Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State in the history of our Republic.

I can't help but be amazed every time I hear a Clinton supporter brag about HRC having been Secretary of State for the Obama Administration from 2009 to 2013.  No doubt, Hillary was awarded the position because of her efforts to campaign and raise money for Obama following his trouncing of her in the 2008 Democratic Primary.  The Democrats formulated this plan for Hillary to "muscle-up" her foreign policy gravitas as Secretary of State, in order to be a much more attractive candidate for the Presidency in 2016.  It hasn't turned out exactly as planned.  Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State our nation has witnessed.  I welcome the opportunity to debate this point with anyone, mostly because the evidence for my claim is knee-deep.  But the Democrats continue to talk about Hillary's great tenure at the State Department, as if by repeating the lie, it will somehow become the truth.  Lets start from the beginning.

Hillary Clinton announced her intention to rebuild our relationship with Russia.  During her initial meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, she brought along a prop: a board with a red button attached.  This pantomime was intended to illustrate " a re-setting" in the relationship.  Not long afterwards, Hillary spearheaded negotiations on the New Start Treaty (NST).  The NST had as its goal a reduction in nuclear arms for both the United States and Russia.  Under the terms of the treaty, the number of nuclear missile launchers was to be reduced by half, and a new inspection and verification regime was to be established.  In reality, the treaty resulted in a significant reduction in America's nuclear weapon capacity, but didn't impact Russia's.  Russia continues to maintain a 10-to-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, which for some reason, are not counted in the treaty!  Its the type of agreement that the Obama Administration just can't stay away from- the United States gives up the store in exchange for NOTHING.  This treaty has HRC's fingerprints all over it.  For some time she spoke of the signing of the treaty as "a moment of personal pride".  Interestingly, we never hear about the treaty anymore.  I don't think it was mentioned at all in the Democratic National Convention.  I'm very disappointed that the Trump campaign hasn't brought it up, but with so much already to pick at, I guess I understand.

Let's get the Foundation out of the way.  Hillary Clinton assured the Obama Administration that there would be no crossover between her husband former President Bill Clinton's billion-dollar Foundation, and the United States State Department.  Obama could have taken that assurance and flushed it down the toilet.  Members of HRC's personal staff continued to do work for the Foundation while collecting a State Department paycheck (Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills), and fifty-five percent of persons who obtained a personal interview with Secretary Clinton, turned around and donated to the Foundation.  Evidence already exists that Hillary went to bat for some of these donors.  Its called "Influence Peddling" and its supposed to be against the law.  By the way, is anyone actually aware of something tangible that has been accomplished by this Foundation, aside from providing lucrative jobs to members of the extended Clinton network?

At about the same time that President Obama was speaking in Cairo and apologizing for U.S. behavior in the Middle East, a serious storm was brewing.  Our intelligence agencies were reporting on alarming developments in some of the normally stable Arab countries like Tunisia and Egypt.  Young people were joining political groups and protesting in the streets, demanding change.  As this movement grew, it became known as the Arab Spring.  This event took form and exploded while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.  The government of Tunisia, a key ally in the war on Terror, was removed from office as we watched on CNN and Fox News.  Egypt was next, as huge crowds of people from all segments of the population, demanded a more equitable system under which to live.  It was an ideal opportunity for the United States to position itself as a supporter of change, which would have accomplished a lot more than Obama's apology tour.  Instead, our diplomats were constantly caught wrong-footed.  Instead of being proactionary, our State Department was forced to be reactionary.  The Administration pointed out that it was caught off-guard; why, when the intelligence was pouring in that these events were destined to occur?

In 2010, with the full support of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Obama Administration precipitously evacuated American troops from Iraq.  The Department of Defense had an agreement in place with the Iraqi government to train the Iraqi Armed Forces.  This agreement meant nothing to the Oval Office.  These events were observed by ISIS, which had positioned itself in Syria and reconstituted its ability to conduct conventional warfare.  As soon as our troops started departing, ISIS invaded.  The untrained Iraqi Army was no match on the battlefield to the ISIS fighters, who cut their teeth in the Syrian Civil War.  Soon, all of the gains that had been earned with the lives of so many young U.S. men and women, disappeared.  Our influence in this strategic part of the world also waned, as the Iranians moved into the void, providing advisors and volunteers to fight alongside the Iraqi Army.  Why was it necessary to pull out of Iraq so quickly in 2010, when it wasn't in 2009?  Because of politics, folks.  The Obama Administration needed to shore up its base before mid-term elections, and the base was pissed off because Obama had yet to fulfill his campaign promise to pull troops out of Iraq.  Secretary of State Clinton should have had the foresight to advice Obama to act a bit more patiently, but she didn't.  ISIS now controls almost one-third of Iraq.

What occured in Benghazi was a tragedy.  The State Department, trying to make up for lost time, was putting its diplomats in dangerous locations in order to stay on top of an evolving environment.  Ambassador Christopher Stephens, who was our diplomatic representative to whatever Libyan government was in power from week-to-week, did not have adequate security, and once everything went to hell, the greatest military in the world was unable to rescue its people or provide reinforcements.  There appears to have been some concern on behalf of the State Department regarding the necessity to not offend the Libyans.  Is it true that the Obama Administration waited for "permission" to rescue its people?  We will probably never know the truth regarding the events of that night, but one fact is certain: four brave Americans died.  Hillary Clinton repeatedly publicly accepted responsibility for what occured, then spent the next few months explaining how everything was someone else's fault.  We would have been satisfied with something like this: "Four brave Americans died last night in a terrorist attack on a State Department facility in Benghazi, Libya.  I accept full responsibility for the tragic loss of these young men, and I ask you, as we mourn with and support the families of those who were lost, to work with us to make sure something like this never happens again".  Sadly, instead it was all about finger-pointing about anti-Muslim video tapes and politics, politics, politics.

Aside from the whoppers that I've just detailed, I have yet to hear the Clinton camp explain to us just what she did accomplish as Secretary of State?  Get back to me of you come up with something.

Okay, Eric, just what is your problem with Hillary Clinton?

