March 26, 2015

Earnest on MSNBC: ‘Success Or Stability Of The Yemeni Government’ Not a Measure of Success of U.S. Policy

Employing a variant of the old surgeon’s joke — “The operation was a success, but the patient died” — White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, on friendly ground on MSNBC this morning, essentially told viewers that the administration still considers Yemen a success, even as its government is on the fast track to being forced into indefinite exile.

Earnest told the “Morning Joe” show’s Mika Brzezinski and the assembled panel that “U.S. policy should not be graded against the success or the stability of the Yemeni government” — although, just for starters, Yemen’s President has fled, while the Los Angeles Times is reporting that, because of the Yemeni government’s instability, Iran has obtained a treasure trove of U.S. intelligence. Video and a transcript follow the jump (HT Real Clear Politics):

(more…)

March 25, 2015

AP: ‘Not So Clear’ That Israel Is Democratic

The pundit class in the U.S. and much of the rest of the world is still seething over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s electoral triumph last week.

On Monday, Dan Perry at the Associated Press took that hysteria to a new level, in effect attempting to discredit Bibi’s win by writing that, after all, it may not really be correct to call Israel a democracy. That’s because “Palestinians” who are in the occupied territories — whose leaders, and more than likely a majority of its residents would vote to expel all Jews from Israel in a heartbeat if they could — can’t vote (bolds are mine):

(more…)

March 23, 2015

White House: Iran ‘Death To America’ Comments Only Meant For ‘Domestic Audience’

CNN is reporting tonight that the White House considers the “Of course, death to America” comments made by Iran’s Supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as merely a statement “intended for a domestic political audience.”

That clueless take would be headline news everywhere right now if this were a Republican or conservative administration. The National Journal’s John Kraushaar’s tweet reporting that statement, and one reaction to it, follow the jump:

(more…)

March 22, 2015

Obama Forced Bibi to the Right — And Lost Big

Netanyahu did what was right — and was rewarded.

_________________________________________

This column went at PJ Media and wwas teased here at BizzyBlog on Friday.

_________________________________________

The conventional wisdom in U.S. presidential campaigns is that candidates win by moving to the center in a contest’s final weeks to capture undecided “moderate” voters turned off by supposedly “extreme” sentiments.

That bromide has always been questionable. It naively and condescendingly assumes that passionate partisans will automatically show up and vote for a squish simply because he or she claims to be on their side. We’ve all heard it: “Where else are they going to go?” Ask Mitt Romney how that worked out two years ago.

Stuck in that mindset, President Barack Obama’s taxpayer-funded election fixers in Israel must have been absolutely thrilled when, just before Tuesday’s elections there, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that he no longer supports Palestinian statehood, and that he would support the building of “thousands of settler homes in Arab east Jerusalem to prevent future concessions to the Palestinians.”

Surely the man Team Obama hates — that is the right word, as “a former senior Obama administration official” told Politico that “They hate him, they should, and they’re praying that he is out of power” — had committed an act of desperation which would seal his political doom.

Here’s what they don’t understand about Bibi, and apparently never will: He loves Israel and its people. His mission in life is to do what he believes will guarantee its survival and prosperity. Like any politician, he deeply wants his positions to be popular. But he won’t abandon his principles to be accepted — or elected.

In that context, Benjamin Netanyahu had no choice but to reverse his long-held position on Palestinian statehood and to advocate settlement expansion when he did, even though it was Election Eve. Here’s why.

Early on Monday, the Times of Israel reported that almost three weeks earlier, in a stunning change of course, the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence had “removed Iran and Hezbollah from its list of terrorism threats, after years in which they featured in similar reports.”

Evidence of that delisting is apparently contained in the classified version of the annual report DNI submitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee. The public version has no specific terrorism threat list.

The public version of the previous year’s report, submitted on January 29, 2014, had the following things to say about Iran and Hizballah (DNI’s spelling) under the “Terrorist Activities Overseas” topic in its Page 4 “TERRORISM” section:

Iran and Hizballah are committed to defending the Asad regime (in Syria — Ed.) and have provided support toward this end, including sending billions of dollars in military and economic aid, training pro-regime and Iraqi Shia militants, and deploying their own personnel into the country. Iran and Hizballah view the Asad regime as a key partner in the “axis of resistance” against Israel and are prepared to take major risks to preserve the regime as well as their critical transshipment routes.

