Trump Is Not A Rational Human - And His Finger Is On The Button

The following is part of a post by Robert Reich. It's frightening! 

I’ve worked for three presidents, one Republican and two Democrats. I’ve seen presidents up close. The job is overwhelmingly difficult. It takes a toll. But I have never seen anything remotely like what has happened to Donald Trump. 

If Trump was once rational, he no longer is.

 

His response to the Reiner killings, like his AI post on October 18 in which he defecated on millions of protesters, reveals a depth of paranoia and grandiosity worse than anything he has shown before. 

His chief of staff, Suzy Wiles, told Chris Whipple in an interview that appeared in Tuesday’s Vanity Fair that Trump has an “alcoholic’s personality” because he “operates [with] a view that there’s nothing he can’t do. Nothing, zero, nothing.”

Nothing he can’t do? 

I don’t want to alarm you, and I hesitate to even mention this, but I couldn’t sleep knowing that Trump has the power to launch a nuclear bomb. 

As commander-in-chief, he is the only person in the United States with the authority to launch a nuke. No one else need be consulted before he does. No one else can veto such an order. Not even the vice president or secretary of defense has the power to stop it.

I hope to god he doesn’t. I don’t think he would. 

But what if he’s provoked? What if he feels that his manhood or his authority or his status is being threatened? What if he just wants to demonstrate to Americans and the world how strong he is?

 

Again, I doubt this will happen, but the risk is not zero. Here’s a man who thinks Rob and Michele Reiner were murdered because they had a “raging obsession” with him. A man who, according to his current chief of staff, has the personality of an alcoholic with delusions of omnipotence. 

It’s a risk that neither the United States nor the rest of the world can afford to take.

 

I don’t think I’m being alarmist. If anything, I worry that we’ve become so inured to Trump’s madness that we’re not alarmist enough.

 

Trump must be removed from office as soon as possible. 

Either Section 4 of the 25th Amendment must be invoked — because he is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” — or he must be impeached and convicted under Section 4 of Article II of the Constitution for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Japan Welcomes Obama's Impending Visit To Hiroshima

(The photo on the left is of Hiroshima before the atomic bomb was dropped. The photo on the right shows the same city after the bomb. They are public domain photos taken by the U.S. military.)

President Obama has announced that he will soon visit the Japanese city of Hiroshima -- the first city ever attacked with a nuclear weapon. The visit is not an apology, but hopefully can enhance efforts to achieve a worldwide nuclear disarmament.

I thought the Japanese response to the impending visit was interesting. Below, I have posted an editorial from The Japan Times regarding the visit.

The upcoming visit to Hiroshima by U.S. President Barack Obama — the first by a sitting president of the sole country in the world to have used nuclear weapons in warfare to the city that experienced the first nuclear attack in history 71 years ago — will be significant if it indeed serves to rebuild the momentum for efforts to create a world free of nuclear arms, which Obama himself advocated at the beginning of his presidency.

The United States has ruled out an apology by Obama for its atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the closing days of World War II in 1945, which together killed more than 210,000 people by the end of that year. But lack of an apology should not detract from the significance of the historic visit, during which he will be accompanied by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. What’s more important will be the recognition that Obama’s May 27 tribute to Hiroshima should bring to the catastrophic consequence of the atomic bombing — and a readiness to build on that recognition to move toward eliminating nuclear weapons.

Seven decades after the atomic bombings, a presidential trip to Hiroshima remains politically sensitive and risky in the U.S., where the view remains strong that the use of the atomic bombs just days before Japan’s surrender were necessary to quickly end the war and save the lives of American troops. Concern has lingered among American officials that a presidential visit to the atomic-bombed city could be construed as an apology by the U.S. government.

There have been hopes that Obama, whose 2009 speech in Prague calling for creation of a world free of nuclear weapons earned him a Nobel Peace Prize, would be the first U.S. president to visit Hiroshima during his tenure. Obama himself said during his first trip to Japan as president in November 2009 that he would be “honored” to have the opportunity to visit the A-bombed cities in the future. In 2010, John Roos became the first U.S. ambassador to Japan to attend the annual peace memorial in Hiroshima on the Aug. 6 anniversary of the atomic bombing of the city. The visit by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and Museum last month — on the sidelines of the Group of Seven foreign ministers’ meeting held in the city — was seen as setting the stage for Obama, now in his final year in office, to go to Hiroshima when he makes his likely final trip to Japan as president to attend the May 26-27 G-7 summit.

