Category: Military Thingies
…of the MALE SAILORS on those Navy boats.
— Abas Aslani (@abasinfo) January 13, 2016
Check out the place settings. Check out the movement IN THE CORNER when the boys are happily STUFFING THEIR FACES.
Guess who wasn’t ALLOWED to eat?
I also notice she’s changed out of her hijab and wrapped herself in a blanket of some sort. GOOD FOR HER.
‘Twould appear she’s the owner of the only set of BALLS in the entire crew.
That American servicemen would act in their own interest and abandon one of their own is DISGRACEFUL.
I hope she lit every jack one of them up royally when they got back to terra USA, and that she NEVER EVER lets the craven cowards off the hook.
Great picture of it in flames going down. Sort of like the WORLD while Obama golfs, eh?
WWIII coming soon to a theater near you.
…UNITED STATES MARINES CORPS!
We go back a ways with our family involvement, from Grampa who fought through Central America in the Banana Wars…
…to both of HIS sons (and a son-in-law). THIS handsome young uncle here…
…hung around the Corps long enough for a certain young boot camp graduate to be able to attend his retirement…
…and heartily concur with her choice in men. 😉
And that’s the just scratching the surface of Leathernecks in the family.
OO-RAH and Semper FI!
…the Beirut Barracks were blown into the sky. And major dad, Kcruella and myself lost a dear friend in that unholy, unforgivable rubble.
Odierno: Army ‘dangerously close’ to being cut too deep
As the Army prepares to cut 40,000 more soldiers in order to fit into a shrinking budget, the service is in danger of becoming too small for an increasingly dangerous world, the Army’s top officer said, and that may embolden our enemies to act.
“If we get small enough where some of these [world] leaders don’t believe the Army can respond or deter them, if you can’t … deter them from believing they can accomplish something … that increases the threats and danger to the United States,” Odierno said in an exclusive sit-down with Army Times. “And I don’t know what that level is, but I think we’re getting dangerously close to that level now.”
Look how they brought their boy home. How everyone came to say good-bye.
Semper Fi, LCpl Wells.
…and just feel ill.
Your heart is simply torn out, seeing their faces and learning more about these slaughtered Marines.
Slain Marine’s last words to girlfriend: “ACTIVE SHOOTER”
The Marine Corps has identified the four men killed in an attack on two military facilities in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
They were identified Friday by the Marines as Gunnery Sgt. Thomas J. Sullivan of Hampden, Massachusetts; Staff Sgt. David A. Wyatt of Burke, North Carolina; Sgt. Carson A. Holmquist of Polk, Wisconsin; and Lance Cpl. Squire K. Wells of Cobb County, Georgia, who a family spokesman says went by Skip.
Lance Cpl. Squire Wells was swapping text messages Thursday with his girlfriend of 2 1/2 years, excited that she had booked a flight to visit him in Chattanooga after months apart.
“Can’t wait anymore,” Wells texted. “Yes you can honey,” his girlfriend, Caroline Dove, replied.
His next two words would be the last she’d ever hear from him.
“ACTIVE SHOOTER,” he wrote.
She thought he was kidding: “You are so weird,” she replied.
Hours of silence. “I love you,” she tried. Hours more passed, the news out of Chattanooga becoming clearer. “Hon, I need you to answer me please,” she wrote.
It would not be until Friday that she learned his fate…
Ripples of grief were apparent as a stream of visitors brought flowers, food and gifts Friday to the Hampden, Massachusetts, home of Jerry and Betty Sullivan, the parents of Gunnery Sgt. Thomas Sullivan. A police officer was stationed outside to keep reporters and onlookers away. Masslive.com said Sullivan, 40, grew up in Springfield, Massachusetts.
The Pentagon said he had been enlisted nearly 18 years, serving two tours of duty in Iraq and earning two Purple Hearts.
His hometown mayor, Dominic Sarno, called Sullivan a man who “dedicated his life in brave service.” Gov. Charlie Baker ordered flags to half-staff as he proclaimed “Terror comes home to Massachusetts.” Sullivan’s unit – India Battery, 3rd Battalion, 12th Marines – called him “one of our own” on its Facebook page. A giant U.S. flag and another representing the Marine Corps hung outside a Springfield restaurant owned by Sullivan’s brother Joseph.
