Paul is doing too well and there are many reasons besides his uncanny ability to raise lots of money and a spooky, devoted blind following. He is one of the best spokesmen for libertarianism out there and people are tired of what the status quo two party system has been bringing to the table. He preaches small government and fiscal conservatism and has a record to back it up and that is the appeal to many people.

His anti-war and irresponsible isolationist philosphy on foreign policy is appealing to many independents and democrats weary of war. As a matter of fact more Democrats voted for Ron Paul in New Hampshire than Republicans. He got 24% of the Democrat vote, 32% of the independent vote, and only 16% of the Republican vote. Huntsman got 41% of the Democrat vote! I guess appealing to all parties is important in the general election, but there is no way it will make much of a difference against Obama.

The bottom line is that Ron Paul, as right as he is on many issues, has a dangerous foreign policy position that everyone needs to study closely before jumping in and pulling the lever for him. He also has a lot of fringe baggage. Just so it’s all out in the open while his popularity is pulling votes away from other conservatives….there is a case against Ron Paul.

He may be worse than Obama on foreign policy. He is an isolationist that would allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons. That is a big deal. Remember that the leaders of Iran are insane and have repeated several times how they would wipe Israel off the map. Ron Paul blames America first, and as a matter of fact has blamed America for the 911 attacks while courting 911 conspiracy nuts. There is also the racist publications published under his name. Fair or not, don’t think that won’t come up in the general election running against the first black president.

If his magnet to fringe isn’t enough, then take a careful look at his foreign policy. First off, he doesn’t want a border fence because it could be used to “keep us in”. He uses arguments of moral equivalency as the foundation to his isolationist views. I understand that Viet Nam and Iraq were unpopular wars and I understand people weary of America’s interventionalism, but not all interventions are unnecessary. What would the world be like if America had not intervened against Hitler? What if we didn’t contain Communism? Standing by and doing nothing but talk and appease while allowing evil to play by its own rules is a recipe for disaster.

Rich Lowry has a good summary of some of Paul’s views:

In the debate, Paul went on to warn against a push “to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims,” as if a country that has resorted to force of arms to save Muslims from starvation (Somalia), from ethnic cleansing (Bosnia, Kosovo) and from brutal dictators (Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) is bristling with an undifferentiated hostility toward all Muslims.

This isn’t an expression of an anti-interventionism so much as a smear. It goes beyond opposition to American foreign policy to a poisonous view of America itself.

Paul never knows when to stop. He lets his suspicion of centralized power slip into paranoia worthy of a second-rate Hollywood thriller about government malevolence. In January 2010, he declared: “There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military.”

On his latest appearance on the radio show of the conspiracy-mongering host Alex Jones, he opined that the alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador on US soil was “another propaganda stunt.” He exclaimed that the latest defense bill authorizing the indefinite detention of enemy combatants will “literally legalize martial law” (yes, “literally”).

Check out what a former staffer of his has to say:

Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.

There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:

Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.

He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.

The majority of Republicans and Americans in general will not get behind Ron Paul. He is too fringe and too radical. So as far as Ron Paul asking everyone else to get out so he can beat Romney, I think he should be the one dropping out. I don’t like Romney, but I’d rather vote for him than take a risk with Ron Paul’s foreign policy.

Ron Paul is a pure, absolutist libertarian extremist with a dangerous isolationist foreign policy. He may be right on some things, but not on everything (foreign policy for sure). If the only issue important to you is the legalization of drugs then vote for Ron Paul. If you think foreign policy is even a little important pick someone else.

Doug Mataconis says last night was Paul’s high mark. I agree, but he is still sucking votes away from other non-Romney candidates and while he should drop out I think we all know he won’t. So, perhaps someone else should so the votes for “other than Romney” are not so divided up. I pray South Carolina shakes things up for this race, and I pray Ron Paul doesn’t run third party in the general.

And Curt, please…you are scaring me.

Update: More insane positions from Ron Paul:

Other than abortion, there is no particular on which Ron Paul differs with either libertarianism or the Libertarian Party. Like them, he would legalize hard drugs and abolish age of consent laws, which violate the rights of 24-year-olds to have sex with 14-year-olds.

(Fox News) Iran has begun uranium enrichment at a new underground site well protected from possible airstrikes, a leading hardline newspaper reported Sunday.

The announcement came as another newspaper quoted a senior commander in the country’s powerful Revolutionary Guard as saying that Tehran’s leadership has decided to order the closure of the strategic Strait of Hormuz if the country’s oil exports are blocked.

