russia’s less marketable.

China concerns me more: a rising power with a strong hyper-nationalist faction, an aggressive foreign policy, and a strong sense of (as Bill notes about Russia) historical grievance. Some incident in the South or East China Seas could easily be the spark for a major conflagration.

And then there’s Iran: a fascist theocracy that has promised to destroy Israel and is desperately seeking its own nuclear weapons to do just that.

We face a bear, a dragon, and a lion, while we are lead by lambs.

Yep. I have a bad feeling about this.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Why on Earth are we selling spare aircraft parts to Iran?

April 8, 2014
No way!!

You did what??

This is an unbelievably stupid decision. I’ll let my friend Michael Ledeen explain why:

Somebody on Twitter posted an upbeat message saying the US delegation to the latest round of talks with Iranian officials was quite optimistic. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a born optimist and I love optimism, but I’d rather revel in victory than hope for good news, and the Iranians have every reason to revel. The Obama crowd has just ok’d something the Tehran tyrants have desperately wanted since the eighties: spare parts for their long-grounded American passenger aircraft. Boeing and General Electric were given export licenses by the Treasury Department and everyone involved has been chanting “we take aircraft security very seriously,” in order to cloak this latest gift to the Khamenei-Rouhani regime in humanitarian hues.

Frankly I’d rather they took national security very seriously. Iran uses its commercial aircraft for military purposes (one of the reasons that eery flight between Tehran and Caracas is so worrisome), and the mullahs have been limited by the degradation of the national fleet. The Boeing planes and GE engines date to the 1970s, and very few of them are in service. Back in the mid-eighties, when I spent quite a bit of time with Iranian officials, they repeatedly asked for spare parts, both for the passenger planes and for the aging military craft, the F4s and F5s. Secretary of Defense Weinberger of course vetoed any such discussions, and the embargo has held until just now.

Now we’re arming Iran.

Emphases added.

The idea that a state-sponsor of global terrorism like Iran would adhere to understandings to keep the civilian and military functions of their aircraft separate is self-delusional nonsense. They’ll no more do that than they have to keep their civilian and military nuclear programs apart. (Really, I have a bridge for anyone who believes they’re honoring the recent nuclear agreement.)

What these fatuous dunderheads at State and in the White House refuse to see is that Iran has regarded itself as being at war with the United States since 1979. A deal like this, when Iran could easily ferry troops or equipment on “civilian” flights is tantamount to selling them the rope they’ll use to hang us.

This is part of a larger, global war of tyrannies against democracies. George W. Bush was mocked for his “Axis of Evil” comment, but he was right. The players have changed a bit since then, but still include Pyongyang, Moscow, Beijing, Havana, Caracas — and Tehran. And they’re taking advantage of the openings we’re giving them. More Michael:

And so it is, indeed the war has been on for some time, and it’s a bit hotter than Cold War 1.0 was for most of the twentieth century.  Kiev burned, and may burn again soon.  Caracas is burning, as are many of Venezuela’s cities and towns.  Crimea has been annexed, and Syria is still aflame, as is Iraq, and also Yemen.  Estonia and Finland are seriously frightened, as well they should be.  If we pull back from the crisis du jour, we can see it’s a global conflict.  Iran and Russia are fighting in Syria, sometimes with and sometimes against the jihadi marauders.  Cuba is fighting in Venezuela, a country the Castros largely command, and Hezbollah is in there, too.  And for those of you who follow Africa, know that the Iranians are up to their necks in Nigeria, buying influence and supporting the mass murderers in Boko Haram.

The West needs to wake up and smell the smoke from the fires starting to burn all around it, before it turns into a real conflagration. Our foes are vulnerable, and the West can win, but only if with American leadership. The US government is the only one that can convince the other nations to take the steps necessary to push back against Putin, Khamenei, and the others. As John Schindler recently wrote:

We will have many allies in resisting Russian aggression if we focus on issues of freedom and sovereignty, standing up for the rights of smaller countries to choose their own destiny.

It would help if we had leaders who saw themselves as the heirs to Churchill, rather than Chamberlain.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


John Kerry throws freedom-seeking women under the bus

November 8, 2013

Amazing how progressives shout loudly for women’s rights, except in countries where women are truly oppressed. As for Kerry, the “Winter Soldier” is too dense to be called a “willing dhimmi.” He likely has no idea how he’s enabling totalitarian Sharia law.


About that “moderate” new Iranian president

June 20, 2013
"Another moderate"

“Another moderate”

“Moderate” in post-Khomeini Iranian dictionaries must mean “Cool with blowing up Jews in foreign countries:”

Iranian President-elect Hassan Rowhani was on the special Iranian government committee that plotted the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, according to an indictment by the Argentine government prosecutor investigating the case.

