Senate Republicans Blast John Kerry Iran Briefing For Being "Solely an Emotional Appeal," Warn of a "Future of Nuclear War," Democrats Mostly Mum

Want new sanctions against Iran

White House

It's hard not to wonder whether the interest by some senators to bring fear mongering on Iran back to the forefront of Washington's agenda is related to what a shit job that body's done on everything from developing a federal budget to passing the mess that Obamacare has revealed itself to be as is in the first place. It's certainly also possible that Secretary of State John Kerry is so far down the rabbit hole of "the White House is never wrong" that he can't make a credible argument in favor of an Administration policy even when that policy is sound.

Whatever the case, John Kerry was apparently not successful in convincing Senate hawks that renewing sanctions while negotiations with Iran have not yet collapsed is a bad idea. In fact, Republicans reportedly stormed out of yesterday's briefing while Democrats didn't want to comment. Via Foreign Policy:

"It was solely an emotional appeal," Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) told reporters after the briefing. "I am stunned that in a classified setting, when you're trying to talk with the very folks that would be originating legislation relative to sanctions, there would be such a lack of specificity."

"Today is the day in which I witnessed the future of nuclear war in the Middle East," said Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), a staunch Iran hawk. "This administration, like Neville Chamberlain, is yielding large and bloody conflict in the Middle East involving Iranian nuclear weapons." Kirk added that he felt the briefing was "anti-Israeli."

The vituperative GOP response was matched by relative silence by exiting Democrats.

"I'm not gonna comment," said Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA).

"No comment," said Tim Johnson (D-SD), the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) declined to answer questions about sanctions as he ascended a congressional escalator. 

"Was this a helpful briefing?" asked The Cable.

"Yes. Very helpful," said Reid.

When asked how so, Reid did not elaborate.

Corker, Kirk and the rest can read a case against new Iran sanctions not rooted on emotional appeal here. John Kerry's welcome to lift from it, no footnotes necessary.

They can all also read more Reason commentary on Iran here.

Comments

[Tman]

Looks like Obama picked a bad week to stop sniffing glue.

[John]

In a poor economic climate, political leaders like Ahmadinejad turned to Iran's nuclear program as a patriotic project, using Iran's recalcitrance to elicit a rally around the flag effect.

Really? That is why Reason thinks Iran is pursuing the bomb? As some kind of wag the dog political maneuver? If Reason wants to say that the US should not care one way or another if Iran has the bomb, fine. That is at least a rational argument. But pretending that Iran is building the bomb for any reason other than because doing so is in its interests and will allow it greater freedom to bully its neighbors and oppress its own population is just insulting the reader's intelligence.

[Brett L]

Wait, what? Of course Iran believes it is in its interests. The point of that sentence is to illustrate that the US has given them fuel to make the idea popular with the common Iranian.

[John]

Iran isn't a Democracy and its people hate their government. So who cares if it is "popular"? Moreover, if the Iranian economy functioned better, people would be even less likely to object to the nuclear program since there would be more money to go around.

You have to be a retard to think that the sanctions are the reason Iran is pursuing the bomb. If you want the sanctions lifted, fine. But please don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining by claiming lifting the sanctions will get them to end their nuclear program.

[Loki]

Iran isn't a Democracy

Actually they are... sort of. The president is elected, and IIRC, they also have an elected legislature (hence The Islamic Republic of Iran). Although it's true that the clerics, led by the Ayatollah, have all the real power and the elected branches of the government are more or less figureheads.

I think the main thing they were trying to say is that the sanctions tend to hurt the population more than the government, and they give the government a convenient boogey man to explain to their people why their lives suck and the economy is so bad. IOW, "It's not because our centrally planned economy is disfunctional and shitty, it's because of those damned Americans and their sanctions! Be pissed at them, it's not our fault!"

I think there is something to the idea that their nuclear program can be used as a rallying cry in that environment, although I also agree that that's not its primary purpose: its primary purpose is to threaten its neighbors and Isreal. The fact that they can use it to stoke a little patriotic fervor to keep the people pissed off at an external enemy is just a bonus for them.

[John]

I think the main thing they were trying to say is that the sanctions tend to hurt the population more than the government,

That is the position. But if it were true, why would the Iranian government care so much about getting the sanctions lifted? It is not like they give a rats ass about their own people.

It seems to me that if these sanctions just hurt or primarily hurt the people and didn't do anything to hurt hte government, the government would have no interest in seeing them lifted. Yet, the Iranian government very much wants them lifted.