I've had more than a few friends and readers comment lately that my attacks on Hillary Clinton have become more frequent, and appear to be almost personal.  Its true I have been commenting on Hillary  regularly; she's running for president and her supporters should expect more attention.  But I would be disengenuous if I tried to comvince folks that my issues with Hillary Clinton are only related to the 2016 Presidential Election.  You see, I've spent my fair share of time as a Civil Servant.  In 1995 I became first an Inspector and then a Special Agent with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.  In 1999, I was hired by the Central Intelligence Agency.  I have lived in DC, and discovered more about the Federal Government than I thought possible.  As an Immigration Officer, I experienced the immigration issue first-hand; as a CIA officer, I worked with many different branches of the government, including the Department of State, the Justice Department, and the Department of Commerce.  Early on, it became clear to me that many of the problems of government can be dropped at the feet of both major political parties.  Senators and Representatives of both parties are obliged to start campaigning for their next term almost as soon as they arrive in DC.  Lobbyists have infested the Capitol Building on both sides of the aisle, which explains the seemingly insurmountable problem with Entitlements.  Regarding Hillary Clinton, my time as a Civil Servant closely coincided with her time inside The Beltway.  I remember when the Clintons left DC in the year 2000, and I remember her returning as a Senator from the State of New York.  Part of the time that Clinton was Secretary of State, I was working overseas very closely with State Department personnel.

I am very comfortable discussing Hillary Clinton's record as a Senator and her time as Secretary of State, but I've already made that argument on this blog.  Ironically, its not the New Start Treaty, Benghazi, or the Clinton Foundation that fuels my lack of respect for Hillary Clinton.  My core issue with Hillary is one of trust, or the lack thereof.  Hillary Clinton, unlike her competitor, has chosen to be a representative of the people of the United States, therefore she should expect to be held accountable.  In all the time that Hillary Clinton has been known to me, she has never been accountable to anyone or anything.  During her husband's first-term in the White House, Hillary Clinton drummed-up negative information on the existing White House Travel Office, just so she could replace the former employees with her friends and supporters.  The former staff of the White House Travel Office were summarily fired, and left to their own devices.  In comparison to other scandals, this one probably doesn't rank very high, but it provided the American people with a preview of the kind of elitist, "ends-justify-the-means" kind of personality we have been dealing with.

I don't know what bothers me more, the dishonesty or the lack of accountability.  Take for example the Congressional Hearings on Benghazi: Hillary loudly proclaimed that as Secretary of State, she was accountable for what occurred.  Then she launched into a blame-game, during which she did everything but accept responsibility.  What the American people wanted to hear was:

 "The Benghazi incident was a terrible reminder that our men and women working in warzones are always at risk.  We did not do a good enough job protecting our people, and because we didn't, four brave young heroes made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.  It is my job to investigate what went wrong and to make sure it doesn't happen again."

Instead, we saw blame flung in every direction, with some Hillary supporters going so far as to blame Ambassador Chris Stevens for being in Libya when he should have known the dangers involved.

Now, in the middle of a presidential campaign Hillary is finding it impossible to be honest.  FBI Director Comey did NOT say that he believed Hillary Clinton had been honest in her public statements regarding her email server.  Obviously this mess imvolved reams of classified material, and she knows it.  In a fair world, Hillary Clinton would not be running for president.  If she wins, we will be in the unenviable position of having a president with access to Top Secret and SCI information, who would not successfully pass a routine background investigation!  But Hillary's ego and her obsession with power will keep her in the game, no matter how much damage it causes.

At the end of the day, it was just another Hillary Clinton speech, folks.

Last Thursday night, as I listened to Hillary Clinton's well-crafted and beautifully delivered acceptance speech, I couldn't help but consider the number of inspiring speeches that are born every four years during national convention week.  Honestly, this year I didn't listen with much conviction to either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump's speech.  Unlike so many these days, I don't look to political speeches to influence or entertain.  From the number of Hollywood celebrities that were paraded across the stage, one can assume that the Democrats believe that voters can be influenced by entertainers.  You can add that to the list of differences I have with Democrats; I don't give a rats ass how my favorite performers are going to vote.

During the evening, Clinton focused on the usual crowd-pleasing issues of her base.  We heard about discrimination, inequality and the poor.  You would think that as long as the Democrats had been around (and in power), they would have resolved some of these issues.  No doubt the trouble has to do with the evil Republicans, whose interests are to discriminate against anyone who isn't white and male, and to make the poor even poorer.  Not much new ground here.  But Hillary Clinton did discuss the serious issue of terrorism, and the importance of strong national security.  She acknowledged that the world has become a very dangerous place, which is ironic, given that the Obama Administration and Secretary of State Clinton are responsible in part for the mess we find ourselves in.

In 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped put together the New Start Missile Reduction Treaty with Vladimir Putin an Russia.  If you google "New Start Treaty", you will find the usual dry but useful Wikipedia entry, and you will also find a decent number of commentaries on the Treaty.  Not suprisingly, the folks on the right think its a disaster and the ones on the left couldn't be happier.  In order to truly measure the positive versus the negative, its necessary to view the Treaty and its ramifications from a 2016 perspective.  Most people seem to have come to the realization that Vladimir Putin is a snake and can't be trusted.  The Obama Administration can argue that in 2010, he didn't seem to be such a bad guy.  Don't fall for this line.  The State Department and the Obama Administration was well aware with what and whom they were negotiating.  Since Putin has become the Big Man on Campus in Russia, he has yet to direct his government to abide by any existing treaty.  Sure, there are treaties in which the disagreements have been anticipated and par for the course, but there is no way that the Obama Administration can argue that Russia deserved to be trusted with our national security.  Basically, the New Start Treaty did away with our last remaining Ballistic deterent, and what did we receive in return?  The same NOTHING that we negotiated for with last year's Iranian Nuclear agreement.  The treaty has been couched to look like an agreement between Europe and Iran, but with Secretary of State John Kerry practically sitting in the laps of the negotiators, there can be no denying the fact that our fingerprints are all over this monumentally dangerous pact.

During the 2008 election, then-candidate Barack Obama announced that once he took office, he would bring U.S. troops home from Iraq.  At first, it appeared that possibly common sense had caused Obama to change his mind, but once the 2010 midterm elections looked in jeopardy, and it was time to shore up the leftist base, ordered the evacuation of U.S. troops to begin, and to continue without delay.  There was a problem; we had an agreement with the Iraqi government that called for the U.S. military to train all branches of the Iraqi Security Forces.  The Pentagon was very concerned with the growing level of violence in bordering Syria, which was complicated by the presence of a former Iraqi insurgency/terrorist group which had started calling itself "ISIS" (formerly "Al-Qaida of the Two Rivers" and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi).  Once U.S. personnel started to leave Iraq in droves, ISIS decided to return.  The reasoned correctly that the recently reconstituted Iraqi Security Forces would be in no condition to defeat even a much smaller, battle-hardened ISIS conventional force.  During the first major encounter outside Tikrit, the Iraqi troops abandoned their equipment and deserted the battlefield without firing a shot; ISIS was able to add the latest U.S. weaponry and ammunition to its arsenal.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave full support to President Obama's decision to abandon Iraq, which left it open to invasion from the same scum that were responsible for the death of thousands of young American men and women in uniform.

