web analytics
August 1, 2015 / 16 Av, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘President Obama’

Reducing Iran’s Number of Centrifuges Makes a Bomb More Likely

Friday, February 27th, 2015

An agreement that limits the number of centrifuges Iran can possess makes them useless for nuclear energy but very useful for producing a nuclear weapon, according to a former CIA director who now is an analyst for CBS. Michael Morell said on Charlie Rose:

If you are going to have a nuclear weapons program, 5,000 is pretty much the number you need. If you have a power program, you need a lot more. By limiting them to a small number of centrifuges, we are limiting them to the number you need for a weapon.”

Iran has about 19,000 centrifuges, 10,000 of which are operating. The Obama administration’s proposal for a deal with Iran reportedly offered to let Iran enrich uranium with around 6,500 centrifuges. The Obama administration has countered the numbers, some of which are supplied by the Netanyahu administration, by arguing that the type and size of centrifuges are no less important than the number when it comes to enriching uranium.

President Barack Obama thinks that he can negotiate a deal that will keep Iran from making a nuclear weapon for two decades. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu says Iran simply is buying time, cannot be trusted to honor any agreement, and that any deal to which it agrees will be a “bad deal.”

Obama supposedly wants to cut the number of centrifuges to approximately 5,000, which Morrell said is enough to produce a nuclear weapon.

PunditFact verified Morell’s claim with several experts, including Georgetown Associate Prof. Matthew Kroenig, who has little faith that Iran will honor any agreement; Arms Control Association official Daryl Kimball; David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security; and Harvard Prof. Matthew Bunn. Bunn told PunditFact:

People think surely you must need a bigger enrichment system to make 90 percent enriched material for bombs than to make 4-5 percent enriched material for power reactors. But exactly the opposite is true. A nuclear reactor, which Iran claims it is building for peaceful purposes, requires tons of uranium. A nuclear bomb can be produced with only 50 pounds of highly enriched uranium.

Bunn explained that producing low-grade uranium makes it possible to produce the enriched stuff, even though it is harder.

That is why Netanyahu told the United Nations three years ago Iran must be allowed zero percent uranium. Once Iran has 5 percent grade uranium, “you’ve already done more than 2/3 of the work of going all the way to 90 percent U-235 for weapons,”

Bunn said. “So the amount of work needed to make bomb material is only a modest amount more per kilogram, and the number of kilograms you need for bombs is 1,000 times less.”

Kimball is more dovish than Kroenig and thinks that since it would take Iran a year to produce enough enriched uranium for one bomb, “That would give you enough time to detect that activity.”

That means the deal, if one is made, comes down to inspections, something which Iran has circumvented for years. Either it allows inspections after removing evidence that its nuclear development is aimed at building a nuclear weapon, or it simply allows them after it has moved its operations to another unknown facility.

The National Coalition of Resistance of Iran insists that the Iranian regime has systematically lied to United Nations nuclear inspectors and has built and is running a secret “Lavizan-3″ underground enrichment operation near Tehran.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in a report last week that was obtained by Reuters and the Associated Press, stated that Iran is living up to its commitment to reduce enrichment activities but did not erase suspicions that it is carrying out research for making a nuclear bomb. The IAEA report said:

Iran has not provided any explanations that enable the agency to clarify the outstanding practical measures.

Obama apparently thinks Iran can be trusted, and that is why he is so incensed that Netanyahu is trying to convince Americans that the president is letting himself be conned – again.

State Dept. Admits Even Obama Is not ‘Infallible’

Friday, February 27th, 2015

U.S. State Dept. spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters Thursday that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is not infallible and therefore may be wrong in opposing a potential “bad” deal with Iran.

Pressed by Associated Press reporter Matt Lee if the pope and President Barack Obama also are not infallible, she admitted everyone is.

The questioning was in response to Secretary John Kerry’s testimony at Congress where he questioned Netanyahu’s judgment for supporting the 2003 war in Iraq.

Lee asked, “I’m wondering if you can explain a bit more about what he[Kerry] meant since there were a lot of people, including himself at one point, who were supporters of that war, and why this makes Prime Minister Netanyahu’s judgment suspect and does not make anyone else’s judgment suspect….. I’m sure that there may be other things that Prime Minister Netanyahu has been wrong about.”

Psaki performed some fancy verbal acrobatics and said that Kerry’s”point was about where we are with the Iran negotiations, and that we have to look at all of the options, look at all of the information that’s available, to – and have an open mind about how to approach this. And that’s what he’s asking from the prime minister.”

When Psaki agreed with Lee that “no one is infallible,” not even the pope or the president, he persisted:

if no one is infallible, how is it possible that Prime Minister Netanyahu here in his opposition to a potential Iran deal is wrong and you guys are all right?….

It’s the approach that the prime minister has an issue with, not the goal that you both – that I think he would say that you share with him. Psaki said the Obama administration does not agree that its approach to the Iranian nuclear threat is the problem. She adds that Netanyahu is wrong because he is part of an “effort to prejudge an outcome when the details are not yet known.”

But enough of the details are known.