Tehran says it only seeks reactors for energy and research, and refuses to halt its uranium enrichment activities.

Kayhan daily, which is close to Iran’s ruling clerics, said Tehran has begun injecting uranium gas into sophisticated centrifuges at the Fordo facility near the holy city of Qom.

“Kayhan received reports yesterday that show Iran has begun uranium enrichment at the Fordo facility amid heightened foreign enemy threats,” the paper said in a front-page report. Kayhan’s manager is a representative of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

True or not true, that is one of the questions. The other is, if they haven’t started yet, when will they start? And what will they do with the materials? Quite frankly, I think the US and EU missed a big opportunity to make sure that the nuclear program would simply be for energy production. Both the Bush and Obama administrations could have said, along with the EU and other members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty “oh, sure, hey, we can help you with that, as the NPT lays out, and, since Iran is a signatory of the treaty, we will help you build a nuclear power plant (that is incapable of producing weapons grade material, that will be monitored physically, and will have all sorts of hidden fail-safes that you will not see and would never be able to remove).” Iran would have had the choice to accept and show that they were truly using the reactor for peaceful purposes, or reject the offer and show that they really do want nuclear weapons.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(NY Times) A senior Iranian official on Tuesday delivered a sharp threat in response to economic sanctions being readied by the United States, saying his country would retaliate against any crackdown by blocking all oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery for transporting about one-fifth of the world’s oil supply.

The declaration by Iran’s first vice president, Mohammad-Reza Rahimi, came as President Obama prepares to sign legislation that, if fully implemented, could substantially reduce Iran’s oil revenue in a bid to deter it from pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Now, I don’t blame Obama for attempting to get tough on Iran, if you call sanctions, which typically end up hurting the common people, rather than the rulers, tough. But, I do find it interesting that Iran has so little fear of an Obama led America that they would make these threats. It’ll be interesting to see if this affects the oil markets today.

Also, if only there were alternative oil sources on US soil and right off-shore, along with right across the border with our friend to the north. Alas, we apparently have no oil sources domestically at all, and have to rely solely on the wind blowing and the sun shining for power.

Prior to the latest move, the administration had been laying the groundwork to attempt to cut off Iran from global energy markets without raising the price of gasoline or alienating some of Washington’s closest allies.

And there is the problem with much of liberal led government: “laying the ground work to attempt…” It’s the politics of “we’ll talk about creating a plan to actually eventually make a plan.” They aren’t actually Doing Something.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

The Republican presidential primary has become a bit feisty, but it will get downright ugly if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses.

The principled, antiwar, Constitution-obeying, Fed-hating, libertarian Republican congressman from Texas stands firmly outside the bounds of permissible dissent as drawn by either the Republican establishment or the mainstream media. (Disclosure: Paul wrote the foreword to my 2009 book.)

Carney then goes on to compare what would happen to Paul to what Pat Buchanan went through when he won Iowa in 1996, even mentioning things like the racism and anti-semitism Buchanan was accused of, some of which was real, some of which was way overboard.

In Paul’s favor, he holds to the professed principles of his party. He makes Republicans look bad by firmly opposing overspending and the unconstitutional expansion of federal power. He correctly predicted the troubles that would be caused by housing subsidies and the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

See? He’s the only Real Republican In The World®.

Paul is also disliked for his foreign policy. His non-interventionism has provoked clashes with the party elites, but it resonates with a growing number of Republicans who have grown tired of endless war and nation building that doesn’t seem to serve American interests. But Paul regularly goes too far for even these voters, criticizing the killing of al Qaeda leaders and at times sounding like he agrees with Iran’s grievances against the United States.

Paul does have some fantastic idea. And then he turns the amp up to 11 and turns people off. And when one goes on Iran’s government owned Press TV, one is siding with Iran (in that case, he was criticizing Israel).

But neither his establishment-irritating adherence to principle, nor his hawk-angering foreign policy, will be the focus of the anti-Paul attacks should he carry Iowa. His conservative critics and the mainstream media will imply that he is a racist, a kook, and a conspiracy theorist.

Paul’s indiscretions — such as abiding 9/11 conspiracy theorists and allowing racist material in a newsletter published under his name — will be blown up to paint a scary caricature. His belief in state’s rights and property rights will be distorted into support for Jim Crow and racism.