Political sensitivities will still surround Obama’s visit even as the decision was officially announced Tuesday by the Japanese and U.S. governments, in view of its potential conservative repercussions on the presidential election in November. White House officials were quick to underline that Obama will not “revisit the decision to use the atomic bomb at the end of World War II” or comment on whether the atomic bombings were justified during his visit. Press secretary Josh Earnest, who last week made it clear that the president did not believe an apology for the atomic bombings was warranted, said it’s wrong to interpret the Hiroshima visit as tantamount to an apology.

Obama’s visit will “highlight (the president’s) continued commitment to pursuing the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons,” the White House said, while Abe said in Tokyo that Obama visiting Hiroshima, “seeing the reality of the consequences of atomic bombings and expressing his feelings to the world, will be a big force toward a world without nuclear weapons.”

What is then important will be what Obama will actually do and say during in Hiroshima. The detailed itinerary is yet to be unveiled, but there is speculation it will include a visit to the memorial park and a speech.

The Hiroshima Declaration issued by the G-7 foreign ministers last month reaffirmed their commitment to “creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons in a way that promotes international stability.” But such a statement comes amid a global dearth of momentum for efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons. Obama advocated creation of a world free of nuclear arms right after his inauguration, but conditions for reaching that goal appear dismal as the end of his presidency draws near. Disarmament talks between the U.S. and Russia, which together own 90 percent of the world’s nuclear warheads, have stalled in recent years as relations between the two countries have soured. Last year, the United Nations conference to improve compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty failed even to adopt a final document. North Korea meanwhile continues to defy international sanctions to conduct nuclear weapons tests.

Obama visiting Hiroshima in itself may have symbolic significance. But whether the historic visit will have more than symbolic meaning will depend on what fresh messages he can deliver as president of the country that, as his aide quoted him, “has a special responsibility as the only nation to have used a nuclear weapon” to lead the effort to pursue a world free of them.

Senate GOP Stages Some Silly Political Theater

(Cartoon image is by Tom Toles in The Washington Post.)

Last Thursday, Senate Democrats defeated a cloture motion (which would have brought the anit Iran Agreement bill to the Senate floor) on a 58 to 42 vote (with 60 votes being needed). Yesterday, the GOP again held the same vote -- and again it was defeated (this time on a 56 to 42 vote).

This was nothing more than some ridiculous GOP political theater. They knew full well that no Democratic votes had changed, and they would lose again -- but they didn't care. They were just trying to make some political hay out of the issue. They knew that the lies that they have been spreading about the agreement have scared a lot of Americans -- and they want to keep the issue alive in hopes of stealing some votes away from Democrats in the next election.

And as I watched the floor debate before the vote, I noticed that the Republicans are still offering no sensible alternative to the agreement. The best they could come up with was to continue the sanctions and make President Obama go back and negotiate a better deal. Neither of those things is going to happen -- even if they could somehow kill the agreement.

The sanctions (except for those of the U.S.) are gone. The U.N. has already voted to remove the sanctions, and no other country is willing to re-impose them -- not Russia, China, or our Western allies. Those countries feel the deal is a good one. And none of them are willing to go back to the negotiating table just because U.S. Republicans want to play political games.

The only real alternative to the Iran Agreement is to have no agreement at all -- giving Iran free rein to do whatever it wants to do, including building of a nuclear bomb. And the only way to stop them from doing that would be to go to war with them. In other words, the Senate Republicans voted for a new war.

Fortunately, that's not going to happen. The two senate votes, and the threatened veto by the president, insures that. The Republicans will probably continue to play their political games on this issue -- but the agreement will go into effect -- and that's a good thing for this country and the world.

---------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE -- Senator Chuck Schumer (D-New York) once again voted with the Republicans to kill the agreement. That's sad, considering he is supposed to be the favorite to be the next Senate Democratic Leader (after the retirement of Harry Reid). That should NOT happen. Schumer has abandoned the president, his party, and the American people. He simply can no longer be trusted to lead Senate Democrats.