Either, the Iranian government doesn't know what is in its own best interests and doesn't realize how lifting the sanctions will end up being the death of them or Reason is totally naive in thinking that lifting the sanctions will do anything but help the government.

I bet on the latter.

[Anonymous Coward]

But pretending that Iran is building the bomb for any reason other than because doing so is in its interests and will allow it greater freedom to bully its neighbors and oppress its own population is just insulting the reader's intelligence.

I would argue that both you and Reason are wrong. A nuclear weapon for countries not under the Pax Americana/NATO is built as a deterrent to invasion by the US.

Using a nuclear weapon inside of your own borders to cow the population is asinine (scorching the Earth is one thing, irradiating it is something else entirely). And if it is a patriotism project, then I would say there are easier ways to go about it, most notably, point to the favoritism of the United States for the Sunni majority of most of the Middle East, Obama's threatened war against the Shi'ite Syrian president Assad, and Obama's support of the Muslim Brotherhood and its chosen President Morsi, who presided over the very public lynching of three Shiite clerics.

Painting a fresh picture of the Great Shaitan is cheaper than building a nuke for propaganda.

[sarcasmic]

A nuclear weapon for countries not under the Pax Americana/NATO is built as a deterrent to invasion by the US.

Yep.

[John]

But why would the US want to invade? The only two reasons the US ever invades is because you are sponsoring attacks against them or you are doing something horrible to your own people.

There are lots of countries that are not a part of the nuclear umbrella. But most of them are not trying to build the bomb. The ones who are are doing so because they plan to do one of those two things. In Iran's case, you can debate about the attack part. But there is no question about the "do awful things to your own people" part.

[sarcasmic]

From their point of view they've got two neighbors that have been invaded and occupied, one of which based upon intelligence that turned out to be somewhere between faulty and just plain dishonest.

I don't think they much give a shit about stated intentions of the US government.

But there is no question about the "do awful things to your own people" part.

Yeah. I like how the US stepped in to halt all those genocidal maniacs in Africa. Oh, wait. Never mind.

[John]

I like how the US stepped in to halt all those genocidal maniacs in Africa.

No one cares about Africa. They care about Iran, just like the cared about Kosovo and Bosnia or Northern Iraq. Sucks to be a murderous dictator in a strategic and historically important area.

Beyond that, even if you are right, you are just telling me that Iran has no reason to build the bomb other than to fuck with their neighbors. I am not sure that helps your cause.

I don't think they much give a shit about stated intentions of the US government.

I think you are right. You should take that up with Reason. They are the ones who are convinced that we can get Iran to change its ways if we just give them enough and kiss their ass enough. I am not claiming that. I think Iran is going to build nukes unless someone steps in and stops them.

[sarcasmic]

you are just telling me that Iran has no reason to build the bomb other than to fuck with their neighbors

Um, no. That's not what I said.

They are the ones who are convinced that we can get Iran to change its ways if we just give them enough and kiss their ass enough.

Straw men are made of straw.

You bore me, Red Tony. To tears.

[John]

Did you read the article linked above about sanctions? That is exactly what they are claiming. Reason is arguing that we should end the sanctions because that will take away the reason for Iran to build the bomb.

Stop yelling straw man. Not every argument you don't like is a straw man. If you don't agree with Reason, fine, neither do I.

[sarcasmic]

Reason is arguing that we should end the sanctions because that will take away the reason for Iran to build the bomb.

As someone once said, "If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will."

I don't think that trade would end ALL reason for Iran to build the bomb, but it would remove SOME of the incentive.

Notice I put some words in capital letters. That was on purpose.

Not every argument you don't like is a straw man.

Dude, when you argue against me as if I side 100% with Reason, then you are arguing against a straw man. Argue with what I say, not the voices in your head.

[Anonymous Coward]

No one cares about Africa. They care about Iran, just like the cared about Kosovo and Bosnia or Northern Iraq. Sucks to be a murderous dictator in a strategic and historically important area.

How about our favored trading partners in China? Until recently, they killed prisoners to harvest their organs. Of course we have nothing for them, because, in addition to have a billion bodies ready throw at our guns, they have *drumroll* nuclear weapons.

Personally, I'm content to let the Persians and Arabs continue fucking with each other as they have for the last 1400 years.

I think you are right. You should take that up with Reason. They are the ones who are convinced that we can get Iran to change its ways if we just give them enough and kiss their ass enough. I am not claiming that. I think Iran is going to build nukes unless someone steps in and stops them.

