Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Obama gets his bad Iran deal

Obama gets his bad Iran deal

Not what was promised – Veto of congressional action threatened

The Obama administration with the help of the so-called P5+1 has reached a nuclear deal with Iran.

Not all the details will be made public, but those that have been made public make a mockery of the promises of full, unfettered inspections, sanctions relief based on Iranian performance, and quick “snap back” of sanctions for violation.

Rouhani Iran nuclear announcement

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“Mr. President, YOU lie!”

And never more than now.

Total delusion. I have never seen him lie more in 15 minutes, this is truly a new worlds record, even for him. As Iran watched him, they have to be rolling on the floor laughing. This is a bad deal and hopefully Congress rejects it with enough to over-ride his promised / threatened veto. Remember, he is tougher on Republicans than he is on Muslim terrorists because he hates them more.

Iran had their Harry Truman moment last week.

    Cicero in reply to betty. | July 14, 2015 at 11:51 am

    Betty, I’m no great fan of Harry Truman’s policies, but he did have a spine. He stood up to the North Korean invasion of South Korea and sent in troops. He stood up to the Soviet blockade of Berlin with an airlift that saved the city for the west. He talked back to Stalin’s ambassador Molotov and put him in his place. There were many things wrong with Truman’s policies but he did have backbone. Obama is an invertebrate.

      FrankNatoli in reply to Cicero. | July 14, 2015 at 4:59 pm

      Truman is the patron saint of tough talking Democrats, but that is a relative concept. See Clay Blair’s “The Forgotten War” [Korea]. The Truman Administration had decided that the U.S. line of final defense in the Pacific was Japan. The North Koreans decided the adjective in front of Korea was inappropriate. While our guys and ROK were being pushed back into the Pusan perimeter, no tanks, no anti-tank guns, nothing more than a few bazookas against a large number of T-34s, Truman changed his mind. The fight back began, with MacArthur in command, until, for the first time in U.S. history, the Commander-in-Chief decided to not fight a war to win, and relieved a defiant MacArthur. We had no armor in the Far East, not even in Japan, because Pentagon “experts” had concluded that there was no need for armor [or its commensurate expense] in the Far East. So how to combat the T-34s? Knocked out WW2 Shermans were winched out of their Pacific Island graves, transported to West Coast depots, restored to combat condition, then shipped back to Korea.
      Now tell me, seriously, how tough does this sound to you?

    guyjones in reply to betty. | July 14, 2015 at 12:05 pm

    Don’t understand your reference to Truman. He authorized the use of nuclear weapons in wartime against a vicious and implacable foe, to achieve final victory and save American lives and didn’t lose a moment’s sleep over it.

Mr. Obama smirks, considering himself clever beyond words. In one agreement he has crippled two of his major enemies, Israel and America – his legacy for history has been achieved: the traitor that destroyed the West.

Historic stupidity has been reached-a Mephistophalian #Irandeal for HRH @BarackObama & @JohnKerry & @StateDept- A legacy of nuclear escalation & pretended consequences

Barack Obama. Red Democrat traitor. I guess since A-bombs will result from this, Obama can add a touch of Julius Rosenberg to his resume of infamy.

Bitterlyclinging | July 14, 2015 at 8:37 am

According to powerlineblog.com:
“Alynski Rule No 6: Lie whenever necessary. The bigger the lie, the better. Your supporters will love you for it.”
“If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan!”
“Al Qaeda is decimated and on the run!”
“The deaths of four Americans, including the US Ambassador, in Libya was all the result of some hateful internet video, not some failure of policy”
“Trust me! My name is on this deal.”
Wendy Sherman, one of the negotiators on this deal was one of the negotiators for William Jefferson Clinton’s Nork deal.
The Norks recently bragged they had already achieved a missile ready warhead, only 6 to 8 kilotons, but guaranteed able to ruin more than a few person’s day.
After between one hundred to two hundred US cities get nuked a lot of Americans are going to be angry. Most of those survivors will likely be folks in flyover country, places like Paxico, KS where Barack Obama has less than a 32 per cent approval rating, most of the dead will be Democrats in the cities, including the cadres of Melowese Richardsons, who cast at least twelve ballots each for Barack Obama.
What happened to the Commanders at Pearl Harbor, Admiral Kimmel and General Short, after WWII ended, will be nothing compared to whats waiting for those who negotiated this deal and fired their weapons, acquired as a result of this deal, at us.