Iran and Hizballah

Outside of the Syrian theater, Iran and Lebanese Hizballah continue to directly threaten the interests of US allies. Hizballah has increased its global terrorist activity in recent years to a level that we have not seen since the 1990s.

None of these fundamental facts changed during the following 13 months, but the public version of the 2015 report only mentions Hizballah once — and as a target, i.e., the victim, of attacks by “Sunni extremists” in Lebanon. The Times of Israel story, apparently paraphrasing the classified version of the DNI report, gives it credit for, in its words, “fighting the Islamic State, independently of the American-led campaign, both in Syria and Iraq.”

As to Iran, the 2015 report blames that country’s operatives for December’s “computer operations targeting US military, transportation, public utility, and other critical infrastructure networks.” It notes that its “intelligence and security services continue to view the United States as a primary threat.” Additionally, it “does not (italics mine) face any insurmountable technical barriers to producing a nuclear weapon,” while its “progress on space launch vehicles” has given it “the means and motivation to develop longer-range missiles, including intercontinental ballistic missiles.”

Despite all of this, Iran has apparently improved its standing with the U.S. government by helping to prevent the Islamic State “from gaining large swaths of additional territory” in Iraq and for its “intentions to dampen sectarianism, build responsive partners, and deescalate tensions with Saudi Arabia,” even though such intentions have “negative secondary consequences for regional stability.” None of this even remotely justifies delisting the world’s leading terror-sponsoring nation as a terror threat.

So why did it happen? Let’s break it down.

U.S. troops, with Iraqi help, won the Iraq War after the successful “surge” of 2008.

Contrary to what Obama laughably claims, the rise of the Islamic State was not caused by the 2003 U.S. invasion and its accompanying elimination of Saddam Hussein. Instead, the Islamic State has filled the power vacuum created by the premature withdrawal of U.S forces Obama ordered at the end of 2011.

If it weren’t for Hizballah’s and Iran’s efforts against the Islamic State, Iraq would likely fall without a return of substantial U.S. combat forces — something Obama has continually ruled out. So both entities, seeing their newly acquired leverage, demanded delisting as a condition for continuing to fight in Iraq, at least for another two years. Otherwise, Iraq would probably fall on Obama’s watch, humiliating him for eternity.

Delisting Hizballah as a terrorist entity means that it can’t be denied a potential role in any potential Palestinian state. Its friends at the United Nations would likely bless its involvement. Delisting Iran opens up the likelihood of lifted sanctions, a more stable Iranian economy, and a populace less likely to revolt against that regime’s fundamentalist tyranny for the foreseeable future.

Bibi Netanyahu doesn’t care about the games the Obama administration is playing to save face as its foreign policy implodes. He cares about preserving Israel, and he knows that Hizballah, as a terrorist group bent on Israel’s destruction, cannot be allowed to become a part of any next-door government. That is why he rejected Palestinian statehood within hours of that Times of Israel story’s appearance.

Additionally, since it has become painfully obvious that the U.S. has a vested interest in appeasing Iran and Hizballah, Netanyahu knows that he has for all practical purposes lost what used to be his best and most reliable ally until at least January 2017, and perhaps indefinitely. Because of that painful reality, he is pursuing aggressive settlement building in areas the Palestinians wish to annex to make it far more difficult for a future squish-dominated Israeli administration to cede that territory to a neighboring terrorist state.

It cannot be emphasized enough that Netanyahu took these actions with no idea as to how they would play out electorally. But he knew that they were right, and to him that’s all that mattered. He got a resounding win. For once, virtue has been rewarded.

The intensely hateful editorial and official reactions to Bibi’s victory in the U.S. and other parts of the world among those who will never understand the idea of virtue, let alone appreciate it, only confirm just how important that victory is.

