The Bethlehem-based news agency Ma’an has cited a Kuwaiti newspaper report Saturday, that US President Barack Obama thwarted an Israeli military attack against Iran's nuclear facilities in 2014 by threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.Of course, we have to be quite skeptical of an anonymous report coming out through a Kuwaiti newspaper. I'm not sure how Kuwait would know these sorts of details. If the Israelis wanted to leak the story, there are more legitimate media outlets where they could have leaked it. Roger Simon explains why he think the story is untrue and is perhaps the leak is aimed at discrediting Netanyahu as a warmonger. Perhaps, the most shocking aspect of the report is that it is quite believable. Does anyone doubt that the Obama administration would have been appalled at any proposed Israeli attack and would have done anything in their power to stop such an action? As Rick Moran, who is also suspicious of the story, reminds us, Samantha Power, Obama's ambassador to the UN, once recommended that the US should invade Israel in order to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Following Obama's threat, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was reportedly forced to abort the planned Iran attack.
According to Al-Jarida, the Netanyahu government took the decision to strike Iran some time in 2014 soon after Israel had discovered the United States and Iran had been involved in secret talks over Iran’s nuclear program and were about to sign an agreement in that regard behind Israel's back.
The report claimed that an unnamed Israeli minister who has good ties with the US administration revealed the attack plan to Secretary of State John Kerry, and that Obama then threatened to shoot down the Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.
Al-Jarida quoted "well-placed" sources as saying that Netanyahu, along with Minister of Defense Moshe Yaalon, and then-Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, had decided to carry out airstrikes against Iran's nuclear program after consultations with top security commanders.
And if Iran is such a trustworthy partner for negotiations, why are there American hostages still being held in Iran? Shouldn't their release have been one of the starting points for Obama's negotiations with the Iranian regime?
Obama seems more concerned with springing terrorists from Guantanamo Bay than in freeing Americans held captive by one of the world’s most repressive regimes. And, while Secretary of State John Kerry has reportedly condemned the Iranian detention of American citizens and called for their release, Obama and Kerry’s willingness to continue business as usual in negotiations and in payments to Iran suggests to the Iranians a lack of seriousness on the Obama administration’s part.Don't count on any such media attention.
There should not be a single press conference dealing with Iran where the first, second, and third questions don’t force administration officials to address those Americans in prison in Iran. The hostages should be household names. When the State Department counsels quiet diplomacy, what diplomats are seeking is enough distraction to sweep the problem under the rug. They should not be able to. Indeed, there should not be another meeting held, let alone incentive given or payment made, until they are happily at home and reunited with their families. Quite the contrary, there should be no end to sanctions and punishment until the Americans—all four—come home.
But Kerry tells us to give the administration "the benefit of the doubt" on the Iran deal he's negotiating.
The Obama administration deserves “the benefit of the doubt” over a pending nuclear deal with Iran, Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday, maintaining that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s objections to it shouldn’t be “turned into some great political football.”Seriously? On the basis of which foreign policy action would anyone surmise that this administration has earned the "benefit of the doubt"?
“Israel is safer today because of the interim agreement that we created,” Kerry told ABC’s “This Week.” “Now, I guarantee you, we have said again and again, no deal is better than a bad deal. We’re not going to make a bad deal.”
Kerry also said that “given our success on the interim agreement, I believe we deserve the benefit of the doubt to find out whether or not we can get a similarly good agreement with respect to the future.”
Remember that this is an administration that just last week was openly telling reporters about their plan to attack ISIS's forces in Mosul. No one could figure out how it made any sense to talk about such military plans publicly several months ahead of time. And now the Pentagon is having an Emily Litella moment. Never mind. As Ed Morrissey writes,
Old and busted: Open-source war planning. New hotness: Strategic incoherence! A week ago, the Pentagon briefed reporters on the plan to retake Mosul from ISIS in April using mainly Iraqi Army troops, down to the timing of the attack and a rough estimate of the numbers and types of troops needed to accomplish the job. Just seven days later, the Department of Defense pushed off the date until autumn … if then. A DoD source told The Daily Beast’s Nancy Youssef that, er, they’ve belatedly discovered that Iraqi troops aren’t ready now, and probably won’t be ready for months....I feel more secure knowing these people are in charge of our military plans, don't you?
This brings up two serious questions about leadership of this war. First, who made the decision to not just leak but brief the media in detail on a planned major offensive against ISIS? It goes against everything known about operational security and the necessity of maintaining elements of surprise. It’s no secret that the Iraqis want Mosul back, of course, but announcing that they’ll throw 25,000 troops against it two months from now gave ISIS plenty of time to move their own assets to meet the threat. It also eliminated the ability to use feints to throw them off the true objective, a basic military strategy that keeps an enemy from focusing all their defenses on one place at one specific point in time.
In fact, that question raises another: cui bono? Who and what benefits from going public with that plan? It’s not the military, which loses all those advantages and therefore will suffer heavier losses than necessary. It’s certainly not the people of Mosul, who will see even more oppression and genocide in preparation to hold the city. Why do this at all? The only benefit accrues to the politicians who are struggling mightily, as Youssef points out, to claim that the war effort is going “smoothly.” At the time this got “leaked,” a CBS poll showed that Americans had shifting significantly on the war, with a 57% majority now wanting American ground troops to go into Iraq and Syria to destroy ISIS. This leak pushed back against the swelling realization that our current strategy is failing by claiming the Iraqi army was ready to stand up and do the job — a ridiculous claim, given that the same army had just been routed from defensive positions in Mosul and all across western and northern Iraq just a few months earlier.
The phantom Mosul offensive is a failure of leadership. If someone at the Pentagon doesn’t get cashiered over it, then we can safely assume that the failure lies above their pay grade.
Ross Douthat contemplates how the Democratic Party is ready, without much thought, to hand themselves over to the Clintons.
I’ve written before that Hillary is the candidate most likely to hold a version of the Obama coalition together. But that doesn’t mean it will be pretty to watch. As we’ve been reminded by the revelations about all the foreign powers that donated to what is now known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation during Hillary’s tenure as secretary of state, she’s a celebrity on the surface and the very model of a postmodern machine politician underneath, with the ooze of corruption clinging to all the levers that she’ll need to pull to win.
For the sake of their existing presidential majority, the Democrats are lucky to have her. Where their integrity and ideals are concerned, maybe not so much.
And there may come a time, during the inevitable sleaze of a Clinton restoration if not sooner, when they may find themselves wishing they could just blow the whole thing up.
Jeffrey Goldberg, who has reported before on how much this administration despises Netanyahu, writes that the issue is not Netanyahu's speech, but the awful deal that Obama is negotiating with Iran.
I’m fairly sure Netanyahu will deliver a powerful speech, in part because he is eloquent in English and forceful in presentation. But there is another reason this speech may be strong: Netanyahu has a credible case to make. Any nuclear agreement that allows Iran to maintain a native uranium-enrichment capability is a dicey proposition; in fact, any agreement at all with an empire-building, Assad-sponsoring, Yemen-conquering, Israel-loathing, theocratic terror regime is a dicey proposition.And by "dicey proposition," I think Goldberg means "absolute catastrophe."
On Israel, here’s the promise Obama made that stays with me the most: “I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don’t bluff,” he said. “I also don’t, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli government recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say.” He went on to say four words that have since become famous: “We’ve got Israel’s back.”Well, then we'll just have one more Emily Litella moment for this president's foreign policy.
Netanyahu obviously believes that Obama doesn't have his, or Israel's, back. There will be no convincing Netanyahu that Obama is anything but a dangerous adversary. But if a consensus forms in high-level Israeli security circles (where there is a minimum of Obama-related hysterics) that the president has agreed to a weak deal, one that provides a glide path for Iran toward the nuclear threshold, then we will be able to say, fairly, that Obama's promises to Israel were not kept. One of Netanyahu’s most strident critics, Meir Dagan, the former head of the Mossad intelligence agency, said recently, “A nuclear Iran is a reality that Israel won't be able to come to terms with.”
He went on to say, “Two issues in particular concern me with respect to the talks between the world powers and Iran: What happens if and when the Iranians violate the agreement, and what happens when the period of the agreement comes to an end and they decide to pursue nuclear weapons?”
