Meanwhile, In Neville Kerry Land

"There is no 'right' for Iran to enrich uranium. It is not in the document."

-John Kerry

Oh, well! If it's not in the document, what could possibly go wrong???

The administration also claimed it wasn’t recognizing Iran’s right to enrichment uranium, while Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Deputy Foreign Minister Seyyed Abbas Araqchi, specifically told Iranian media that the agreement recognizes the country’s “enrichment program” and they wouldn’t have accepted a deal that didn’t recognize the right to enrich.

So, our Secretary of Stasis, John Kerry, has negotiated a deal where we transfer seven billion American dollars (much of it in cash), remove trade sanctions against them and in return, we get a document that both sides can't even agree upon what it says??

No wonder Teresa doesn't trust him with the checkbook!

Cross posted at LCR

Barack Bombs in Berlin

Funny that the president's speech suggesting unilateral disarmament once again, should "bomb", in what the Telegraph described as :

"... a weak, underwhelming address from a floundering president".
In stark contrast to that of his presidential predecessors, Barack Obama’s message on Wednesday was pure mush, another clichéd “citizens of the world” polemic with little substance. This was a speech big on platitudes and hopeless idealism, while containing much that was counter-productive for the world’s superpower. Ultimately it was little more than a laundry list of Obama’s favourite liberal pet causes, including cutting nuclear weapons, warning about climate change, putting an end to all wars, shutting Guantanamo, ending global poverty, and backing the European Project. It was a combination of staggering naiveté, the appeasement of America’s enemies and strategic adversaries, and the championing of more big government solutions.

Remember Barry's 2008 Fake Styrofoam column tour of Europe?? (At least he didn't have to rent the Styrofoam columns this time!) He tried to mask his complete and utter incompetence and lack of experience on foreign policy by standing in historic spots where real presidents conducted the nation's business. (I particularly liked his visit to 10 Downing street, home of the British Prime Minister. He didn't actually visit the PM, he just stood outside the door and got his picture taken making a speech. Barry likes making speeches.)

In Germany, sandwiched between two rock concerts, as I heard today, Barry spoke to a crowd of nearly 200,000. The novelty of seeing one who was supposed to be America's first post racial president. (Stop laughing!) Today, I hear 6,000 were invited and maybe 4,500 showed up.

And the Bamboozler-in-Chief had this profound statement* about nuclear arms:

We may no longer live in fear of global annihilation, but so long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not truly safe.

I'd like to challenge the logic, or more aptly the illogic, of that statement. Nuclear weapons can and have stood as a deterrence to large scale convention warfare. If the presence of a nuclear deterrent, in the hands of just and honest men (this leaves you out, Barry!), stops an invading army with guns and tanks and bombs and poison gas, are we not safer than having to stockpile more conventional arms and larger standing armies? In a non-nuclear world, does the nation who can muster the most troops win?

A smaller scale analogy, Mr. President, one you can take back home to Chicago with you when you go: Are there policemen in Chicago Mr. President? Do they have guns? Does your own Secret Service contingent have guns? Is it fair (or rational) to say that as long as guns exist, we are not truly safe? Or do the guns not prevent crimes and protect the law enforcement officers (and your sorry ass) by their presence?

Great Britain has had nuclear weapons for years and no American has ever lost a night's sleep over their intention to use them on us. There is a balance of power to be maintained in this world. But, as you voted "present" as a state senator, as you were absent during the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, as you trade away our missile defenses and strategic advantages around the globe, and disrespect our democratic allies, no one is surprised that you do not have the best strategic interests of the US at heart.

Your pious platitudes, and "combination of staggering naiveté, the appeasement of America’s enemies and strategic adversaries" have not gone unnoticed. Whether or not the Republic survives, historians will note and properly blame you for its rapid decline while you occupied the Oval Office.



*Closed Captioning for the Thinking Impaired: Sarcasm

Cross posted at LCR.

Ron Paul on Iranian Diplomacy

The following is not an endorsement of Dr. Paul or his views. His domestic policies notwithstanding, his opinions on diplomacy do not represent the opinions of this blog.


(What Obama knew and when he knew it @ 1:31)


Remember how Obama was "Shocked. Shocked!!" to hear about Iran's second nuclear facility at Qom just after his "Rosy Scenario Let's All Hold Hands and Lay Down Our Nukes" speech at the UN? Iran doesn't need even a single nuclear facility to produce peaceful domestic energy, much less a second one.

According to Dr. Paul, the US has known about this "secret" facility since 2006 and Obama was briefed on it personally in November of last year, after the election. (See video @ 1:31)

Overlooking Paul's views on "neocons" and plots against Iranian diplomacy, it is interesting that rather than to rally the nations of the UN to deal with the real and growing nuclear problem in Iran, Obama chose to focus on an imaginary world without nukes, where we all presumably sit around the campfire and sing Kum-bay-yah! And he certainly knew about what Iran was doing well in advance of his speech!

Hat tip Blonde Sagacity
Cross posted at Say Anything