Is it possible to have a scary caricature of racism and 9/11 Trutherism? All the liberal media, mentioned by Carney earlier in the article in relation to Buchanan, would have to do is have the Ron Paul quote of the day. There’s no scary caricature, there’s simply what Ron Paul has written, what he has said, and the people he hangs with. What was written in the newsletters owned and published by Ron Paul, which he made lots of money on (at least a million dollars in 1993 alone)? James Kirchick at The Weekly Standard points out

“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks,” read a typical article from the June 1992 “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism,” a supplement to the Ron Paul Political Report. Racial apocalypse was the most persistent theme of the newsletters; a 1990 issue warned of “The Coming Race War,” and an article the following year about disturbances in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., was entitled “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” Paul alleged that Martin Luther King Jr., “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” had also “seduced underage girls and boys.” The man who would later proclaim King a “hero” attacked Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, complaining, “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”

No conspiracy theory was too outlandish for Paul’s endorsement. One newsletter reported on the heretofore unknown phenomenon of “Needlin’,” in which “gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14” roamed the streets of New York and injected white women with possibly HIV-infected syringes. Another newsletter warned that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” a strange claim for a physician to make.

Now, imagine those quotes showing up on the network evening news. Are they “scary caricatures”? Or simply the ramblings of a racist and conspiracy theorist? Said newsletters also included high praise and advice for the more extremist militia groups, as well as anti-Israel and anti-Jew propaganda. One newsletter wondered whether the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was a Mossad setup, as a “Jewish friend of his wondered”.

Paul appears regularly on Alex Jones’ conspiracy theory radio, including an appearance last week, where he discussed the National Defense Authorizations Act, giving more credence to the conspiracies that Americans would be arrested by the military and put in indefinite detention. “This is a giant step – this should be the biggest news going right now – literally legalizing martial law” Paul said.

You name the conspiracy, Paul is a part of it. He never divorces himself from the kookier fringe elements who follow him. You know I am not a Paul fan. I’m not a fan of Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry, either. There’s a difference, though. With Newt, he would be portrayed as a Washington insider, a politician! with lots of different and changing positions, a panderer. Perry, as an evangelical leader who is dumb. These are things that can be overcome. Try overcoming racist writings and conspiracy talk, blame America positions, hating Israel, and Iran coddling. And that’s before even touching on his policy positions.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(Des Moines Register) Sobriety, wisdom and judgment.

Those are qualities Mitt Romney said he looks for in a leader. Those are qualities Romney himself has demonstrated in his career in business, public service and government. Those qualities help the former Massachusetts governor stand out as the most qualified Republican candidate competing in the Iowa caucuses.

Sobriety: While other candidates have pandered to extremes with attacks on the courts and sermons on Christian values, Romney has pointedly refrained from reckless rhetoric and moralizing. He may be accused of being too cautious, but choosing words carefully is a skill essential for anyone who could be sitting in the White House and reacting to world events.

Wisdom: Romney obviously is very smart. He graduated as valedictorian at Brigham Young University and finished in the top 5 percent in his MBA class at Harvard, where he also earned a law degree. Romney also exhibits the wisdom of a man who listened and learned from his father and his mother, from his church and from his own trials and errors in life. He does not lack self confidence, but he is not afraid to admit when he has been wrong.

Judgment: Romney disagrees with Democrats on most issues, but he offers smart and well-reasoned alternatives rather than simply proposing to swing a wrecking ball in Washington. He is a serious student of public policy who examines the data before making a decision. His detailed policy paper on the economy contains 87 pages of carefully crafted positions on taxes, energy, trade and regulatory policy, complete with 127 footnotes.

It’s a long piece, and it should be noted that not only did they pay attention to all the candidates, their speeches, their debates, their history, but they also interviewed them (except for Huntsman).

Bachmann: Overall impression: An impressive fireball who can absorb and regurgitate tons of information, even if some of it turns out to be inaccurate.

Newt: Overall impression: Between the books he’s read and the books he’s written, Gingrich juggles endless ideas, but he has yet to make the case he could focus his attention on the important ones.

Crazy Uncle Ron: He insists these principles he’s held for 30 years make him the only true Republican. (You know, like dropping pork into bills then voting against them so he can say he doesn’t vote for pork, blaming the US for 9/11, taking money from neo-Nazi’s, hating Israel, taking Iran’s side against the US – all Republican ideas or something)

Perry: Overall impression: After some debate stumbles, he asks voters to take a second look, but it may take more than that. (Perhaps if Rick would stop speaking in simplistic soundbites and offer some real world policies, rather than unrealistic unicorn droppings)

Santorum: Overall impression: He’d use the presidential bully pulpit to be the nation’s minister-in-chief.