What has been discussed above is just a sample of the events that took place when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.  She also presided over the State Department when the Arab Spring took us by complete surprise.  The year before the Arab Spring (up to two years after) are an example of complete and utter failure on behalf the diplomatic arm of the greatest nation on Earth.  You will find the Benghazi incident included in this time period.  We repeatedly saw Secretary Clinton accepting full responsiblity for the terrible performance of her State Department, and then going into great detail to explain how it really was SOMEONE ELSE'S responsibility.  I can assure you, I would have no problem defending my belief that Hillary was the worst Secretary of State of my lifetime.  She likes to brag about her foreign policy experience; I'm waiting for someone from the left to explain to me what it is that she has accomplished which merits "bragging" (my quotations).

During her speech, Clinton also heaped praise on President Obama for all the positive initiatives that he introduced, which saved our nation from economic collapse.  We will examine this brave statement, amongst others, later in the week.

What this election needs is an honest assessment of candidate Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy record.

Since Donald Trump trounced his GOP primary opposition and became the apparent Republican nominee for President, the media has not missed an opportunity to point out that Trump has no foreign policy record or experience to gauge.  No doubt Trump's grasp on foreign policy will be challenged often on the campaign trail by both his opponent and the press, and this is as it should be; the voter deserves to see both candidates undergo a thorough vetting process not just in foreign policy, but in a handful of tremendously important subjects.  With very little journalistic effort and probably no homework, the media has already decided that the issue of foreign policy and international diplomatic experience is a huge winner for Hillary Clinton, who served for twelve years as a United States Senator and four years as Secretary of State.  Let's take a look at candidate Clinton's foreign policy record during her years as a Civil Servant and see if we agree.

Hillary Clinton served in the United States Senate from January 2, 2001 until January 21, 2009.  During this time period, Senator Clinton took a number of international trips as part of her job, but no legislation was introduced or supported by Senator Clinton that has left a profound "foreign policy" impact.  Being a well-known personality and a leader in her party, Senator Clinton did not hesitate to comment on foreign policy issues, saving her most critical comments for the George W. Bush Administration.  You may recall that when the Bush Administration requested Congressional Approval for military action against Iraq, Democrat Senators and Representatives were put on the spot.  September 11 was still fresh on the mind of Americans, and politicians did everything possible to avoid the reputation of being "soft on terrorism".  This political reality explains why so many Democrats, Hillary Clinton being one of the most prominent, voted in support of the Bush Administration's efforts vis-à-vis Iraq.  Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama in 2008 were wrong to criticize Senator Clinton regarding her vote.  Hillary made it very clear that although she wanted to support the right of the president to take certain actions when necessary, she did not support the Bush Administration's intention to go to war with Iraq.  Clinton did not "flip-flop" on this issue.  Like many Democrats, she did what she thought was best in order to support the office of the presidency and at the same time prosecute the war on terror.

An examination of Hillary Clinton's record during her time as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration will serve as a much more useful tool in measuring Clinton's effectiveness as Secretary of State, and understanding how her political philosophy influenced her actions.  In campaign commercials that Clinton is already running, she takes credit for her efforts to help write and promote 2010's New Start Missile Reduction Treaty with Russia.  Mark my words- The Clinton Campaign will misrepresent the facts involving this Treaty, because the reality has the potential to damage the image being portrayed by Democrats and the Media of a shrewd, tough negotiator who faced down Russian President Vladimir Putin.  This false scenario is so off the mark that it is disturbing, although existing treaties with Russia were due to expire and there was an expectation for the Obama Administration to address the issue.  The New Start Treaty was signed by President Barack Obama and Russian Federation President Dmitry Medvedev on 8 April 2010, with the intention of further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive weapons.

The first real problem with the New Start Treaty is that it was signed by Russian Federation President and Vladimir Putin figurehead Dmitry Medvedev.  This particular Russian government has no intention of following through with its obligations, regardless of all the hand-shaking and smiles.  This sad fact was known to the Obama Administration, but it didn't matter; what was important was the treaty's political benefits, not the feasibility of its verification protocols.  Now I have the unenviable task of explaining the flaws of the New Start Treaty without putting you to sleep.  The reality is, this treaty will result in broad reductions of U.S. Ballistic Missiles because we follow through on our negotiated obligations.  The Russians will not.  It makes no sense to go through each and every flaw (the Heritage Foundation identifies twelve major flaws) because we can assume from the beginning that Russia will cheat at every opportunity.  If you need a dose of clear and brutal evidence, just review the diplomatic history of the current Ukrainian conflict.

The Clinton Campaign has identified the New Start Treaty as a diplomatic achievement important enough to make the voter brush aside all the failures of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's  Department of State.  We will be discussing some of these failures in the next blog posting, including the Clinton State Department's crippling habit of being reactive as opposed to proactive.  Diplomacy is a multi-faceted tool which has the fruits of espionage as one of its resources.  In addition, our cadre of well-trained diplomats are expected to create new relationships and build upon existing partnerships.  These are but a few of the resources that the State Department has at its disposal, to allow for a consistent pattern of proactivity on the international stage.  When the Arab Spring arrived with the force of a mid-summer Saharan sandstorm, our embassies in Tunis, Cairo, and other Arab capitals appeared to be taken by surprise, as was our Secretary of State.  From the genesis of this fascinating political and cultural event, the United States was always one or two steps behind.  I credit our career diplomatic corps at Foggy Bottom (State Department) for keeping many of our assets out of harm's way, but the entire mess leaves one to ponder, where was Secretary of State Clinton when the Arab Spring broke?

Mookie Baby's own State of the Union post:

In light of today's auspicious event, the final State of the Union address for President Barack Obama, I decided to save everyone some time, and help a few others from falling asleep as they sit in front of their televisions.  I have written my own State of the Union address  It is direct, to the point, brutally honest, and written in bullet-fashion to point out that it doesn't take two hours and pages of useless political obfuscation and subterfuge to deliver one of these addresses.  Granted, a whole bunch of folks are going to be angry with my conclusions.  But I stand by every point I make, and I can back it up with facts, baby.  The failures of the Barack Obama Presidency were destined.  Obama if anything is a dedicated ideologue whose enmity for our nation's history and traditions was evident from the start.  Remember the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's comment, "America's chickens are coming home to roost"?  They certainly have, Jeremiah.