“He was our hero,” read a post on the Facebook page of Nathan Bill’s Bar and Restaurant, “and he will never be forgotten.”…
So proud a Marine was Sgt. Carson Holmquist that when he finished boot camp, he returned to his hometown of Grantsburg, Wisconsin, and paid a visit to his high school dressed in his formal blues. Grantsburg High School Principal Josh Watt, who was one of Holmquist’s football coaches, remembers the day his former cornerback showed up, the pride in his accomplishment apparent.
“When he became a Marine he was very proud of that,” Watt said Friday…
Tony Ward remembered Staff Sgt. David Wyatt as the young Boy Scout who would run up mountains, just for fun, seeking to best the time of others.
Ward, who now lives in Helena, Montana, was Wyatt’s scoutmaster when he was in high school in Russellville, Arkansas. Wyatt and Ward’s son were good friends and worked together at a Boy Scout camp. He said Wyatt attained the Eagle Scout rank and graduated from high school in 1991. He was married with young children, Ward said.
“He’s the kind of man that this country needs more of,” he said.
Lord knows that was true of every single one of these tremendous Leathernecks. God bless you guys and hold your families close.
So, over the past three days I’ve had to rebut some pretty stretched logic, repeatedly, so screw it, here’s my take on the South Carolina (SC) bit:
First, history lessons, the colloquial “Confederate Flag” is not, nor has ever, represented the Confederate States of America (CSA), in fact it was proposed as a replacement for the Stars and Bars and rejected. The battle flag, that saw use from the Battle of Manassas onward as the CSA battle standard, was the Southern Cross, the colloquial modern day “Confederate flag”. There is a large difference between battle standards and national flags, battle standards allow you to find, follow or recover position with the rest of your group, which is the reason it replaced the Stars and Bars on the battle field, as the original CSA flag, the Stars and Bars, looked too much like Union colors, which caused confusion within the ranks during pitched battles.
Why did the Southern Cross become the colloquial “Confederate flag”? The answer is a combination of general ignorance, which is on rampant display currently in both social and corporate media, and it’s adoption by a number of less than savory groups in the South, from the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), directly after the war, to the Democratic Dixiecrats, who tried to make sure that the mistakes of the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) case, Plessy v Ferguson, remained the norm in the 1940s. Arguing that the Southern Cross doesn’t have negative connotations is as equally ignorant as arguing that the Southern Cross is indeed the national flag of the Confederacy, but we’ll get back to that.
While the Dixiecrats effectively lost their push to make sure that “separate, but equal” from Plessy v Ferguson remained in effect, effectively co-mingled property segregation, their remnants were successful in 1962 of getting the Southern Cross flag flown over the capitol dome of the SC Statehouse. It would remain there for just shy of forty years. In 2000 it was removed, under a compromise, and place next to the Confederate monument; the compromise itself required a two-thirds majority to remove it from grounds. Keep in mind, this is a battle standard, not a national flag, not put in place to honor the individuals concerned with the monument. The flag is not lowered while the United States national flag flies at half-staff, which is nothing short of atrocious.
Make no mistake, the Southern Cross has very negative post-war historical connotations. I’ve seen it repeatedly stated that this is about “heritage” the past few days, but if that were true, there’d be no issue with removing the battle standard and instead putting one of the actual three CSA national flags in it’s place: none of which have an iota on the Southern Cross for negative impact, even with fighting a war partly about slavery. Personally, I’d say the Blood-Stained Banner, the last of the three, is quite likely the most accurate as it was the flag under which the Confederacy lost and was one of the flags surrendered at Appomattox. While both the Stainless and Bloodied Banners bear the Southern cross, they are not the Southern Cross which was adopted by a multitude of blatantly racist groups for more than 150 years of American history. Though, I doubt the multitude of people on the other side arguing racism would see a difference, so the actual Stars and Bars might be a better choice to fly.
This is a State decision, regardless of how much anyone argues it: it’s statute, SC will do as it does. However, let’s not pretend there aren’t better options than the hyperbole of either side of either restoring it to the State capitol statehouse or the absolute removal of a historical remembrance, from State grounds or personal property. This particular flag that is being argued over, is not a part of the war memorial, but added to the lower State grounds to remove it from the dome.