Not News: Obama Admin’s ‘Lying Weasels’ Delisted Iran and Hezbollah As Terror Threats

From all appearances, only Fox News, CNS News, and few Israel-based outlets and U.S.-based center-right blogs care about the fact, acknowledged by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, that Iran and Hezbollah, in the words of Fox’s Greta Van Susteren, “are suddenly MIA from the U.S. terror threat list.”

DNI apparently has no plans to change its report, having told CNS News that “This year’s Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. intelligence community report was simply a format change,” while contending that “There is no ‘softening’ of our position.” DNI’s excuse-making tacitly acknowledges the absence of Iran and Hezbollah from this year’s terror threat list.

(more…)

March 20, 2015

Dennis Miller ‘Putin on the Ritz’ With O’Reilly, Also Takes on Starbucks and Al Gore

On Thursday’s “O’Reilly Factor” on Fox News, Dennis Miller put in an uproariously funny but also insightful appearance.

On the more serious side, Miller and O’Reilly also discussed former Vice President Al Gore’s expressed preference for punishing those who dare to question the conventional wisdom on “climate change.” Someone needs to mention Gore’s disturbing posture, as the Associated Press and the New York Times are acting as if Gore hasn’t uttered a single threatening word. A March 16 full-length feature on Gore and his (cough, cough) “New Optimism” at the Times “somehow” missed his March 13 statement that “We need to put a price on denial in politics.” They apparently realize that wannabe tyrants make progress towards their goals the less sunlight there is.

The O’Reilly-Miller video and highlights follow the jump (HT Real Clear Politics):

(more…)

Latest PJ Media Column (‘Obama Forced Bibi to the Right — and Bibi Won’) Is Up

It’s here.

It will go up here at BizzyBlog on Sunday afternoon (link won’t work until then) after the blackout expires.

March 18, 2015

Politico’s Crowley Perpetuates Myth That Boehner ‘Went Behind Obama’s Back’ With Bibi Speech

Many media myths won’t die because those who should know better — and I believe in many cases do know better, and don’t care — perpetuate them.

One can’t divine his mindset, but Politico’s Michael Crowley, in his coverage of Benjamin Netanyahu’s decisive Tuesday election victory, did his part to continue the myth that the Israeli Prime Minister’s “March 3 speech to Congress (was) arranged by Speaker John Boehner behind the Obama White House’s back.” It wasn’t, and claiming that it was a million times won’t change that.

(more…)

March 12, 2015

Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress

Filed under: National Security,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 5:25 pm

Commenter dscott is right. The content of Israeli Prime Minister’s March 3 speech to Congress is not getting the attention it deserves, thanks to the controversy ginned up over his appearance and his message which runs against the “make a deal no matter how bad it is” posture of the Obama administration.

So here’s the video:

Here’s the transcript:

NETANYAHU: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you…

(APPLAUSE)

… Speaker of the House John Boehner, President Pro Tem Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Minority — Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

I also want to acknowledge Senator, Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Harry, it’s good to see you back on your feet.

(APPLAUSE)

I guess it’s true what they say, you can’t keep a good man down.

(LAUGHTER)

My friends, I’m deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the U.S. Congress.

(APPLAUSE)

I want to thank you all for being here today. I know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention.

I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade.

(APPLAUSE)

I know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics.

(APPLAUSE)

Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful for the support of American — of America’s people and of America’s presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama.

(APPLAUSE)

We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel.

Now, some of that is widely known.

(APPLAUSE)

Some of that is widely known, like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.

Some of what the president has done for Israel is less well- known.

I called him in 2010 when we had the Carmel forest fire, and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid.

In 2011, we had our embassy in Cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment.

Or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists.

(APPLAUSE)

In each of those moments, I called the president, and he was there.

And some of what the president has done for Israel might never be known, because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an American president and an Israeli prime minister.

But I know it, and I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support.

(APPLAUSE)

And Israel is grateful to you, the American Congress, for your support, for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including Iron Dome.

(APPLAUSE)

Last summer, millions of Israelis were protected from thousands of Hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our Iron Dome.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you, America. Thank you for everything you’ve done for Israel.

My friends, I’ve come here today because, as prime minister of Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people: Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.

