In a recent interview with the renowned journalist [and vain self-searcher on the internet] David Cay Johnston on Democracy Now,
“David Cay Johnson: 21 Questions for Trump on Kickbacks, Busting
Unions, the Mob & Corporate Welfare” (August 19, 2015), the chicken
hawk analogy came up once again. Johnston described alleged questionable
business dealings by presidential candidate Donald Trump and conflated
Trump’s behavior with his avoidance of the draft during the Vietnam War.
“And I think that’s consistent with Donald having so assiduously
avoided the draft.” He continues, “Donald is not a guy to put himself in
any position that he thinks might represent any kind of physical danger
to him whatsoever.” Wow!
Trump’s policy pronouncements sound like an interchange between
characters in a Marx Brothers’ movie, but the representation of draft
resistance in this manner was nothing less than insulting.
-- Howard Lisnoff, "War Resistance and the Cowardice Slur" (CounterPunch).
Sunday, August 23, 2015
Truest statement of the week II
Most Americans are unaware that unemployment does not occur by
chance, but is manipulated by those who run the country on behalf of the
ruling plutocrats and their corporations.
Unless millions of people are kept unemployed, wages will rise, so the psychopaths who rule do not allow anything approaching full employment. I say psychopaths because they claim to be intelligent and informed people, so one would assume they know that keeping unemployment high results in massive suffering -- hunger, homelessness, the world’s largest prison system and other horrors for the masses.
-- Jack Balkwill, "Janet Yellen About to Destroy Hope for the Working Class?" (Dissident Voice).
Unless millions of people are kept unemployed, wages will rise, so the psychopaths who rule do not allow anything approaching full employment. I say psychopaths because they claim to be intelligent and informed people, so one would assume they know that keeping unemployment high results in massive suffering -- hunger, homelessness, the world’s largest prison system and other horrors for the masses.
-- Jack Balkwill, "Janet Yellen About to Destroy Hope for the Working Class?" (Dissident Voice).
A note to our readers
Hey --
Sunday.
First, we thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
And what did we come up with?
Mike and the gang wrote this and we thank them for it.
And that's what we ended up with.
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Sunday.
First, we thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
And what did we come up with?
We added a bracket note to this. Johnston knows why, don't worry, he damn well knows why.
A first truest for Jack Balkwill.
At what point do the steonographers tire of turning out advertising copy and actually start reporting on Iraq?
Ava and C.I. They don't review shows before the shows air for the most part. They did with Heroes (by mistake) and accidentally included spoilers. They did with Daredevil because a friend with the project asked them to. (He was unsure how the reviews would go and knew Ava and C.I. had loved the scripts and enjoyed the scenes they saw the day they visited the set.) That's really it. Then CBS friends presented them with Supergirl. And they wanted to hurl.
A good question. And, please note, Amazon's not too crazy about any women.
We sample chips.
What we listened to this edition.
Press release from Senator Menendez's office.
Repost from Great Britain's Socialist Worker.
From former Senator Jim Webb's campaign.
Mike and the gang wrote this and we thank them for it.
And that's what we ended up with.
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Editorial: Iraq the unexamined
Iraq's Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi is now in week three of his alleged reforms.
At what point does the press intend to offer serious analysis?
At what point do they intend to do more than repeat his claims?
Claims aren't facts.
The press gets that right?
We have to ask because there's the issue of his fighting corruption by doing away certain ministries.
From last Monday's Iraq snapshot:
In his announcement, Haider claims that he has the power under Article 78 of the Constitution.
That's interesting. Article 78 of the Iraqi Constitution:
Article 78:
First: The President of the Republic shall take up the office of the Prime Minister in the event the post becomes vacant for any reason whatsoever.
Second: The President must designate another nominee to form the cabinet within a period not to exceed fifteen days in accordance with the provisions of article 73 of this Constitution.
Where does that give Haider the power to eliminate ministries?
In his announcement, he notes that he is cancelling the following: the Minister of Human Rights, the Minister of State for Women's Affairs, the Minister for State for Provincial Affairs and Parliamentary Affairs and the Minister of State while merging a number of ministries.
“The prime minister has decided to close the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, whose monthly budget is only 150,000 Iraqi dinars (about $120,” Amin claimed, saying it had little impact on reducing government expenses.
Amin said the ministry comprised of only three rooms in the same building as the council of ministers, without mentioning other costs, such as salaries and security for ministry officials.
How does eliminating the Women's Affairs ministry address corruption?
It doesn't.
So when is the press going to stop giving Haider a pass and start doing their damn job?
At what point does the press intend to offer serious analysis?
At what point do they intend to do more than repeat his claims?
Claims aren't facts.
The press gets that right?
We have to ask because there's the issue of his fighting corruption by doing away certain ministries.
From last Monday's Iraq snapshot:
Sunday, Haider's actions began to more closely resemble a power grab and
to be less and less about reforms as he announced he would be hacking
away at the Cabinet -- with no one pointing out that the Constitution
does not give him that power. Reuters states
he's taken the Cabinet from 33 ministers to 22. Among the posts
eliminated? The Minister of Human Rights and the Minister of State for
Women's Affairs. (CNN's Mohammed Tawfeeq also notes thee two posts are being eliminated.)
In his announcement, Haider claims that he has the power under Article 78 of the Constitution.
That's interesting. Article 78 of the Iraqi Constitution:
Article 78:
First: The President of the Republic shall take up the office of the Prime Minister in the event the post becomes vacant for any reason whatsoever.
Second: The President must designate another nominee to form the cabinet within a period not to exceed fifteen days in accordance with the provisions of article 73 of this Constitution.
Where does that give Haider the power to eliminate ministries?
In his announcement, he notes that he is cancelling the following: the Minister of Human Rights, the Minister of State for Women's Affairs, the Minister for State for Provincial Affairs and Parliamentary Affairs and the Minister of State while merging a number of ministries.
This morning, we noted
of the move to eliminated the Women's Affairs ministry, "If Haider's
moving to end corruption, if that's why he's doing this, how
much corruption is ended by abolishing a ministry that's never had a
real budget?"
Kurdish MP Muthanna Amin today also noted the nonsense and the fakery. Rudaw reports:
“The prime minister has decided to close the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, whose monthly budget is only 150,000 Iraqi dinars (about $120,” Amin claimed, saying it had little impact on reducing government expenses.
Amin said the ministry comprised of only three rooms in the same building as the council of ministers, without mentioning other costs, such as salaries and security for ministry officials.
Yet the western press is presenting these moves as a fight against corruption.
How does eliminating the Women's Affairs ministry address corruption?
It doesn't.
So when is the press going to stop giving Haider a pass and start doing their damn job?
TV: Supergirl floats in on sexism and never redeems nor recovers
CBS' upcoming Supergirl is not a bad show but you can't exactly call it a good show.
While often entertaining (Calista Flockhart carries most of the solid moments in her role as Supergirl's boss), the show fails as a superhero show.
Some will argue it plays like the "Marvel Gets Women" Saturday Night Live skit last May when Scarlett Johansson hosted the show and played Black Widow starring in a rom-com.
It's actually worse than that.
It's like the attempt to bring Wonder Woman to TV.
No, we're not talking about Lynda Carter's strong performance on the live action 70s show.
We're talking about the pilot made in 1967 whee Wonder Woman is played by Linda Harrison and her secret identity Diana Prince is played by a fumbling Ellie Wood Walker. It was called Who's Afraid of Diana Prince and the whole point was that a female superhero is a joke.
You can watch the pilot here and see Diana fall off the couch and need her mother's help to get up.
What's really sad about the pilot is that William Dozier produced it.
And even sadder, he did so in 1967.
Fall 1967 was when Yvonne Craig joined Dozier's successful TV show Batman. In its third and final season, Craig played Batgirl in 26 episodes.
Batgirl was a huge step forward for women in action shows.
In action scenes, she frequently fought men, in action scenes she frequently teamed up with Burt Ward's Robin where the two, as equals, fought the evil doers.
Craig often credited her ballet training with giving her the skill needed for the action scenes.
While she carried off those scenes, she also carried off the non-action scenes.
Neither Batgirl nor Barbara Gordon (her secret identity) was a bimbo.
Both were intelligent women.
Batgirl and her motorcycle were iconic images of 60s television which left a lasting impact.
When Wonder Woman was attempted again in 1974 as television movie (and pilot) starring Cathy Lee Crosby, there was no attempt to turn Wonder Woman into a joke or to make her That Girl in search of a Donald.
Another TV movie, this one starring Lynda Carter, was a big success and led to the series Wonder Woman which ran one season on ABC and two on CBS.
