The Vice-Presidential Debate: Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers on Foreign Policy Issues
While most of the vice presidential debate covered domestic issues, there was some discussion about Iran that provoked controversy. Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan said:
We cannot allow Iran to gain a nuclear weapons capability. Now, let’s take a look at where we’ve gone — come from. When Barack Obama was elected, they had enough fissile material — nuclear material — to make one bomb. Now they have enough for five. They’re racing toward a nuclear weapon. They’re four years closer toward a nuclear weapons capability.
According to the AP fact-checkers:
Ryan’s claim is misleading. Iran isn’t believed to have produced any of the highly enriched uranium needed to produce even one nuclear weapon, let alone five. That point isn’t even disputed by Israel, whose Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu implored the world at the United Nations last month to create a “red line” at enrichment above 20 percent. Iran would have to enrich uranium at much higher levels to produce a weapon. There is intelligence suggesting that Iran has worked on weapon designs, but not that it has developed a delivery system for any potential nuclear warhead.
The response is correct in the sense that Ryan overstated where Iran is at. But it ignored his key point: “They’re four years closer toward a nuclear weapons capability.” Would Romney have done better if he was in office? That’s debatable, of course, but it should be noted that the Obama administration essentially wasted the first two years of its term, refused to back the Iranian opposition even verbally at the moment of crisis, and made Iran more confident of victory through its desperate effort to make friends with Tehran. The problem is that Obama did not do anything effective against Iran’s nuclear weapons’ drive. That is a valid point though: again, what would Romney have done during the same period?
Clearer, however, is the unfairness of the AP critique of Ryan on a second point. In AP’s account:
Ryan … notes that there have been four rounds of U.N. sanctions on Iran to deter its nuclear program, three during the Bush administration and one under Obama. “And the only reason we got it is because Russia watered it down and prevented the sanctions from hitting the central bank. Mitt Romney proposed these sanctions in 2007. In Congress, I’ve been fighting for these sanctions since 2009. The administration was blocking us every step of the way.’’ He also noted the administration has granted 20 waivers to the sanctions.
The AP sharply disagrees:
The argument that the administration was watering down or delaying sanctions is misleading. For sanctions to work, they need maximum global agreement and cooperation. Russia watered down U.N. sanctions not only under Obama, but also under Bush. And it’s highly unlikely that a Romney administration, particularly led by a candidate who says Russia is the biggest geostrategic threat to the U.S., would be able to get Russia completely on board with what the U.S. wants to — either in Iran or Syria.
The more absolute U.S. sanctions that Ryan and others have pushed in Congress would have punished U.S. allies, including most countries in Europe as well as Japan and South Korea, along with good friends like India and Singapore — without the exemptions that were put in place.
The administration has indeed granted 20 waivers, to countries that made significant reductions in Iranian oil imports. And the sanctions are pinching; Iran has been convulsed over the past week with protests over the collapse of its currency, which most people say is a direct result of the sanctions that the U.S. and others have imposed.
This response is misleading and downright silly.
Biden definitely has a Sardonicus grin.
“Mr. Sardonicus (1961) is a horror film produced and directed by William Castle. It tells the story of Sardonicus, a man whose face becomes frozen in a horrifying grin.”
Biden will star in the remake, which will be called, “Mr. Bidonicus.
Interesting. On the one hand the intelligence community is on the ball and on the same wave length with Israel, according to blithering Biden, but on the other hand Biden throws the intelligence community under the bus for the Benghazi bummer. Maybe the White House is afraid Hillary will resign before the election if they throw her under the bus while who cares if the Clapper goes?
Petraeus should certainly go out the door in any Romney administration. I’m not too worried about Romney keeping Obama or Biden or Clinton or Rice or Carney.
Yet a congressional source told Fox News that CIA Director David Petraeus, during a briefing with members of the House Intelligence Committee three days after the attack, also espoused the view that Benghazi was an out-of-control demonstration prompted by the YouTube video. According to the source, this was “shocking” to some members who were present and saw the same intelligence pointing toward a terrorist attack.
The part that irritated me in a fantastic way was Biden’s incessant repetition that “They don’t have a weapon to put it in”.
Thanks for the news flash, “The Joker” Joe. Not to be a nudge, but neither did we in the 40′s. We had theories. And until we had the material, the weapon could never be anything more than a theory.
Theory became fact. Even though attaining the material for the weapon is far from a simple thing by any means, it is an attainable goal given enough resources. As Iran has exhibited via the complex of centrifuges they have assembled, this goal is well within their reach. The rest is simply academic. And there is whole lot of academics for hire out there.
Mr. Rubin, as you know the public sector union ‘news organization’ Ap to provide ANY type of ‘unbiased/ neutral’ news findings has been an ongoing joke for decades.
I responded as such to an Ap writer who’d watched, provided a ‘review’ for ’2016′ (cover). Going as far as going to the Ap writer’s chat room. providing lucid, respectful responses to her nonsensical review.
I kid you not, since my chat room response I’m not able to respond to Ap/AFP, The Ticket and other Illiberal online ‘news stories’. My email address has been blacklisted.. bwahahaha
Which further demonstrates the hypocrisy of the supposed ‘Liberal stances’.
AP = all propaganda
Mr. Rubin,
Great fact checking the fact checkers piece.
Yet, sitting here at my computer, I still feel a deep need to have one question answered.
Answer me one question with the facts, and I don’t think I’ll ever need another Ambien to fall asleep. I need the sleeping pill now because I’m so angry. I’m mad not just at Obama, but at the Hannities of the world, who overlook one key question. Every time Sean Hannity fails to get this question out, I’m ready to go Biden ballistic.
