Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
US Envoy, Shapiro, to Israel: US Has Ready Plans to Attack Iran
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Capt. Justice
May 18, 2012, 5:35:50 PM5/18/12
to
The official forgot to mention that Iran has not nuclear weapons program
.
by John Glaser, May 17, 2012
.
The U.S. envoy to Israel told the Israeli Bar Association that America
has plans in place to attack Iran if necessary to prevent it
from developing nuclear weapons, just days ahead of a second round of
nuclear talks to take place in Baghdad.
Dan Shapiro said that although the Obama administration has made efforts
to negotiate a deal on Iran?s nuclear program, "that doesn't mean that
option is not fully available. Not just available, but it?s ready," he
said. "The necessary planning has been done to ensure that it's ready."
The comment was typical of the talk coming out of the Obama
administration for months. Officials have consistently employed tough
talk, aimed particularly at trigger happy Israeli hawks who are unsure
about Obama's commitment to go to war on Israel?s paranoid say-so.
"We do believe there is time. Some time, not an unlimited amount of
time," Shapiro said in reference to the P5+1 talks with Iran on its
nuclear program. "But at a certain point, we may have to make a judgment
that the diplomacy will not work."
Shapiro made his comments without emphasizing the conclusion of the U.S.
military and intelligence community, that Iran has no nuclear weapons
program, has demonstrated no intention to develop one, and that an
attack would needlessly cause a regional conflagration of international
violence which could not be contained.
What will come to the negotiations remains to be seen, but there is a
simple solution to the issue which is completely off the table. Namely,
establishing a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East. Top Iranian
officials have repeatedly voiced their support for such a plan, but
Israel has refused to give up its hundreds of nuclear weapons and also
to open up its stockpile to international inspections.
So while every single participant in the talks with Iran acknowledges
that they don?t even have a weapons program, no talks have been
scheduled with Israel over its well-established weapons program. The
double standard is not only glaring, but it is the cause of much of the
tension over potential conflict in the Middle East.
Last 5 posts by John Glaser
House OKs Indefinite Detention of Terror Suspects - May 18th, 2012
Obama Asking for Help Funding Afghan Army - May 17th, 2012
Syrian Opposition Still Unorganized, Faces Still More Infighting - May
17th, 2012
Hondurans Attack Government Buildings, Demand US Leave - May 17th, 2012
House Bill Shifting Red Line for War on Iran Passes Overwhelmingly -
May 17th, 2012
.
by John Glaser, May 17, 2012
.
The U.S. envoy to Israel told the Israeli Bar Association that America
has plans in place to attack Iran if necessary to prevent it
from developing nuclear weapons, just days ahead of a second round of
nuclear talks to take place in Baghdad.
Dan Shapiro said that although the Obama administration has made efforts
to negotiate a deal on Iran?s nuclear program, "that doesn't mean that
option is not fully available. Not just available, but it?s ready," he
said. "The necessary planning has been done to ensure that it's ready."
The comment was typical of the talk coming out of the Obama
administration for months. Officials have consistently employed tough
talk, aimed particularly at trigger happy Israeli hawks who are unsure
about Obama's commitment to go to war on Israel?s paranoid say-so.
"We do believe there is time. Some time, not an unlimited amount of
time," Shapiro said in reference to the P5+1 talks with Iran on its
nuclear program. "But at a certain point, we may have to make a judgment
that the diplomacy will not work."
Shapiro made his comments without emphasizing the conclusion of the U.S.
military and intelligence community, that Iran has no nuclear weapons
program, has demonstrated no intention to develop one, and that an
attack would needlessly cause a regional conflagration of international
violence which could not be contained.
What will come to the negotiations remains to be seen, but there is a
simple solution to the issue which is completely off the table. Namely,
establishing a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East. Top Iranian
officials have repeatedly voiced their support for such a plan, but
Israel has refused to give up its hundreds of nuclear weapons and also
to open up its stockpile to international inspections.
So while every single participant in the talks with Iran acknowledges
that they don?t even have a weapons program, no talks have been
scheduled with Israel over its well-established weapons program. The
double standard is not only glaring, but it is the cause of much of the
tension over potential conflict in the Middle East.
Last 5 posts by John Glaser
House OKs Indefinite Detention of Terror Suspects - May 18th, 2012
Obama Asking for Help Funding Afghan Army - May 17th, 2012
Syrian Opposition Still Unorganized, Faces Still More Infighting - May
17th, 2012
Hondurans Attack Government Buildings, Demand US Leave - May 17th, 2012
House Bill Shifting Red Line for War on Iran Passes Overwhelmingly -
May 17th, 2012
Capt. Justice
May 18, 2012, 9:57:38 PM5/18/12
to
Israeli Leadership Hardens Stance, Plans Iran Attack
'It Is Going to Happen,' Insists Top Official
.
http://news.antiwar.com/2012/05/17/israeli-leadership-hardens-stance-plans-iran-attack/
.
by Jason Ditz, May 17, 2012
.
"I think they have made the decision to attack, it is going to happen. '
That was the word from an unnamed top Israeli official, familiar with
the ongoing conversation, in comments to Reuters.
The debate within Israel over the attack, which reached a fevered pace
just weeks ago, has come to a virtual halt, and the new coalition
government has stopped talking about the upcoming war in public,
apparently satisfied that they have won the argument.
"Nobody is saying anything publicly," noted another official, who termed
the situation a sort of 'lockdown' for Israel's cabinet leadership. Even
the question of when the war will start seems to be answered, with
officials pointing again to the weeks leading up to the US election.
"The window of opportunity is before the U.S. presidential election in
November. This way they will bounce the Americans into supporting them."
Obama aides have likewise referred to the weeks before the vote as the
"sweet spot" for the war.
It is this near certitude about the wisdom of starting a war that has
Israeli officials scared to death of the P5+1 negotiations next week in
Baghdad. Though the US is always around to try to foil any deals
reached, the latest word has been that the sides are making serious
progress, and could spoil Netanyahu's crusade into Tehran.
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
Flurry of Amendments as New Military Funding Bill Passes - May 18th,
2012
Hollande: French Troops to Leave Afghanistan by Year's End - May 18th,
2012
House Rejects Effort to End Afghan War - May 17th, 2012
Medvedev: Attack on Syria or Iran Could Spark Nuclear War - May 17th,
2012
US Drone Kills Three as Yemeni Offensive Continues - May 17th, 2012
'It Is Going to Happen,' Insists Top Official
.
http://news.antiwar.com/2012/05/17/israeli-leadership-hardens-stance-plans-iran-attack/
.
by Jason Ditz, May 17, 2012
.
"I think they have made the decision to attack, it is going to happen. '
That was the word from an unnamed top Israeli official, familiar with
the ongoing conversation, in comments to Reuters.
