Skip to content

Brown Scores Upset Victory Over Coakley in Massachusetts Senate Race

January 20, 2010
by Paul Monti

Monti Says: Hey Washington! There’s a new sheriff in town!

Foxnews.com

January 19, 2010

In a victory few thought possible just a month ago, Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley Tuesday in the race for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy — a win that could grind President Obama’s agenda to a halt and portend huge losses for Democrats in the November midterms.

In a victory few thought possible just a month ago, Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley Tuesday in the race for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy — a win that could grind President Obama’s agenda to a halt and portend huge losses for Democrats in the November midterms.

In his victory speech, Brown declared that he had “defied the odds and the pundits,” and said he would try to be a “worthy successor” to Kennedy.

“Tonight, the independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken,” Brown said. “This Senate seat belongs to no one person, no one political party. … This is the people’s seat.”

With 97 percent of precincts reporting, returns showed Brown leading Coakley 52-47 percent, by a margin of 120,000 votes. Independent candidate Joseph Kennedy was pulling 1 percent.

The victory marks a stunning upset in a race thought to be safe for Democrats until Brown’s campaign began to surge just weeks ago. It has powerful ramifications for Obama’s agenda.

The GOP state senator, once sworn in, will break the Democrats’ 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority in Washington. This creates problems for proposed legislation ranging from financial regulatory reform to cap-and-trade, but most immediately Brown’s win sends Democrats into a scramble to pass health care reform before he arrives in Washington. Democrats were already weighing options for how to fast-track the bill before polls closed Tuesday.

Brown blasted the health care bill in his Tuesday night speech. He was visibly giddy during the address, going off script and at one point offering up his daughters to the dating circuit — and later flubbing his campaign pitch line, “I’m Scott Brown. I’m from Wrentham. And I drive a truck.”

Coakley, in her concession speech, said she was “heartbroken” by the result but thanked the Kennedy family for their support in the race and said she respects the voters’ choice.

“There will be plenty of Wednesday-morning quarterbacking about what happened, what went right, what went wrong …. We will be honest about the assessment of this race and although I was very disappointed, I always respect the voters’ choice,” she said.

Brown’s margin of victory is significant, making it difficult for any potential challenges to slow down his certification as the winner. The state senator becomes the first Republican to be elected to the Senate from the Bay State since 1972.

Kennedy, who died in August, held the post for 47 years.

“This is a lot different than my victory,” former Massachusetts Republican Gov. Mitt Romney told Fox News. “To have a Republican senator, that’s unheard of. … This is monumental. This is epic.”

He and other Republicans said the race sends a warning sign to Washington that voters are not happy with Obama’s policy decisions.

The White House said Obama has spoken with both candidates. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama told Brown he “looks forward to working with him on the urgent economic challenges facing Massachusetts families and struggling families across our nation.”

Considering how much was on the line, Brown’s late-in-the-game surge commanded the attention of the Democratic Party establishment, which dispatched top officials over the past week to try to keep the seat formerly held by Kennedy in Democratic hands. Voter interest in the race for U.S. Senate also seemed high throughout the day. Poll workers reported a steady stream of voters at the ballot box despite the snow.

Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin was predicting turnout could be as high as 50 percent.

Brown’s campaign marked an upset just by being as competitive as it was against Coakley’s.

Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-to-1 in the state — 37 percent of registered voters are Democrats, 12 percent are Republicans and 51 percent are unaffiliated. Obama won the state by 26 percentage points in the 2008 presidential election.

But Brown was pulling far more support across the state Tuesday than Republican presidential candidate John McCain did in 2008.

The campaigns had been inundated with help from outside the state in recent days. Obama and former President Bill Clinton both came to campaign rallies for Coakley, and Obama appeared in a television ad.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee in Washington also “emptied out the building” of staff to send nearly everyone to Massachusetts to help Brown get out the vote. The NRSC reportedly quietly shifted $500,000 to help Brown’s campaign in the last two weeks.

Brown’s swift rise in the reliably blue state has startled Democrats nationally who are already worried about a backlash in the midterms.

“When there’s trouble in Massachusetts, there’s trouble everywhere, and they know it,” Brown said Tuesday night.

Sen. Robert Menendez, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, acknowledged the rough road ahead for the party.