The majority opinion of the Reason editorial board appears to be that you beat tyrannical regimes more easily through freely exchanging trade and culture as opposed to embargo and war (see: Soviet Union).

[John]

The majority opinion of the Reason editorial board appears to be that you beat tyrannical regimes more easily through freely exchanging trade and culture as opposed to embargo and war (see: Soviet Union).

We beat the Soviets by trading with them? That is an interesting bit of revisionist history. And as you point out we trade with China like crazy. Yet, I don't see them being any less oppressive or aggressive towards their neighbors today than they were 20 years ago. If anything they are more aggressvie. They may have been more hostile under Mao, but their ability to threaten Taiwan or the US was a lot more limited. Thanks to trade and economic development, they have a lot better toys.

The Reason staff are delusional. Trade may be a great thing. But making murderous regimes into peaceful ones is not one of the reasons. That is just internalizing the Marxist bullshit idea that hatred comes from economic deprivation.

[Anonymous Coward]

We beat the Soviets by trading with them?

You left out the culture part, which has been the source of several articles around here. (How Dallas Won the Cold War) Which makes sense if you propagandize them to think that the Americans are better off than they are, they'll start to wonder if they are getting the best deal.

[John]

You miss the point. If get nukes not to use on your own population. You get nukes so that as you point out, the US or anyone else threatening you with invasion is off the table. This allows you to crack down and murder your own population with no worries about anyone interfering.

North Korean is able to run the worst terror state in history because it is just not practical for the world to do anything about it. Iran would like to have the same freedom.

I in no way intended to imply the Iranians are building the bomb to use on their own people.

[Brett L]

And why would anyone trust us after Libya?

[John]

They shouldn't. And that is one of the biggest reasons why going into Libya was so stupid.

[BakedPenguin]

That, and the fact we were basically helping al-Qaeda. That they would even consider intervening in Syria after that shows what a bunch of clown shoes these fuckwits are.

[Anonymous Coward]

This allows you to crack down and murder your own population with no worries about anyone interfering.

It certainly doesn't preclude clandestine military aid to parties in opposition to the government (see: Benghazi; Syria).

North Korean is able to run the worst terror state in history because it is just not practical for the world to do anything about it.

North Korea exists because China allows them to exist. North Korea is a client state of China and if the Korean War taught the US nothing else, it should be that nuclear weapons or no, the Chinese will sit by and let the US assert military power on the mainland.

Iran would like to have the same freedom.

Iran is no worse than our dear allies Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia when it comes to oppressing the population.

I in no way intended to imply the Iranians are building the bomb to use on their own people.

My apologies, I misunderstood your comment.

[John]

It certainly doesn't preclude clandestine military aid to parties in opposition to the government (see: Benghazi; Syria).

It makes it a hell of a lot riskier. Would we have done those things if any of those countries had nukes? I sure as hell hope not. I don't think funding such groups is worth risking a nuclear war. Do you?

North Korea exists because China allows them to exist.

And why does China do that? Part of the reason is that because it has nukes and a ton of chemical weapons and the country hitting its death throws and nuking South Korea would be very bad for China. Take that threat away and China would probably be much more amenable to some kind of solution to the problem.

Iran is no worse than our dear allies Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia when it comes to oppressing the population.

Yes they are. They are not US allies. So they don't get a free pass like the Saudis do. And beyond that, there is a limit to even what the Saudis can do to their own people. Iran would like to go well beyond that without worrying about the world intervening.

These people are hated by their own people. If the regime ever ends, they are all going to end up with a noose around their necks. They don't want any worries of the US or the UN or anyone else stopping them from doing what they have to do to stay alive.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think funding such groups is worth risking a nuclear war. Do you?

As I understand it, these things are usually done with an element of plausible deniability.

And why does China do that?

Sleight of hand. Pay attention to this busy hand doing nothing (North Korea), while the other hand(s) (China, Tibet, Africa) does the trick.

North Korea is sound and fury, signifying nothing.

And it is analogous to Iran. Plenty of blood and ink was spilled over the puppet President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad capering for the amusement of the West. Meanwhile, the Ayatollahs quietly went about ruling Iran with hardly a word said or written about them.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

They are not US allies.

Egypt and Jordan will certainly be surprised to hear that (see USC Title 10 Section 2350a) which creates our Major Non-NATO Allies. Egypt was in the inaugural class (1989). Jordan joined in 1996.

