Soon I guess we will all work for Solyndra…… Y’all recall that absolute debacle right?
Oh John F(ool) Kerry. He is a national disgrace on an epic level. His speech, hopefully his last as Secretary of State, was nothing more than a slap in the face to Israel, and all freedom loving people across the globe. He turned a blind eye to the evil acts of Hamas, of course, and shows his unwillingness to place the blame for the Palestinian/Israeli divide where it belongs, on the Palestinians. The fact is this. If it were up to Israel, there would be peace. The Palestinians could have their own state. And Israel would be their best friend. But, that is a fantasy. The Palestinians largely do not want peace, Hamas does not want peace. They want Israel wiped out. That belief is even laid out in Hamas’ charter. The reality is this, every time Israel has made concessions, including removing settlements from Gaza, they have been repaid by rocket attacks and terror attacks. But, Kerry the fool ignored all of that and blamed Israel and offered up a statement so demeaning as to earn Kerry a special place in Stupidville
Kerry did not mention that Jordan was never subjected to international pressure to grant the Palestinians their own state during the 19 years that Jordan occupied Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem; nor did he acknowledge that the Palestinians would long ago have had their own state if they had recognized Israel’s right to exist and abandoned jihadist terror. Leaving all that aside, Kerry accused the Israeli government of undermining any hope of a two-state solution. In this context of claiming that Israeli policy was “leading toward one state, or perpetual occupation,” Kerry admonished: “If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic. It cannot be both.”
What? Is Kerry saying that being Jewish is somehow incompatible with democracy? No, not really As Andrew McCarthy notes very well, Kerry is showing his true feelings
Implicitly, of course, if Kerry is saying that a country with a Muslim minority cannot maintain its Jewish character and still abide by democratic principles, then neither can the United States maintain its Judeo-Christian character and still abide by democratic principles — notwithstanding that our Judeo-Christian character is the basis for our belief in the equal dignity of all men and women, a foundational democratic principle. It is a principle one does not find in classical Islam, the law of which explicitly elevates Muslims over non-Muslims and men over women.
As McCarthy points out the constitutions of Iraq, and Afghanistan, which the United States had a significant hand in drafting both name those nations as Islamic, and protect religious minorities. Can a Jewish state not accomplish the same thing? That is what Kerry is saying. As McCarthy notes, religious minorities, including Muslim minorities, are not granted those rights in practice in Islamic democracies. He also points out that where we DO see such tolerance and protection of religious freedom is in the nation of Israel. But, facts, apparently are inconvenient things for both President Obama, and his right-hand buffoon, John Kerry. This is the alternate reality of the Left, the
United Useless Nations, and Team Obama. So why is Obama, and the Left so insistent that Israel, the nation that truly desires peace and practices tolerance and freedom must change to appease those that do not? Ben Shapiro explains
Obama’s animus for the state of Israel stretches beyond the typical internationalist leftist view of Israel as a colonialist outpost, a cancer growing in the heart of the Muslim Middle East. Most internationalist leftists think that Israel is the cause of Muslim ire, that if Israel were to disappear, suddenly the Muslim lands surrounding it would view the rest of the world with fresh, dewy eyes. This is the same general philosophy that blames the West for the problem of Islamic violence, that suggests that income maldistribution breeds discontent that in turn breeds terrorism
So, why does Obama despise Israel, he is a Leftist, every major influence in Obama’s life has been a Leftist. And, Shapiro believes that Obama, like other Leftists simply has no use for “others”
Obama despises Israel because at root, Obama despises the traditional Judeo-Christian underpinning of Western civilization. He breaks down Bible believers into two categories: fools and liars. The fools are the “bitter clingers,” the idiot masses who fall into racism and xenophobia and Bible jabber because they’re poor and stupid. The liars are the self-interested characters who want to do what they want to do while citing the Bible for their support.
That is highly plausible no doubt. I would argue that the main issue with Obama and Israel boils down to pretty much the same thing every disagreement that Leftists have with those that support traditional Western values boils down to, Collectivism vs Individualism.