GOP Has No Rational Alternative To The Iran Agreement

These images may strike you as rather harsh. They aren't. The Republicans (and a few Democrats) in Congress have been complaining loudly that the agreement with Iran is a bad one, and won't work. They are saying they are going to vote against the agreement. But I have yet to hear any of those politicians offer an alternative to giving the agreement a try.

That's because there are only two alternatives -- and both of them are bad. We either back off and let Iran make a nuclear bomb, or we go to war with Iran. Personally, I don't want to see either of those things happen. But I suspect that many Republicans are counting on doing the latter -- going to war with Iran. They (or their children) won't have to do any of the fighting and dying -- that will be done by poorer Americans of all colors. And they don't care, because their corporate buddies will make a ton of money off a new war -- just like they have done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They will try to tell you that we should just continue the sanctions until we can get a better deal. But they won't tell you the truth about that. Those sanctions are gone -- unless Iran violates the agreement. The truth is that we were not the only nation that negotiated this agreement. The other nations want to give the agreement a chance to work -- and they are NOT going to retire the sanctions just because our Congress is stupid enough to refuse to approve the agreement.

I can understand anyone being uncomfortable with this agreement. After all, diplomatic efforts are rarely perfect, and sometimes they are not honored by both parties. It is possible that Iran will not live up to this agreement. But we must give it a chance. There really is no alternative but war (or letting Iran have a nuclear bomb).

An Agreement With Iran Is Better Than A War With Them

(The cartoon above is by Daryl Cagle at cagle.com. The caricature of John Kerry is by DonkeyHotey.)

Both the Democrats and Republicans seem to think it would be a disaster if Iran were to join the already pretty large list of nations that have nuclear weapons (U.S., Russia, China, U.K., France, India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa, and probably North Korea). I'm not at all sure I agree with that, but the powers that be in Washington see only two solutions to their self-described dilemma.

The Democrats want to negotiate an agreement with Iran that will keep them a non-nuclear power, while the Republicans want to go to war with Iran to achieve that same goal (even though we are already engaged in two wars we cannot win and shouldn't be fighting). If these are the only options (and they are the only ones our leaders are considering), then I would have to side with the Democrats on this. Successful negotiations are always better than waging war.

And it looks like the negotiations with Iran may be reaching a successful conclusion. The United States, and its Security Council partners, have reached agreement with Iran on all the basic points of a plan they say will keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power. They now have until June of this year to put those points into a written agreement. Here is how Secretary of State John Kerry describes this agreement in an op-ed for The Boston Globe:

ON THURSDAY, the United States, Iran, and our negotiating partners from the UN Security Council and European Union agreed on the parameters of a plan that, if finalized and implemented, will prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Under the parameters, Iran would be required to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium by 98 percent, and cut the number of installed centrifuges that are or could be used to enrich uranium by more than two-thirds. For at least the next 15 years, Iran would be limited to a single uranium enrichment facility and barred from enriching any uranium beyond a level that is adequate for civilian purposes but nowhere near sufficient to provide fuel for a nuclear weapon.

These restrictions will be enforced through a regime of regular and comprehensive international inspections — an arrangement that will detect any attempt to divert nuclear materials to a clandestine location or plant.

The result would be to increase Iran’s breakout time — the time it would take for Iran to speed up its enrichment and produce enough fissile material for one nuclear weapon — to at least a year. That is as much as six times what it is today and what it has been for the past three years.

From the outset of these negotiations, President Obama has had a single purpose: to ensure that Iran does not build or acquire a nuclear weapon. Some have suggested that the only way to do that is to start yet another war in the Middle East. The president thought it wiser to explore the possibility of a diplomatic solution. His approach succeeded in gaining the international support needed to intensify economic pressure on the government in Tehran. And that approach has brought us to where we are today: with an opportunity for a comprehensive plan to block every pathway Iran might use to build a nuclear weapon.

Under the parameters we have negotiated, Iran’s uranium enrichment facility at Fordow will be converted into a nuclear, physics, and technology center. Its heavy-water reactor in Arak will no longer be able to produce weapons-grade plutonium, and spent fuel from the reactor will be shipped out of the country. These steps, coupled with comprehensive inspections, will prevent Iran from openly or secretly using enriched uranium or plutonium to provide fuel for a nuclear bomb.

