Were half of y'all, our wonderful, loyal, regular users to reliably donate $5, $10, $20 or $30 Monthly, this FReepathon and all FReepathons would be events of the past.
PLEASE CONSIDER SIGNING UP TO DONATE MONTHLY PROVIDED YOU RELIABLY CAN!
Posted on 02/12/2015 11:51:29 AM PST by Dave346
The importance of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s March 3 address to Congress extends far beyond its effect on his own country. That is apparent from the testimony of two former secretaries of state–Henry Kissinger and George Shultz–before the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 29. Kissinger told the committee that shifting the goal from (a) preventing Iran’s capability to build a nuclear weapon, to (b) simply limiting Iran’s use of that capability, will create not only “huge inspection problems,” but a far more critical problem:
I’ll reserve my comment on [the inspection problems] until I see the agreement. But I would also emphasize the issue of proliferation. Assuming … the stockpile of nuclear material that already exists, the question then is, what do the other countries in the region do? And if the other countries in the region conclude that America has approved the development of an enrichment capability within one year of a nuclear weapon, and if they then insist on building the same capability, we will live in a proliferated world …
Because it’s a different problem from not having a capability at all to having a capability that is within one year of building a weapon. Especially if it then spreads to all the other countries in the region, and they – and they have to live with that fear of each other. That will produce a substantially different world from the one that we know …
I’m troubled by some of the implications of what is now publicly available … and the impact of all of this on an international system where everybody is within a very short period of getting a nuclear weapon. Nobody can really fully trust the inspection system or at least some may not. That is something I would hope gets carefully examined before a final solution is attained. (Emphasis added.)
In other words, even if the agreement purports to keep Iran a year away from a nuclear weapon, and even if there is an inspection regime that purports to enforce the agreement, the inevitable result will be nuclear proliferation throughout the region that will endanger every state in it, and affect those beyond as well. Iran will have turned “binding” UN resolutions against its nuclear program into an American agreement approving it, and the United States will be in no position to prevent other states from acquiring the same capability (or more), or to urge them to rely on American promises that will have been proved ineffective. Secretary Shultz joined Secretary Kissinger in portraying a stark picture of what it would mean to leave Iran with its enrichment process intact:
I see nuclear weapon proliferation. That is devastating … my physicist friends say the Hiroshima weapon was just a little play thing. Well, look at the damage it did. A thermonuclear weapon would incinerate the Washington area totally. … And we were making progress, but that’s been derailed and we’re going the wrong way right now. … It should be pointed out that a bomb made from enriched uranium is much easier to make than [the] Hiroshima bomb. [The] Hiroshima bomb was a uranium enrichment bomb. It wasn’t even tested … [Y]ou can make an unsophisticated bomb from enriched uranium fairly easily. That’s not a big trick. So the enrichment process is key. (Emphasis added.)
An agreement that leaves Iran’s enrichment process in place, guaranteeing a rapid proliferation throughout the region, is a strategic disaster, not only for the region but for the United States. Given the Kissinger and Shultz testimony, it is clear that the critical issue is not the prospects for legislation imposing contingent sanctions if Iran does not reach an agreement. The problem is the agreement the Obama administration is seeking, against the advice of two distinguished secretaries of state, both of whom served in World War II and remember what caused it.
Neither the congressional invitation to the Israeli prime minister nor his acceptance of it was a mistake. The speech will be his attempt to say what Churchill would have said if he had seen America heading down the road Kissinger and Shultz described to the Armed Services Committee. A head of state must come to Washington to say it, and to say it not simply in private discussions, nor simply before pro-Israel advocates at AIPAC, but directly to the representatives of the American people, and before it is too late.
It is not going to be David Cameron, Angela Merkel, or Francois Hollande, the leaders of a Europe that is no longer strategically serious. If it is going to be anyone, it will have to be Benjamin Netanyahu. For the reasons he set forth in his powerful statement on February 10, the issue goes far beyond politics and protocol.
Does Obama have Jewphobia?
>> Does Obama have Jewphobia?
In spades! And not only does he fear Jews, he hates them as well.
Then we'll see another to Pope...Come ahead...whatever you want. Just help me give gitmo back to cuba. Thanks...your fellow socialist.
..besides being a mooslim, odungo hates Bibi because he is so much more the statesman. He can speak radical Islam because he lives with it daily.
Which as we’ll see over the next few weeks, Odungo’s NPD traits start to show
I suspect that Iran probably already has 2 or 3 bombs, and is waiting until they have ICBM’s built and 40-50 warheads to put in them, to announce that they are a nuclear power.
2 or 3 bombs aren’t a deterrent; they make you a target to a better equipped nuclear power that might be fearful enough to launch a crippling first strike.
>>In spades!<<
I think that is freakin hilarious.
2 would be an imminent threat to Tel Aviv.
he will of course give the speech
the problem is that Obama has poisoned the event, even firing up his racist goon squad to attack it
but anyway Bibi will do his part
When will Boner cave?
Has the pool been started yet?
I’ll be waiting for the zinger he has for the runaway democraps.
Ie: “I’m very honored to have been invited to speak to this joint session of Congress and to those of you have taken time to attend, it’s very clear to me that those present care as much for the security of their country as I do mine”
And the speech must be televised.
THAT is a MUST!
I want very high ratings, too!!
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was ALREADY SCHEDULED for that trip BEFORE this speech issue was ever raised. He is scheduled for AIPAC, which is a several-day event covering this time, when the Congressional Speech is happening. AIPAC is going on, and Netanyahu was “covered” for that already.
I got so disgusted with Kissinger during veetnam that there is nothing he can say now that will erase that. He’s alive because I couldn’t get my hands on him. Every time he shot his mouth off about victory just being one more meeting away we lost another 1,000 GI’s. Even tho he has an occasional reasonable thot he’s still a buttdragging blowhard. He didn’t want to melt down Hanoi to solve that problem and he doesn’t seem to want to actually do anything to/about Tehran to solve this one. I can’t for the life of me understand why we put up with leaders who can’t stand the thot of fighting to win, quick and however dirty is required.
I wish Bibi had given his speech sooner, on February 11 as first announced. This is giving his enemies plenty of time to plan mischief.
Hope he knows what he is doing, given this delay.
Expecting a real stemwinder. Like followed by the Israeli ambassador getting chewed out by Jean F’ing Kerry the next day. Make it an international incident!
Watch for the Iranians to pull something in the Gulf.
Those semi-virs that are boycotting would be ashamed if they had consciences.
It would be fun if it opened the eyes of Jews in this country, but Democrats have been trying, in futility, to do that for decades.
I hope he delivers a good speech. It will be more widely watched than any speech since Bush delivered his post 9-11, maybe since the "Day of Infamy" speech by Roosevelt. He could galvanize both parties in this country into acting like men for the first time in many of their lives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.