We’re an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we’ll read the Book of Esther. We’ll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies.

The plot was foiled. Our people were saved.

(APPLAUSE)

Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated — he tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn’t exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.

For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran’s chief terrorist proxy. He said: If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world.

But Iran’s regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran’s regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime.

The people of Iran are very talented people. They’re heirs to one of the world’s great civilizations. But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots — religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship.

That year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for Iran. It directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect Iran’s borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. The regime’s founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, exhorted his followers to “export the revolution throughout the world.”

I’m standing here in Washington, D.C. and the difference is so stark. America’s founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran’s founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to do just that.

Iran’s goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Back by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Back by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world’s oil supply.

Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That’s just last week, while they’re having nuclear talks with the United States. But unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran’s attacks against the United States have been anything but mock. And the targets have been all too real.

Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beyond the Middle East, Iran attacks America and its allies through its global terror network. It blew up the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. It helped Al Qaida bomb U.S. embassies in Africa. It even attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, right here in Washington, D.C.

In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran’s aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow.

So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations.

(APPLAUSE)

We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, two years ago, we were told to give President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to Iran. Some change! Some moderation!

Rouhani’s government hangs gays, persecutes Christians, jails journalists and executes even more prisoners than before.

Last year, the same Zarif who charms Western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh. Imad Mughniyeh is the terrorist mastermind who spilled more American blood than any other terrorist besides Osama bin Laden. I’d like to see someone ask him a question about that.

Iran’s regime is as radical as ever, its cries of “Death to America,” that same America that it calls the “Great Satan,” as loud as ever.

Now, this shouldn’t be surprising, because the ideology of Iran’s revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that’s why this regime will always be an enemy of America.

Don’t be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn’t turn Iran into a friend of America.

Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.

In this deadly game of thrones, there’s no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don’t share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone.

So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.

(APPLAUSE)

The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember — I’ll say it one more time — the greatest dangers facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can’t let that happen.

(APPLAUSE)

But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.

Let me explain why. While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don’t need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it.

Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran.

The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the bomb. Break-out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb.

According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed.

Because Iran’s nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran’s break-out time would be very short — about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel’s.

And if — if Iran’s work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that break-out time could still be shorter, a lot shorter.

True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran’s nuclear program and Iran’s adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. But here’s the problem. You see, inspectors document violations; they don’t stop them.

Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn’t stop anything. North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb.

Now, we’re warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs.

Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors. It’s done that on at least three separate occasions — 2005, 2006, 2010. Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras.

Now, I know this is not gonna come a shock — as a shock to any of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them.

The U.N.’s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. Iran was also caught — caught twice, not once, twice — operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn’t even know existed.

Right now, Iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don’t know about, the U.S. and Israel. As the former head of inspections for the IAEA said in 2013, he said, “If there’s no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn’t have one.” Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. And that’s why the first major concession is a source of great concern. It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. That concession creates a real danger that Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal.

But the second major concession creates an even greater danger that Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. Because virtually all the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade.

Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it’s the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It’s a blink of an eye in the life of our children. We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran’s nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could product many, many nuclear bombs.

Iran’s Supreme Leader says that openly. He says, Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount — 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision.

My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires.

Now I want you to think about that. The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy.

And by the way, if Iran’s Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program is not part of the deal, and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table. Well, Iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reach corners of the earth, including to every part of the United States.

So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That’s why this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.

So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?

Well, I disagree. I don’t believe that Iran’s radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would wet appetite — would only wet Iran’s appetite for more.

Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it’s under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?

Why should Iran’s radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both world’s: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?

This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel’s neighbors — Iran’s neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it’s been given a clear path to the bomb.

And many of these neighbors say they’ll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won’t change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that’s supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.

This deal won’t be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.

If anyone thinks — if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road, we’ll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve come here today to tell you we don’t have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don’t have to gamble with our future and with our children’s future.

We can insist that restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.

(APPLAUSE)

Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second…

(APPLAUSE)

Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world.

(APPLAUSE)

And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you.

If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires.

(APPLAUSE)

If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn’t change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted.