“I have no interest in sugar coating what happened in Massachusetts. There is a lot of anxiety in the country right now,” he said in a statement. “In the days ahead, we will sort through the lessons of Massachusetts: the need to redouble our efforts on the economy, the need to show that our commitment to real change is as powerful as it was in 2008, and the reality that we cannot take a single thing for granted and cannot afford even a second of complacency.”

Brown will have to run for re-election in November 2012.

Massachusetts: ‘Bottom has fallen out’ of Coakley’s polls; Dems prepare to explain defeat, protect Obama

January 15, 2010

Monti Says: Hey left, wing-nut Democrats! What goes up, must come down! Bye bye unconstitutional healthcare bill!

Washingtonexaminer.com

January 15, 2010

Byron York

Here in Massachusetts, as well as in Washington, a growing sense of gloom is setting in among Democrats about the fortunes of Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley. “I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers,” says one well-connected Democratic strategist. In her own polling, Coakley is said to be around five points behind Republican Scott Brown. “If she’s not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout,” the Democrat says. “So right now, she is destined to lose.”
Intensifying the gloom, the Democrat says, is the fact that the same polls showing Coakley falling behind also show President Obama with a healthy approval rating in the state. “With Obama at 60 percent in Massachusetts, this shouldn’t be happening, but it is,” the Democrat says.
Given those numbers, some Democrats, eager to distance Obama from any electoral failure, are beginning to compare Coakley to Creigh Deeds, the losing Democratic candidate in the Virginia governor’s race last year. Deeds ran such a lackluster campaign, Democrats say, that his defeat could be solely attributed to his own shortcomings, and should not be seen as a referendum on President Obama’s policies or those of the national Democratic party.
The same sort of thinking is emerging in Massachusetts. “This is a Creigh Deeds situation,” the Democrat says. “I don’t think it says that the Obama agenda is a problem. I think it says, 1) that she’s a terrible candidate, 2) that she ran a terrible campaign, 3) that the climate is difficult but she should have been able to overcome it, and 4) that Democrats beware — you better run good campaigns, or you’re going to lose.”
With the election still four days away, Democrats are still hoping that “something could happen” to change the dynamics of the race. But until that thing happens, the situation as it exists today explains Barack Obama’s decision not to travel to Massachusetts to campaign for Coakley. “If the White House thinks she can win, Obama will be there,” the Democrat says. “If they don’t think she can win, he won’t be there.” For national Democrats, the task is now to insulate Obama against any suggestion that a Coakley defeat would be a judgment on the president’s agenda and performance in office.
The private talk among Democrats is also reflected in some public polling on the race. Late Thursday, we learned the results of a Suffolk University poll showing Brown in the lead by four points, 50 percent to 46 percent. That poll showed Obama with a 55 percent approval rating. Also on Thursday, two of Washington’s leading political analysts, Stuart Rothenberg and Charlie Cook, each changed their assessment of the Brown/Coakley race from a narrow advantage for Coakley to a toss-up.

President Obama Must Choose Sides

January 11, 2010

So how much rocket science does it take to figure out that the Obameister’s policy of appeasement just isn’t working? And the better question is why didn’t more people see that he was ill prepared to be the Commander-in-Chief while we were at war with an enemy he is afraid to name:  Jihadist Islam?

