Saturday, 29 August 2015

Obama addresses Jewish Audience on Iran Deal

Obama came forward on the frontline to defend Iran Deal by saying "fifteen years from now, the president, whoever that may be, will be in a stronger position to respond to the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons, if the current deal with Tehran is adopted and implemented", told an online audience for the Jewish Federations of North America on Friday.
Obama said the U.S. would have greater “knowledge” of the Iranian nuclear program after 15 years,  when key provisions of the agreement such as limits on uranium enrichment and centrifuges expire.
The president vowed that the U.S. would be prepared to respond in the even that Iran dashes for nuclear weapons. “We are confident in our ability to respond,” he said.
Although the president insisted that international will to continue to enforce multilateral sanctions against Iran’s financial and oil sectors would largely dissolve if Congress moves to reject the deal, he also said the U.S. would not need agreements from China, Russia, or even the U.S.’s European partners if Iran violates the deal to re-impose multilateral sanctions. And he said the U.S. was not backing away from sanctions on Iranian human rights abuses and support for terror.
Additionally, the president noted that the interim agreement announced in late 2013, in which Iran scaled back some of its enrichment activities, paved the way for the current deal, setting a precedent for removing some sanctions in exchange for Iranian compliance on scaling back its nuclear program.
The president addressed Israeli opposition to the deal, calling it a “visceral reaction” to Iran’s denial of the Holocaust and perennial pledges to decimate the Jewish state. He insisted that the “best security is to enter into negotiations with your enemies.”
Obama conceded that while Iran has yet to rein in its harsh rhetoric against the U.S. — such comity is “not forthcoming at the moment,” he admitted — his conclusion was that that’s how “politicians operate … even in Iran.”
The president played down the perceived animosity between himself and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, noting that “my best friends are the ones who I can be honest with. That’s what being good friends means.”
He rejected notions that there should be no daylight between the White House and Jerusalem — a notion perpetuated most recently by former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren — saying that “could be dangerous if it leads us to make bad decisions for the interests of these two countries.”
Still, he said, on the Iranian issue “we agree more than we disagree,” adding that in the debate over the Iran deal, “we’re all pro-Israel, and we’re all family.”
He said relations between the U.S. and Israel would improve “quickly” if the deal is implemented, and encouraged working together to “enhance our security cooperation; to think about the next generations of missile defense programs, how we improve our intelligence and interdiction to prevent arms from reaching terrorist groups,” and to overall counteract Iranian-backed terrorist activities in the region.
News Edited By:
Kanwal Abidi - Political Analyst 
063 News (Press Agency)

Saturday, 22 August 2015

Pak India Peace Talks Press Briefing

Office of the Spokesperson
Press Release

Pakistan has carefully analyzed the contents of the Press Conference of the Indian Minister for External Affairs, Mrs. Sushma Sawaraj this afternoon. We have come to the conclusion that the proposed NSA level talks between the two countries would not serve any purpose, if conducted on the basis of the two conditions laid down by the Minister.

While the Indian Minister accepts that, to ensure durable peace between the two countries, there is a need to discuss all outstanding issues through a sustained dialogue process, started in 1998 as Composite Dialogue and renamed as Resumed Dialogue in 2011, she then unilaterally restricts the agenda to only two items: creating an atmosphere free from terrorism and tranquility on the LoC.

Considering that many terror “incidents” blamed initially by India on Pakistan eventually turned out to be fake, it is not improbable that India can delay the Resumed Dialogue indefinitely by concocting one or two incidents and keeping the LoC hot.

It is equally important to recall that terrorism was always a part of the eight point composite dialogue and it was always discussed simultaneously with other issues between the Interior Secretaries.  It is not reasonable for India to now assume the right to decide unilaterally that from now onwards, other issues will be discussed after terrorism has been discussed and eliminated. 

