Tiberius Posted July 15, 2015 Author Posted July 15, 2015 Obama´s Deal: $150 Billion to Iran to Destroy Israel with Conventional ArmsAmerican Thinker, by Rabbi Aryeh Spero Original Article One of the most alarming and catastrophic elements being overlooked in yesterday´s give-away deal to the mullahs is that Iran will soon receive $150 billion dollars. With that money they can immediately go after Israel with tens of billions in horrific conventional weapons, missiles, bombers... way before any nuclear bomb is fully functional. Israel will be overwhelmed as never before, and America will be more vulnerable to Iranian plots financed, bizarrely, by Mr. Obama´s giveaways. The mullahs can now echo Lenin: "The West will supply us the rope to hang them. Israel is going to be invaded now?
Ozymandius Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 Israel is going to be invaded now? Waaay down the line, maybe. But for the next few years, Hezbollah and Hamas will be flush with cash to terrorize them. The idea to pacify Iran by giving them lots of money, lots of weapons, and eventually the bomb is really, really stupid.
B-Man Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) CBS’s Major Garrett had a great question for President Obama at today’s Iran deal presser on the four Americans currently held hostage in Iran (3 in custody, 1 whereabouts unknown) and why their release wasn’t part of the overall agreement. Garret asked, “Can you tell the country, sir, why you are content, with all the fanfare around this deal, to leave the conscious of this nation, the strength of this nation, unaccounted for in relation to these four Americans?” Ouch! President Obama, however, was visibly angry at the question and snapped at Garrett, “You should know better.” Of course, President Obama never did answer the question: Video of the exchange here: http://www.cbsnews.com/live/ I'll just wait on someone to tell me which part of Major's question was inaccurate. ADDED: Of Course, It's not as if Obama has a stellar track record of saving four Americans in danger in a foreign country. . Edited July 15, 2015 by B-Man
IDBillzFan Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 President Obama, however, was visibly angry at the question and snapped at Garrett, “You should know better.” This will undoubtedly be where the Rachel Maddows, Dana Milbanks and Eugene Robinsons start talking later about how great it is to see that fire in the president's belly.
B-Man Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) CBS’s Major Garrett had a great question for President Obama at today’s Iran deal presser on the four Americans currently held hostage in Iran (3 in custody, 1 whereabouts unknown) and why their release wasn’t part of the overall agreement. Garret asked, “Can you tell the country, sir, why you are content, with all the fanfare around this deal, to leave the conscious of this nation, the strength of this nation, unaccounted for in relation to these four Americans?” President Obama, however, was visibly angry at the question and snapped at Garrett, “You should know better.” LOL David Burge @iowahawkblog Breaking: 54-year old man irritated by the first hard question he's ever heard in the first job he's ever had 2:37 PM - 15 Jul 2015 959 959 Retweets 791 Edited July 16, 2015 by B-Man
Very wide right Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Israel is going to be invaded now? Now your starting to get it
unbillievable Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 CBS’s Major Garrett had a great question for President Obama at today’s Iran deal presser on the four Americans currently held hostage in Iran (3 in custody, 1 whereabouts unknown) and why their release wasn’t part of the overall agreement. Garret asked, “Can you tell the country, sir, why you are content, with all the fanfare around this deal, to leave the conscious of this nation, the strength of this nation, unaccounted for in relation to these four Americans?” Ouch! President Obama, however, was visibly angry at the question and snapped at Garrett, “You should know better.” Of course, President Obama never did answer the question: Video of the exchange here: http://www.cbsnews.com/live/ I'll just wait on someone to tell me which part of Major's question was inaccurate. ADDED: Of Course, It's not as if Obama has a stellar track record of saving four Americans in danger in a foreign country. . If the cost of freeing 1 traiter is 5 terrorist leaders, the US wouldn't have had the personnel to deal for 4 regular Americans.
Keukasmallies Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) So POTUS told the nation in yesterday's press conference that the proposed agreement was focused solely on Iran's nuclear capabilities, and that there was no expectation, nor requirement, that Iran would change behaviors in any other areas. Therefore, since Iran has broken multiple agreements regionally and internationally, why does he even begin to think that Iran will comply with this one? On the other hand, Iran will probably keep up appearances long enough to receive the frozen assets and other goodies from the other signatories so as to set up funding for even more terrorist activities aimed at those very same signatories. Well, did we really expect a community organizer from Chicago to benefit from on the job training to the extent that he'd even begin to understand foreign affairs? Did we expect him to sell us down the river in such a complete fashion? Sail On, Oh Ship of State. Edited July 16, 2015 by Keukasmallies
Azalin Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Therefore, since Iran has broken multiple agreements regionally and internationally, why does he even begin to think that Iran will comply with this one? Because he's a raging egomaniac.
meazza Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 http://www.mediaite.com/online/maher-goes-off-on-!@#$-garrett-why-not-just-scream-the-n-word/ @billmaher #MajorGarrett is a huge !@#$. If U wanna "strike a nerve" with POTUS, why not just scream the N word? That shld get his attention.