AMERCAN THINKER

January 10, 2010

By Rabbi Aryeh Spero

There appears to be a battle raging within Barack Obama. How this war is resolved will decide how we fight the war on terror and determine if we win it at all. In his speech last spring in Cairo, Mr. Obama said, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” Defending the honor of Islam and protecting Muslims is one of the goals that Barack Obama has set for himself. It constitutes a personal definition of his presidency. But is he doing so to the point of misleading the public in general, and at the risk of jeopardizing the American people in particular?
The near-deaths of three hundred people on Christmas due to an Islamic terrorist plot — an act of war against America — did not rouse Obama from golf and relaxation until three days later. When he finally spoke, he disrespected us, as before, by claiming that this was a “lone event” disconnected from anything larger. But most Americans knew what it was, and the subsequent reports and al-Qaeda announcement told us that this was an act of jihad, a part of the larger scheme of radical Islam in its war against America.
After the Fort Hood massacre, the president’s first reaction was to intone the silly assertion that we “do not know what prompted this outrage.” In fact, everyone immediately intuited what was verified more each day after the carnage: that devotion to the Islamic cause generated Nidal Hasan’s decision to kill American infidels. The president was strangely unwilling to tie these murders to Islam or jihad or imams, even knowing that the jihadist yelled “Allah aqbar” as he mowed down innocent Americans.
In all these matters, Mr. Obama’s first concern seems to protect things Islamic rather than name and fight the Islamism intent on destroying us. This attitude predates his presidency, and it is one of the animating and personal goals of his worldview. Even before becoming senator of Illinois, he tells us in The Audacity of Hope (pp.261) of his earlier decision: “I will stand with them [Muslims] should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” For Barack Obama, the recognition that this is not simply generic “extremism,” as he likes to call it, but specific to Islam and carried out by devout young Muslim men borders on the “ugly direction” against which he promised to stand. But by so doing, Mr.Obama is misleading the country and standing in the way of the measures needed to protect the American people and win the war on terror.
What we get from the president after each incident is not a tough, impassioned call to wipe out jihadists, but the warning that we “should not rush to judgment” or draw any conclusions regarding Islam or Muslims. The more Islamic terrorism, the more warnings we receive from him not to mischaracterize Islam. But how can the American public be accused of “rushing” to judgment when this has been happening before our eyes for thirty years already? After decades of these incidents — and they are coming quicker now — Obama expects us to participate in his cover-up for Islam by immediately agreeing that these attackers are either “alone,” or “misfits,” or “crazy.” They are not crazy, but devoted to a cause; not misfits, but fit into a very large Islamist groupthink; not alone, but part of an ideology, most often coordinated by Islamists and clerics higher up. These are agents of Islamism on the same level as the German agents of Nazism who tried to do damage within our borders during WWII. At least back then, the safety of the home-front was more important to our leaders than protecting “feelings.”
Until President Obama acknowledges the Islamic context behind these acts of worldwide jihad, we Americans remain at great risk. One cannot vanquish what he does not believe is a culprit. And thus, the most likely candidates setting out to kill us — Islamic young and mostly single men under 40 — are not routinely checked, nor are the mosques where many of these plans are hatched and coordinated. Obama and his people are elevating and sanctifying the doctrine of “no profiling” as if it were a fundamental principle of humankind more important than life itself.  A society that suspends analytical and rational judgment in favor of a politically correct fantasy is on the road to unscientific darkness and eventual suicide. One hopes that Mr. Obama is guided by foolishness only and nothing more.
Barack Obama’s failure to tell the truth about Islamism goes beyond the routine excuse-making of the politically correct ideology that has negatively infected our country. Mr. Obama’s preoccupation here is personal. Though not a practicing Muslim, nor a visibly practicing Christian, in office, he has a cultural and ethnic fidelity to Islam that skews common sense and is resulting in harm to our nation. After all, Islam is a culture in which Obama was raised. It represents to him what Americanism and the Judeo-Christian ethos represent to us who were raised in them. Obama grew up in Islamic Indonesia from age 6 to 12 — formative years, the years in which the subconscious is molded –and he seems to have liked it very much.
“One of the prettiest sounds on Earth,” as Obama told The New York Times in March of 2007, “is the Moslem call to prayer.” Such warmth of identification is to be expected concerning those things that supply a childhood. As a youngster, Obama was identified as a Muslim, and he spent two hours a day in elementary school studying Islam. He seems unwilling to move beyond his youthful, rose-colored view of a more-secular Islam to today’s facts. He remains fixed in his adoration, as demonstrated during his Cairo tour, when he referred to the Quran as the “Holy Quran.” He never waxes that way about our Constitution, for that was not his mother’s milk. The dozens of citations in the Quran allowing murder and mayhem are to Obama not organic, whereas the allowance in our Constitution for the now-defunct system of slavery sours him on its entirety. Yet for Obama, the Quran is not stigmatized, even with its numerous references and validations of slavery and its continuance of slavery even today by those who cite its authority.
In another address, Obama spoke not of Islam as a religion, but The Islam, The Path, as would someone who sees in it something transcendent. Never has he waxed reverent about America’s accomplishments as he has about Islam’s contributions to the world or his concoction of Islam’s enormous contribution to the development of the United States.
The utter lack of pain and passion in Obama’s non-emotional responses to both the Fort Hood massacre and the Christmas scare was striking. He spoke of it as he would a highway bill. I’m sure he is not happy, yet it doesn’t seem to be personal. Contrast this with how he reacted and condemned the Cambridge police at Harvard regarding Professor Gates. He appeared to be affected — because he was. And yet, Professor Gates was not terrorized as were the passengers aboard the Delta flight, who thought they would soon die.
All this rhetoric about not “profiling” (which is simply the use of rational judgment) and about not blaming Islam may sound “enlightened,” but for Obama, it constitutes verbal weapons in defense of Islam. His war is not for victory over jihadism, but to defend the honor of Islam under today’s difficult circumstances. For him, it is a balancing act between the Islam he loves and the duties imposed on him by the presidency.
It is hard to shed the teachings, culture, and religious life of one’s youth. And the Islamic world is Obama’s world. Much of his ethnicity and the people that are natural to him derive from it. Obama cannot conceive of a clash of civilizations where the one intent on destroying the civilization he’s supposed to protect is Islam, his Islam. Obama will not allow sensible military rules of engagement that give maximum and routine protection for our soldiers if by so doing, some Afghan Muslims will lose their lives. He seems to identify with those people as much as he does our young Americans. He does not allow the necessary profiling of young, single Islamic men because he thinks of how that would make some of his own family members feel, as well as how the young Barack Obama would have felt. Those feelings are understandable for Barack Obama, private citizen, but not for a president of the United States.
Today’s global mayhem and chaos is not from Basque terrorism. We Americans tolerate intrusive measures at airport check-ins not out of fear of another Timothy McVeigh or white neo-Nazis, as the ACLU wants us to believe. That’s a deliberate obfuscation — one that the president is endorsing — and such obfuscation and denial invite danger. The jihadist relishes striking on Christmas specifically, since it is the goal of jihad to profane and degrade Christian and Jewish sacred time and sacred objects. Islam sees this as a contest between religions. Had we been allowed to acknowledge the Islamic content behind current terrorism, we would have been on especially high alert on Christmas Day.
Last November, we elected our first president with Islamic affinities and familial ties. The problem is that today’s clash is with Islam. We need a president whose first loyalty and cultural empathy is to and with Americans. We don’t have that in President Obama. He cannot forever dally and hide behind new “commissions” that have nothing new to tell us regarding what must be done. Obama must soon choose between his emotional need to protect Islam and his presidential requirement to protect the American people. Unfortunately for him, the two are not compatible.
Rabbi Spero is president of Caucus for America.