More and more, I think that people are starting to believe that, sitting under all that great Hannity head of hair, is a very mediocre mind.
Sitting here now, Mr. Rubin, with hardly enough time having passed to give Biden’s clown makeup time to completely wear off, I respectfully ask you to please check on this fact:
Sir, did President Barack Obama, when he addressed the UN two weeks after the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, know that it was in reality a planned, premeditated, 9/11 anniversary terrorist attack?
Or did he truly think a youtube video caused the murders? Was this a lie that was part of another Obama coverup?
I ask this question because,if Obama, speaking at the UN two weeks after the attack, blamed the youtube video even though Obama knew the video wasn’t the cause; that it was a planned terrorist attack…then any American with half a brain should realize Obama was lying.
I believe this is important to know.
Many voters may very well be reluctant to re-elect a proven liar, especially when the lie involved American deaths.
If a commenter would be so kind as to answer my question, I’d be most appreciative. Thank you.
Rachel, I understand that the intelligence community had video of the actual attack in REAL TIME, meaning as it was happening. Now, whether it was the CIA, NSA or some other three letter agency, I don’t know. I do know that these agencies KNEW that there were no demonstrations prior to the attack. In fact, the State Dept was in communication with the ambassador’s party during the attack. It also has been reported that Obama was informed that the consulate had been overrun and the ambassador was missing. He went to bed.
In addition to the above, there had been multiple attacks against the consulate and embassy in the months before this final attack. It was reported at the congressional hearings that there were radio/cellphone communications intercepted that indicated an attack was in the works.
So yes, in answer to your question, he knew prior to his speech at the UN that the video was malarkey!
Rachel, I understand that the intelligence community had video of the actual attack in REAL TIME, meaning as it was happening.
Not quite. What they had in real time were verbal reports from the surviving staff. The videos were only recovered recently, in the FBI’s belated visit to the ruins of the consulate.
And in addition to ALL of the above (or below) the producer of the video was arrested in the middle of the night by LA County Sheriffs and is sitting in jail as you read this. The charge was a “parole violation”. As they say, “F#%k your constitutional rights!” Freedom of speech? Shaddup!
a bunch of malarkey is what the current administration has been feeding the public for the last 4 years.i heard over the summer that AQ had been planning attacks for the 9-11 anniversary. so it was a shock when it happened? the intelligence community was feeding us a bunch of malarkey and so we passed it on.
i heard about planned attacks on the national news cnn even but for sure fox news, over the summer spring
How about this for a weapon delivery system. Put the nuclear fissile material in a ship , sail the ship to an American or European port and detonate it. Can it be done yes it can/ So when would Left Wing moonbats wise up – AFTERWARDS as usual.
Friend, you are under the assumption that the Left has our best interests in mind. They do not and further more look to a future where we don’t exist. So, it follows that they will not “learn” from the destruction of an American city as they will see it as just and proper.
Barry Rubin raises some crucial points about the most effective sanctions.
An example from the failure to deal with an African dictator, Robert Mugabe, illustrates the problem. Nearly thirty years ago there was a terrible massacre in Matabeleland, Zimbabwe. Strict sanctions would have caused great hardship for the multitudes of poor people. However, when sanctions were eventually imposed by the EU and USA nearly twenty years later they were far from comprehensive. Had these countries acted decisively in the mid eighties – they knew what had happened and was going on in Zimbabwe – the hardships and suffering of the people would have been far less. The sufferings and deaths under this dictator have far exceeded anything that would have resulted from strict, comprehensive sanctions at the time. While there are occasional reports on this country, much of the media have covered up the atrocities in Zimbabwe by ignoring them. Because there was no sensational war like in Syria – even thought the deaths, injuries and sufferings probably far exceed those in Syria – most of the media have been stunningly silent.
In case you wonder if we can compare an African situation with one in the Middle-East: how often have the Western media failed to condemn and shame Iran and their leadership and show many Western leaders pussyfooting around them? How can they say so little about the US allowing President Ahmadinejad and Iranian officials on US soil or the UN allowing Ahmadinejad to address the General Assembly of the UN? Why did they not publish a timeline of the past 35 years highlighting the main atrocities that are a direct consequence of the policies and beliefs of the Iranian leadership?
It is time to publicly stigmatize this deceitful Western journalism and failure to keep exposing what is really happening in Iran.
Mugabe did kill tens of thousand’s,but does that justify the West putting sanctions which would cause great hardship for the multitudes of poor people.
‘The sufferings and deaths under this dictator have far exceeded anything that would have resulted from strict, comprehensive sanctions at the time.’
So it’s ok for us to cause suffering and death in response to Mugabe causing suffering and death?
The ten year of sanctions on Iraq caused 500,000 children to die.
Albright when asked if it was worth it, she said it was.That didn’t go down too well in that region .
Sanctions are supposed to force the people to get rid of their leader we don’t
like. How can they do that if they are dead or half dead ?
I am in the U.K and Zimbabwe is covered in the media,however i don’t recall any journalist’s on this site reporting on it.
I do not even know how I finished up here, but I believed this submit used to be great. I don’t know who you are but definitely you’re going to a well-known blogger in the event you are not already. Cheers!
It is slightly misleading to suggest that Iran needs a delivery system such as a rocket, shell etc. It could create an electronic pulse by exploding a bomb on its own territory thus destroying electrical systems in ships, planes & tanks.
Hello, fantastic blog. I’m very delighted. Excellent job. The articles are superb. I also run a blog, stop sometimes to me. I hope you enjoy it too.