Now it’s down to the voting.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

….but even if he didn’t write them himself, he published them under his own byline, and made a profit on them. As for them being 20 years old, well, you judge whether people will dismiss them as old news when Team Obama starts rolling out a Ron Paul Quote of the Day from the convention to the election.

When primary time comes along, it becomes 30 second sound bite time even more than normal. Just try to explain to the average voter, who doesn’t pay that much attention to politics, the nuances of those statements in a short time. They won’t believe the spin. They won’t buy it. They also won’t buy comments like this, which Ron Paul made on the 14th of December at a town hall, via The Right Scoop (which has the video)

How would I deal with the threat or the so-called threat of the Iranians, that they are going to disrupt the oil supply?

Well I’d be provoking them a lot less because they’re reacting to the provoking of the West saying “we’re gonna put on sanctions”. We have them surrounded with nuclear weapons and we’re claiming that they’re gonna build a nuclear weapon and there’s no evidence for this.

So we’re just looking for trouble. We’re building the war propaganda against Iran just as we did against Iraq.

Got that? Poor little old Iran is just looking to defend itself with military action against the mean old USA from the threat of …… sanctions. Oh, and Iran is building a nuclear bomb because the US and other nations have put sanctions on Iran. A little bit of Paul nuttiness.

But, wait, it gets better. Let’s jump in the wayback machine with Mr. Peabody, shall we?

See that guy in the middle? His name is Don Black. Why is this important? He’s the founder of Stormfront, a notorious neo-Nazi “white power” website. Paul supporters have tried to explain that away. Good luck with that if he is the GOP nominee for the General Election, when Team Obama, his surrogates, Democrats, and 90% of the media is giving us 30 second stories on it.

Oh, and then there’s this from 12/19/2007

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist, and the Texas congressman doesn’t plan to return it, an aide said Wednesday.

Don Black, of West Palm Beach, recently made the donation, according to campaign filings. He runs a Web site called Stormfront with the motto, “White Pride World Wide.” The site welcomes postings to the “Stormfront White Nationalist Community.”

Good luck explaining that away during a General Election with an opponent who is half Black. Stormfront backed Ron Paul, and directed members to donate to the Paul 2008 campaign.

Michael Medved had an open letter to Ron Paul back in 2007

Dear Congressman Paul:

Your Presidential campaign has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 “Truthers” and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.

Do you welcome- or repudiate – the support of such factions?

Much more to the letter, one which Dr. Paul failed to answer.

The links to those people mentioned in the letter run deep, whether Paul wants them or not. But, he never refutes them.

Back in 2007, people were wondering if he had paid Truther and conspiracy nut Alex Jones $1300 for services. Paul also took a donation from Jones, and only returned a part of it. Paul was a constant on Truther radio programs. He’s blamed the US. He’s taken the position that 9/11 was our fault. Good luck explaining that during a General Election.

The information goes on and on and on and on (great old article at The American Thinker by Andrew Walden and one on the Trutherism by Ace). Ron Paul may have some really great ideas. And Ron Paul supporters can go on about him standing for the constitution, the only free market Republican, only liberty candidate, gold standard, he’s stopping world governance, etc and so on, and if you don’t believe in him, you are a traitor, a liberal, a progressive, hate freedom, and so on. But, good luck explaining it all away while insulting people who do not support Paul.

I’m not here to tell you who to vote for. But, you need the information necessary to make a wise decision. Ron Paul would get obliterated in a General Election. There are way too many negatives, too many open skeletons in the closet. The MSM pretty much ignored and covered for Obama in regards to Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. Do you honestly think they will do the same for Ron, or destroy him?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

The Dish goes through the process of endorsing candidates in a primary season, not because I’m under any illusions that my endorsement counts. It probably hurts an insignificant amount, if anything. I try to make a decision – because it’s easy to pontificate, debate, counter and riff off the various eddies in the campaign, but in the end, it comes to a choice for all voters in the booth. Why should a blogger avoid that responsibility? And I should be clear. This endorsement is mine and mine alone.

