Schmuck With Earflaps Goes Nuclear On Netanyahu

[SheriffJoe]

JUST REVEALED: IRAN PLAYING OBAMA, HAS SECRET NUCLEAR SITE NEVER BEFORE REVEALED UNTIL NOW

Posted by The Right Scoop on Feb 24, 2015 at 1:26 PM in Politics | 23 Comments
By The Right Scoop

To no surprise to any of you, the terrorist regime of Iran has been totally playing Obama in these ‘nuclear’ negotiations. As it turns out, they have a secret nuclear facility that they’ve never even mentioned before, and it’s only coming to light now because of the hard work of the NCRI who released the information at the Press Club in DC.

The NCRI says they’ve been using this site, known as Lavizan-3, since 2008 to enrich uranium in order to build a nuclear bomb:

​

NCRI – National Council of Resistance of Iran revealed on Tuesday the details of an underground top-secret site currently used by Iranian regime for research & development on nuclear field using advanced centrifuges for uranium enrichment.

Ms. Soona Samsami, the Representative of the NCRI in the US and Alireza Jafarzadeh, the Deputy Director of the NCRI US Representative Office made the revelation in a press conference at Press Club in Washington D.C.

Existence of the site, known as Lavizan-3, was unknown until now and had been kept secret for years by the Iranian regime.
The NCRI announced that the explosive revelation was result of several years of detailed work by the network of the Iranian opposition movement, the People’s Mojahedin Organization in Iran (PMOI/MEK).

The PMOI has obtained the intelligence from sources inside of Iranian regime, vetting info from scores of sources independently.

PMOI’s sources established that since 2008 the Iranian regime has secretly engaged in research and uranium enrichment at this site.

The NCRI provided Satellite imagery of the site, its entrance, and overview of the site in the press conference.

The NCRI representatives ripped the Iranian regime’s claim regarding transparency in the nuclear talks and went on to say the Iranian regime is deceiving international community.

They pointed out that research and development with advanced centrifuges in highly secret sites are only intended to advance the nuclear weapons project.
​

I’m sure this will change nothing. Obama will act like this is no big deal and keep negotiating with Iran as though they were a trusted partner.

Read more: http://therightscoop.com/just-revea...ever-before-revealed-until-now/#ixzz3Sh8Uc6Ci

 

[ScottL]

It's kind of stretching it to say Iran is "playing Obama" when Obama is a member of the band:

Netanyahu: "Astonishing" that Talks Continue with Iran Despite It Hiding Info from IAEA - Herb Keinon
Referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency's recent report expressing concern that Iran is hiding possible military elements of its nuclear program, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Cabinet Sunday it was "astonishing" that the talks with Tehran are still continuing. "Therefore, the coming month is critical for the nuclear talks between Iran and the major powers because a framework agreement is liable to be signed that will allow Iran to develop the nuclear capabilities that threaten our existence."
The fact that Iran "continues its murderous terror activities around the region and the world does not, unfortunately, bother the international community, which is continuing to talk with Iran about a nuclear accord that will allow it to build an industrial capacity to develop nuclear arms."
In addition to Iran's direct involvement with Hizbullah in the north and Hamas in the south, Tehran is now trying to open a third front against Israel on the Golan Heights under its direct command, Netanyahu said. (Jerusalem Post)

 

[superbeets]

Obama just wants a deal with Iran however bad that deal is.

 

[superbeets]

Saudi Arabia will buy Nuclear weapons from Pakistan if that clown gives Iran a good deal.

 

[The Guesser]

Photo by: REUTERS Kerry in apparent jab at Netanyahu: Those bad-mouthing Iran deal don't know what deal is By JPOST.COM STAFF 02/24/2015 "I can't state this more firmly, the policy is Iran will not get a nuclear weapon," US Secretary of State says.

US Secretary of State John Kerry defended the ongoing nuclear talks with Iran on Tuesday in comments that appeared to be directed at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As Netanyahu accused the P5+1 group of world powers of giving Iran a green light to maintain the ability to make nuclear weapons, Kerry said that those bad-mouthing the deal are doing so prematurely, before the contours of the deal have been determined. During a tour of the IDF's Southern Command, Netanyahu said that "the information I have received in recent days reinforces our fears in regard to the emerging deal between world powers and Iran." The deal would "allow Iran to become a nuclear threshold state. That is to say, with the agreement of the world powers, Iran will be given license to develop the ability to make a bomb," Netanyahu charged. The prime minister again defended his decision to address the US Congress next week, saying that Congress "may be the final chance to block a deal between the world powers and Iran." Speaking at a congressional hearing on the US State Department budget Tuesday, Kerry said in apparent answer to Netanyahu's recent warnings about the emerging deal, "I can't state this more firmly, the policy is Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. Anyone running around right now, jumping to say we don't like the deal, or this or that, doesn't know what the deal is. There is no deal yet." Talks between Iran and world powers were set to resume next Monday, it was decided after Kerry and Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif held talks in Geneva on Sunday and Monday. The sides are hoping to reach an agreement by March 31 that would answer concerns over military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief for Tehran. "I caution people to wait and see what these negotiations produce. Since 2013 we have been testing whether or not we can achieve that goal diplomatically. I don't know yet. But it's the most effective way to solve the problem and we will prove that over the course of these next weeks and months," Kerry said Tuesday. "The P5+1 talks have made inroads since the Joint Plan of Action. We've halted the progress of Tehran's nuclear program. We've gain unprecedented insight into it and we expect to know soon whether or not Iran is willing to put together an acceptable and verifiable plan," he added.