At the same time, Lindsay Wagner was starring in The Bionic Woman and making significant contributions to the story arc and the sensibilities of that show as well as delivering a performance so strong that she won an Emmy for Best Actress.
During this time, there was also the first season of Charlie's Angels which found Kate Jackson, Farrah Fawcett and Jaclyn Smith playing three adult women who were private investigators.
The first season was full of humor and wit and, again, the women were women.
That changed with the addition of Cheryl Ladd as Kris.
It is true that, replacing Farrah Fawcett, Ladd felt the best move was to come on like the kid sister but she degraded the show in so many ways.
It became juvenile and smutty.
Kris was an embarrassment and so was Cheryl Ladd who took to mocking the show, while it was airing, by repeatedly doing this little number for the press in interviews (print interviews) where she'd stand up, play like she was pulling out a gun, stop and toss her hair wildly and then say, "I said freeze!"
Cheryl Ladd mocked the show and didn't take it seriously at all.
In her more 'thoughtful' moments she would expound upon being a "sex object" or just "sexy."
While Kate, Jaclyn and Farrah had worn jeans and sensible outfits unless their characters were undercover, the addition of Cheryl changed the wardrobe -- either she was overdressed or she was underdressed.
On the latter, Cher infamously noted of her battles with CBS over her wardrobe, "All I know is I got in trouble for showing my belly button, and then when I finally did go off the air every time I turned around all I saw were Cheryl Ladd's boobs."
Exactly.
Kate Jackson would leave the show, in part, because of that nonsense.
A lot of people worked really hard to carry women forward on TV and a lot worked just as hard to turn women into a joke.
At its most cutesy, Supergirl resembles the backlash first seasons of Alias.
It wasn't as though everyone threw in the towel.
The CW was airing Nikita -- the finest show they've aired ever -- which starred Maggie Q in the title role and which not only co-starred Lyndsy Fonesca and Melinda Clarke but also featured women guest stars in prominent role -- that's a long, long way from Alias attempting the Deanne Durbin formula of 100 Men and a Girl.
"How do you expect to get a husband flying around all the time?"
That's from the failed 1967 attempt at a Wonder Woman TV show but it could easily fit into an episode of Supergirl.
And if you think we're being harsh maybe you missed David Hinckley's report for The New York Daily News which opened, "The way you make a good TV shout of Supergirl, says the man who is now trying to do that, is to forget the 'super' and concentrate on the 'girl'."
"The man" is Greg Berlanti.
Greg has a lot of interest in undressing men on Arrow and The Flash but he let them be men.
Supergirl is a "girl."
And he's stressing it's a work place comedy and that it's important that people know Supergirl can be defeated by more than just kryptonite and . . .
His show is patronizing and sexist.
Yes, Calista does a great job.
But she doesn't belong on this show.
No one does.
Because Supergirl shouldn't be a rom-com, it should be an action series.
There was no effort to comedy up Arrow.
It's telling that this gay male producer, known for undressing one man after another in one show after another, but not known for developing one interesting female character in the last three years, chooses to do a show focused on a woman ("girl" in his words) and he's only interested in stripping her of her strength and powers.
Maybe the answer was to let a woman -- straight or gay -- be in charge of Supergirl?
And if that seems harsh, other than casting some closeted gay actors in his shows, what has Greg given to the cause?
If he wanted to do another DC superhero why not do Batwoman?
Batwoman is a gay character.
She's also an adult.
Former military.
She's not working at a glossy fashion magazine.
Oliver Queen isn't either. Nor is Barry Allen.
But that's the life for Supergirl?
When the show flops, the word on it won't be, "They tried to turn a superhero show into a comedy and viewers hated it."
No, the failure will be pinned on women. It will be said, "America's just not ready for female superheroes" -- as the leaked Sony e-mails have already revealed.
As if to rub salt in a wound, MeTV chose to note the passing of Yvonne Craig on Saturday by airing two episodes of Batman with her in it. This was what passed as a tribute from the network that has treated the passing of any male actor on a show they air as a monumental event but all they could spare for Yvonne Craig, the actress who paved the way for so many -- one hour.
While often entertaining (Calista Flockhart carries most of the solid moments in her role as Supergirl's boss), the show fails as a superhero show.
Some will argue it plays like the "Marvel Gets Women" Saturday Night Live skit last May when Scarlett Johansson hosted the show and played Black Widow starring in a rom-com.
It's actually worse than that.
It's like the attempt to bring Wonder Woman to TV.
No, we're not talking about Lynda Carter's strong performance on the live action 70s show.
We're talking about the pilot made in 1967 whee Wonder Woman is played by Linda Harrison and her secret identity Diana Prince is played by a fumbling Ellie Wood Walker. It was called Who's Afraid of Diana Prince and the whole point was that a female superhero is a joke.
You can watch the pilot here and see Diana fall off the couch and need her mother's help to get up.
What's really sad about the pilot is that William Dozier produced it.
And even sadder, he did so in 1967.
Fall 1967 was when Yvonne Craig joined Dozier's successful TV show Batman. In its third and final season, Craig played Batgirl in 26 episodes.
Batgirl was a huge step forward for women in action shows.
In action scenes, she frequently fought men, in action scenes she frequently teamed up with Burt Ward's Robin where the two, as equals, fought the evil doers.
Craig often credited her ballet training with giving her the skill needed for the action scenes.
While she carried off those scenes, she also carried off the non-action scenes.
Neither Batgirl nor Barbara Gordon (her secret identity) was a bimbo.
Both were intelligent women.
Batgirl and her motorcycle were iconic images of 60s television which left a lasting impact.
When Wonder Woman was attempted again in 1974 as television movie (and pilot) starring Cathy Lee Crosby, there was no attempt to turn Wonder Woman into a joke or to make her That Girl in search of a Donald.
Another TV movie, this one starring Lynda Carter, was a big success and led to the series Wonder Woman which ran one season on ABC and two on CBS.
At the same time, Lindsay Wagner was starring in The Bionic Woman and making significant contributions to the story arc and the sensibilities of that show as well as delivering a performance so strong that she won an Emmy for Best Actress.
During this time, there was also the first season of Charlie's Angels which found Kate Jackson, Farrah Fawcett and Jaclyn Smith playing three adult women who were private investigators.
The first season was full of humor and wit and, again, the women were women.
That changed with the addition of Cheryl Ladd as Kris.
It is true that, replacing Farrah Fawcett, Ladd felt the best move was to come on like the kid sister but she degraded the show in so many ways.
It became juvenile and smutty.
Kris was an embarrassment and so was Cheryl Ladd who took to mocking the show, while it was airing, by repeatedly doing this little number for the press in interviews (print interviews) where she'd stand up, play like she was pulling out a gun, stop and toss her hair wildly and then say, "I said freeze!"
Cheryl Ladd mocked the show and didn't take it seriously at all.
In her more 'thoughtful' moments she would expound upon being a "sex object" or just "sexy."
While Kate, Jaclyn and Farrah had worn jeans and sensible outfits unless their characters were undercover, the addition of Cheryl changed the wardrobe -- either she was overdressed or she was underdressed.
On the latter, Cher infamously noted of her battles with CBS over her wardrobe, "All I know is I got in trouble for showing my belly button, and then when I finally did go off the air every time I turned around all I saw were Cheryl Ladd's boobs."
Exactly.
Kate Jackson would leave the show, in part, because of that nonsense.
A lot of people worked really hard to carry women forward on TV and a lot worked just as hard to turn women into a joke.
At its most cutesy, Supergirl resembles the backlash first seasons of Alias.
It wasn't as though everyone threw in the towel.
The CW was airing Nikita -- the finest show they've aired ever -- which starred Maggie Q in the title role and which not only co-starred Lyndsy Fonesca and Melinda Clarke but also featured women guest stars in prominent role -- that's a long, long way from Alias attempting the Deanne Durbin formula of 100 Men and a Girl.
"How do you expect to get a husband flying around all the time?"
That's from the failed 1967 attempt at a Wonder Woman TV show but it could easily fit into an episode of Supergirl.
And if you think we're being harsh maybe you missed David Hinckley's report for The New York Daily News which opened, "The way you make a good TV shout of Supergirl, says the man who is now trying to do that, is to forget the 'super' and concentrate on the 'girl'."
"The man" is Greg Berlanti.
Greg has a lot of interest in undressing men on Arrow and The Flash but he let them be men.
Supergirl is a "girl."
And he's stressing it's a work place comedy and that it's important that people know Supergirl can be defeated by more than just kryptonite and . . .
His show is patronizing and sexist.
Yes, Calista does a great job.
But she doesn't belong on this show.
No one does.
Because Supergirl shouldn't be a rom-com, it should be an action series.
There was no effort to comedy up Arrow.