There is a scary parallel between the “negotiations” with Iran and the U.S.-led negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Technically, details of a final agreement were not known, but the Palestinian Authority gradually ruled out compromise on virtually all issues, leaving as “details” its demands that were evolving into a de facto final agreement.

Netanyahu finally drew the line after his own administrations, as well as those under Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni, caved in time after time.

Instead of a “bad deal, there was no deal, forcing the Palestinian Authority to go to the United Nations to try to force an agreement on Israel and prove to the world that Ramallah really was not interested in negotiations.

Kerry and Obama failed in the “peace process.” They blamed Mahmoud Abbas, no less than Netanyahu, for the failure.

They proved that they, even more than Netanyahu, are not infallible.

Poll: One out of Three Americans Thinks Obama Does not Love America

Thursday, February 26th, 2015

Only 47 percent of American adults think that President Barack Obama loves the United States, and 35 percent said he does not, according to a new poll published by Huffington Post in coordination with the British-based YouGov poll.

This was not a popularity poll. It was a survey concerning the leader of the country’s love for the nation he is supposed to be leading. It would be shocking if even 10 percent of American citizens thought their president does not love the United States.

The poll showed extremely sharp differences of opinion along party lines, with 85 percent of Democrats not questioning Obama’s love for America, while only 11 percent of Republicans do no question it.

The survey also revealed that most Americans – 52 percent – have an unfavorable view of President Obama.

The poll was carried out one week after former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s said a dinner in New York:

I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America.

He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up, and I was brought up through love of this country.

He later clarified that he was not questioning Obama’s patriotism and wrote in The Wall Street Journal this week, “I didn’t intend to question President Obama’s motives or the content of his heart. Irrespective of what a president may think or feel, his inability or disinclination to emphasize what is right with America can hamstring our success as a nation.

He told Fox News, “I’m not questioning his patriotism — he’s a patriot, I’m sure. What I’m saying is, in his rhetoric, I very rarely hear him say the things I used to hear Ronald Reagan say, the things I used to hear Bill Clinton say about all the things he loves about America. I do hear him criticize America much more often than other American presidents…”

“It sounds like he’s more of a critic than he is a supporter. You can be a patriotic American and be a critic, but then you’re not expressing that kind of love that we’re used to from a president.”

The former mayor explained that Obama’s anxiousness to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear development indicates that he does not love and understand Western civilization.

Obama Asks Congress to Declare War on Islamic State

Wednesday, February 11th, 2015

President Barack Obama has asked Congress for authorization to declare war on Islamic State with a limit of three years but no limit on geographical boundaries.

It took him more than four months since the Islamic State executed American hostage James Foley to ask for an official declaration of war.

If Congress approves the request, it will be the first time the United States goes to war against an organization and not a country.

The proposed authorization for military force against the Islamic State would:

Target the Islamic State and associated persons or forces, defined as those fighting with the Islamic State “in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;”

Provide no geographic limits on the battle;

Limit ground troops by banning “enduring offensive ground combat operations;” and

Expire after three years unless renewed by Congress.

The authorization also would do away with the Congressional approval from 2002 for military force in Iraq. The president said in his letter to Congress that he hopes to be able to repeal the same authorization on which he has been relying for military operations force against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

President Obama composed his letter with explanations, each one beginning with “whereas,” to define the ISIS as an enemy threat to the United States.

He declared that the Islamic State, which he referred to as ISIL for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant , “poses a grave threat to the people and territorial integrity of Iraq and Syria, regional stability, and the national security interests of the United States and its allies and partners.”

He pointed out that the Islamic State, more commonly known as ISIS, “holds significant territory in Iraq and Syria and has stated its intention to seize more territory and demonstrated the capability to do so” and that its leaders have stated intentions to attack the United States.

His fourth “whereas” appeared to be designed to further his premise that ISIS is not a part of Islam. He stated:

Whereas ISIL has committed despicable acts of violence and mass executions against Muslims, regardless of sect, who do not subscribe to ISIL’s depraved, violent, and oppressive ideology;

Whereas ISIL has threatened genocide and committed vicious acts of violence against religious and ethnic minority groups, including Iraqi Christian, Yezidi, and Turkmen populations;

President Obama seems to be afraid that Muslim countries will think that he wants to wage war against radical Islam, which would get him in a lot of trouble in certain Middle East countries that do not behead people willy-nilly but also do not tolerate anyone who does not obey Islamic law.

His carefully crafted letter, having stated that the ISIS is supposedly anti-Muslim, focused on the Islamic State’s “horrific acts of violence” that included “the deaths of [four] innocent United States citizens.”

Obama then brought the international community under the umbrella of a global alliance and noted the announcement last September at a NATO Summit “that ISIL poses a serious threat and should be countered by a broad international coalition.”

Congress is not totally happy with the idea, and Obama tried to make it easier to obtain authorization by writing:

The authority granted in subsection (a) does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations.

The obvious problem with the language is the word “enduring,” something Congressmen will have to thrash out in discussions on the request for war on ISIS.

President Obama put the ball in Congress’ court and implied it is will bear the price if it does not declare war on ISIS.

