Tuesday, July 28, 2015

He Doesn't Believe It Either


Recently the President told us that ISIS can only be defeated with new and better ideas. It is being reported that drone strikes and government military assaults picked up during the President’s visit to Kenya and Ethiopia in order to keep the Islamist’s busy and away from the president. Attacking terrorists seems to be the same old recycled idea instead of the new, better ideas that the President referred to. Seems like he would have taken the opportunity to share new, better ideas with them instead of trying to kill them. That would be leadership and leading by example and personal commitment.  

Since he is in the neighborhood, you would drop in on the Iranian leadership. He needs to share new and better ideas with the people he just negotiated the great nuclear accord with, but keep chanting that they need destroy the US. He has to know that by setting across from them over a glass of tea that he could turn them around and the accord would meet the expectations. Leadership and commitment.

Obama will say anything at any time. How come the Islamist’s don’t buy into it like our press  does?

Sunday, July 26, 2015

Follow Up on the Iran Accord


I found Kerry’s testimony at the Senate Hearing on CSPAN and set through the approximately 4 hours. I just don’t understand.

Kerry stressed that we had to deal with Iran in good faith or all was lost. The Administration that just dealt in bad faith with the Congress over the accord is stressing the need for good faith negotiations. The means justify the ends is their view of good faith.

Kerry works through the process that the sanctions were not working, while noting that the sanctions brought the Iranians to the negotiating table, but wants people to believe that we will ‘snap back’ sanctions will be a deterrent for the Iranians not violating the accord. The Administration panel then didn’t support the Congress renewing the existing sanctions legislation when it expires. They didn’t think it was needed to put sanctions back on Iran.

Then there was a disagreement in the reading of the accord on the sanctions. There is a provision in the accord about putting sanctions back in place if the accord if it is broken. The Administration position is that the US can just put sanctions back in place when we want. Senator Corker said is spoke with people representing Britain and France and they did not agree with what Kerry said about the same sanctions not being allowed to be put back in place. You can bet that Iran doesn’t agree with Kerry no matter what. It appears that good faith on someone's part will play a role in this at a future date.

I would love to believe what the Administration says about the agreement and have faith in what they actually may believe. This is the same group that used the truth to sell you Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, that it is degrading and destroying ISIS, and that the boarder has never been safer or more controlled.
What do Udall and Heinrich believe?  

Thursday, July 23, 2015

There Is No Bottom For This Group

I was able to catch pieces of the Kerry testimony at the Senate Committee today. I am going to see if I can get more of it on the internet.
What I saw so far was a blatant display of an executive branch run amuck.
An Administration that has no qualms about lying and taking any action that will further their agenda.
This is a bad agreement and the Administration has acted disgracefully.
Count on progressives Tom and Martin voting to support the accord.
Count on progressive senators up for elections in 2016 counting votes in the Senate for the veto override and how they think their constituents will vote in the fall.
Remember what happens and how Tom and Martin voted when you go to the booth for their next elections.

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

The Deal and the Leadership


The Iran review bill that passed the Congress and was signed by Obama required a 30 day review by Congress if the deal was signed by a certain date, and then a 60 day review period if signed after that date.

Obama and Kerry must have been crushed when the Iranians added last minute concessions that prevented signatures to keep the review period at 30 days. That was probably when Iran added the lifting of the arms embargo, and took a couple days for Kerry to negotiate into the deal.

You can tell the quality of the deal by the rush of the Administration to get it planted. They made it a non-binding agreement with Iran rather than a treaty. The first statement to the public on the agreement included the statement that Obama would veto the bill if Congress turned down this quality deal. The spinning of the words used to describe the agreement that mislead in selling the great agreement (remember Obamacare sales job). The final straw was getting the UN to lift sanctions on Iran 2 days after the Administration gave the final agreement to Congress for review.

Kerry made a statement about the UN vote. He said that the voting members agreed to hold off in implementation of lifting the sanctions for 90 days. And that some of the nation’s thought that they shouldn’t have to wait on the US congress to start implementation, but they graciously agreed. He didn’t complete the statement with the facts that he and Obama had singlehandedly removed sanction from Iran.

The press for the UN vote proves that he did not deal in good faith with Congress.

Obama no longer cares about the opinion of the people or their representatives.

World-wide sanctions on Iran are gone with the UN vote sponsored by Obama and Kerry regardless of the vote in Congress. The fundamental change of the nation continues. People smarter than I need to really start looking at the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Friday, July 17, 2015

Encouraging News About the Accord?

There is positive news on the Iranian accord.


New Mexico Senator Heinrich has weighed in. And we should be supporting the accord and the future that it guarantees. 


He welcomes the fact that this accord will prevent Iran from being able to build a nuclear weapon. That it breaks each and every pathway to a weaponized nuclear devise. It unplugs centrifuges. It reduces the existing nuclear stockpile. It opens up the known facilities to inspection. He is all in in support of the accord.


Recent history is full of examples of responsible behavior by Iran, right?


The bad news is that his guarantee is good until Iran has taken the sanctions money, and has enough foreign business people in the country to prevent a military assault by Israel or the US. Then the accord is worth as much as his guarantee.


What will his guarantee be when they have the nuclear weapon and the inter-continental ballistic missiles?


At the press conference President Obama said that this was a great deal for us and bad for them, and that Iranian leaders would be spinning this bad outcome from deal for their public consumption so we shouldn't believe what we hear from them. Then said matter of factly that that is what politicians do. He has repeatedly proved that he is an expert in this approach and could probably teach a class in Iran.

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Protecting and Advancing Iran?

It seems to me that the President's position with Islamists is generally protective. When you look at the deal that he is putting in place with Iran, it is more protective of Iran than it is of preventing them from having nuclear weapons. Stopping Iran from nuclear weapons was his basis for starting this process. He is a master of deception.


He gives them all the money up front, so when they back out of the agreement after the money is in their hands, they are whole and we were in much worse shape than before the legacy agreement.


He encourages business people from all over the world to be in Iran. This will prevent Israel, or anyone one else from taking military action to stop nuclear weapons development when Iran formally throws the agreement in the trash bin. This also stops 'snap back' sanctions.


He built in a process that Iran can prevent inspectors from going to sites they consider suspicious. They will test this provision by creating a suspicious site and allowing the process to proceed and say 'see, we aren't hiding anything'. Once the ground work is laid, then they will never get approval to inspect another suspicious site by the UN oversight group.


As a master of not taking responsibility for anything, he will push off the failure of his legacy agreement on to others.   

Sunday, April 5, 2015

Where are our Senators?

This is my letter to Senator Heinrich. He issued a statement on the Framework. Check it on his website and leave him a note.
Setting here on a Sunday morning I find myself wondering about your role in the outcome of negotiations with Iran and their nuclear program. On paper you want to ensure Iran is never allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. The framework that the President laid on the table kicks the can down the road 10 years at best. Will a 10 year agreement be enough to support your ‘never develop’ position? Based on the Islamic State’s past performance, they will not comply with the outline for the understanding. Will limited and inspections controlled by the Islamic State of Iran fully meet your needs to support the agreement? When the time comes for decisive action, will you support something more than a full throated, public condemnation of their breaking the agreement? Much has been said that the only options are the outline for the framework of an agreement or war. How do you see this position? If our mission is clear, can you be clear in your response?
And don't forget the meeting on Tuesday evening.