Personally? Replace it with the Stars and Bars, solves most of the issues on both sides. The actual one, not the one that talking heads keep claiming is the CSA battle standard. Plessy vs Ferguson might be one of the worst decisions in the history of any non-tyranical, statutorily guided nation in the history of human kind. I hope the members of the Justice Brown SCOTUS are turning in their graves.
…as they agitate to liberate Guam.
“Guam–the only occupied U.S. territory in the Pacific–was the first island to be invaded by the Japanese and the last to be liberated by the United States.”
The only occupied US territory in the Pacific? If you’re looking for civilian US territorial populations during WWII, why not mention the Philippines? I notice it is mentioned only in passing, which suggests some ignorance of Philippine history, especially during the time period being discussed. The Philippine islands were attacked at virtually the same time as Guam, ironically in the midst of seeking their independence from the United States, and weren’t liberated from Japanese forces until March of 1945, almost a year after the liberation of Guam. The Philippines may have departed as a US territory in 1946, but let’s not pretend that they weren’t one and that we didn’t lose American and Filipino lives over that area to make a facile appeal to emotion case that purposely or ignorantly devalues lives lost.
Philippine (civ/mil) and United States military deaths were between half a million and a million and a half, by most estimates. Guam losses were between one to two thousand dead, with the census at the time placing the population at 20,000; while “10%” might be statistically correct if we assume the most extreme estimations, it is absolutely feckless to insinuate that our honored dead matter more or less than some other grouping of our dead, only relative to the landmass on which they are killed or that their impending status as a non-territorial organism of the United States somehow made their lives worth less.
“The United States, however, continuously disregards Guam’s sacrifices….not only did the act fail to provide meaningful citizenship rights, it explicitly stated that the president could still dispose of Guam’s land for military purposes at will.“
The Organic Act and subsequent Acts until 1952 gave the exact same citizen rights as other territories enjoy to this day. Here on Guam individuals have all the benefits of being an American citizen, except for voting for President; the population of which could move towards becoming an associated free state, like Micronesia, an incorporated territory or remain an unincorporated territory. The 14th Amendment assures individuals of citizenship rights in territories, and the Organic Act incorporated Guam as a territory, rather than a military rule. It is well within the power of the people of Guam to incorporate, move for independence or remain, if that is their wish. The fact that author implies they are simply being stripped of their due rights is blatant victimization, as though they had no say in their relation to the United States. This is vaguely ironic to put forward; especially given the absence of nearly any mention of the Philippines, a now independent self-governing body that peacefully achieved that independence, directly after WWII, from the U.S. and then booted the remaining U.S. military out 1991.
“Guam’s veterans receive inadequate medical services and communities adjacent to military bases generally obtain the least investment of any community under the U.S. flag.“
As the U.S. Naval hospital on Guam cares of retirees, active duty and more, while also working with Guam Memorial Hospital to take on emergency care of the local population, when and where they can, I’d love to see some backing of this statement that actually makes a legitimate comparison to contiguous US services offered to my fellow veterans, much less citizens surrounding those bases.
“Now, a proposed military buildup is opening old wounds as it aims to bring 35,000 additional military personnel to Guam and take up 2,500 more acres of land.“
The author is overshooting that number by 30,000 additional military personnel. Only 5,000 Marines and their families are planned to be moved to Guam. The 2,500 acres are on Northwest Field, which is military land already. The effects of that are the installation of a range and possible impacts to the Ritidian Wildlife Refuge, near it, which is a separate argument based on environmentalism.
If the author wants to make the case that US territories, or even specifically Guam, as Puerto Rico has had a number of votes on the matter, should be encouraged to vote on their status as a territory? That’s fine, I’m all for it. However, the author chose not to bother actually examine history, because it would have been inconvenient to an appeal to emotion fallacy she wished to propagate. The author appears to seek value and devaluing the lives of US military, citizens and territorial citizens lost and impacted by the war, based on where they were lost, to further add emotional emphasis to that fallacy. That includes the lives of a great number of people on this island and even my own family members, who fought through this island chain to push the Japanese back from US territory.
TL;DR The author should be ashamed. The Huffington Post should have invested at least an iota of effort in fact checking.