The AMIA bombing is considered the deadliest terrorist attack in Argentina’s history, killing 85 and wounding hundreds more. The Argentine government had accused the Iranian government of planning the attack and Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah of carrying it out. Numerous former and current Iranian officials are wanted by Interpol in connection with the bombing.

Former Iranian intelligence official Abolghasem Mesbahi, who defected from Iran in the late 1990s, testified that the decision to launch the attack was made within a special operations committee connected to the powerful Supreme National Security Council in August 1993.

According to the 2006 indictment, Mesbahi testified that Rowhani, who was then serving as secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, was also a member of the special committee when it approved the AMIA bombing.

A committee that included Supreme Leader (1) Ali Khamenei, the hardliner’s hardliner and real ruler of Iran. If Rowhani didn’t meet his approval, Khamenei wouldn’t have allowed him on the committee, nor would he have allowed him to run for president this year.

What? You didn’t know that Khamenei, ostensibly through the clerical Guardian Council, picks who’s even allowed to run for president in the first place?

That’s why referring to this guy as a “moderate” is nothing more than a bad joke. If he had been a genuine moderate, interested in improving relations in the world, ending Iranian state support for terrorism, and reining in Khamenei’s beloved nuclear program, the “Supreme Leader” and the Guardian Council would never have let him run in the first place. If he’s a moderate, it’s in the same way Rudolf Hess was a “moderate Nazi.”

What’s disheartening is to see again just how desperate many in the West are to find a moderate Iranian leader, someone with whom we can cut a deal. (See, for example, this piece in the leftist Guardian and this in the nearly-as-leftist New York Times) They’re nothing more than the spiritual grandchildren of the fools and appeasers who thought one could deal with Hitler.

The plan fact is that Iran has been at war with the United States and on a mission from Allah to destroy Israel and kill Jews since 1979. The people in charge, quite possibly including Rowhani, see it as their mission to bring about the Islamic “end times.” They have been stringing the US and the West along for decades, dissembling and dissimulating and pretending to be reasonable enough that they can always find suckers (including each new American administration from Carter to Obama) who think they’ll be the one to strike the “Grand Bargain.”

And I bet it will turn out the same way with Rowhani  and Obama, only the ending here will not just be egg on an American president’s face, but Khamenei in possession of a nuclear bomb.

PS: Michael Ledeen has written a great book on the difficulty the West has calling evil for what it is and facing it directly until great damage has been done and it’s almost too late. By our willful blindness and failure to take meaningful steps early, we become “Accomplices to Evil.” Highly recommended.

Footnote:
(1) One sign of possible Fascist infestation — a liking for grandiose, ego-stroking titles.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Obama’s apology tour and last night’s debate

October 23, 2012

I didn’t watch the debate last night (1), but I saw on Twitter that Governor Romney went after the President for his simultaneously smug-yet-craven “apology tour” of the Middle East in 2009. Obama, of course, denied that’s what he had done, but Romney wouldn’t let it go. And, sure enough, it appears as an ad today. I think it’s effective:

It works on several levels, contrasting the chaotic, anti-American  state of the Mideast today, without mentioning it, to Obama’s pusillanimous attempts to curry favor there just three years ago. It leaves the viewer asking, “What good did he do?” The answer isn’t good for Obama.

Compare how the two men are presented, too: Romney as respectful, but firm and in-command of the facts. Obama, on the other hand, looked… odd. Like a petulant student mocking his teacher by staring too intently, almost a caricature. While one could argue that’s just the editor at work, from what I read last night, that was the demeanor of both men through much of the debate. If so, I think the average American liked what they saw in Romney, and quite the contrary in Obama.

We’ll see in the next few days as the polls begin to account for last night.

via Power Line

Footnote:
1) Hey, football was on! There are priorities in life, ya know.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


As his Mideast policies crumble, Obama to go to the UN… to blame a movie

September 23, 2012

I was going to say “unbelievable,” but, really, it’s all too believable, the only way the schmuck knows how to act. His Middle East policies going up in flames, our embassies besieged, our diplomats murdered, and with credible evidence that we had prior warning, that security arrangements were incompetent, and that this was a pre-planned terrorist attack, President Obama reaches out for a scapegoat.

Only, this time, he’s going to do it in front of the entire world:

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor previews the president’s speech to the UN General Assembly next week:

“UNGA always provides an opportunity for the President to put the international situation in context, and to put forward a vision of US leadership. I would certainly expect the President to address the recent unrest in the Muslim world, and the broader context of the democratic transitions in the Arab World.”