He wrote.

If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland.

Bibi Says: ‘I am Going to Speak to Congress About the Bad Offer Made to Iran’

Tuesday, February 10th, 2015

On Tuesday, Feb. 10, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu released a statement confirming his decision to go to Washington, D.C. next month and to speak in the U.S. Congress about the dangers of the offer the U.S. and its partners has made to Iran.

The prime minister addressed the issue which has been dividing the leadership of the U.S. and Israel: the acceptance by Netanyahu of an invitation to speak before a joint session of Congress next month. It is something this U.S. administration strongly opposes.

Netanyahu acknowledged the very close relationship between the U.S. and Israel, one that has remained strong despite many strong disagreements between leaders in the two countries throughout that relationship. Examples of those disagreements included ones between Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion and the U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall, Levi Eshkol’s decision at the start of the Six Day War, Menachem Begin’s decision to bomb Iraq’s Osirik nuclear reactor, and Prime Minister Sharon’s Operation Defensive Shield.

The Prime Minister turned next to the heart of the current disagreement. It is not over whether Netanyahu should speak before a joint session of Congress, or about how or even when the invitation was extended.

The fundamental disagreement is over the offer Netanyahu said the P5+1, including the U.S., ‘has made‘ to Iran. Note: not may make, not is thinking of making, but has made. According to Netanyahu, the offer has already been extended, and it is an offer, Netanyahu said, that “threatens Israel’s survival.”

Under this deal, Netanyahu stated, Iran will be able “to break out to a nuclear weapon in a short time, and within a few years, to have the industrial capability to produce many nuclear bombs.”

Netanyahu repeated this is not a personal disagreement between himself and President Obama. “I deeply appreciate all that he has done for Israel in many fields,” he said, and he is not going to Washington because he seeks “a confrontation with the President.”

But Netanyahu is going to Washington, he said, “because I must fulfill my obligation to speak up on a matter that affects the very survival of my country,” and he will speak to Congress before the March 24th political framework deadline, “because Congress might have an important role on a nuclear deal with Iran.”

Obama Says He Has Watched ‘Terrible Stuff’ in ISIS Beheading Videos

Monday, February 2nd, 2015

President Barack Obama says he has watched “the terrible stuff that’s happening” in Islamic State (ISIS) videos showing beheading of its hostages.

For a great orator, it is strange that he couldn’t come up with a term a bit more meaningful than “terrible stuff.”

In an interview conducted on Sunday and to be aired today on NBC’s Today Show, President Obama added that his administration is doing everything possible to free an unnamed 26-year-old American, a woman who is an aid worker abducted in Syria last year.

Presumably, the United State is practicing what it preaches and is not preparing to pay millions of dollars in ransom to fund the Islamic State to save a hostage’s life, an act that only encourages the terrorist organization to kidnap more victims.

“We are deploying all the assets that we can, working with all the coalition allies that we can, to identify her location,” he said.  .

The president said officials are in touch with the American woman’s family, and he called the situation “heartbreaking.”

“I think it’s fair to say that, anything related to these terrorist actions, I take a look at,” he told The Today Show, referring to the videos of beheadings. “I think it would affect anybody who has an ounce of humanity. And it’s part of the reason why I think we’ve been so successful in organizing such a broad-based coalition.”

The ISIS released a video last week that showed a masked terrorists threatening to behead President Obama inside the White House and turn the United States into a “Muslim Province.”

 

‘No Opportunity’ in Obama’s Schedule for Hosting President Rivlin

Sunday, January 25th, 2015

President Barack Obama’s aides have turned down a request by Israeli President Reuven Rivlin to meet him next week, when Rivlin addressed the United Nations during its commemoration of the Holocaust next Tuesday .

“Over the past few days, there has been contact between the relevant parties in Israel and the US, discussing the possibility of a meeting between President Obama and President Rivlin during his visit to New York,” President Rivlin’s spokesman Jason Pearlman said Sunday night.

He added:

At this stage, it has been agreed not to hold a meeting during his visit, due to the schedule constraints of both leaders, and that a meeting would be scheduled at a later date.

When asked if the White House’s rejection of a visit was linked to its refusal to meet with visiting Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu next month because of the upcoming Knesset elections, Pearlman asked The Jewish Press, “Have you ever had to organize a presidential visit?” He noted the complexities in adjusting schedules and making time for a meeting on short notice.

A cynic could say that President Obama does not want to give Israel any attention before the elections, even though the office of the Israeli president officially is not a political position.

Rivlin was a senior Likud Knesset leader and Knesset Speaker until he was elected last year to succeed Shimon Peres, who turned the office into a platform for his political views.

Rivlin  is known to be far from a close friend of Netanyahu but he also has no taste for the increasingly leftist Labor-Livni party, the Likud’s main challenger.

A more positive view of the White House rejection would take Pearlman’s explanation as the truth, which it very well could be.

It will pay to look at Obama’s public schedule next week and see how many times he is on the golf course during Rivlin’s five-day visit.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/no-opportunity-in-obamas-schedule-for-hosting-president-rivlin/2015/01/25/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: