Letter to Iran

[truth on hold]

Isn't Bibi just demanding that Iran recognize Israel's right to exist? How is that "unreasonable"?

Seriously? Israel threatens to strike Iran nearly every week, and they've been running around the world trying to keep and tighten crippling economic sanctions. Who's not recohnizing who's right to exist?

[Doc]

Seriously? Israel threatens to strike Iran nearly every week, and they've been running around the world trying to keep and tighten crippling economic sanctions. Who's not recohnizing who's right to exist?

Poor Iran. Innocent victims to big bad Israel's bullying and puppet mastery over the rest of the world. They're the Jonathan Martin to Israel's Ritchie Incognito.

[4merper4mer]

Poor Iran. Innocent victims to big bad Israel's bullying and puppet mastery over the rest of the world. They're the Jonathan Martin to Israel's Ritchie Incognito.

Remember you're talking to Joe the Sandusky Proponent who sees everything backwards.

[B-Man]

Obama faces Democrat defiance in Congress over Iran deal
Reuters, by Susan Cornwell and David Lawder

 

Original Article

 

 

Democrats are aligning with Republicans to support a bill giving Congress the opportunity to approve or reject sanctions relief in an Iran nuclear deal, and are close to forming a veto-proof majority that U.S. President Barack Obama says could undermine the delicate final stage of negotiations. The support for the legislation by lawmakers in Obama´s party illustrates the depth of concern in Washington over the threat posed by Iran and the concern of many lawmakers that they are being shut out of the process to contain it.

 

 

 

 

Party of No ?

 

 

 

.

Edited April 8, 2015 by B-Man

[DC Tom]

Obama faces Democrat defiance in Congress over Iran deal

Reuters, by Susan Cornwell and David Lawder

 

Original Article

 

 

Democrats are aligning with Republicans to support a bill giving Congress the opportunity to approve or reject sanctions relief in an Iran nuclear deal, and are close to forming a veto-proof majority that U.S. President Barack Obama says could undermine the delicate final stage of negotiations. The support for the legislation by lawmakers in Obama´s party illustrates the depth of concern in Washington over the threat posed by Iran and the concern of many lawmakers that they are being shut out of the process to contain it.

 

 

 

 

Party of No ?

 

 

I read this, and my first thought is "Once again, the administration spikes the ball at the ten yard line."

 

I suspect the administration's okay with the veto. They already got what they wanted: an agreement to crow about, and no responsibility if it fails.

[Jauronimo]

 

I read this, and my first thought is "Once again, the administration spikes the ball at the ten yard line."

 

I suspect the administration's okay with the veto. They already got what they wanted: an agreement to crow about, and no responsibility if it fails.

Criticism is likely unwarranted since the agreement has likely prevented a likely nuclear holocaust in the near future, most likely.

[DC Tom]

Criticism is likely unwarranted since the agreement has likely prevented a likely nuclear holocaust in the near future, most likely.

 

But I heard the White House say that this will prevent nuclear war for ever and ever...

 

Okay, it was actually "This will prevent nuclear war for ever and ever, unless somebody else !@#$s it up, which won't be our fault." Still a far cry from "This will probably work, maybe, sorta."

[Jauronimo]

 

But I heard the White House say that this will prevent nuclear war for ever and ever...

 

Okay, it was actually "This will prevent nuclear war for ever and ever, unless somebody else !@#$s it up, which won't be our fault." Still a far cry from "This will probably work, maybe, sorta."

I didn't get into the details of the agreement or the White House's intent in entering into this agreement, but I am aware that there is an agreement and furthermore, I'm prepared to opine on the likelihood that this agreement was likely the only measure preventing imminent global thermonuclear war.

[Doc]

 

But I heard the White House say that this will prevent nuclear war for ever and ever...

 

Okay, it was actually "This will prevent nuclear war for ever and ever, unless somebody else !@#$s it up, which won't be our fault." Still a far cry from "This will probably work, maybe, sorta."

No, just under Barry's watch. All 20 months left of it.

[Tiberius]

Obama faces Democrat defiance in Congress over Iran deal

Reuters, by Susan Cornwell and David Lawder

 

Original Article

 

 

Democrats are aligning with Republicans to support a bill giving Congress the opportunity to approve or reject sanctions relief in an Iran nuclear deal, and are close to forming a veto-proof majority that U.S. President Barack Obama says could undermine the delicate final stage of negotiations. The support for the legislation by lawmakers in Obama´s party illustrates the depth of concern in Washington over the threat posed by Iran and the concern of many lawmakers that they are being shut out of the process to contain it.

 

 

 

 

Party of No ?

 

 

 

.

Donors....$$$$

[Deranged Rhino]

Seriously? Israel threatens to strike Iran nearly every week, and they've been running around the world trying to keep and tighten crippling economic sanctions. Who's not recohnizing who's right to exist?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/07/an-exhibition-in-iran-will-mock-the-holocaust/?tid=pm_world_pop_b

[Keukasmallies]

Criticism is likely unwarranted since the agreement has likely prevented a likely nuclear holocaust in the near future, most likely.

 

 

I likely!

[B-Man]

‘A lot of big words and big thoughts’ – State Dept. on Kissinger Op-ed

Ladies and gentlemen, our State Department in action

 

 

Now infamous for her dippy soundbites, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf might have topped her “ISIS just needs jobs” gaffe today.

 

Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, both former Secretaries of State, wrote an op-ed that was published in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. Brutally critical of the administration’s much touted Iran deal, the op-ed focused on what can only be cognitive dissonance of the danger Iran poses. Kissinger and Shultz were less than impressed by the administration’s insistence on the necessity of a deal with a country whose priorities aren’t remotely in the same galaxy as those of the United States, noting:

 

Cooperation is not an exercise in good feeling; it presupposes congruent definitions of stability. There exists no current evidence that Iran and the U.S. are remotely near such an understanding. Even while combating common enemies, such as ISIS, Iran has declined to embrace common objectives. Iran’s representatives (including its Supreme Leader) continue to profess a revolutionary anti-Western concept of international order; domestically, some senior Iranians describe nuclear negotiations as a form of jihad by other means.

 

 

In sum, the op-ed eloquently observes the Iran deal is a complete and total cluster.

 

At a press conference held earlier today, Marie Harf was in no mood to discuss the WSJ lashing.

 

Flustered, Harf attempted to avoid questions on the WSJ op-ed, but Associated Press reporter Matt Lee persisted. “I read it and it’s far from nuanced. It’s pretty damning,” Lee says. “You just reject it outright? They say this is a recipe for disaster basically, but you say, no, clearly, you wouldn’t be pursuing something you thought was a recipe for disaster. Is that correct?” Lee reads a few lines of the piece, and lobs them back to Harf.

 

More at the link:

 

 

 

.

[Tiberius]

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/07/an-exhibition-in-iran-will-mock-the-holocaust/?tid=pm_world_pop_b

OH NO!

[Chef Jim]

OH NO!

How many people will be massacred over these cartoons I wonder.

[Magox]

‘A lot of big words and big thoughts’ – State Dept. on Kissinger Op-ed

Ladies and gentlemen, our State Department in action

 

 

Now infamous for her dippy soundbites, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf might have topped her “ISIS just needs jobs” gaffe today.

 

Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, both former Secretaries of State, wrote an op-ed that was published in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. Brutally critical of the administration’s much touted Iran deal, the op-ed focused on what can only be cognitive dissonance of the danger Iran poses. Kissinger and Shultz were less than impressed by the administration’s insistence on the necessity of a deal with a country whose priorities aren’t remotely in the same galaxy as those of the United States, noting:

 

Cooperation is not an exercise in good feeling; it presupposes congruent definitions of stability. There exists no current evidence that Iran and the U.S. are remotely near such an understanding. Even while combating common enemies, such as ISIS, Iran has declined to embrace common objectives. Iran’s representatives (including its Supreme Leader) continue to profess a revolutionary anti-Western concept of international order; domestically, some senior Iranians describe nuclear negotiations as a form of jihad by other means.

 

 

In sum, the op-ed eloquently observes the Iran deal is a complete and total cluster.

 

At a press conference held earlier today, Marie Harf was in no mood to discuss the WSJ lashing.

 

Flustered, Harf attempted to avoid questions on the WSJ op-ed, but Associated Press reporter Matt Lee persisted. “I read it and it’s far from nuanced. It’s pretty damning,” Lee says. “You just reject it outright? They say this is a recipe for disaster basically, but you say, no, clearly, you wouldn’t be pursuing something you thought was a recipe for disaster. Is that correct?” Lee reads a few lines of the piece, and lobs them back to Harf.

 

More at the link:

 

 

 

.

 

 

Dumbass

[B-Man]

The proverb “the wish is father to the thought” means “we believe a thing because we wish it to be true”. President Obama wanted a deal with Iran so badly that he thought he actually had one. However today, president Rouhani of Iran spelled it out for him. The deal he had isn’t the one he thought he had. USA Today reports:

Iran’s president on Thursday said Tehran will not sign a final nuclear deal unless world powers lift economic sanctions imposed on the country immediately.

The United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and Germany — the so-called P5 +1 group — reached an understanding with Iran last week on limits to its nuclear program in return for lifting crippling economic sanctions, after extended talks in Lausanne, Switzerland.

 

The U.S. has previously said the sanctions would be lifted in phases, but the details have not yet been negotiated.

However, in a televised speech on Thursday, President Hassan Rouhani appeared to rule out a gradual removal of the successive round of sanctions that have hit hard its energy and financial sectors — and crippled its economy.

 

“We will not sign any deal unless all sanctions are lifted on the same day,” Rouhani said, according to Reuters. “We want a win-win deal for all parties involved in the nuclear talks,” he said.

 

 

Rouhani added “the Iranian nation has been and will be the victor in the negotiations.” That’s rubbing it in.

 

Only yesterday “acting State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf on Wednesday dismissed a critique of the Iran nuclear agreement from former secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz, by saying their comments amount to “big words” and that the two secretaries don’t live in the real world.” “I heard a lot of, sort of, big words and big thoughts in that piece,” she said.

 

So for Harf’s benefit, as well as that of her employer, here’s Agence Press France. “Tehran (AFP) – Iran wants international sanctions lifted on the day of the implementation of an agreement with world powers on its nuclear programme, President Hassan Rouhani said on Thursday. “We will not sign any agreements unless on the first day of the implementation of the deal all economic sanctions are totally lifted on the same day,” Rouhani said. Or, as CNN puts it, “Iran: No signing final nuclear deal unless economic sanctions are lifted on same day”.

 

Not that Tehran’s about face changes anything. In administration’s words “a bad deal is better than no deal.” And sure this is a bad deal, but it’s a “once in a lifetime deal”.

 

.

[Magox]

The fatal flaw with all these negotiations is simple, they assume that the Iranians are negotiating in good faith. The Obama foreign policy in one word, Naive.

[3rdnlng]

I'm not a fan of the deal Obama was claiming he was getting, but just for schits and giggles let's say I was. Now is the time to privately inform Iran that the deal will be off the table, we will push for even stiffer sanctions and do what is necessary to insure that they don't get nuclear weapons if it is not agreed to in its entirety within one week. Treat them like JFK treated the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crises. Unfortunately, Obama has drawn too many insincere lines in the sand to be taken seriously. Iran respects strength and strength alone. That's why our hostages were released the day Reagan took office and Carter left.

[DC Tom]

The fatal flaw with all these negotiations is simple, they assume that the Iranians are negotiating in good faith. The Obama foreign policy in one word, Naive.

 

I have no problem with the assumption that they're negotiating in good faith.

 

It's the assumption that Iranian and Western goals are congruent that's the killer. From our perspective, we're negotiating with a rogue state, trying to normalize international relations. But THEIR perspective is of imperial powers dictating to a former colony - analogous to a slave "negotiating" with his owner. It's not so much "not negotiating in good faith" as "not even speaking the same language."

 

This administration is constitutionally incapable of recognizing that difference, let alone admitting it. It simply contradicts their "One Big Happy Family Kum-ba-Yah Group Hug!" principle of international relations.