And beyond that, there is a limit to even what the Saudis can do to their own people.

Is there? Where is it?

These people are hated by their own people.

Undoubtedly. But they hate the United States more, which is the point of the game. If you are the lesser of two "evils," you are free to do what you like.

[John]

The people of Iran don't hate the US. The US is popular with the population. And to the extent it is not, that is primarily due to our not offering support to the failed green uprising.

The average Iranian doesn't hate the US. It is the government that hates the US. They blame their government for its failings not the US.

[Fist of Etiquette]

"Today is the day in which I witnessed the future of nuclear war in the Middle East," said Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), a staunch Iran hawk.

"Hassan, you've got a nuke but you don't have me. You were going to kill me, Hassan. You're going to have to come to Illinois. You're going to have... to come... to Illinois."

[Hillary's Clitdong]

With the Democrats having brought us an enormous, shitty government program in the form of Obamacare, the Republicans have no choice but to respond with an enormous, shitty government program of their own, in the form of a potential war with Iran.

[Brett L]

Also, clearly we should just let the Saudis and Israelis admit they have nukes and let regional MAD run its course.

[fish]

We can still drill through the newly established glass surface for oil after the Sauds and Iranians have slugged it out....and we won't have to deal with those pesky Saudis and Iranians!

Have at it you sun addled nitwits!

[Brett L]

I'm pretty sure that if Kennedy and Khrushchev managed not to nuke us back to irrelevance, MAD is universally applicable. See also, India and Pakistan.

[John]

Also, clearly we should just let the Saudis and Israelis admit they have nukes and let regional MAD run its course.

You do realize that MAD nearly destroyed the world several times during the cold war? MAD is at best an insane strategy forced upon us by an insane situation.

And as evil and as bad as the Soviets were, they were at least a competent military power and their leadership known not to be suicidal or outright insane. The same can't be said of either Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Maybe MAD is the only option. But it sure as hell isn't a good one.

[Brett L]

Pretending that we are the only people capable of handling the responsibilities of nuclear weapons is silly. Even the North Koreans haven't nuked anyone. Just because you don't like the Iranians is no reason to believe that they will behave any differently than every other nuclear power in the world. And yes, I do believe that the Saudis and Israelis have American (or at least NATO) built nukes and arming protocols. Why should Iran be the only kid on the block NOT allowed to have nukes? Everyone else supports terrorists in each others countries.

[John]

Pretending that a state of the world where countries have nuclear missiles pointed at one another won't eventually result in some kind of nuclear exchange either through mistake or insanity is what is silly.

The US and the Soviets had the two most competent militarys in the world. Yet, they almost destroyed the world in 1983 after the Soviets mistook a war game for an attack.

Iran doesn't possess half of the institutional competence of North Korea much less the old Soviet Union. And there is the off chance that they really do mean what they say and really are insane and are willing to absorb an Israeli counter strike for the privilege of finally destroying Israel. Sure that seems unlikely. But crazy things do happen. It is possible. But the Soviets never claimed that they were willing to die to destroy the US, only that they would destroy the US if we ever attacked.

I love how Libertarians in every other context understand governments can't be trusted and will generally fuck things up and often do insane and horrific things. But when it comes to a lunatic theocracy getting nuclear weapons, there is no risk of anything bad happening.

[sarcasmic]

I love how Libertarians in every other context understand governments can't be trusted and will generally fuck things up and often do insane and horrific things.

Yep. All of which can be explained by politicians acting in their own rational self interest.

But when it comes to a lunatic theocracy getting nuclear weapons, there is no risk of anything bad happening.

I don't know who said there is absolutely no risk, and I also don't know how it would be in a politician's rational self interest to commit suicide. I mean, politicians care about expanding their power and little else. Starting a nuclear war isn't a good way to expand their power.

[John]

Reason seems to be claiming there is no risk. They are the ones saying things like the only reason they are building nukes is because of the sanctions.

Iran getting nukes is really going to suck. Maybe it won't suck bad enough to justify stopping them or we can't stop them even if we want to. I don't know. But it is going to suck and may even result in something horrible happening. That is just the truth.

[sarcasmic]

Reason seems to be claiming there is no risk.

Then argue with Reason about no risk, not me.

But it is going to suck and may even result in something horrible happening.

Yeah. Like the US not being able to invade, occupy, and rebuild. That will totally suck.

[John]

Sure Sarcasmic. That is all that could happen. No risk of a weapon ever being used and there being a nuclear war or anything.