 

[The Guesser]

[h=1]Mr. Netanyahu, Take Note.[/h] By FRANÇOIS FURSTENBERGFEB. 23, 2015






BALTIMORE — Ever since he announced plans to address a joint session of the United States Congress next month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has become a central figure in American domestic politics. And while he claims surprise over the controversy he has kicked up, those with a sense of history will know this isn’t the first time a visiting dignitary has gotten tangled up in a partisan scuffle.
In early 1793 Edmond-Charles Genet, the French ambassador to the United States, set sail across the Atlantic for his new diplomatic post. France had become a republic only months before; like Israel today, it was the only democracy in a region dominated by autocracies.
Like Mr. Netanyahu, Genet saw his country as a key American ally, and he believed that the two nations shared similar ideals and that both confronted enemies of pure evil. Indeed, France had just declared war on Britain, Europe’s most powerful counterrevolutionary force; Genet’s job was to muster American support for the war.
When Genet landed in Charleston, S.C., he was bombarded with festivals and celebrations. The outpouring of pro-French sentiment overwhelmed him as he traveled overland to Philadelphia, the nation’s capital. “I received without intermediary the fraternal sentiments of the American People for the French,” he wrote to his boss, the French foreign minister. “My trip has been a succession of uninterrupted civic fetes and my entry into Philadelphia a triumph for liberty.”
He had come at an awkward moment. The 1790s were a period of bitter political polarization, more severe than anything today. Divisions between Federalists and the Republicans had fractured American political life, and many Republicans even doubted the political legitimacy of the president’s administration. Genet thought he could use the partisan division to his advantage in the conflict with Britain.
But President George Washington had other ideas. He had no appetite for foreign intervention and, upon learning about the war between France and Britain, convened an emergency cabinet meeting to craft a response. Within weeks, he had published his famous Proclamation of Neutrality, a document that would guide American policy for much of the next 120 years. The United States, Washington had decided, would not support France against its enemies.
Genet was unimpressed. He thought he could challenge the president’s authority by appealing directly to France’s allies in Congress and among the public. “The old Washington,” as Genet privately called him, seemed destined to give in when confronted with the powerful pro-French sentiment in Congress. “Our friends,” Genet triumphantly wrote the foreign minister, “will enthusiastically support us in defending our rights in the next Congress, despite General Washington.”

Genet’s political base was formidable indeed. Pro-French Republican clubs exerted more sway on American politics than the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or its sister organizations do today. According to one French diplomat, Genet “had secret or avowed followers in several states and up to the heart of Congress.”
But Genet had overplayed his hand; his reckless diplomacy had alienated both his enemies and his allies. Even Thomas Jefferson, the Republican secretary of state whose support for the French Revolution was second to none, finally distanced himself from the diplomat. Forced to choose between his loyalty to Washington and his allegiance to France, Jefferson repudiated Genet.

The president of the United States, he tartly reminded the French ambassador, is “the only channel of communication between this country and foreign nations, it is from him alone that foreign nations or their agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation.” Genet’s meddling in the constitutional order, Jefferson believed, could not be tolerated.
Representative John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, the speaker of the House and the man who invited Mr. Netanyahu, might consider Jefferson’s warning: “No foreign agent can be allowed to question” the president’s authority, nor “interpose between him and any other branch of government.”
Genet was blinded by the support of his zealous allies, and his mission backfired spectacularly, damaging both French diplomacy and the cause of French republicanism in the United States. Genet’s actions left pro-French politicians in Congress isolated and weakened — a serious risk for American supporters of Israel today. Genet’s behavior, complained a pro-French politician, left those “who love his cause to deplore that he was deputed to support it.” In the showdown between a twice-elected president and a foreign emissary, the president emerged victorious.
The Genet Affair was the first in a series of events that led to the “Quasi-War” between the two former allies a few years later. Thanks in part to Genet’s blundering, the two sister republics — although they both stood on the same side of the great struggle between monarchy and republicanism — had become enemies. Within a few years, anti-French sentiment dominated the country, and the United States and Britain were quickly mending fences. Two hundred years later, anti-French feelings still rear their head.
Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Boehner: Take note.

 

[superbeets]

Iran stages war games, boats hit mock-up U.S. ship



(Reuters) - Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards staged war games in the Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday, including a gunboat attack on a model U.S. warship, in Tehran's latest display of military muscle in a Gulf shipping channel vital to world oil exports.


The Shi'ite Muslim Islamic Republic sees the Gulf, between Iran and the Sunni Arab states, as its own backyard and believes it has a legitimate interest in expanding its influence there.


A ceremony marking the exercises was attended by commanders of the Guards, an influential military force led by anti-Western hawks, as well as by parliament speaker Ali Larijani.
"With attention to the situation in the region, we have noticeably expanded the defense budget of the armed forces to ensure the stable security of the region," Larijani told a news conference before the exercises, according to Fars News.


