Friday, April 24, 2015

Prediction: Hillary Will Avoid Any Punishment in Pay for Play Foundation Scandal

There may be blood in the water but we've seen this movie before!

When the news broke in the New York Times (not Fox News, not Rush Limbaugh) that the Clintons had raked in hundreds of millions of dollars from shady sources many of whom had business dealings with the U.S. State Department during her tenure as Secretary of State it looked like a potentially fatal blow to her campaign for president.

But then, the old Clinton two step started. First, Clinton defenders dismissed the original source, Peter Schweizer, who wrote the book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” as a right wing hit man. But then the Times and other news organizations did independent reporting which confirmed much of what Schweizer said.

The latest revelation comes in another NY Times report by Jo Becker and Mike McIntire "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal." It reads like a how to manual for a dirty money scandal. The Clintons raked around $145 million for them and their foundation from a group that wanted U.S. approval for a plan that led to Russia cornering the world market on uranium and controlling 20% of U.S. uranium production.

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that the Clinton Foundation is refiling tax returns to correct "errors" that omitted the disclosure of foreign contributions.

Any Republican Candidate Would Be Forced to Withdraw

If the similar news featured a GOP presidential candidate, he or she would be forced to withdraw from the race and it's likely that the Department of Justice would be launching a full investigation. But this is the Clintons. What's going on here?

If this news had broken in the final weeks of a presidential campaign Hillary would be sunk. Isn't it interesting that the New York Times and other liberal news sites decided now was the time to launch this bombshell eighteen months before the election? This gives Hillary plenty of time to do the usual two step. That's already started with Hillary's machine insisting there is "no evidence" of any wrongdoing. One wonders if the "evidence" was erased along with those other tens of thousands of emails Hillary destroyed?

And do you remember last year when Former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor was being interviewed about what happened in the White House after the Benghazi attack and responded with the flippant "dude, this was two years ago." Tommy works for Hillary now! If this issue arises during Presidential debates Hillary can just stonewall and say "that was eighteen months ago. Can't we get back to discussing the issues the American people care about?"

There are some who speculate that the Times et. al are seeking to damage Hillary early and drive her from the race to make way for another candidate. That assumes that Democrat primary voters care whether Hillary is a corrupt grifter or not. Should we believe that the same voters who voted to return Obama to office really care about honesty and ethics in presidential candidates? Nonsense!

What we are seeing now is a concerted effort to get the worst of the news out now and then ignore it later and attack anyone who dares to mention it! Democrats will vote for Hillary no matter what!

Monday, April 20, 2015

Consequences of Obama's Russian Appeasement Unravel as U.S. Sends Thousands of Troops, Tanks and Missiles to Europe

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov
exceedingly happy to push the
"reset" in U.S. relations offered by
Secretary of State Clinton.
Next stop UKRAINE!
Don't say we didn't warn you!

First in March 2009 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton handed the Russian Foreign Minister a prop button that was supposed to signal a "reset" in relations between our two countries. As if relations during the Bush years were so bad.

Second, on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland Obama attempts to appease Russia by tearing up the hard fought agreement to position anti-missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Third, in 2012 Obama meets with then Russian President Medvedev and tells him that "“After my election, I have more flexibility," to offer further concessions on missile defense.

Fourth, two years ago in April, 2013 the U.S. removed the last of it's tanks and heavy weaponry from Europe. The moment was hailed as "closing a chapter in history."

No doubt the Russians could not believe their luck. Instead of a Reagan who held Soviets accountable they had an Obama who seemed willing to do anything to appease Russia. Instead of helping the U.S. with Iran, they are now selling that country the most advanced air defense missiles in violation of previous sanctions agreements. And of course they invaded Ukraine despite Obama's endless empty talk about "consequences" for doing so.

But perhaps those consequences weren't so toothless after all.

Tanks, Planes, Troops and Missiles Pouring Into Europe

Forced by events and the consequences of his policy of appeasement Obama is sending massive U.S. forces back to Europe. A convoy of U.S. troops and Patriot missiles rolled into Poland last month. Thousands of U.S. troops along with hundreds of tanks and other heavy fighting vehicles are now pouring into the Baltic States on the Russian border. "Tankbuster" A-10 aircraft are also being sent once again to European bases.

Imagine the howling we would hear from the left if a Republican President did the same thing!

