America will be weaker and Mr. Obama will be happier.

As I said before, China won’t do jack. Unlike our foreign relations elite, theirs focus on their national interests and not what other people think of them. Anyone outside of China is one sort of silly devils or another anyway. Trouble for Uncle Sam elsewhere in the world means we aren’t going to bother them.

We’ll probably see the UNSC approve some tough-sounding sanctions that have no verification mechanism (let alone enforcement). They will be completely ineffective, amounting, in fact, a monopoly to the Iranian market for Russian and Chinese merchants. For this empty charade we’ll probably pay a handsome random to China. Not sure what we can concede at this point. Weapon sales to Taiwan are de facto frozen already. The Dalai Lama was already given the cold shoulder. Whatever turns out, it’s all for the glory of the One and His alone.

Or perhaps cringes would be more accurate.

I only hope those endangering us are the ones who suffer from this folly.

Let the delusional walk off the cliff of their own idiocies.

No reason we all need to pay for Obama’s gutlessness, brainlessness and a-historical childishness.

Sarkozy Mocks Obama at UN Security Council: Hello, Big Media?

petefrt on September 26, 2009 at 9:21 AM

You know you’re a pansy when the French call you a girl.

It’s a sad indicator of the times when our president compares unfavorably on defense matters to the French president.

Fantastic. I take great comfort from this development.

unclesmrgol on September 26, 2009 at 11:27 AM

I disagree. Obama has gone out of his way to show a friendly face to the people who overtly want to destroy Israel; and to show indifference to Israel itself.

MikeA on September 26, 2009 at 9:22 AM

I don’t think Obama is on Iran’s side. If he were, he would have sat on this — and then it would be just the word of the (nongovernmental) MEK against the Iranian government. Instead, he’s done significant damage to the Iranian position by briefing other Security Council members about the capabilities of the new plant.

The actions necessary to increase/tighten sanctions are also the same actions necessary to justify going to war. The act of officially verifying what the MEK has stated gives Israel a fair amount of additional justification should they choose to attack.

The FARS News Agency article is here.:

IAEA’s Spokesman Marc Vidricaire said Friday, “I can confirm that on 21 September, Iran informed the IAEA in a letter that a new pilot fuel enrichment plant is under construction in the country.”

One begins to wonder how many “pilot fuel enrichment plants” are needed for one reactor. The LA Times is thinking the same thing. The Times has a front page article entitled Time for talk may be over with the subtitle Obama’s hope of engaging Iran appears to be fading

It appears that the argument is no longer over talks with no preconditions but, rather, whether or not Iran’s ignorance of international concerns calls for force to be used. The Times article mentions “tough economic sanctions” but does not mention

Given that Israel has been directly threatened by several top officials in Iran’s government, they are in a unique position under the UN Charter to assert a claim of self-defense.

scalleywag on September 26, 2009 at 10:14 AM

Hey Bossman: Absolutely great comment, but I can’t figure out if you’re talking about Iminthemoodfor Abigwhompinjihad or our own Dictator-In-Training-Pants.

;-)

Cheers !

Kenny Solomon
Doing my part in ‘coarsening the political dialogue’.

Iran: Why aren’t you congratulating us for our transparency?

Because you are trying to kill me. I have no doubt that I am included in the category of “enemy” that your Supreme Leader’s spokesperson was referring to: “God willing this new plant will become operational soon and make the enemy blind….”

I’m thinking that “blind” is a one of those clever Koranic euphemisms for “dead.”

Sarkozy Mocks Obama at UN Security Council: Hello, Big Media?

petefrt on September 26, 2009 at 9:21 AM

thx for this link. Heard “no drama” Obama mention banning the nukes, but forgot about it and never saw it reported. Breitbart is becoming a much needed force of media accountability.

We actually informed the agency (IAEA) 18 months ahead of time. Is this the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do? I thought we are supposed to be encouraged for taking this action.

I am pretty sure that, as a 16 yr old, I pioneered this defense:

Yeah Dad, I snuck out, stole the car, backed into a pole, then parked illegally outside of that punk club you banned me from going to, and got the car towed and impounded. But I am telling the truth! Should I have just lied to you? I thought I was supposed to tell the truth.