The West values individual liberties to varying degrees. Israel, like America honors a commitment to allowing gender equality and religious freedom. Such commitments align with the ideology of Individualism. The ideal that certain rights are inherent to people and that such rights are given by a Creator, or at the very least are simply part of every human. Such an ideology limits government, and that is simply intolerable to the Left, which is Collectivist.
To the Left, rights are to be defined, and controlled by the State. And Islamic governments, abiding by Sharia Law, is, like Communist governments in that individual liberties are non-existent. Even nations that commit atrocities, or that persecute its own people are therefore given a pass by many on the left. Any fault with such governments are ignored by the Left because Collectivism, that is the controlling of rights by the State, must never be challenged or questioned. Sadly, because of their ideology of Collectivism the Left views nations, like Israel, and the United States as bigger obstacles to a better world than they do radical Islam.
Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged on Thursday that Iran will likely use some of the tens of billions of dollars its receives as a result of sanctions relief under the nuclear deal to sponsor terrorists.
“I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] or of other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists to some degree,” he told CNBC in Davos, Switzerland. “I’m not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented.”
Kerry said there were no indications yet that released funds were being directed “to that kind of endeavor” but that he was “sure at some point some of it will.”
He went on to suggest that the impact in the region of such funding would be limited, pointing to the much larger military spending by Gulf Arab states in comparison to Iran.
“The Saudis alone spend $80 billion a year on defense. The entire Gulf state community spends 130 billion a year on defense,” he said. “Iran spends 15 billion a year on its military activities. So it’s so incredibly disproportionate.”
The U.S., by working with its Gulf state partners, would be able to guarantee their security, he said. It would “stand by them, even as we look for this potential other shift in behavior.”
In Washington, Republican senators responded scathingly.
“Talk about stating the obvious,” the Associated Press quoted Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) as saying, adding that even when Iran’s economy was crippled by sanctions it was funding “guns, not butter.”
“To have them actually now say, ‘Well, we think some of this might go to terrorism.’ D’uh. I mean, really?”
At a press conference with several Senate colleagues focusing on Iran, Ayotte said it had been obvious from the outset.
“Finally Secretary Kerry acknowledged what all of us who have opposed this [nuclear] agreement from the beginning saw was obvious – that when they got this economic relief and lifting of the sanctions that in fact some of that money was going to support their terrorism in the region,” she said.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) disputed that Iran’s use of the freed-up funds for terror was merely likely, saying in words directed at Kerry that it was “certain that they will use this money to support terrorism. You might as well as have written the check to [Syrian President Bashar] Assad yourself; you might as well have funded Hezbollah yourself.”
“So all of this cash going into the ayatollah’s pockets won’t stay long,” Graham said. “It’s not going into roads and bridges in Iran, it’s going into war machines throughout the Mideast and to think otherwise is completely naïve.”
In Davos, Kerry said Iranian President Hasan Rouhani had indicated that he wants to use the nuclear deal “as a departure point for something new” – although he conceded that “just saying it doesn’t make it happen. You have to now test it and see where we’re going.”
Kerry told the network Iran would likely get $55 billion in sanctions relief, not the considerably larger sums sometimes reported.
“It’s not 150 billion, it’s not 100 billion. Iran will get approximately – according to the Treasury Department and all of the analysis of our intelligence community – about $55 billion,” he said.
“Why won’t they get the 100 [billion] that some people refer to? Because a large chunk of it is already committed to China, to other countries through loans and long-term commitments that have been made.”
‘This is a sovereign country that will make their own decisions’
The IRGC which Kerry referred to is not itself designated a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) under U.S. law, despite efforts by Republican lawmakers to prod the administration into doing so. (While in the U.S. Senate, Kerry opposed such a move, as did then-Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden; Hillary Clinton did not.)
Iran is a primary sponsor of violent anti-U.S. Shi’ite militias in Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Iraq (Khata’ib Hezbollah and others). It has also long supported Palestinian terror groups such as Hamas. Hezbollah, Khata’ib Hezbollah and Hamas are all designated FTOs.
Shortly after the nuclear deal was announced last July, Kerry downplayed concerns about sanctions relief money benefitting terrorists, arguing that the Iranian government had more pressing priorities.
“If President Rouhani and his administration do not [use the freed-up funds to] take care of the people of Iran, they will have an enormous problem,” he told the BBC at the time.