The debate within Israel over the attack, which reached a fevered pace
just weeks ago, has come to a virtual halt, and the new coalition
government has stopped talking about the upcoming war in public,
apparently satisfied that they have won the argument.
"Nobody is saying anything publicly," noted another official, who termed
the situation a sort of 'lockdown' for Israel's cabinet leadership. Even
the question of when the war will start seems to be answered, with
officials pointing again to the weeks leading up to the US election.
"The window of opportunity is before the U.S. presidential election in
November. This way they will bounce the Americans into supporting them."
Obama aides have likewise referred to the weeks before the vote as the
"sweet spot" for the war.
It is this near certitude about the wisdom of starting a war that has
Israeli officials scared to death of the P5+1 negotiations next week in
Baghdad. Though the US is always around to try to foil any deals
reached, the latest word has been that the sides are making serious
progress, and could spoil Netanyahu's crusade into Tehran.
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
Flurry of Amendments as New Military Funding Bill Passes - May 18th,
2012
Hollande: French Troops to Leave Afghanistan by Year's End - May 18th,
2012
House Rejects Effort to End Afghan War - May 17th, 2012
Medvedev: Attack on Syria or Iran Could Spark Nuclear War - May 17th,
2012
US Drone Kills Three as Yemeni Offensive Continues - May 17th, 2012
Capt. Justice
May 18, 2012, 9:59:29 PM5/18/12
to
Capt. Justice
May 18, 2012, 11:45:23 PM5/18/12
to
Medvedev: Attack on Syria or Iran Could Spark Nuclear War
.
http://news.antiwar.com/2012/05/17/medvedev-attack-on-syria-or-iran-could-spark-nuclear-war/
Warns Against 'Hasty Military Operations'
by Jason Ditz, May 17, 2012
.
Speaking today at a press conference, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry
.
Medvedev hinted at a stronger Russian opposition to war against Syria or
Iran, key issues on the eve of an upcoming G8 summit.
"At some point such actions which undermine state sovereignty may lead
to a full-scale regional war, even, although I do not want to frighten
anyone, with the use of nuclear weapons," Medvedev warned. "Everyone
should bear this in mind."
He went on to warn against 'hasty military operations,' but provided no
further detail on how the wars would "go nuclear" since neither Syria
nor Iran has any nuclear weapons of their own. This leaves open the
possibility that Russia could be drawn into such a conflict on their
side.
This is particularly true in Syria, where Russia has particularly close
ties to the Assad regime, and has been loudly condemning Western efforts
to back the rebels in a growing Civil War. Russia has been supporting
Syria, and vetoing UN resolutions that might lead to war.
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
2012
UN: No 'Proof' al-Qaeda Behind Syria Bombings - May 18th, 2012
NATO Trucks Cross Pakistan Border, But Final Deal Elusive - May 18th,
2012
Netanyahu: 'No Evidence' Iran Serious About Talks - May 18th, 2012
House Ends Military's NASCAR Sponsorships - May 18th, 2012
Capt. Justice
May 19, 2012, 1:37:13 PM5/19/12
to
Applying the Six-Day War to Iran
by Ray McGovern
.
PS= bottom part of this post reveals the
'myth' of the six-day war.
May 19, 2012
.
With the 45th anniversary of the Six-Day War of June 1967 coming early
next month, pro-Israel pundits like syndicated columnist Charles
Krauthammer are again promoting Israel's faux narrative on the reasons
behind Israel's decision to attack its neighbors.
The Krauthammers of our domesticated, corporate media seem bent on
waging pre-emptive war against an accurate historical rendering of the
actual objectives behind that Israeli offensive that overwhelmed Arab
armies and seized large swaths of Arab territory, land that hard-line
Zionists refer to as "Greater Israel," i.e. rightly theirs.
With its surprise attacks on June 5, 1967, Israel rapidly defeated the
armies of its Arab neighbors. It gained control of the Gaza Strip and
the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from
Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.
The Sinai was returned to Egypt in 1979 as a result of the Camp David
peace accord, a land-for-peace swap that U.S. President Jimmy Carter
demanded and that then-Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin deeply
resented.
Jewish settlement has proceeded apace on other territories conquered in
the Six-Day War, particularly in the Palestinian West Bank, which
Israel's ruling Likud Party refers to by its Biblical names Judea and
Samaria.
Likud's charter declares that "the Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria
and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land
is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to
the Land of Israel.
The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and
will prevent their uprooting."
In other words, in the Six-Day War, Israel seized land that hard-line
Zionists consider to be part of their ancestral legacy. The surprise
attack in 1967 was the means to that end. The Likud Party emerged
several years later with the explicit intent of consolidating that
control through a settlement policy called "changing the facts on the
ground."
Time to Worry
Yet, despite Israel?s continued expansion into those Palestinian lands,
pro-Israel pundits are in a defensive mood these days, and with good
reason. They see a particular need this year to whitewash Israel's
surprise attack on its Arab neighbors 45 years ago - not only because
the anniversary is likely to draw more than the usual attention - but
also because Israel's strategic position has deteriorated markedly in
the past year.
For instance, the 80 million-plus Egyptians are no longer neutered by
the joint Mubarak-Israel-U.S. effort to repress them and co-opt them
into passivity vis-Ã -vis the Palestinians. Serious contenders in
the upcoming Egyptian election have said they would reconsider the
Egypt-Israel Treaty of 1979.
Some leading Egyptian politicians have added that they would fling wide
open Egypt's border with Gaza, where about 1.5 million Palestinians live
in what amounts to an open-air prison. These Egyptians also are saying
strongly sympathetic things about the widespread suffering in Gaza and
the West Bank.
Equally important, Egypt's present government has already nullified the
sweetheart arrangement under which Egypt was providing natural gas to
Israel at bargain basement prices. (That alone is a very big deal.)
And, in sad contrast to the deafening silence of senior American
officials regarding Israel?s reckless killing of U.S. citizens, such as
Rachel Corrie in 2003, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
continues to demand an apology for Israel's killing of Turkish citizens
aboard the Mavi Marmara on May 31, 2010.
The result of that dispute is a sharp diminution in what used to be very
close military ties between Turkey and Israel - not to mention a lot of
ill will, which can be very corrosive over the longer run.
Misinformed Americans
Regarding the events of 1967, America's pro-Israel pundit class knows
only too well that Egyptians, Turks, Syrians, Jordanians and other
audiences in the Middle East will not buy Israel's faux-history of the
Six-Day War - many having been on the receiving end of it.
Thus, it is abundantly clear that the primary targets of the
disinformation are Americans like those who subscribe to the
neoconservative Washington Post, whose editors in recent decades
have been careful to keep their readers malnourished on the thin gruel
of watered-down (or unreliable) facts about the Middle East (think,
Iraq's WMDs).