In 2008 I warned that after the Russians invaded neighboring Georgia:
MIKE'S AMERICA: "If Russia knows, as it clearly does, that a divided NATO and a worthless U.N. will not stand up to such naked aggression, than they can and will do the same and worse again. If you don't care about that now. You will when a larger war breaks out!"
And it was Sarah Palin who understood that if the United States did not lead in condemning Russia's action in Georgia Ukraine would be next. Yet Obama refused to listen and blindly continued a policy of appeasement long after it was clear it produced the opposite result from that which was promised.

 Obama weakened our alliances and attempted to appease our Russian adversary. It was a reckless and dangerous act that might well lead to a wider war in Europe. And the blame lies entirely with Obama who put his failed ideology above the lessons of history!

P.S. In his Weekly Radio Address Obama stressed that global warming was the biggest problem we face. Obviously he doesn't see the writing on the wall!

Saturday, April 18, 2015

Hillary's Really Bad, Horrible, Terrible First Campaign Week

Or was it a brilliant strategy to underplay expectations?

Hillary's campaign logo.
Turn right for the next hospital?
Starting with a rollout video that liberal Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus labeled as "relentlessly, insultingly vapid"..."demographic box-checking," Hillary's campaign appeared to be off to a rocky start. Included in the confusion was her new logo, which many mistook for a sign directing drivers to the nearest hospital. Some visual specialists opined that it looked like it had been made by an intern using MS Paint, the basic Microsoft graphics program. (1,2)

But an odd logo with a large red arrow pointing right was the least of Hillary's problems. Unlike her potential Republican opponents, who could be seen giving interviews to just about any reporter who asked, Hillary did NO interviews. Instead, there were a series of totally scripted set ups where the "ordinary" Americans Hillary was to meet turned out to be hand picked by her campaign from a pool of past and possible Democrat campaign operatives. At one Iowa community college actual students were locked in their classroom so as not to interfere with the scripted appearance of Hillary meeting "real" people.

Then there was the creepy video of Hillary ordering at a Chipotle restaurant in Maumee, Ohio (near where Mike's America grew up) wearing dark glasses and avoiding contact with ANY patrons. Quite the opposite of what you would expect from someone running for office.

But the news media ran thousands of stories about Hillary's Chipotle visit and it didn't seem to bother many reporters that she is refusing to answer ANY questions either about policies she may run on or the many scandals which continue to dog her.

Hillary did make one pronouncement in Iowa by saying that she wants to get hidden big money out of politics. This coming from the woman who ushered Charlie Trie into the White House with bags of cash and whose foundation accepts large donations from some pretty bad countries around the world. Of course what she really meant was she wanted to find a way to cut off funding for conservatives, and not to limit the big money that is so much a part of Democrats campaigns. All this while trying to raise and spend $2.5 billion for her campaign. Much of it from shadowy groups.

By most accounts Hillary's rollout was a dud. It added nothing new and reinforced every negative perception of the Clintons. Yet, there's always a few reporters willing to carry Hillary's water. Here's somebody called Martha Pease writing at CNN:
While critics may sneer, it is hard to deny that the image it projects of Hillary is more confident, fresher, simpler and forward-looking, with even a bit of the upstart feel of two of the most successful product launch companies, Nike and Apple. Clinton's team may have begun to create an empathetic relationship with voters that has eluded her in the past, most crucially when she lost the nomination fight to Barack Obama in 2008.
...
That's why the key to Hillary Clinton's success in reframing her message and movement will be consistency. She must not only take the essence of a humble, empathic relationship with voters and integrate it into all elements of her communication, she must also live it every day.
Where did we see ANY "humble, empathic" Hillary from the last week?

Part of the Plan?

Could it be that driving around in a creepy black van that would arose suspicion if parked near a children's playground have been the plan all along? Is Hillary trying to downplay expectations and build up to a crescendo of excitement leading the path to her nomination and later coronation? If so, it would be brilliant. Besides, Hillary knows that once she becomes the nominee the press will fall into line and fret less about their access to her majesty and obey orders by attacking every weak point about the GOP nominee with a gusto they would never attach to Hillary!

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Despite Desperate Obama Admin. Efforts to Stave Off Disaster Senate Committee Rebukes Obama's Iran Deal w/ Unanimous, Bi-Partisan Vote

Vote was 19-0 in favor of bill reminding Obama he can't go it alone on Iran deal!