The Doomsday Clock has just moved another minute closer to midnight. Israel must do something soon or they are doomed.

“In the even Iran objects to an IAEA request for access to a specific site, a ‘clock’ will begin that grants the two sides 14 days to negotiate”

Geez. When I quoted Manchester re Chamberlain sitting across the diplomatic table from Satan, crossing off his positions until, with horror, he discovers he has just traded is soul for the promise of future negotiations on in… that was a warning, not a recommendation.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | July 14, 2015 at 9:02 am

Is a white flag flying over the White House?

Since when is a binding agreement with a foreign sovereignty not a treaty? Everybody appears to have bought the Obama line that this is a statute, subject to his veto. Bravo sierra! This is a treaty, subject to Senate approval, period. Are you listening, Mr. McConnell?

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to FrankNatoli. | July 14, 2015 at 10:36 am

    This agreement is not a treaty, actually.

    It isn’t binding on the United States – or on the United Nations Security Council for that matter – and that’s a good thing, because otherwise we’d be commited never to impose similar sanctions on Iran for any other reason.

      Sammy, disagree. Although there is such a thing as an executive agreement, that should be reserved for administrative details between nations. This is a full blown international arrangement and unless you subscribe to Humpty Dumpty’s comment about a word meaning what you want it to mean, this is a treaty in all but name, and treating it otherwise is a rather shameless way of trying to avoid the two-thirds requirement in the Senate for a treaty to be approved because Obama knows he probably can’t pass that bar.

    Cicero in reply to FrankNatoli. | July 14, 2015 at 11:22 am

    Agree, actually whatever they call it, it is a treaty and should require two-thirds approval in the Senate. Even under the current procedure, if it is a statute, if the House and Senate fail to approve a statute, it does not go to the president to sign, it dies in Congress and there is no veto. Only if they pass a statute does it go to the White House for signature or veto. If Congress has agreed or allows a veto, they have undercut, once again, their own prerogatives.

stevewhitemd | July 14, 2015 at 10:26 am

Congratulations also to the Stupid Party, also known as the Republicans, for agreeing to legislation that removed the requirement for a 2/3 approval in the Senate. The Pubs could have stopped this dead in its tracks but chose instead to stand to one side, wring their hands piously, and say that they’re against what Obama is doing but gosh darn it they can’t do anything about it.

Primary the SOBs. Primary them hard.

    FrankNatoli in reply to stevewhitemd. | July 14, 2015 at 5:08 pm

    The Congress cannot legislate in defiance of the Constitution. The agreement with Iran is a treaty, and the Constitution requires the treaty be presented to the Senate, where 2/3 of the Senators present must approve, or the treaty is DEAD.

Sammy Finkelman | July 14, 2015 at 10:31 am

The problems with what President Obama said:

1) He is assuming that a deal has actually been reached, but the previous time this happened, Iran denied that the deal was what the Administration said it was. President Obama is jumping the gun.

2) President Obama ignores the fact that we have other reasons for imposing sanctions on Iran besides its nuclear program!!

This deal amounts almost to a promise not to impose sanctions for any other cause.

Iran is even to be allowed to buy arms and missiles after 5 and 8 years, respectively.

That means:

Even if they attack a U.S. warship, or invade a country, or shoot down the plane carrying a U.S. Ambassador, it would seem the U.S. would be committed not to impose sanctions, or if it did so, that would cancel the agreement, without any sanctions imposed by other countries snapping back.

3) Even if sanctions do, in fact, snap back, regardless of whether other countries want to snap them back, Iran will get billions of Dollars, and, if they are reimposed, it will take months or even years to get back to the same place and put the same amount of pressure on Iran as what it was when the sanctions were lifted.

4) Obama assumes that this is the best possible deal.

a) It is extraordinarily naive, and a sign of a poor negotiator, to believe it is this deal or nothing.

b) If Iran truly wants the deal, it will go back to the table if it is rejected; and if it will not go back to the table, then it probably wouldn’t stick to the deal, anyway, or the deal has loopholes that mean it isn’t any good.

