Jump to content
Guests feel free to register and post ×
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS AND GUESTS FEEL FREE TO REGISTER AND POST ×
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS AND GUESTS ×
guests can now post ×
welcome guests . feel free to test the waters. ×

zebra20zebra20

Member
  • Posts

    1,074
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by zebra20zebra20

  1. Obama’s new ‘red line’ — Iran By S.A. Miller September 16, 2013 | 3:00am Modal Trigger Photo: UPI/Dennis Brack President Obama drew another “red line” Sunday, now on Iranian nukes — and insisted that this time, he really means it, despite infamously wavering on his red-line pledge about Syria using chemical weapons. “My suspicion is that the Iranians recognize they shouldn’t draw a lesson that we haven’t struck [syria] to think we won’t strike Iran,” Obama said in an interview aired on ABC’s “This Week.” Obama stressed that he wouldn’t just talk tough but act tough when it comes to nuclear weapons. “I think what the Iranians understand is that the nuclear issue is a far larger issue for us than the chemical-weapons issue, that the threat against Israel, that a nuclear Iran poses, is much closer to our core interests,” he said. Obama said his threat of military action had spurred the Russian-brokered deal that would have Syria give up its chemical weapons. “My view is that if you have both a credible threat of force, combined with a rigorous diplomatic effort, that, in fact, you can you can strike a deal,” Obama said. Syria has yet to agree to a deal that would require President Bashar al-Assad’s regime to identify all its chemical-weapons stockpiles by the end of this week and begin handing them over. One of Obama’s former top advisers said Iran might respond to a strike on Syria with a terrorist or cyberattack on the US. “If there were to be a cyber-response to a US attack on Syria, I would expect it to come from Iran, not Syria,” said Mike Morell, the CIA’s former deputy director. Obama had vacillated about how to intervene since an alleged sarin gas attack killed more than 1,000 civilians — including about 400 children — near Damascus on Aug. 21. The president was urging Congress to pull the trigger on a military strike. Then, with lawmakers on the verge of rejecting military action, Obama turned to a last-minute Russian offer for a diplomatic solution. Obama boasted that his willingness to shift positions and create foreign policy on the fly demonstrates that he is “less concerned about style points” and “more concerned about getting the policy right.” “What I’ve said consistently throughout is that the chemical-weapons issue is a problem,” Obama said. “I want that problem dealt with. And, as a consequence of the steps that we’ve taken over the last two weeks to three weeks, we now have a situation in which Syria has acknowledged it has chemical weapons, has said it’s willing to join the convention on chemical weapons, and Russia, its primary sponsor, has said that it will pressure Syria to reach that agreement. “That’s my goal. And if that goal is achieved, then it sounds to me like we did something right.” Obama said critics must move beyond the Cold War rhetoric. “I know that sometimes this gets framed or looked at through the lens of the US versus Russia,” he said. Meanwhile, Iran’s Fars news agency reported Sunday that Russian President Vladimir Putin has accepted Tehran’ s invitation to visit and help work out a strategy on its nuclear program.
  2. Obama says Iran shouldn’t misinterpret U.S. response to Syria By Zachary A. Goldfarb, Updated: Sunday, September 15, 9:25 AMPresident Obama declared that the United States is still prepared to act militarily to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons despite the decision to pursue a diplomatic deal and not strike Syria over its alleged use of chemical weapons. He also acknowledged that his approach to the Syria crisis has been uneven, but defended it as producing the right results. Obama spoke in an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” taped Friday before the United States and Russia agreed on a plan to bring Syrian chemical weapons under international control in order to avoid military strikes. But Obama said Iran should not interpret the diplomatic response — coming after he threatened to use strikes — as suggesting that the United States wouldn’t attack Iran to stop the development of nuclear weapons. “I think what the Iranians understand is that the nuclear issue is a far larger issue for us than the chemical weapons issue, that the threat . . . against Israel that a nuclear Iran poses is much closer to our core interests,” Obama said. “My suspicion is that the Iranians recognize they shouldn’t draw a lesson that we haven’t struck [syria] to think we won’t strike Iran.” Obama said, however, that what the Iranians should draw from this episode is that it is possible to resolve this type of disagreement diplomatically. “My view is that if you have both a credible threat of force, combined with a rigorous diplomatic effort, that, in fact you can . . . strike a deal,” he said, confirming that he had communicated