In similar comments earlier last year, White House press secretary Josh Earnest conceded that the administration would not be able to prescribe how Iran uses the money its sanctions relief windfall, but said it was “common sense” to expect Tehran would use it to improve the ailing economy, not to increase funding for terrorism or for other destabilizing actions in the region.
“I’m not going to make any predictions about what they are going to do, and I’m certainly not going to be in a position to prescribe what they should do,” he said. “This is a sovereign country that will make their own decisions.”
Anyone who has followed Kerry since Vietnam has to if they are intellectually honest. Mike McDaniel knocks this out of the park
John Kerry has been a traitor since the Vietnam War.He gave aid and comfort to our North Vietnamese Communist enemies, betrayed every man and woman that ever served in our military, and has rarely missed an opportunity to support and help any enemy of America. Fortunately, until he became secretary of State, he lacked the power and influence to do really significant damage to America. No more. With the guidance and direction of Barack Obama, a man mentored and raised by Marxists and Islamists, he has done unimaginable damage. Consider this from, of all sources, the Associated Press:
Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.
The revelation on Wednesday newly riled Republican lawmakers in the U.S. who have been severely critical of a broader agreement to limit Iran’s future nuclear programs, signed by the Obama administration, Iran and five world powers in July. Those critics have complained that the wider deal is unwisely built on trust of the Iranians, while the administration has insisted it depends on reliable inspections.
A skeptical House Speaker John Boehner said, ‘President Obama boasts his deal includes ‘unprecedented verification.’ He claims it’s not built on trust. But the administration’s briefings on these side deals have been totally insufficient – and it still isn’t clear whether anyone at the White House has seen the final documents.’
Said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce: ‘International inspections should be done by international inspectors. Period.
This secret side deal “newly riled Republican lawmakers,” eh? Shouldn’t an inspection regime relating to nuclear weapons, that is not only supposedly secret from the American people and the American government, but that give the people being inspected the ability to inspect themselves, rile any American? The AP story doesn’t mention Democrat opposition to the Iranian wish list of a deal, but Senator Robert Menendez came out in opposition on August 18.
Evidence of the inspections concession is sure to increase pressure from U.S. congressional opponents before a Senate vote of disapproval on the overall agreement in early September. If the resolution passes and President Barack Obama vetoes it, opponents would need a two-thirds majority to override it. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, has suggested opponents will likely lose a veto fight, though that was before Wednesday’s disclosure.
John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking Republican senator, said, ‘Trusting Iran to inspect its own nuclear site and report to the U.N. in an open and transparent way is remarkably naive and incredibly reckless. This revelation only reinforces the deep-seated concerns the American people have about the agreement.’
The Parchin agreement was worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers were not party to it but were briefed by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package.
Yes. John Kerry negotiated and endorsed it.How could an American Secretary of State negotiate and endorse a deal that, by any rational analysis, fails to recognize and uphold American national security interests, and instead gives Iran everything it wants? It’s not at all difficult to understand if one understands progressive thinking.
Progressives see the mere act of talking with enemies, of sitting down at a table to supposedly negotiate with them, as an incredibly significant diplomatic accomplishment in and of itself. This “accomplishment” is seen as tangible proof of the moral and intellectual superiority of the progressive mindset and of the progressives that made such a wonderful accomplishment possible.
Go read it all, I am not up to much writing tonight, my whole body mainly my joints, hurt, so I am trying to take it super easy
Secretary of State John Kerry came to Cuba on Friday and raised the American flag above the U.S. Embassy for the first time in 54 years.
“Thank you for joining us at this truly historic moment as we prepare to raise the flag… symbolizing the restoration of diplomatic relations after 54 years,” Kerry said at the ceremony, addressing the crowd in both English and Spanish.
Kerry’s visit marks the symbolic end of one of the last vestiges of the Cold War. But signs of mistrust linger, and beyond the pomp and circumstance lies a long road back from more than half a century of diplomatic animosity.
On Thursday, Cuban state media put out an article in the name of Fidel Castro, writing on the occasion of his 89th birthday, in which he made no reference to the historic resumption of U.S.-Cuba relations but instead waxed on about the damage the American embargo has caused Cuba and the anniversary of the United States dropping an atomic bomb on Japan.