So, it would be simply too much to acknowledge, as former Israeli Prime
Minister Begin did 30 years ago, in an uncommon burst of hubris-tinged
honesty, that Israel's attack on its neighbors in 1967 was in no way a
defensive war - or even a "pre-emptive" war (there being no really
dangerous Egyptian or other threat to pre-empt).
While Prime Minister in 1982, Begin declared: "In June 1967, we had a
choice. .
The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches (did) not prove
that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with
ourselves. We decided to attack him."
Such real history would lift the veil now shrouding Israel's version
that plays up the "threat" posed by Egypt and disguises the grand
enterprise to expand Israel's borders and "in double-contravention of
international law" to colonize the occupied territories.
To bolster Israel's heroic rendition of the Six-Day War " and to apply
its supposed lessons to Israel's current plans to bomb Iran "
Krauthammer 'reprised' that triumphal version of Israel masterfully
defending itself against imminent destruction by the Arabs.
"On June 5 (1967), Israel launched a preemptive strike on the Egyptian
air force, then proceeded to lightning victories on three fronts,"
Krauthammer wrote, cooing: "The Six-Day War is legend."
He then overlaid that gauzy history onto today's confrontation with
Iran: "Israelis today face the greatest threat to their existence
nuclear weapons in the hands of apocalyptic mullahs publicly pledged to
Israel's annihilation since May '67. The world is again telling
Israelis to do nothing as it looks for a way out. But if such a way is
not found = as in '67 Israelis know that they will once again have to
defend themselves, by themselves."
Noting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent coalition with the
rival Kadima Party, Krauthammer also mocked the importance of former
Israeli intelligence chiefs cautioning against a rush to war with Iran.
He wrote: "So much for the recent media hype about some great domestic
resistance to Netanyahu's hard line on Iran. Two notable retired
intelligence figures were widely covered here for coming out against
him. Little noted was that one had been passed over by Netanyahu to be
the head of Mossad, while the other had been fired by Netanyahu as
Mossad chief (hence the job opening).
"The [new] wall-to-wall coalition demonstrates
Israel's political readiness to attack, if necessary.
(Its military readiness is not in doubt.) Those counseling Israeli
submission, resignation or just endless patience can no longer dismiss
Israel?s tough stance as the work of irredeemable right-wingers."
After reading this Krauthammer op-ed in the May 10 - Washington
Post,- I decided, against my better judgment, to invest a half-hour
writing a letter to the editor, trying to make it as factual as
possible. Several days after its submission, I have given up any meager
hope I may have harbored that the Post would actually print
it.
Perhaps that half-hour investment will not have been a complete waste of
time if I can share the result with you:
Letter to the Editor,-Washington Post, May 13, 2012
In his May 10 op-ed column, "Echoes of '67: Israel unites," Charles
Krauthammer refers to May 1967 as "Israel's most fearful, desperate
month" and compares it to today, claiming that Iran poses "the greatest
threat" to Israel's existence.
It ain't necessarily so. In August 1982, then-Prime Minister Menachem
Begin admitted publicly: "In June 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian
Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches (did) not prove that Nasser
was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We
decided to attack him."
Today's "threat" from Iran is equally ephemeral. Krauthammer, though,
warns ominously about "nuclear weapons in the hands of apocalyptic
mullahs publicly pledged to Israel?s annihilation."
The allusion is to an illusion - the alleged threat by Iranian President
Ahmadinejad to "wipe Israel off the map."Â But he never said that,
an inconvenient reality- reluctantly acknowledged- by Israeli Deputy
Prime Minister Dan Meridor early last month. And in January, Defense
Secretary Leon Panetta and his Israeli counterpart both publicly
affirmed the unanimous assessment of U.S. intelligence that Iran is not
working on a nuclear weapon.
Who, then, is being apocalyptic? Krauthammer's agenda is so transparent
that a rigorous Fact Check should be de rigueur.
Read more by Ray McGovern
Honoring a -Terror War- Architect ? May 13th, 2012
Not Explaining the Why of Terrorism - May 2nd, 2012
Render to Caesar, Extraordinarily - April 6th, 2012
Obama's Super-Bowl Fumble on Iran - February 7th, 2012
Divining the Truth About Iran - February 1st, 2012
by Ray McGovern
.
PS= bottom part of this post reveals the
'myth' of the six-day war.
May 19, 2012
.
With the 45th anniversary of the Six-Day War of June 1967 coming early
next month, pro-Israel pundits like syndicated columnist Charles
Krauthammer are again promoting Israel's faux narrative on the reasons
behind Israel's decision to attack its neighbors.
The Krauthammers of our domesticated, corporate media seem bent on
waging pre-emptive war against an accurate historical rendering of the
actual objectives behind that Israeli offensive that overwhelmed Arab
armies and seized large swaths of Arab territory, land that hard-line
Zionists refer to as "Greater Israel," i.e. rightly theirs.
With its surprise attacks on June 5, 1967, Israel rapidly defeated the
armies of its Arab neighbors. It gained control of the Gaza Strip and
the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from
Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.
The Sinai was returned to Egypt in 1979 as a result of the Camp David
peace accord, a land-for-peace swap that U.S. President Jimmy Carter
demanded and that then-Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin deeply
resented.
Jewish settlement has proceeded apace on other territories conquered in
the Six-Day War, particularly in the Palestinian West Bank, which
Israel's ruling Likud Party refers to by its Biblical names Judea and
Samaria.
Likud's charter declares that "the Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria
and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land
is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to
the Land of Israel.
The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and
will prevent their uprooting."
In other words, in the Six-Day War, Israel seized land that hard-line
Zionists consider to be part of their ancestral legacy. The surprise
attack in 1967 was the means to that end. The Likud Party emerged
several years later with the explicit intent of consolidating that
control through a settlement policy called "changing the facts on the
ground."
Time to Worry
Yet, despite Israel?s continued expansion into those Palestinian lands,
pro-Israel pundits are in a defensive mood these days, and with good
reason. They see a particular need this year to whitewash Israel's
surprise attack on its Arab neighbors 45 years ago - not only because
the anniversary is likely to draw more than the usual attention - but
also because Israel's strategic position has deteriorated markedly in
the past year.
For instance, the 80 million-plus Egyptians are no longer neutered by
the joint Mubarak-Israel-U.S. effort to repress them and co-opt them
into passivity vis-Ã -vis the Palestinians. Serious contenders in
the upcoming Egyptian election have said they would reconsider the
Egypt-Israel Treaty of 1979.
Some leading Egyptian politicians have added that they would fling wide
open Egypt's border with Gaza, where about 1.5 million Palestinians live
in what amounts to an open-air prison. These Egyptians also are saying
strongly sympathetic things about the widespread suffering in Gaza and
the West Bank.
Equally important, Egypt's present government has already nullified the
sweetheart arrangement under which Egypt was providing natural gas to
Israel at bargain basement prices. (That alone is a very big deal.)
And, in sad contrast to the deafening silence of senior American
officials regarding Israel?s reckless killing of U.S. citizens, such as
Rachel Corrie in 2003, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
continues to demand an apology for Israel's killing of Turkish citizens
aboard the Mavi Marmara on May 31, 2010.
The result of that dispute is a sharp diminution in what used to be very
close military ties between Turkey and Israel - not to mention a lot of
ill will, which can be very corrosive over the longer run.
Misinformed Americans
Regarding the events of 1967, America's pro-Israel pundit class knows
only too well that Egyptians, Turks, Syrians, Jordanians and other
audiences in the Middle East will not buy Israel's faux-history of the
Six-Day War - many having been on the receiving end of it.
Thus, it is abundantly clear that the primary targets of the
disinformation are Americans like those who subscribe to the
neoconservative Washington Post, whose editors in recent decades
have been careful to keep their readers malnourished on the thin gruel
of watered-down (or unreliable) facts about the Middle East (think,
Iraq's WMDs).
So, it would be simply too much to acknowledge, as former Israeli Prime
Minister Begin did 30 years ago, in an uncommon burst of hubris-tinged
honesty, that Israel's attack on its neighbors in 1967 was in no way a
defensive war - or even a "pre-emptive" war (there being no really
dangerous Egyptian or other threat to pre-empt).
While Prime Minister in 1982, Begin declared: "In June 1967, we had a
choice. .
The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches (did) not prove
that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with
ourselves. We decided to attack him."
Such real history would lift the veil now shrouding Israel's version
that plays up the "threat" posed by Egypt and disguises the grand
enterprise to expand Israel's borders and "in double-contravention of
international law" to colonize the occupied territories.
To bolster Israel's heroic rendition of the Six-Day War " and to apply
its supposed lessons to Israel's current plans to bomb Iran "
Krauthammer 'reprised' that triumphal version of Israel masterfully
defending itself against imminent destruction by the Arabs.
"On June 5 (1967), Israel launched a preemptive strike on the Egyptian
air force, then proceeded to lightning victories on three fronts,"
Krauthammer wrote, cooing: "The Six-Day War is legend."
He then overlaid that gauzy history onto today's confrontation with
Iran: "Israelis today face the greatest threat to their existence
nuclear weapons in the hands of apocalyptic mullahs publicly pledged to
Israel's annihilation since May '67. The world is again telling
Israelis to do nothing as it looks for a way out. But if such a way is
not found = as in '67 Israelis know that they will once again have to
defend themselves, by themselves."
Noting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent coalition with the
rival Kadima Party, Krauthammer also mocked the importance of former
Israeli intelligence chiefs cautioning against a rush to war with Iran.
He wrote: "So much for the recent media hype about some great domestic
resistance to Netanyahu's hard line on Iran. Two notable retired
intelligence figures were widely covered here for coming out against
him. Little noted was that one had been passed over by Netanyahu to be
the head of Mossad, while the other had been fired by Netanyahu as
Mossad chief (hence the job opening).
"The [new] wall-to-wall coalition demonstrates
Israel's political readiness to attack, if necessary.
(Its military readiness is not in doubt.) Those counseling Israeli
submission, resignation or just endless patience can no longer dismiss
Israel?s tough stance as the work of irredeemable right-wingers."
After reading this Krauthammer op-ed in the May 10 - Washington
Post,- I decided, against my better judgment, to invest a half-hour
writing a letter to the editor, trying to make it as factual as
possible. Several days after its submission, I have given up any meager
hope I may have harbored that the Post would actually print
it.
Perhaps that half-hour investment will not have been a complete waste of
time if I can share the result with you:
Letter to the Editor,-Washington Post, May 13, 2012
In his May 10 op-ed column, "Echoes of '67: Israel unites," Charles
Krauthammer refers to May 1967 as "Israel's most fearful, desperate
month" and compares it to today, claiming that Iran poses "the greatest
threat" to Israel's existence.
It ain't necessarily so. In August 1982, then-Prime Minister Menachem
Begin admitted publicly: "In June 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian
Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches (did) not prove that Nasser
was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We
decided to attack him."
Today's "threat" from Iran is equally ephemeral. Krauthammer, though,
warns ominously about "nuclear weapons in the hands of apocalyptic
mullahs publicly pledged to Israel?s annihilation."
The allusion is to an illusion - the alleged threat by Iranian President
Ahmadinejad to "wipe Israel off the map."Â But he never said that,
an inconvenient reality- reluctantly acknowledged- by Israeli Deputy
Prime Minister Dan Meridor early last month. And in January, Defense
Secretary Leon Panetta and his Israeli counterpart both publicly
affirmed the unanimous assessment of U.S. intelligence that Iran is not
working on a nuclear weapon.
Who, then, is being apocalyptic? Krauthammer's agenda is so transparent
that a rigorous Fact Check should be de rigueur.
Read more by Ray McGovern
Honoring a -Terror War- Architect ? May 13th, 2012
Not Explaining the Why of Terrorism - May 2nd, 2012
Render to Caesar, Extraordinarily - April 6th, 2012
Obama's Super-Bowl Fumble on Iran - February 7th, 2012
Divining the Truth About Iran - February 1st, 2012
Capt. Justice
May 22, 2012, 10:40:57 PM5/22/12
to
Iran, IAEA Broker Nuclear Deal as Israel Calls it "Deception"
.
Israel's reaction indicates it is not interested in Iran's nuclear
program, only in increasing tensions .
.
http://news.antiwar.com/2012/05/22/iran-iaea-broker-nuclear-deal-as-israel-calls-it-deception/
.
by John Glaser, May 22, 2012
A deal has been reached between Iran and the IAEA on further probing and
inspections of Iran?s nuclear program, after the nuclear watchdog's
chief spent Monday negotiating in Tehran.
IAEA chief Yukiya Amano said after talks with chief Iranian nuclear
negotiator Saeed Jalili, "the decision was made 'to reach agreement' on
the mechanics of giving the IAEA additional access to the sites -
including the Parchin military site " and documents it seeks to restart
its probe, Amano told reporters at Vienna airport on Tuesday.
Amano said differences existed on 'some details,' without elaborating
but added that Jalili had assured him that these 'will not be an
obstacle to reach agreement.' He spoke of 'an almost clean text' that
will be signed 'quite soon,' although he could not say when
specifically.
