New York Times Editorial, "President Obama’s Tough, Calming Talk on Terrorism": Tough as the Pillsbury Doughboy

Tweet

In yet another delusional editorial entitled "President Obama’s Tough, Calming Talk on Terrorism," The New York Times begins:

"During his Oval Office address on Sunday night, President Obama sought to reassure Americans that his administration’s expanding campaign against the Islamic State will succeed in reducing threats of terrorism, and he warned against the wholesale vilification of Muslims."

An "expanding campaign"? Fifty special ops soldiers can make a difference on the ground in Syria? I don't think so. (Don't get me wrong: I oppose US boots on the ground in Syria, and I believe NATO was wise to decide against sending its forces to fight ISIS there.)

In addition, as reported by Jacqueline Klimas in a Sunday, May 31, 2015 Washington Times article entitled "U.S. bombers hold fire on Islamic State targets amid ground intel blackout":

"Nearly 75 percent of U.S. bombing runs targeting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria returned to base without firing any weapons in the first four months of 2015, holding their fire mainly because of a lack of ground intelligence and raising questions about President Obama’s key tactic in pushing back an enemy that continues to expand its territory in the war zone."

This information must have those bastards from ISIS shaking in their pants!

And if that's not enough, President Obama declared in his Oval Office speech vis-à-vis America's "strategy" to destroy the Islamic State:

"It is designed and supported by our military commanders and counterterrorism experts, together with 65 countries that have joined an American-led coalition."

Included in Obama's 65-nation coalition against the Islamic State are such big guns as Albania, Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, Estonia, Iceland, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, Montenegro, Nigeria, Panama, Singapore, Slovenia, Somalia, and Tunisia. The coalition also includes Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait, whose wealthy citizens have been busy funding ISIS.

Yup, Obama's speech was tough and calming, and we can all sleep well at night knowing that the president, when he is not preoccupied on the golf course, is committed to the security of the free world.

Karen DeYoung, "Dozens of retired generals, admirals back Iran nuclear deal": What Isn't The Washington Post Telling Us?

Tweet

First there was the letter from 29 scientists, praising Obama's "stringent" nuclear deal with Iran, but failing to make any mention of the secret side deals between the IAEA and Iran. Now, as reported by Karen DeYoung in a Washington Post article entitled "Dozens of retired generals, admirals back Iran nuclear deal," 36 retired generals and admirals have also signed an open letter supporting Obama's agreement. As reported by DeYoung:

"Three dozen retired generals and admirals released an open letter Tuesday supporting the Iran nuclear deal and urging Congress to do the same.

Calling the agreement 'the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,' the letter said that gaining international support for military action against Iran, should that ever become necessary, 'would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance.'"

DeYoung continues:

"Signers of the military letter include retired general and flag officers from every branch of service. They include four-star Marine Gens. James Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Joseph P. Hoar, former head of the U.S. Central Command; and Gens. Merrill McPeak and Lloyd W. Newton of the Air Force.

. . . .

Retired Navy Rear Adm. Harold L. Robinson, a rabbi and former naval chaplain who chairs the National Conference on Ministry to the Armed Forces, also signed.

'As a lifelong Zionist, devoted to Israel, and a retired general officer and a rabbi for over 40 years, and operating without institutional encumbrances, I have a unique perspective,' Robinson said in an interview."

Fascinating! A rabbi and former naval chaplain who backs the deal.

But DeYoung doesn't mention the controversy surrounding the top signatory on this letter, James Cartwright. As reported in a March 12, 2015 Washington Times article entitled "Obama plays favorites, protects loose-lipped generals who leak top secret info" by Rowan Scarborough:

"Analysts are questioning whether the White House is protecting one of its inner-circle members in a leak investigation, especially given the Obama administration’s demonstrated willingness to prosecute and imprison lower-level government employees for providing classified information to the press.

Retired Marine Corps Gen. James 'Hoss' Cartwright was vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and somewhat of a White House fixture as a close military adviser to President Obama.