The rhetoric from the leader of the Cuban revolution, and the face of anti-U.S. resistance, is not unexpected. But it underscores the long-standing tensions at play as Washington and Havana work to thaw the decadeslong chill in relations.
Even Kerry’s brief visit reflects the complexities of opening a new chapter of engagement with the Cuban government.
He is accompanied by a number of U.S. lawmakers who have advocated normalizing diplomatic and economic relations with the island. Several Cuban-Americans also are part of the delegation.
Dissidents not invited to embassy opening
But anti-Castro dissidents won’t be at the U.S. Embassy ceremony marking the restoration of ties. Instead, Kerry will meet dissidents and human rights activists at another flag-raising, this one closed to press at the residence of the U.S. chief of mission, along with a broad cross section of Cuban entrepreneurs, journalists and artists.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, blasted the decision in a foreign policy speech delivered in New York Friday morning.
“As a symbol of just how backward this policy shift has turned out to be, no Cuban dissidents have been invited to today’s official flag-raising ceremony at the U.S. Embassy in Havana,” Rubio said. “Cuba’s dissidents have fought for decades for the very Democratic principles President Obama claims to be advancing through these concessions. Their exclusion from this event has ensured it will be little more than a propaganda rally for the Castro regime.”
Sen. Bob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat and also the son of Cuban immigrants, said it was “shameful” that Cuba could bar dissidents from the ceremony and said the U.S. flag should not fly in a country that does not value freedom.
“A flag representing freedom and liberty will rise today in a country ruled by a repressive regime that denies its people democracy and basic human rights. This is the embodiment of a wrongheaded policy that rewards the Castro regime’s brutality at the expense of the Cuban people’s right to freedom of expression and independence,” Menendez said in a statement.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called the opening of the embassy a “sad day” in an interview Friday with CNN en Espanol.
“It’s a sad day for me because we did not get anything, no freedom, the dissidents were not invited, not even a change in the regime, they have the economic control. The American flag up but no changes to the Cuban people, it’s a sad day for me,” Bush said, according to a CNN translation.
But Republican Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona, who joined Kerry as part of the American delegation, welcomed the Embassy reopening.
“The United States will be able to do much more to protect and serve U.S. citizens in Cuba and encourage a better future for the Cuban people with an American flag flying over our embassy in Havana,” he said in a statement.
U.S. officials shrugged off the fact that dissidents were only invited to attend the second ceremony, chalking it up to “limited space” at the Embassy flag-raising, which they termed a “government-to-government movement.” But it reflected attention to the sensitivities of the regime.
When Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Eduardo Rodriguez visited Washington to reopen the Cuban embassy, he underscored the differences that remain. Standing next to Kerry at the State Department last month, Rodriguez made clear the full normalization of ties between the United States and Cuba would be impossible as long as the blockade remains.
President Barack Obama has eased some travel and business restrictions, but only Congress can lift the 53-year-old embargo, something that is unlikely to happen with Republicans controlling both chambers through the end of his term.
“Where we go from here has to do with what (happens) in the next 16 months, while the President is in office, if he is able to consolidate what has already been done,” said Julia Sweig, a Latin America expert long at the forefront of Washington’s Cuba policy debate.
“That happens by using his executive authority to open up new opportunities for travel, trade and investment. And the Cuban government needs to do the same,” she said. “This could neutralize remaining opposition in Congress and make it impossible for the next president, if it is a Republican, to reverse it.”
There are other areas where the administration is already pushing the limits.
Take tourism. While only Congress can officially lift the “ban” on tourism, the Treasury Department has taken a liberal view of what “tourism” means when it provides licenses to travel to the island. The parent company of Carnival, Princess and several other cruise lines plan to launch “people-to-people” visits to the island by ship. Other tour companies are offering vacation packages to Cuba for Americans loosely labeled as “cultural experiences.”
Sweig said there are other business sectors that could benefit from the same treatment.
“The difference between yes and no on any sector is a political decision by the White House,” Sweig said. “They don’t’ have to wait for Congress.”
Senior administration officials said they are examining what more the President can do to support the Cuban people and Cuban entrepreneurs but said he would be cautious about going too far, too fast.