The diplomatic breakthrough comes just one day before negotiations
between six world powers and Iran take place in Baghdad. The Obama
administration has yet to comment on the impending nuclear deal, but the
President has in recent days employed rhetoric that is clearly
constructed to seem tough against his Republican contender for the 2012
campaign
Iran's "inability thus far to convince the world community that it is
not pursuing the weaponization of nuclear power is of grave concern to
all of us," Obama said in a joint statement released after meeting
with the Group of Eight at Camp David.
But Obama knows better, and is himself convinced, along with his entire
administration and the whole of the intelligence community, that Iran
is not developing nuclear weapons.
Obama's bluster may also be catering to Israel, whose defense minister
angrily condemned the nuclear deal brokered by Jalili and
Amano. Defense Minister Ehud Barak said the Iranians are
trying to create a 'deception of progress' to avoid pressure ahead of
the P5+1 talks this week.
The Israelis have been leading an effort to shift the demand from
preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons to prohibiting Iran from
developing any nuclear energy at all for peaceful purposes. They, and
other hawks in the U.S., succumbed to the evidence that Iran has
demonstrated no nuclear weapons ambitions, so are focusing instead on
what Iran is doing, namely developing peaceful nuclear energy as is
their right.
The Israeli condemnation of the increased international inspections of
Iran's peaceful nuclear program is an indication that Israel is not
interested in the true nature of Iran's nuclear program, only in
advocating for unprovoked war and distracting the world from its
policies of expansion and expulsion in the Palestinian territories.
Last 5 posts by John Glaser
Requirement for US Soldiers in Afghanistan to Obtain a Warrant Largely
Symbolic - May 22nd, 2012
Khartoum Suggests Israeli Involvement in Car Blast in East Sudan - May
22nd, 2012
China Accuses Pentagon of Hyping Chinese Military Threat - May 22nd,
2012
US Officials: IAEA-Iran Deal Won't Interrupt Sanctions - May 22nd, 2012
NATO Maps Afghan Withdrawal With Implicit Admission of Failure - May
21st, 2012
.
Israel's reaction indicates it is not interested in Iran's nuclear
program, only in increasing tensions .
.
http://news.antiwar.com/2012/05/22/iran-iaea-broker-nuclear-deal-as-israel-calls-it-deception/
.
by John Glaser, May 22, 2012
A deal has been reached between Iran and the IAEA on further probing and
inspections of Iran?s nuclear program, after the nuclear watchdog's
chief spent Monday negotiating in Tehran.
IAEA chief Yukiya Amano said after talks with chief Iranian nuclear
negotiator Saeed Jalili, "the decision was made 'to reach agreement' on
the mechanics of giving the IAEA additional access to the sites -
including the Parchin military site " and documents it seeks to restart
its probe, Amano told reporters at Vienna airport on Tuesday.
Amano said differences existed on 'some details,' without elaborating
but added that Jalili had assured him that these 'will not be an
obstacle to reach agreement.' He spoke of 'an almost clean text' that
will be signed 'quite soon,' although he could not say when
specifically.
The diplomatic breakthrough comes just one day before negotiations
between six world powers and Iran take place in Baghdad. The Obama
administration has yet to comment on the impending nuclear deal, but the
President has in recent days employed rhetoric that is clearly
constructed to seem tough against his Republican contender for the 2012
campaign
Iran's "inability thus far to convince the world community that it is
not pursuing the weaponization of nuclear power is of grave concern to
all of us," Obama said in a joint statement released after meeting
with the Group of Eight at Camp David.
But Obama knows better, and is himself convinced, along with his entire
administration and the whole of the intelligence community, that Iran
is not developing nuclear weapons.
Obama's bluster may also be catering to Israel, whose defense minister
angrily condemned the nuclear deal brokered by Jalili and
Amano. Defense Minister Ehud Barak said the Iranians are
trying to create a 'deception of progress' to avoid pressure ahead of
the P5+1 talks this week.
The Israelis have been leading an effort to shift the demand from
preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons to prohibiting Iran from
developing any nuclear energy at all for peaceful purposes. They, and
other hawks in the U.S., succumbed to the evidence that Iran has
demonstrated no nuclear weapons ambitions, so are focusing instead on
what Iran is doing, namely developing peaceful nuclear energy as is
their right.
The Israeli condemnation of the increased international inspections of
Iran's peaceful nuclear program is an indication that Israel is not
interested in the true nature of Iran's nuclear program, only in
advocating for unprovoked war and distracting the world from its
policies of expansion and expulsion in the Palestinian territories.
Last 5 posts by John Glaser
Symbolic - May 22nd, 2012
Khartoum Suggests Israeli Involvement in Car Blast in East Sudan - May
22nd, 2012
China Accuses Pentagon of Hyping Chinese Military Threat - May 22nd,
2012
US Officials: IAEA-Iran Deal Won't Interrupt Sanctions - May 22nd, 2012
NATO Maps Afghan Withdrawal With Implicit Admission of Failure - May
21st, 2012
Capt. Justice
May 23, 2012, 12:01:44 AM5/23/12
to
Netanyahu: Iran Must Stop All Uranium Enrichment, Give Away Existing
Uranium
.
One Day After Barak's Concessions, Israel Is Back to Hawking it Up
.
by Jason Ditz, May 21, 2012
.
Just one day after his government hinted at a compromise, with Defense
Minister Ehud Barak saying Israel was willing to accept Iran?s civilian
enrichment of uranium up to 3.5 percent, Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu gave a new speech in which he rescinded the offer and issued
new demands.
In his new speech, Netanyahu is now demanding that Iran not only close
the Qom facility, but stop all enrichment of uranium and agree to give
away all of its existing fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor and the
Bushehr power plant.
"This is the only way it will be possible to ensure that Iran does not
get a nuclear bomb," insisted Netanyahu, adding that his demands "will
not change" and that Israel will accept nothing less out of the Baghdad
Summit, which they aren't participating in in the first place.
Having two sets of book it relation to demands issued to Iran is nothing
new, and the US has likewise put on a more reasonable face in certain
speeches while issuing impossible levels of demands in others. With
Israel now back on the "demand everything" kick and the US imposing yet
more sanctions, the summit is likely to begin with considerable
acrimony.
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
UN Monitors Dispute Syrian Rebel Claims of Police Killings - May 22nd,
2012
Fighting Escalates, Ethiopia Military Vows 'Onslaught' in Southern
Somalia - May 22nd, 2012
North Korea to 'Boost Nuclear Deterrent' After Latest US Threats - May
22nd, 2012
For Public Consumption: NATO 'Pullout' Won't Actually Remove Troops From
Afghanistan - May 22nd, 2012
Mali's New 'President' Thrashed by Protesters - May 21st, 2012
Uranium
.
One Day After Barak's Concessions, Israel Is Back to Hawking it Up
.
by Jason Ditz, May 21, 2012
.