The main purpose of any dialogue between India and Pakistan is to reduce tensions and restore trust as a first step towards normalization.  If the only purpose of NSA level talks is to discuss terrorism, then instead of improving the prospects for peace it will only intensify the blame game and further vitiate the atmosphere.  That is why Pakistan had suggested that apart from discussion on terrorism related issues, the two sides should also discuss modalities and if possible a time schedule, for discussions on all outstanding issues including Kashmir, Siachen and Sir Creek, in keeping with the understanding of the Ufa statement.  That is the only way to improve the prospects for peace between the two countries.

The EAM’s attempt to draw a distinction between preambular and operative paragraphs in the Ufa statement appears to be an after-thought to justify a position that is counterproductive in terms of the ultimate objective of reducing tensions and improving trust.

As regards the second pre-condition regarding meeting with Hurriyat leaders, it has been pointed out repeatedly that it has been a long-standing practice that whenever Pakistani leaders visited India during the past twenty years, they have been meeting Hurriyet leaders.  It would be inappropriate for India to now impose the condition of changing this longstanding practice.

Pakistan, therefore, reiterates that the scheduled NSA level talks cannot be held on the basis of the preconditions set by India.

22 August 2015

Wednesday, 12 August 2015

Donald Trump can Whine but NOT Apologize !

Trumup leads on in polls, yet losing his credibility:

In the wake of GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump's refusal to apologize to Fox News' Megyn Kelly, one of the moderators of last week's GOP debate, for his controversial comments about her, we've rounded up all of the times Trump has apologized for something he's said: 

So far, the list is empty. In a cursory Internet search of recent Trump-related kerfuffles, it appears that Donald Trump has never publicly apologized for anything.

Following the much talked about, much "meme'd" GOP debate, Trump claimed that Kelly had it out for him and made a comment about how she had "blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her... wherever," while asking him questions.

That quip didn't go over well. He was told not to come to a major gathering of conservatives, known as the Red State conference, held in Atlanta, Georgia, over the weekend. But he told CNN's Jake Tapper that his remarks were misunderstood, and that he "said nothing wrong whatsoever."

Trump believes that if anyone should be issued an apology, it's him. He told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that Kelly owes him an apology for her questions aimed at the candidate.
Remember Trump's comments about Sen. John McCainMexican immigrantsRosie O'Donnell?
Yeah, he isn't apologizing for any of those either.
Trump denied saying that McCain wasn't a war hero, but remarked that he would like to see him do more to help war veterans. Not an apology per se, but more like a half-denial, half-apology hybrid.

His comments on Mexico and immigrants? Nope. No apology. Back in July, he told Fox News Channel's "MediaBuzz" that his controversial comments about Mexican immigrants being rapists and murderers stemmed from media reports on crime near the border, and therefore he "can never apologize for the truth."

On calling women that he didn't agree with fat pigs, slobs or disgusting animals (particularly O'Donnell)? Nothing to be sorry for there, either.

"What I say is what I say," Trump replied during the GOP debate when Kelly asked if this type of temperament was appropriate for the office of president of the United States. "And honestly, Megyn, if you don't like it, I'm sorry," he continued. "I've been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be, based on the way you have treated me."
There has been one apology out of Trump's camp, however. Alas, it didn't come from the mogul himself, but rather his lawyer.

Trump on his ex-wife:
Amidst reports of a decades-old rape allegation disclosed in Trump's early 1990s divorce from then-wife Ivana, his lawyer Michael Cohen made the comment that "you cannot rape your spouse."

Cohen later apologized for this remark after Trump distanced himself from the situation.

On Monday 10th August 2015, Trump told CNN Anchor in New Day program, "I can Whine to Win, and I am greatest Whiner". On a point of thought, if Trump does not change his apologetic behavior and keeps bragging on bringing changes and not giving policy statement - Trump might be hallucinated by the leading Republicans polls at present.

Edited By:
                Kanwal Abidi - 063 News
                   (Special Correspondent - International News)
Eds Note ...  If someone can rape his own wife, call women on live shows that they are menstruating, will surely never be able to deal with Vldamir Putin or strike US-Iran Nuclear Deal, and let alone the American women health issues would be ignored. So, think wise and vote for sensible candidate ......