No plan to gut embargo
The officials said that the President’s calculus in carving out certain sectors – health, agriculture, telecom and information – was that they could be justified within the President’s executive authority as humanitarian in nature and opening Cuba to the outside world.
But Obama will not do an end run around Congress and gut the embargo, they said, something Republican lawmakers opposed to the new policy have accused him of.
“These are areas we think can help bring about improvements in the lives of average Cubans even if they bring some benefit to a government we disagree with,” one senior official said. “We are making exceptions to the embargo but still keeping the premise of it.
The official continued, “The question of whether you want basic manufacturing to sell to Cuba is a very different question that goes to the heart of a law which Congress passed.”
The United States is also looking for the Cuban government to take steps to improve the relationship. The administration hopes to convince the Cuban government to extradite some American criminals currently taking refuge on the island, such as Joanne Chesimard, better known as Assata Shakur, and William Guillermo Morales.
Castro granted Chesimard, a convicted murderer wanted by the FBI, political asylum in Cuba, where she has remained ever since escaping from a life sentence in 1979 from a New Jersey prison. Morales, a member of a militant Puerto Rican separatist movement, planted a bomb at a New York military installation and faced 89 years in prison when he escaped from police custody while in a hospital in New York.
Washington also wants to settle property disputes for Americans that were living in Cuba when the two countries cut off ties.
In addition, the U.S. wants to increase existing, albeit modest, cooperation between Washington and Havana on areas such as counternarcotics, migration, environment and global health. With American diplomats now free to travel across the island, officials hope they will get a better sense of the needs of the Cuban people and how the United States can help.
Perhaps the most important driver of warming ties between the two countries, however, will be the American and Cuban people. Officials say that the increase in Americans traveling to Cuba has been positive, with Cubans interacting with regular Americans for the first time in more than 50 years.
“They see we don’t have horns and a tail,” one official said. “And Americans are getting a more nuanced view of Cuba than cigars, mojitos and old cars.”
In his testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee to sell the U.S. administration’s deal between Iran and the world’s superpowers, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was pointedly asked, “Is it the policy of the ayatollah, if you can answer for him, that Iran wants to destroy the United States?”
In response, Kerry said, “I don’t believe they’ve said that. I think they’ve said ‘Death to America,’ in their chants, but I have not seen this specific.”
Poe countered, “Well, I kind of take that to mean that they want us dead. That would seem like that would be their policy. He said that. You don’t think that’s their policy? I’m not mincing words. Do you think it’s their policy to destroy us?”
“I think they have a policy of opposition to us and a great enmity, but I have no specific knowledge of a plan by Iran to actually destroy us,” Kerry answered.
Secretary of State John Kerry defended the Obama administration’s decision to take the Iran deal to the United Nations before the U.S. Congress votes on it. Kerry made the remarks in an interview this morning on ABC News:
The ABC reporter, Jon Karl, asked, “But the bottom line, the UN is going to vote on this before Congress gets to vote on this?”
“Well, they have a right to do that, honestly. It is presumptuous of some people to say that France, Russia, China, Germany, Britain ought to do what the Congress tells them to do,” said Kerry. “They have a right to have a vote. But we prevailed on them to delay the implementation of that vote out of respect of our Congress.”
Iran’s Supreme leader Ali Khamenei called for “Death to America” on Saturday, a day after President Barack Obama appealed to Iran to seize a “historic opportunity” for a nuclear deal and a better future, and as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry claimed substantial progress toward an accord.
Khamenei told a crowd in Tehran that Iran would not capitulate to Western demands. When the crowd started shouting, “Death to America,” the ayatollah responded: “Of course yes, death to America, because America is the original source of this pressure.
“They insist on putting pressure on our dear people’s economy,” he said, referring to economic sanctions aimed at halting Iran’s nuclear program. “What is their goal? Their goal is to put the people against the system,” he said. “The politics of America is to create insecurity,” he added, referring both to US pressure on Iran and elsewhere in the region.
Khamenei’s comments contrasted with those of Iranian President Hassan Rohani, who said “achieving a deal is possible” by the March 31 target date for a preliminary accord.