Secretary of State John Kerry used to be Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He personally lobbied Senators, many of whom he has known for years, to stop the bill. But it passed with every Democrat including Barbara Boxer voting for it.

The White House is trying to spin it and say the bill is a "compromise" from an earlier version but anyone who has been paying attention knows that they did everything they could to kill it. The vote can't be seen as anything but a repudiation of Obama.

Obama must know something is very, VERY wrong when he can't even get hard core leftists like Barbara Boxer to go along with him!

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Q: Did Hillary Clinton See the Mocking She Took on Saturday Night Live?

A: No. She erased the tape!

This is a must see....



And the reviews from Hillary's big launch were not entirely positive. Here's liberal columnist Ruth Marcus, writing in the Washington Post:
Hillary Clinton’s insultingly vapid video 
The more I watch Hillary Clinton’s announcement video, the less I like it. This may be putting it mildly.
...
[T]he video was relentlessly, insultingly vapid — a Verizon commercial without the substance. “Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times, but the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top,” Clinton said in what passed for a meaty message. “Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion.”

Seriously, this makes Ronald Reagan’s gauzy “It’s Morning Again in America” commercial look like a Brookings Institution seminar on economic policy. Understood — an announcement video isn’t the moment for a detailed policy platform, but it is, or should be, a venue for at least nodding to specific goals.
...
Sunday’s announcement — well, I just quoted the entirety of its substance. The Clinton campaign is focused on reassuring voters, as a campaign official put it in a conference call Monday previewing Clinton’s Iowa trip, “it isn’t about her … this is about … everyday Iowans.” But everyday Iowans deserve to hear more from the woman who would be president about what, exactly, she intends to do in office. It disrespects them to spend precious video seconds on the cute boy playing a fish in his school play.

Adding insult to vacuousness was the demographic box-checking nature of the video, however beautifully filmed. Working mom, check. Hispanic entrepreneur, check. Retiring grandma, check. Gay couple, check. African-American family, check. Hardworking small-businessman, check. South Asian, inter-racial, lesbian, check, check, check. If your demographic was not featured, you should write the campaign and it will probably splice you in.
...
Might I suggest, candidate Clinton? The best way to demonstrate your humility to voters is to take them and their presidential choice seriously, not to pander and condescend.
Yes Ruth, you might suggest that but even though Hillary is on a "listening tour" I doubt she'll heed your advice! After all, once you get past the fluff, there's not really much there now is there!

UPDATE: British Newspaper's Layout May Have Double Meaning
UPDATE: Man on the street thinks Hillary's campaign logo is a hospital direction sign!

Monday, April 13, 2015

More Obama Delusion. As Obama Cozies Up to Communist Cuba, Crackdown on Democracy Activists Increases

New crackdown is the very opposite of what Obama intended by opening relations with Cuba!

Remember apartheid South Africa? The left insisted that the only way to change the regime that segregated blacks from society was to impose ironclad economic sanctions. Leftists lobbied to have institutions disinvest from companies that did business in South Africa and insisted on federal legislation to put in place a total ban on trade.

Similar efforts were aimed at changing the repression of the Cuban people through decades of aU.S. economic boycott of Cuba. Until Obama decided to change tactics. He insisted that the best way to get Cuba to be more respectful of human rights was to open economic and political ties.

In a White House document titled "Charting a New Course on Cuba," which states: "a critical focus of these actions will include continued strong support for improved human rights conditions and democratic reforms in Cuba."

Just one problem. Since Obama announced this new policy human rights in Cuba have gotten worse not better. The Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami documented 178 political detentions in January, 492 in February and 610 in March. In 2014 there were four times as many detentions than there were in 2010 according to the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation.


And after earlier insisting that there would be "no formal bilateral meeting" between Obama and Castro at the Summit of the Americas in Panama, the two leaders did find time for a formal photo op. All smiles!
Obama and Castro in Panama. But don't call it a "formal" meeting.
Obama isn't this happy meeting with Congressional Democrats let alone Republicans!
Once again, Obama believes he can change decades of hardened brutality towards the Cuban people by the Communist regime with a smile. It's as delusional and immoral as thinking that the Iranian government really wants normalization with the West more than a nuclear weapon.