(…)

“As he has in recent days, the President will make it clear that we reject the views in this video, while also underscoring that violence is never acceptable…

Pathetic. He’s still equating a badly made video with murderous violence, in effect saying “We understand why this happened” and placing the blame on free speech, rather than on the perpetrators of the violence.  While almost everyone outside his administration acknowledges that the video was merely a pretext for something that had been in the works for at least weeks, possibly a revenge hit, the President of the United States is going to stand before the world and say “You’re right to be angry, but it wasn’t us! It was that guy over there! Didn’t you see us roust him for you in the middle of the night? Please don’t us!”

Utterly contemptible and craven. Washington, Adams, and Jefferson are spinning in their graves.

November can’t come fast enough.

Via Power Line, which has a great quote from Churchill.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


(Video) Pat Condell with a word to rioting Muslims

September 21, 2012

I really have nothing to add. Take it away, Pat! (Slight language warning.)

President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Senator Kerry — this is how it’s done.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


US Embassy in Pakistan besieged: Obama and Clinton beg demonstrators to stop

September 20, 2012

Sovereign American soil is invaded, American diplomats are threatened and even killed, and all the President of the United States and his Secretary of State can do is go on Pakistani television and beg them to stop:

Marked by the U.S. Embassy seal, advertisements condemning an anti-Islam video appeared on Pakistani television on Thursday in an apparent attempt to undercut anger against the United States, where the film was produced. Hundreds of youths, however, clashed with security officials as they tried in vain to reach the embassy in Islamabad amid anger in many countries over the film’s vulgar depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.

The advertisements appear to be an effort by the U.S. government to dampen chaos surrounding the film and undo some of the damage to America’s image in the Muslim world. Violence linked to the movie has left at least 30 people in seven countries dead, including the American ambassador to Libya. Two people have died in protests in Pakistan.

(…)

The television ads in Pakistan feature clips of President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton during press appearances in Washington in which they condemned the video. Their words were subtitled in Urdu.

“We absolutely reject its content and message,” said Clinton in the advertisement.

A caption on the ad reads: “Paid Content.”

The advertisements end with the seal of the American Embassy in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital. It was not known how many channels were airing the ads or whether they were being run in other Muslim countries or just Pakistan.

An embassy spokeswoman declined comment.

She’s probably too embarrassed to speak.

Between this and the possible negotiations to release the Blind Sheikh, the craven, intellectually and morally bankrupt nature of this administration’s foreign policy stands naked for the world to see. Our enemies see the truth — challenge Obama and he’ll give you want you want. Deny the right of free speech? Sure, no problem! Release a mass-murdering terrorist who plotted even more horrific crimes? Let’s talk. As Bryan Preston asks, how soon should we expect the demand for Khalid Shiekh Muhammad’s “humanitarian release?”

Obama and Clinton expect appeasing a bunch of medieval savages to buy us peace and safety.

This is what it will really buy:

US Consulate, Benghazi

American blood, spilled by jihadis who’ll know that, under Obama, they can get away with it.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


House GOP protests any plan to release Blind Sheikh

September 19, 2012

Looks like I’m not the only one who finds this rumor credible. Several House Republican committee chairmen have written the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to say “Don’t you dare:”

The lawmakers called recent reports that the inspiration behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing could be released in a goodwill gesture to Cairo. He is currently serving a life sentence behind bars.

“Succumbing to the demands of a country whose citizens threaten our embassy and the Americans serving in it would send a clear message that acts of violence will be responded to with appeasement rather than strength,” the chairmen wrote. “…The release of Abdel-Rahman or any terrorist who plots to kill innocent Americans would be seen for what it is – a sign of weakness and a lack of resolve by the United States and its President.”

Signing the letter were Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), Homeland Security Chairman Pete King (R-N.Y.), Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), and Appropriations subcommittee chairmen Frank Wolf (R-Va.) and Kay Granger (R-Texas).

Read the rest: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland vehemently denied there were any plans or even  preliminary negotiations to release Abdel-Rahman, but note again that she said nothing about not transferring him to Egyptian custody…

This just stinks of appeasement.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Dear President Obama: no, no, no, NO!!!

September 18, 2012

This had better just be a rumor:

The U.S. State Department is actively considering negotiations with the Egyptian government for the transfer of custody of Omar Abdel-Rahman, also known as “the Blind Sheikh,” for humanitarian and health reasons, a source close to the the Obama administration told TheBlaze.

