Sunday, November 24, 2013

U.S., Western Powers reach agreement with Iran

And the Iranian President just retweeted Secretary of State John Kerry. Welcome to Twitter diplomacy in 2013.





Embedded image permalink


Let me be clear. We promise to guarantee that we're committed to our commitment we agreed to in maintaining our vow to promise to keep. It.

Iranian foreign minister says 's nuclear programme has been recognized, says it's a major success, Reuters reports

70 comments:

Lem said...

Obama sells out our ally, in favor of an avowed enemy of our country.

Lem said...

A roundup of some of my re-tweets upon hearing the terrible news...

Tony Schroeder ‏@schroedertony 1h
I remember the last time the Iranians negotiated with a weak American President" #tcot #IranTalks pic.twitter.com/pNvKaKwpvI

Ben Shapiro ‏@benshapiro 1h
When the President of the United States is more anti-Israel than the Saudi government, you know something's deeply wrong.

Sean Davis ‏@seanmdav 39m
Your insurance policy is dead and Iran's nuclear program is alive.

Lem said...

Obama has backed Israel into a corner.

Benjamin Netanyahu ‏@netanyahu 14 Nov
PM Netanyahu tonight at Masa Journey event: "I guarantee you one thing: Israel will not let Iran get nuclear weapons"

That can only mean WAR.

Lem said...

While Obama says Iran is scaling back/halting their nuke program.

Iran is announcing the expansions and the building of new reactors.

"“The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) has put construction of the second and third (nuclear) power stations on its agenda due to the government’s programs and the emphasis laid by the President (Hassan Rouhani),” Fars quoted AEOI Deputy Chief Hossein Khalfi as saying. Iran currently has one such operational nuclear power plant at Bushehr.

The announcement came as Iran and the P5+1 group of world powers were negotiating a deal in Geneva that would see Tehran curb its controversial nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief."

Lem said...

I just heard Kerry say "Let me be Clear" when making the announcement of the deal.

Lem said...

I don't understand how so many Jews support Obama.

Lem said...

I mean... I understand how most Hispanics "like" him... because amnesty.

I can see how some white people like him... a chance to assuage some past wrong or whatever.

I can see how most blacks like Obama... and I'm not going into it.

But why would Jews actively support a man who supports their enemies... after all the shit they have gone thru.

I don't get it.

bagoh20 said...

Rouhani

"#moderation & constructive agreement + tireless"
.
.
.
.
and Death to America.

Chip Ahoy said...

Yes, Lem, picked up that phrase. I heard hime say that earlier before the announcement, so that makes two.

bagoh20 said...

Gallup poll:
"If the election was held today, Obama 41% / Rouhani 49% / Santa Clause 10%."

Michael Haz said...

Giving Iran $4 billion if they promise to stop enriching uranium is like giving a stoner a case of Zig Zag papers if he promises to stop smoking weed.

Leland said...

I simply substitute Clinton for Obama and North Korea for Iran and ask, "How did that work out?"

Shouting Thomas said...

A future of immeasurable violence about to break out as liberals seek to avoid it by appeasing blacks and Moslems.

Same old story.

ndspinelli said...

Filibuster and mow this is indeed the "nuclear option" to distract from Obamacare.

Lem said...

Im having problems with my computer. I may not be able to post for awhile. May need to take it to a repair shop.

virgil xenophon said...

Leland & Haz are in a dead heat for thread winner..

edutcher said...


What Leland said - exactly.

Lurch shows how lucky we were in '04.

Medal of Freedom for the Swift Boat Vets?

Lem said...

I mean... I understand how most Hispanics "like" him... because amnesty.

Actually, that's going down the tubes, too.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

So the alternative to peace agreements and treaties is war. After the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, who thinks an Iran war would be a good idea?

No one seemed that keen on a Syrian war. The last thing this country needs is another fucking war in the middle east.

Aridog said...

ARM ... why do you presume the alternative to a "deal" with Iran is "war?" For that to be the case Iran would have to start it vis a vis the USA, since we've mostly applied sanctions, not weaponry.

The alternative of record for the USA is continuation of the current sanctions.