Pop star admits that she was a little tipsy during her award show acceptance speech.

January 7, 2010
by Paul Monti

Monti Says: How many women are hot even while drunk like Mariah was? She’s given me inspiration to launch my new page: Monti’s Foxy’s. Enjoy!

Associated Press

January 6, 2010

Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd won’t seek reelection, will retire at end of term

January 6, 2010

Monti Says: This low-life, corrupt, coward is not retiring. He’s quitting because the going is getting tough. The silver lining is that the American people will no longer suffer because this political thief’s public service career is over!

The Washington Post

January 6, 2010

By Chris Cillizza

Embattled Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) has scheduled a news conference for Wednesday at which he is expected to announce he will not seek reelection, sources familiar with his plans said Tuesday night.

Word of Dodd’s retirement plans comes after months of speculation about his political future, his faltering poll numbers and a growing sense among the Democratic establishment that he could not win a sixth term in the Senate. The news also came on the same day Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) announced he would not seek reelection.

Once among the safest of incumbents, Dodd’s political star fell over a two-year period, during which he moved his family to Iowa to pursue the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination and was linked to a VIP mortgage loan program overseen by a controversial Wall Street financier. He also drew harsh questions about his oversight of Wall Street, as chair of the Senate Banking Committee, in the years when the nation’s financial system was heading toward near collapse.

Dodd’s poll numbers plummeted last spring before rebounding somewhat over the summer. But another dive in the polls late last year led to widespread concern that Dodd needed to vacate the seat for Democrats to have a chance at retaining it in the 2010 elections.

Dodd’s troubles were politically ironic, coming at a time when his power on Capitol Hill had reached a height that most legislators only dream of. In addition to the banking committee, he also held pivotal posts on the health and foreign relations committees.

Over the past 18 months, he has been the primary author or co-author of legislation rewriting housing mortgage rules; the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street; key portions of the $787 billion stimulus package; a consumer protection bill overseeing the credit card industry; and the nearly $900 billion health-care legislation that has passed the Senate and is in final negotiations with the House now.

With each major piece of legislation Dodd ushered into law, the senator also endured criticism that he did not anticipate. The mortgage bill came in mid-2008, which some said was delayed because of Dodd’s presidential aspirations, and the financial bailout became one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation passed in recent memory. His work on the stimulus bill, approved last February, was an attempt to rein in executive compensation at firms that had been bailed out but instead led to sharp criticism when executives at AIG, the largest recipient of taxpayer dollars, still received seven-figure bonuses shortly thereafter.