5) Obama says that this is the most effective way of dealing with Iran – that is, any other method (the Begin plan, for instance) would not make us as certain that Iran had no atomic bomb. But that assumes the verification has is foolproof, and that bombing and repeating as necessary wouldn’t be as good as it was, for instance with Saddam Hussein, and again, furthermore, that after bombing Iran would not agree to inspections.

To put this another way, bombing does not rule out a negotiated surrender. It didn’t with Japan in 1945. In fact, there, the negotiations to get Japan to withdraw from China – and Japan was not forced out militarily – were only successful after an atomic bombing or two. While the negotiations a few years earlier resulted in the Pearl Harbor attack.

6) The statement that Iran has a capability now of building 10 atomic bombs, and that, if the deal is implemented, it will go down to less than one, is tempting, but is he truly prepared to declare Iran in violation of the deal if it is in violation of the deal??

That did not happen with North Korea. And Iran would not likely commit massive violations openly, but rather what would happen is minor violations, and violations of the verification parts of the agreement.

7) Also, President Obama (who reminded us, that he’s been president for six years now) seemed to assume that, if Iran violated the agreement, it would only be after January, 2017. That sounds like he might not be prepared for a violation that happened sooner.

You’ve got to be prepared for a violation that happens at Point A, at Point B, at Point C and at Point D, not just one that happens at Point B or C or later.

Ultra-fast-track to hell since November.

And no one’s stopping this treasonous fraud.

Something stinks.

bobinreverse | July 14, 2015 at 11:08 am

In 5 to 10 years Iran or proxy will smuggle build one or two nukes in US. This will be on sly. First nuke will be used to blow up 50 K city. The perp will make demands that If not met will cause another one to go off in ny la dc etc. Won’t matter if there really is no second one.

Populace will be in panic and what will authorities do? Can’t be sure if second nuke or not and aure won’t attack Iran. Meaning all our current nukes planes are totally worthless .

So basically count on iran taking over us sometimeduring Hilary’s 8 yr term. Be kind of funny if iran has obama walk into the White House and tell her – I’m in charge Her now.

Sounds absurd but will see

nordic_prince | July 14, 2015 at 11:21 am

Any time someone says “Trust me,” you know that you can’t – they’re about to tell you a whopper ~

bobinreverse | July 14, 2015 at 11:41 am

Every body ready for duck and cover? Just make sure a desk is always readily Avail so you have a place to hide.

It has been said those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Obama and the piece of paper that will be the deal with Iran are really no different than the piece of paper that British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain naively called “peace in our time,” the Munich accords in 1938, in which the western democratic powers abandoned Czechoslovakia to Hitler and Nazi Germany. It is appeasement all over again. In 1938, it led to World War II the following year. Recently, Putin’s seizure of the Crimea by military force unchallenged has emboldened Russia. Congress now has the chance to say no on Iran and it must do so. This deal is patently foolish. Giving weeks of notice before an inspection allows the other side to make sure there is nothing there to inspect if indeed they don’t find other ways to avoid inspection. As with Hitler and Stalin there is good reason to believe the other side has no intention of carrying out its side of the deal. Iran will take what benefits them from it and pay little or no attention to what is required of it, knowing Obama lacks the spine to do anything about it. Netanyahu, on the other hand, seems made of sterner stuff, and it would seem likely Israel will do what it has to do. The world will condemn it for doing so while breathing a sigh of relief at the same time.

LukeHandCool | July 14, 2015 at 1:03 pm

History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, then as farce.

Only this time the farce will be tragic.

Napoleon: “If you start to take Vienna, take Vienna.”

Obama: “If you start to appease Tehran, appease Tehran.”

Truman: “The buck stops here.”

Rouhani: “The nuke starts here.”

    userpen in reply to LukeHandCool. | July 14, 2015 at 2:35 pm

    History repeats itself, that is true. But unfortunately we don’t learn much from history. The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.

LukeHandCool | July 14, 2015 at 1:06 pm

What 337 inspectors once accomplished. Or didn’t accomplish:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will121602.asp

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend