Justin's Political Corner

It didn’t take long for Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman to turn a column discussing the persecution of Christians and dissidents in Iran into a warning that President Obama is supporting a “second Holocaust.”

Klayman, who has consistently claimed that Obama is an anti-Semitic Muslim with secret Iranian ties, now argues that Obama has deliberately shown “little resistance” to Iran’s plan to orchestrate a “second Holocaust” and “has given them a carte blanche to continue their mission to eventually wipe all Christians and Jews off the face of the earth.”

A full-scale U.S. invasion of Iran could cost the global economy $1.7 trillion, according to the Federation of American Scientists, a nonpartisan think tank which released a report on Friday detailing the estimated costs of different approaches, including military strikes, to solving the Iranian nuclear issue. A “bombing campaign” could cost $1.2 trillion. If the U.S. decided to go about striking Iran’s nuclear sites “surgically,” it’d still cost the global economy more than $700 billion.

Not surprisingly, the group found that a diplomatic approach would be one of the least expensive ways to solve the issue. A continued, strengthened sanctions push could cost the global economy about $64 billion. If the U.S. decided to “isolate” and “blockade” the Iranian oil industry it could bring the cost $325 billion. The most frugal option, at an estimated $60 billion, would be to “de-escalate” with the U.S. uniltaterally taking “steps to show that the United States is willing to make concessions.”

The report bases its estimates on factors including: “(1) financial market losses, (2) oil price increases, (3) military costs and other expenditures to provide security, (4) damage to infrastructure resulting from conflict, and (5) other global economic costs.” The FAS created the report to “to provide a starting point for discussion about one category of potential outcomes” because it believes there has been “less discussion about the outcomes and consequences of any international actions that might be set in motion if and when Iran crosses that line.”

Thus far, the Obama administration has advocated for a diplomatic approach toward the Iran nuclear issue: sanctions enforced by the administration and its European allies have resulted in enormous pressure on the Iranian economy.

h/t: Hamed Aleaziz at Think Progress Security

The Christian Broadcasting Network’s terrorism analyst Erick Stakelbeck has no credentials to report on security issues (he is a sports reporter), but that hasn’t stopped him from playing the role as “expert.” Stakelbeck appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show to repeat right-wing talking points to claim that President Obama is a failed leader. He said Obama is “using the bin Laden raid as his sole, only foreign policy talking point,” arguing that it doesn’t reflect “foreign policy” and that “anyone in their right mind” would have made the call to go into Pakistan to find bin Laden (unless you’re Mitt Romney). But then Stakelbeck claimed that mission didn’t really matter since bin Laden “was basically isolated and neutralized at that point anyway.”

He went on to talk about how Obama is “empowering and emboldening the Muslim Brotherhood,” “throwing Israel under the bus” and “appeasing the Iranians,” and even said that Obama may pull of an “October surprise” by making a deal with Iran or sending troops into Libya. “Who knows what else they have up their sleeve, I have to say these are people who are leftist ideologues, they are hell-bent in their words ‘fundamentally transforming America,’ and I don’t think they’re going to go quietly,” he said.

Stakelbeck also discussed with Mefferd the non-scandal in Benghazi, arguing that the President has turned into “Imam Obama” over his UN speech where he said: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.” Stacelbeck decried the speech and lamented, “This is an American president saying that in front of the UN? This is madness,” apparently forgetting that President George W. Bush made similar statements during the Muhammad cartoon controversy. He concluded that Muslim countries can never have democracy because “Islam and true democracy are not compatible.”

h/t: Brian Tashman at RWW

1) “Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab world. It’s their route to the sea.” Romney has his geography wrong. Syria doesn’t share a border with Iran and Iran has 1,500 miles of coastline leading to the Arabian Sea. It is also able to reach the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal.

) “[W]hen — when the students took to the streets in Tehran and the people there protested, the Green Revolution occurred, for the president to be silent I thought was an enormous mistake.” Obama spoke out about the Revolution on June 15, 2009, just two days after post-election demonstrations began in Iran, condemning the Iranian government’s hard-handed crackdown on Iranian activists. He then reiterated his comments a day later in another press conference. Iranian activists have agreed with Obama’s approach.