State TV footage showed a number of gunboats swarming a huge model warship and blasting it with missiles.
The "maquette of an American aircraft carrier" was built to scale and targeted with cruise missiles and ballistic missiles, according to Fars News, which is linked to the Revolutionary Guard.


The gunboats also carried out an exercise in laying mines, according to the Iranian Students’ News Agency.
At one point a camera from state TV panned across a banner which read "If the Americans are ready to be buried at the bottom of the waters of the Persian Gulf - so be it", a quote from Iran’s first Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.


Some 30 percent of all seaborne traded oil flows through Hormuz, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and U.S. officials have expressed concern in the past that Iran could try to disrupt the oil flow or even attack American warships patrolling the waters of the Gulf.


Western navies also stage military exercises in the Gulf, saying they wish to guarantee freedom of navigation.


Iran, whose entire southern border runs along the Gulf and the adjacent Gulf of Oman, has often said it could block Hormuz, which connects the two waters, if Tehran came under military attack over its disputed nuclear program.


Talks on the program between Iran and the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany are intended to ensure the country’s nuclear program is not aimed at developing nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear work is entirely for peaceful purposes.

​

 

[ScottL]

An American About-Face, into the Arms of Iran - Maj. Gen. (ret.) Yaakov Amidror
During my visit to the U.S. two weeks ago I heard from several people that senior State Department officials were trying to sell Washington on the idea that a nuclear agreement with Iran will contribute to regional stability in the Middle East, and that future relations between Iran and the U.S. will advance U.S. interests; an American U-turn, heading toward a special relationship with Iran. If this relationship materializes, it is clear the U.S. would be jeopardizing Israel's security for the sake of a sudden experimental partnership with a country that openly declares its intention to harm and even destroy Israel. None of the people I spoke with mentioned the White House or the president as the ones promoting the idea.

If the rumor is indeed true, this perception is based on a misunderstanding of Iran's intentions and its way of thinking about the Muslim world and its place in it. This misunderstanding stems from ignoring the Islamic republic's political culture, its negotiation methods and its willingness to peddle illusions to its adversary (as a religious imperative). This miscalculation is compounded by the inexplicable and historically unfounded optimism over the ability of any type of deal to change the Iranian attitude.

There are quite a few people in the U.S. who think a deal, in and of itself, is more important than its substance. This is a completely illogical approach. The decision to alter the course with Iran means that America is effectively choosing a side in favor of the Shiite minority, scaring the Sunni majority. By doing so, the Americans are encouraging the Shiites, the most dynamically negative force in the Middle East, a force which reaches far and wide via its terrorist group proxies.

If the rumor about the new U.S. approach toward Iran is true, then just as Henry Kissinger predicted recently, the important Sunni states (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey) will begin a nuclear arms race because they do not believe in stability predicated upon a Shiite country that, with America's support, will become the most influential power in the region. The writer is a former Israeli national security advisor. (Israel Hayom)

 

[ScottL]

Hear Out Israel's Leader - Joseph I. Lieberman (Washington Post)

• 
  [*]I appeal to members of Congress to go hear what the prime minister of Israel has to say. Go because this is about determining how best to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons and not just another Washington test of partisan and political loyalty.
  [*]Go because you know that the Constitution gives you, as a member of Congress, the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations," "define and punish...offenses against the law of nations," "declare war," and "raise and support armies," and Netanyahu might say some things that will inform your exercise of those great powers.
  [*]Go because you know that Israel is one of our closest and most steadfast allies and you feel a responsibility to listen to its leader speak about developments that he believes could threaten the safety, independence and even existence of his country, as well as that of our closest allies in the Arab world.
  [*]Go because you worry that it is not just the security of Israel and the Arab nations but the security of the United States that will be threatened if a bad agreement is made with Iran that enables it to build nuclear weapons it could put on its increasingly capable long-range missiles.
  [*]Go because you are concerned about nuclear weapons proliferation and believe that a faulty deal with Iran will not only put it on the road to becoming a nuclear power but will also lead some of Iran's Arab neighbors to acquire nuclear weapons as soon as possible.
• At this very unstable moment in history, we cannot and must not avert our attention from what remains the greatest threat to the security of America and the world.
  
  The writer is a former U.S. Senator from Connecticut.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Kerry and Obama are fools.

While the Obama Administration is busily blasting Israeli Premier Netanyahu or anyone else who dares to question their nuclear capitulation to Iran, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an Iranian resistance organization, has obtained "highly critical and reliable intelligence" of the existence of an "active and secret parallel nuclear program" in Iran.

Revealed at a Washington D.C. press conference on Tuesday morning, the NCRI says Iran is continuing to work on uranium enrichment in an underground complex hidden for years from the U.N. nuclear inspectors. The group says the facility is right outside Tehran in a heavily-protected 62 acre facility. As evidence, the group presented a picture of one of the plant's doors, which is a more than one-foot thick lead-lined door that shields the center from radiation. The NCRI reported.

More…

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/iranian-resistance-group-exposes-nuclear-program-us-didnt-know-about

 

[Dave007inVegas]

On Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "turned down" an opportunity to meet privately with Democrats in the Senate. He said the meeting could compound the misperception of partisanship" around his trip to the U.S.