Are you suggesting that if we don't make nice with Iran and pay them off, essentially, they will start a war?

If so, how often in history has that strategy worked?

bagoh20 said...

This guarantees a war. Or should the Jews just lay down their weapons and get in the oven again? It's not like the Iranians have been tricky. They've said exactly what they want and intend. Do you think they are kidding? Do you think the Israelis are? The left never learns the lessons of history. How many genocides do you guys need?

edutcher said...

AnUreasonableTroll said...

So the alternative to peace agreements and treaties is war. After the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, who thinks an Iran war would be a good idea?

No one seemed that keen on a Syrian war. The last thing this country needs is another fucking war in the middle east.


Considering the WMDs were there, we won in Iraq, and Choom's uninformed arrogance made A-stan worse than it was, why should anybody applaud a sellout like this?

His plan for Syria would have put us in bed with Al Qaeda, which Troll apparently thinks would have been just swell.

And the reason the Lefties don't want to confront Iran is all that money could be wasted on single payer, right?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

We have had sanctions against Cuba for decades the only effect of which has been to strengthen the Castro brothers dictatorship. Ultimately the goal is to draw these countries into the fellowship of nations and make them good citizens. There are reasons to believe that the Iranians are a good prospect in this regard. The people are not reflexively anti-western but are relatively modern in outlook. The religious leadership not so much, but the way to weaken their influence is to increase direct contacts with the people.

We are not pawns of the Israeli or Saudi governments. We should act in our own best interests, which is to have good relations with every country and to avoid wars that drain our own resources.

Fr Martin Fox said...

I wish the President well, but...

It's very hard to see how this isn't a victory for Iran.

> The UN had voted for years that all enrichment must stop. That has been tossed out. So that means this undercuts the UN, for criminy's sake.

> When sanctions are weakened, it will be extremely hard to retighten them again. So a "temporary" deal, in this regard, seems foolish. And very misleading.

> The administration is admitting that this isn't a great deal when they say that the things the always claimed they'd insist on will be in the next agreement. That's just kicking the can. What is the basis for expecting that next deal to be so great? And if there is no next deal, what does the administration do? Retighten sanctions? See last item.

> Hard to see why Israel shouldn't consider itself alone, and act accordingly. Very hard to see Israel even talking with US about its plans, because we would be complicit if we know. So we won't know.

> Very hard to see how this doesn't mean Israel attacks. That assumes they mean what they're saying right now. Could be a good-cop-bad-cop game.

> After this deal, doesn't this make it much harder for Obama to use military force? Not that anyone wants that--but carrot-and-stick doesn't work if there is no stick.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

edutcher said...
Considering the WMDs were there, we won in Iraq,


You are a complete fool.

ricpic said...

How is it a deal when Iran gets to continue full speed ahead to get the bomb and the US lifts all sanctions? Obama the child "serviced" his mullahs in Indonesia and Obama the grown queen services the mullahs in Iran.

Lem - The Jews who support Obama are deracinated Jews. Their identity is tied up in having "grown" beyond being members of a particular separate family that they were born into to being members of "the family of man," probably the single most pernicious concept ever foisted on the naive and gullible by the likes of Montana Urban Schmendrik, ARM and sundry other devious comrades.

edutcher said...

AnUnreasonableTroll said...

Considering the WMDs were there, we won in Iraq,

You are a complete fool.


I know, how dare I bring up facts?

PS I note Troll doesn't contest the assertions Choom made A-stan worse than it was (and has now admitted his failure) and his policy in Syria would have put us in bed with Al Qaeda.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

edutcher said...
I note Troll doesn't contest the assertions


So packing your argument with complete nonsense somehow strengthens the other dubious assertions? Get a brain.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

bagoh20 said...
This guarantees a war. Or should the Jews just lay down their weapons and get in the oven again?


This is hysterical. The Israelis have over 100 nuclear weapons. They are perfectly capable of defending themselves. Much of Netanyahu's saber rattling is designed to strengthen his own political position within Israel. We should not be drawn into other countries internal politics. We should lay out what our own best interests are and act on them. After the Iraq war it is not hard to see what those interests are. Fortunately the American people are in general agreement with this position, at least for the moment.

bagoh20 said...