State of the Union, 2016:

* In seven years, the National Debt has increased over 100 percent, to at least ten trillion dollars.  What exactly have we purchased that came with such a high price tag? 
* Persons who have been unemployed for more than two consecutive years and no longer look for work are not included on the monthly labor statistics released by the Obama Administration.  Real job creation is anemic.  Not once in seven years has this Administration told the American people the truth about our employment situation.
* Race relations in America are the worst that they have been in my lifetime.  Our first black president has made no legislative or executive effort to address the problems in the black community, including failing schools, high dropout rates, teenage pregnancies, single parents, rampant crime, proliferation of gangs, etc.  Black Americans deserve to live in peaceful communities just as much as the rest of us, but we have seen nothing from this White House in seven years. Interestingly enough, Obama has no trouble finding a cute little black kid to stand nearby while he signs some Executive Action overreach law.
* The Obama Administration has yet to meet a progressive special interest group that it didn't love.  The last seven years  has seen the authority of the Federal Government used to force Christian bakers to bake for lesbians, not to mention the non-stop attack on anything in school that might make mention of a Creator.  Thank goodness Michelle Obama's public school lunch policy is in place, as are those tolerance classes on transgendered folks.  By the way, how about the White House bathed in the colors of the Rainbow Flag on the night of the decision by the Supreme Court?  That was the day I realized just how much trouble we are in.
* In seven years, we have evolved from the world's only superpower to an emasculated, internally confused, self-loathing mess.  It started in 2010, with the disastrous precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, and Hillary Clinton's New Start Treaty with Vladimir Putin, which, for all practical purposes, eliminated our last ballistic deterrent/advantage against Russia.  Since then, we've suffered through (stumbled through) the Arab Spring, Benghazi, the Iranian political takeover of Iraq, Russia's annexation of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine, North Korea's never-ending nuclear research and provocations, China's ability to take unilateral action internationally with no repercussions, rampant terrorism all over the globe, Russia shoving us aside in Syria, and the sponsorship of the nuclear treaty with Iran, which is arguably the worst treaty this nation has ever signed.

The real problem, my friends, is not the list above.  The real problem is, where do we go from here?  First and foremost, we have to ensure that a Democrat does not return to the White House.  Given the "State of the Union" in 2016, I am ASTOUNDED that a Democratic Administration in 2016 is even a possibility.  And if we manage to get a Republican in the White House, who will it be?  I would hope that the average American would recognize that the problems we face are much too dire to trust in the hands of a bullying, misogynist bigot like Donald Trump, but he seems determined to hang around for the long haul.  I can imagine him deciding on whether or not to use our Armed Forces as if he were negotiating a deal on a block of Condos in West Palm Beach.

Addressing our serious problems will be a monumental task.  I find myself wishing that we had Mitt Romney on contract, because his is the kind of honest business mind that we need to find a way out of this unfathomable national debt crisis.  Truly, the debt and our need for real job growth and tax reform, have become issues of national security.  As for ISIS and our international entanglements, I'm convinced that re-establishing our backbone is the best place to start.  Tear-up that useless treaty with Iran (as if they were going to follow-through with their commitments), and welcome Ukraine into NATO.  Flatten all North Korean nuclear research installations, and if you can find Kim Jon-un, drop a 500-lb. bomb in his lap as well.  Those are just a few suggestions.  Let us know how you feel.......  

The Obama Administration continues to fail in all areas of diplomacy and foreign policy, and Putin works to build an anti-ISIS coalition.

Links: A. U.S. begins training anti-ISIS fighters in Syria.
           B. Obama spends 500 million to train 5 anti-ISIS operatives.
           C. Putin intentions in Syria.

It was only last May, that President Obama announced that the United States would begin training an "anti-ISIS" force to act as "boots on the ground" and supplement the U.S.-led allied air coalition.  Since then, there has been a remarkable dearth of information on the training program, although a few titles were tossed to the media, including "Free Syrian Army" and "New Syrian Army".  During the summer, while ISIS expanded its operations in Iraq, and increased its hold over Syrian territory, we wondered what had become of this expensive initiative.  Certainly someone needed to stand up to ISIS besides Jabhat al-Nusra (JN), who, aside from their direct affiliation with Al-Qaeda, at least had a decent record in combat with the Islamic State.  This week we learned that up-to-now, the first part of the training program was complete, and after spending $500 million, the U.S. had a grand total of five operatives ready to stand up to ISIS in Syria.  Granted, the Pentagon is quick to point out that over the next three faces of the program, another one-hundred twenty operatives will complete their training, but that leaves us with one-hundred twenty five, to take on roughly thirty thousand rugged, experienced ISIS members.  This Administration knows how to spend money like nobody's business; at least it gives us some idea how the United States went from $3 trillion in debt, to almost $20 trillion, in less than seven years.  But that is a subject for another day.

From a foreign policy perspective, this Administration hangs its hat on three accomplishments: the killing of bin-Laden, the signing of the New Start Treaty, and this new nuclear treaty with Iran that has yet to be ratified by Congress.  I would have added a fourth accomplishment, but the Obama Administration doesn't talk much anymore about the quick withdrawal of troops of Iraq, probably because ISIS dived right into the vacuum left behind.  The disaster known as the New Start Treaty has already been dissected on this blog, as has the nuclear treaty with Iran.  So how does the Obama Administration stack up, as diplomatic accomplishments go?  Obama began his term in office with what is affectionately known as "the apology tour" through the Middle East.  When the Arab Spring blossomed, we were nowhere to be seen.  We were in no position to respond effectively to any of the developments in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.  We become totally reactive, trying to jump quickly as soon as something happened.  When Russia invaded Georgia, we had little response, and when Putin charged into Ukraine and swallowed up Crimea, Obama looked in someone else's ancient playbook and decided to lead our brave European allies in a new sanctions regime.  As the Russians increased their aggression, the sanctions grew, and we were told that the Russian economy would eventually crack.  I had to ask myself if ANYONE in this administration knew the slightest thing about the Russians.  If you want to intimidate or persuade the Russians to change their policy, don't waste your time on an economic approach.  The Russian people are insulted when someone tries to starve them into acquiescence; they understand what it means to cut back and do without, and if it means giving the finger to the U.S. and Europe, they will tell you to bring on your sanctions!  I understood this simple cultural quirk when the crisis began, here we are, over a year later, and those mighty sanctions have still not managed to bring the Russian bear to its knees.  In fact, I think the Russians are actually expanding their footprint internationally, sending troops and tanks to fight ISIS in Syria.  I guess they figured someone had to do it, and unless it can be wrapped up in a sanctions regime or dropped from a jet fighter high up in the sky, Obama and the United States are not going to step up to the plate.