For over a year, he reportedly has been the target of a Justice Department criminal investigation. He is suspected of leaking to The New York Times highly classified details of a U.S. cyberwarfare program against Iran and its quest for nuclear weapons. Gen. Cartwright played a critical role in the covert action, whose weapon was a cyberworm called Stuxnet and whose code name was 'Olympic Games.'

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that the probe has come to a halt because the White House fears prosecution would force the administration to disclose secret sources and methods."

Interesting. And then there's the third signatory on the letter, Merrill McPeak. As reported in a March 24, 2008 American Spectator article entitled "McPeak on Display" by By Robert M. Goldberg:

"Last week, Barack Obama's military adviser and national campaign co-chairman Merrill 'Tony' McPeak accused former President Bill Clinton of 'using divisive tactics and unfairly trying to question Barack Obama's patriotism.' McPeak, a former chief of staff of the Air Force, previously supported Howard Dean and then John Kerry. He has campaigned for Obama and cut commercials claiming that Obama has the 'right stuff' to be Commander in Chief. His job is to burnish Obama's image as a guy tough enough to be President. So who better to go after Bill Clinton and get the Obama campaign back on offense?

. . . .

Well, it is likely that Obama will soon be having to retract Merrill McPeak. McPeak, who was arrested last year for driving under the influence, apparently has a problem controlling more than his thirst for fermented beverages. He also has a penchant for bashing Israel or, more particularly, Jews who oppose negotiating with terrorists.

. . . .

In recent years McPeak has echoed the Mearsheimer-Walt view that American Middle East policy is being controlled by Jews at the expense of America's interests in the region. In a 2003 interview with the Oregonian, McPeak complained of that the 'lack of playbook for getting Israelis and Palestinians together at...something other than a peace process....We need to get it fixed and only we have the authority with both sides to move them towards that. Everybody knows that.'

The interviewer asked McPeak: 'So where's the problem? State? White House?'

McPeak replied: 'New York City. Miami. We have a large vote -- vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it.'"

Enough said.

Dana Milbank, "GOP senators appear set on their own breakaway nation": Smearing Tom Cotton

Responding to Tom Cotton's open letter to Iran, which was signed by 47 Republican senators and which warned that an agreement reached by Obama with Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei could be undone by Obama's successor in the Oval Office, Dana Milbank claims in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "GOP senators appear set on their own breakaway nation" that Republicans are "operating their own independent republic on Capitol Hill." Milbank writes:

"And now we have Tom Cotton, Republicania’s young foreign minister, submitting 'An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran,' counseling Iran’s leaders that any agreement reached by the United States but not ratified by Republicania could be undone 'with the stroke of a pen' (assuming the next president comes from Republicania)."

Milbank proceeds to smear the motives underlying Cotton's letter:

"On Tuesday, the day after his letter to Hezbollah’s masters became public, Cotton provided a clue about his motives: He’d had a breakfast date with the National Defense Industrial Association — a trade group for Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and the like."

Or in other words, if you object to allowing the tyrannical Islamic Republic of Iran to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons within a decade, you obviously are in bed with the defense industry. The nasty aerospace and defense industry, employing some 3.5 million Americans, should obviously be shut down - there won't be any need to contend with a docile Iran in another 10 years - and federal grants and benefits should all be channeled to companies manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines. Yeah, right.

Peculiar, however, how Milbank makes a point of ignoring the war waged by Obama's IRS against conservatives. Do you remember Obama telling us that IRS targeting had “not even a smidgen of corruption?” Well, as reported in a February 26, 2015 Washington Times article entitled "IRS watchdog reveals Lois Lerner missing emails now subject of criminal probe" by Stephen Dinan:

"The IRS’s inspector general confirmed Thursday it is conducting a criminal investigation into how Lois G. Lerner’s emails disappeared, saying it took only two weeks for investigators to find hundreds of tapes the agency’s chief had told Congress were irretrievably destroyed."

The Republicans are establishing a breakaway nation? Sorry, Dana, it takes two to tango.

Maureen Dowd, "Too Many Secrets, Not Enough Service ": The Basis for a "Jackass" Sequel?

