Sunday, July 26, 2015

Divergent Views on the Iran Deal, Part II

Senator John Risch, Rep., Idaho, accused Kerry of being one of"the most naive people in the history of the earth." Defending Kerry was CA Senator Barbara Boxer, claiming that if Kerry was "bamboozled, the world was bamboozled." First, I think we can agree that Kerry was leading the negotiations with Iran. Second, the rest of the world is not aligned with the interests of the United States; so if Kerry was bamboozled I think we can agree that Russia and China were not, perhaps being quite content to have Iran have the capabilities of threatening America. They don't seem to shout "Death to Russia" or "Death to China" in Iran. I think we need to put Boxer up there among the most naive people on earth.

The New York Times 7/15/15 editorial: The deal "puts strong, verifiable limits on Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon for at least the next 10 to 15 years and is potentially one of the most consequential accords in recent diplomatic history, with the ability not just to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon but also to reshape Middle East politics." Well, I do agree on the reshaping of Middle East politics. Perhaps the biggest accomplishment in this deal is the fact that Israel and Saudi Arabia have been working together to denounce this agreement.

Mitt Romney: "...Iran is led by suicidal, apocalypse-seeking, America-hating, Israel-denying theocratic fanatics. If these Ayatollahs have nuclear weapons, they will use them, someday, somewhere. Iran is a major, longtime state sponsor of terrorism; its leaders are entirely bereft of restraint, decency and respect for human life." I still cannot believe that this decent, clear-headed man is not our President.

Dennis Prager: "And whoever believes that the agreement will bring Iran into "the community of nations" betrays a breathtaking ignorance about the Iranian regime." Actually, those believers need only be liberals, people who let their beliefs dictate their reality.

Prager: "The Iranian regime has executed more people than any country except China (and probably North Korea, for which data are unavailable). The Iranian regime has killed more than 6,000 gays for being homosexual. No woman is allowed to leave the country or even to work outside her home without the permission of her husband." The brave folks on the left would rather look the other way than face these unpleasant truths. And the mainstream media would rather talk about the latest comment from Donald Trump.

John Kerry, when questioned about the possibility of Israel attacking Iran: "That'd be an enormous mistake, a huge mistake with grave consequences for Israel and for the region, and I don't think it's necessary." And what if Congress votes down the deal? Kerry: "I fear that what could happen is if Congress were to overturn it, our friends in Israel could actually wind up being more isolated and more blamed."

During last year's Gaza war, it was you Mr. Kerry who isolated and blamed Israel. While Israel had to fight the terrorist group Hamas, which hid among the civilian population in Gaza, while firing their rockets into Israel's civilian population centers, it was you who was caught unawares on an open mic blaming Israel rather than Hamas for the civilian casualties. Remember your comments, Mr. Kerry: "It's a hell of a pinpoint operation; it's a hell of a pinpoint operation." So, yes, Israel will be blamed and isolated, with you and your boss leading the charge.

Philippe Assouline: "The unprecedented wealth and military might of Western democracies were exposed as a Potemkin village...Thrown to the wolves were the West's allies, and the idea of Western resolve itself."

I'll end with a quote from Jackie Mason, that famous Jewish, and conservative, comedian: "Do you know that in the restaurants of New York, they have an inspection system. You can surprise any restaurant without notice, that you can walk in and inspect we are protected in this city from a bad tuna fish. We're not protected from a bomb but we're protected from a bad quality of tuna fish."

Divergent Views on the Iran Deal, Part I

Barack Obama: "I welcome a robust debate in Congress on this issue, and I welcome scrutiny of the details of this agreement." You mean, as long as Congress does not think that they have any say in the matter, as you also said: "I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal." Then again, part of your "fundamental change" has been to completely disregard the other two branches of government from the day you took office.

The Wall Street Journal in their 7/21/15 editorial: "This has been Mr. Obama's strategy all along-to present Congress with a political fait accompli. First, he constructed the negotiation as an executive agreement, rather than as a treaty that would have required a two-thirds vote of approval in the Senate...And now the U.N. vote lets him assert that disapproval in Congress will pit America against the rest of the world outside the Middle East."

The New York Times in their 7/19/15 editorial expressed concern that both Israel and Saudi Arabia "have issued alarming denunciations of the United States." What if Iran bordered the US; I wonder how many liberals would also be issuing "alarming" criticisms of this deal. The Times quoted the former Saudi ambassador to the US as saying the deal would "wreak havoc" on the Middle East. Seems like those who live in the neighborhood agree that it is a bad idea to give the Ayatollahs nukes.

Barack Obama: "There really are only two alternatives here. Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it's resolved through force, through war." Is that what it was, a negotiation? And I thought it was a capitulation. When the other side knows you are desperate for a deal, any deal, then you can be assured they will get what they want. And so they did. And no, those were not the only two options. A much better deal was a much better option.

The WSJ in their 7/15/15 editorial: "Perhaps most dismaying is that this nuclear deal also lifts sanctions on Iran's conventional weapons trade in five years, and ballistic missiles in eight." Hold on. How many times did Obama and Kerry and others tell us that this deal was only about the nukes? That was why they did not insist on Iran changing their terrorist-supporting ways, or ask Iran to release American hostages, or insist Iran stop threatening to wipe Israel off the map, and so on. So how did these other weapons make it into the deal? Simple, Iran insisted and the West caved. You see, Iran acted as the superpower during these negotiations, and the West seemed to agree.

Barack Obama: "We have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region." Except that there is a general consensus that the opposite will occur; starting with Saudi Arabia using their gazillion dollars to purchase nukes from Pakistan. Obama: "...this deal meets every single one of the bottom lines that we established..." Uh, not quite. In fact, none of the bottom lines made it into the final deal. Not the anywhere, anytime inspections. Not forcing Iran to come clean on their past military applications for nukes. Not waiting for the lifting of sanctions. And certainly not the dismantling of their nuclear infrastructure. So, did Obama just lie to the American people yet again?

Michael Ramirez is a well known political cartoonist. In today's Ventura County Star is a six frame cartoon that shows Obama in each frame saying the following: 1. "This will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons..." 2. "And prevent a nuclear arms race." 3. "And create shovel ready jobs..." 4. And lower your premiums by $2500..." 5. "And if you like your doctor..." 6. "Uh, where was I again?" Where indeed.