It's telling that this gay male producer, known for undressing one man after another in one show after another, but not known for developing one interesting female character in the last three years, chooses to do a show focused on a woman ("girl" in his words) and he's only interested in stripping her of her strength and powers.
Maybe the answer was to let a woman -- straight or gay -- be in charge of Supergirl?
And if that seems harsh, other than casting some closeted gay actors in his shows, what has Greg given to the cause?
If he wanted to do another DC superhero why not do Batwoman?
Batwoman is a gay character.
She's also an adult.
Former military.
She's not working at a glossy fashion magazine.
Oliver Queen isn't either. Nor is Barry Allen.
But that's the life for Supergirl?
When the show flops, the word on it won't be, "They tried to turn a superhero show into a comedy and viewers hated it."
No, the failure will be pinned on women. It will be said, "America's just not ready for female superheroes" -- as the leaked Sony e-mails have already revealed.
As if to rub salt in a wound, MeTV chose to note the passing of Yvonne Craig on Saturday by airing two episodes of Batman with her in it. This was what passed as a tribute from the network that has treated the passing of any male actor on a show they air as a monumental event but all they could spare for Yvonne Craig, the actress who paved the way for so many -- one hour.
Why does Amazon hate Michelle Pfeiffer
Amazon's labor practices sometimes get attention.
But it seems like we're the only ones monitoring Amazon's sexism.
This go round, we're focusing on three time Academy Award nominee Michelle Pfeiffer.
Michelle's starred in many films . . . unless you go by Amazon instant video.
We'll offer four examples.
Three people featured promoting The Age of Innocence. Not one of them is Joanne Woodard (Joanne does narration in the film -- after Jane Fonda turned down the task). Michelle Pfeiffer was the female lead.
But she's not noted, is she?
She is the star of Married To The Mob.
Alec Baldwin?
He plays her husband and is killed in the first 15 minutes.
Michelle is the star of the film -- unless you're Amazon.
Wolf finds her re-teaming with Jack Nicholson (they worked together on The Witches of Eastwick). They're co-stars.
But Michelle doesn't get billing from Amazon.
They do note Elaine May.
Elaine May's role in the film?
Her voice is heard delivering a wake up call to Jack Nicholson's character.
Again, why does Amazon hate Michelle Pfeiffer.
And then there's Batman Returns.
Danny DeVito?
Fine character actor. Not at his best in this film.
There were no calls for Tim Burton to make a film about the Penguin.
But Michelle's performance as Catwoman was a revelation and there were multiple attempts at coming up with a premise for Burton and Pfeiffer to reteam for a Catwoman film.
We can do this with multiple actresses (and with more Michelle Pfeiffer films).
Why does Amazon continue to degrade women and to dilute their credits?
But it seems like we're the only ones monitoring Amazon's sexism.
This go round, we're focusing on three time Academy Award nominee Michelle Pfeiffer.
Michelle's starred in many films . . . unless you go by Amazon instant video.
We'll offer four examples.
Three people featured promoting The Age of Innocence. Not one of them is Joanne Woodard (Joanne does narration in the film -- after Jane Fonda turned down the task). Michelle Pfeiffer was the female lead.
But she's not noted, is she?
She is the star of Married To The Mob.
Alec Baldwin?
He plays her husband and is killed in the first 15 minutes.
Michelle is the star of the film -- unless you're Amazon.
Wolf finds her re-teaming with Jack Nicholson (they worked together on The Witches of Eastwick). They're co-stars.
But Michelle doesn't get billing from Amazon.
They do note Elaine May.
Elaine May's role in the film?
Her voice is heard delivering a wake up call to Jack Nicholson's character.
Again, why does Amazon hate Michelle Pfeiffer.
And then there's Batman Returns.
Danny DeVito?
Fine character actor. Not at his best in this film.
There were no calls for Tim Burton to make a film about the Penguin.
But Michelle's performance as Catwoman was a revelation and there were multiple attempts at coming up with a premise for Burton and Pfeiffer to reteam for a Catwoman film.
We can do this with multiple actresses (and with more Michelle Pfeiffer films).
Why does Amazon continue to degrade women and to dilute their credits?
From The TESR Test Kitchen
Lays, the potato chip whose motto was "you can't eat just one."
Who could argue with that?
Not us until we encountered two new varieties last week.
Angie Fu gets a credit on the package of Wavy West Coast Truffle Fries while Jeff Solensky gets the credit on the bag of New York Reuben.
Neither chip tastes like what the bag proclaims.
But of the two, New York Reuben is probably the least offensive.
That's because its spices are pretty much baked in.
The Truffle Fries?
You need a napkin to wipe your hand after just three chips. The spices get all over your fingers like no chip since Cheetos.
And the taste?
Again, they don't taste like what they're supposed to and, also, they don't taste that good period.
Who could argue with that?
Not us until we encountered two new varieties last week.
Angie Fu gets a credit on the package of Wavy West Coast Truffle Fries while Jeff Solensky gets the credit on the bag of New York Reuben.
Neither chip tastes like what the bag proclaims.
But of the two, New York Reuben is probably the least offensive.
That's because its spices are pretty much baked in.
The Truffle Fries?
You need a napkin to wipe your hand after just three chips. The spices get all over your fingers like no chip since Cheetos.
And the taste?
Again, they don't taste like what they're supposed to and, also, they don't taste that good period.
This edition's playlist
1) Diana Ross' The Boss.
2) Diana Ross' diana.
3) Diana Ross' Swept Away.
4) Diana Ross' Every Day Is A New Day.
5) Diana Ross' Touch Me In The Morning.
6) Diana Ross' Eaten Alive.
7) Diana Ross' Force Behind The Power.
8) Diana Ross' Diana Ross
9) Diana Ross' Diana Extended: The Remixes.
10) Diana Ross & the Supremes' Gold.
And for more on Diana Ross' music, check out:
"Mirror Mirror," "I'm Coming Out," "'Chain Reaction'," "Workin' Overtime," "Swept Away," "Diana Ross' 'Not Over You Yet'," "'Love Hangover'," "surrender," "Diana Ross" and "Where Did Our Love Go"
Senator Menendez on the Iran deal
US Senator Bob Menendez's office issued the following last week:
South Orange, NJ – U.S. Senator Bob Menendez, senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, delivered the following remarks today at Seton Hall University’s School of Diplomacy and International Relations. He was introduced by Courtney Smith, Senior Associate Dean and Associate Professor.
Remarks follow:
South Orange, NJ – U.S. Senator Bob Menendez, senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, delivered the following remarks today at Seton Hall University’s School of Diplomacy and International Relations. He was introduced by Courtney Smith, Senior Associate Dean and Associate Professor.
“For twenty three years as a member of
the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations Committees, I
have had the privilege of dealing with major foreign policy and national
security issues. Many of those have been of a momentous nature. This
is one of those moments.
“I come to the issue of the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action, with Iran, as someone who has followed
Iran's nuclear ambition for the better part of two decades. I decide on
whether to support or oppose an issue on the basis of whether, it is in
my judgment, in the national interest and security of our country to do
so.
“In this case a secondary, but important,
question is what it means for our great ally -- the State of Israel --
and our other partners in the Gulf.
“Unlike President Obama's
characterization of those who have raised serious questions about the
agreement, or who have opposed it, I did not vote for the war in Iraq, I
opposed it, unlike the Vice President and the Secretary of State, who
both supported it. My vote against the Iraq war was unpopular at the
time, but it was one of the best decisions I have ever made.
“I also don't come to this question as
someone, unlike many of my Republican colleagues, who reflexively oppose
everything the President proposes. In fact, I have supported President
Obama, according to Congressional Quarterly, 98 percent of the time in
2013 and 2014. My dear, late mother would have been happy if I had
agreed with her 98 percent of the time -- and I revered her.
"On key policies ranging from voting in
the Finance Committee and on the Senate Floor for the Affordable Care
Act, to Wall Street Reform, to supporting the President's Supreme Court
Nominees and defending the Administration’s actions on the Benghazi
tragedy, his Pivot to Asia, shepherding the authorization for the Use of
Military Force (AUMF) to stop President Assad's use of chemical
weapons, during the time I was Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, to so much more, I have been a reliable supporter of
President Obama.
“But my support is not – and has not been
driven by party loyalty, but rather by principled agreement, not
political expediency. When I have disagreed it is also based on
principled disagreement.
“The issue before the Congress in
September is whether to vote to approve or disapprove the agreement
struck by the President and our P5+1 partners with Iran. This is one of
the most serious national security, nuclear nonproliferation, arms
control issues of our time. It is not an issue of supporting or
opposing the President. This issue is much greater and graver than
that.