Was Julia Pierson forced to leave her position as head of America's Secret Service because she was a woman? Rubbish! She had to go because an intruder with a knife managed to hop the fence protecting the White House and make it all the way into the East Room. And then there was also that "minor" matter involving Obama's elevator ride with a security contractor with a concealed pistol, who had three convictions for assault and battery. Everyone makes mistakes? Sure, but Pierson failed to fess up to the president in timely fashion concerning what happened when he visited the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. In short, there was no way in hell she could continue on the job.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Too Many Secrets, Not Enough Service," subtitled "Julia Pierson and the Glass Ceiling," Maureen Dowd tackles the issue of whether gender had anything to do with Pierson's departure. Dowd acknowledges:

"It is true that women often get top jobs, like evening news anchor or Hollywood studio chief, after the institutions have lost their luster. But, in Pierson’s case, she earned her abrupt exit fair and square. It’s no blot on the copybook of women. She withheld crucial information and helped paper over fiascos at an agency where mismanagement and denial put the president’s life (and his family’s lives) in jeopardy."

Hey, Maureen, just as an aside: What about Barbara Walters, who co-anchored ABC Evening News with Harry Reasoner and co-hosted The View until her retirement in May of this year?

But I am drifting off topic. Instead of simply asking whether poor Julia was forced to resign because she was a woman, maybe Dowd should be asking whether Kathleen Sebelius also ultimately needed to leave Health and Human Services because of her gender. Let's think on that for a minute. Better still, let's think on that for half a second. The reality was that Kathleen was also frightfully incompetent and had to go.

But wait! Wasn't Attorney General Eric Holder a disaster? After all, as observed in a Washington Times article entitled "Holder heading out, but contempt lives on" by Stephen Dinan, he is "the first sitting Cabinet official ever to face a contempt citation from Congress," owing to his "delay in turning over documents related to the Fast and Furious gunwalking operation." Why wasn't Holder canned by Obama? I suppose because his actions merely threatened the fabric of America's constitutional democracy, but not the safety of the First Family.

Secretary of State John Kerry? His attempt to compel Israel to accept the mediation of Turkey and Qatar involving the recent Gaza conflict was embarrassing. Then, too, there was his more recent nonsensical claim that the United States is not at war with ISIS, which he needed to walk back. However, you can't fire someone for stupidity, particularly if you were responsible for hiring him.

And what about Secretary of Defense Chuck "Chowderhead" Hagel, who, during a June 2013 speech at the University of Nebraska, asked an Indian man in the audience, "You're not a member of the Taliban, are you?" Why didn't Hagel get the boot? Actually, the answer is quite simple. You've heard of the policy "no boots on the ground"? Well, there is also an unwritten Obama administration policy "no boots in the arse," particularly if a firing would outrage armies of mentally challenged persons throughout the United States. This could swing America's midterm elections in November!

But heck, if we're going to hold Holder, Kerry and Hagel to account, what about Obama himself, who ran off to a Martha's Vineyard golf course within 20 minutes of delivering a speech deploring James Foley's horrifying death?  Let's also not forget how he claimed to learn of the Veterans Administration, IRS, and Fast and Furious scandals by way of news reports.

Bottom line: The antics of the Obama administration could easily provide the basis for a new "Yes Minister" series. That, or a sequel to "Jackass." To get axed by Obama, you really need to do something special, i.e. exhibit gross incompetence as opposed to the run-of-the-mill variety that has characterized his tenure. Pierson managed to do just that.

Is the IRS Scandal Worse Than Watergate?

Is the IRS scandal worse than Watergate? Of course, the question presupposes that there is indeed a scandal, and as Obama's new press secretary, Josh Earnest, informed us on Friday:

"The fact of the matter is after 13 months of multiple congressional investigations, including 14 congressional hearings, 30 interviews with I.R.S. employees, 50 written congressional requests and, as I mentioned, 750,000 pages of documents, there is zero evidence to support Republican claims."