Kerry was more circumspect, as he spoke to reporters after six days of negotiations in the Swiss city of Lausanne. The talks, made “substantial progress,” he said, but “important gaps remain.
“We have an opportunity to get this right,” Kerry said, as he urged Iran to make “fundamental decisions” that prove to the world it has no interest in atomic weapons.
But Khamenei warned against expectations that even a done deal would mend the more than three-decade freeze between the two nations in place since the Iranian revolution and siege of the American Embassy, proclaiming that Washington and Tehran remained on opposite sides on most issues.
“Negotiations with America are solely on the nuclear issue and nothing else. Everyone has to know that,” Khamenei said.
In a reflection of the delicate state of negotiations, other officials differed on how close the sides were to a deal.
Top Russian negotiator Sergey Ryabkov and Iran’s atomic energy chief Ali Akbar Salehi said in recent days that technical work was nearly done. But French officials insisted the sides were far from any agreement.
Kerry was departing later Saturday to meet with European allies in London, in part to ensure unity, before returning to Washington. Kerry said the U.S. and its five negotiating partners – Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia – are “united in our goal, our approach, our resolve and our determination.”
But France, which raised last minute objections to an interim agreement reached with Iran in 2013, could threaten a deal again. It is particularly opposed to providing Iran with quick relief from international sanctions and wants a longer timeframe for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activity.
“France wants an agreement, but a robust agreement,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told French radio. “That is to say, an accord that really guarantees that Iran can obviously have access to the civil nuclear (program).”
“But to the atomic bomb? No.”
France indicated Saturday that it would push for an agreement with Iran that guarantees Tehran cannot build a nuclear bomb in the future, and that it opposed a phased easing of sanctions before an accord is reached.
On Twitter on Friday, France’s ambassador to the U.S. called talk about needing a deal by March 31 a “bad tactic” that is “counterproductive and dangerous.” Gerard Araud called it an “artificial deadline” and said negotiators should focus instead on the next phase – reaching a complete agreement by the end of June.
In the round of talks in Switzerland this weekend, cut short Friday because of the death of Rouhani’s mother, Fabius called the French delegation to make sure no more concessions were made, according to Reuters.
French diplomats have been pressing their counterparts not to give in on key elements, such as the easing of sanctions before serious progress is made, and arguing that the upcoming deadline was an “artificial” date, the Wall Street Journal reported. The P5+1, France argues, should be willing to press Tehran for a better deal and wait, if necessary.
Kerry said the U.S. wasn’t rushing into a pact, stressing that the latest stab at a diplomatic settlement with Iran has gone on for 2 ½ years. “We don’t want just any deal,” he said. “If we had, we could have announced something a long time ago.”
But, he added, decisions “don’t get any easier as time goes by.”
“It’s time to make hard decisions,” Kerry said. “We want the right deal that would make the world, including the United States and our closest allies and partners, safer and more secure. And that is our test.”
One encouraging sign is the apparent narrowing of differences on Iran’s uranium enrichment program. Tehran insists it wants to enrich only for energy, medical and research purposes, but much of the world fears it could turn the process toward making the fissile core of a nuclear warhead.
As the current round wound down this week, officials told The Associated Press that the United States and Iran are drafting elements of a deal that commits the Iranians to a 40 percent cut in the number of machines they use to enrich. The Obama administration is seeking a deal that stretches the time Tehran would need to make a nuclear weapon from the present two to three months to at least a year.
For Washington, the stakes are high if the talks miss the March deadline. The Obama administration has warned that a diplomatic failure could lead to an ever tougher dilemma: Whether to launch a military attack on Iran or allow it to reach nuclear weapons capacity.
A more immediate challenge may be intervention from Congress. If American lawmakers pass new economic sanctions on Iran, the Islamic Republic could respond by busting through the interim limits on its nuclear program it agreed to 16 months ago. Thus far, it has stuck to that agreement.
The negotiations are to resume on Wednesday, leaving the two sides with just one week to meet the March 31 deadline for agreeing on the outlines of a nuclear deal they hope will end a 12-year deadlock.
Kerry: “We are not negotiating a legally binding plan” with Iran.
11:20 AM – 11 Mar 2015
The leader of the “treasonous” Republicans takes a victory lap:
Important question: if deal with Iran isn’t legally binding, then what’s to stop Iran from breaking said deal and developing a bomb?