The contents of this rebuttal are the personal views of the poster, not the views of the Government of Guam, United States Government, military or any of its components.
…it makes your blood boil when you sort of already knew one DIDN’T HAVE TO HAPPEN at all.
What a WASTE.
Pilot Error Caused Black Hawk Crash in Santa Rosa Sound
The Louisiana National Guard has confirmed that pilot error led to the tragic crash of a Black Hawk helicopter in the Santa Rosa Sound, killing 11 servicemen during the failed training exercise in March.
The investigation determined that the direct cause of the accident was “spatial disorientation” of both pilots, which caused them to lose control of the aircraft.
…07:35 (P2) — “Gee, it’s dark as (expletive). That don’t help none.”
07:52 (CE1) — “Wow, it’s really dark.”
08:05 (P2) — “We’re gonna take it real slow guys.”
10:05 (P1) — “Yeah, it’s too dark to see the (expletive) water.”
11:36 (P1) — ” Ah, ah, you take the controls Dave.”
11:49 (P2) — “Watch out, we’re in a bad right turn.”
11:55 (P2) — “Watch your altitude, attitude G-Wayne attitude, level.”
11:58 (P2) — “Level.”
12:00 (P2) — “Level.”
12:00 (P2) — “Climb, climb.”
12:03 — END AUDIO
When your lead helo TURNS BACK almost immediately into the TRAINING flight because of socked in conditions, guess what, Gonzo?
YOU don’t stay out.
You turn right around and follow him back in. Everybody lives.
…to (PERHAPS/MAYBE/SCHMAYBE) a clearance to fire. Doesn’t sound like ‘micro-management’ to me. You?
US military pilots complain hands tied in ‘frustrating’ fight against ISIS
U.S. military pilots carrying out the air war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria are voicing growing discontent over what they say are heavy-handed rules of engagement hindering them from striking targets.
They blame a bureaucracy that does not allow for quick decision-making. One Navy F-18 pilot who has flown missions against ISIS voiced his frustration to Fox News, saying: “There were times I had groups of ISIS fighters in my sights, but couldn’t get clearance to engage.”
He added, “They probably killed innocent people and spread evil because of my inability to kill them. It was frustrating.”
Sources close to the air war against ISIS told Fox News that strike missions take, on average, just under an hour, from a pilot requesting permission to strike an ISIS target to a weapon leaving the wing.
An amazing, and incredibly humbling, collection of stories of incredible sacrifices made on our behalf.
One of the Iraqis elaborated, and with tears welling up, said, “They’d run like any normal man would to save his life. ”What he didn’t know until then, and what he learned that very instant, was that Marines are not normal. Choking past the emotion, he said, “Sir, in the name of God, no sane man would have stood there and done what they did. They saved us all.”
Read the whole thing.
Damn my allergies are acting up.
…in regards to what our elected betters have planned for the commissary system NEXT YEAR, especially considering the impact on members/families stationed overseas.
Nothing says thank you for your sacrifices and service like making service members spend more money, especially if they’re overseas. That’s right, as a reward to service members, within weeks of Memorial Day remembrance of our fallen, the Senate Armed Services Committee has decided to propose every service member spend more money for less return, in the name of “savings” that are minimal at best, at the behest of the Executive branch.
If you’re unfamiliar with the commissary and exchange systems, the US military maintains a series of stores on virtually every base, both in the continental United States and at bases overseas. These stores ensure that service members can get food at a rational price, which is handled by base commissaries. You can think of the base or post exchange, commonly called the BX or PX, as the base Walmart selling consumer goods. There’s a running joke that the only savings you can get in an AAFES, the Army/Air Force BX, is not going…which should give you some indication of what increasing removal of subsidies for shipping and further press for profit margin in the exchange system has already been doing. The sole benefit to the exchange is now the fact that it is tax free; it is almost invariably cheaper, even with overseas shipping, to order goods from Amazon, Home Depot, or Lowes.