“For me, I have come to my decision after
countless hours in hearings, classified briefings, and hours-and-hours
of serious discussion and thorough analysis. I start my analysis with
the question: Why does Iran -- which has the world's fourth largest
proven oil reserves, with 157 billion barrels of crude oil and the
world's second largest proven natural gas reserves with 1,193 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas -- need nuclear power for domestic energy?
“We know that despite the fact that Iran
claims their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, they have
violated the international will, as expressed by various U.N. Security
Council Resolutions, and by deceit, deception and delay advanced their
program to the point of being a threshold nuclear state. It is because
of these facts, and the fact that the world believes that Iran was
weaponizing its nuclear program at the Parchin Military Base -- as well
as developing a covert uranium enrichment facility in Fordow, built deep
inside of a mountain, raising serious doubts about the peaceful nature
of their civilian program, and their sponsorship of state terrorism --
that the world united against Iran's nuclear program.
“In that context, let’s remind ourselves
of the stated purpose of our negotiations with Iran: Simply put, it was
to dismantle all -- or significant parts -- of Iran's illicit nuclear
infrastructure to ensure that it would not have nuclear weapons
capability at any time. Not shrink its infrastructure. Not limit it.
But fully dismantle Iran’s nuclear weapons capability.
“We said we would accommodate Iran's
practical national needs, but not leave the region -- and the world --
facing the threat of a nuclear armed Iran at a time of its choosing. In
essence, we thought the agreement would be roll-back-for-roll-back: you
roll-back your infrastructure and we'll roll-back our sanctions.
“At the end of the day, what we appear to
have is a roll-back of sanctions and Iran only limiting its capability,
but not dismantling it or rolling it back. What do we get? We get an
alarm bell should they decide to violate their commitments, and a system
for inspections to verify their compliance. That, in my view, is a far
cry from ‘dismantling.’
“I recall in the early days of the
Administration's overtures to Iran, asking Secretary of State, John
Kerry, at a meeting of Senators, about dismantling Arak, Iran's
plutonium reactor. His response was swift and certain. He said: ‘They
will either dismantle it or we will destroy it.’
“I remember that our understanding was
that the Fordow facility was to be closed – that it was not necessary
for a peaceful civilian nuclear program to have an underground
enrichment facility. That the Iranians would have to come absolutely
clean about their weaponization activities at Parchin and agree to
promise anytime anywhere inspections.
“We now know all of that fell by the
wayside. But what we cannot dismiss is that we have now abandoned our
long-held policy of preventing nuclear proliferation and are now
embarked – not on preventing nuclear proliferation – but on managing or
containing it -- which leaves us with a far less desirable, less secure,
and less certain world order. So, I am deeply concerned that this is a
significant shift in our nonproliferation policy, and about what it
will mean in terms of a potential arms race in an already dangerous
region.
“While I have many specific concerns
about this agreement, my overarching concern is that it requires no
dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and only mothballs that
infrastructure for 10 years. Not even one centrifuge will be destroyed
under this agreement. Fordow will be repurposed, and Arak redesigned.
“The fact is -- everyone needs to
understand what this agreement does and does not do so that they can
determine whether providing Iran permanent relief in exchange for
short-term promises is a fair trade.
“This deal does not require Iran to
destroy or fully decommission a single uranium enrichment centrifuge.
In fact, over half of Iran’s currently operating centrifuges will
continue to spin at its Natanz facility. The remainder, including more
than 5,000 operating centrifuges and nearly 10,000 not yet functioning,
will merely be disconnected and transferred to another hall at Natanz,
where they could be quickly reinstalled to enrich uranium.
“And yet we, along with our allies, have
agreed to lift the sanctions and allow billions of dollars to flow back
into Iran’s economy. We lift sanctions, but -- even during the first 10
years of the agreement -- Iran will be allowed to continue R&D
activity on a range of centrifuges – allowing them to improve their
effectiveness over the course of the agreement.
“Clearly, the question is: What do we get
from this agreement in terms of what we originally sought? We lift
sanctions, and -- at year eight -- Iran can actually start manufacturing
and testing advanced IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges that enrich up to 15
times the speed of its current models. At year 15, Iran can start
enriching uranium beyond 3.67 percent – the level at which we become
concerned about fissile material for a bomb. At year 15, Iran will have
NO limits on its uranium stockpile.
“This deal grants Iran permanent
sanctions relief in exchange for only temporary – temporary --
limitations on its nuclear program – not a rolling-back, not
dismantlement, but temporary limitations. At year ten, the UN Security
Council Resolution will disappear along with the dispute resolution
mechanism needed to snapback UN sanctions and the 24-day mandatory
access provision for suspicious sites in Iran.
“The deal enshrines for Iran, and in fact
commits the international community to assisting Iran in developing an
industrial-scale nuclear power program, complete with industrial scale
enrichment. While I understand that this program will be subject to
Iran's obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons, I think it fails to appreciate Iran's history of deception in
its nuclear program and its violations of the NPT.
“It will, in the long run, make it much
harder to demonstrate that Iran's program is not in fact being used for
peaceful purposes because Iran will have legitimate reasons to have
advanced centrifuges and a robust enrichment program. We will then have
to demonstrate that its intention is dual-use and not justified by its
industrial nuclear power program.
“What we get in return for removing
sanctions is an inspection and verification regime of Iran's
somewhat-diminished, but still existent nuclear program, for which we
will have to depend on Iranian compliance and performance for years to
come.
“A significant part of that performance
is dictated by an Additional Protocol of the IAEA agreement that ensures
access to suspect sites in a country. But Iran has agreed only to
provisionally apply the Additional Protocol and only formally adopt it
when Congress has abolished all sanctions. This could mean that if Iran
has been sanctioned for violations of the agreement, Iran won’t even
have to seek ratification of the Additional Protocol until those
sanctions have been lifted – regardless of Iran’s full compliance.
“This is hardly an ironclad commitment on
which to base our right to inspect suspicious facilities. Of course if
the Iranians violate the agreement and try to make a dash for a nuclear
bomb, our solace will be that we will have a year's notice instead of
the present 3 months. So in reality we have purchased a very expensive
alarm system. Maybe we’ll have an additional nine months, but with much
greater consequences in the enemy we might face at that time.
“But what happens in the interim? Within
about a year of Iran meeting its initial obligations, Iran will receive
sanctions relief to the tune of $100-150 billion in the release of
frozen assets, as well as renewed oil sales of another million barrels a
day, as well as relief from sectoral sanctions in the petrochemical,
shipping, shipbuilding, port sectors, gold and other precious metals,
and software and automotive sectors.
“Iran will also benefit from the removal
of designated entities including major banks, shipping companies, oil
and gas firms from the U.S. Treasury list of sanctioned entities.
‘Of the nearly 650 entities that have
been designated by the U.S. Treasury for their role in Iran's nuclear
and missile programs or for being controlled by the Government of Iran,
more than 67 percent will be de-listed within 6-12 months,’ according to
testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of Mark
Dubowitz of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
“For Iran, all this relief comes likely within a year, even though its obligations stretch out for a decade or more.
“Considering the fact that it was
President Rouhani, who after conducting his fiscal audit after his
election, likely convinced the Ayatollah that Iran’s regime could not
sustain itself under the sanctions, and knew that only a negotiated
agreement would get Iran the relief it critically needed to sustain the
regime and the revolution, the negotiating leverage was, and still is,
greatly on our side. However, the JCPOA in paragraph 26 of the
Sanctions heading of the agreement, says:
‘The U.S. Administration, acting consistently with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from re-introducing or reimposing sanctions specified in Annex II, that it has ceased applying under this JCPOA.’
‘The U.S. Administration, acting consistently with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from re-introducing or reimposing sanctions specified in Annex II, that it has ceased applying under this JCPOA.’
“I repeat, we will have to refrain from
reintroducing or reimposing the Iran Sanctions Act I authored – which
expires next year -- that acted significantly to bring Iran to the table
in the first place. In two hearings, I asked Treasury Secretary Lew and
Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman whether we have the right to
reauthorize sanctions to have something to snapback to, and neither
would answer the question, saying only that it was ‘too early’ to
discuss reauthorization.
“But, I did get my answer from the Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations who, in a letter dated July 25, 2015, said:
‘It is clearly spelled out in the JCPOA that both the European Union and the United States will refrain from reintroducing or reimposing the sanctions and restrictive measures lifted under the JCPOA. It is understood the reintroduction or reimposition, including through extension of the sanctions and restrictive measures will constitute significant nonperformance which would relieve Iran from its commitments in part or in whole.’