In an important column, Caroline Glick details in the Jerusalem Post how Netanyahu is perceived in Israel of having given in on a whole array of issues with his nation's opponents. She reminds us how the Obama administration has undermined Israel and humiliated Netanyahu personally over and over. And the one issue on which Netanyahu has not yielded to Obama's administration on is Iran.
But now we are seeing that far from being an opportunist, Netanyahu is a leader of historical dimensions. For the past two years, in the interest of reaching a deal, Obama has enabled Iran to take over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. For the first time since 1974, due to Obama’s policies, the Golan Heights is an active front in the war against Israel, with Iranian military personnel commanding Syrian and Hezbollah forces along the border.
Iran’s single-minded dedication to its goal of becoming a regional hegemon and its commitment to its ultimate goal of destroying the US is being enabled by Obama’s policies of accommodation. An Iran in possession of a nuclear arsenal is an Iran that can not only destroy Israel with just one or two warheads. It can make it impossible for Israel to respond to conventional aggression carried out by terrorist forces and others operating under an Iranian nuclear umbrella.
Whereas Israel can survive Obama on the Palestinian front by stalling, waiting him out and placating him where possible, and can even survive his support for Hamas by making common cause with the Egyptian military and the government of President Abdel Fattah al-Sissi, the damage Obama’s intended deal with Iran will cause Israel will be irreversible. The moment that Obama grants Iran a path to a nuclear arsenal – and the terms of the agreement that Obama has offered Iran grant Iran an unimpeded path to nuclear power – a future US administration will be hard-pressed to put the genie back in the bottle.
For his efforts to prevent irreparable harm to Israel Netanyahu is being subjected to the most brutal and vicious attacks any Israeli leader has ever been subjected to by an American administration and its political allies. They are being assisted in their efforts by a shameless Israeli opposition that is willing to endanger the future of the country in order to seize political power.
Every day brings another serving of abuse. Wednesday National Security Adviser Susan Rice accused Netanyahu of destroying US relations with Israel. Secretary of State John Kerry effectively called him a serial alarmist, liar, and warmonger.
For its part, the Congressional Black Caucus reportedly intends to sabotage Netanyahu’s address before the joint houses of Congress by walking out in the middle, thus symbolically accusing of racism the leader of the Middle East’s only liberal democracy, and the leader of the most persecuted people in human history.
Radical leftist representatives who happen to be Jewish, like Jan Schakowsky of suburban Chicago and Steve Cohen of Memphis, are joining Netanyahu’s boycotters in order to give the patina of Jewish legitimacy to an administration whose central foreign policy threatens the viability of the Jewish state.
As for Netanyahu’s domestic opponents, their behavior is simply inexcusable. In Israel’s hour of peril, just weeks before Obama intends to conclude his nuclear deal with the mullahs that will endanger Israel’s existence, Labor leader Yitzhak Herzog insists that his primary duty is to defeat Netanyahu.
And as far as Iran is concerned, he acts as a free loader ad a spoiler. Either he believes that Netanyahu will succeed in his mission to derail the deal with or without his support, or he doesn’t care. But Herzog’s rejection of Netanyahu’s entreaties that he join him in Washington next week, and his persistent attacks on Netanyahu for refusing accommodate that which cannot be accommodated shows that he is both an opportunist and utterly unworthy of a leadership role in this country.
Netanyahu is not coming to Washington next Tuesday to warn Congress against Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, because he seeks a fight with Obama. Netanyahu has devoted the last six years to avoiding a fight with Obama, often at great cost to Israel’s national security and to his own political position.
Netanyahu is coming to Washington next week because Obama has left him no choice. And all decent people of good will should support him, and those who do not, and those who are silent, should be called out for their treachery and cowardice.
Eliana Johnson reports on Scott Walker's less-than-impressive performance at the Club for Growth's winter conference..
Hillary fatigue has already set in.
But Ms. Clinton’s inevitability should make serious Democrats want to stick hot pokers in their eyes. She is a purely manufactured candidate, as artificial as plastic flowers in a cheap restaurant. She has no gift for inspiring or moving people, and if she has any ideas beyond the utterly banal, she has yet to express them.I'm still wondering what audiences get for their $300,000 for her platitudinous, dull speeches. If you thought her 2008 campaign was less than inspirational, don't hold your breath for 2016.