While Obama pats himself on the back it will be the little people of Cuba who will pay. Those who dared to ask for the right of free expression or free communications will continue to be beaten and oppressed. Here's just a sample of the Castro-Communist handiwork since 2012:

warning, graphic image:

Sunday, April 12, 2015

The Hillary Delusion: Dems Will Overlook Obvious Flaws Just As They Do With Obama

You have to admire Dems for their discipline. Even though it requires they give up critical and independent thought!

A neighbor sent me an email saying she had accidentally deleted the previous email I sent and would I please resend it. I responded that the missing email was probably in her deleted items folder; unless of course she had wiped her computer clean like Hillary Clinton did deleting tens of thousands of State Department emails.

She was not amused with my little joke. She made it clear she will support Hillary no matter what the same way she does with Obama. This despite the embarrassment of willfully ignoring Hillary's obvious flaws and ethical lapses. If any Republican had similar clouds hanging over them this person would be leading the charge demanding a Special Prosecutor and congressional investigations.

I suppose I should try to be more understanding of the dilemma such persons find themselves in. After all, having to defend two turkeys in a row must be stressful. But such Dems could teach conservatives a lesson about loyalty and support though most of us would never defend the indefensible as so many liberals are willing to do.

Another thing you'll notice is that the Dems don't really make much of an effort to provide any substantive defense of Hillary. Just like they did with Obama it's mostly about feelings. They will cite Hillary's resume: First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, but they grow quiet when you ask them to cite ACCOMPLISHMENTS from those years.

Whether it's man on the street or interviews with DNC officials Hillary supporters have trouble naming one accomplishment of hers that qualifies her to be President. One supporter did note that she traveled the world as Secretary of State but racking up frequent flier miles is hardly a noteworthy achievement. But even Hillary, when pressed, has trouble naming a significant accomplishment. Even liberal Mother Jones Magazine has trouble naming the reason for Hillary's candidacy.

Do Democrats really want to go through another campaign where the candidate mouths some basic platitudes of being on the side of children, the elderly and the Middle Class with nothing to show for it?

Hillary typo: "fighting children and families"

And just to show how bumbling Hillary's billion dollar campaign is, her staff sent out a press release with a typo saying "she’s fought children and families all her career." Is it any wonder she got communications with the Russians so screwed up?

With little but fluff on her record and so many ethical and legal issues clouding her campaign we're in for a HILL of a ride. Expect the smears against Republicans to start early and often. All the better to keep voters distracted from Hillary's weak points. Let's hope conservatives don't fall for the trap again and can unite early and remain loyal to a principled GOP candidate! It would be nice if the GOP nominee also had a strong record of accomplishment to run on but as we've learned from Obama and Hillary it's not a requirement!

Friday, April 10, 2015

Helping Obama Admin. Officials Understand the "Big Words" in Concerns for Iran Nuke Deal

Obviously what Kissinger and Shultz said was WAY over their head!

While the Obamabots are busy proclaiming peace with Iran, the adults know better. Statesmen Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, both former Secretaries of State who negotiated some of the most complex and difficult agreements of the 20th Century wrote and op-ed in the Wall Street Journal expressing their concern. I excerpted a portion of that op-ed here. This quote sums up their concerns:

Negotiations . . . to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes this very capability. . . 

Naturally, the criticism didn't sit well with the wizards of smart in the Obama Administration. The same bunch who have presided over the collapse of U.S. influence and the unleashing of a wave of war and terror across the globe. When asked about the Kissinger/Shultz missive State Dept. Spokeswoman Marie Harf remarked ""I Heard A Lot Of Big Words." Someone give the girl a dictionary. She's clearly in WAY over her head.

Perhaps to help her out and to sum up the concerns that Kissinger/Shultz and others have expressed over a possible Iran deal Charles Krauthammer wrote the following. it's worth reading in it's entirety but I offer the following excerpt:
It was but a year and a half ago that Barack Obama endorsed the objective of abolition when he said that Iran’s heavily fortified Fordow nuclear facility, its plutonium-producing heavy-water reactor and its advanced centrifuges were all unnecessary for a civilian nuclear program. The logic was clear: Since Iran was claiming to be pursuing an exclusively civilian program, these would have to go.