“But, I did get my answer from the Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations who, in a letter dated July 25, 2015, said:
‘It is clearly spelled out in the JCPOA that both the European Union and the United States will refrain from reintroducing or reimposing the sanctions and restrictive measures lifted under the JCPOA. It is understood the reintroduction or reimposition, including through extension of the sanctions and restrictive measures will constitute significant nonperformance which would relieve Iran from its commitments in part or in whole.’
“If anything is a ‘fantasy’ about this
agreement it is the belief that snapback, without
congressionally-mandated sanctions, with EU sanctions gone, and
companies from around the world doing permissible business in Iran, will
have any real effect.
“The Administration cannot argue sanction
policy both ways. Either they were effective in getting Iran to the
negotiating table or they were not. Sanctions are either a deterrent to
break-out, a violation of the agreement, or they are not.
“In retrospect, my one regret throughout
this process is that I did not proceed with the Menendez-Kirk
prospective sanctions legislation that would have provided additional
leverage during the negotiations and would have also provided additional
leverage in any possible post-agreement nullification by them or by us.
“Frankly, in my view, the overall
sanctions relief being provided, given the Iranian’s understanding of
restrictions on the reauthorization of sanctions, along with the lifting
of the arms and missile embargo well before Iranian compliance over
years is established, leaves us in a weak position, and – to me – is
unacceptable.
“As the largest State Sponsor of
Terrorism, Iran – who has exported its revolution to Assad in Syria, the
Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and directed and supported
attacks against American troops in Iraq -- will be flush with money, not
only to invest in their domestic economy, but to further pursue their
destabilizing, hegemonic goals in the region. If Iran can afford to
destabilize the region with an economy staggering under sanctions and
rocked by falling oil prices, what will Iran and the Quds Force do when
they have a cash infusion of more than 20 percent of their GDP -- the
equivalent of an infusion of $3.4 trillion into our economy?
“If there is a fear of war in the region,
it is fueled by Iran and its proxies and exacerbated by an agreement
that allows Iran to possess an industrial-sized nuclear program, and
enough money in sanctions relief to continue to fund its hegemonic
intentions throughout the region. Imagine how a country like the United
Arab Emirates – sitting just miles away from Iran across the straits of
Hormuz feels after they sign a civilian nuclear agreement with the
U.S., considered to be the gold standard, to not enrich or reprocess
uranium? What do our friends think when we give our enemies a pass
while holding them to the gold standard? Who should they trust?
“Which brings me to another major concern
with the JCPOA, namely the issue of Iran coming clean about the
possible military dimensions of its nuclear program. For well over a
decade, the world has been concerned about the secret weaponization
efforts Iran conducted at the military base called Parchin.The goal that
we have long sought, along with the international community, is to know
what Iran accomplished at Parchin -- not necessarily to get Iran to
declare culpability -- but to determine how far along they were in their
nuclear weaponization program so that we know what signatures to look
for in the future.
“David Albright, a physicist and former
nuclear weapons inspector, and founder of the Institute for Science and
International Security, has said, ‘Addressing the IAEA's concerns about
the military dimensions of Iran's nuclear programs is fundamental to any
long term agreement… an agreement that sidesteps the military issues
would risk being unverifiable.’ The reason he says that ‘an agreement
that sidesteps the military issues would be unverifiable,’ is because
it makes a difference if you are 90 percent down the road in your
weaponization efforts or only ten percent advanced. How far advanced
Iran’s weaponizing abilities are has a significant impact on what Iran’s
breakout time to an actual deliverable weapon will be.
“In a report to the U.N. Security
Council, by a panel of experts, established pursuant to U.N. Security
Council Resolution 1929, the experts state The Islamic Republic of Iran
possesses two variants of ballistic missiles that, according to experts,
are believed to be potentially capable of delivering nuclear weapons.
One, the Ghada missile, is a variant of liquid-fuel Shahab-3, with a
range of approximately 1,600km. The other is the solid-fuel Sejil
missile, with a range of about 2,000km. To put that in perspective, the
Ghada missile has a 650 mile range which puts Afghanistan, Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Cyprus, Georgia, India, Iraq, Israel, Jordan,
Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi
Arabia, and Syria, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, the United
Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and Yemen in their sites.
“The Sejil missile has a 1,250 mile rage
which includes Albania, Belarus, Bulgaria, China, Djibouti, Egypt,
Eritrea, Ethiopia, Greece, Hungary, Kosovo, Libya, Macedonia, Moldova,
Nepal, Romania, Serbia, Somalia, and Sudan.
“With so much at stake, the IAEA -- after
waiting over ten years to inspect Parchin, speak to Iranian nuclear
scientists, and review additional materials and documents -- are now
told they will not have direct access to Parchin. The list of
scientists the P5+1 wanted the IAEA to interview were rejected outright
by Iran, and they are now given three months to do all of their review
and analysis before they must deliver a report in December of this
year. How the inspections and soil and other samples are to be
collected are outlined in two secret agreements that the U.S. Congress
is not privy to. The answer as to why we cannot see those documents, is
because they have a confidentiality agreement between the IAEA and
Iran, which they say ‘is customary,’ but this issue is anything but
customary.
“If Iran can violate its obligations for
more than a decade, it can't then be allowed to avail themselves of the
same provisions and protections they violated in the first place. We
have to ask: Why would our negotiators decide to negotiate access to
other IAEA documents, but not these documents? Maybe the reason, as
some members of Congress and public reports have raised, is because it
will be the Iranians and not the IAEA performing the tests and providing
the samples to be analyzed, which would be the equivalent of having an
athlete accused of using performance enhancing drugs submit an
unsupervised urine sample to the appropriate authority. Chain of
custody doesn't matter when the evidence given to you is prepared by the
perpetrator.
“So in five months, we seek to resolve a
major issue that has taken the better part of a decade to have access
to, and with a highly questionable inspection regime as a solution. And,
according to an AP story of August 14th – and I quote:
‘They say the agency will be able to
report in December. But that assessment is unlikely to be unequivocal
because chances are slim that Iran will present all the evidence the
agency wants, or give it the total freedom of movement it needs to
follow-up the allegations. Still, the report is expected to be approved
by the IAEA's board, which includes the United States and other powerful
nations that negotiated the July 14 agreement. They do not want to
upend their July 14 deal, and will see the December report as closing
the books on the issue.’
“It would seem to me that what we are doing is sweeping this critical issue under the rug.
“Secretary Kerry has said that, ‘We have
absolute knowledge with respect to the certain military activities they
were engaged in,’ yet, for years we have insisted on getting access to
Parchin and acquiring the knowledge we need to know.
“General Hayden, the former CIA Director,
said, ‘I'd like to see the DNI or any intelligence office repeat that
for me. They won't. What he is saying is that we don't care how far
they've gotten with weaponization. We're betting the farm on our ability
to limit the production of fissile material.’ Now, if they want to
make that bet, they can, but the Administration should level with us and
not insist revelations of PMD are unimportant. Instead General Hayden
says, ‘he's pretending we have perfect knowledge about something that
was an incredibly tough intelligence target while I was director and I
see nothing that has made it any easier.’
“For me, the administration's willingness
to forgo a critical element of Iran's weaponization -- past and present
-- is inexplicable. Our willingness to accept this process on Parchin
is only exacerbated by the inability to obtain anytime, anywhere
inspections, which the Administration always held out as one of those
essential elements we would insist on and could rely on in any deal.
Instead, we have a dispute resolution mechanism that shifts the burden
of proof to the U.S. and its partners, to provide sensitive
intelligence, possibly revealing our sources and the methods by which we
collected the information and allow the Iranians to delay access for
nearly a month, a delay that would allow them to remove evidence of a
violation, particularly when it comes to centrifuge
research-and-development, and weaponization efforts that can be easily
hidden and would leave little or no signatures.
“The Administration suggests that --
other than Iraq -- no country was subjected to anytime, anywhere
inspections. But Iran's defiance of the world's position, as recognized
in a series of U.N. Security Council Resolutions, does not make it ‘any
other country.’ It is their violations of the NPT and the Security
Council Resolutions that created the necessity for a unique regime and
for anytime, anywhere inspections.
“Mark Dubowitz, the widely-respected sanctions expert from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has said:
‘For Secretary Kerry to claim we have
absolute knowledge of Iran's weaponization activities is to assume a
level of U.S. intelligence capability that defies historical experience.
That's why he, President Obama, Undersecretary Sherman and IAEA chief
Amano all have made PMD resolution such an essential condition of any
nuclear deal.’
“He goes on to say:
‘The U.S. track record in detecting and
stopping countries from going nuclear should make Kerry more modest in
his claims and assumptions. The U.S. missed the Soviet Union, China,
India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. Washington underestimated
Saddam's program in 1990. Then it overestimated his program in 2003 and
went to war to stop a nonexistent WMD program.’
