Israel: Obama’s “historic mistake” – nuclear Iran

Premier said to have rebuked Obama over Iran nuclear deal

by JPOST.COM STAFF, / November 25th 2013 1:21 PM

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama.Photo: JASON REED / REUTERS

A lawmaker from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s ruling Likud faction told an Israeli television station on Monday that the premier rebuked US President Barack Obama over the interim agreement agreed upon by the Western powers and Iran on Sunday.

“The prime minister made it clear to the most powerful man on earth that if he intends to stay the most powerful man on earth, it’s important to make a change in American policy because the practical result of his current policy is liable to lead him to the same failure that the Americans absorbed in North Korea and Pakistan, and Iran could be next in line,” Likud Beytenu MK Tzachi Hanegbi told the Knesset Channel.

Netanyahu said that he agreed with US President Barack Obama to send the Israeli delegation to the US when the two leaders spoke about the interim Iran deal on Sunday. 

“I spoke last night with President Obama. We agreed that in the coming days an Israeli team led by the national security adviser, Yossi Cohen, will go out to discuss with the United States the permanent accord with Iran,” the prime minister said.

“This accord must bring about one outcome: the dismantling of Iran’s military nuclear capability,” he said

Netanyahu added that the interim deal reached with Iran was bad but it would have been worse without Israel’s diplomatic efforts.


Obama called Netanyahu on Sunday from Air Force One to discuss the interim agreement struck between world powers and Iran over its controversial nuclear program.

In the call, Obama told Netanyahu that the P5+1 — the US, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and Germany — would use the next several months to forge a “lasting, peaceful and comprehensive” solution to the slow-motion nuclear crisis causing consternation throughout the Middle East.

“The president told the Prime Minister that he wants the United States and Israel to begin consultations immediately regarding our efforts to negotiate a comprehensive solution,” the White House said in a readout of the call.

“The President underscored that the United States will remain firm in our commitment to Israel, which has good reason to be skeptical about Iran’s intentions.”

While the White House said both leaders expressed their mutual desire to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, it did not acknowledge any disagreement voiced in the phone call.

Netanyahu on Sunday called the deal, hailed by the US, a “historic mistake” that would make the region more dangerous tomorrow than it was before.

After a hard series of negotiations, Iran agreed late Saturday night to pause much of its nuclear program, including construction on its heavy-water plutonium reactor in Arak and the installation of advanced centrifuges made to efficiently enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels. Iran also agreed to allow unfettered access to its nuclear sites and to dilute stockpiles of uranium already thoroughly enriched.

In exchange, the Islamic will attain relief from financial sanctions from the international community valued at up to $7 billion.

Michael Wilner contributed to this report.

Conservatives Should Oppose Syrian Intervention ~ RedState reblog


In short, this would be a military strike with no objective other than killing some luckless Syrian conscripts… and innocent bystanders.

By: streiff (Diary) | September 2nd, 2013

In geopolitics as in medicine the first rule is do no harm. I am at a loss to see where any conceivable military action stands to either deter Assad from using chemical weapons in the future or reduces the risk to innocent civilians in Syria. Doing something for the sake of doing something only occasionally yields success. And, as far as I’ve read, the limit of our strategy in Syria is to do something.

Philosophically, I believe in the use of military power and I believe military force can be transformational, ask Japan and Germany. I also believe that the ill considered use of military force makes us look weak and stupid (any number of missile strikes by Bill Clinton, our involvement in Somalia, etc.). Right now I’m much more in sympathy with my colleague Daniel Horowitz than I am with my colleagues advocating a military response. In fact, I strongly oppose military intervention in Syria.

There is no genocide in Syria. The only ethnic cleansing is being done by the people we would be aiding. The chemical non proliferation regime is not in jeopardy because Syria already has chemical weapons and doesn’t seem to be providing them to anyone else. We are not trying for regime change. And, of course the Syrian rebels are mostly al Qaeda.

In short, this would be a military strike with no objective other than killing some luckless Syrian conscripts… and innocent bystanders.