"Zero evidence to support Republican claims"? Oh really? As observed by Michael Gerson today in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "An arrogant and lawless IRS" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-an-arrogant-and-lawless-irs/2014/06/23/8d6802d8-fb03-11e3-8176-f2c941cf35f1_story.html?hpid=z2):

"After President Obama blamed 'two Dilberts in Cincinnati,' an inspector general’s report found that high-level IRS officials in Washington were involved in directing additional scrutiny toward tea party groups seeking tax exemptions. [Lois] Lerner admitted as much, before taking the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying before the House oversight committee."

Or in a nutshell, when a high ranking IRS official takes the Fifth before the House, only a raving partisan, intent upon obfuscation of the facts, would claim that there was no misconduct. How to respond to this misconduct? Gerson calls for the appointment of a special counsel:

"Because evidence of political influence is both plausible and circumstantial, a special counsel is needed to sort out the truth.

Why does this matter deserve heightened scrutiny from the rest of us? Because crimes against democracy are particularly insidious. Representative government involves a type of trade. As citizens, we cede power to public officials for important purposes that require centralized power: defending the country, imposing order, collecting taxes to promote the common good. In exchange, we expect public institutions to be evenhanded and disinterested. When the stewards of power — biased judges or corrupt policemen or politically motivated IRS officials — act unfairly, it undermines trust in the whole system."

A special counsel? In May 1973, Nixon's attorney general, Elliot Richardson, appointed Archibald Cox to the position of special counsel to investigate Watergate. Is the IRS scandal sufficiently momentous to demand the same treatment? Daniel Henninger of The Wall Street Journal writes in an opinion piece entitled "The High Price of Obama Fatigue" (http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-high-price-of-obama-fatigue-1403139022):

"The IRS tea-party audit story isn't Watergate; it's worse than Watergate.

The Watergate break-in was the professionals of the party in power going after the party professionals of the party out of power. The IRS scandal is the party in power going after the most average Americans imaginable."

However, the IRS scandal goes far beyond the "mere" targeting of average Americans. As Warren L. Dean Jr. states in a Washington Times opinion piece entitled "A scandal worse than Watergate" (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/7/a-scandal-worse-than-watergate/):

"[T]he Watergate burglars were not government employees. No government agency was implicated in the initial break-in. This time around, the misconduct is taking place in what may be the most powerful — and feared — government agency in the country. To ordinary Americans, it looks like the IRS spent taxpayer money to conduct a potentially criminal enterprise directed at the Americans who pay their salary. It was not only wrong, it was a betrayal of the public's trust in government. At this stage, the IRS scandal is far more serious than the initial Watergate break-in."

I agree with Mr. Dean that the IRS scandal is potentially far more heinous than Watergate. Moreover, there can be no avoiding the comparison between the missing minutes from the Watergate tapes and the alleged crash of Lois Lerner's hard drive, preventing access to her emails (the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, John Koskinen, testified on Friday that the IRS destroyed Lerner's hard drive in 2011), but will Obama appoint a special counsel to investigate the IRS scandal and put the matter to rest? Not a chance. In January 2009, Obama promised:

"Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

Transparency in the Obama administration? Obama himself must rely on newspaper reports to learn of wrongdoing involving his presidency, and it remains to be seen what will remain of American government credibility at home and overseas by the time he finishes his second term.

Fareed Zakaria, "Why (this time) Obama must lead": Do Something! Anything!

Plagiarizer, liar and Obama cheerleader (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/fred-hiatt-editorial-page-editor-of.html) Fareed Zakaria has finally gotten around to acknowledging that "leading from behind" just doesn't cut it in the 21st Century.

In his latest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Why (this time) Obama must lead" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-on-ukraine-obama-must-lead-from-the-front/2014/03/13/10b9359a-aaea-11e3-af5f-4c56b834c4bf_story.html?hpid=z3), Zakaria concludes:

"I have generally been wary of the calls for U.S. intervention in any and every conflict around the world. But this is different. The crisis in Ukraine is the most significant geopolitical problem since the Cold War. Unlike many of the tragic ethnic and civil wars that have bubbled up over the past three decades, this one involves a great global power, Russia, and thus can and will have far-reaching consequences. And it involves a great global principle: whether national boundaries can be changed by brute force. If it becomes acceptable to do so, what will happen in Asia, where there are dozens of contested boundaries — and several great powers that want to remake them?