This week, she gave a speech to an audience of women who work in Silicon Valley. Every gesture she made was studied and familiar. The sentiments were familiar, too. She reminded her audience that despite her dazzling accomplishments, even she knows what workplace discrimination feels like. “When I was a young lawyer and was pregnant, I worked in a small law firm and there was no family leave policy,” she said. The first thing her boss asked after she gave birth was, “When are you coming back to work?”
The audience chuckled appreciatively. Unfortunately, the story didn’t have a very good punchline. The young lawyer didn’t get fired or redirected onto the mommy track. Instead, she told her boss she’d be back in four months, and he said “Okay.” One detail she neglected to mention was that at the time, her husband was governor of Arkansas.
So much for being marginalized and downtrodden. Ms. Clinton’s attempt to brand herself as someone who has shared the struggles of middle-class women is completely unconvincing, especially when she’s collecting $300,000 a speech. That’s a lot for someone who’s as pale and stale as a loaf of six-day-old white bread.
Meanwhile, if the voters want her to be a bit (but not overly) religious, well, she can do that. If they want her to be a grandmother and bake cookies, she’ll do that too. If they want her to tell them why she should be president – well, she’ll have to focus-group that one first. Because she can’t exactly tell the truth, which is that she deserves it. And she’s worked so damned hard for all these years. And she put up with Bill. And she’s a woman. And it’s her turn.But don't worry. She has dozens of aides and they'll construct some sort of new identity so we can all thrill to the image of Hillary 5.0.
As for how she’d tackle the ills that ail America, don’t expect many revelations. Ms. Clinton is nothing if not cautious. To come up with bold new economic policies, she has convened 200 leading experts to give her their best ideas. But something truly bold might offend someone, so her strategy seems to be to add them all up and go with the average. Here’s her boldest idea so far: She wants to help the middle class!
Meanwhile, Jason Riley has a good point that Democrats should be forced to answer.
The Wall Street Journal’s Jason Riley sees a double standard in Democrats concerns when it comes to money and political figures as it pertains to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Global Initiative’s acceptance of donations from foreign governments. The foundation recently revealed it received $500,000 from the Algerian government in 2010 and failed to disclose the donation while Clinton served as secretary of state.
“During the midterm elections, any Republican who took money from the Koch brother was considered bought and paid for,” Riley said on Fox News Sunday. ”Hillary Clinton is, through her foundation, taking money from Qatar, Algeria, Kuwait — does that mean she’s going to be bought and paid for?”
“I think the Clinton foundation is less a charity than a political group,” he continued. “Basically a super PAC put in place to help Hillary Clinton politically.”
Michael Godwin ponders the lack of any reason for anyone to be excited about a Hillary candidacy.
On top of the tactical blunders, there was an overarching reason why sure victory eluded Hillary Clinton in 2008. She simply was not a very appealing candidate, offering neither charisma nor a compelling message. She ran with a sense of entitlement that the Oval Office was owed to her.
If anything has changed, it’s a well-kept secret. Already, her run this time is marked by mistakes, gaffes and reports of ethical corner-cutting, which adds up to watching the same bad movie twice.
It’s a strange way to make a fresh start given the dreary end of her time as secretary of state. To describe her four-year tenure as empty of accomplishment doesn’t do justice to the damage. She was complicit in the foreign-policy disasters now erupting around the world.
Remember her clever Russian reset? Benghazi, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Israel, China — the list of things that got worse on her watch is long, while it is a challenge to name one significant advance in America’s favor.
That record is who she is. Once viewed as a smart, passionate woman whose brilliance would shine when she was liberated, she is, at 67, getting long in the tooth to be talked of in terms of potential....
Her new campaign is more of the same. Instead of offering coherent principles and establishing a message, she’s running the Rose Garden strategy of a favored incumbent.
Let the other candidates scrape for attention by responding to the world’s woes. She’s still giving paid speeches, believing she can float above it all like a giant balloon in the Thanksgiving Day parade.
In another sign that she sees herself as president-in-waiting, she’s got a reported 200 advisers, suggesting she’s already staffing an administration.
Ben Domenech explains how Obama's administration continues to be the Eric Cartman presidency.