I’m also a realist. Our Congressional caucus is running like scalded dogs from the idea of standing up to Obama. Really, why should they show more courage on Syria than they have on any other confrontation with Obama? When a vote finally takes place I fully expect them to give Obama carte blanche to do what he wishes.

Some will vote because the are afraid of being called out the next time Assad decides to kill people. More will follow the blandishments of the GOP “smart set” and vote out of some misguided sense of protecting the credibility of Barack Obama.

One such example appears is that of James Ceaser of the University of Virginia whom Bill Kristol tells us is a leading conservative thinker. (I don’t move in those circles so I just have to take his word for that.)

They shouldn’t.

Republicans should support some version of the authorization of force resolution. They should do so even if they think that the President’s policy will prove ineffective, do no good, waste money, or entail unforeseen risks; they should do so even if they think he has gotten the nation into this situation by blunders, fecklessness, arrogance, or naiveté; and they should so even if, and especially, if they have no confidence in his judgment. The simple fact is that the nation and our allies will be at further risk if the world sees a presidency that is weakened and that has no credibility to act. Partisans may be tempted to see such a result as condign punishment for the President’s misjudgments; they may feel that he deserves to pay the price for his hypocrisy and cheap and demagogic attacks on his predecessor. But at the end of the day, Republicans need to rise above such temptations; the stakes are too high.. The weaker the president’s credibility on the world scene, the more the need to swallow and do what will not weaken it further. President Obama is the only president we have. That remains the overriding fact.

And there is the important matter of the future–a future that may one day have a Republican in the presidency. The precedent of setting too low a threshold for blocking presidential initiative in foreign affairs is unwise. Of course Congress has the right, even the obligation, to stop action that member of the legislature believe would be disastrous. But short of that, it is wiser to maintain a good deal of discretion in the presidency. In the case at hand, all of the hyperbole about war aside, the real objection is that the President’s policy will prove to be ineffective or humiliating, not disastrous. That is not sufficient reason to weaken the discretion of the president or open the door next time to more gratuitous partisanship by the Democrats.

Were the basis of Dr. Ceaser’s essay factual one would be inclined to agree with him. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

In our system of government the authority of a president may pass by virtue of succession but his influence and credibility do not. One needs only look at the utterly benighted reign of Jimmy Carter to see how presidential credibility can be frittered away and regained. Any new president is going to be challenged by domestic and foreign political opposition and he can’t borrow his predecessor’s accomplishments. He must stand alone. While Obama is, unfortunately, the only president we have now he is not the only president we will ever have.

Dr. Ceaser’s concern about Democrats acting in a similar manner is rather bizarre as it was the late unlamented Democrat John Murtha who advocated depriving the US military of resources in Iraq, thereby deliberately creating more casualties – he called it “a slow bleed” – and increasing pressure on President Bush to end our war there. This was not in response to any Republican challenge to Clinton, it is simply their nature.

The reason we are in this mess is because Barack Obama is temperamentally ill suited for the presidency. Assad used chemical weapons… and Russia and Iran are backing Assad… because they have taken the measure of Obama and they have, correctly, determined that he is a weak and petty little man who is only capable of weak and petty responses. His military strike at Syria is precisely such an action.

Instead of taking Creaser’s advice and acting like a doting parent who caves into a tantrum-throwing toddler in the supermarket (we mustn’t hurt the precious little thing’s self esteem), Congress owes it to the nation and to the office of the president to put Obama in a time out.

Rather than taking a page out of Obama’s playbook and voting “present”, Congress should keep Obama from doing still more damage to US prestige and security abroad, even if they won’t act to do so on the domestic front. They should vote no and let him own the results, good or bad.

President Obama’s Belfast Blarney – American Thinker Re-Blog

President Obama’s Belfast BlarneyAmerican Thinker

By Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison

The fact is that in Northern Ireland, the religious schools have been leaders in reconciling historic antagonisms.


