Hillary Clinton recklessly discussed, in emails hosted on her
private server, an Iranian nuclear scientist who was executed by Iran
for treason, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said Sunday.
"I'm not going to comment on what he may or may not have done
for the United States government, but in the emails that were on Hillary
Clinton's private server, there were conversations among her senior
advisors about this gentleman," he said on "Face the Nation." Cotton was
speaking about Shahram Amiri, who gave information to the U.S. about
Iran's nuclear program.
The senator said this lapse proves she is not capable of keeping the country safe.
"That goes to show just how reckless and careless her decision
was to put that kind of highly classified information on a private
server. And I think her judgment is not suited to keep this country
safe," he said.
...
It would appear possible that discussion on an unclassified — and quite
possibly hacked — email system about a person who was hanged as a spy
will have a chilling effect on others who might want to engage in
espionage for the United States.
...
"We have a diplomatic, 'psychological' issue, not a legal one. Our
friend has to be given a way out," the email by Richard Morningstar, a
former State Department special envoy for Eurasian energy, read,
according to the Associated Press. "Our person won't be able to do
anything anyway. If he has to leave so be it."
But don't expect that to keep the media from going all out for Clinton....
Senator Tom Cotton is the American people's lawyer
Senator Tom Cotton demolishes US Secretary of State John Kerry in the cross-examination below. It lasts about seven minutes - we can only imagine what he would have done with more time.
Let's go to the videotape. Summary here (Hat Tip: Elihu S).
You don't think they're trying to hide anything, do you?
Obama cut separate deals with Iran over Parchin and military nukes, hid deals from Congress
Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-Ks) and Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark) have been told by the IAEA at a meeting in Vienna on Friday that President Hussein Obama cut separate deals with Iran over its Parchin military complex (you know, the one they won't show to the IAEA) and its military nuclear program, and then hid the deals from Congress.
“According to the IAEA, the Iran agreement negotiators, including the
Obama administration, agreed that the IAEA and Iran would forge
separate arrangements to govern the inspection of the Parchin military
complex – one of the most secretive military facilities in Iran – and
how Iran would satisfy the IAEA’s outstanding questions regarding past
weaponization work. Both arrangements will not be vetted by any
organization other than Iran and the IAEA, and will not be released even
to the nations that negotiated the JCPOA. This means that the secret
arrangements have not been released for public scrutiny and have not
been submitted to Congress as part of its legislatively mandated review
of the Iran deal.”
The American public has not been given all the facts on the Iran
deal, nor has congress. This is not only distressing but a violation:
“Even under the woefully inadequate Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act,
the Obama administration is required to provide the U.S. Congress with
all nuclear agreement documents, including all “annexes, appendices,
codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and
guidance, technical or other understandings and any related agreements,
whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be
entered into or implemented in the future.”
Both Pompeo and Cotton are U.S. military veterans. Each of them included a personal statement in the press release:
By an overwhelming 98-1 margin the Senate has passed a bill which purports to give Congress a say on President Hussein Obama's proposed nuclear deal with Iran (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) was the only senator to oppose the bill. He
said in a statement that he objected that the deal was not to be
presented to the Congress as a treaty.
"A nuclear-arms agreement
with any adversary—especially the terror-sponsoring, Islamist Iranian
regime—should be submitted as a treaty and obtain a two-thirds majority
vote in the Senate as required by the Constitution," he said.
Cotton is right of course. But I'm afraid he's closing the barn door after the horse has escaped.
The Senate bill would require a competed deal to be submitted to
Congress, which could then vote to approve or disapprove the nuclear
deal within 30 days. Sanctions on Iran could not be lifted during this
consideration.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob
Corker (R-Tenn.), after the vote, suggested that passage of the bill
allows Congress to take "power back" from President Obama. He also said
it ensures the Congress will play "an appropriate role" in the nuclear
talks.
Passage of the legislation clears
the way for U.S. negotiators to continue to work on a nuclear deal with
Iran ahead of a June 30 deadline with little fear of interference from
Congress. Negotiators reached a framework agreement in April.
A
vote to disapprove a nuclear deal with Iran would not kill it. President
Obama could veto such a measure, and the House and Senate would then
need two-thirds majorities to override his veto.
The founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves. They thought they had set out a procedure that ensured a real balance of powers. Now, the United States has become a dictatorship with Senate approval.
The power play that is behind this bill is nothing short of astounding. And you thought the Israeli Knesset was the only deliberative body in the world that was powerless?
Israel's most decorated soldier: Wiping out Iran's nuclear capability would take one night
America's liberal media thought it had a good laugh on Wednesday when Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark) said that wiping out Iran's nuclear capability militarily would be a breeze. But here's the funny thing: Israel's former Defense Minister and most decorated soldier agrees. Ehud Barak compared an operation to wipe out Iran's nuclear capability to the operation that targeted Osama Bin Laden.
In an interview on CNBC, Barak said the operation would take only “a
fraction of one night” and added that “the Iranians can do nothing about
it, except for attacking Israel.”
“The administration uses the term ‘war,’” Barak said “and people are
thinking that probably it is something like a war on Iraq or a war on
Afghanistan, [but] that’s not the case. Technically speaking, the
Pentagon and the armed forces of America under the backing and probably
directive of the [US] president [could] create an extremely effective
means to destroy the Iranian nuclear military program over a fraction of
one night.”