More…

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/netanyahu-passes-meeting-senate-dems

Unlike Kerry and Obama, Netanyahu is no fool.

 

[ScottL]

Kerry and Obama are fools.

While the Obama Administration is busily blasting Israeli Premier Netanyahu or anyone else who dares to question their nuclear capitulation to Iran, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an Iranian resistance organization, has obtained "highly critical and reliable intelligence" of the existence of an "active and secret parallel nuclear program" in Iran.

Revealed at a Washington D.C. press conference on Tuesday morning, the NCRI says Iran is continuing to work on uranium enrichment in an underground complex hidden for years from the U.N. nuclear inspectors. The group says the facility is right outside Tehran in a heavily-protected 62 acre facility. As evidence, the group presented a picture of one of the plant's doors, which is a more than one-foot thick lead-lined door that shields the center from radiation. The NCRI reported.

Wouldn't be surprised if Putin built it for them.

 

[The Guesser]

About Freakin Time:

[h=1]Obama administration goes on offensive against Netanyahu[/h] By Edward-Isaac Dovere
2/25/15 9:55 PM EST

For weeks, the White House has taken a deliberate approach to dealing with the controversy over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu heading to Congress to bash him: Step out of the way, and try to come out ahead.

One week out from the speech, the administration has changed tactics and gone on the offensive.



Fresh off national security adviser Susan Rice telling Charlie Rose Tuesday that the partisanship of the speech is “is destructive of the fabric of the relationship,” another administration official chimed in.
Fights with Netanyahu have usually ended poorly for the administration, and for President Barack Obama himself, who has been portrayed as not being committed to Israel, dismissive of the prime minister, not a friend of American Jews. This showdown has developed differently, and this time it’s Netanyahu on the defensive. Anxious not to change that dynamic, the president and his aides have treaded carefully, ruling out a meeting with the prime minister, poking at him periodically, but noticeably not going hard after him directly.
Then came Wednesday: Testifying in front of Congress, Secretary of State John Kerry said Netanyahu wasn’t just uninformed about the Iran nuclear deal that’s in final negotiations now, but he’s been wrong every step of the way — including about the interim deal which temporarily froze the development of Tehran’s weapons program while talks continued.

“Israel is safer today with the added time we have given and the stoppage of the advances in the nuclear program than they were before we got that agreement, which, by the way, the prime minister opposed,” Kerry said. “He was wrong.”

But Kerry, who came into the State Department hoping to leverage his long relationship with Netanyahu into a lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace deal and has since swiped publicly at the prime minister several times, reached back even further.

“The prime minister was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq under George W. Bush. We all know what happened with that decision,” Kerry said. Kerry didn’t mention, however, that he’d voted to authorize the invasion when he was in the Senate.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, White House press secretary Josh Earnest stood by Rice’s comments as “entirely consistent with what the President has already said.”
He deflected a question about whether Obama thinks Netanyahu should call off the speech, saying “Netanyahu needs to make these decisions for himself.”
Netanyahu may think that the speech is in Israel’s best interests, Earnest said, but Obama’s been clear: He doesn’t think meeting with the prime minister two weeks before Israeli elections is in America’s best interests. So Netanyahu can set his schedule, but “the president is also going to set his schedule.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...e-against-netanyahu-115517.html#ixzz3SpFpSYhd
​

 

[The Guesser]

[h=1]Kerry Reminds Congress Netanyahu Advised U.S. to Invade Iraq[/h] FEB. 25, 2015

Secretary of State John Kerry reminded Americans on Wednesday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, who is expected to denounce a potential nuclear deal with Iran during an address to Congress next week, also visited Washington in late 2002 to lobby for the invasion of Iraq.
Apparently referring to testimony on the Middle East that Mr. Netanyahu delivered to Congress on Sept. 12, 2002, when he was a private citizen, Mr. Kerry told the House Foreign Affairs Committee, “The prime minister, as you will recall, was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq under George W. Bush, and we all know what happened with that decision.”


“It’s not a question of whether Iraq’s regime should be taken out but when should it be taken out; it’s not a question of whether you’d like to see a regime change in Iran but how to achieve it,” Mr. Netanyahu said six months before the Bush administration began the “shock and awe” bombardment of Baghdad.

”If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region,” Mr. Netanyahu said then. “And I think that people sitting right next door in Iran, young people, and many others, will say the time of such regimes, of such despots is gone.” face)(*^%

In the same testimony, the American-educated Israeli leader, who had already served a term as prime minister and would become foreign minister later that year, suggested that Iran was so ripe for revolt that just seeing American television shows could do the trick — even if he had some trouble recalling the name of one of the programs he proposed using as a weapon. Mr. Netanyahu recalled that he had once advised senior officials at the Central Intelligence Agency “that if you want to advance regime change in Iran, you don’t have to go through the C.I.A. cloak-and-dagger stuff — what you want to do is take very large, very strong transponders and just beam ‘Melrose Place’ and ‘Beverly Hills 2050’ and all that into Tehran and into Iran, because that is subversive stuff. They watch it — the young kids watch it, the young people. They want to have the same nice clothes and the same houses and swimming pools and so on.”
Video of the testimony also shows that Mr. Netanyahu’s longtime adviser, Ron Dermer, sat directly behind him that day. Mr. Dermer, a former Republican political operative now serving as Israel’s ambassador in Washington, is blamed by some Democrats for injecting partisanship into the relations between the two countries by orchestrating the prime minister’s address to Congress without consulting either the White House or the State Department.