Reuters/Reuters - U.S. President Barack Obama speaks to guests at the Waterfront Hall in Belfast June 17, 2013. REUTERS/Paul Faith/Pool

President Obama’s recent trip to the G-8 Summit in Belfast, Northern Ireland, included an address at the Waterfront hall. There, he criticized Catholic and Protestant schools and compared them to segregated schools in the U.S. when he was a boy. His remarks were hailed by British atheists. They took his speech for what it was: an attack on faith-based education everywhere.

Mr. Obama told an audience in Belfast’s Waterfront hall:

Because issues like segregated schools and housing, lack of jobs and opportunity — symbols of history that are a source of pride for some and pain for others — these are not tangential to peace; they’re essential to it. If towns remain divided — if Catholics have their schools and buildings, and Protestants have theirs — if we can’t see ourselves in one another, if fear or resentment are allowed to harden, that encourages division. It discourages cooperation.

We cannot hear him liken Catholic and Protestant schools to racial segregation in America without a sense of alarm. Clearly, President Obama dismisses religious freedom as a basis for parents’ choosing different schools for their own children.

Mr. Obama’s own grandparents exercised their choice in sending him to Honolulu’s prestigious Punahou Academy. This pricey ($20,000/year) prep school was founded by Congregationalist missionaries. With roots in the faith-based community, it hardly qualifies as a segregation academy.

Similarly, the president and Mrs. Obama have chosen Washington, D.C.’s very tony Sidwell Friends school for their daughters. They have every right to do so, but no one would credit this Quaker-founded school as part of a segregation system.

Mr. Obama has been zealous in trying to block other parents’ exercise of education choice. His administration has been eager to shut down Washington, D.C.’s Opportunity Scholarships. This program permits low-income parents of area students to choose a private or parochial school for their kids. Most of these scholarships go to minority students and many of them choose Catholic schools where a majority of their classmates are non-Catholic.

It is a shocking thing for the President of the United States to show such open hostility to faith-based schooling. As their motto goes, these are “schools you can believe in.” And the record of religious schools in America is a great one.

Continue reading “President Obama’s Belfast Blarney – American Thinker Re-Blog”

“Religious Freedom Day” – not so much!

Peanut Gallery:Words mean things.” And President Obama choses his words very carefully. That’s why his substitution of the word worship for freedom in his Religious Freedom Day proclamation (Jan 16) was important – and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty called him on it.

Religious Freedom Rally
Religious Freedom Rally

Perhaps this mismatch between words and deeds can be explained by the phrase “freedom of worship,” which the President uses in the first sentence of his proclamation. Religious freedom certainly includes worship, but it extends beyond the four walls of a church. If it is not to be an empty promise, religious freedom must also include acting on one’s deepest religious beliefs when one is feeding the poor, caring for the sick, educating the young, or running a business.

The Becket Fund focused on the HHS mandate affecting churches and religious institutions but the word switch (worship for religion) would also limit evengelism beyond the four walls of a church.

So what is he up to? Maybe he thinks if he says it often enough and long enough people will accept the change… and stay in their place? Out of sight and out of mind.

I don’t think God is going to go for that.

The report from Christianity Today is found below –

Becket Fund Pushes Back on Obama’s ‘Religious Freedom Day’ Proclamation

by Jeremy Weber,

Today (Wed, Jan 16), President Barack Obama continued the tradition of observing Religious Freedom Day with a presidential proclamation. But this year, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty critiqued his use of “freedom of worship” rhetoric—a debate that first arose in 2010.

“Foremost among the rights Americans hold sacred is the freedom to worship as we choose,” begins Obama’s proclamation (full text at bottom), which later asserts “religious liberty … is a universal human right to be protected here at home and across the globe. This freedom is an essential part of human dignity, and without it our world cannot know lasting peace.”

Becket challenged the president’s statement in light of the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, which currently faces 43 legal challenges (many led by Becket) based on religious freedom concerns. Continue reading ““Religious Freedom Day” – not so much!”