This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Foreign Policy

  • INF Treaty Issues

    Back in 1987, the USSR and the USA signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. This treaty banned either nation from having or developing conventional and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 km.

    While both signatories have periodically expressed displeasure with the treaty’s limitations, until 2011 each party generally seemed to be in compliance. However, in 2011 Russia (which accepted the treaty’s obligations on the inheriting the former-USSR’s nuclear arsenal after breakup of the USSR) apparently began violating the INF Treaty by conducting development associated with at least two weapons systems: the SS-25 and the SS-26.

    The current Administration disclosed this violation to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee in 2012. But they didn’t make any details regarding the violation public at the time.  In fact, it also seems that the Administration “neglected” to brief NATO on the matter until either late 2013 or early 2014 – and only briefed NATO  after the press reported the Russian violation in late 2013.

    Seems to me that NATO would have a great interest in this issue, and would want to know the details.  And you’d think we’d brief our NATO allies posthaste on something that important to their security, too.  But I guess not.

    In mid-2014, the current Administration finally accused Russia of violating the treaty.  However, ever since they’ve apparently continued to refuse further public disclosure of details – including sitting on a report recently prepared by DoD analyzing the treaty breach.  Per Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, that DoD report is currently “tied up in the White House”.  The Administration says it hasn’t released the report because it is “classified”.

    Um . . . yeah. I’m thinking the delay and obfuscation here regarding discussing the matter – and releasing DoD’s report – is more because the report is politically embarrassing to the Administration.  I’m guessing that report shows very clearly just how Russia thumbed its nose at the USA by a supine, spineless Administration regarding the INF treaty and got away with it.  But I guess I could be wrong.

    Regardless:  if I were to place a bet, I’d bet we see these details about the time we see those on proposed the Iran nuclear deal.  Both are just textbook examples of that “openness” promised us by the “most transparent Administration in history”.

  • About That Iran Nuke Deal . . .

    I’m reasonably sure that most TAH readers think the current       group of fools and tools in DC helping the POTUS screw things up by-the-numbers       Administration’s proposed nuclear deal with Iran is a serious mistake, and should be rejected.

    One would expect the Administration’s political foes to oppose the deal.  But it’s not only the Administration;s political opponents who have issues.  For starters, Alan Dershowitz – one of the few liberals out there who IMO actually seems to have his head screwed on straight when it comes to terrorism – has come out strongly against the deal. (He has some pretty harsh criticism of the POTUS’s efforts; the linked article is IMO definitely worth a read.)

    It also seems that two senior Members of Congress from his own party – Sen. Schumer of New York, and Rep. Eliot, also of New York and ranking Minority Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee – have now publicly stated their opposition to the deal.

    I just don’t understand that stance.  I mean, really: what’s not to like about a deal that gives away the farm to a nation that has declared you an enemy; which the Administration itself acknowledges will provide financial support to international terrorism; and which the Administration refuses to allow to be read by the public?

    Further, a lady named “Clinton” has reportedly “cautiously embraced the deal”.  And we all know that her judgement – particularly regarding foreign policy – is always “dead on target” and above reproach.  I mean:  just look at Benghazi, her use of email, and her hiring practices.  So what’s not to like?

    (For the record: yes, the previous two paragraph are indeed satire and/or sardonicism.)

    Schumer’s argument for opposing the deal appears quite well-reasoned.  If you’re interested; you can read it here.

    I’m thinking this deal is now in serious trouble. And I’m also thinking . . . that’s just too bad. (smile)

  • Just When You Think You’ve Heard It All . . .

    . . . you see something that makes you realize you definitely haven’t.

    Wanna take a guess at what the current POTUS is blaming his predecessor for now?  If you guessed “for Iran’s nuclear program becoming a serious issue” – well, give yourself a cigar.  According to the POTUS’s latest speech, the Iranian nuclear program apparently only became a concern because of US operations against Iraq starting in 2003.

    Of course, despite the statements in his latest speech that the Iranian possession of a nuclear warhead poses a “danger”, apparently the current POTUS feels that the Iranian nuclear program really poses only a negligible threat to the USA.  I say that because he’s reportedly OKed a deal that appears to leave the Iranian nuclear program essentially intact and unchanged, and only asks the Iranians to give up something amounting to the combination of “Jack” and “Squat”.

    For such agreements we all know that often the “devil is in the details”.  And I’d sure like to read that proposed agreement for myself to see what he’s signed the USA up to do – and what Iran’s agreeing to do as well.  But I guess we’ll have to “pass it to see what’s in it”.   The POTUS won’t make the contents of that proposed agreement do public.

    Seems to me we’ve had to do something like that  – e.g., “pass it to see what’s in it” – at least once before.  I guess keeping the details of the proposed nuclear agreement with Iran under wraps must just be some more of that “most transparent Administration in history” stuff the POTUS keeps touting.

    Sheesh, and GMAFB.  Did he really keep a straight face while spouting that BS?

    The Iranians are still referring to the USA the “Great Satan”.  They still preach “Death to America”.  They are pursuing a nuclear program for one reason, and one reason only:  to acquire a bomb.  Once they do, they’ll use it – either against US interests, or against Israel (who they’ve repeatedly vowed to destroy).  Or they’ll supply it to some international terrorist group who will do the same on their behalf.

    This regime running things today in DC really should start calling itself something like “Clueless Convergence.”

    Of course, after this last claim that just might be an insult to clueless fools everywhere.

     

  • Aw, Sh!t – Not Again

    Liberia confirms third Ebola case in new outbreak

    That “show” kinda sucked the first time around.  We could do without a sequel.