I have been involved in efforts to restrain Iran’s nuclear program for many years. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I made a quiet trip to Oman in 2011 to indicate to the government there that the Obama administration might be willing to open a dialogue on the nuclear issue. That visit to a key regional leader opened the door to direct bilateral talks and later to the formal multilateral negotiations we have witnessed in recent months. Now we have reached the next step, but we still have further to go. The parameters on which we have agreed must be transformed into text and some outstanding issues must still be resolved. The deadline for that is June 30 — after which will come the even more crucial stage of implementation. To be clear, there is no aspect of this agreement that is based on promises or trust; every element is subject to proof. Only if Iran lives up to its obligations, as verified by the IAEA and by our own eyes and ears, will it receive the relief from sanctions that it needs to end its economic isolation.

Throughout the negotiating process, we have consulted frequently with our allies and partners, including Israel and the Gulf states, and have vigorously reaffirmed our enduring commitment to their security. We remain deeply concerned about Iran’s destabilizing actions in the region. But it is precisely because we are so concerned about these issues — and about the region’s security — that we believe this deal is critical.

I know that some will suggest that the agreed parameters are not sufficient, but the burden will be on them to prescribe a specific and plausible alternative to a better outcome. The fact is that we have reached an important milestone in our years-long effort to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program is and remains wholly peaceful. I hope we will concentrate now on the remaining steps to get this vital job done.

Why Isn't The Corporate Media Reporting This Story ?

This image is of the mushroom cloud produced by the nuclear bomb dropped on Nagasaki at the end of World War II. It is also the image that Republican neo-cons are using to drum up support for a war with Iran.

For a couple of years now, they have been trying to scare Americans with the image of Iran with nuclear weapons. They want us to believe that Iran is in the process of building nuclear weapons, and when they succeed, they will pose a danger to the United States -- even though they have no way of delivering such a weapon that far.

They have used this fear of a nuclear weapon- possessing Iran to build up the military budget even more (although we were already spending 45% of the total money spent on military budgets worldwide, and more than the next 15 biggest spenders combined). They want us to believe we have to spend this money and attack Iran, or we will face nuclear devastation.

But if Iran was really such a threat in the recent past, enough to make many Republicans (and some deluded Democrats) call for a new war, then I have to wonder why the following story hasn't been widely reported by the U.S. media. The BBC considered it important enough to be front page news. Here is what they reported:

Iran has turned all of its enriched uranium closest to the level needed to make nuclear arms into more harmless forms, the UN nuclear agency says.

The conversion of its stock of 20%-enriched uranium was part of a deal to curb Iran's nuclear programme.

The US said last week it would unblock $2.8bn in frozen Iranian funds in return for Iran's compliance.

A four-month extension to talks on Iran's nuclear ambitions was agreed on Friday between Iran and world powers.

The talks are aimed at persuading Iran to limit its nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.

The six world powers involved in the talks - the US, France, China, Russia, Germany and the UK - suspect Iran seeks atomic weapons, which Iran denies.

The country insists that it is enriching uranium for use in nuclear power stations and for medical purposes.

Correspondents say Iran's completion of eliminating its most worrying uranium stockpile is a promising sign that its leaders do not want to derail the diplomatic process.

A new report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says Iran is observing all of its other commitments as well.

Iran had more than 200kg of 20%-enriched uranium when the preliminary agreement to convert it was reached last November.

At 20%, enriched uranium can be converted quickly to arm a nuclear weapon and experts said 200kg was enough to make one nuclear warhead.

But while the story was widely reported in Europe and Australia, it has been ignored by the corporate media in the United States. Why? Doesn't it seem like the prospect of peace, of avoiding a costly war with Iran, should be big news -- especially considering all the coverage of the possible nuclear weapons program in Iran?

Could it be that the corporations in the military-industrial complex don't want the story reported (because Americans might come to their senses and demand the bloated military budget be cut)? Could it be because it doesn't fit the narrative being proposed by the Republicans (and their corporate backers), and might hurt their chances in the upcoming election?