Can you imagine any agreement here that would have been considered a mistake by Obama supporters? We could have signed off on a nuking of Tel Aviv and they would be telling us it's better than the status quo. Everything is always better than the status quo. Obama was desperate for purely political reasons at home, and the Iranians knew it. Everybody knows it. Some just won't admit it no matter how much damage needs done to maintain the facade.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

bagoh20 said...
Everything is always better than the status quo.


No, we should have kept the Glass–Steagall Act in place and we should have stayed out of Iraq. I was happy with both of those status quo positions.

bagoh20 said...

"They are perfectly capable of defending themselves."

Which is exactly why this guarantees war. Everything you are saying was said before, and the "hysterical" were right then. Your approach has always failed. A city will be destroyed some day somewhere, and the weapon will be traced back to this.

Third Coast said...

This agreement makes it more likely that Iran will attain its goal of acquiring nuclear weapons. When that happens, nuclear proliferation on the part of other Mideast countries is a certainty. What could go wrong?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

bagoh20 said...
A city will be destroyed some day somewhere, and the weapon will be traced back to this.


If anyone is a problem with regard to rogue nuclear weapons it is Pakistan. Instead of hyperventilating about nonexistent weapons why not address a real problem?

bagoh20 said...

"why not address a real problem?"

You mean I have to wait until it's too late then we will agree. I doubt even then you will admit the mistake was here and now.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

bagoh20 said...
You mean I have to wait until it's too late then we will agree.


Everything you are saying about what might happen in Iran is already an actual and bigger problem in Pakistan. What is your plan to deal with that problem, if it is such an existential threat to our country?

Pakistan is a much more unstable and destabilizing country that Iran could ever be. It is bigger and much more out of control.

Shouting Thomas said...

I do agree with @ARM that the Israelis are well able to take care of themselves, and will take care of themselves, with or without our "help."

Third Coast said...

Pakistan and N. Korea are indeed more dangerous than a non-nuclear Iran. However, the real danger in regard to this agreement is that they will be quite willing to sell nukes to the Saudis and other Sunni allies as soon as Iran gets the bomb.
Iran, the premier terrorist state in the world, cannot be allowed to go nuclear. Period.

john said...

EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton said the agreement was an important step toward reaching a long-term comprehensive solution.

Reads more like 'final solution'.

John Kerry twitter: "First step makes world safer".

Sounds more like "Peace in our time."


"The deal was struck with astonishing speed given the history of failed negotiations..." A weakened Obama desperately needing some quick victory and good press, five co-signing countries with their own agendas on how to divide up the middle east, no participation from Israel; what can go wrong?

OTOH, a possible alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia? Who would'a thought?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Third Coast said...
Iran, the premier terrorist state in the world


Compared to what? Our 'allies' the Saudis are a vastly bigger problem for us. Just look at the nationality of the 9/11 bombers. Pakistan is also a bigger problem, they harbored Osama and were the main source of arms and personnel attacking us in Afghanistan.

Yet, somehow we figure out how to deal with these countries diplomatically.

One apparently never-ending problem in US diplomacy is the need to identify bogeymen, often unrelated to the extent of their actual threat. Cuba and Iran fall into this category. We have real adversaries with real power (China) who advance their own interests in a rational way rather than getting sucked into ideological or fantastical conflicts. We should do similarly. Our strength is technical and commercial. That strength has been dramatically undercut over the last two decades and ginning up wars and conflicts with random nations is one cause of that decline.

virgil xenophon said...

Third Coast is SO wrong when he says"What could go wrong?" Rather it should be : "What could EVER POSSIBLY go wrong?"

FIFY..

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

john said...
OTOH, a possible alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia? Who would'a thought?


So it is OK for Israel to form a military alliance with the Saudi's, the source of funding and personnel for 9/11, but it is not OK for our own country to negotiate (not form an alliance) with Iran?

edutcher said...

AnUnreasonableTroll said...

I note Troll doesn't contest the assertions

So packing your argument with complete nonsense somehow strengthens the other dubious assertions? Get a brain.