(APPLAUSE)

If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country.

(APPLAUSE)

My friends, what about the argument that there’s no alternative to this deal, that Iran’s nuclear know-how cannot be erased, that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do?

Well, nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn’t get you very much. A racecar driver without a car can’t drive. A pilot without a plan can’t fly. Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, Iran can’t make nuclear weapons.

(APPLAUSE)

Iran’s nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table — and this often happens in a Persian bazaar — call their bluff. They’ll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.

(APPLAUSE)

And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more.

My friends, for over a year, we’ve been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We’re better off without it.

(APPLAUSE)

Now we’re being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That’s just not true.

The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.

(APPLAUSE)

A better deal that doesn’t leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short break-out time. A better deal that keeps the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in place until Iran’s aggression ends.

(APPLAUSE)

A better deal that won’t give Iran an easy path to the bomb. A better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally. And no country…

(APPLAUSE)

… no country has a greater stake — no country has a greater stake than Israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat.

Ladies and gentlemen, history has placed us at a fateful crossroads. We must now choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war.

The second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclearized Middle East and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity.

You don’t have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace, we all desire.

(APPLAUSE)

My friend, standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. With us today is Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel.

(APPLAUSE)

Elie, your life and work inspires to give meaning to the words, “never again.”

(APPLAUSE)

And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

(APPLAUSE)

Not to sacrifice the future for the present; not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace.

But I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over.

(APPLAUSE)

We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves.

(APPLAUSE)

This is why — this is why, as a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.

(APPLAUSE)

But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

I know that you stand with Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

You stand with Israel, because you know that the story of Israel is not only the story of the Jewish people but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history’s horrors.

(APPLAUSE)

Facing me right up there in the gallery, overlooking all of us in this (inaudible) chamber is the image of Moses. Moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the Promised Land.

And before the people of Israel entered the land of Israel, Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. I leave you with his message today, (SPEAKING IN HEBREW), “Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them.”

My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute. May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we face the future with confidence, strength and hope.

May God bless the state of Israel and may God bless the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all.

You’re wonderful.

Thank you, America. Thank you.

Thank you.

March 10, 2015

Will Establishment Press Continue to Ignore Polis’s ‘Tehran Tom’ Tweets Against Sen. Cotton?

Imagine if a Republican congressperson called Illinois’ senior senator Dick Durbin “Dick Turban” in not one tweet, but two (Durbin has been given the nickname by several center-right pundits and commentators; but as far as I can tell, no national Republican politician has used it). Does anyone think it would take the establishment press over 15 hours (and counting) to report it?

Late Monday evening, Democratic Colorado Congressman Jared Polis referred to GOP Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton as “Tehran Tom” twice. In one of the tweets, Polis claimed that Cotton had asked “Iranian Revolutionary Guards for help in battle against US diplomats.” Cotton is a military veteran who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

(more…)

February 26, 2015

AP’s Dilanian Avoids Clapper’s ‘Worst in 45 Years’ Threat Statement

At the Associated Press late Thursday morning, Ken Dilanian, the wire service’s intelligence writer, did a marvelous job of covering up the essence of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s Worldwide Threat Assessment testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The trouble is that if he were doing his job as our Founders anticipated he would when they gave the nation’s press extraordinary and then unheard-of freedoms, he would have covered the story instead of covering it up.

(more…)

Greta Van Susteren Roasts Rice, and the Obama Administration, Over Describing Netanyahu’s Upcoming Congressional Speech as ‘Destructive’

Wednesday night, Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren sharply criticized Susan Rice for her Tuesday comment about Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s impending March 3 speech to Congress, namely that “On both sides, there has now been injected a degree of partisanship, which is not only unfortunate, but I think it’s destructive of the fabric of the relationship.” To be clear, Rice is not freelancing. Wednesday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters that “what she said was entirely consistent with what the President said publicly before.”

This was too much for Van Susteren, who needed only 45 seconds of the 90-second clip which follows to rattle off a half-dozen examples of how the Obama administration’s conduct has been “destructive” to the U.S.-Israel relationship.