Do you honestly believe that the US is the only country in the world capable of meaning anyone harm?

[sarcasmic]

I really don't know what you're talking about, John. Get back to me when you want to respond to me instead of the voices in your head.

[John]

Yeah. Like the US not being able to invade, occupy, and rebuild. That will totally suck.

What was the point of writing sarcasmic if not to imply that that is the only upshot of Iran getting nukes?

I can only read what you write. What did you mean there? Yes, it reduces the chances of the US ever confronting Iran, everyone agrees about that. But why say that if not to make the point that that is the only or most important upshot?

[sarcasmic]

But why say that if not to make the point that that is the only or most important upshot?

Dude, I'm done with this. You've used the word "only" one too many times. Fuck off.

[BakedPenguin]

...they almost destroyed the world in 1983 after the Soviets mistook a war game for an attack.

Yep. Stanislav Petrov deserves a fucking Nobel Prize. Obama should give him his. Seriously, he's in charge of a Soviet missile command station, sees what looks like 4 nukes coming in, and uses his judgment that the US wouldn't attack with only four missiles.

I can't imagine balls that big, since the repercussions if he were wrong would be horrific. He's right there with Norm Borlaug in the top five of humanity.

[John]

Yeah. What happens when there isn't such a guy? I don't get all of this nostalgia for the cold war and MAD. It was not a good solution. We just got lucky.

[R C Dean]

If he was wrong, that would mean we did in fact send in a nuclear first strike.

At that point, the KGB would be the least of his problems.

[[e-mail]]

The US and the Soviets had the two most competent militarys in the world. Yet, they almost destroyed the world in 1983 after the Soviets mistook a war game for an attack.

You forgot the bizarre irrational belligerence of the Reagan administration once the neocons took hold of his brain. That added to the Soviets willingness to believe an attack was coming. Thankfully, Thatcher showed up and reprogrammed him.

[The Late P Brooks]

"It was solely an emotional appeal," Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) told reporters after the briefing. "I am stunned that in a classified setting, when you're trying to talk with the very folks that would be originating legislation relative to sanctions, there would be such a lack of specificity."

Footnotes are a bitch.

[The Late P Brooks]

All together, now!

Bomb bomb bomb,

Bombomb Iran!

LET'S GO!

[Swiss Servator, Original Gnome]

Now, if you are going to do a proper John McCain, you needed to fart a puff of dust at the end.

[Loki]

"We have always been at war with East Central Asia." - Obama, in a few months when the Obamacare "fake scandal" doesn't go away.

[Jon Lester]

So many people are so sure they know what's going on with Iran, its nuclear program and its ultimate intentions. I don't see Iran starting a nuclear war under any circumstances, even if it is actively building its own weapons.

I hope the gradual trend of Americans moving away from religion will ultimately lead to fewer caring if Israel can take care of itself, because there's no reason to favor one supremacist regime over another. Both countries are about as "democratic" as apartheid South Africa was.

[John]

So many people are so sure they know what's going on with Iran, its nuclear program and its ultimate intentions

and

I don't see Iran starting a nuclear war under any circumstances, even if it is actively building its own weapons.

So you would be one of those people? Their leaders have said on multiple occasions they intend to do just that. Maybe they are lying. Probably they are lying. But I don't see how you can say "they can't be lying".

[Juice]

Their leaders have said on multiple occasions they intend to do just that [start a nuclear war]. Maybe they are lying.

You got a quote on that?

[John]

Do you know how to use google? They have said on multiple occasions their goal is to wipe Israel off the map. Do you think Israel wants to bomb a country that can't physically invade it for fun?

[Jon Lester]

We've heard that from the likes of MEMRI and Debka, but not so much from more objective sources.

Honest question: how do you distinguish yourself from other authoritarian followers? Why are you so predisposed to believe what you're told about this issue more than others?

[R C Dean]

We've heard that from the likes of MEMRI and Debka, but not so much from more objective sources.

Of course, those "objective" sources typically only pass on the English-language stuff meant for Western consumption.

[MarkinLA]

Well YOU made the accusation. If it was so readily available on google you could provide a link. You cannot provide an actual link to a creditable source. All you can provide links to is the same ridiculous echo chamber sites that post pro Israel crap all the time.

[Jon Lester]

I know when those invested in oil futures and/or Sunni supremacy are lying to me.

[Dave Krueger]

"It was solely an emotional appeal," Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) told reporters after the briefing

Well, if there's anything the party of religion and patriotism should recognize, it's an emotional appeal.