You really want me to bring up the Iraqi yellowcake flown to Canada, or the fact everybody concedes Assad's WMDs were once Saddam's, or the 2ic of the Iraqi AF saying, "Yes, they were there"?

Or maybe I need to bring up how even the Choom King agreed the surge in Iraq worked?

And, again, unless Troll has some proof what I said about Syria was wrong or that the Left's big objection to any war we've fought from 'Nam on (aside from opposing the march of communism) was because they wanted that money to be spent on the glorious welfare state, that BTW is going so swell these days, maybe he ought to give it up.

Michael Haz said...

It has been a busy morning here and I have not had a chance to read the agreement that was signed last evening between Iran, the US and a few European countries. Neither have a number of television commentators read it, but they seem to think it's a pretty good dealio.

Maybe those here who have read the agreement can help me get up to speed on its key parts by citing the sections of the agreement that answer four questions:

1. In the agreement, does Iran acknowledge Israel's right to exist, as is, where is?

2. Does Iran agree to use all of its nuke materials for the sole purpose of generating electricity and for no other purpose?

3. Does Iran agree to never give or sell its nuke materials to any other country under any circumstances so help them Allah?

4. Since Iran isn't going to use nuke material for any purpose except generating electricity, does Iran agree to the complete destruction of its guided missile program?

If you can't answer these four simple questions based on the contents of the agreement, you are allowing yourself to be sold a basket of false reality by the hope and change brigade.

On the other hand, if the answers to the four questions are in the agreement, and are all positive, I congratulate the Obama administration for its accomplishment.



Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

edutcher said...
You really want me to bring up the Iraqi yellowcake flown to Canada


Yes. Yes I would like to hear more on the topic of our Canadian neighbors harboring nuclear material that could be used in a potential weapon of mass destruction by a despotic middle east dictator.

chickelit said...

ARM said: Our strength is technical and commercial. That strength has been dramatically undercut over the last two decades and ginning up wars and conflicts with random nations is one cause of that decline.

Who should fill the power vacuum if we back off on American hegemony abroad?

Do you believe we'd just become a multipolar world of equals with no treaties and "sides"?

chickelit said...

We have had sanctions against Cuba for decades the only effect of which has been to strengthen the Castro brothers dictatorship.

Are you saying that Cuba is a thriving dictatorship or do you just admire their healthcare system?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

El Pollo Raylan said...
Do you believe we'd just become a multipolar world of equals with no treaties and "sides"?


The recent revelations about the alliance of intelligence operations known as Five Eyes (including the US, Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand) indicates where our strongest alliances lie. The anglo nations trust each other and share intelligence. We do this to a markedly lesser extent with other nations.

The rise of China may ultimately force us into a much tighter alliance with the EU countries but it is hard to imagine anything supplanting the anglo alliance.

Fr Martin Fox said...

ARM:

This is hysterical. The Israelis have over 100 nuclear weapons. They are perfectly capable of defending themselves.

That's not a very strong argument. Israel is a pretty small country, so its anti-missile tech pretty much has to work 100%.

Meanwhile, we have Iran both talking about wiping "the Zionist entity" off the map--and, for good measure, about ushering in the age of the Messianic Imam, whatever he's called.

So deterrence doesn't hold as much promise in this situation as it did for us.

Add to this the peril of other nations in the region getting nukes. Israel has to consider a Saudi nuke a threat against itself as well as Iran.

Michael Haz said...

Here is a very interesting article.

Interesting for three reasons:

First: Israeli personnel in recent days were in Saudi Arabia to inspect bases that could be used as a staging ground to launch attacks against Iran, according to informed Egyptian intelligence officials.

Second: The officials said Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and other Arab and Persian Gulf countries have been discussing the next steps toward possible strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites.

Third: The officials said the U.S. passed strong messages to Israel and the Saudis that the Americans control radar capabilities over the skies of Iran and that no strike should be launched without permission from the Obama administration.

Michael Haz said...

Sorry. Here's the article link.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Michael Haz said...
Here is a very interesting article.