Yet under the deal Obama is now trying to sell, not one of these is to be dismantled. Indeed, Iran’s entire nuclear infrastructure is kept intact, just frozen or repurposed for the length of the deal (about a decade). Thus Fordow’s centrifuges will keep spinning. They will now be fed xenon, zinc and germanium instead of uranium. But that means they remain ready at any time to revert from the world’s most heavily (indeed comically) fortified medical isotope facility to a bomb-making factory.
...
And then there’s cheating. Not to worry, says Obama. We have guarantees of compliance: “unprecedented inspections” and “snapback” sanctions.

The inspection promises are a farce. We haven’t even held the Iranians to their current obligation to come clean with the International Atomic Energy Agency on their previous nuclear activities. The IAEA charges Iran with stonewalling on 11 of 12 issues.

As veteran nuclear expert David Albright points out, that makes future verification impossible — how can you determine what’s been illegally changed or added if you have no baseline? Worse, there’s been no mention of the only verification regime with real teeth — at-will, unannounced visits to any facility, declared or undeclared. The joint European-Iranian statement spoke only of “enhanced access through agreed procedures,” which doesn’t remotely suggest anywhere/anytime inspections. And on Thursday, Iran’s supreme leader ruled out any “extraordinary supervision measures.”


Yet even if violations are found, what then? First, they have to be certified by the IAEA. Which then reports to the United Nations, where Iran has the right to challenge the charge. Which then has to be considered, argued and adjudicated. Which then presumably goes to the Security Council where China, Russia and sundry anti-Western countries will act as Iran’s lawyers. Which all would take months — after which there is no guarantee that China and Russia will ratify the finding anyway.
As for the “snapback” sanctions — our last remaining bit of pressure — they are equally fantastic. There’s no way sanctions will be re-imposed once they have been lifted. It took a decade to weave China, Russia and the Europeans into the current sanctions infrastructure. Once gone, it doesn’t snap back. None will pull their companies out of a thriving, post-sanctions Iran. As Kissinger and Shultz point out, we will be fought every step of the way, leaving the United States, not Iran, isolated.
Obama imagines that this deal will bring Iran in from the cold, tempering its territorial ambitions and ideological radicalism. But this defies logic: With sanctions lifted, its economy booming and tens of billions injected into its treasury, why would Iran curb rather than expand its relentless drive for regional dominance?
...
What is the alternative, asks the president? He’s repeatedly answered the question himself: No deal is better than a bad deal.
Meanwhile, the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has accused Obama of "lying" about the deal and steadfastly insists that there is NO DEAL unless ALL sanctions are immediately lifted upon signing. Is Obama so desperate for a deal he will agree to that? Stay tuned!

The Best of Spring in Photographs Plus, Alien Sightings in Your Neighborhood?

The Daily Mail has a nice selection and even includes a garden near Mike's America!

See the entire article here. Click the images below for a full size view.

Keukenhof Gardens, The Netherlands
It's azalea blooming time in Mike's America's neck of the woods and the Daily Mail included the following from nearby Savannah, Georgia:

Savannah, Georgia 
Find UFO Sightings Near You

In a totally unrelated article the Daily Mail features an interactive map which allows you to use an interactive map to zero in on UFO sightings in your area. Just adjust the + or - key at the top left to zoom in or out and move the map center with your mouse.

I checked sightings near me but they all turned out to be Hillary Clinton disposing of her email server!

Wednesday, April 08, 2015

Why Does Obama Persist in Lying About Climate Change?

UPDATE: Global warming didn't cause Malia's asthma. Obama's SMOKING did!

Just like "if you like your [health care] plan you can keep it, he keeps repeating global warming scares that are not supported by the facts collected by his own government!

Despite the fact that global warming/climate change ranks at the BOTTOM on the list of issues that concern Americans Obama just can't let it go. I guess there's just too much money at stake for his friends and campaign contributors (1,2,3). Every month he gins up some new scheme to try and scare people into supporting a corrupt and failed theory that over the past 30 years has failed every benchmark set to prove it.

He's at it again. In an interview with ABC News he trotted out the big lie for another run: "While most Americans see climate change hitting their communities through extreme weather events – from more severe droughts and wildfires to more powerful hurricanes and record heat waves there are other threats climate change poses to the American people," and he tried to make the connection between increased wildfires and the childhood asthma suffered by his daughter Malia. You know a Democrat is lying when he says he's trying to save the children.

But Obama's own government keeps reams of data on climate and the environment. That includes wildfires. According to the National Interagency Fire Center the number of fires and the amount of acerage burned has gone DOWN over the last ten years.