“It is precisely because of this track
record that permitting Iran to have the size and scope of an
industrialized nuclear program, permitted under the JCPOA is one of the
great flaws of the agreement.
“If what President Obama's statement, in
his NPR interview of April 7th, 2015, that ‘a more relevant fear would
be that in year 13, 14, 15 they have advanced centrifuges that enrich
uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point breakout times would have
shrunk almost down to zero’ – is true, then it seems to me that -- in
essence -- this deal does nothing more than kick today's problem down
the road for ten-15 years, and, at the same time, undermines the
arguments and evidence we'll need, because of the dual-use nature of
their program, to convince the Security Council and the international
community to take action.
“President Obama continues to erroneously
say that this agreement permanently stops Iran from having a nuclear
bomb. Let’s be clear, what the agreement does is to recommit Iran not
to pursue a nuclear bomb, a promise they have already violated in the
past. It recommits them to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT),
an agreement they have already violated in the past. It commits them to
a new Security Council Resolution outlining their obligations, but they
have violated those in the past as well.
“So the suggestion of permanence, in this
case, is only possible for so long as Iran complies and performs
according to the agreement because the bottom line is that this
agreement leaves Iran with the core element of a robust nuclear
infrastructure.
“The fact is -- success is not a question
of Iran's conforming and performing according to the agreement. If
that was all that was needed – if Iran had abided by its commitments all
along -- we wouldn't be faced with this challenge now. The test of
success must be -- if Iran violates the agreement and attempts to
break-out -- how well we will be positioned to deal with Iran -- at that
point. Trying to reassemble the sanctions regime, including the time
to give countries and companies notice of sanctionable activity, which
had been permissible up to then, would take-up most of the breakout
time, assuming we could even get compliance after significant national
and private investments had taken place. That indeed would be a
‘fantasy.’
“So the suggestion of ‘permanency’ in
stopping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon depends on ‘performance.’
Based on the long history of Iran's broken promises, defiance and
violations, that is hopeful. Significant dismantlement, however, would
establish ‘performance,’ and therefore eliminating the threat of the
capability to develop a nuclear weapon would truly be permanent, and any
attempt to rebuild that infrastructure would give the world far more
time than one year.
“The President and Secretary Kerry have
repeatedly said that the choice is between this agreement or war. I
reject that proposition, as have most witnesses, including past and
present Administration members involved in the Iran nuclear issue, who
have testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and who
support the deal but reject the binary choice between the agreement or
war.
“If the P5+1 had not achieved an agreement, would we be at war with Iran? I don't believe that.
“For all those who have said they have
not heard -- from anyone who opposes the Agreement – a better solution,
they’re wrong. I believe there is a pathway to a better deal.
“Advocates of the deal argue that a good
deal that would have dismantled critical elements of Iran's nuclear
infrastructure isn’t attainable – that the Iranians were tough
negotiators -- and that despite our massive economic leverage and the
weight of the international community we couldn’t buy more than 10 years
of inspection and verification in exchange for permanent sanctions
relief, and for revoking Iran’s pariah status. I don’t believe that.
“It is difficult to believe that the
world's greatest powers, the U.S., Great Britain, France, Russia, China,
Germany and the European Union, sitting on one side of the table, and
Iran sitting alone on the other side, staggering from sanctions and
rocked by plummeting oil prices, could not have achieved some level of
critical dismantlement.
“I believe we should have insisted on
meeting the requirements we know are necessary to stop Iran from getting
a nuclear weapon today and in ten years, or we should have been
prepared to walk away.
“I believe we could still get a better
deal and here’s how: We can disapprove this agreement, without
rejecting the entire agreement.
“We should direct the Administration to
re-negotiate by authorizing the continuation of negotiations and the
Joint Plan of Action – including Iran’s $700 million-a-month lifeline,
which to date have accrued to Iran's benefit to the tune of $10 billion,
and pausing further reductions of purchases of Iranian oil and other
sanctions pursuant to the original JPOA. I’m even willing to consider
authorizing a sweetener – a one-time release of a predetermined amount
of funds – as a good faith down payment on the negotiations.
“We can provide specific parameters for
the Administration to guide their continued negotiations and ensure that
a new agreement does not run afoul of Congress. A continuation of
talks would allow the re-consideration of just a few, but a critical few
issues, including:
“First, the immediate ratification by
Iran of the Additional Protocol to ensure that we have a permanent
international arrangement with Iran for access to suspect sites.
“Second, a ban on centrifuge R&D for
the duration of the agreement to ensure that Iran won’t have the
capacity to quickly breakout, just as the U.N. Security Council
Resolution and sanctions snapback is off the table.
“Third, close the Fordow enrichment
facility. The sole purpose of Fordow was to harden Iran’s nuclear
program to a military attack. We need to close the facility and
foreclose Iran’s future ability to use this facility. If Iran has
nothing to hide they shouldn’t need to put it under a mountain.
“Fourth, the full resolution of the
‘possible military dimensions’ of Iran’s program. We need an arrangement
that isn’t set up to whitewash this issue. Iran and the IAEA must
resolve the issue before permanent sanctions relief, and failure of Iran
to cooperate with a comprehensive review should result in automatic
sanctions snapback.
“Fifth, extend the duration of the
agreement. One of the single most concerning elements of the deal is its
10-15 year sunset of restrictions on Iran’s program, with off ramps
starting after year eight. We were promised an agreement of significant
duration and we got less than half of what we are looking for. Iran
should have to comply for as long as they deceived the world's position,
so at least 20 years.
“And sixth, we need agreement now about
what penalties will be collectively imposed by the P5+1 for Iranian
violations, both small and midsized, as well as a clear statement as to
the so-called grandfather clause in paragraph 37 of the JCPOA, to ensure
that the U.S. position about not shielding contracts entered into
legally upon re-imposition of sanctions is shared by our allies.
“At the same time we should: Extend the
authorization of the Iran Sanctions Act which expires in 2016 to ensure
that we have an effective snapback option; Consider licensing the
strategic export of American oil to allied countries struggling with
supply because Iranian oil remains off the market; Immediately implement
the security measures offered to our partners in the Gulf Summit at
Camp David, while preserving Israel's qualitative military edge.
“The President should unequivocally
affirm and Congress should formally endorse a Declaration of U.S. Policy
that we will use all means necessary to prevent Iran from producing
enough enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb, as well as building or
buying one, both during and after any agreement. We should authorize
now the means for Israel to address the Iranian threat on their own in
the event that Iran accelerates its program and to counter Iranian
perceptions that our own threat to use force is not credible. And we
should make it absolutely clear that we want a deal, but we want the
right deal -- and that a deal that does nothing more than delay the
inevitable isn’t a deal we will make.
“We must send a message to Iran that
neither their regional behavior nor nuclear ambitions are permissible.
If we push back regionally, they will be less likely to test the limits
of our tolerance towards any violation of a nuclear agreement.
“The agreement that has been reached
failed to achieve the one thing it set out to achieve – it failed to
stop Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state at a time of its
choosing. In fact, it authorizes and supports the very road map Iran
will need to arrive at its target.
“I know that the Administration will say
that our P5+1 partners will not follow us, that the sanctions regime
will collapse and that they will allow Iran to proceed, as if they
weren't worried about Iran crossing the nuclear- weapons capability
threshold. I heard similar arguments from Secretary Kerry, when he was
Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, as well as Assistant
Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, Assistant Secretary of Treasury David
Cohen and others, when I was leading the charge to impose new sanctions
on Iran.
“That didn't happen then and I don't believe it will happen now. Despite what some of our P5+1 Ambassadors have said in trying to rally support for the agreement, and echoing the Administration's admonition, that it is a take it or leave it proposition, our P5+1 partners will still be worried about Iran's nuclear weapon desires and the capability to achieve it. They, and the businesses from their countries, and elsewhere, will truly care more about their ability to do business in a U.S. economy of $17 trillion than an Iranian economy of $415 billion. The importance of that economic relationship is palpable as we negotiate TTIP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement.
“That didn't happen then and I don't believe it will happen now. Despite what some of our P5+1 Ambassadors have said in trying to rally support for the agreement, and echoing the Administration's admonition, that it is a take it or leave it proposition, our P5+1 partners will still be worried about Iran's nuclear weapon desires and the capability to achieve it. They, and the businesses from their countries, and elsewhere, will truly care more about their ability to do business in a U.S. economy of $17 trillion than an Iranian economy of $415 billion. The importance of that economic relationship is palpable as we negotiate TTIP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement.
“At this juncture it is important to note
that, as an AP story acknowledged, over history, Congress has rejected
outright or demanded changes to more than 200 treaties and international
agreements, including 80 that were multilateral.