What has Congress done? Well, the basic exchange and commissary system used to work like this: the government purchased, shipped and then sold goods at just above their net price to service members. Over the last fifty years or so, due to complaints from domestic and foreign businesses surrounding bases about being undercut and not getting “their fair share” of money from military members, the individuals on this same commission decided to get things changed so that there was a significant profit margin in these systems. This raised costs for service members, which in turn required increasing pay to make up for the deficit. The only benefit that remained at that point was not having to pay taxes, which quite often does not balance out. That’s important to remember, because every time we’ve adjusted this system, we’ve hosed service members for a few years and then wound up paying them more to compensate, because no one is going to willingly do 4 years, much less 20, while having their family live off of ramen noodles like starving college students.
What is Congress doing? There’s been a consistent and increasing push to privatize the commissary and exchange systems. Since they haven’t been able to pull this off, they’ve effectively aimed towards removing the primary stumbling blocks to the objective of privatization: the subsidies that pay for shipping goods. The effect of this is that service members outside the United States, Hawaii and Alaska included, will see prices for anything from fresh produce to dog food skyrocket. Fresh produce, sensitive electronics and other products requiring temperature control will quite likely simply stop being available.
This means that service members overseas could quite likely be looking forward to being dependent on local stores for access to goods, as they will be able to undercut base prices. Furthermore, this becomes an operational hazard if natural disaster or conventional conflict breaks out. For example, Guam, Okinawa and Japan see regular typhoons through most of the year and service members would be largely reliant on local markets to secure goods at a reasonable rate. The Senate committee would cut $322M/year from the budget by removing these subsidies, but will economically see more cost in having to adjust COLA and even basic pay to make up for the impacts to service members. In other words, the country will save nothing, destabilize its overseas operations reliability and effectively make the lives of service members hell for at least a few years. This also doesn’t simply affect active duty members, but also family members of the fallen, retirees and medical retirees that have earned their benefits through service.
Keep in mind, this is the same government that approves of spending $50,000/yr on investigating if sea monkeys’ churning water changes how the ocean flows. Happy Memorial Day.
Here’s the wonderful report the CBS Evening News did when the Marines originally arrived in Nepal to help.
…Ly was the daring pilot who landed his single seat cessna with his wife and five children on the USS Midway.
The flight deck was crowded with U.S. sailors and Vietnamese people, just like that day 35 years ago. High in the sky above their upturned faces, a Cessna circled the aircraft carrier Midway, symbolizing the pilot’s desperate plea to land.
Bung Ly was surrounded by San Diego Bay this time instead of the South China Sea, telling the story of how he crammed his wife and five children into the two-seater Bird Dog plane, fleeing over the waters ahead of the advancing Viet Cong.
Extraordinary means to save those things that mean the most to you in extraordinary circumstances.
Obama Kept Iran’s Short Breakout Time a Secret
The Barack Obama administration has estimated for years that Iran was at most three months away from enriching enough nuclear fuel for an atomic bomb. But the administration only declassified this estimate at the beginning of the month, just in time for the White House to make the case for its Iran deal to Congress and the public.
Speaking to reporters and editors at our Washington bureau on Monday, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz acknowledged that the U.S. has assessed for several years that Iran has been two to three months away from producing enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. When asked how long the administration has held this assessment, Moniz said: “Oh quite some time.” He added: “They are now, they are right now spinning, I mean enriching with 9,400 centrifuges out of their roughly 19,000. Plus all the . . . . R&D work. If you put that together it’s very, very little time to go forward. That’s the 2-3 months.”
Brian Hale, a spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, confirmed to me Monday that the two-to-three-month estimate for fissile material was declassified on April 1.
Here is the puzzling thing: When Obama began his second term in 2013, he sang a different tune…
Would I tell you something that wasn’t true…?*
Apologies to Annie Lennox
ths update: Lemme get this straight. So it sounds like we’re NOT slowing them down at ALL, bomb-wise.
To the unwashed and uneducated, THIS SOUNDS like we want to BUT IT FOR THEM.
State Department Won’t Rule Out $50 Billion ‘Signing Bonus’ For Iran
Largest cash infusion to terror regime in recent memory, experts say
The State Department on Monday would not rule out giving Iran up to $50 billion as a so-called “signing bonus” for agreeing to a nuclear deal later this year, according to comments made to journalists following reports that the Obama administration had formulated a plan to release tens of billions of frozen Iranian funds.
Experts have said this multi-billion dollar “signing bonus” option, which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, could be the largest cash infusion to a terror-backing regime in recent memory.