Just one day after his government hinted at a compromise, with Defense
Minister Ehud Barak saying Israel was willing to accept Iran?s civilian
enrichment of uranium up to 3.5 percent, Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu gave a new speech in which he rescinded the offer and issued
new demands.
In his new speech, Netanyahu is now demanding that Iran not only close
the Qom facility, but stop all enrichment of uranium and agree to give
away all of its existing fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor and the
Bushehr power plant.
"This is the only way it will be possible to ensure that Iran does not
get a nuclear bomb," insisted Netanyahu, adding that his demands "will
not change" and that Israel will accept nothing less out of the Baghdad
Summit, which they aren't participating in in the first place.
Having two sets of book it relation to demands issued to Iran is nothing
new, and the US has likewise put on a more reasonable face in certain
speeches while issuing impossible levels of demands in others. With
Israel now back on the "demand everything" kick and the US imposing yet
more sanctions, the summit is likely to begin with considerable
acrimony.
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
2012
Fighting Escalates, Ethiopia Military Vows 'Onslaught' in Southern
Somalia - May 22nd, 2012
North Korea to 'Boost Nuclear Deterrent' After Latest US Threats - May
22nd, 2012
For Public Consumption: NATO 'Pullout' Won't Actually Remove Troops From
Afghanistan - May 22nd, 2012
Mali's New 'President' Thrashed by Protesters - May 21st, 2012
Capt. Justice
May 23, 2012, 6:05:55 PM5/23/12
to
NATO Talks a Sham: War in Afghanistan Is Not Ending
Posted: 05/21/2012 2:59 pm
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is not a benevolent organization.
NATO is not about the North Atlantic and it's not about our collective
defense.
NATO is a cost-sharing organization that finances aggressive military
action. By hiding behind the claim that the organization provides for
'common defense,' NATO allows us to wage wars of choice under the guise
of international peacekeeping. The most recent example was the
unconstitutional war in Libya where NATO, operating under a United
Nations mandate to protect civilians, instead backed one side in a civil
war and pursued a policy of regime change.
Today, NATO leaders are meeting in Chicago to discuss the future of
Afghanistan. The talks are being billed as discussions of plans to end
the war. The war in Afghanistan is not ending. These talks are simply
about financing the next phase of the war.
The Strategic Partnership Agreement between the U.S. and Afghanistan
commits us to the country for at least another decade, despite public
support for the war being at an all-time low. The United States will pay
for half of the estimated $4.1 billion per year cost of supporting
352,000 Afghan army and police officers. Afghanistan's contribution will
be $500,000. The rest will be financed by our 'NATO partners.' It is not
surprising that support for the war among NATO members is waning, with
France threatening to pull out its troops by the end of this year.
Our participation in NATO comes at a great financial cost to the U.S. We
contribute the majority of funds for NATO's common budget, including 25%
of the military budget. Between fiscal years 2010 and 2012 alone, we
contributed more than $1.3 billion to NATO's military budget. We also
incur significant costs through the deployment of our forces in support
of NATO missions. According to The Atlantic, the war in Libya cost the
United States $1.1 billion.
NATO was originally founded to provide a strategic counterbalance to the
Soviet Union. Its founding purpose no longer exists, but NATO continues
to circumvent the authority of the United Nations and to provoke other
nations. NATO is an anachronism. Instead of trying to bolster the
organization, we should begin serious discussions to dismantle it.
Follow Rep. Dennis Kucinich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RepKucinich
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-dennis-kucinich/nato-talks-a-sham-war-in_b_1533828.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=052212&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
Posted: 05/21/2012 2:59 pm
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is not a benevolent organization.
NATO is not about the North Atlantic and it's not about our collective
defense.
NATO is a cost-sharing organization that finances aggressive military
action. By hiding behind the claim that the organization provides for
'common defense,' NATO allows us to wage wars of choice under the guise
of international peacekeeping. The most recent example was the
unconstitutional war in Libya where NATO, operating under a United
Nations mandate to protect civilians, instead backed one side in a civil
war and pursued a policy of regime change.
Today, NATO leaders are meeting in Chicago to discuss the future of
Afghanistan. The talks are being billed as discussions of plans to end
the war. The war in Afghanistan is not ending. These talks are simply
about financing the next phase of the war.
The Strategic Partnership Agreement between the U.S. and Afghanistan
commits us to the country for at least another decade, despite public
support for the war being at an all-time low. The United States will pay
for half of the estimated $4.1 billion per year cost of supporting
352,000 Afghan army and police officers. Afghanistan's contribution will
be $500,000. The rest will be financed by our 'NATO partners.' It is not
surprising that support for the war among NATO members is waning, with
France threatening to pull out its troops by the end of this year.
Our participation in NATO comes at a great financial cost to the U.S. We
contribute the majority of funds for NATO's common budget, including 25%
of the military budget. Between fiscal years 2010 and 2012 alone, we
contributed more than $1.3 billion to NATO's military budget. We also
incur significant costs through the deployment of our forces in support
of NATO missions. According to The Atlantic, the war in Libya cost the
United States $1.1 billion.
NATO was originally founded to provide a strategic counterbalance to the
Soviet Union. Its founding purpose no longer exists, but NATO continues
to circumvent the authority of the United Nations and to provoke other
nations. NATO is an anachronism. Instead of trying to bolster the
organization, we should begin serious discussions to dismantle it.
Follow Rep. Dennis Kucinich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RepKucinich
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-dennis-kucinich/nato-talks-a-sham-war-in_b_1533828.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=052212&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
Capt. Justice
May 24, 2012, 4:09:17 PM5/24/12
to
What If We Have Only Memories of Freedom?
http://original.antiwar.com/andrew-p-napolitano/2012/05/23/what-if-we-have-only-memories-of-freedom/
by Andrew P. Napolitano, May 24, 2012
What if Memorial Day reminds us of times when we had more freedom? What
if freedom is dying right under our eyes? What if the memory of the past
is more fulfilling than the reality of the present?
What if the federal government could write any law, regulate any
behavior, and tax any event, no matter what the Constitution authorized?
What if the majority in Congress rejects the idea of limited government
and views the Constitution as granting it blanket power to do whatever
it can get away with? What if the constitutional prohibition on the
government?s taking of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law is only for show and is not for real?
What if the House of Representatives seriously considered letting the
military lock up whatever Americans the president ordered the troops to
arrest, without charges filed or lawyers present or a judge presiding?
What if the House seriously debated this idea of indefinite military
detention of Americans in America and actually voted in favor of it?
What if this unconstitutional monstrosity becomes the law and your right
to due process depends on whether you remain with the majority, stay
silent, or behave properly? What if the Constitution's guarantees are
not guarantees at all but are subject to the whims of whoever is in
power?
What if the Declaration of Independence, which articulated the moral
authority for the revolution against Great Britain, recognized that our
rights come from our Creator and are inalienable? What if very few in
government recognize the divine origin of human freedom and its natural
integrity to our humanity?