As the campaigning before Israel’s general election on March 17 intensifies, Mr. Netanyahu has worked to keep the focus on Iran. On Wednesday, the Israeli blogger Edo Konrad noted, the prime minister even responded to a critical report on his government’s failure to create more moderately priced housing by writing on Twitter: “When we talk about housing prices, about the cost of living, I do not for a second forget about life itself. The biggest threat to our life at the moment is a nuclear-armed Iran.”
Earlier this week, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Ron Prosor, said that he was even reminded of what he called Iran’s duplicity while watching the Academy Awards. If there were awards for “maintenance of international peace and security,” Mr. Prosor joked on Monday, “in the best actor category — for acting like a peace-loving country while developing nuclear capabilities, denying the Holocaust and threatening the destruction of another member state — the Oscar goes to Iran.”

 

[ScottL]

Good Morning Dumb Fuck!


Kerry Voted for Iraq War, Blasts Netanyahu for Supporting Iraq War
​

February 25, 2015 by Daniel Greenfield 14 Comments



Rising from the deep, Flipper returns again.
Amid a barrage of criticism from Obama administration officials at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over his upcoming speech before Congress, Secretary of State John Kerry attacked Netanyahu’s judgment by implying Wednesday that he publicly advocated for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003

“The prime minister was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq,” Kerry told the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in an apparent attempt to delegitimatize Netanyahu’s evaluation of the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear program.
“His judgement might just not be correct here,” Kerry said.

In 2002, as a private citizen, Netanyahu sounded the alarm on Iraqi WMDs during a talk to a Congressional committee.
Kerry, then a senator, voted in favor of the US invasion of Iraq on October 11, 2002.
​

So Kerry is claiming that Netanyahu has bad judgement for supporting a war that Kerry supported. Is this Kerry’s roundabout way of accusing himself of bad judgement? Or he is just insane?

Here’s what Kerry was saying months before Netanyahu.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a Foreign Relations Committee member, said plotting the best way to remove Saddam poses a daunting challenge for Bush. “There’s no question in my mind that Saddam Hussein has to be toppled one way or another, but the question is how,” he told the Herald.
Kerry noted that Saddam has failed to respond to past U.S. warnings about permitting United Nations arms inspectors to do their job in Iraq.

“It’s clear that Saddam Hussein continues to be a major threat . . . in part because some in this country were slow-footed and didn’t have the stomach to hold Saddam accountable,” said Kerry.
​

But he was for it before he was against it before he went waterskiing. Or something.
The Netanyahu/Iraq meme has become a big thing on the left which is desperately trying to justify letting Iran go nuclear. The differences are obvious.

1. No one is denying Iran’s nuclear program. There isn’t a serious argument about that. The Obama camp insists that Iran can be trusted to have nuclear capability without using it for weapons. Everyone else thinks that it can’t.
2. Netanyahu was testifying as a private citizen, not the head of a government with access to classified information. His testimony repeated what everyone, including Kerry, believed at the time. He wasn’t saying anything that Bill Clinton hadn’t said.

During his testimony, Netanyahu offered a straightforward argument, not intelligence. He wasn’t coming to offer proof of anything. He was arguing that a nuclear armed Saddam would be a disaster for the world. Which was obviously true. He stated that he had not had access to classified intelligence on Iraq in three years.
Kerry however did have access.
Finally, here is what Bill Clinton had to say around the same time that Netanyahu still had access to classified information.

Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

​

And here’s what John Kerry had to say far later than that.

“There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons.”
Senator John Kerry, October 9, 2002.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Senator John Kerry , Oct. 9, 2002.
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
​

I sometimes wonder if Kerry is the dumbest or the most cynical guy in politics.



I never wonder who the most anti-Israel moron at the Rx is though.

About Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.

 

[ScottL]

Dear John,

Every few years a messiah arrives in Jerusalem, shakes hands, makes demands and promises to make peace in our time. Then when the whole thing blows up in his face, he throws up his hands and flies back blaming the ungrateful Jews for not embracing his vision.

You must have known this would happen. So many false messiahs have come before you, squinting against the bright sunshine, muttering under their breath to aides and assistants, pounding the table at meetings, downing martinis and fantasizing about the Nobel Peace Prize that they were sure was waiting for them at the end.

And they left with nothing except sunburn and simmering rage.

Did you really think you would be any different? Were you so delusional that you imagined you could succeed where career diplomats with a lifetime of experience in the region had failed?

What convinced you that you were the negotiating genius that the conflict had been waiting for?

It's not as if you had a good track record negotiating anything. Do you remember meeting Madame Binh in Paris? What about carrying Daniel Ortega's peace offer after assuring everyone that he wasn't a Communist? Right before he flew to Moscow. And let's not gloss over your visit to Assad. Was that peace in the air or was it just the nerve gas?

I know you don't have time to remember all your diplomatic triumphs. Or like Hillary, any of them.

When did you successfully negotiate anything, up to and including the purchase of your latest yacht?