And drought, while it may be quite bad in California (thank environmentalists for their blocking water projects) drought nationwide is about the same as it always been, though it was much worse in the 1930's and 50's. This information comes from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Hurricane intensity worldwide is at levels below what has been seen for 25 years.

And heatwaves are much fewer. Last February broke cold records. Worldwide, heat and cold records are about even.

If the "science is settled" and the link between man and climate change was irrefutable, why does Obama have to lie about the basic facts?

Tuesday, April 07, 2015

How Can Obama Claim a Deal w/ Iran that Iranians Do Not Recognize?

Both Obama and the Iranians are saying exactly the opposite about much of the so-called "deal!"

Throughout his failed presidency Obama usually addresses an issue by giving a speech and declaring

"problem solved." Like the anti-terrorism "success" he proclaimed in both Yemen and Somalia last September reality has a strange way of catching up with Obama's empty rhetoric.

So, when Obama announced with some fanfare that a deal with Iran on nuclear weapons was in the works I had my doubts.

I saw a great video clip on the news comparing what Obama said about the deal in the Rose Garden last Thursday and comparing it to what the Iranians said about the deal. Obama's understanding of the framework for agreement (it isn't even a real deal) boils down to this:
◾ Iran will not be able to pursue a bomb containing plutonium.
◾ Current plutonium facility (heavy water) to be taken down.
◾ Current plutonium moved to (probably Russia)
◾ Installed centrifuges will be removed by 2/3
◾ No enrichment at Fordo – but fordo will remain.
◾ 10 years of extensive monitoring.
◾ Maintenance of 1 year capability to bomb.
◾ Removal of U.N. and U.S. Sanctions
Just as soon as Obama made this statement the Iranians said it wasn't so and claimed Obama was misleading the American people on what the framework actually contains.Since we have a President who repeatedly told the American people "if you like your health care plan you can keep it" there is grounds for skepticism.

Listen to how the Iranian Foreign Minister described the framework:


• Iran keeps Frodo underground facility and will build centrifuges within it – but will not activate them.
• Iran will continue nuclear enrichment in other facilities.
• Iran will be allowed to develop more heavy water facilities.
• ALL UN and U.S. Sanctions will be lifted.
• UN sanctions lifted immediately.
• U.S. as soon as legally possible.
• Iran promises to wait 10 years until it builds a nuclear bomb.
Of course since the Iranians still insist their nuclear development (in a deep underground secret facility) is entirely peaceful, we can also doubt their honesty about the framework as well as their sincerity in reaching an honest deal.

Amir Taheri at the New York Post did a detailed analysis of the various statements and found some profound differences in what the various sides are saying about the framework. His conclusion is that the understandings of the U.S. and Iranians is largely contradictory which does not bode well for any kind of successful deal.

Besides, does anyone really believe that the Iranians will give up their longstanding practice of cheating on international inspections?

Once again Obama is engaged in the delusion of believing that his empty words carry reality with them. And like so many Obama failures before this one carries profound negative life and death consequences!

UPDATE: Former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz speak out!

Writing in the Wall Street Journal Shultz and Kissinger express concerns that Obama has been played by the Iranians because they understood Obama's need to get a deal trumped other security concerns. The damage to U.S. and allied interests is clear and lasting. As regards any hope of effectively monitoring the agreement Shultz and Kissinger know too well the lessons of the past that Obama never learned:
In a large country with multiple facilities and ample experience in nuclear concealment, violations will be inherently difficult to detect. Devising theoretical models of inspection is one thing. Enforcing compliance, week after week, despite competing international crises and domestic distractions, is another. Any report of a violation is likely to prompt debate over its significance—or even calls for new talks with Tehran to explore the issue. The experience of Iran’s work on a heavy-water reactor during the “interim agreement” period—when suspect activity was identified but played down in the interest of a positive negotiating atmosphere—is not encouraging.

Compounding the difficulty is the unlikelihood that breakout will be a clear-cut event. More likely it will occur, if it does, via the gradual accumulation of ambiguous evasions.

When inevitable disagreements arise over the scope and intrusiveness of inspections, on what criteria are we prepared to insist and up to what point? If evidence is imperfect, who bears the burden of proof? What process will be followed to resolve the matter swiftly?
fsg053d4.txt Free xml sitemap generator