For every international crisis that has occurred since 2008, the United States has failed miserably in its response.  It truly resembles amateur hour at Foggy Bottom.  All the while, the Russians have truly started stretching their wings.  No doubt Putin chose the Syrian city of Latakia as the arrival location of the first wave of Russian troops and equipment for a number of reasons.  Latakia is on the coast, and would make an ideal location for a Russian naval base to access the Mediterranean.  Also, NW Syria is home to Syria's influential Alawite minority, not to mention a number of other ethnic minorities including Christians.  Putin, as he embraces the mantle of "International Leader", will guise himself as the protector of all the various religious and ethnic minorities in Syria.  And what makes Putin's position so enviable, is that he is ready to back up his new role by putting Russian troops and tanks on the ground to confront ISIS.  The United States could have made the same choice, and would probably have been better equipped and experienced to wipe out ISIS in record-time.  But Obama doesn't appear to care much for the U.S. military, and makes use of our Armed Forces only in specific scenarios.  First and foremost, we must not put a soldier or pilot or sailor in harms way.  Military deaths do not translate well into Democratic votes.  Given how the leaders of Europe snivel at his feet whenever there is a joint appearance, there is no question that they would have directed their military to join an Obama coalition to destroy ISIS.  But Obama was not up to the task, regardless of how quickly the job could have been accomplished and how few casualties would have resulted.  So Putin has moved into the vacuum, and so far, is doing an admirable job.  Cheers to you, Vlad.  Take out a couple of those ISIS bastards for me, will ya?  

Thoughts on the Nuclear Treaty with Iraq and partisanship in general.

Link: Netanyahu voices concern over removal of sanctions.

Ever year our nation seems to become more politically partisan, with everyone claiming to be independent, but Independent candidates getting no traction whatsoever.  No doubt if an Independent (meaning not Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian) candidate arrived on the scene who had Donald Trump's bank account, we might see a very competitive election.  But the system is built to support the two existing parties and the established methods for raising campaign funds.  Independent candidates can never expect to come close to raising the kind of money that a serious Republican or Democrat can.  Aside from that fact, we don't believe an Independent candidate would be representative of the United States electorate, anyways.  In 2015, we are an opinionated nation, and people feel very strongly about the validity of their perspectives.  w guess we're no different.  When we hear someone expressing an opposite viewpoint, we do my best to give them a fair shake. But at the end of the day, after almost half-a-century on this planet, we have confidence in our opinions.  And something important we've learned along the way: don't get mouthy and loud about issues in which you have no knowledge or experience.  Here at "Mukhabarat, Baby!", we have made a point to avoid posting opinionated commentaries regarding the United States economy.  Sure, we have opinions, but I'm not an economist.  I do, however, consider myself to be knowledgeable on issues of diplomacy and foreign policy.  Some readers may consider our site to be partisan,  but you can be sure that we support our positions with evidence.

I recently read an article which introduced ten retired U.S. Army Generals who had come out in support of the Obama Administration's Nuclear Treaty with Iran.  Its our understanding that the United States Army has hundreds of certified, true Generals among us, the vast majority of them retired.  Something tells me, that if I made a bit of an effort (and you know, to protect this president, the media would make the effort), I could round up ten Generals who believe that the Reptilian People live amongst us.  In other words, finding ten Generals to agree on something doesn't get you very far, especially when we are considering something as patently awful as this Treaty.  The three issues that bother me the most about this treaty have nothing to do with the controversial subject of nuclear proliferation.

My first complaint has to do with a handful of U.S. citizens that are currently locked away in Iranian prisons.  Not surprisingly, each one is being accused of having insulted Islam, being an enemy of the Islamic Republic, or a spy for the Zionists, or just a plain spy, period.  The charges are bogus; they are in jail because they are U.S. citizens, and the Iranians thought that they might come in handy someday as bargaining chips of some sort.  Normally, given the seriousness of the negotiations between the United States and Iran, you would have expected U.S. negotiators to have tried tooth-and-nail to make the release of our citizens part of any agreed-upon treaty.  Can you believe that this president was so obsessed with the issue of his legacy that he allowed the Iranians to remove the subject of the prisoners/hostages from the negotiations, without the slightest complaint?  How can a sitting U.S. president agree to a treaty with a foreign power that holds U.S. citizens in its jails, as hostages?  The Administration has gone on record stating that the charges against the prisoners are false, and yet they were forsaken.  What if that were your parent, or your sister, sitting in that Iranian jail?  I wonder if they had promised to vote Democrat in the next election, if he might have tried a bit harder to have them included........

My second complaint: what steps has Iran taken that justify the lifting of weapons sanctions?  A nation EARNS removal from a weapons embargo, at least that's the way it's been up to now.  Does Iran continue to financially support terror groups around the world?  Absolutely, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen (dumping the Houthis in with Hezbollah is a bit of a stretch...we ask your indulgence).  Iran also provides tremendously important support to the flailing regime of Bashir al-Assad in Syria.  Where else does Iran export weapons and warfare?  Iraq is a good example; the Shi'a militias/Popular Mobilization Units (PMUs), which have become so important in the struggle against ISIS in Iraq, include the Badr Organization, Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, Mahdi Army, and Kata'ib Hezbollah.  Each group is trained and supplied by Iran.  As for the Iranian Armed Forces, they are in serious need of updated materials.  The Iranian Air Force is still flying a combination of ancient U.S.-made F5s (from the days of the Shah), and Migs that it stole from Iraq during the initial Gulf War.  And unlike the Chinese, Indians, Israelis and South Africans, the Iranians have had little success utilizing older equipment, and creating an indigenous weapon by incorporating home-grown innovations and technologies.  The Iranians need radar, jets, bombers, cargo planes, tanks, armored personnel carriers, computerized targeting equipment, missiles, and artillery, and their navy needs submarines and frigates.  Luckily, the economic sanctions will make it difficult for Iran to go on a shopping spree, now that the weapons-sanctions have been lifted.  Wait....ALL sanctions are being lifted, aren't they?  That means billions of dollars for Iran to buy what it wants.  And once the Saudis and the U.A.E. realize that Iran is not only closer to a nuclear weapon, but that they are modernizing their Armed Forces as well, we will see a nice little arms race develop in the Persian Gulf.  Its not Rocket Science, folks.