with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani by letter. Obama also defended his approach to the Syrian crisis, acknowledging that it has been turbulent, but insisting that it has achieved the right results. The comments come after a number of lawmakers and foreign policy experts on both sides of the aisle have criticized Obama for first making the case to go to war in Syria, then deciding to ask Congress for approval, and then making the case for strikes to a prime-time audience while also announcing that he would first give a Russian diplomatic proposal a chance to work. In response to those criticisms, Obama said he is less interested in style than results. “I think that folks here in Washington like to grade on style. And so had we rolled out something that was very smooth and disciplined and linear, they would have graded it well, even if it was a disastrous policy. We know that, because that’s exactly how they graded the Iraq war,” Obama said. He added, “I’m much more concerned about getting the policy right. . . . As a consequence of the steps that we’ve taken over the last two weeks to three weeks, we now have a situation in which Syria has acknowledged it has chemical weapons, has said it’s willing to join the convention on chemical weapons, and Russia, its primary sponsor, has said that it will pressure Syria to reach that agreement. That’s my goal. And if that goal is achieved, then it sounds to me like we did something right.” Obama also played down differences with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin as Russia and the United States work together to resolve the Syria standoff. “Mr. Putin and I have strong disagreements on a whole range of issues,” Obama said. “But I can talk to him. We have worked together on important issues. . . . This is not the Cold War. This is not a contest between the United States and Russia.” Obama plans to pivot back to a focus on the economy this week ahead of major fiscal battles in Congress, and he said he could change the direction of the economy — including the upward path of inequality — if Congress would let him. Asked if a president just couldn’t stop inequality, he responded, “I think the president can stop it. The problem is that there continues to be a major debate here in Washington.” While he acknowledged that government can’t overcome every trend in the market, policy that invests in the economy “pushes against these trends. And the problem that we’ve got right now is you’ve got a portion of Congress whose policies don’t just want to you know, leave things alone; they actually want to accelerate these trends.”
  3. "During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Stevenson called back: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!" Truer words were never spoken.' How true!
  4. Syrian opposition charges Assad sending chemical weapons 'back' to Iraq Thomas Lifson Call the Irony police! According to the pan-Arab daily newspaper Arsharq Al-Awsat, a spokesman for the Syrian opposition party is charging that the Assad regimes is shipping its chemical weapons "back" to Iraq, using the time provided by President Obama's dithering. Free Syrian Army (FSA) spokesman Luai Al-Mekdad told Asharq Al-Awsat that the Assad regime is "preparing to transfer part of its [chemical] arsenal to Iraq under the supervision of Iran's Quds Force," noting that Damascus is "returning the Iraqi chemical arsenal, which Saddam Hussein had sent to Syria before the 2003 Iraq war." Mekdad, who claimed to have received this information from special sources within the Syrian government, said that the "regime is waiting for technical circumstances" before it ships the chemicals to Baghdad, a step which will be taken "with the knowledge of the Iraqi prime minister Nouri Al-Maliki and under the supervision of the pro-Assad [iraqi] militias." (snip) Another likely destination for the weapons is Hezbollah in Lebanon, which Mekdad said "received the first batch of chemical weapons almost a year ago . . . and now is preparing to receive the second batch, which it will stockpile in areas along the border with Syria, as well as in Baalbek in the Beqaa Valley." Of course, this may be disinformation. Take it with a grain of salt. But if it is correct, the implications are awful. Having pulled US forces out of Iraq, President Obama is now handing WMDs to a regime quite cozy with the mullahs and Hezb'allah. If Hez gets the weapons, they will use them on Israel at a time of their choosing. President Bush 42 is far too gracious a man to gloat, probably even privately, but the irony cannot have escaped him that this Obama guy, who thought he knew so much and that Bush was so stupid, is now getting played so publicly. Imagine if the inspectors eventually get to Damascus and the rest of the war-torn country, and like their predecessors in conquered Iraq, find just little bits and pieces here and there. If the lives of millions and perhaps the fate of humanity (not to mention the future of American diplomacy) were not at stake, it would be funny. But events are spinning out of control of the United States, and the signal that sends to allies and friends alike is disastrous.
×
×
  • Create New...