First: Israeli personnel in recent days were in Saudi Arabia to inspect bases that could be used as a staging ground to launch attacks against Iran, according to informed Egyptian intelligence officials.

Second: The officials said Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and other Arab and Persian Gulf countries have been discussing the next steps toward possible strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites.

Third: The officials said the U.S. passed strong messages to Israel and the Saudis that the Americans control radar capabilities over the skies of Iran and that no strike should be launched without permission from the Obama administration.



There are no permanent alliances just permanent interests.

How quickly the role of the Saudis in 9/11 is forgotten.

Aridog said...

ARM said ...

We have real adversaries with real power (China) who advance their own interests in a rational way rather than getting sucked into ideological or fantastical conflicts.

Certainly. Such as the Chinese relational methodology with Japan, Vietnam, and South Korea?

I spent a bit of time in Asia, lived there in fact, and I don't find the Chinese any more rational than any other national entity or culture.

This week, China has unilaterally declared military air territoriality over some small islands, called Senkaku Islands, by the Japanese, who currently own (purchased from their private owner in 2012) them officially (as well as assigned oversight post WWII)...by ad hoc printing maps and publishing them for air traffic control use I presume. LINK The Chinese call them the Diaoyu Islands and Taiwan calls them the Tiaoyutai Islands. Geographically, it would appear Taiwan has the proximity territorial claim. China has some legal claim dating to 1895, etc. yada yada. The island are uninhabited so the Falklands type claim does not apply...and being uninhabited it makes no sense to militarize the issue...but the Chinese are bent on doing so.

Now...consider what might happen if we ignore the new claim, as we will in time, and what if the Japanese send a few fighters in to that space as they may if the dispute is escalated further by the Chinese? Fishing rights are among the issues in dispute...and saome militarization by China has already occurred on that subject as well. What will those good ole "rational" Chinese do then?

As for nuclear weapons...Robert Oppenheimer had it right when he quoted the Bhagavad Gita: "I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

Now it may soon come to pass. Consider who, outside the original pair (USA and USSR) already has nukes and who will certainly have them soon. Very few are known for their rationality. North Korea is well known for their making agreements and breaking them in short order. Iran will be no different...it is in their "national interest" to do so.

Sometimes we'd be better off just doing nothing...foreign relations do not require overt activity.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Aridog said...
Such as the Chinese relational methodology with Japan, Vietnam, and South Korea?


This is a fair criticism. The Chinese are completely irrational with respect to Japan, for obvious reasons. I was thinking more of the middle east and Africa.

Birches said...

Michael,

I read this article here to get a very superficial overview.

I can't see how even the "Good" parts of this article are good.

Here's the thing. I'm not a hawk. At all. But I've been thinking about how someone like Rand Paul would handle this. And I think the status quo is probably a better solution than legitimizing Iran's nuclear program and giving them a whole bunch of money to continue it.

Lydia said...

On the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination, from Iran's state-controlled Press TV -- Israel called shots from Grassy Knoll?

How in the hell can we normalize this regime with such a deal?

Aridog said...

Birches ... in the article you cited is this gem:

"•The agreement allows for more "intrusive" U.N. nuclear inspections in Iran.

KERRY: 'Verification is the key' in Iran nuclear deal."


Kerry is an treacherous idiot, but even he should have a better grasp. How did this concept work out in Iraq and how did it end up?

It doesn't matter what was found or not (channeling Hilliary), it matters how verification was impeded or not what THAT lead to....WAR.

We make periodic deals with North Korea, too...how do they work out? Answer: they take the grift, then attack the south and demand more. One of these times it will broker WAR.

And speaking of the Koreas, the graft and bribery element of the "Sunshine Policy" where the South paid the North cash for the apparent cooperation that garnered then President Kim Dae Jung the Nobel Peace Prize.

My question then: Who paid whom what for this new Iranian fandango?

Trooper York said...

This is an example of the US negotiating with itself. We give up the force of the sanctions and Iran reserves the right to enrich uranium as per their minister in the very press conference that announced this agreement.

President Obama needed to change the conversation who he pressed ahead with a bad deal.