Obama must rally the world, push the Europeans and negotiate with the Russians. In this crisis, the United States truly is the indispensable nation."

Meanwhile, where was Obama last weekend while Putin was busy occupying the Crimea? As reported by Dave Boyer in a March 9 Washington Times article entitled "As Crimea falls, Obama takes Key Largo golf vacation, Biden hits Virgin Islands" (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/9/republicans-take-shots-as-obama-vacations-again/?page=all):

"While Russia beefed up its forces in Ukraine and the U.S. unemployment rate ticked up slightly, President Obama was criticized for spending the weekend on vacation with his family at an ultra-exclusive private community in the Florida Keys.

Mr. Obama played two rounds of golf and luxuriated at the posh Ocean Reef Club in Key Largo, a solidly Republican enclave where members must have a minimum net worth of $35 million to join. The president, first lady Michelle Obama and their entourage traveled to and from the island in a squadron of five government helicopters, reportedly requiring a contingent of more than 50 Secret Service agents, before returning to Washington late Sunday."

One can only wonder what Obama has planned for this weekend. Perhaps after his relaxing stay at the Ocean Reef Club, he might want to consider a new speech on inequality . . .

"Don’t Let Up on Iran": The Best Argument AIPAC Can Make?

In a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "Don’t Let Up on Iran" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/opinion/dont-let-up-on-iran.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), AIPAC president Michael Kassen and AIPAC chairman Lee Rosenberg tell us that they "strongly hope that the Obama administration’s diplomatic efforts lead to the peaceful dismantling of Iran’s nuclear weapons program," but in order to attain this goal, "they support a policy that complements the current negotiations with a range of congressional actions that threaten greater economic and diplomatic pressure on the Iranian government." Kassen and Rosenberg write:

"Our message to Tehran should be clear: It will not achieve its objectives unless it satisfies ours.

Unfortunately, Iran’s leaders are acting as if they have not received that message. In recent weeks, the president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, has declared that his government will not dismantle a single centrifuge. Tehran also went beyond words by testing long-range ballistic missiles that could reach American military bases in the Middle East, as well as our ally Israel. It has even dispatched warships to sail close to the maritime borders of the United States in the Atlantic Ocean.

We also know the Iranians have worked to deceive us in previous rounds of negotiations. In 2003, when Mr. Rouhani was Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Tehran issued a declaration that it was suspending uranium enrichment and other nuclear activities. Last year, as he ran for president, Mr. Rouhani even boasted that Iran had flouted the agreement.

. . . .

The partial recovery of Iran’s economy in recent weeks, thanks to the relaxation of sanctions, in tandem with its continuing advanced research and development of centrifuges, highlights our concerns. If Iran can achieve such progress without dismantling any part of its nuclear program, why should it make concessions?"

Query: Why is there no mention by Messrs. Kassen and Rosenberg of Iranian support for the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad, which has gassed to death Syrian civilians, dropped barrel bombs on their homes, and is now attempting to starve them into submission. As reported by Reuters yesterday (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/21/us-syria-crisis-iran-idUSBREA1K09U20140221):

"As Syria's war nears the start of its fourth year, Iran has stepped up support on the ground for President Bashar al-Assad, providing elite teams to gather intelligence and train troops, sources with knowledge of military movements say.

This further backing from Tehran, along with deliveries of munitions and equipment from Moscow, is helping to keep Assad in power at a time when neither his own forces nor opposition fighters have a decisive edge on the battlefield.

Assad's forces have failed to capitalize fully on advances they made last summer with the help of Iran, his major backer in the region, and the Hezbollah fighters that Tehran backs and which have provided important battlefield support for Assad."

Without Iranian support, Assad and his family would have abandoned Syria long ago. Moreover, it is Iranian support which is allowing Assad to flout the purported agreement, brokered by Putin, for the destruction of Assad's chemical weapons arsenal (see: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/31/dragging-their-feet-us-scrambles-to-persuade-syria-to-honor-chemical-weapons/). If Syria can flout this agreement with impunity, why shouldn't Iran's mullahs believe that they can also disregard demands for the destruction of their atomic weapons development program?