“Humanitarian reasons” my rear end! If they’re considering this, it’s  because their whole foreign policy in the Middle East has blown up in their faces, and Abdel-Rahman’s release has been one of the Islamists’ demands for decades. Just weeks before the current crisis, Egypt’s President Morsi, himself a Brotherhood member, had been pressing for Abdel-Rahman’s release. They’re in a panic.

And who is “the Blind Sheikh?” He was the mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the jihad’s first attempt to bring those buildings down. Six people died in that attack, including a pregnant woman, and more were seriously injured. We were lucky only that the bomb makers underestimated how much explosive they would need. If anything, Abdel-Rahman should have been taken out and hanged.

And we’re negotiating for this savage’s release? Seriously??

According to the DoJ… “Nah, not happening:”

The Department of Justice, however, told TheBlaze that Rahman is serving a life sentence and is not considered for possible “release.”  Previous calls to the State Department were referred to the Department of Justice and so far, the State Department has neither confirmed nor denied the report.

Well, that’s comforting. Not. Note that, while they said Abdel-Rahman was not eligible for release, they didn’t say a thing about not transferring him to Egyptian custody “for humanitarian reasons.” (Poor baby’s not been feeling well. I weep.) You can bet what’s left of your 401K that’s what they’re discussing.

But, it’s just a rumor, right? Hold on a minute:

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who was the lead prosecutor in the Blind Sheikh case, told TheBlaze that he does not doubt the accuracy of the report, saying “there are very good reasons as to why it could be true.”

McCarthy explained that Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi has been calling for the release of the Blind Sheikh ever since he was elected earlier this year. He said it is a matter of “great importance” to the radical Islamists in Egypt and throughout the Middle East, adding that his transfer to Egypt would undoubtedly lead to the terrorist’s release.

“I think the plan has been to agree to the Blind Sheikh’s release but not to announce it or have it become public until after the election. That is consistent with Obama’s pattern of trying to mollify Islamists,” he added. “Obviously, they did not want this information to surface yet… but sometimes a situation can spin out of control.”

Given this administration is so quick to appease that it would make Neville Chamberlain blush, I find this rumor very credible, too. And that has my blood boiling.

No fan of Obama, but still skeptical, Allahpundit wonders what possible political advantage the White House could see in such a crap sandwich of a deal:

Just one question: What would Obama get out of it, assuming he followed through on this in a second term? His credibility on counterterrorism would be shattered instantly; all the GOP accusations of appeasement, which have failed to get traction against the guy who ordered Bin Laden taken out, would finally have a track to run on. After years of trying, the Dems have finally pulled even with the GOP on the question of which party is better on fighting terror; hard for me to believe O’s going to give that away in one fell swoop. Granted, a lame duck wouldn’t have to worry about his own reelection but he would have to worry about vulnerable Democrats in Congress, whom he’d need to achieve any of his second-term goals. And no, needless to say, “humanitarian and health reasons” won’t be enough to justify the release. That wouldn’t have flown even before Britain gave the Lockerbie bomber back to Libya, but after Megrahi lingered for years after doctors had given him six months to live, that all but ensured no western government will ever try that excuse again.

One problem: Obama doesn’t give a tinker’s cuss about the congressional Democrats. He never has. He’s already factored in a future Republican congress and plans to pursue his agenda through the regulatory powers of the presidency. What he wants is for this mess in the Islamic world to calm down, now, before the press can’t cover for him anymore. A deal with Morsi over Abdel-Rahman might just give him that, especially if he can hold off on the “transfer” until after the election.

You know, when he’ll have more flexibility.

Transferring Omar Abdel-Rahman to Egyptian (read: Muslim Brotherhood) custody would be the ultimate “briar patch” moment for Team Smart Power’s foreign policy, doing exactly what the jihadists want. Not only would it insult the Rule of Law, not only would it be a slap in the face to the victims and their survivors, it wouldn’t even do any good! It would be a craven, cowardly act of appeasement that would only lead to further demands and further American deaths, not peace, because they know they can get away with it.

Churchill once wrote of appeasement:

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile – hoping it will eat him last”

And the crocodile always comes back for more.

via Blue Crab Boulevard

SNEAKY AFTERTHOUGHT: What if the story is true, but someone in the government who still has a shred of decency left was rightfully appalled and leaked this to a friend, who leaked it to a friend, who told another friend who knew Glenn Beck, who was the first to break this? That would be a good way to put a lot of pressure on the administration to put down the stupid idea and back away. If so, well played. Well played.

RELATED: More at Roger’s Rules; Fausta calls it insane. Andy McCarthy has written the definitive book on the 1993 WTC bombing and the prosecution of the Blind Sheikh, called “Willful Blindness.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)