You went to Paris to aid the Viet Cong. You went to Nicaragua to aid the FSLN terrorists. You went to Israel to aid the PLO. The USSR fell, but your old nostalgia for Communist guerrillas and killers hasn't deserted you. It's why you failed. And it's why you'll fail over and over again.

No matter what the PLO did, you blamed Israel. Just as no matter what the Viet Cong or the Sandinistas did, you blamed America.

The PLO can call for Israel's destruction, champion terrorism and ally with Hamas, but one of your minions will still provide anonymous quotes saying that the PLO can't be expected to negotiate while Israel possibly considers building houses in Jerusalem.

What's a little thing like genocide compared to a house?

Israel is expected to free terrorists who murder elderly Holocaust survivors, but the delicate sensibilities of PLO terrorists are outraged whenever a Jewish family that they haven’t managed to murder yet moves into a home in Jerusalem.

Good negotiators can put their sympathies aside to achieve their goals. But you never could do that. No matter how many press releases you put out touting your special relationship with Israel, a relationship almost as special as the one your fellow Massachusetts senator had with a girl in a '67 Oldsmobile whose drowned corpse turned up on the next day, you spoil it by threatening another intifada or calling Israel an Apartheid state. You lack the basic criteria of a diplomat. You're a bad liar.

You show up to provide moral support to the murderers and go home as their useful idiot. That was the pitiful function you served in Paris, in Nicaragua and in Israel. Forty-four years later you're still departing with that same awkward look on your face as if somewhere beneath the layers of Botox and suntan lotion you understand that something is wrong.

What you don't understand is that the something wrong is you. It's always been you. The only thing you ever did with any of your unsolicited interventions was make things worse. Your anti-war activism helped polarize a nation. Your malicious Winter Soldier testimony scapegoated veterans. Your Ortega intervention emboldened a terrorist group. And your peace initiative led to a unity agreement with Hamas.

After almost half a century, the only thing you ever do is make things worse. Any man with a scrap of decency looking back on a lifetime of diplomatic wreckage would have retired. Instead you finagled your way into becoming Secretary of State so you could fail on a grander scale.

The secret to your success as a lifelong failure is refusing to accept responsibility for anything. You just throw someone else's medals over the fence and blame someone else for your latest fiasco.

This time it's Israel.

​

You told the Senate last month that the negotiations between Israel and the PLO broke down because the Jewish State didn't release the latest set of murderers on time. There was no acknowledgement that Israel should not have been expected to release the murderers of civilians, including an elderly Holocaust survivor. After releasing three sets of murderers, in exchange for nothing except the PLO showing up and continuing to make more demands, you decided that Israel was to blame because the fourth set of murderers wasn't released on time.

Oh and let's not forget the popular "settlements" excuse. The settlement in question is Jerusalem. One of the oldest cities in the world. A city whose unity as the capital of Israel you endorsed on numerous occasions.

You cosponsored the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 which stated that the policy of the United States is that, "Jerusalem should remain an undivided city" and "Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel". You cosponsored Senate Consecutive Resolution 113 in 1992 which stated that "Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected as they have been by Israel during the past twenty-five years."

Is this ringing any bells?

How about Senate Concurrent Resolution 106 in 1990 or Resolution 21 in 1997 which "Calls upon the President and the Secretary of State to publicly affirm as a matter of U.S. policy that Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of Israel." Or 1323 and 1322?

You co-sponsored all of them. Were you obstructing peace all these decades? Or are you obstructing peace now by turning your back on them?

You also co-sponsored Resolution 46 stating that the modern State of Israel is "the outgrowth of the existence of the historic Kingdom of Israel established three thousand years ago in the city of Jerusalem and in the land of Israel."

You co-sponsored Resolution 522 with the same text in 2008. But that was a long 6 years ago.

During your presidential campaign, you released a paper titled, "John Kerry: Strengthening Israel's Security and Bolstering the US-Israel Special Relationship" in which you called Jerusalem, "Israel’s indisputable capital." Now you're disputing it.

Apparently you were for a united Jerusalem... before you were against it.

"As President, John Kerry will never force Israel to make concessions that compromise its security," the paper said. "As President, John Kerry would not expect Israel to negotiate without a credible Palestinian partner for peace - something that unfortunately does not exist today."

But you're not President so you can't be blamed for completely reversing those positions and insisting that Israel make concessions that compromise its security and negotiate with terrorists who sabotage every one of your futile attempts at peace negotiations. And then you head down to the Senate and blame Israel for sabotaging the peace process. And then you stop by the Trilateral Commission and suggest, off the record, that Israel is becoming an Apartheid state.

Clearly you haven't lost your diplomatic touch. But when your boss said that he would always have Israel's back, he forgot to mention the knife that comes with it.

Now you're off sulking on your yacht or playing phone tag with the Russian Foreign Minister while planning to unveil your peace plan which will gut Israel, carve up Jerusalem and give the PLO everything without obligating it to anything. And then the peace process and the next set of negotiations can restart all over again.

It's a brilliant plan, but you're forgetting one thing. But the terrorists you're helping will inevitably sabotage it just like they sabotaged your peace negotiations, just like Daniel Ortega sabotaged your peace offer and just like the Viet Cong destroyed the credibility of their useful idiots.