This is a prime example of what's wrong with our major media outlets. They only give us the stories approved by their corporate owners. Truth in reporting and good investigative reporting are things of the past -- things that are not tolerated in a media owned by only a few giant corporations (who are only interested in protecting their own interests (and the politicians they have bought).

October Surprise ?

There has been talk of an October surprise regarding Iran, especially in right-wing circles. I think the hope was that Israel would unilaterally bomb Iran's nuclear fuel-producing plants, and that this would be advantageous to Willard Mitt Romney -- because it would make it look like the Iranians were much closer to making an atomic bomb than they actually are (if they are trying to make one at all, which has not been proven). It would also put pressure on President Obama, making it look like he has not been hard enough on Iran -- a case that Willard has been trying to make without much success.

But it now looks like the Obama administration has pulled off an Iranian October surprise of their own. Iranian officials have told several different sources that they have agreed in principle to hold one-on-one negotiations with the United States over nuclear power for Iran. The Iranians say they want to wait until the American election is over before starting the talks, because they want to know who they would be negotiating with.

Obama administration officials admit they have been pursuing such talks, almost from the time President Obama took office. They denied a deal has been fully agreed to though. Although they have agreed on the talks with Iranian officials that report to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Americans say they don't know if the Ayatollah has agreed to the talks.

Whether the talks actually happen or not (and I believe they will if the president is elected), this should delay any military action anyone (including the Israelis) was planning to take against Iran -- and that's a good thing. Anyone taking military action right now would be condemned by most nations as starting a war just when there was renewed hope for peace. It also makes it much harder for Willard to make a case in these last couple of weeks that President Obama has not dealt effectively with Iran.

If the talks are held, I hope both sides take them seriously and really try to reach a peaceful solution, because I believe there is a middle ground that could be found -- a middle ground that would let Iran develop nuclear power without developing a nuclear bomb. It is unreasonable to think that Iran should not be able to produce electricity for its citizens using nuclear power -- a right we would not deny to any other nation.

This is great news for both countries. The last thing the United States needs is another war that cannot be won. We already have too many of those, and cannot afford another, either financially or militarily.

Warmongers Of The Right-Wing Are Wrong

The graphic above sums up pretty well what the right-wing Republicans want. Fear is their best-selling product, and they want to convince our citizens that Iran has (or will soon have) an nuclear weapon -- which they would be crazy enough to use on Israel and other countries (including the United States).

The international nuclear inspectors, our own CIA, and even Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta have all tried to assure Americans that the Iranians do not currently have a nuclear bomb, and there is no indisputable evidence that they intend to build one. But they have been drowned out by the terrified screams of the right-wing warmongers. They see keeping the American people scared enough to accept perpetual war as the road to their own maintaining of power (and to fat corporate profits).

The right-wing wants a war with Iran. Some would like for Israel to start that war by bombing Iran. Others would like for the United States to do the initial bombing. And still others would like to see us invade Iran and engage in a bit of nation-building (like we've done so "successfully" in Iraq and Afghanistan).  These are all insane ideas. War should never be "preventative", but always a last resort (after every other possible alternative has been tried and failed).

Fortunately, at least so far, cooler heads are prevailing -- not only in this country, but also in Israel. Israel's chief military officer, Lt. General Benny Gantz, is one of those voices of reason. He doesn't think Iran has a nuclear bomb, and is not sure they even intend to develop one. Here is what he told the newspaper Haaretz:

"If Iran goes nuclear it will have negative dimensions for the world, for the region, for the freedom of action Iran will permit itself."


"But despair not. We are a temperate state. The State of Israel is the strongest in the region and will remain so. Decisions can and must be made carefully, out of historic responsibility but without hysteria."


"Iran is going step by step to the place where it will be able to decide whether to manufacture a nuclear bomb. It hasn't yet decided whether to go the extra mile."


"The program is too vulnerable, in Iran's view. If the supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wants, he will advance it to the acquisition of a nuclear bomb, but the decision must first be taken. It will happen if Khamenei judges that he is invulnerable to a response. I believe he would be making an enormous mistake, and I don't think he will want to go the extra mile. I think the Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people."

It is time to back down from the violent rhetoric. Iran does not have a nuclear bomb, and we don't know whether they even want to build one (which they claim they don't want to build). And after the fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan (which we're still embroiled in), the last thing we need right now is another war, anywhere.