    But if we get a sequel, I’m guessing the      clueless group of fools in DC       current Administration will have the same attitude that they did last time.   You know:  “Don’t worry, be happy, can’t happen here”.   And that means they’ll again fail to implement common-sense travel policies and safeguards.

    Play with fire often enough, and eventually you’re gonna get burned.  As far as I know, that little truism remains . . . true.

  • Arms deals with Vietnam

    Arms deals with Vietnam

    China is claiming much more of the South China Sea by building artificial islands and placing weapons systems on them. That has spurred other nations in the area to do the same, including Vietnam. It looks like Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter is visiting our former adversary to finalize some arms deals for defensive weapons in light of the Chinese expansion, according to the Associated Press.

    Last October the U.S. partially lifted its ban on weapons sales to Vietnam to boost the country’s ability to defend itself in the South China Sea. Only the sale of lethal maritime security and surveillance capabilities are allowed on a case-by-case basis, including boats and air assets based on an evaluation of Vietnam’s needs. But to date no weapons have flowed to Vietnam.

    U.S. Sen. John McCain said Saturday that the U.S. should gradually lift the weapons ban on Vietnam, amid heightened tensions with China over the reclamation projects.

    It’s almost funny that it was Nixon’s relations with China that brought North Vietnam to the negotiation table to end US involvement in the war in Vietnam, and now we’re arming Vietnam to get some control over Chinese expansion, and it was Chinese troops that bled to stop Vietnamese incursions into Laos in the late 70s and put an end to the “Domino Effect” that US troops went to Vietnam to stop in the 60s.

    So, are you confused? You’re not the only one. From Bloomberg;

    Some older members of the Vietnamese Politburo, who recall the U.S. as the enemy, are skeptical of a complete turnabout. And while Vietnam is wary of Chinese domination, China remains its top trading partner and an important source of capital.

    “This is a piece of complex systems engineering,” said Dean Cheng, an Asian affairs specialist at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. “There are many, many moving parts, not just China and the U.S.,” he said. “The whole area is very much in flux.”

    Neither the White House, nor John McCain, are keen on tying humans rights issues to the arms deals with Vietnam, unlike Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan who would have made it a key point instead.

  • Spain approves new US rapid response force base

    Spain approves new US rapid response force base

    John Kerry dorkface

    Andy11M sends us a link to the an Associated Press article which reports that the Spanish government has approved stationing of a US rapid response force at their base in Moron (it’s pronounced More-OWN, you moron).

    The deal approved by Spain’s Cabinet allows for the U.S. to station up to 3,000 troops at the Moron air base, up from a current 850. The number of aircraft deployed can be increased from 14 to 40.

    U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is to visit Madrid on Sunday and Monday to sign the agreement. Kerry will meet with King Felipe, Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy and Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia Margallo during his stay.

    What with emergencies like the Benghazi consulate attack on September 11th, 2012, we really need this agreement.

    I’m pretty sure that Kerry still has time to screw it up.

  • All Because of a Film, Eh?

    Remember Benghazi? Remember those initial announcements from the Department of State characterizing it as a “spontaneous reaction” to an independent film no one had ever heard of?  Remember the US Ambassador to the UN telling everyone five days afterwards that it was a reaction to an anti-Islamic film?

    Well, would you like to know what the Secretary of State was told by a confidante two days after the attack? Here it is, courtesy of the New York Times:

    Second Memo Provides Detailed Account of Benghazi

    The next day [note: this memo was sent on 13 September 2011], Mr. Blumenthal sent Mrs. Clinton a more thorough account of what had occurred. Citing “sensitive sources” in Libya, the memo provided extensive detail about the episode, saying that the siege had been set off by members of Ansar al-Shariah, the Libyan terrorist group. Those militants had ties to Al Qaeda, had planned the attacks for a month and had used a nearby protest as cover for the siege, the memo said. “We should get this around asap” Mrs. Clinton said in an email to Mr. Sullivan. “Will do,” he responded.

    Yeah, those suspicions we had were correct. Pretty much any time after 13 September 2011 they were shamelessly lying through their teeth when they blamed Benghazi on an anti-Muslim film.

    That’s why “it matters”.

  • About Those “JV” and “We Were Taken By Surprise” Claims . . .

    Remember back in January 2014 when the POTUS said that ISIS was “JV” (short for “junior varsity”)? And those claims that the rise of ISIS “caught the intel community by surprise”?

    Well you probably know where this is going. Yeah, your leg’s wet again. And you haven’t been outside, so it’s not rain.

    Those claims appear to be bull. According to a news report yesterday, apparently US military intelligence reports predicted the rise of an ISIS-like group in Iraq in August 2012 – or 17 months before the POTUS denigrated them as being “JV”. It also seems to me that predicting something 17 months in advance kinda negates the “taken by surprise” claim, too.

    And it gets even better. Remember that little unpleasantness in a place called Benghazi – in September 2012? Want to guess when arms shipments from former Libyan military stocks to Syria, likely for radical Islamic rebel use, started?

    If you guessed “about a month later” – give yourself a star.

    Oh, and the reports aren’t just based on rumor and innuendo, or on “anonymous sources”. These reports appear to be backed by documents (in redacted form, of course). They were obtained by Judicial Watch via FOIA request.

    Yeah, it looks like the current       DC clown krewe       Administration lied to us. Again. Twice.

    Surprised? Me neither.

    Sheesh. This bunch makes Nixon and LBJ look like paragons of honesty and forthrightness by comparison.