Blinded by glory and greed, you decided to cheat on another American ally with a red light and red flag back alley trollop wearing a bloody keffiyah and smelling of petroleum. And it won't work out for you, just as it didn't work out for you all those other times. Your Senate career is over, you hooked your dying star to a falling president and put your legacy in the hands of greasy killers who would sell their sister for a monopoly on imported American cigarettes.

You would have been better off just turning over all of Teresa's money to Bernie Madoff and then flying off to Afghanistan to negotiate in person with the Taliban.

Even while you're warning Israel that it will be destroyed if it doesn't listen to you, you have destroyed yourself and you are too stupid to know it. Your career is coming to a pathetic end. Had you retired from the Senate, you might have left with some dignity. Instead you will be a failed footnote in a failed administration.

It's a fitting fate for a man who worked to see his country fail to end his term as a miserable failure.

Whether it's Ukraine, Syria or Israel, you have failed. And Japan and Korea are still coming up. Have another drink. Fly to another conference. Closet yourself with your advisers and rant about Israel. And when you do leave, your career ending on a note of failure, you will no doubt blame those ungrateful Jews who wouldn't do what you told them to.

You won't be the first and you won't be the last.

But John, we weren't the ones who did this to you. You did it to yourself. Your arrogance brought you to this point. Your natural attraction to the red and the green, to terrorists and radicals, did you in.

Retire. Stay home, enjoy some quality time with Teresa on your yacht and the rest of your lifestyle bought with another man's money. It'll be just like working in government.

Just don't bother us anymore. We don't want to hear from you. Don't call us. Don't write. Don't even text. We're tired of your visits, tired of your speeches and tired of your long face. We're sick of your hypocrisy, your betrayals and your lies. And after all these years, we're just plain sick of you.

You can blame Israel all you like, but it's not us, John. It's you. It's always been you.

Sincerely,


The Jewish People

 

[The Guesser]

Kerry Was Self admittedly WRONG about Iraq, as were many Dems. Obama was correct on it, at least the first time. Not now.

[h=3]Wednesday, October 26, 2005[/h] [h=2]Kerry Admits He Was Wrong About Iraq[/h] In a speech today at Georgetown University, John Kerry has admitted that he was wrong about voting to authorize the war in Iraq -- and that George Bush lied to him.

Knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration’s duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not. The truth is, if the Bush Administration had come to the United States Senate and acknowledged there was no “slam dunk case” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, acknowledged that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, there never would have even been a vote to authorize the use of force — just as there’s no vote today to invade North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or a host of regimes we rightfully despise.
​

 

[ScottL]

Knowing what we know now, you are a moron.

 

[The Guesser]

Knowing what we know now, you are a moron.

Tough night, huh Fixer Boy? Meanwhile in other Bibi failings:

[h=1]Netanyahu Invites Arab Diplomats to His Big Speech—and Gets Rejected[/h] [h=5]By Jeffrey Goldberg[/h]
Updated on February 25, 2015, 8:45 a.m. EST
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is refusing to meet with a group of ardently pro-Israel Democratic senators next week in Washington, but he very much wants to see the faces of Arab ambassadors in the audience during his controversial address to Congress.
Netanyahu's ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, has tried, without success, to recruit Arab ambassadors to come to his boss’s speech, e-mailing them personally to plead for their attendance. Dermer, who is not a trained diplomat, is the man who helped engineer the invitation to Netanyahu to speak to Congress in opposition to President Obama’s (so far theoretical) Iran nuclear deal.

---

[h=4]Related Story[/h]
The Netanyahu Disaster

---

Israeli sources tell me that Dermer in recent days has e-mailed at least two Arab ambassadors, those of Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. He made the case in these e-mails that Sunni-majority Arab states and Israel have a common interest in thwarting a nuclear agreement with Shiite Iran—and that presenting a united and public front on Capitol Hill will help convince Congress to stop the Iran deal before it’s too late.
It is true that Israel and such countries as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait see Iran as an enemy, and believe that the Obama administration might be inadvertently (or, for the more conspiratorially minded, advertently) setting Iran on the path to nuclearization. It is also true that no Arab ambassador would allow himself to be used as a prop in Netanyahu’s controversial address, and I'm told that neither ambassador will be in attendance. (A related, subsidiary question is this: Just who from the diplomatic corps will actually attend the speech? Will any ambassador show up?)

The Netanyahu camp is worried about the political impact of its preemptive strike on Capitol Hill, I’m told. Netanyahu understands that he will be burning his remaining bridges to the White House by going up to the Hill next week. Israelis close to Netanyahu have been warning him that his decision to openly align with the Republican Party against a Democratic president is both unprecedented and deeply risky. In fact, Netanyahu’s own national security advisor, Yossi Cohen, told at least two people during his visit to Washington last week that he wished the speech were not taking place. According to people who have spoken with him, Cohen said that he is troubled by the timing of the speech —two weeks before the Israeli elections—and by the appearance that it is an attempt by Israel to insert itself directly into American partisan politics. Like most Israeli national security officials, he understands that the United States is Israel's second-line of defense, and can't quite believe that Netanyahu has so dramatically written off a president with almost two years left in office. (The Israeli embassy spokesman has sent me a statement from Cohen denying that he is opposed to Netanyahu's speech.*)