This will not end well. Israel will not let this stand and can not take a chance that Iran will strike first. The good news is that if Israel acts Obama will do nothing. He will huff and puff and talk but that is all he can do. He is weak. He has proven it again and again. So the Israeli's have no fear of crossing him.

bagoh20 said...

ARM has turned me around on this. Having a nuclear Iran or a nuclear anybody is just fine now, because Pakistan. Man, that is really easy. Now I feel good about this, and can go about my day with the confidence of knowing that this administration will handle this with all the care and competence it usually musters for important things.

That's what's great about electing the right people; you can just trust what they tell you, and know they will do what they promise.
Hey Israel, if you like your radiation free life, you can keep your radiation free life, period.

edutcher said...

AnUnreasonableTroll said...

You really want me to bring up the Iraqi yellowcake flown to Canada

Yes. Yes I would like to hear more on the topic of our Canadian neighbors harboring nuclear material that could be used in a potential weapon of mass destruction by a despotic middle east dictator.


So happy to oblige.

I know I've linked this article here and at TOP several times, but, given where Troll's head usually is, I understand how he could have missed it.

So, here it is.

Birches said...

This is an example of the US negotiating with itself.

Spot on.

Michael Haz said...

The information I can't tease out of all the news reports, editorials, articles and chest beating is this: What did America get in this deal?

The deal is for six months, during which time billions of dollars will flow from Washington to Teheran, negotiators will yak, trade restrictions against Iran will be eased, and the Iranians will be allowed to keep their enriched uranium (promising to enrich it no further). A corrupt section of the UN will "inspect" Iran for enriched uranium.

Iran can continue developing its ballistic missiles. It can keep its enriched uranium. While current uranium isn't strong enough to make a big boomer, it's plenty strong to make very bad dirty bombs that can be used against any country in the mid-east, and smuggled elsewhere.

Iran made no agreement to live in peace with Israel, or with any other country for that matter.

Look at North Korea. It has nuke bombs, but knows that using them would surely bring the wrath of China on Pyongyang. Iran has no such possessor of big feet holding back its ambitions, and it has Russia as a protector, sometimes.


The US was not made safer. The world was made less safe. Israel was made far less safe. And yet Obama and Kerry are giddily happy about this deal.

Why?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

bagoh20 said...
ARM has turned me around on this. Having a nuclear Iran or a nuclear anybody is just fine now, because Pakistan.


This is a little snarky. You have to admit that it is irrational to worry more about something that might happen (but probably won't) versus an existing and clearly worse possibility that has been in place for decades.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Special Ed, the article quite clearly states that the material could not be used effectively in a weapon. We knew they had a reactor.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Michael Haz said...
Why?


Here is a good explanation.

Leland said...

Exactly correct response to TPM: The alternative of record for the USA is continuation of the current sanctions.

Are you suggesting that if we don't make nice with Iran and pay them off, essentially, they will start a war?


More on my suggestion, the Wikipedia entry on Agreed Framework It just seems like Kerry dusted it off to try again. But then it looks like Kerry thought that agreement to harsh, because: Tehran can continue to enrich uranium at 10,000 working centrifuges.

edutcher said...

An?UnreasonableTroll said...

Special Ed, the article quite clearly states that the material could not be used effectively in a weapon. We knew they had a reactor.

What part of, "the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment", eludes you?

I know, it just Saddam's chemistry set.

chickelit said...

I wonder if ARM understands the difference between chemistry and isotope enrichment.

I wonder if ARM even knows what an isotope is.

Michael Haz said...

Everyone who ever watched The Simpsons knows that an Isotope is a player on the Soringfield Isotopes baseball team.

Michael Haz said...

Everyone who ever watched The Simpsons knows that an Isotope is a player on the Soringfield Isotopes baseball team.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

El Pollo Raylan said...
I wonder if ARM understands the difference between chemistry and isotope enrichment.

I wonder if ARM even knows what an isotope is.


Why don't you explain how this snark is relevant to the discussion at hand, which was the presence or absence of WMD. For the record I was once qualified to handle radioactive isotopes. I doubt Special Ed was qualified to do anything other than drain his trust fund.