What if the government only permitted freedom so long as it was
exercised as the government pleases? What if the government rejected the
basic values of every person's right to life and liberty and property in
favor of some collective good, where the government could arrest you
without evidence, ration your freedom to suit the general welfare, and
take your property from you and sell it at a profit?
What if the government could hire thugs to keep you safe? What if it
gave the thugs uniforms and badges and sent them to airports? What if it
gave them rubber gloves to wear and told them they could touch you and
your children and your parents however and wherever they wished? What if
these thugs touched the private parts of little babies and old ladies
and intentionally restrained those who have criticized them while the
rest of us just watched and let this happen?
What if the airlines did a better job of keeping their customers happy
and their property safe than the thugs did? What if the government spent
millions of your tax dollars to advertise what a great job it's doing?
What if the government charged the airlines millions of their dollars
for the illusory services these thugs are rendering? What if the
government's thugs never caught a single bad guy intent on harming a
flight in America? What if the government's thugs actually let weapons
and bad guys onto planes because the thugs are dopes who have no
competition, who can't be sued, and who won't be fired?
What if the government found more dopes and dupes and convinced them
that they should conspire to commit acts of terrorism? What if the idea
for terrorist acts and the means for committing them came from the
government? What if no real threats were involved in these games and no
real weapons were used, just fake threats and fake weapons, fomented and
provided by the government? What if the government created these phony
crimes just so that it could solve them? What if no one was ever in
danger from these government-created crimes, except those the government
tricked? What if the government did this again and again and then
boasted that it was keeping us safe from its own creations? What if
Congress and the media and even the courts fell for this?
What if, on Memorial Day, we remember times that were more free than
today? What if, on Memorial Day, when we think of those who died for our
freedom, we end up recognizing that the freedom they died for is dying?
What if it becomes fashionable for the government to ignore the
Constitution? What if the Constitution dies because the government stops
following it? What if, next Memorial Day, freedom is just a memory?
What do we do about it?
COPYRIGHT 2012 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM.
Read more by Andrew P. Napolitano
Is There a Drone in Your Backyard? - May 16th, 2012
What Constitutes a Fair Trial? - May 10th, 2012
The President's Private War - May 4th, 2012
Is the CIA in Your Kitchen? - March 21st, 2012
Can the President Kill You? - March 7th, 2012
http://original.antiwar.com/andrew-p-napolitano/2012/05/23/what-if-we-have-only-memories-of-freedom/
by Andrew P. Napolitano, May 24, 2012
What if Memorial Day reminds us of times when we had more freedom? What
if freedom is dying right under our eyes? What if the memory of the past
is more fulfilling than the reality of the present?
What if the federal government could write any law, regulate any
behavior, and tax any event, no matter what the Constitution authorized?
What if the majority in Congress rejects the idea of limited government
and views the Constitution as granting it blanket power to do whatever
it can get away with? What if the constitutional prohibition on the
government?s taking of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law is only for show and is not for real?
What if the House of Representatives seriously considered letting the
military lock up whatever Americans the president ordered the troops to
arrest, without charges filed or lawyers present or a judge presiding?
What if the House seriously debated this idea of indefinite military
detention of Americans in America and actually voted in favor of it?
What if this unconstitutional monstrosity becomes the law and your right
to due process depends on whether you remain with the majority, stay
silent, or behave properly? What if the Constitution's guarantees are
not guarantees at all but are subject to the whims of whoever is in
power?
What if the Declaration of Independence, which articulated the moral
authority for the revolution against Great Britain, recognized that our
rights come from our Creator and are inalienable? What if very few in
government recognize the divine origin of human freedom and its natural
integrity to our humanity?
What if the government only permitted freedom so long as it was
exercised as the government pleases? What if the government rejected the
basic values of every person's right to life and liberty and property in
favor of some collective good, where the government could arrest you
without evidence, ration your freedom to suit the general welfare, and
take your property from you and sell it at a profit?
What if the government could hire thugs to keep you safe? What if it
gave the thugs uniforms and badges and sent them to airports? What if it
gave them rubber gloves to wear and told them they could touch you and
your children and your parents however and wherever they wished? What if
these thugs touched the private parts of little babies and old ladies
and intentionally restrained those who have criticized them while the
rest of us just watched and let this happen?
What if the airlines did a better job of keeping their customers happy
and their property safe than the thugs did? What if the government spent
millions of your tax dollars to advertise what a great job it's doing?
What if the government charged the airlines millions of their dollars
for the illusory services these thugs are rendering? What if the
government's thugs never caught a single bad guy intent on harming a
flight in America? What if the government's thugs actually let weapons
and bad guys onto planes because the thugs are dopes who have no
competition, who can't be sued, and who won't be fired?
What if the government found more dopes and dupes and convinced them
that they should conspire to commit acts of terrorism? What if the idea
for terrorist acts and the means for committing them came from the
government? What if no real threats were involved in these games and no
real weapons were used, just fake threats and fake weapons, fomented and
provided by the government? What if the government created these phony
crimes just so that it could solve them? What if no one was ever in
danger from these government-created crimes, except those the government
tricked? What if the government did this again and again and then
boasted that it was keeping us safe from its own creations? What if
Congress and the media and even the courts fell for this?
What if, on Memorial Day, we remember times that were more free than
today? What if, on Memorial Day, when we think of those who died for our
freedom, we end up recognizing that the freedom they died for is dying?
What if it becomes fashionable for the government to ignore the
Constitution? What if the Constitution dies because the government stops
following it? What if, next Memorial Day, freedom is just a memory?
What do we do about it?
COPYRIGHT 2012 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM.
Read more by Andrew P. Napolitano
Is There a Drone in Your Backyard? - May 16th, 2012
What Constitutes a Fair Trial? - May 10th, 2012
The President's Private War - May 4th, 2012
Is the CIA in Your Kitchen? - March 21st, 2012
Can the President Kill You? - March 7th, 2012
Capt. Justice
May 24, 2012, 5:51:05 PM5/24/12
to
Western Leaders Reject Iranian Proposal for Wider Access for UN
Inspectors
.
Iran also rejected the West's proposal to halt 20 percent enrichment in
exchange for small benefits
.
by John Glaser, May 24, 2012
.
Western leaders on Thursday rejected proposals by Iranian nuclear
negotiators to alleviate concerns about Iran's nuclear program, while
Iran rejected an incentive package from the six world powers.
Iran and the P5+1 -Â the U.S., Russia,
China, Britain, France and Germany - are in Baghdad for talks about
Iran's nuclear program. While an agreement has not yet been reached,
negotiations reportedly 'did not appear in danger of collapse.'