For all practical purposes, our last major complaint has already been covered.  We believe that the Iranians should have been obliged to disavow the exportation of terror and the support of terrorist groups.  It may have been just show, but at least we could make them look a bit foolish on an international stage.  In reality, Iran should have been required to limit its aid to groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis to strictly humanitarian goods.  In the end, nothing was asked of Iran.  They were not asked to disavow terror, and they were not asked to dismantle certain facilities in Iran whose sole function is the processing of weapons-grade nuclear material.  They were asked to halt all research into nuclear weapons-related projects, and to permit regular inspections.  The Iranians refused to agree to the inspections, until Secretary of State John Kerry took a knife and severed the last set of balls that existed in this treaty, which was the option for unannounced inspections.  What did Kerry agree to instead?  The inspectors must request the opportunity to inspect each respective site, and that request must be made three weeks in advance of the actual inspection.  To add to the absurdity, the Iranians reserved the right to DENY the request.  In truth, what would we do?  If the Iranians said, "we don't give you permission to inspect that particular site", would we automatically re-apply the sanctions?  Would be take back the money that would have poured into Iran by then?  And what about all the new upgraded military hardware....do you think they will return it, no questions asked?

Previously, we were convinced that the 2010 New Start Treaty was the worst treaty ever negotiated by a U.S. Secretary of State.  John Kerry has proved us wrong, and in the same administration, no less. 

True to form, Obama bargains away our National Security in a vain search for a legacy.

Links: A.  CNN: Landmark treaty reached with Iran.
           B.  Fox News: Iran deal worse than expected.
           C.  Basics of 2010 New Start Treaty with Russia.

Earlier today, during a discussion regarding the Nuclear Treaty the Obama Administration and our European allies have crafted, I expressed my opposition.  Almost immediately, I was accused of being so opposed to the current Administration that my opinions had become very "predictable".  My reply to the young lady was to describe myself as "consistent", especially when discussing governments that openly export terrorism and are responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of U.S. soldiers.  As for my opposition to the Obama Administration, I can only speak from my personal life experience and my conscience.  I voted against Obama on both occasions, along with almost fifty percent of the rest of the country.  I don't feel isolated in my opposition to his policies, nor do I consider myself a radical.  Most importantly, I'm always prepared to back up my perspective with facts.

I have been patiently waiting for the 2016 Presidential Debates so I can hear Hillary Clinton's defense of the 2010 New Start Treaty negotiated and signed with Russia.  This treaty reduces our nuclear arsenal by one-third, while China and Russia are modernizing theirs.  I addition, the Obama Administration has delayed funding for ground-based interceptor (GBI) missile and radar sites that we promised to install in the Czech Republic and Poland.  This delay was the result of loud complaints from Russia regarding this proposed defensive capability.  Unbelievably, the Obama Administration has gone further and hinted at a willingness to unilaterally deactivate one-third of our nuclear arsenal, as behind-the-scenes discussions take place regarding the next round of U.S.-Russian arms talks.  All of this is taking place while Russia slowly swallows up big chunks of Ukraine, and laughs off our repeated attempts to "sanction" them into playing nicely.

The treaty that was hammered out yesterday by John Kerry, his European counterparts, and the Iranian delegation, is even worse than New Start.  A Republican Administration, backed by a Republican Congress, and take effective steps to roll-back the New Start Treaty or rewrite it altogether.  This treaty with Iran establishes so many precedents that will be impossible to reverse.  What are my problems with the treaty?  Lets start with the existing diplomatic environment.  Everyone in the room, including the cleaning man and the lady who refilled everyone's glasses, knew that Kerry was not allowed to leave empty-handed.  He had orders to make every concession necessary in order to secure the Obama Legacy.  Where is the proof to support this allegation?  Just look at the treaty: the Iranians got everything they wanted, and in return we received a few promises that re impossible to verify.  All of DC knew Kerry wasn't allowed to come home without a treaty, and I'm sure Tehran (and Qom) were just as clued-in.  That explains the continued delay after delay.  Sadly, in the end it was only the Iranian complaints that were addressed, as the verification process became so watered down as to make the Saddam Hussein inspection/verification regimen look respectable.

Early on in the negotiations, the Iranians demanded that the conversation be limited to the subject at hand, the nuclear issue.  This removed any chance that suffering families in the United States might get word regarding relatives that have been languishing in Iranian prisons, with no due process.  These are American citizens, and this is how imperative it was for Kerry to get an agreement.  From my optic, their lives don't matter to this Administration.  As an example of just how much carte blanche the Iranians had to rewrite the ground rules, the issue of conventional arms sales were added to the negotiations.  So the U.S. was not allowed to introduce the subject of American citizens in Iranian jails, but the Iranians were able to introduce the subject of sanctions on arms sales to Iran.  Not surprisingly, this issue was included in the final draft.  Sanctions on arms sales to Iran are to be lifted, as they continue to be the world's number one sponsor of international terrorism (Hezbollah, Houthis, etc.).  The Iranians were not required to renounce support for terror, or to join any existing agreement to not engage in weapons proliferation to places like Yemen, Libya, and Syria.

From my perspective, the worst part of the agreement was the controls put on verification.  If our inspectors want to visit an Iranian nuclear research facility, they have to submit the name of the location at least one month in advance.  Even then, there are clauses that allow the Iranians to delay the inspectors.  Even Saddam Hussein had it worse.  Another negative result: you can be sure that both the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia will become players in the nuclear arms race.  The royal families of the Persian Gulf are well-aware that they fall just below Israel on Iran's nuclear hit-list.  What a mess.

What happened to the days when we expected people to join the ranks of civility and common courtesy amongst nations before they are rewarded?  Wouldn't it have made sense to establish diplomatic relations first, before agreeing to this giveaway?  Monday, he government of Iran had as its official policy, the destruction of Iran.  As for the public policy, the streets were full on Monday of Iranians chanting "Death to America!"  I do not have the expertise or the space to provide a full review of the absolute crap that this treaty contains.  I respectfully ask everyone to read both B and C, to get an honest appreciation of how little our national security means to this Administration.  Amateur Hour in DC.   
        

Something to consider....President Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Link: A. Hillary Clinton is running for President.
          B. Flaws of New Start Treaty

Hillary Clinton is running for the Democratic nomination to be President of the United States in 2016.  These things occur in steps: first the candidate must make a public announcement, usually accompanied by a Hollywood-produced video of babies, puppies and lots of Old Glory.  Then the candidate must run for their political party's nomination, in a series of primary elections that take place across the country.  Once the primaries are complete, the party meets in a pre-selected city for the nominating convention, where the votes are tallied (candidates earn delegates according to their percentage of the vote in each respective primary) and a nominee is announced.  The count takes place on the third night of the four-night spectacle, which allows the party to put together a fourth night, jump-start "pep rally" for all of the delegates and volunteers and party faithful.  Then the candidate runs for president against whoever was chosen by the opposing party.  Ideally, our system is designed to allow for multiple parties to participate, which could result in four or five candidates running in the general election.  But the system has allowed itself to be molded, shaped, prodded, and morphed in a manner that really only makes it reasonable for the participation of two political parties, and in the end, two presidential candidates.  In the United States, we have the Democratic and the Republican

Party.  We also have the never-say-die Libertarian Party, which can never get traction because of their lack of financial support for ad campaigns, and the wink-and-a-nod agreement between the GOP and the Democrats to keep the libertarians out of any debates.  This guarantees no press exposure, no major newspaper editorials, and no chance whatsoever of being competitive.