5) “And when it comes to our economy here at home, I know what it takes to create 12 million new jobs and rising take-home pay.” The Washington Post’s in-house fact checker tore Romney’s claim that he will create 12 million jobs to shreds. The Post wrote that the “‘new math’” in Romney’s plan “doesn’t add up.” In awarding the claim four Pinocchios — the most untrue possible rating, the Post expressed incredulity at the fact Romney would personally stand behind such a flawed, baseless claim.

6) “[W]e are going to have North American energy independence. We’re going to do it by taking full advantage of oil, coal, gas, nuclear and our renewables.” Romney would actually eliminate the fuel efficiency standards that are moving the United States towards energy independence, even though his campaign plan relies on these rules to meet his goals.

9) “Well, Republicans and Democrats came together on a bipartisan basis to put in place education principles that focused on having great teachers in the classroom.” Education experts have faint praise for his proposals while he was governor. “His impact was inconsequential,” said Glen Koocher, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees. “People viewed his proposals as political talking points, and no one took Romney seriously.”

10) “So I’d get rid of [Obamacare] from day one. To the extent humanly possible, we get that out.” Romney cannot unilaterally eliminate a bill passed by Congress and his plan to grant states waivers may also be a non-starter.

11) “Number two, we take some programs that we are doing to keep, like Medicaid, which is a program for the poor.” Medicaid isn’t just a program for the poor. While it provides health coverage for “millions of low-income children and families who lack access to the private health insurance system,” it also offers “insurance to millions of people with chronic illnesses or disabilities” and is “the nation’s largest source of coverage for long-term care, covering more than two-thirds of all nursing home residents.” Medicaid is also a key source of coverage for pregnant women.

12) “[W]e’ll take [Medicaid] for the poor and we give it to the states to run because states run these programs more efficiently.” A Congressional Budget Office analysis of Paul Ryan’s proposal to block grant Medicaid found that if federal spending for Medicaid decreased, “states would face significant challenges in achieving sufficient cost savings through efficiencies to mitigate the loss of federal funding.” As a result, enrollees could “face more limited access to care,” higher out-of-pocket costs, and “providers could face more uncompensated care as beneficiaries lost coverage for certain benefits or lost coverage altogether.”

14) “And then the president began what I have called an apology tour, of going to various nations in the Middle East and criticizing America. I think they looked at that and saw weakness.” Obama never embarked on an “apology tour.”

17) “I would tighten those sanctions. I would say that ships that carry Iranian oil, can’t come into our ports. I imagine the E.U. would agree with us as well.” Almost no Iranian oil has come into the United States since Ronald Reagan signed an executive order in 1987 banning all U.S. imports from Iran. The nation received a small amount of oil from Iran after the first Gulf War, in 1991.

18) “I see jihadists continuing to spread, whether they’re rising or just about the same level, hard to precisely measure, but it’s clear they’re there. They’re very strong.” Obama’s policies appear to have gravely weakened al Qaeda Central, the lead arm of the organization in Pakistan and Afghanistan principally responsible for 9/11.

20) “My plan to get the [auto] industry on its feet when it was in real trouble was not to start writing checks. It was President Bush that wrote the first checks. I disagree with that. I said they need — these [auto] companies need to go through a managed bankruptcy.” Romney’s plan for the auto bailout would have ensured the collapse of the auto industry. In his editorial titled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” Romney advocated for letting the private sector finance the bankruptcy of General Motors and Chrysler. Auto insiders, however, have said that plan was “reckless” and “pure fantasy.”

h/t: Igor Volsky at Think Progress

Throughout Monday night’s presidential debate on foreign policy, President Obama used past positions that Mitt Romney has taken over the course of the campaign to depict him as the wrong candidate to run U.S. foreign policy.

Obama used the tactic both to defend his own initiatives — particularly his Libya policy — and to characterize Romney as an untrained foreign policy hand who has been wobbly and inconsistent.

“I know you haven’t been in a position to execute foreign policy,” Obama said, in summarizing his theme of attack, “but every time you have offered an opinion, you have been wrong.”

Mitt Romney has spent considerable effort trying to avoid foreign policy and national security this campaign season. But when he’s had to engage, he’s forced to strike a delicate balance between satisfying his neocon advisers and right-wing war base on the one hand — while speaking to the rest of the country, which has no appetite for the militaristic Republican policies that have plagued this country since 2001, on the other.

In recent weeks, Romney made good on a promise he made earlier this year to a wealthy donor that he would try to exploit a foreign policy crisis for political gain. “If something of that nature presents itself,” Romney said, referring to the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979, “I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.” With the attack that killed four Americans at the U.S diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya last month, Romney has done just that.