A cash release of $30 to $50 billion upon reaching a final nuclear agreement would come in addition to the more than $11 billion in unfrozen assets that Iran will already have received under an interim nuclear accord reached in 2013.
I tell you, I regret every day that this guy didn’t become President
I want you to know that today I’ll be speaking from my heart, and as a true friend of Israel. And I know that when I visit with AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), I am among friends. Good friends. Friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow and forever.
…We know that the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle and decades of patient work. But 60 years later, we know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as president I will never compromise when it comes to Israel’s security.
Not when there are still voices that deny the Holocaust. Not when there are terrorist groups and political leaders committed to Israel’s destruction. Not when there are maps across the Middle East that don’t even acknowledge Israel’s existence, and government-funded textbooks filled with hatred toward Jews. Not when there are rockets raining down on Sderot, and Israeli children have to take a deep breath and summon uncommon courage every time they board a bus or walk to school.
…Because of the war in Iraq, Iran — which always posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq — is emboldened and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation.
…And then there are those who would lay all of the problems of the Middle East at the doorstep of Israel and its supporters, as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of all trouble in the region. These voices blame the Middle East’s only democracy for the region’s extremism. They offer the false promise that abandoning a stalwart ally is somehow the path to strength. It is not, it never has been, and it never will be.
…Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security.
That starts with ensuring Israel’s qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat — from Gaza to Tehran.
…We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations.
…Let me be clear. Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.
…Syria continues its support for terror and meddling in Lebanon. And Syria has taken dangerous steps in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, which is why Israeli action was justified to end that threat.
…We must never force Israel to the negotiating table, but neither should we ever block negotiations when Israel’s leaders decide that they may serve Israeli interests.
…There is no greater threat to Israel — or to the peace and stability of the region — than Iran. Now this audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats, and the enemies of Israel should have no doubt that, regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder to shoulder in our commitment to Israel’s security.
…The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.
…He criticizes my willingness to use strong diplomacy but offers only an alternate reality — one where the war in Iraq has somehow put Iran on its heels. The truth is the opposite. Iran has strengthened its position. Iran is now enriching uranium and has reportedly stockpiled 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. Its support for terrorism and threats toward Israel have increased. Those are the facts, they cannot be denied, and I refuse to continue a policy that has made the United States and Israel less secure.
…We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a cleareyed understanding of our interests. We have no time to waste. We cannot unconditionally rule out an approach that could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We have tried limited, piecemeal talks while we outsource the sustained work to our European allies. It is time for the United States to lead.
…We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives — including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.
…Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts.
Ah, what could have been, what could have been had President Obama governed in any way similar to the way Candidate Obama quoted above promised. As Ace so poignantly put it yesterday: “So, Jewish Democrats who voted for Obama: How’s Obama’s ass taste?”
U.S. Caves to Key Iranian Demands as Nuke Deal Comes Together
Limited options for Congress as Obama seeks to bypass lawmakers
LAUSSANE, Switzerland—The Obama administration is giving in to Iranian demands about the scope of its nuclear program as negotiators work to finalize a framework agreement in the coming days, according to sources familiar with the administration’s position in the negotiations.
U.S. negotiators are said to have given up ground on demands that Iran be forced to disclose the full range of its nuclear activities at the outset of a nuclear deal, a concession experts say would gut the verification the Obama administration has vowed would stand as the crux of a deal with Iran.
…“Once again, in the face of Iran’s intransigence, the U.S. is leading an effort to cave even more toward Iran—this time by whitewashing Tehran’s decades of lying about nuclear weapons work and current lack of cooperation with the [International Atomic Energy Agency],” said one Western source briefed on the talks but who was not permitted to speak on record.
…“Instead of ensuring that Iran answers all the outstanding questions about the past and current military dimensions of their nuclear work in order to obtain sanctions relief, the U.S. is now revising down what they need to do,” said the source. “That is a terrible mistake—if we don’t have a baseline to judge their past work, we can’t tell if they are cheating in the future, and if they won’t answer now, before getting rewarded, why would they come clean in the future?”
The United States is now willing to let Iran keep many of its most controversial military sites closed to inspectors until international sanctions pressure has been lifted, according to sources.
The White House has decided that a nuclear Iran is a good thing.