Not that the party of helping the poor and rescuing the common laborer from corporate slavery isn't just as capable of leveraging people's sympathies...

Oddly, neither party seems to be receptive to the emotional appeal to stop prosecuting hundreds of thousands of non-violent drug offenders, making them largely unemployable.

I can see the attraction of wanting to keep up the pressure on Iran to help scuttle any negotiations that might prevent a war. We are, after all, one war down from where we used to be which is a clear sign of weakness that could easily lead to a full scale invasion by Al Qaeda.

[Juice]

It looks like everyone is still operating under the assumption that Iran is actively working toward nuclear weapons despite there being ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF THIS. Unless Iran has some hitherto unknown secret source of highly enriched uranium (95%) instead of the low enriched uranium (

[R C Dean]

actively working toward nuclear weapons despite there being ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF THIS

So they've spent untold sums of money on massive processing plants that are far beyond what you need for solely peaceful nuclear power, just for fun?

Iran maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful and that the uranium enriched to 20 percent is necessary to fuel the Tehran Research Reactor, which produces medical isotopes. The international community is concerned about the growing stockpile of 20 percent-enriched uranium, which can be transformed relatively easily into weapons-grade material.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act.....entrifuges

[Juice]

What the hell? I see there was a less than sign, here's the rest of the post
( less than 5%) needed for nuclear power then it can easily be assumed that they are not and cannot be making nuclear weapons or even coming close. On top of that, the IAEA has continued to verify the non-diversion of all nuclear materials from the production stream for fuel for nuclear power. All Western powers act under the assumption that Iran is trying to make nukes because it's convenient for them to do so and gives them an upper hand in negotiations, not because it's actually happening.

[R C Dean]

On top of that, the IAEA has continued to verify the non-diversion of all nuclear materials from the production stream for fuel for nuclear power.

How has the IAEA been verifying non-diversion from processing facilities it has not been allowed to access?

An annex to the IAEA agreement listed six first steps to be taken by February 11, including access to the Gchine uranium mine and a heavy water production plant near the town of Arak.

http://news.yahoo.com/iaea-ira.....27844.html

[Juice]

Fuck it all I'll put it all in one post.

It looks like everyone is still operating under the assumption that Iran is actively working toward nuclear weapons despite there being ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF THIS. Unless Iran has some hitherto unknown secret source of highly enriched uranium (95%) instead of the low enriched uranium (ess than 5%) needed for nuclear power then it can easily be assumed that they are not and cannot be making nuclear weapons or even coming close. On top of that, the IAEA has continued to verify the non-diversion of all nuclear materials from the production stream for fuel for nuclear power. All Western powers act under the assumption that Iran is trying to make nukes because it's convenient for them to do so and gives them an upper hand in negotiations, not because it's actually happening.

[John]

There is no source of high enriched uranium. You just keep running the ore through the cyclotrons until you get the isotope percentage high enough. It all comes from the same ore. Iran has thousands of cyclotrons and the US has offered to provide them with non bomb grade uranium in exchange for giving up production of their own. They have always declined. I guess they just like cyclotrons.

Jesus Christ. They are building a bomb. How close they are is anyone's guess. But spare me the "they just want nuclear power" delusion.

[brec]

It's hard not to wonder whether the interest by some senators to bring fear mongering on Iran back to the forefront of Washington's agenda is related to what a shit job that body's done on everything from developing a federal budget to passing the mess that Obamacare has revealed itself to be as is in the first place.

That is the first sentence of the post. If I were copy-editing, I would make these changes:

(1) "interest ... to bring fear" to "interest ... in bringing fear"
(2) "shit" to "shitty"
(3) "... that Obamacare has revealed itself to be as is in the first place." I don't know what the intended meaning is; "to be as is" is not English.
(4) I would re-write the sentence to be more concise, perhaps something like "Is it possible that some senators' interest in returning fear mongering on Iran back to the forefront is a result of the shitty job the Senate's done on everything from (not) passing a budget to the Obamacare mess?

I don't want to pick on Ed; this is merely an example of the poor presentation quality of H&R posts in general, which seem rife with poor diction and, in particular, missing words. I understand that these are not formal essays, but still...

[Ed]

I've been othered 🙁

[Nixonfan]

Kerry's biggest challenge has been his limited intellect. He is a well-meaning man, but he is limited. It's amazing the effort that he is putting into hopeless causes, like "negotiating" with Iran and Palestine. He's tall, but he's no Kissinger.