Monthly Archives: April 2015

Media Self-Importance

Posted on by
Reply

Much is being made of Rand Paul’s (R, KY) friction with NLMSM interviewers, his disagreements with NBC‘s Savannah Guthrie being the latest.

Even Fox News‘ Howard Kurtz is in on the act:

What Paul bought himself by indulging the desire to lecture the “Today” show co-host [Guthrie] was days of media attention focused almost entirely on his temperament, and not on the issues he wants to talk about.

Kurtz went on at some length about Paul’s disagreements with Guthrie and with other NLMSM interviewers.

Therein lies the problem. These folks would rather talk about the supposed abuse of their own by impertinent candidates than talk about what those candidates are saying in the interviews. Of course, Kurtz cast this media behavior as a test of candidates’ ability to handle the stress of high office, but that’s just an Obama-esque effort to obfuscate the matter.

The “media attention focused almost entirely on [Paul’s] temperament” is entirely the media’s choice, a conscious decision to ignore the issues a candidate talks about and instead to obsess over their own.

And some accuse President Barack Obama of narcissism. Jeez.

A Stay on Illegal Immigration

Posted on by
Reply

Federal Judge Andrew Hanen has refused to stay his temporary injunction blocking President Barack Obama’s refusal to deport some 4 million illegal immigrants in Federal custody or whose whereabouts otherwise is known to the Feds. Hanen’s injunction will remain in force while Obama’s men appeal the stay to the 5th Circuit.

Refusing to stay his injunction has the effect, among others, of blocking Obama from pursuing (pending that appeal’s outcome) his Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program and his planned expansion of the 2012 program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

OF course, enforcing that block is problematic. Aside from the obvious reasons for suspicion, there’s this about that 2012 program from Hanen’s order and ruling:

The Court finds that the Government’s multiple statements on this subject were indeed misleading, as detailed in the Order filed simultaneously with this Order. It also finds that the remedial measure taken by counsel for the Government through the filing of an “advisory” on March 3, 2015, was neither prompt nor fully candid.

Since this administration, once again, has shown it cannot be trusted, there’s no reason to suppose Obama won’t move ahead apace with both programs.

Hanen wasn’t done, though. In a separate order, on the matter of that 2012 program and the President’s men lying about it, Hanen

also issued a separate ruling Tuesday night allowing the states to conduct discovery into their separate claim that the administration, beginning late last year, improperly implemented part of its immigration program, even though it had allegedly represented to Judge Hanen that it wouldn’t do so until February.

Deal, or No Deal?

Posted on by
1

It seems there are two published versions of the nuclear arms agreement framework just “negotiated” with Iran: the Obama administration’s and Iran’s. Here’s a summary, via Fox News at the link, of the highlights of the two versions:

Regarding sanctions:

US: The US fact sheet says: “US and EU [and UN] nuclear-related sanctions will be suspended after the IAEA has verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps. If at any time Iran fails to fulfill its commitments, these sanctions will snap back into place.”

Iran: The (translated) Iran fact sheet says: “According to the reached solutions, after the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan of Joint Action, all of the UN resolutions will be revoked and all of the multilateral economic and financial sanctions by the EU and the unilateral ones by the US will be annulled.”

The weasel-wording cynic in me, though, can see a serious misunderstanding rather than an entirely differing version in this disconnect. “After implementation” could be seen as “upon agreement and placement into force,” and it could be seen as “fully complied.”

Regarding centrifuges:

US: The US fact sheet says: “Iran will not use its IR-2, IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, or IR-8 models to produce enriched uranium for at least ten years. Iran will engage in limited research and development with its advanced centrifuges, according to a schedule and parameters which have been agreed to by the P5+1.”

Iran: The Iran (translated) Iran fact sheet says: “Iran will continue its research and development on advanced machines and will continue the initiation and completion phases of the research and development process of IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, and IR-8 centrifuges during the 10 year period of the Comprehensive Plan for Joint Action.”

Of course this means Iran will use those carefully specified centrifuge models—as well as others—to enrich. At the least, “limited R&D” and all phases of “R&D” involving those models—and others—require testing in the enriching process for which they’re built. This is no mere misunderstanding; these statements represent two entirely different agreements.

Regarding their uranium stockpile: 

US: The US fact sheet says: “Iran has agreed to not enrich uranium over 3.67% for at least 15 years,” and Iran will “reduce its current stockpile of about 10,000 kg of low-enriched uranium (LEU) to 300 kg of 3.67% LEU for 15 years.”

Iran: Iran’s (translated) Iran fact sheet says: “The timeframe of the Comprehensive Plan of Joint Action regarding Iran’s enrichment program will be 10 years.” It then refers to the enrichment at Natanz occurring during this period.

Ten years? Some nebulous 10-15 years? This is no misunderstanding, either.

Regardless of the time frame, the only way to verify this is with inspections. The inspections, though, are entirely on prior notice and only to specified locations (yes, including those that might be newly discovered (or become suspicious). Iran is allowed to litigate in an international court those locations, too. On top of that, neither statement contains any remarks about how violations will be corrected.

Just what exactly was it that our guys were “negotiating” with Iran’s guys? Were they even in the same building in Lausanne?

Iran Inspections

Posted on by
Reply

President Barack Obama insists that the inspection régime agreed by Iran is

the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history.

No.

After the 1991 invasion of Iraq to liberate occupied Kuwait, an inspection régime was set up. The inspectors entering and operating in Iraq could

go anywhere, anytime, with any equipment. They could seize documents, interview people, operate aircraft for transportation (and with sensors), and, basically anything else the Chairman of UNSCOM (the special Iraq WMD inspection team) and the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency decided was necessary.

Of course, it didn’t work out that way, which emphasizes my point: the inspection régime agreed by Iran doesn’t even begin to start to approach that level. The inspections are notice-only, they’re allowed only for specific sites, only preselected personnel may be interviewed…. The whole thing is allowed to be carefully choreographed, and not by the inspectors, but by the inspectees.

Of course, Obama knows this, as do his Democratic Party henchmen—you know the ones: those who aren’t on board with giving the Senate and the House veto-proof majorities in the Corker-Menendez bill requiring Congressional approval of any nuclear deal with Iran.

Remember this in the fall of 2016. And in the Democratic primaries, if you’re so inclined.

Discussions with Arabs

Posted on by
Reply

Gerald Seib, writing in The Wall Street Journal earlier in the week, had some thoughts about President Barack Obama and the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, an association of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates who are just across the Arabian Gulf from Iran. Seib anticipates that Obama will invite the six to Camp David to discuss Obama’s Iranian nuclear weapons deal.

Senior American officials have made clear that this is a conversation they now want to have to reassure the Gulf states, particularly the giant among them, Saudi Arabia.

No. This is a conversation Obama and his should have wanted to have—should have had—before beginning their foolishness with Iran and that they should have been having throughout those…negotiations.

Seib recognized the problem, if not the timing of its response.

The underlying question, of course, is whether the Gulf states now trust the US enough to embrace security guarantees or pledges of new defense cooperation. The answer is crucially important if the US is to convince the Gulf’s Sunni leaders that it isn’t tilting toward Shiite Iran. It’s also important to prevent a different and more ominous kind of reaction: a move by the Saudis to instead acquire their own nuclear weapon, by dialing up their friends in Pakistan to place an order, because they aren’t convinced Iran’s nuclear program will be stopped.

It’s too late, now. The damage is done, and we’ll be years repairing it. Hopefully Israel will still be alive.

Hopefully, the Gulf Cooperation Council will still be interested in our input for dealing with a nuclear armed Iran.