Without Dodd on the ballot, Republicans’ chances of taking over a seat in solid-blue Connecticut are considerably diminished.

Richard Blumenthal (D), who has served as state attorney general since 1990, is widely expected to declare his candidacy for the seat. The most popular politician in the state, Blumenthal has long coveted a Senate seat, and he had already signaled that he would run for the Democratic nomination against Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I) in 2012.

Former Rep. Rob Simmons and businesswoman Linda McMahon are battling for the Republican nomination, but either would start as an underdog in a general-election match-up with Blumenthal.

Dodd, 65, was elected to the Senate in 1980, after three terms in the House, following the path blazed by his father, Thomas. By the early 1990s, Chris Dodd had set his sights on Senate leadership.

He ran for Democratic leader in the wake of the 1994 elections, but he lost in a close race to Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.). President Bill Clinton selected Dodd to chair the Democratic National Committee, overseeing Clinton’s reelection as president in 1996, but the DNC’s fundraising practices during the 1996 campaign landed him in some political hot water.

After Daschle was voted out of office in 2004, Dodd considered jumping into the race to succeed him, but he quickly stepped aside when he realized Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) had overwhelming support to claim the post.

Instead, Dodd began laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign in 2008. Always a long shot in a field filled with better-known and better-financed candidates, he moved his family to Iowa in fall 2007 in hopes of generating some excitement for his bid. But the move backfired in Connecticut, where voters bristled.

The next year, it was reported that Dodd had received special treatment in his acquisition of a mortgage loan from Countrywide Financial, through a program that labeled him and others as friends of Countrywide chief executive Angelo Mozilo. Dodd insisted he was unaware of his inclusion in the program, and he was cleared of any wrongdoing by the Senate Ethics Committee, but the political damage was done.

Staff writers Paul Kane and Dan Balz contributed to this report.

Pelosi tells C-SPAN: ‘There has never been a more open process’

January 5, 2010

Monti Says: This woman has the integrity of an “ass” and the intelligence of a “hole”. You put it together and you get the U.S. Speaker of the House!

The Hill

January 5, 2010

By Eric Zimmermann and Michael O’Brien

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) defended Congress’ work on a healthcare bill Tuesday saying the process has displayed historic transparency, just as C-SPAN mounts an effort to open the negotiations.

C-SPAN wrote a letter to congressional leaders Tuesday asking that TV cameras be allowed to film negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate versions of healthcare reform legislation.

But Pelosi said Congress has already been transparent throughout the process.

“There has never been a more open process for any legislation,” Pelosi said at a press conference.

Pelosi also hinted that holding informal negotiations–likely without TV cameras–might be the most practical way to push the legislation through.

“We will do what is necessary to pass the bill,” Pelosi said.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), assistant to the Speaker, said the healthcare bill had been “subjected to unprecedented level of public scrutiny.”

Pressed on whether C-SPAN cameras would be allowed in negotiations, Van Hollen hedged.

“We don’t even know if there’s going to be a conference committee,” he said, alluding to the likelihood that Democrats will reconcile the two bills behind closed doors.

Beleaguered Nelson to air TV ad tonight

December 30, 2009
by Paul Monti

Monti Says: You think we can’t fight “city hall”? Guess again. Bye bye Ben! You are finished! Great job Nebraska!

