Obama: 'The Crazies' Won't Support My Iran Deal

As a young Barack Obama once said at the 2004 Democratic convention: There are no “blue states” and “red states,” there are only blue states and states that make “common cause” with anti-American fanatics.

Republicans dislike the deal because it does too little to prevent an Iranian bomb, the Quds Force dislikes it because they think it does too much, and Obama’s conclusion from that is, “See? They both dislike it.” This is a revealing paragraph, though, insofar as it shows what his true goal in all of this was. Why Republicans oppose the final agreement, and in some cases have opposed the entire negotiation process, is irrelevant to him. Some GOP hawks think that the deal’s a sellout because it’ll shrink Iran’s “breakout” capacity to nothing within 10 years; others refuse to make deals with a terrorist state with American blood on its hand on principle, accepting nothing short of regime change instead. Others might have opposed the deal from the outset either because they thought — correctly — that Obama’s a weak negotiator who’d get rolled or because Obama himself abandoned the ostensible goal of dismantling Iran’s nuclear program long ago for the lesser goal of merely extending the “breakout” period. All of this is beside the point for O, partly because he’s a partisan and partisans view their opponents’ motives in the simplest, most self-serving terms and partly because “getting a deal done” was itself the supreme goal of this process for him, far beyond the consequences for Iran’s nuclear program. I’m a broken record on this subject but I’ll say it again: The point of negotiating with Iran wasn’t to prevent an Iranian bomb, it was to prevent potential war between the U.S. and Iran over its nuclear program. Now that there’s a written agreement in place with lots of bells and whistles about inspections and international dispute resolution mechanisms, the pressure is off Obama to do something militarily before he leaves office to stop Iran’s nuclear advances. He’s stopped them by diplomacy — for 10 years, at which point it’ll be full speed ahead again at a breakneck pace, but at least he won’t be the one in office forced to clean up that mess. What you’re seeing in this answer is Obama at his insufferable worst as Captain Reasonable, the man with a strong “ideological commitment” of his own to “dialogue” and getting a deal done at any cost even if it means gifting an expansionist Islamist regime with an atomic bomb who nonetheless feels entitled to sniff at his opponents’ petty ideological obstructionism.

Oh, by the way, in case you’re under the media-created mistaken impression that Chuck Schumer’s opposition to Obama’s Iran deal means anything apart from “Democrats are conflicted about this unpopular deal!” kabuki, Claire McCaskill assured America this weekend that Schumer’s opinion won’t stop the rest of the party from falling in line for Obama. The deal will pass thanks to Schumer’s timidity and, of course, the Senate GOP’s treachery, led by a guy who wants you to believe that he’s really quite angry about what the U.S. has agreed to here.

Mar 2012...

"Obama was talking with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev when neither of them realized that their conversation was being picked up by microphones. Here is what they said:

Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space.”

Medvedev: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you ...”

Obama: “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”

Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

“This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” That statement tells us much about the president’s mindset.

The specific mention of missile defense is worrisome enough. Mr. Obama has retreated from the missile defense plan that was negotiated with European allies during the George W. Bush administration. Apparently, he is signaling Moscow that he intends to retreat further. The clear implication from the president’s comments is that he cannot tell the American people before the election what he plans to do after the election.

In addition, there is the phrase “on all these issues,” implying more is at stake than just missile defense.”

Article: Obama plans double cross on missile defense
When it comes to keeping America safe, we shouldn’t be too flexible:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/29/obama-plans-double-cross-on-missile-defense/print/
__________________________________________________________

From Investor’s Business Daily, 2012:

Obama To Betray Missile Defense Secrets To Moscow
Investor's Business Daily ^ | January 9, 2012 | IBD staff

Appeasement: From ObamaCare to recess appointments, honoring the Constitution has not been an administration hallmark. But when it comes to betraying secrets to mollify the Russians, it becomes a document the president hides behind.

It was bad enough that the 2012 defense authorization bill signed by President Obama set America on a downward spiral of military mediocrity.

He also issued a signing statement, something he once opposed, saying that language in the bill aimed at protecting top-secret technical data on the U.S. Standard Missile-3 — linchpin of our missile defense — might impinge on his constitutional foreign-policy authority.

Section 1227 of the defense law prohibits spending any funds that would be used to give Russian officials access to sensitive missile-defense technology as part of a cooperation agreement without first sending Congress a report identifying the specific secrets, how they'd be used and steps to protect the data from compromise.

The president is required to certify that any technology shared will not be passed on to third parties such as China, North Korea or Iran, that the Russians will not use transferred secrets to develop countermeasures and that the Russians are reciprocating in sharing missile-defense technology. ..."

“In his signing statement, Obama said he would treat these legal restrictions as “non-binding” and that “my administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 (sic) in a manner that does not interfere with the president’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications.”

Betraying our secrets is easy for a president who betrayed allies Poland and the Czech Republic to placate Moscow.

Poland was to host ground-based interceptors such as those we’ve deployed in California and Alaska, with missile-tracking radar deployed in the Czech Republic.
mp3Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast

Obama pulled the plug when Moscow objected. Never mind, he said, we have a better approach: a four-phase plan that calls for using three versions of the Navy’s Standard SM-3 interceptor missile that forms the backbone of its Aegis missile-defense system.

The fourth phase consists of a missile still on the drawing board scheduled for deployment by 2020, a version of the SM-3 called the Block IIB. It would intercept hostile missiles in the “early intercept” phase before an enemy missile could release its warheads and decoys. The Russians want the SM-3’s secrets, and Obama appears to be willing to turn them over.

The president wants to save the New Start Treaty, which the Russians have threatened to abandon if we try to fully implement President Reagan’s dream of defeating a nuclear missile attack.

Russia has unilaterally asserted that any qualitative or quantitative improvement in U.S. missile defenses would be grounds for withdrawal from the treaty.

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.