Sullivan still calls himself the Last Real Conservative, yet, he has been writing in favor of every Democrat position, has been against everything Republicans stand for, and writes for a far left Internet site, so, yeah, endorsing Ron Paul will hurt Paul. Not that much, though, because Paul hurts his chances everytime he opens his mouth.

Sully says he cannot back Huntsman, because, despite Huntsman having the best positions for Andy, Huntsman hasn’t connected with voters.

Which brings me to Ron Paul. Let me immediately say I do not support many of his nuttier policy proposals. I am not a doctrinaire libertarian. Paul’s campaign for greater oversight of the Fed is great, but abolition of it is utopian and dangerous. A veto of anything but an immediately balanced budget would tip the US and the world into a serious downturn (a process to get there in one or two terms makes much more sense). Cutting taxes as he wants to is also fiscally irresponsible without spending cuts first. He adds deductions to the tax code rather than abolish them. His energy policy would intensify our reliance on carbon, not decrease it. He has no policy for the uninsured. There are times when he is rightly described as a crank. He has had associations in the past that are creepy when not downright ugly.

Um, didn’t he just say why supporting Paul is a Bad Idea? Then you have the problem with Paul saying a long campaign is tiring and his Israel hatred.

But all this is why a conservative like me is for Obama. What we are talking about here is who to support in a primary dominated by extremes, resentment, absence of ideas and Obama-hatred.

How can any real conservative support Obama? It’s antithetical to everything we stand for.

We do not need tens of thousands of troops in Europe. We do not need to prevent China’s rise, but to accommodate it as prudently as possible. We do need to get out of the Middle East to the maximum extent and return our relationship with Israel to one between individual nations, with different interests and common ideals, not some divine compact between two Zions. We do need a lighter, more focused, more lethal war against Jihadism – but this cannot ever again mean occupying countries we do not understand and cannot control. I suspect every other Republican would launch a war against Iran. Paul wouldn’t. That alone makes a vote for him worthwhile.

Breaking the grip of neoconservative belligerence on conservative thought and the Republican party could make space again for more reasoned and seasoned managers of foreign policy….

And the anti-Israel sentiment shows up yet again. They like to put it in reasonable terms, but, people can see right through it.

I know some of the people who comment are Paul supporters, and that is your right. He does have some good ideas, but, he also has some marvelously horrible ideas. He won’t divorce himself from the 9/11 Truthers who support him, he’s blamed the United States a few times for 9/11, he wants a pure isolationist policy, he is anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. Obama would trash Paul were Ron to win the GOP primary. We’d see a reverse of Reagan’s 1984 win, with Obama taking at least 48 states and D.C.

And just so you know Sullivan is a rational, thoughtful adult, he mentions “The constant refrain on Fox News that this man has “zero chance” of being the nominee is a propagandistic lie” and ends the story with

I feel the same way about him on the right in 2012 as I did about Obama in 2008. Both were regarded as having zero chance of being elected. And around now, people decided: Why not? And a movement was born. He is the “Change You Can Believe In” on the right. If you are an Independent and can vote in a GOP primary, vote Paul. If you are a Republican concerned about the degeneracy of the GOP, vote Paul. If you are a citizen who wants more decency and honesty in our politics, vote Paul. If you want someone in the White House who has spent decades in Washington and never been corrupted, vote Paul.

Can anyone explain who it is “honest” for Paul to throw tons of earmarks in bills and then vote against the bills, which he knows will pass without his vote, and then claim he never votes for earmarks? Anyhow, if Andy is comparing Paul to Obama, that’s probably not the best way to say that Ron Paul is the best choice for Republicans and Conservatives.

And, just to show that Sullivan has become more rational, his last line is

Oh, and f*ck you, Roger Ailes.

The Womb Raider speaks!

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

[edited]

(Heritage) It is gratifying to see President Barack Obama condemn the disgraceful storming of the British Embassy in Tehran by thugs acting at the behest of the Iranian regime. After all, Obama has been notoriously slow in the past to criticise the brutal actions of the Iranian government after initially extending the hand of friendship to it. But did he really need to make another embarrassing foreign policy gaffe while doing so?

In a press conference this evening, the president referred in stumbling fashion to the “English Embassy” in Iran instead of the British Embassy. One can only imagine the kind of howls of derision that would greet any presidential contender if that kind of basic error were made before, say, the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. You can watch the video above.