Barak, who also served as Israel’s defense minister, said that on a
“spectrum between the War on Iraq and the killing of Osama bin Laden it
is much closer to killing Osama bin Laden.”
This “is something that should be understood” Barak added, “the Iranians can do nothing about it, except for attacking Israel.”
Barak’s assessment of what a military intervention against Iran’s
nuclear program might look like followed his advice that Iran should be
given a clear ultimatum to abandon its nuclear project “or else.” He
sharply criticized the White House’s negotiation strategy saying that US
concessions are far more entrenched than Iran’s because as a democracy
the US can’t shift its positions on a whim.
He said, “All of us prefer a solution that might be reached through
negotiations, but in order to negotiate, the other side should
understand and believe… that if they will not come to terms with the
real demands, to put all of the enriched material out of Iran, to close
Fordo, to stop all working on weaponization, on making the preparations
for weapons. If all this is not agreed right now, they face the
alternatives.”
The former prime minister’s comments serve as an indication of how
widespread the criticism of the recently announced framework agreement
is in Israel, spanning across the political spectrum.
Yes, across the political spectrum. You see, Ehud Barak's political party was the Labor party.
Here's the interview. Let's go to the videotape.
Barak was Prime Minister Netanyahu's commander in Sayeret Matkal, Israel's most elite army force. Why doesn't Obama get it? Maybe this is why:
In a speech on the Senate floor, Senator Tom Cotton, the author of the Senate letter to the Iranian mullahs warning that any deal that President Obama signs will not bind the next President without Congressional approval, blasts President Hussein Obama's reaction to the Israeli election, and threatens Congressional action against any UN agency that opposes Israel.
Kerry admits to Senate that his negotiations with Iran are 'not legally binding'
US Secretary of State John FN Kerry told a Senate hearing on Wednesday that his negotiations with Iran over its nuclear capability are 'not legally binding.' That prompted this from Senator Tom Cotton (he of the letter to the Mullahs).
Important question: if deal with Iran isn't legally binding, then what's to keep Iran from breaking said deal and developing a bomb?
— Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) March 11, 2015
And here's an answer....
@SenTomCotton Nothing.
And that is precisely the way the Mullahs want it.
— Pradheep Shanker MD (@Neoavatara) March 11, 2015
US poll: 'Deal with Iran won't stop the bomb anyway'
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 71% of Americans don't believe that an agreement with Iran will stop the Mullahcracy from developing a nuclear weapon anyway.
Seventy-one percent of Americans say
that the nuclear negotiations, which are backed by the Obama
administration and strongly opposed by most Republicans, will not make a
real difference in affecting Iran's potential production of a nuclear
weapon. About a quarter of respondents - 24 percent - disagree.
Democrats are more
optimistic about the deal, with about a third believing that it would be
effective in preventing the production of an Iranian bomb, compared to
just 11 percent of Republicans who say the same. But majorities of
Americans from all political parties - 58 percent of Democrats, 72
percent of independents and 86 percent of Republicans - think that the
deal would not make a major difference.
Perhaps that explains why Republicans are worried that Democrats, whose votes are needed to override an expected Obama veto of any bill that would hinder him from letting Iran go nuclear, may be seeing this in partisan terms (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker said he was
approached to sign the letter by Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, but
he concluded it might set back his ultimate goal: veto-proof support
for a bill he has sponsored requiring a congressional vote to approve or
reject an Iran deal.
“I knew it was going to be only Republicans on [the letter]. I just
don’t view that as where I need to be today,” Corker said in an
interview. “My goal is to get 67 or more people on something that will
affect the outcome.”
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) expressed doubt
about her colleagues’ tactic of skirting the White House and trying to
affect foreign policy by going directly to Tehran.
“It’s more
appropriate for members of the Senate to give advice to the president,
to Secretary Kerry and to the negotiators,” Collins said. “I don’t think
that the ayatollah is going to be particularly convinced by a letter
from members of the Senate, even one signed by a number of my
distinguished and high ranking colleagues.”
Indeed, the response
from Tehran was the equivalent of an eye roll, with Foreign Minister
Mohammad Javad Zarif concluding the letter “has no legal value and is
mostly a propaganda ploy.”
Meanwhile some Democrats warned that
Republicans risked alienating some of the dozen or so Democrats who have
pledged support for two GOP measures that could blow up the fragile
talks.
...
Corker’s bill would require an up-or-down vote by Congress on any
deal that Obama strikes with Iran — and although a “no” vote would not
bind Obama and bring down a nuclear deal, it would restrict Obama’s
ability to waive economic sanctions on Iran.
The other measure, sponsored by Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and
Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), would require new sanctions on Iran should
Tehran leave the negotiations or violate its current agreements with the
U.S. and its five negotiating partners: Russia, China, France, Germany
and Britain.
Both measures are close to the 67 Senate votes
needed to override the vetoes President Obama has threatened. The White
House has warned that congressional interference could blow up the talks
and lead to a possible military confrontation with Iran.
This is an issue where partisanship should not even be showing its face. Unfortunately, with the United States' 'post-partisan' President, there is no issue that is bipartisan anymore.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