“Whether or not the supporters of the
agreement admit it, this deal is based on ‘hope’-- hope that when the
nuclear sunset clause expires Iran will have succumbed to the benefits
of commerce and global integration. Hope that the hardliners will have
lost their power and the revolution will end its hegemonic goals. And
hope that the regime will allow the Iranian people to decide their fate.
“Hope is part of human nature, but unfortunately it is not a national security strategy.
“The Iranian regime, led by the
Ayatollah, wants above all to preserve the regime and its Revolution,
unlike the Green Revolution of 2009. So it stretches incredulity to
believe they signed on to a deal that would in any way weaken the regime
or threaten the goals of the Revolution.
“I understand that this deal represents a
trade-off, a hope that things may be different in Iran in ten-15
years. Maybe Iran will desist from its nuclear ambitions. Maybe
they'll stop exporting and supporting terrorism. Maybe they'll stop
holding innocent Americans hostage. Maybe they'll stop burning American
flags. And maybe their leadership will stop chanting, “Death to
America" in the streets of Tehran. Or maybe they won't.
“I know that, in many respects, it would
be far easier to support this deal, as it would have been to vote for
the war in Iraq at the time. But I didn't choose the easier path then,
and I’m not going to now. I know that the editorial pages that support
the agreement would be far kinder, if I voted yes, but they largely also
supported the agreement that brought us a nuclear North Korea.
“At moments like this, I am reminded of the passage in John F. Kennedy's book, ‘Profile in Courage,’ where he wrote:
"’The true democracy, living and growing
and inspiring, puts its faith in the people - faith that the people will
not simply elect men who will represent their views ably and
faithfully, but will also elect men (and I would parenthetically add
woman) who will exercise their conscientious judgment - faith that the
people will not condemn those whose devotion to principle leads them to
unpopular courses, but will reward courage, respect honor, and
ultimately recognize right.’
He said:
“‘In whatever arena in life one may meet
the challenges of courage, whatever may be the sacrifices he faces if he
follows his conscience - the loss of his friends, his fortune, his
contentment, even the esteem of his fellow men - each man must decide
for himself the course he will follow. The stories of past courage can
define that ingredient - they can teach, they can offer hope, they can
provide inspiration. But they cannot supply courage itself. For this
each man must look into his own soul.’
“I have looked into my own soul and my
devotion to principle may once again lead me to an unpopular course, but
if Iran is to acquire a nuclear bomb, it will not have my name on it.
“It is for these reasons that I will vote to disapprove the agreement and, if called upon, would vote to override a veto.
“Thank you. May God Bless these United States of America.”
###
Supermarkets milk the system for all it’s worth
This is a repost from Great Britain's Socialist Worker:
For several weeks dairy farmers have
been emptying shelves, blockading distribution centres and even bringing
cows to protest inside supermarkets.
They are right to be angry at retail bosses cutting the prices they receive for supplying milk. But they are wrong to suggest we should pay higher prices.
Increasing the price of milk in supermarkets passes the blame for the crisis of the food system onto working class people so that dairy farmers can boost their income.
Average household expenditure has been falling since 2006. We can’t afford to pay more for food.
The blame really lies with the large-scale retailers that have increasingly dominated control over the food sector.
Four firms dominate the sector with over 80 percent of the market share.
They invested in new large formats to dominate the market and boost profits.
Control
And they sought to maintain this control by expanding into non-food and internet retailing.
So Tesco sold food, clothes, electrical goods and even insurance, before becoming Britain’s largest internet retailer.
The food retailers also sought to generate more profits by expanding into global markets. New firms entered the market to gain a share of these profits.
The world’s largest retailer Walmart bought Asda in 1999.
And European multinationals Aldi and Lidl competed over price.
But profit margins have been continually under threat—resulting in repeated crises within the food sector.
One response by the retailers has been to put pressure on suppliers to lower prices.
Repeated food scandals have been created by this squeeze in prices paid to suppliers.
Large multinational food producers and smaller scale producers, particularly in the livestock industry, took dangerous shortcuts to maintain profits.
The result was that shoppers bought products infected with the deadly BSE disease, and more recently why drug-tainted horsemeat was passed off as beef.
One reason why the National Farmers Union (NFU) promotes demands for higher food prices is because they seek to speak for big business in farming.
The NFU is not a trade union—it is a lobby group of big business.
Class
It ignores the fact that there is a strong class distinction within the farming industry.
Over a third of farmland is farmed by tenant farmers with little control over their farming.
Large, absent landowners simply seek to generate rent from their land, irrespective of the longer term implications for the food production system.
As a result there is little incentive to farm sustainably within British farming.
Only by direct subsidies can farmers be persuaded to stop destructive practices.
That means we end up paying high prices for food through direct payments in our shops, as well as indirectly through payments to large landowners.
The answer to the crisis is greater control and regulation of the food production industry—not making consumers pay still higher prices to big businesses.
Instead of protests for increasing milk prices, farmers’ protests should call for nationalisation of the food industry and higher wages for working class people.
Supermarkets milk the system for all it’s worth
Carlo Morelli explains how milk is both too cheap for farmers and too expensive for us, thanks to retail bosses skimming off profits
Still from video of farmers' milk protest
They are right to be angry at retail bosses cutting the prices they receive for supplying milk. But they are wrong to suggest we should pay higher prices.
Increasing the price of milk in supermarkets passes the blame for the crisis of the food system onto working class people so that dairy farmers can boost their income.
Average household expenditure has been falling since 2006. We can’t afford to pay more for food.
The blame really lies with the large-scale retailers that have increasingly dominated control over the food sector.
Four firms dominate the sector with over 80 percent of the market share.
They invested in new large formats to dominate the market and boost profits.
Control
And they sought to maintain this control by expanding into non-food and internet retailing.
So Tesco sold food, clothes, electrical goods and even insurance, before becoming Britain’s largest internet retailer.
The food retailers also sought to generate more profits by expanding into global markets. New firms entered the market to gain a share of these profits.
The world’s largest retailer Walmart bought Asda in 1999.
And European multinationals Aldi and Lidl competed over price.
But profit margins have been continually under threat—resulting in repeated crises within the food sector.
One response by the retailers has been to put pressure on suppliers to lower prices.
Repeated food scandals have been created by this squeeze in prices paid to suppliers.
Large multinational food producers and smaller scale producers, particularly in the livestock industry, took dangerous shortcuts to maintain profits.
The result was that shoppers bought products infected with the deadly BSE disease, and more recently why drug-tainted horsemeat was passed off as beef.
One reason why the National Farmers Union (NFU) promotes demands for higher food prices is because they seek to speak for big business in farming.
The NFU is not a trade union—it is a lobby group of big business.
Class
It ignores the fact that there is a strong class distinction within the farming industry.
Over a third of farmland is farmed by tenant farmers with little control over their farming.
Large, absent landowners simply seek to generate rent from their land, irrespective of the longer term implications for the food production system.
As a result there is little incentive to farm sustainably within British farming.
Only by direct subsidies can farmers be persuaded to stop destructive practices.
That means we end up paying high prices for food through direct payments in our shops, as well as indirectly through payments to large landowners.
The answer to the crisis is greater control and regulation of the food production industry—not making consumers pay still higher prices to big businesses.
Instead of protests for increasing milk prices, farmers’ protests should call for nationalisation of the food industry and higher wages for working class people.
Webb on Opposition to Nuclear Deal: Iran Gains Greater Balance of Power in Middle East
This is from Jim Webb's 2016 campaign website (he is seeking the Democratic Party's presidential nomination):
Webb on Opposition to Nuclear Deal: Iran Gains Greater Balance of Power in Middle East
- See more at:
https://www.webb2016.com/uncategorized/webb-on-opposition-to-nuclear-deal-iran-gains-greater-balance-of-power-in-middle-east/#sthash.bAeQfVyN.dpuf
- See more at:
https://www.webb2016.com/uncategorized/webb-on-opposition-to-nuclear-deal-iran-gains-greater-balance-of-power-in-middle-east/#sthash.bAeQfVyN.dpuf
- See more at:
https://www.webb2016.com/uncategorized/webb-on-opposition-to-nuclear-deal-iran-gains-greater-balance-of-power-in-middle-east/#sthash.bAeQfVyN.dpuf
- See more at:
https://www.webb2016.com/uncategorized/webb-on-opposition-to-nuclear-deal-iran-gains-greater-balance-of-power-in-middle-east/#sthash.bAeQfVyN.dpuf
- See more at:
https://www.webb2016.com/uncategorized/webb-on-opposition-to-nuclear-deal-iran-gains-greater-balance-of-power-in-middle-east/#sthash.bAeQfVyN.dpuf
Webb on Opposition to Nuclear Deal: Iran Gains Greater Balance of Power in Middle East
Democratic presidential candidate and former Sen. Jim Webb (D., Va.) said Friday that he opposed the Iran nuclear deal for, among other reasons, giving the rogue regime a greater balance of power in a fragile region.