The basis of Romney’s foreign policy critique of President Obama is that Obama went around the world and apologized for America after he became president. Of course, this never happened, but the baseless attack has been a hallmark from Romney’s campaign with respect to foreign policy.

– Romney accused President Obama of “mission creep” and “mission muddle” in Libya. “Military action cannot be under-deliberated and ad hoc,” he said. Libyan rebels ousted then-Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi five months later. (In his book, Romney attacked Obama for appeasing Qaddafi.) [4/21/2011]

– Romney announces he is officially running for president and, in doing so, chides Obama for “leading from behind” in Libya. One wonders if Romney would criticize Nelson Mandela, who once said: “It is better to lead from behind and to put others in front, especially when you celebrate victory when nice things occur. You take the front line when there is danger. Then people will appreciate your leadership.” [6/02/2011]

– Romney says he will let the generals dictate his Afghanistan policy. “I want those troops to come home based upon not politics, not based upon economics, but instead based upon the conditions on the ground determined by the generals,” he said. [6/13/2011]

– Romney continues his call for Obama to ramp up the war rhetoric on Iran. [9/15/2011]

– Romney said the U.S. should “reconsider” its relationship with countries that supported Palestine’s bid for U.N. recognition: that could have included Russia, China, India, Brazil, South Africa and the Non-Aligned Movement, a U.N. block consisting of 118 members, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan, Chile and Peru. [9/28/2011]

– Romney said he would start foreign aid for every country “at zero” and call on them to make their case for U.S. financial assistance. [11/10/2011]

– The Washington Post fact-checker debunks Romney’s oft-repeated claim that Obama “went around the world and apologized for America.” “Take it from us,” the Post concluded, “The apology tour never happened.” [12/10/2011]

– Mitt’s Cold War mentality continues. Russia “is without question our number one geopolitical foe,” he says on CNN, sparking ridicule from foreign policy experts of all stripes. [3/26/2012]

– Vice President Biden states the obvious: Romney “seems to be uninformed” on foreign policy. [4/01/2012]

– Former Bush administration Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell asks Romney to be more “mature” when talking foreign policy and criticized Romney for calling Russia America’s “number one geopolitical foe.” “Come on Mitt,” Powell said, “think.” Powell also said of Mitt’s advisers: “I don’t know who all of his advisers are but I’ve seen some of the names and some of them are quite far to the right.” ThinkProgress took an in-depth look into some of Romney’s far-right foreign policy advisers here. [5/23/2012]

– The Romney Stimulus: military spending creates jobs, other government spending does not. [7/25/2012]

FT. LAUDERDALE, Fla. — All eyes are on Boca Raton Monday, where President Obama and Mitt Romney will meet for their final debate before election day.

The debate, which is focused on foreign policy, has generally garnered less anticipation than the previous two matchups given the strong economic theme of the election. But given how close the race has become — thanks in no small part to Romney’s performance thus far — and the surprisingly robust audience for the debates this year, it could prove significant.

For one thing, the timing couldn’t be better. A pair of bombshell stories over the last week — one on the administration’s intel on the Benghazi attack, an issue that tripped up Romney in the second debate, the other on the possibility ofdirect talks between the United States and Iran over its nuclear program — mean that the debate could produce hard news.

Another reason it might have an impact: foreign policy need not be as restrictive a topic as it sounds. Questions on trade policy, for example, could give each candidate a chance to either pivot to their jobs plans or exploit their opponent’s vulnerabilities.

And while it may not be the driving topic of the current election, the country is only four years removed from a 2008 election in which one of Obama’s defining selling points for nearly the entire campaign was his early opposition to the war in Iraq.

Libya: The Obama administration has been on the ropes in recent weeks over what Republicans allege is an evolving and incomplete explanation for how the Benghazi attacks were planned and carried out. Congress is also investigating whether the consulate in Libya was properly secured and defended.

For all of the president’s vulnerability on the topic, Romney has had trouble discussing the issue. In the second debate, he flubbed his response to a question on Libya, leading to an embarrassing mid-debate correction from moderator Candy Crowley. Before that, he offered up an inaccurate and over-the-top attack the night of the attacks themselves, leading to a hail of criticism from across the ideological spectrum.