Kassen and Rosenberg refer to "the partial recovery of Iran’s economy in recent weeks." Partial recovery? Again, as reported by Reuters (http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/01/13/usa-iran-sanctions-russia-idINL2N0KN1ZK20140113) one month ago:

"The White House said on Monday it was concerned about recent reports that Iran and Russia are negotiating an oil-for-goods swap worth $1.5 billion a month, a deal that the White House said could potentially trigger U.S. sanctions.

'We are concerned about these reports and Secretary (of State John) Kerry directly expressed this concern with Foreign Minister Lavrov today,' Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council, told Reuters.

'If the reports are true, such a deal would raise serious concerns as it would be inconsistent with the terms of the P5+1 agreement with Iran and could potentially trigger U.S. sanctions,' Hayden said."

"Could potentially trigger U.S. sanctions"? Peculiar, I thought sanctions were already in place. But heck, seeing how Obama, notwithstanding his "red line," failed to lift a finger after Assad dropped sarin gas on civilians, why should Putin and Khamenei be troubled by such threats?

More evidence of the Obama administration's spinelessness? As we were informed a week ago by Adam Kredo in a Washington Times article entitled "Iran to get ‘more than $20B’ in sanctions relief; accuracy of Obama promise questioned" (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/14/iran-get-more-20b-sanctions-relief-accuracy-obama-/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS):

"Iranian oil exports soared in January, hitting new highs just months after the United States consented to billions of dollars in economic sanctions relief under the interim nuclear deal.

Exports of Iranian crude oil jumped to 1.32 million barrels, up from December’s high of 1.06 million barrels, according to data from the International Energy Agency.

The spike in exports—mainly to Japan, China, and India—has helped Iran’s once-ailing economy stabilize and decrease inflation.

Iranian oil exports have steadily risen since negotiations with the West restored confidence in Tehran’s economy. The increase runs counter to a promise by the Obama administration that 'Iran’s oil exports will remain steady at their current level of around 1 million barrels per day.'"

Also as reported yesterday by Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/21/us-iran-usa-aircraft-idUSBREA1K1SN20140221):

"U.S. aerospace companies are seeking permission to sell airliner parts to Iran for the first time in three decades, in a key test of the temporary relief on sanctions given under talks to curtail Iran's nuclear activities.

At least two leading manufacturers, Boeing and engine maker General Electric, have applied for export licenses in a six-month window agreed by Iran and six world powers in November, industry officials and other sources familiar with the matter said."

In short, the economic sanctions imposed by the world against Iran have been effectively dismantled with the connivance of the Obama administration. It is no wonder that Obama is not allowing the public to see the "agreement to agree" between Iran and the P5+1 for sanctions relief.

But back again to the Kassen and Rosenberg opinion piece: Where is there any reference to the horrific human rights abuses of the Khamenei regime with which Obama engaged in secret negotiations in Oman (see: http://news.yahoo.com/secret-us-iran-talks-set-stage-nuke-deal-045356533--politics.html)? The American press routinely refers to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani as a "moderate" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/search/label/Hassan%20Rouhani); however, this maniac, with whom Obama held a "historic" conversation in September, just ordered the execution of a poet and a human rights activist for "enmity against God" after they were first subjected to torture (see: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Rouhani-orders-executions-of-Iranian-Arab-poet-rights-activist-340173).

Consider also how Iran hangs homosexuals from cranes in the middle of Tehran, stones to death women accused of adultery, and tortures and rapes Baha'is, Kurds, Sunnis, Christians and political dissenters in Evin Prison. This is the regime with which Obama intends to reach a binding agreement?

I suppose that given their positions, Kassen and Rosenberg can't acknowledge that Obama is a foreign affairs naif, who has destroyed American influence, power and credibility throughout the world. On the other hand, their argument for "diplomatic pressure on the Iranian government" leaves much to be desired.