(more…)

February 17, 2015

Obama Admin Officials to New Yorker Mag: Libyan Chaos Is GOP’s Fault

In a rundown of the deteriorating situation in Libya in its February 23 issue, New Yorker Magazine’s Jon Lee Anderson quoted “a senior (Obama) Administration official” (the capital “A” is Anderson’s) who, incredibly, claimed that the country’s descent into virtual chaos resulted from “the politicization” of the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack which killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others.

You see, because of that alleged politicization, Team Obama-Hillary claims that it, in the Administration official’s words, “reduced our geographic scope and presence in the country,” and, in Anderson’s words, that it “wound down its diplomatic presence and essentially abandoned its role” there. A different “senior administration official” chimed in with how Benghazi “brought a ‘broader chill’” to U.S. efforts.

(more…)

February 15, 2015

Update: Losing the War U.S. Troops Won Under Bush 43

Remember, U.S. troops achieved undeniable victory in Iraq in November 2008.

Now there’s this from CNN:

An Iraqi tribal leader said Saturday that ISIS militants are gaining ground in Anbar province, predicting a “collapse within hours” of Iraqi army forces there if tribal forces withdraw.

Sheikh Naim al-Gaoud, a Sunni Muslim leader of the Albu Nimr tribe, called for more U.S. intervention — including ground troops, arming tribes directly or at least pressuring the Iraqi government to give the tribes more firepower.

While U.S. officials have said that ISIS, which calls itself the Islamic State, is on the defensive in Iraq and Syria, al-Gaoud says that’s definitely not the case where he is.

“In Anbar, we are losing ground, not gaining,” he said.

Thousands of families had been under siege in the town of Jubbat al-Shamiya until getting help Friday from U.S.-led coalition airstrikes and Iraqi forces, according to al-Gaoud.

But he said Iraqi troops had pulled out of Jubbat al-Shamiya on Saturday, at which time ISIS was shelling the town.

If the Islamist extremist group’s fighters go in, al-Gaoud predicted a massacre.

I’ve said the war was Obama’s to lose all along, and he’s losing it — at a horrible human cost.

And it is ALL on him.

_________________________________________

UPDATE: This is on top of the story from two days ago that ISIS fighters are within reach of coalition troops near Baghdad —

Bombers make it onto Iraq base used by U.S. troops

Eight suicide bombers managed Friday to get onto a sprawling Iraqi military base where hundreds of U.S. Marines are training their Iraqi counterparts, but were killed by an ISF counter attack almost immediately.

Sean Ryan, chief of foreign affairs for the U.S.-led military coalition in Iraq, confirmed to CBS News that the attackers made it onto the secluded Ain al-Asad airbase west of Baghdad, but said the attackers made it “nowhere near” the American forces on the base before they were killed.

A U.S. defense official, speaking to CBS News on background, said the militants were believed to have been members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), who hold positions just a few miles northeast of the base, in the al-Baghdadi area.

The official said coalition forces were at least a mile and a half away from the attack, and at no point were they under direct threat from the militants.

“Nowhere near” is NOT 1-1/2 miles, people.

February 9, 2015

Williams Admits to Lying About ‘Following’ Hit Helicopter in Feb. 4 Stars and Stripes Interview

At about 2:40 this afternoon, Stars and Stripes published a “full transcript of the Feb. 4 (Wednesday) interview in which the anchor admits he was never on the attacked helicopter and claims he was unaware his flight was not directly behind but actually far from the company that was hit.”

Williams, in admitting that his flight was far from the company that was hit, is acknowledging that the statement he made that very evening on his Nightly News broadcast — that “I was instead in a following aircraft” — was false, and misled his viewers into believing he was near the dangers involved. Also unaddressed are the following items among many which have arisen since that interview: whether even the original 2003 broadcasts from the anchor’s time in Iraq were misleading from the start; how, in the circumstances supposedly just clarified, Williams could have told a college journalist in 2007 that he “looked down the tube of an RPG that had been fired at us”; and other questionable items relating to other stories which have since surfaced. Excerpts from the interview with Travis J. Tritten of Stars and Stripes follow the jump (bolds are mine):

(more…)