JournalStar.com

December 30, 2009

Don Walton

As a fresh poll measured the political cost of Sen. Ben Nelson’s health reform vote, he prepared Tuesday to take his case directly to Nebraskans during Wednesday night’s Holiday Bowl game.
Nelson will air a new TV ad in which he attempts to debunk opposition claims that the Senate legislation represents a government takeover, and he makes the case for health care reform.
“With all the distortions about health care reform, I want you to hear directly from me,” the Democratic senator says in the ad.
Nelson, dressed in an open-necked shirt and sweater, speaks directly into the camera during the 30-second ad.
The message will be launched during the Nebraska-Arizona football game and continue to air statewide for an undisclosed number of days.
The political damage Nelson may have incurred in providing the critical 60th vote that cleared the way for Senate passage of the health care reform bill showed up Tuesday in a poll released by Rasmussen Reports.
The telephone survey of 500 Nebraskans, conducted Monday, suggested Republican Gov. Dave Heineman would defeat Nelson in a potential 2012 Senate race by a 61-30 margin.
The poll showed Nelson with a 55 percent unfavorable rating and 64 percent disapproval for Democratic health care reform legislation.
“The good news for (Nelson) is that he doesn’t have to face Nebraska voters until 2012,” Rasmussen Reports stated in posting results of the survey on its Web site.
Nelson would be seeking a third term should he choose to be a candidate for re-election three years from now.
Heineman is seeking re-election as governor in 2010 and would be at mid-term if he chooses to enter the Senate race in 2012.
Julie Schmit-Albin, executive director of Nebraska Right to Life, said the Rasmussen results demonstrate that Nelson’s votes on health care are “clearly out of touch with the majority” of Nebraskans.
Earlier, Schmit-Albin said Nelson betrayed his pro-life supporters when he agreed to compromise language prohibiting federal funding of abortions.
She has argued that the language would allow federal funding to be used to subsidize abortions. Nelson maintains there would be no funding of abortions with federal money.
“One wonders if (Nelson) misjudged the level of opposition to this legislation from his constituents,” Schmit-Albin said.
“Or if he had already made a decision to never seek office again.”
In his TV message to Nebraskans, Nelson says: “I listened to you and took a common-sense approach to improve the bill.
“Now it lowers costs for families and small business, protects Medicare, finally guarantees coverage for pre-existing conditions and reduces the defici
“And it’s not run by the government.
“I’m convinced this is right for Nebraska,” Nelson says.

House passes IRAN REFINED PETROLEUM SANCTIONS ACT in a vote of 412 TO 12

December 16, 2009

December 16, 2009

These Congresspeople ABSOLUTELY MUST be voted out of office.  In a vote of 412 to 12 last night, these morons had the audacity to vote against, vote a meaningless “present” or not vote on a very important piece of legislation that passed overwhelmingly:

The IRAN REFINED PETROLEUM SANCTIONS ACT OF 2009. More than 3/4 of the House co-sponsored this act and these idiots have revealed their true hate for America.  Let’s dump them ALL at the next bus stop, America!

Send this to everyone on your email list!!

—- NOES    12 —

Baldwin
Blumenauer
Conyers
Duncan
Flake
Hinchey
Kucinich
Lynch
McDermott
Moore (WI)
Paul
Stark


—- ANSWERED “PRESENT”    4 —

Johnson, E. B.
Kilpatrick (MI)
Lee (CA)
Waters


—- NOT VOTING    6 —

Barrett (SC)
Clay
Deal (GA)
Murtha
Radanovich
Sanchez, Loretta

Uranium Deuteride: Iran’s “Next Secret”

December 15, 2009

And why should this surprise anyone?

JReports banner

December 14, 2009


Each revelation of a “secret” Iranian nuclear-related capability hides another secret. Western threats, and threats of threats, and threats of even bigger threats have had no impact. After the September revelation of Iran’s “secret” uranium enrichment facilities, JINSA suggested that the Western powers stop threatening and start supporting the Second Iranian Revolution-then and now being played out in the streets of Iran with increasing openness by tens of thousands of brave young people (and, some suggest, with lessening enthusiasm by the government’s military enforcers). Otherwise, we wrote, we risk facing “Iran’s next secret.”

Well, here it is:

The Times of London reported this weekend that confidential intelligence documents show that Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb.

The notes, from Iran’s most sensitive military nuclear project, describe a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion. Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007, four years after Iran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme.


That would be the 2007 American National Intelligence Estimate that had “high confidence” that Tehran “halted” its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and was “less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging.” Wrong. The Times continued:

The technical document describes the use of a neutron source, uranium deuteride, which independent experts confirm has no possible civilian or military use other than in a nuclear weapon. Uranium deuteride is the material used in Pakistan’s bomb, from where Iran obtained its blueprint.

“Although Iran might claim that this work is for civil purposes, there is no civil application,” said David Albright, a physicist and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, which has analysed hundreds of pages of documents related to the Iranian programme. “This is a very strong indicator of weapons work.”

Mark Fitzpatrick, senior fellow for non-proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said: “The most shattering conclusion is that, if this was an effort that began in 2007, it could be a casus belli. If Iran is working on weapons, it means there is no diplomatic solution.”


Mr. Fitzpatrick is right-Iran is at war. Pursuing nuclear weapons and their triggers and the missiles to deliver them; arming and training terrorists across the Middle East and Africa; strengthening relations with Venezuela and Cuba; and naming a defense minister wanted by Interpol are all elements of Iran’s wars abroad. Beating, imprisoning and torturing demonstrators; controlling the flow of media and Internet information; and threatening Iranians abroad are all elements of Iran’s war at home.

Iran-watcher Ilan Berman noted that the Dutch parliament last month designated the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC), as a terrorist group under Netherlands law and called for the IRGC to be put on the European Union’s terror list. And that the British government recently invoked counter-terrorism legislation to freeze business ties with Iran’s national shipping carrier, IRISL. Both, he said, are steps prelude to engaging in stiff economic sanctions against Iran.

Good.  It’s about time.

But the Revolution is now.  Michael Ledeen-perhaps the best watcher of Iranians-suggests immediate steps: President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton can support the Iranian people verbally and explicitly, condemning the regime for the killings, stoning, oppression, raping of women, etc. To circumvent the regime’s control of information, Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty can broadcast the news from all over Iran to all of Iran, letting protesters know they have support elsewhere in the country. And there should be a strike fund for the workers, so Iranians know that when they go into the streets, their families will be able to eat.

The time between emerging Iranian secrets is getting shorter-and more dangerous.





If attacked, Iran wants Syria to hit back at Israel. Damascus hedges

December 11, 2009
by Loki Whitewood

No doubt this is more smokescreen rhetoric from the madmen in Iran.   Sure, let’s ignore the illegal nuclear buildup in Iran and have the world focus on tiny Israel, who is only trying to defend itself against these aggressors. 

 

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report

December 10, 2009

DEBKAfile‘s military sources report that this message Iran’s defense minister Ahmad Vahidi brought to Damascus where he is attending a session of the high Iranian-Syrian defense committee which went into its second day Thursday, Dec. 10. Syrian defense minister Ali Habib is in the chair.

The Iranian visitor indicated that Tehran expects an Israeli attack within a month. According to Iranian intelligence, Jerusalem will take its green light from President Barack Obama’s forced admission after Christmas that his policy of dialogue and stiffer sanctions have failed in the face of Tehran’s rejection of the international proposal to send its enriched uranium for overseas processing.

“The countdown for war is coming close to its end,” said Vahidi to the joint defense committee. “And we must get our strategic partnership in shape ahead of time.”

The leitmotif of the Iranian defense secretary’s talks in Damascus was the fate Iran and Syria share and their strategic partnership as the only safeguards against what he called “‘American-backed Zionist aggression.” Syria must commit itself to joint military action against Israel, because “stronger defense ties between Iran and Syria are elements of deterrence in confronting the Zionist regime’s threats to the countries of the region.”

For the first, time, Gen. Vahidi openly threatened to respond to a possible Israel attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities by striking Israel’s “chemical, microbiological and banned nuclear weapons” production sites.

His message brought forth a tepid Syrian response: The Iranian news agency IRNA quoted Syrian Secretary of Defense Ali Habib as commenting early Thursday, December 10, that an attack on Iran by any party would be deemed an attack on Syria and draw commensurate retaliation.

But DEBKAfile‘s military sources point out that comment did not satisfy Tehran because it is short of clear language pledging specific military action. Iranian officials mean to stay in Damascus and keep up the pressure until they elicit a firm, binding Syrian commitment to strike Israel on its ally’s behalf if Iran comes under attack.

Gen. Vahidi arrived in Damascus Tuesday aboard a special Iranian military aircraft. It carried the largest Iranian military delegation ever seen in the Syrian capital, representing every branch of Iran’s armed forces, Revolutionary Guards Corps and intelligence.

Preparations for coordinated retaliation for a potential Israeli attack also brought a top Hizballah delegation incoming from Lebanon to Damascus Tuesday night, Dec. 8, headed by its secretary general Hassan Nasrallah.

When they met, Syrian and Iranian military officials proposed that Hizballah and the Palestinian terrorist organizations start heating up Israel’s borders in the coming days to draw the attention from the world’s focus on the Iranian and Syrian nuclear programs.

Sunday, December 6, DEBKAfile‘s Washington sources reported that the Obama administration was about to launch a campaign against Syria’s covert military nuclear program based on the “smoking gun” of traces of highly processed plutonium found by UN inspectors at the bombed Syrian-North Korean facility at Dir a-Zur. The campaign will focus on this finding as evidence of Iran’s covert nuclear activities and proliferation activities