For everyone already familiar with our political system, I appreciate your patience slogging through the above paragraph on our electoral process.  The majority of my readers are not American, and I never assume that they understand the way we run our business.  As for the primary process, former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is running for the Democratic nomination in 2016.  This is not Hillary's first attempt to win the nomination.  In 2008, she started the primary season as the candidate to beat, only to be upstaged by Barack Obama.  I can only imagine how frustrating this loss must have been, as Clinton really appreciates everything happening according to plan.  Clinton was supposed to be president in 2008, not 2016; but these are cards she must play.  What I found to be the most amusing was that some political analysts (and personal friends) actually considered the possibility that she wouldn't run.  Hillary Clinton has been running for president for a long, long time.  Anything short of her own Administration will be considered a lifetime disappointment, at least in her own eyes.  You see, Hillary comes from the generation of the late 1960's and early 1970's that was either fighting in Vietnam, or protesting the war while in college.  Actually, Hillary Rodham was such a bright student and potential future leader, that in 1974 she was a chosen as a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal. Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernie Nussbaum, Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and it's historical grounds and standards.  During that same time, Hillary was dating Bill Clinton.  Once they were married, though, it quickly became apparent that his political ambitions would come first.  But Hillary made it obvious as First Lady that she was interested in policy, not White House Tours.  Her run for the Senate surprised no one, although her choice of locations was up in the air for some time.  Then, after losing the Presidential nomination to Obama in 2008, Hillary made the strategic decision to accept the position of Secretary of State in the Obama Administration.  I think that this was a mistake, but how big a mistake is yet to be seen.

The GOP will go through a much more contested primary season, and at this point, its anyone's guess if the nominee will be Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Mario Rubio, Dr. Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, or someone else.  The Democratic nomination, though is Hillary's.  Forget the "draft Elizabeth Warren" campaign, or the conversation about Martin O'Malley; it's just a bit of distraction to make the Democrats appear as if they really are holding a competitive primary.  What is the first thing any sincere voter should do when considering a candidate?  Why, look at their experience.  Hillary served almost nine years as a Senator, representing New York State, and then accepted the position of Secretary of State in Barack Obama's first term.  She chose not to continue as Secretary of State during Obama's second term.  Evaluating Hillary's performance as a Senator is not difficult.  She voted as any liberal Democrat would, which is what was expected by her New York constituents.  She voted in favor of the Iraq War, and then explained that she, like so many of her fellow Democratic Senators, had been lied to and tricked into believing that Iraq posed a threat, when it didn't.  If you really want a look at Hillary's record, her time as Secretary of State is a treasure trove of information.  First and foremost, Hillary stayed behind the scenes during the Obama apology tours, that were such a highlight of his first term, which is a bit odd, considering that she was Secretary of State.  When it came to the

Secretary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov 

sign documents for Entry into Force of the New START Treaty.

New Start Treaty with Vladimir Putin and Russia, though, she was highly visible. Clinton was highly supportive of this treaty, which was intended to get the United States and Russia back on track to diminishing the nuclear stockpiles that had been accumulated during the Cold War.  Unfortunately, this treaty, like any treaty that would be approved by Putin, required almost all of the sacrifice to be on the part of the United States.  Plainly said, the New Start Treaty virtually eliminated any remaining advantage we had over the Russians, and severely limited our ability to protect our allies in Europe (especially eastern Europe).  No matter how you look at this treaty, it is a victory for Russia.  The treaty is a loser for the United States, and I have yet to hear anyone bring this fact to the attention of its number one supporter, Secretary Hillary Clinton.  Also during Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, the Arab Spring bloomed right under the noses of our State Department, without so much as a fart coming out of Foggy Bottom.  We were unprepared in Tunisia, unprepared in Egypt, and boy, were we out of our league in Libya.  The events of the Arab Spring are an indication of a State Department that had become solely reactive in its actions.  Why? Because its focus was elsewhere. 

Another very sensitive issue deals with Secretary Clinton's creation of a private server, from her home, not just for her use, but for the use of certain members of her staff.  Law requires that all of those emails must be saved, but many weren't.  In fact, it appears as if two members of Secretary Clinton's staff reviewed the emails from the personal server to separate the ones that were personal and not related to government business, and to destroy them.  Wow.  Actually, no emails should have been destroyed, period.  Anyone want to bet that at least a few of those emails had "Benghazi" written in them somewhere?  It shows terrible judgment for someone who, at the beginning of her career in politics, was involved in the Watergate Investigation, during which a president destroyed tapes so they wouldn't be politically or criminally incriminating.  And now she orders two of her staff to destroy emails?  I don't think we've seen the last of this scandal.

In general, I don't think that Hillary Clinton would be a disaster as a president.  I believe she is an egomaniac, but what politician isn't?  It might actually be a useful trait for the job.  She is very intelligent, and appears to have boundless energy.  In no way have I seen any justification for questioning her patriotism.  Economically, I believe her policies would be much more to the center than the Obama Administration.  I'm convinced that one of the first things she would do would be to put together a panel to fix whatever is broken about Obamacare (or dump it altogether).  I don't see her being taken to the cleaners again by Putin, and she has gained substantial experience on the international stage.  My strongest disagreements with Hillary Clinton would be in the realm of foreign policy.  I believe that her international perspective is very left-of-center, and the world has become too dangerous for anything less than a strong, pro-military, "America-first" policy.  We are no longer in a position to trust first and verify later, and we must never waiver in our commitment to Israel.  For these reasons, and to a lesser extent, some of the issues mentioned earlier in this post, I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton.

Just How Evil Has Russia Become?