Netanyahu’s allies believe that the prime minister is correct to argue against the not-yet-finished deal (as its details are currently understood), because it could, over time, legitimize Iran's nuclear ambitions. But they are upset by the manner in which the speech was arranged. The White House had no idea that Dermer and the office of House Speaker John Boehner were negotiating the appearance until it was virtually a fait accompli. (Sources also told me that Cohen, a former official of the Mossad intelligence agency, did not know that Dermer and Netanyahu were planning such a speech until hours before it was publicly announced, which, if nothing else, speaks to the quality of Dermer’s and Netanyahu’s tradecraft.)
It would have been quite a powerful image: the ambassadors of Gulf Arab states providing, by their presence in Congress, tacit endorsement of Netanyahu’s anti-Iran (and anti-Obama) message. But the Arab states are not about to publicly stipulate what they privately say—that they agree with Netanyahu's understanding of Iran's intentions, and of the potential pitfalls of a nuclear agreement, and disagree with Obama's. And they are too smart to involve themselves in the partisan mess that this Netanyahu speech has become. I doubt, for instance, that they would turn down the offer of meetings with their friends in the Democratic Party Senate caucus.

---

* The Israeli embassy spokesman has sent along the following statement: "National security advisor Yossi Cohen stresses that 'In total contrast to what was published I am not opposed to PM Netanyahu's congressional speech. In my opinion, the speech is imperative at this time in order to explain why the emerging deal between Iran and the P5+1 is dangerous for Israel and the world.'"
This article available online at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/global/a...s-to-his-big-speech-and-gets-rejected/385982/

 

[The Guesser]

Bravo Congressman. I wish My Congressman, Nadler, and My Senators, Schumer and Gillibrand showed as much Political courage as you have.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of Congressman Steve Cohen on His Decision Not to Attend PM Netanyahu’s Address to Congress

Feb 24, 2015 Issues: Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security
[WASHINGTON, DC] – Congressman Steve Cohen (TN-09) today issued the following statement regarding his decision not to attend Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s planned address to Congress next week:
“As a supporter of the state of Israel and a Jewish American, I have been placed in a difficult position regarding the anticipated speech of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before the United States Congress. After deliberation, I have decided I cannot in good conscience attend the Prime Minister’s speech. My decision not to attend is not a reflection of my support for Israel and its continued existence as a state and home for the Jewish people. I have always strongly supported Israel and I always will. However, I believe, as do many conscientious Members of Congress, that the speech is political theater by Prime Minister Netanyahu, the head of the Likud party, just two weeks before the elections in Israel. However, the Prime Minister could not speak on the House floor without an invitation from the Speaker of the House John Boehner. Speaker Boehner and other Republicans supporting the speech are giving a foreign leader the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives as a forum to present a counterargument to the foreign policy peace efforts of the President of the United States who has constitutional authority over foreign affairs. This speech is high theater for a re-election campaign in Israel and a political tool wielded against our President and his Administration by the Speaker of the House. Further, it is not a coincidence that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to Congress will be during the Washington D.C. convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) with whom Speaker Boehner is currying favor.”
“The United States House of Representatives Chamber should be sacrosanct. Congressional rules do not allow the use of videos of House floor or committee activity in political campaign advertisements. In 2013, Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke to Congress and then used video clips of that speech in his re-election campaign ad to great advantage. It is expected Mr. Netanyahu will do the same again. Congress cannot make laws that govern his conduct in Israel but the Prime Minister should honor the spirit of our campaign laws. Knowing his past use, any invitation for him to speak before Congress should include the condition that his speech to Congress not be used in a campaign ad.”
“Protocol in inviting a foreign leader to speak before Congress includes coordinating with the Administration because foreign affairs are the province of the President. Not only did Speaker Boehner not coordinate with or inform the President of the invitation, he also asked the Israeli Ambassador not to inform the President. The Speaker’s invitation to Prime Minister Netanyahu is political gamesmanship and it is a very dangerous game. The Prime Minister’s use of the U.S. House chamber as a stage to argue against the comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, which is currently being negotiated among Iran and the P5+1 — the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom and Germany, is reckless. While Americans and members of Congress may disagree on anything, even foreign policy, providing a forum of such immense prestige and power to the leader of another country who is opposing our nation’s foreign policy is beyond the pale. It endangers the negotiations, insults the good faith of the other nations involved in the negotiations and emboldens Iran who may well view this schism in our government as an opportunity for advantage. While we can disagree with our President, we as a nation should be as one on our foreign policy and any disagreements should be presented in a respectful, appropriate and time-honored manner.”
“I have given due consideration to my decision not to attend Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address before Congress. I have attended the Prime Minister’s previous speech and my support of Israel has not wavered but I believe that this speech at this time and brought forth in this manner is dangerous to Israel as well as inappropriate. Nothing should come between our two nations. The actions of the Speaker and the Prime Minister have caused a breach between Democrats in Congress and Israel as well as the administrations of the United States and Israel. My lack of attendance does not mean I will not be aware of the content of the speech nor does it mean I won’t follow the commentary both pro and con but I will not be part of the spectacle.”