11:37 AM – 11 Mar 2015
It is like the Three Stooges, but with more stooges. Weasel Zippers has this
Shot: John Kerry Snubs Netanyahu To Meet With Iran’s FM Zarif – Chaser: Zarif Then Calls For “Annihilation” Of Netanytahu Regime…
Via Times of Israel:
Iran’s Foreign Minister acknowledged that his country seeks the annihilation of the “Netanyahu regime” but denied that it seeks to wipe out Israel.
In an NBC interview on Wednesday, Zarif finessed a series of questions raised by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his speech to Congress Tuesday, including over Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei’s tweet last year urging the annihilation of Israel, and about his own laying of a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh, the arch-Hezbollah terrorist responsible for the killings of hundreds of Americans.
Zarif said Netanyahu had been fanning “hysteria” since 1992 with the claim that Iran was two years from the bomb. “Once this fear mongering is out, then we can have a deal,” he said. Zarif also denied stalling the IAEA’s efforts to probe alleged nuclear weapons work. He spent much of the extensive interview castigating Israel for a series of alleged vicious crimes, while insisting on Iran’s tolerant and peaceful nature.
Sure, Iran is peaceful, and tolerant, which is why they hang Homosexuals, brutalize women and want to annihilate Israel’s “regime”.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper completely contradicts John Kerry less than 24 hours after his testimony before Congress.
On Wednesday Obama Secretary of State John Kerry told Congress:
Our citizens, our world today is actually, despite ISIL, despite the visible killings that you see and how horrific they are, we are actually living in a period of less daily threat to Americans and to people in the world than normally – less deaths, less violent deaths today than through the last century.
On Thursday Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Congress:
“When the final accounting is done. 2014 will be the most lethal year in global terrorism in the 45 years such data has been compiled. About half of all attacks including fatalities in 2014 occurred in just three countries, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.”
Do these people have any idea what they’re doing?
Secretary of State John Kerry bashed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today. Kerry said Netanyahu could not be trusted because he supported the Iraq War.
** John Kerry voted for the Iraq War and stood by his vote years later.
** Benjamin Netanyahu was not prime minister when the Iraq War was debated and launched.
The Kelly File posted the video:
John Kerry voted for the Iraq War.
Talking Points Memo reported:
Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday slammed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s opposition to a potential nuclear deal with Iran, calling it as wrongheaded as the prime minister’s backing of the Iraq War.
“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 during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. “He was wrong.”
Kerry was later asked to address Netanyahu’s criticism of a hypothetical deal with Iran as a threat to Israel.
“The prime minister was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq under George W. Bush,” Kerry replied. “We all know what happened with that decision.”
Actually, for the record, George W. Bush won that war. Barack Obama lost it to ISIS.
On Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry told his audience the Bible tells us to protect Muslim majority countries from global warming.
Wednesday at a ceremony to appoint Texas lawyer Shaarik Zafar to be special representative to Muslim communities, Secretary of State John Kerry said it was the United States’ Biblical “responsibility” to “confront climate change,” including to protect “vulnerable Muslim majority counties.”
In February, John Kerry insisted that global warming was as big a threat as terrorism.
Poor John Kerry, no one seems to appreciate his incopetence
As tensions continue to escalate in the Middle East, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is heading back to the region to continue pursuing a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas — but he may not be welcome this time around.
Former Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren believes that America’s presence isn’t welcome at all. During an interview with an Israel news network on Monday, Oren said that Kerry coming to the region is “to our chagrin.” Oren cited Kerry’s history of failed attempts at peace negotiations in the region, and strained U.S. relations with Egypt, as well as the Obama administration’s poor relationship with both Israel and Palestine.
Negotiated peace between Hamas and Israel is not possible. Only complete military victory over Hamas will do.
Jihadis are advancing on Baghdad, and yet the nation’s foreign policy chief today flew to London for the chance to recite a poem by Maya Angelou.
“Out of the huts of history’s shame / I rise / Up from a past that’s rooted in pain / I rise,” Secretary of State John Kerry intoned at the “Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict.”