The Western offer calls on Tehran to halt the production of 20 percent
enriched uranium, which is the highest grade produced by Iran and used
for the country's lone medical research reactor. In exchange, the
world powers offered benefits, including delivery of the medical
isotopes Iran is creating with the 20 percent enriched uranium, some
spare parts for civilian airliners that are needed in Iran, among other
things.
But Western leaders rejected Iranian request for an immediate easing of
harsh economic sanctions in return for promises to give wider access
to U.N. inspectors, among other concessions.
Iranian analyst Hassan Abedini called the Western proposal
unfair. "Giving up 20 percent enrichment levels in return for plane
spare parts is a joke," said Abedini. "The package is unbalanced and
therefore unacceptable."
The sanctions that have been heaped on Iran are quite serious and
far-reaching. They have already damaged the economy severely,
facilitating increased unemployment and rampant inflation. The purpose
behind them seems to be to harass and intimidate leaders in Tehran as
opposed to being punishment for some unlawful act.
The fact is that the Obama administration, and the whole of the U.S.
intelligence community, knows full well that Iran is not developing
nuclear weapons and has not demonstrated any intention to do so.
Even the top brass of the Obama administration and military leadership,
from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Gen.Martin Dempsey have publicly declared that Iran is not pursuing
nuclear weapons.
So despite the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program and despite
Iran's demonstrated cooperation with the international inspections
regime, Western powers - led by the U.S. - refuse to ease the sanctions
in return for even more access for U.N. inspectors.
May 23rd, 2012
Up to 28 Die in Yemen as US Troops Aid Military Offensive - May 23rd,
2012
Afghanistan Secretly Adopts Indefinite Detention Regime With US
Instruction - May 23rd, 2012
Inspectors
.
Iran also rejected the West's proposal to halt 20 percent enrichment in
exchange for small benefits
.
by John Glaser, May 24, 2012
.
Western leaders on Thursday rejected proposals by Iranian nuclear
negotiators to alleviate concerns about Iran's nuclear program, while
Iran rejected an incentive package from the six world powers.
Iran and the P5+1 -Â the U.S., Russia,
China, Britain, France and Germany - are in Baghdad for talks about
Iran's nuclear program. While an agreement has not yet been reached,
negotiations reportedly 'did not appear in danger of collapse.'
The Western offer calls on Tehran to halt the production of 20 percent
enriched uranium, which is the highest grade produced by Iran and used
for the country's lone medical research reactor. In exchange, the
world powers offered benefits, including delivery of the medical
isotopes Iran is creating with the 20 percent enriched uranium, some
spare parts for civilian airliners that are needed in Iran, among other
things.
But Western leaders rejected Iranian request for an immediate easing of
harsh economic sanctions in return for promises to give wider access
to U.N. inspectors, among other concessions.
Iranian analyst Hassan Abedini called the Western proposal
unfair. "Giving up 20 percent enrichment levels in return for plane
spare parts is a joke," said Abedini. "The package is unbalanced and
therefore unacceptable."
The sanctions that have been heaped on Iran are quite serious and
far-reaching. They have already damaged the economy severely,
facilitating increased unemployment and rampant inflation. The purpose
behind them seems to be to harass and intimidate leaders in Tehran as
opposed to being punishment for some unlawful act.
The fact is that the Obama administration, and the whole of the U.S.
intelligence community, knows full well that Iran is not developing
nuclear weapons and has not demonstrated any intention to do so.
Even the top brass of the Obama administration and military leadership,
from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Gen.Martin Dempsey have publicly declared that Iran is not pursuing
nuclear weapons.
So despite the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program and despite
Iran's demonstrated cooperation with the international inspections
regime, Western powers - led by the U.S. - refuse to ease the sanctions
in return for even more access for U.N. inspectors.
.
Last 5 posts by John Glaser
US General Predicts 'Significant Firepower' in Afghanistan for 2013-14 -
Last 5 posts by John Glaser
May 23rd, 2012
Up to 28 Die in Yemen as US Troops Aid Military Offensive - May 23rd,
2012
Afghanistan Secretly Adopts Indefinite Detention Regime With US
Instruction - May 23rd, 2012
Capt. Justice
May 24, 2012, 11:06:14 PM5/24/12
to
Bill Clinton -- SURROUNDED By Porn Stars in Monaco .
http://www.tmz.com/2012/05/23/bill-clinton-porn-stars/
5/23/2012 5:45 PM PDT BY TMZ STAFF
Exclusive
Bill Clinton just out-Clinton'd himself -- posing with two famous porn
stars in Monaco moments ago ... and one of them's a real up-and-comer.
Clinton's in a Monte Carlo casino right now for a special "Nights in
Monaco" gala event -- and several celebrities are in attendance ...
including Diane Kruger, Joshua Jackson ... and a BUNCH OF PORN STARS.
The two porn stars on Bill's arms are Tasha Reign (left) and Brooklyn
Lee -- AVN's "Best New Starlet" in porn.
Brooklyn -- who just posted the pic on her Twitter account -- also just
won the award for "Best Sex Scene" in "Mission Asspossible."
As for Tasha's film credits ... those include "Baby Got Boobs 8" and
"Farm Girls Gone Bad."
Our guess -- Bill did not have sexual relations with these women.
What it IS Bill ...
See also
President Barack Obama KILLS at the White House Correspondents' Dinner
Hillary Clinton -- The Secretary of PARTYING
Presidents Clinton and Obama -- Hitting the Links
http://www.tmz.com/2012/05/23/bill-clinton-porn-stars/
5/23/2012 5:45 PM PDT BY TMZ STAFF
Exclusive
Bill Clinton just out-Clinton'd himself -- posing with two famous porn
stars in Monaco moments ago ... and one of them's a real up-and-comer.
Clinton's in a Monte Carlo casino right now for a special "Nights in
Monaco" gala event -- and several celebrities are in attendance ...
including Diane Kruger, Joshua Jackson ... and a BUNCH OF PORN STARS.
The two porn stars on Bill's arms are Tasha Reign (left) and Brooklyn
Lee -- AVN's "Best New Starlet" in porn.
Brooklyn -- who just posted the pic on her Twitter account -- also just
won the award for "Best Sex Scene" in "Mission Asspossible."
As for Tasha's film credits ... those include "Baby Got Boobs 8" and
"Farm Girls Gone Bad."
Our guess -- Bill did not have sexual relations with these women.
What it IS Bill ...
See also
President Barack Obama KILLS at the White House Correspondents' Dinner
Hillary Clinton -- The Secretary of PARTYING
Presidents Clinton and Obama -- Hitting the Links
Capt. Justice
May 24, 2012, 11:25:50 PM5/24/12
to
Capt. Justice
May 25, 2012, 1:36:17 AM5/25/12
to
..Porn Stars, Brooklyn Lee on right.
0 new messages