Iranian Scientist Is Murdered

Iran is not currently building a nuclear bomb. That is a fact that has been verified by both the International Atomic Energy Agency and U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. They say that Iran might soon have the capability of building a weapon, but is not currently doing so. Of course that is not what most of the American public believes, because they have been told by the politicians of both political parties (but especially the Republicans) that an Iranian bomb is imminent -- and possibly just a few months away.

I'm not sure why the politicians have been so eager to spread this lie. Probably because it is what the Israelis want the world to believe, since it justifies any attacks Israel may carry out against that nation -- and Israel seems to dictate American policy these days. In fact, if they American people can be convinced that Iran poses a threat to us (and the rest of the world) then that would justify not only Israel going to war with Iran, but also the United States.

The lie would also justify other criminal acts, such as assassinations. And an assassination was just carried out in Iran. A nuclear scientist, Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan (a top official at a uranium enrichment facility in Iran), was killed by a bomb that had been placed under his car. He is the third nuclear scientist to be murdered with a bomb in the last two years -- and a fourth assassination was attempted, but the intended target (another scientist) survived the attack.

The United States and Israel would like for the world to believe that the murders were done by Iranian anti-government insurgents inside the country. That just doesn't make sense. Killing scientists is not going to help them topple the government. The insurgents (if they even exist and have this capability) are far more likely to strike at government leaders. Striking at scientists would just delay new sources of energy for the people of Iran instead of hurting the government.

It is far more likely that the culprit is either Israel or the American CIA. Considering the relative effectiveness of those two in that part of the world, Israel is the most likely perpetrator. But it really doesn't matter, because the Iranian government sees the U.S. and Israel as the same enemy (and they are justified in doing so). The U.S. has always backed any action taken by Israel -- whether it was justified or legal or not.

The truth is that these assassinations are not just illegal, but are driving the United States and Iran even closer to outright war. A war that neither country can afford, but both seem to want. Iran sees the assassinations as an attack on their sovereignity (which it certainly is), while the U.S. (and Israel) misuse these criminal acts as some kind of proof that Iran is building a nuclear bomb.

The decent thing for the United States government to do would be to condemn the assassinations very strongly and then put pressure on Israel to stop them -- before they push all three countries (and maybe even others) into an unnecessary war that would take the lives of far too many innocent people. I doubt that will happen though. Too many politicians in this country see pushing for a war with Iran as their way to show the voters how tough they are.

Are we going to have another war so some war-hawk politicians can be re-elected? Have we forgotten the lies told about Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" so soon? Or is there no limit to the gullibility of the American electorate?  

Iran Says It Will Allow Inspections

Uranium can be enriched at different levels. Low-enriched uranium can be used as fuel for nuclear power plants, but uranium must be very highly-enriched before it can be used to make a nuclear bomb. So what is Iran doing? Are they enriching uranium for fuel or for a bomb?

Iran claims it is just making nuclear fuel, while Israel is convinced Iran is making a nuclear bomb. Everyone else is suspicious because they were not told earlier about Iran's newest enrichment plant near Qom, which Iran announced earlier this week is ready to begin production.

Iran believes it has complied with the rules of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) by making public notification before the new plant became operational. But others say there was a Subsidiary Agreement that required notification during the planning stages. Regardless of who is right, the plant is now complete and ready to start operations.

Like most other people, I don't like the prospect of an Iran with nuclear weapons. However, I really don't see how tougher "sanctions" is going to prevent that. The only ray of hope I can see at the present time is that Iran is saying it will allow inspections under IAEA rules. I hope they are serious about this and allow full and complete inspections.

Secretary of State Clinton responded to the promise of inspections by saying, "It is always welcome when Iran makes a decision to comply with the international rules and regulations, and particularly with respect to the IAEA. We are very hopeful that, in preparing for the meeting on October 1, Iran comes and shares with all of us what they are willing to do and give us a timetable on which they are willing to proceed."

I agree with the Secretary of State. The best thing for all concerned would be for Iran to cooperate with the IAEA and allow complete inspections. We already have one rogue nation with nuclear weapons -- Pakistan. We certainly don't need another one.