Practically speaking, today’s Left finally has the situation it wants: a sufficiently progressive president in his second term is, in effect, an unchecked dictator. The only checks and balances the constitution provides are money, nominations, and impeachment. The political and media climate have removed impeachment as a viable option; nomination disruption is a pathetic response to a president committed to Caesarism – “oh, are you going to block my nominees to DOJ, fine I’ll just ban bullets.” That leaves funding, and Republican leaders have publicly committed themselves not to using that leverage at all.
Barack Obama is basically operating now without any congressional checks and balances whatsoever. There is the Judiciary and nothing else preventing him from doing anything he wants. And there is no reason to believe he will abide by court rulings. Federal law is such a thicket now, and litigation so complicated, that for every door the Courts choose to close, there are dozens of cracked-open windows the Executive can try to pry open. It’s a game of constitutional whack-a-mole, and by the time the court rulings come down, you have to deal with the consequences of the illegal steps the president has taken in the meantime.
Imagine this scenario: what would happen if, tomorrow, President Obama seized control of the Internet, imposed a cap-and-trade scheme, opened the Southern borders, raised the minimum wage, and imposed ENDA through executive fiat? The country might lose its mind – temporarily, until the media assured everyone it was no big deal. But what would Congress do? What could it do? They’ve proven they won’t defund down the relevant agencies. They won’t impeach him. They probably would block Executive and lower-court nominations – though not to the degree of SCOTUS. All that would really happen is that private and state actors would sue him, and Republican leaders would do no more than hope the American people punish Democrats at the polls.
There is a description for such a leader, but it is not a president: it is a monarch, a king who is unchecked by any legislature or bound by any commitment to the rule of law, divorced completely from constitutional limited government. What the Republican Party doesn’t grasp is that Obama is not an outlier – he is the fulfillment of what his backers want. On every assertion of extra-constitutional executive authority, the Democratic Party is on board with what the president is doing. And that is the real danger for the future.
L. Gordon Crovitz explains why we should all be appalled at the FCC's attempt to use a 1934 law to establish government control over the internet in what people are already calling "Obamanet." And they don't mean it as a compliment.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler justified Obamanet by saying the Internet is “simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee.” He got it backward: Light-handed regulation made today’s Internet possible.Note that the FCC has taken the Nancy Pelosi approach to regulating the internet. They have to enact their policies so we can find what they've done to the internet.
What if at the beginning of the Web, Washington had opted for Obamanet instead of the open Internet? Yellow Pages publishers could have invoked “harm” and “unjust and unreasonable” competition from online telephone directories. This could have strangled Alta Vista and Excite, the early leaders in search, and relegated Google to a Stanford student project. Newspapers could have lobbied against Craigslist for depriving them of classified advertising. Encyclopedia Britannica could have lobbied against Wikipedia.
Competitors could have objected to the “fast lane” that Amazon got from Sprint at the launch of the Kindle to ensure speedy e-book downloads. The FCC could have blocked Apple from integrating Internet access into the iPhone. Activists could have objected to AOL bundling access to The Wall Street Journal in its early dial-up service.
Among the first targets of the FCC’s “unjust and unreasonable” test are mobile-phone contracts that offer unlimited video or music. Netflix , the biggest lobbyist for utility regulation, could be regulated for how it uses encryption to deliver its content.
Until Congress or the courts block Obamanet, expect less innovation. During a TechFreedom conference last week, dissenting FCC commissioner Ajit Pai asked: “If you were an entrepreneur trying to make a splash in a marketplace that’s already competitive, how are you going to differentiate yourself if you have to build into your equation whether or not regulatory permission is going to be forthcoming from the FCC? According to this, permissionless innovation is a thing of the past.”
The other dissenting Republican commissioner, Michael O’Rielly, warned: “When you see this document, it’s worse than you imagine.” The FCC has no estimate on when it will make the rules public.
More Pinnochios for Barack Obama.
President Obama, seeking to explain his veto of a bill that would have leapfrogged the approval process for the Keystone XL pipeline, in an interview with a North Dakota station repeated some false claims that had previously earned him Pinocchios. Yet he managed to make his statement even more misleading than before, suggesting the pipeline would have no benefit for American producers at all.Is there anything that Obama has said about the Keystone XL pipeline that has not been a lie?