Romney’s almost certainly spent the week replaying that second debate answer and coaching himself for its near-certain follow up on Monday. But the Libya story is also growing more complicated by the minute. A recent Washington Post story suggests that some of the early public statements from the administration were based on CIA assessments that the Benghazi assault was tied to an anti-Muslim video that prompted protests across the region.

Iran: Romney has accused Obama of failing to rein in Iran’s nuclear program. Obama has accused Romney of armchair quarterbacking, insisting that his efforts to expand sanctions with international support have strengthened America’s hand. Since Romney has also endorsed sanctions, Obama has challenged Romney to openly call for a military strike (which he has not done) or drop his criticism.

The debate features a new wrinkle to the story, however: a New York Times report that Iran is willing to meet for direct talks on its nuclear program with the United States, but only after the election when they know which administration will be handling talks. The White House hasdenied that anything’s been agreed upon. While he’s unlikely to offer details on sensitive diplomatic talks, Obama could cite the reports as evidence sanctions are crippling the Iranian economy into submission. Romney might seize upon talk of negotiations as a stalling tactic by Iran and pledge a harder line.

China: Here’s an issue that could get off topic fast. Romney has cast himself as a trade warrior throughout the campaign, telling blue collar workers he’ll crack down on alleged violations by China in order to protect U.S. manufacturing jobs.

Obama’s response, however, has been less to attack Romney’s policy prescriptions so much as Romney’s personal biography. In the second debate, he brought up Romney’s investments in countries that outsourced work to China, a theme that the campaign has also used in a slew of Ohio ads. One news twist to look for: Romney’s infamous hidden fundraiser tape contained a clip in which the Republican nominee described traveling to China to buy a factory, only to be horrified by its mostly female workers’ squalid living conditions and low pay. Despite repeated requests from reporters, Romney has refused to confirm or deny whether he ended up purchasing the factory, which resembles a Chinese manufacturing company that Bain invested in. Will Obama challenge him to definitively answer whether Romney knowingly profited from such brutal labor practices?

h/t: Benjy Sarlin at TPM

NEW YORK—Exactly six weeks before Election Day, President Barack Obama stood on the world stage Tuesday and warned Iran that the United States will “do what we must” to stop Tehran from getting a nuclear weapon.

In what could be his last speech to the annual U.N. General Assembly, Obama also told Arab Spring countries groping their way uncertainly toward democracy that they have a friend—and a role model—in America. But, he said, they must battle the forces of intolerance and extremism threatening what should be “a season of progress.”

“The United States of America will always stand up for these aspirations, for our own people, and all across the world. That was our founding purpose,” he said.

The president, under fire from Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney for his handling of Iran’s atomic ambitions, dedicated part of his 30-minute address to warning the Islamic republic that he cannot live with a nuclear-armed Tehran.

“Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained,” Obama said.

“It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty,” Obama continued. “That’s why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

The president’s stern comments closely echoed his past warnings, and stopped short of drawing the clear “red line” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has sought from Washington.

(Romney has at times taken a tougher stance. In a July speech in Jerusalem, he declared that “Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons capability presents an intolerable threat to Israel, to America, and to the world.” The key word there was “capability”—not an actual nuclear weapon, but the ability to build one. That lined the Republican up more closely with Netanyahu.)

Obama also paid tribute to the slain U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, killed along with three colleagues in what his administration has designated a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11.

Stevens “embodied the best of America,” the president said. “Today, we must reaffirm that our future will be determined by people like Chris Stevens, and not by his killers.”

Obama also delivered the kind of vigorous defense of his foreign policy that would not be out of place in his stump speech.

“The war in Iraq is over, American troops have come home. We have begun a transition in Afghanistan, and America and our allies will end our war on schedule in 2014,” he said. “Al Qaeda has been weakened and Osama bin Laden is no more.”

Images of anti-American riots—and the dramatic assault on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya—have helped degrade Obama’s once-imposing advantage over Romney on foreign policy.

h/t: Yahoo! News

A bipartisan group of former U.S. diplomats, generals and government officials released a report today urging caution against the United States launching military strikes on Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The report — whose signatories include Brent Scowcroft, ret. Adm. William Fallon, former Republican senator Chuck Hagel, ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni and former Amb. Thomas Pickering — concludes that a unilateral Israeli attack would set back the Iranian nuclear program by only 2 years and an American attack by 4 years. But if the objective is “ensuring that Iran never acquires a nuclear bomb,” the U.S. “would need to conduct a significantly expanded air and sea war over a prolonged period of time, likely several years.” In order to achieve regime change, the report says, “the occupation of Iran would require a commitment of resources and personnel greater than what the U.S. has expended over the past 10 years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.”