Links: A. Problems with New START Treaty
           B. Russia's Support for Syria's Bashir al-Assad
           C. Russia Assisting Iran's Nuclear Program
           D. Russia Launches New UK Channel

Today's post will probably be broken up into two segments, as much as I despise "Part I and Part II" reading selections.  This subject can't be addressed with only a handful of paragraphs.  Recently we've discussed Iran, the resurgence of Al-Qaeda in sub-Saharan Africa, and the Ebola crisis.  All of these issues deserve serious attention.  In fact, as we dither, I'm assuming the Iranians have been making tremendous progress in their efforts to enrich Uranium.  In the mind of President Obama, though, the real threat to the liberty and safety of the American people is......the need to "legalize" persons who are living in this country sin documentos.  Hey, we all have out priorities.  I won't be tackling that issue in my blog, at least not anytime soon.  Let's take another look at Mother Russia.

In 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got to work negotiating a Nuclear Reduction Treaty with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev (of course we actually mean Prime Minister Vladimir Putin). Many analysts questioned the timing and the need for this treaty, and once the guts were on the table for us to examine, the United States did not come off well (I won't drop this pile of manure squarely on Hillary's doorstep; thirteen GOP Senators voted in favor of the treaty; of course, that was during the days when we had separate branches of government).  If you want to know what is wrong with the treaty, have a quick look at the first link above. More than anything else, any treaty with Russia is a roll of the dice because the Russians lie, hide and cheat.  Ask any of the officials who have previously been involved in weapons reduction verification.  And yet we trust them with our Nuclear Security on a handshake.  In a case of terrible timing for Hillary, the Russians are not winning any philanthropy awards this year.  It will be very difficult not only bragging about the New START Treaty in her 2016 Presidential Campaign; it is something she will have to defend (at least from questions by the Fox News folks).  My personal question to candidate Hillary: "As Secretary of State, you undoubtedly knew of Russian assistance in Iran's efforts to enrich Uranium.  How could you agree to sign a Nuclear Arms Reduction Treaty with a nation that was actually helping to create another third-world country with nuclear weapons?"

I don't have to spend too much ink on Russia's support for Syrian de facto President Bashir al-Assad.  During the dark days of the Soviet Union, Russia supported Assad's father, Hafez al-Assad (at least daddy had a chin, for goodness sake), and anyone else who was willing to oppose Israel.  I have a challenge to all of you armchair generals out there.  Lets try and determine just how many Russian tanks have been laid waste in Sinai, Golan, and the West Bank over the past five decades?  What used to fascinate me was the Soviet's willingness to replace the tanks that the IDF destroyed.  And most of the time, it was an upgrade: T-54/55 to 7-62 to T-72 to T-80; what a bargain.  Assad in Damascus still has as many as 1600 T-72/T-72Ms, not to mention 2000 T-54/55 clunkers and 1000 T-62s.  I have no idea how Assad's armor has been reduced, but you can be sure he has taken full advantage of the recent international focus on ISIL to get his front-line units in shape.  Why do the Russians continue the Soviet policy of support for Assad and the Syrian Ba'ath Party?  It all boils down to location and strategy.  Syria sits in a very strategic location, south of Turkey, north of Saudi Arabia and Israel, and west of Iraq.  Having Syria as a close ally has been advantageous to Russia in the past, and the opportunity to create a Mediterranean Russian Naval Base at Tartus is a tempting inducement.  Russian patronage of Assad is paying off.  It gives Russia a seat at the Syria/ISIL/Iraq table, wherever that table may be.

Why are the Russians so anxious to create additional member of the nuclear weapons club?  It has to be more than an issue of money, although I'm sure the Iranians are willing to pay.  Russia has its own oil, so petroleum can't be the reason for assisting Iran's Nuclear efforts.  Historically, the Chinese have also been willing to share their knowledge of all things nuclear (most of it stolen from our labs and universities), but with Beijing it was always about money.  And Iran has contracted with Russia to build a number of reactors.  Heaven only knows where the payment for all of this "help" will end up...probably in a Cyprus Bank Account under a Russian name.  Iran claims to be solely interested in peaceful use of nuclear energy, but the reality is, the Iranians are only interested in enrichment of uranium.  In fact, the Iranians have been using laser technology to create weapons-grade Uranium, which takes less time and is more difficult to detect, therefore encourages proliferation.  It would be such a welcome change if a Russian government would make a decision based on the notion that "its simply the right thing to do".

We have discussed the situation in Ukraine ad nauseam, and I refuse to send the few readers I have left, running for the exits.  My original suspicion was that in order to punish Ukraine for removing a pro-Russian president, Putin decided to annex Crimea and swallow up the modest Ukrainian Navy (poor Ukrainian Navy; I'm the only blogger who gives them any face time).  Putin created the "independence" movement in eastern Ukraine as a bargaining chip; if Ukraine accepts the annexation of Crimea, then Russia will withdraw their criminals and thugs from the streets of Luhansk, Donetsk and Dnipropetrovsk.  After the fourth or fifth round of punishing sanctions (and one jetliner full of passengers, shot right out of the sky), Putin was reminded of the complete lack of nerve in Washington DC and the EU, and decided to keep mixing things up in the Ukraine.  Lets face it, what does he have to lose?  Putin could order a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States and Moldova, and what would President Obama's response be?  Noodle on that one for a while.

The reason I decided to discuss Russia today was the news of a new Russian UK television channel and a new Russian international news service, ostensibly to "combat western propaganda".  One can only hope that people won't pay attention to this new news service called "Sputnik", unless it becomes an outlet for comic relief.  Last week, some Russian news service (probably all of them) highlighted a video clip showing a Ukrainian jet shooting a missile at Malaysian Airlines MH 17.  If it weren't so disgusting and vile, it would have been funny, because the clip was obviously fabricated.  These gross morons don't seem to understand that if the Ukrainians wanted to shoot down that jetliner, they could have done so from at least a few miles away.  The absurdities regarding this alleged photo of a military jet shooting a missile at a civilian jetliner go on and on and on.  And this is the kind of honest reporting that we can expect from Sputnik and the new UK-based Russian television channel.

When the Iron Curtain fell, I was so excited for the future.  I have always been fascinated by Russia, and I was thrilled with the idea of an entirely new relationship between Washington DC and Moscow.  I'm not sure how, but things have fallen completely off the rails.  The Russian people don't seem to be happy unless they have an oppressive, militaristic government.  Can you imagine if Gorbachev had come to power instead of Putin?  But we are stuck with Vlad, and everyday he finds a way to remind me that he is nothing more than a sociopathic bucket of shit with serious homosexual tendencies (nothing personal, Gay folks), who managed to be at the right place and at the right time.  Putin used his KGB and Russian Mafia connections to elbow his way into the power vacuum that was left over after Boris Yeltsin.  And we are all suffering for it.  One fact is becoming more and more apparent all the time; the United States needs a leader who is proud of his/her country and is prepared to stand up to the bullies of the world.  2016 can't come fast enough.......