Gregg Easterbrook reviews the book, Cheated by Mary Willingham, a former academic tutor at UNC and Jay Smith, a history professor there, about the academic scandal at UNC Chapel Hill. The ones who were cheated are the college athletes who enrolled there after being promised an education. Sure, some of them, about 20% went on to pro careers in the NBA or NFL. But too many of them were shortchanged by the administration of the school as they were put in phony classes and brushed through so that they could play on the basketball and football teams and earn the school big bucks. And don't believe that this was just the work of a couple of rogue sports boosters as the school would like to pretend.
The second report attached no blame to basketball coach Williams, the most marketable figure in Chapel Hill athletics, reporting his insistence that he “constantly preaches that [the] number one responsibility [of] coaches and counselors is to make sure their players get a good education.” The men’s basketball program has seven coaches for a roster that averages 16—the kind of instructor-to-student ratio normally found only in doctoral programs. Yet we’re asked to believe there’s no way the coaches could have noticed that many players never seemed to need to be in class. Mr. Williams should have been fired for presiding over an institutionally corrupt program. Instead he was given a pass.This was endemic to the whole institution and is most probably not limited to UNC. The NCAA would prefer to turn their heads and pretend that this problem doesn't exist because, if they did acknowledge it, there would go the hundreds of millions of dollars that college sports earn. Easterbrook has written his own expose of football in America at both the college and professional level, The King of Sports, and is rightly angry at NCAA officials who prefer to huff and puff over a few players selling T shirts than look at the fundamental corruption underlying so much of the sport.
And the corruption at UNC doesn't end with what Mary Willingham and Jay Smith discuss in their book. New information continues to come out about how UNC worked to get around the rules. Dan Kane, who has been diligent in following the UNC scandals, writes in the Raleigh News and Observer, how the university admitted clearly ineligible athletes to their supposedly vaunted graduate programs in order for those athletes to play out their last year of eligibility. And once again, it's clear that officials up and down the line knew what was going on. And it was not limited to the African American Studies department.
Michael Waddell had a low grade point average, no entrance exam score and was months past the deadline when an athletic official sought to have the football player admitted to UNC’s graduate school in fall 2003.
John Blanchard, then a senior associate athletic director, made the request after classes began, on Sept. 5, just as Waddell was about to be declared ineligible to play against Syracuse the following day, according to records obtained by The News & Observer.
The plea to admit Waddell went up to UNC’s provost, Robert Shelton. Email correspondence indicates Shelton saw no policy that would allow Waddell to enroll, but instead of telling him no, Shelton left it up to Linda Dykstra, the graduate school dean.
Dykstra admitted Waddell, who had already played in the season opener at Florida State. He would play against Syracuse and all but one of the other nine remaining games that season.
Waddell is one of several athletes UNC athletics officials sought to keep eligible to play by getting them into graduate school, according to Cheryl Thomas, the graduate school’s admissions director from 2002 to 2010. Thomas, 51, who no longer works in higher education, supplied documentation about Waddell to The N&O after first sending it to the NCAA and the agency that accredits the university.
Waddell, a cornerback and kick returner, would go on to have his fourth year of eligibility at UNC as a graduate student and attract the interest of the NFL’s Tennessee Titans, who drafted him in the fourth round. But as a graduate student, Waddell skipped classes and exams, flunking out with four F’s, university correspondence shows.
Speaking of corruption in college sports, one Syracuse sportswriter publishes a suggestion from a reader of a way to get around the problem Syracuse is facing where the punishment for past crimes falls on current players who are innocent of the corruption, still not clearly outlined, of former students. The proposal is to basically hold off on the inflicting the punishment until all current students have graduated. That way any student enrolling there would be aware of the penalty. While that is one solution, my preference would be to allow any current students to transfer without penalty and committed recruits to switch. And responsible school officials, including coaches, even one so well respected as Jim Boeheim, should either lose their jobs or have to pay millions in fines. If they know they'll be held responsible, there would stop being this deliberate ignorance such as we've seen from UNC's Roy Williams who professes to love his players so much and to believe that their education is the most important part of his job yet was supposedly unaware that his players were taking phony classes.