The report’s conclusions echo assessments made by various former and current American andIsraeli government and military officials.

U.S. and Israeli intelligence, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, have determined that the Iranian leadership has yet to decide on whether to build nuclear weapons. The report’s summary notes that “signs of an Iranian decision to build a nuclear weapon would likely be detected, and the U.S. would have at least a month to implement a course of action.”

“Planners and pundits ought to consider that the riots and unrest following a Web entry about an obscure film are probably a fraction of what could happen following a strike — by the Israelis or U.S. — on Iran,” retired Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, an endorser of the Iran report and a former operations chief for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Associated Press in an interview.

The Obama administration is aware, not only of the threat an Iranian nuclear weapon poses, but also the potential negative consequences of a military attack on Iran, such as those outlined in this new report. And that, coupled with U.N., U.S. and Israeli assessments that Iran has not yet decided on whether to build a nuclear weapon, leads the administration to pursue a diplomatic solution with Iran, a track the it deems the “best and most permanent way” to solve the nuclear crisis.

h/t: Ben Armbruster at Think Progress

Mitt Romney’s speech to the Republican National Convention on Thursday night was riddled with misleading claims and critical omissions. In no section was this more true than Romney’s discussion of foreign policy. The GOP presidential nominee devoted only 202 words to national security and while his speech completely ignored the war inAfghanistan and any homage to American servicemembers, it contained a shocking number of misstatements and false and baseless attacks on President Obama:

1. Obama and America: “I will begin my presidency with a jobs tour. President Obama began with an apology tour. America, he said, had dictated to other nations. No Mr. President, America has freed other nations from dictators.”

THE FACTS: The notion that Obama went on an “apology tour” has beenrepeatedly and conclusively debunked, though it remains a staple of Romney’s post-truth campaign. The “dictated” line is likely of a similar provenance, but there’s an irony to the second half of that sentence — Obama has “freed other nations from dictators,” as he helped form and lead an international coalition that toppled Muammar Qaddafi in Libya. Romney’s position on the Libya intervention, by contrast, was something of an incoherent muddle.

2. Iran: “Every American was relieved the day President Obama gave the order, and Seal Team Six took out Osama bin Laden. But on another front, every American is less secure today because he has failed to slow Iran’s nuclear threat. In his first TV interview as president, he said we should talk to Iran. We’re still talking, and Iran’s centrifuges are still spinning.”

THE FACTS: There’s a reason the President decided to talk to Iran — the Obama administration is quite aware of the consequences of a nuclear weapons-equipped Iran, if its leaders decide to go that route, and has determined that diplomacy presents the “best and most permanent” means of resolving the crisis. Moreover, the diplomatic approach has produced concrete dividends. 

3. Israel and Cuba: “President Obama has thrown allies like Israel under the bus, even as he has relaxed sanctions on Castro’s Cuba.”

THE FACTS: The claim about Israel is utterly false; both stepped-up U.S. defense assistance and the statements of Israel’s own leaders testify to Obama’s record. As for Cuba, it’s true that Obama has relaxed restrictions on travel to Cuba, but that’s a good thing. The Cuba embargo is is an obviously failed policy with serious human costs, giving the Castro regime an excuse for the failures of communism while immiserating ordinary Cubans.

4. Russia and Poland: “[Obama] abandoned our friends in Poland by walking away from our missile defense commitments, but is eager to give Russia’s President Putin the flexibility he desires, after the election. Under my administration, our friends will see more loyalty, and Mr. Putin will see a little less flexibility and more backbone.”

THE FACTS: Romney conveniently ignores that Obama’s new missile defense plan provided Poland with a system it was “ready to participate” in, perhaps because Polish officials preferred it to the previous arrangement. Obama’s “flexibility” comment to Putin didn’t really worry Eastern European governments, but Romney’s hostile rhetoric about Russia is alienating a country whose cooperation is important on U.S. priorities like the Iranian nuclear program.

Romney concluded his remarks by saying “We will honor America’s democratic ideals because a free world is a more peaceful world. This is the bipartisan foreign policy legacy of Truman and Reagan. And under my presidency we will return to it once again.” 

h/t: Zach Beauchamp at Think Progress Security