Kerry’s poetic foray capped off his scheduled speech at the long-planned summit, where activists and diplomats met to push for new spending programs to curb rape in warfare.
“Thousands of years after rape was written into the lexicon of warfare, we know that it is time to write it out and to banish sexual violence to the dark ages and the history books where it belongs,” Kerry declared.
Meanwhile, back in Iraq, the advancing jihadis were forcing Iraqi women back into shrouds and chopping people’s heads’ off.
But the jihadis’ advance through western Iraq is Iraq’s problem, according to Kerry’s boss, President Barack Obama.
“It is up to Iraqis as a sovereign nation to solve their problems,” Obama said midday, before heading to a political outreach event in North Dakota.
The jihadis’ advanced through Iraq isn’t the only foreign policy crisis that is wracking Muslim countries.
Taliban leaders say they’ll overthrow the Afghanistan’s government once Obama pulls out U.S troops, Iran is still building nuclear weapons, Libya still doesn’t have a working government, and Syria is still being torn apart by civil war.
Egypt’s economy hasn’t healed from the removal of a dictatorship and the election and removal of an Islamic theocracy, while loose weaponry from Libya is fueling wars in Mali and Nigeria.
But on June 13, the nation’s secretary of state was focused on sexual assault.
“Make no mistake – we can end sexual warfare conducted against innocent people… [and] establish new norms that respect women, girls, men, and boys,” Kerry said.
“How do I know that? Because we’ve done it again and again and again when we’ve chosen to…. [for example, after World War One] except for the most depraved exception that we’ve seen once or twice since, chemical and biological weapons were banned from the battlefield within a decade of that war,” said Kerry.
Actually, chemical weapons have been used in many wars since World War I, including during the current Syrian civil war.
But at least lawyers can help in this campaign to end sexual violence, said Kerry, a former lawyer.
“I was a young prosecutor back in the late 1970s, early ‘80s, when a lot of people still didn’t believe that violence against women was a crime. But guess what? We chipped away at that old thinking… we ended an era of anachronisms by actually speaking out loudly and created one of the first victim/witness assistance programs in the nation,” he said.
Movie-makers can help too, Kerry said. “I… want to thank Angelina Jolie, the UN special representative,” he said. “We’ve all watched her play many remarkable roles. But perhaps her most lasting legacy actually comes from a role that she plays in real life, and that is the role of fierce and fearless advocate” for the victims of sexual assault.
“My friends, I do have faith that we can really win this fight,” he declared.
“Sometimes I know it seems daunting, but hope is always stronger than fear. And nothing should give us more hope than the example of… the extraordinary poet Maya Angelou,” he said, prompting applause.
“I’m a black ocean, leaping and wide / Welling and swelling I hear in the tide / Leaving behind nights of terror and fear / I rise / Into a daybreak that’s wondrously clear / I rise,” Kerry continued.
Meanwhile in Iraq, the jihadis posted videos showing them beheading their enemies.
Secretary of State John Kerry plans to give a major speech on the connection between climate change and national security this summer.
In an interview with The New York Times, Kerry said the speech would also be an opportunity to build political support for President Obama’s climate agenda.
“We’re going to try to lay out to people legitimate options for action that are not bank-breaking or negative,” Kerry said.
A central part of that agenda are regulations to curb carbon emissions from new and existing coal-fired power plants.
Kerry spoke with the Times after the release Tuesday of a government-funded military research study, which found that the increasing rate of climate changes will serve as “catalysts for instability and conflict.”
The report, published by the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) Corp.’s Military Advisory Board, also states that the growing number of extreme weather events across the globe, brought on by climate change, will spark a demand for U.S. troops.
Kerry said that the report’s findings, which were based on analyses by every U.S. military branch, numerous federal agencies and industry, will influence U.S. foreign policy.
“Tribes are killing each other over water today,” Kerry said. “Think of what happens if you have massive dislocation, or the drying up of the waters of the Nile, of the major rivers in China and India. The intelligence community takes it seriously, and it’s translated into action.”
The report goes on to recommend that the Department of Defense develop, fund and implement plants to adapt, placing higher emphasis on the projected impacts of climate change on Pentagon facilities, and associated infrastructure.
Propaganda so inane only a Democrt could buy it