“The danger in the Iran agreement is in what it does not address, other than nuclear issues, that allows Iran to continue to gain a greater balance of the power in a very fragile region,” Webb said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “It affects Israel. It affects the Sunni countries.”
Webb noted he voted against the Iraq War while he was in the Senate because he felt it would shift too much influence to Iran. This flies against the White House’s continued insistence that foes of the deal all supported the Iraq War. President Obama has also claimed the only alternative to the agreement is eventual warfare, an opinion not shared by top military experts.
Democratic
presidential candidate and former Sen. Jim Webb (D., Va.) said Friday
that he opposed the Iran nuclear deal for, among other reasons, giving
the rogue regime a greater balance of power in a fragile region.
“The danger in the Iran agreement is in what it does not address, other than nuclear issues, that allows Iran to continue to gain a greater balance of the power in a very fragile region,” Webb said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “It affects Israel. It affects the Sunni countries.”
Webb noted he voted against the Iraq War while he was in the Senate because he felt it would shift too much influence to Iran. This flies against the White House’s continued insistence that foes of the deal all supported the Iraq War. President Obama has also claimed the only alternative to the agreement is eventual warfare, an opinion not shared by top military experts.
- See more at: https://www.webb2016.com/uncategorized/webb-on-opposition-to-nuclear-deal-iran-gains-greater-balance-of-power-in-middle-east/#sthash.bAeQfVyN.dpuf
“The danger in the Iran agreement is in what it does not address, other than nuclear issues, that allows Iran to continue to gain a greater balance of the power in a very fragile region,” Webb said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “It affects Israel. It affects the Sunni countries.”
Webb noted he voted against the Iraq War while he was in the Senate because he felt it would shift too much influence to Iran. This flies against the White House’s continued insistence that foes of the deal all supported the Iraq War. President Obama has also claimed the only alternative to the agreement is eventual warfare, an opinion not shared by top military experts.
- See more at: https://www.webb2016.com/uncategorized/webb-on-opposition-to-nuclear-deal-iran-gains-greater-balance-of-power-in-middle-east/#sthash.bAeQfVyN.dpuf
Webb on Opposition to Nuclear Deal: Iran Gains Greater Balance of Power in Middle East
Democratic
presidential candidate and former Sen. Jim Webb (D., Va.) said Friday
that he opposed the Iran nuclear deal for, among other reasons, giving
the rogue regime a greater balance of power in a fragile region.
“The danger in the Iran agreement is in what it does not address, other than nuclear issues, that allows Iran to continue to gain a greater balance of the power in a very fragile region,” Webb said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “It affects Israel. It affects the Sunni countries.”
Webb noted he voted against the Iraq War while he was in the Senate because he felt it would shift too much influence to Iran. This flies against the White House’s continued insistence that foes of the deal all supported the Iraq War. President Obama has also claimed the only alternative to the agreement is eventual warfare, an opinion not shared by top military experts.
“The danger in the Iran agreement is in what it does not address, other than nuclear issues, that allows Iran to continue to gain a greater balance of the power in a very fragile region,” Webb said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “It affects Israel. It affects the Sunni countries.”
Webb noted he voted against the Iraq War while he was in the Senate because he felt it would shift too much influence to Iran. This flies against the White House’s continued insistence that foes of the deal all supported the Iraq War. President Obama has also claimed the only alternative to the agreement is eventual warfare, an opinion not shared by top military experts.
Webb on Opposition to Nuclear Deal: Iran Gains Greater Balance of Power in Middle East
Democratic
presidential candidate and former Sen. Jim Webb (D., Va.) said Friday
that he opposed the Iran nuclear deal for, among other reasons, giving
the rogue regime a greater balance of power in a fragile region.
“The danger in the Iran agreement is in what it does not address, other than nuclear issues, that allows Iran to continue to gain a greater balance of the power in a very fragile region,” Webb said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “It affects Israel. It affects the Sunni countries.”
Webb noted he voted against the Iraq War while he was in the Senate because he felt it would shift too much influence to Iran. This flies against the White House’s continued insistence that foes of the deal all supported the Iraq War. President Obama has also claimed the only alternative to the agreement is eventual warfare, an opinion not shared by top military experts.
“The danger in the Iran agreement is in what it does not address, other than nuclear issues, that allows Iran to continue to gain a greater balance of the power in a very fragile region,” Webb said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “It affects Israel. It affects the Sunni countries.”
Webb noted he voted against the Iraq War while he was in the Senate because he felt it would shift too much influence to Iran. This flies against the White House’s continued insistence that foes of the deal all supported the Iraq War. President Obama has also claimed the only alternative to the agreement is eventual warfare, an opinion not shared by top military experts.
Webb on Opposition to Nuclear Deal: Iran Gains Greater Balance of Power in Middle East
Democratic
presidential candidate and former Sen. Jim Webb (D., Va.) said Friday
that he opposed the Iran nuclear deal for, among other reasons, giving
the rogue regime a greater balance of power in a fragile region.
“The danger in the Iran agreement is in what it does not address, other than nuclear issues, that allows Iran to continue to gain a greater balance of the power in a very fragile region,” Webb said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “It affects Israel. It affects the Sunni countries.”
Webb noted he voted against the Iraq War while he was in the Senate because he felt it would shift too much influence to Iran. This flies against the White House’s continued insistence that foes of the deal all supported the Iraq War. President Obama has also claimed the only alternative to the agreement is eventual warfare, an opinion not shared by top military experts.
“The danger in the Iran agreement is in what it does not address, other than nuclear issues, that allows Iran to continue to gain a greater balance of the power in a very fragile region,” Webb said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “It affects Israel. It affects the Sunni countries.”
Webb noted he voted against the Iraq War while he was in the Senate because he felt it would shift too much influence to Iran. This flies against the White House’s continued insistence that foes of the deal all supported the Iraq War. President Obama has also claimed the only alternative to the agreement is eventual warfare, an opinion not shared by top military experts.
Webb on Opposition to Nuclear Deal: Iran Gains Greater Balance of Power in Middle East
Democratic
presidential candidate and former Sen. Jim Webb (D., Va.) said Friday
that he opposed the Iran nuclear deal for, among other reasons, giving
the rogue regime a greater balance of power in a fragile region.
“The danger in the Iran agreement is in what it does not address, other than nuclear issues, that allows Iran to continue to gain a greater balance of the power in a very fragile region,” Webb said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “It affects Israel. It affects the Sunni countries.”
Webb noted he voted against the Iraq War while he was in the Senate because he felt it would shift too much influence to Iran. This flies against the White House’s continued insistence that foes of the deal all supported the Iraq War. President Obama has also claimed the only alternative to the agreement is eventual warfare, an opinion not shared by top military experts.
“The danger in the Iran agreement is in what it does not address, other than nuclear issues, that allows Iran to continue to gain a greater balance of the power in a very fragile region,” Webb said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “It affects Israel. It affects the Sunni countries.”
Webb noted he voted against the Iraq War while he was in the Senate because he felt it would shift too much influence to Iran. This flies against the White House’s continued insistence that foes of the deal all supported the Iraq War. President Obama has also claimed the only alternative to the agreement is eventual warfare, an opinion not shared by top military experts.
Webb on Opposition to Nuclear Deal: Iran Gains Greater Balance of Power in Middle East
Democratic
presidential candidate and former Sen. Jim Webb (D., Va.) said Friday
that he opposed the Iran nuclear deal for, among other reasons, giving
the rogue regime a greater balance of power in a fragile region.
“The danger in the Iran agreement is in what it does not address, other than nuclear issues, that allows Iran to continue to gain a greater balance of the power in a very fragile region,” Webb said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “It affects Israel. It affects the Sunni countries.”
Webb noted he voted against the Iraq War while he was in the Senate because he felt it would shift too much influence to Iran. This flies against the White House’s continued insistence that foes of the deal all supported the Iraq War. President Obama has also claimed the only alternative to the agreement is eventual warfare, an opinion not shared by top military experts.
“The danger in the Iran agreement is in what it does not address, other than nuclear issues, that allows Iran to continue to gain a greater balance of the power in a very fragile region,” Webb said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “It affects Israel. It affects the Sunni countries.”
Webb noted he voted against the Iraq War while he was in the Senate because he felt it would shift too much influence to Iran. This flies against the White House’s continued insistence that foes of the deal all supported the Iraq War. President Obama has also claimed the only alternative to the agreement is eventual warfare, an opinion not shared by top military experts.