In case the president is unaware, England forms part of Great Britain, which also includes Scotland and Wales, though not Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. There is no such thing as an “English” embassy anywhere in the world, and there hasn’t been one for several centuries.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised by this latest slip-up by President Obama. After all he recently described France as America’s closest ally, and famously declared that he has traveled to no less than 57 states. But it would be nice if the leader of the free world bothered to look at a map once in a while, or even paid a visit to the British Embassy in Washington, currently housing the Churchill bust that Mr. Obama unceremoniously threw out of the Oval Office soon after his inauguration.

All in all, not a huge deal in terms of things Obama has gotten wrong…..wasting $850 billion dollars on non-existent shovel ready jobs/failing “green companies and signing legislation that destroys our healthcare system stand out….but, it shows the double standard of the 90% liberal media. Michele Bachmann was vilified for her John Wayne/Waterloo reference for days, yet, POTUS Obama (NMP, PINO) will be given a free pass on “English Embassy”.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

The American Jewish Committee (AJC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have joined together to encourage other national organizations, elected officials, religious leaders, community groups and individuals to join them in signing the “National Pledge for Unity on Israel.” This initiative aims to rally bipartisan support for Israel while preventing the Jewish State from becoming a wedge issue in the upcoming campaign season.

“We want the discourse on U.S. support for Israel to avoid the sometimes polarizing debates and political attacks that have emerged in recent weeks, as candidates have challenged their opponents’ pro-Israel bone fides or questioned the current administration’s foreign policy approach vis-à-vis Israel,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.

Source

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

In late October 2007, according to the International Herald Tribune, the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, stated that he had seen “no evidence” of Iran developing nuclear weapons. The IHT quoted ElBaradei as saying “We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization. That’s why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks … . But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No.” The IHT report went on to say that “ElBaradei said he was worried about the growing rhetoric from the U.S., which he noted focused on Iran’s alleged intentions to build a nuclear weapon rather than evidence the country was actively doing so. If there is actual evidence, ElBaradei said he would welcome seeing it.”

In July 2009, Yukiya Amano, the in-coming head of the IAEA said: “I don’t see any evidence in IAEA official documents” that Iran is trying to gain the ability to develop nuclear arms

The Left jumped on that report, and others, that Iran wasn’t even close to developing nuclear weapons, that they were either decades away or building nuclear plants for “peaceful energy purposes.” We were told that Iran gave up their nuclear weapons ambitions in 2003. All sorts of media outlets bashed Bush for trying to get tough on Iran, saying they were no real threat. And today we get

(Washington Post) Intelligence provided to U.N. nuclear officials shows that Iran’s government has mastered the critical steps needed to build a nuclear weapon, receiving assistance from foreign scientists to overcome key technical hurdles, according to Western diplomats and nuclear experts briefed on the findings.

Documents and other records provide new details on the role played by a former Soviet weapons scientist who allegedly tutored Iranians over several years on building high-precision detonators of the kind used to trigger a nuclear chain reaction, the officials and experts said. Crucial technology linked to experts in Pakistan and North Korea also helped propel Iran to the threshold of nuclear capability, they added.

The officials, citing secret intelligence provided over several years to the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the records reinforce concerns that Iran continued to conduct weapons-related research after 2003 — when, U.S. intelligence agencies believe, Iranian leaders halted such experiments in response to international and domestic pressures.

Now, I know it would be easy to bash Obama, especially over his early talk about discussions with Iran with no preconditions, discussions which never really took place. And for pushing more sanctions. For holding Israel back. But, let’s be fair, other than threats, which Iran would ignore, and actually bomb bomb bombing Iran, there was little Obama could do.

But, with this report, one has to wonder what the U.S. and Israel will now do. Consider this from a NY Times article back on August 19, 2010, in which the Obama administration convinced Israel to hold off a bit, that the threat was not “imminent”

American officials said the United States believed international inspectors would detect an Iranian move toward breakout within weeks, leaving a considerable amount of time for the United States and Israel to consider military strikes.

Remember, there was a report that Israel was getting ready to strike Iran, which Defense Minister Ehud Barak said was not accurate.

Now, there will be all sorts of editorials and talking heads discussing this, and there will be two positions: strike now and strike hard, or simply yammer and put more sanctions in place. Striking could give Iran more prestige among the hard core Islamists and the Israel and U.S. haters. Talks and sanctions will do absolutely nothing, as history has shown. The big question is, do we wait till Iran actually has nuclear weapons built, and uses them, either directly or through one of their terrorist groups?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. Please sign the drill now petition.