Follow by Email

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Carol Morello, "Retired generals and admirals urge Congress to reject Iran nuclear deal": Partisan Reporting Infects WaPo?

You will recall that two weeks ago, Karen DeYoung wrote a Washington Post article entitled "Dozens of retired generals, admirals back Iran nuclear deal," informing us that 36 retired generals and admirals had signed an open letter supporting Obama's agreement. DeYoung, however, made no mention of the controversy surrounding the top signatory on this letter, James Cartwright, or the controversy surrounding the third signatory on the letter, Merrill McPeak.

Well, today there is a new Washington Post article entitled "Retired generals and admirals urge Congress to reject Iran nuclear deal" by Carol Morello. Beginning in her fifth paragraph, Morello declares:

"The signatories include retired generals and flag officers from every branch of service, including a handful who were involved in some public controversies during their careers.

One is retired Lt. Gen. William G. 'Jerry' Boykin, who was deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush and is now executive vice president of the Family Research Council. He had a history of making controversial speeches, including one in which he characterized U.S. military operations against Islamist extremist organizations as a Christian fight against Satan.

It also was signed by retired Vice Adm. John Poindexter and retired Maj. Gen. Richard Secord, who were involved in the Iran-contra affair in the Reagan administration, in which arms were sold to Iran to fund the contras in Nicaragua."

Got it: No need to point out controversies surrounding those supporting Obama's nuclear deal with Khamenei, but it's of critical importance to highlight so-called controversies involving those who signed the letter opposing the deal.

Cute . . .


  1. Friend of mine said that Obama wants to bring Iranian oil on the market for 2 reasons: 1- they will get a terrible price for it, maybe $20-30 and 2- will further reduce the price of oil which is the first stage of de-fanging the arab world. Less and less demand, more and more chaos for them. In exchange for this, there is the excuse now to give Israel more F-35s and bunker busting bombs. What do you think? I have been against this deal from the start but I'm assured that Obama's chief advisor is a religious Jew with allegiance to Israel and I have to admit that this scheme, if this is it, sounds like not such a bad idea.

    1. Iran has already supplied Hezbollah with some 130,000 missiles, all aimed at Israel. During the next war between Israel and Hezbollah, no small number of these missiles will land on Israeli population centers. Obama's deal with Khamenei will only add to the flow of armaments from Iran to Hezbollah.

      Re "bunker busters," Obama has made certain not to supply Israel with the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), which, alone, is capable of destroying Iran's underground Fordo site.

  2. Just heard from another friend who believes that bottom oil would also ready mess up Russia, particularly its aspirations re: Ukraine. The Iran deal is little more than economic warfare pretending to be diplomacy and while the US is at it, it can sell Iran some weapons, inferior to those of Israel but which will later be "taken out. "