B-Man Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 http://www.mediaite.com/online/maher-goes-off-on-!@#$-garrett-why-not-just-scream-the-n-word/ Not surprising at all........................No one should question "the One" President Obama, however, was visibly angry at the question and snapped at Garrett, “You should know better.” Of course, President Obama never did answer the question: Video of the exchange here: http://www.cbsnews.com/live/ I'll just wait on someone to tell me which part of Major's question was inaccurate. Not one of the criticisms that I read address this. They just all fall on their fainting couch........aghast that Pres. Obama was so disrespected. None of you youngsters remember Dan Rather's WH correspondent days ? .
DC Tom Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 CBS’s Major Garrett had a great question for President Obama at today’s Iran deal presser on the four Americans currently held hostage in Iran (3 in custody, 1 whereabouts unknown) and why their release wasn’t part of the overall agreement. Garret asked, “Can you tell the country, sir, why you are content, with all the fanfare around this deal, to leave the conscious of this nation, the strength of this nation, unaccounted for in relation to these four Americans?” Ouch! President Obama, however, was visibly angry at the question and snapped at Garrett, “You should know better.” Of course, President Obama never did answer the question: Video of the exchange here: http://www.cbsnews.com/live/ I'll just wait on someone to tell me which part of Major's question was inaccurate. ADDED: Of Course, It's not as if Obama has a stellar track record of saving four Americans in danger in a foreign country. . The three living ones, at least, are incarcerated for breaking the law, not for any material or political leverage. They're not "hostages," they're prisoners. (The fourth, "whereabouts unknown," is likely dead. Dead people aren't hostages, they're former hostages.) LOL That tweet, however, is !@#$ing funny.
IDBillzFan Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 If Obama was a Republican, Maher would be giving Garrett crap for being too soft.
B-Man Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 I don’t read in this agreement anytime, anywhere inspections, for example, which are critical when you have a 20-year history of Iran deceiving the world and having covert facilities to enrich uranium.” Was that Ted Cruz? Tom Cotton? Sean Hannity? Nope.......Senator Bob Menendez (D., N.J.) Iran remains destructive around the globe. Iran is going to remain a problem — not a partner — for the United States and our allies in the Middle East,” ...... Representative Eliot Engel of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs “Without verification, this is a useless agreement,” said Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House’s No. 2 Democrat How Israel Might Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Program Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner Iran Is Obama’s Vietnam Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421235/iran-obamas-vietnam
B-Man Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Puh-leeze! THIS is the Dems’ ‘worry’ if Iran cheats on the nuke agreement? President Obama is getting some support for the Iran nuke deal from congressional Democrats, but they’re a little nervous about one thing: Dems worry that if they support Iran deal and Iran cheats, they'll end up looking bad: http://wapo.st/1McvrRs David Burge @iowahawkblog Also, that whole vaporized Israel thing https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/621670386380484609 … 9:20 AM - 16 Jul 2015 181 181 Retweets 143 143 favorites
Doc Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 I don’t read in this agreement anytime, anywhere inspections, for example, which are critical when you have a 20-year history of Iran deceiving the world and having covert facilities to enrich uranium.” Was that Ted Cruz? Tom Cotton? Sean Hannity? Nope.......Senator Bob Menendez (D., N.J.) http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/15/watch-obamas-own-spokesman-nuke-obamas-iran-deal-in-only-26-seconds/
Keukasmallies Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 "Dems worry that if they support Iran deal and Iran cheats, they'll end up looking bad:" Let's just make that "when" not "if" 'cause they will end up supporting it and Iran will cheat.
B-Man Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Worse than we could have imagined Washington Post, by Charles Krauthammer Original Article When you write a column, as did I two weeks ago, headlined “The worst agreement in U.S. diplomatic history,” you don’t expect to revisit the issue. We had hit bottom. Or so I thought. Then on Tuesday the final terms of the Iranian nuclear deal were published. I was wrong. Who would have imagined we would be giving up the conventional arms and ballistic missile embargoes on Iran? In nuclear negotiations? When asked Wednesday at his news conference why there is nothing in the deal about the American hostages being held by Iran, President Obama explained that this is a separate issue, not part of nuclear talks. Are conventional weapons not a separate issue? After all, conventional, by definition, means non-nuclear. Why are we giving up the embargoes? Because Iran, joined by Russia — our “reset” partner — sprung the demand at the last minute, calculating that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were so desperate for a deal that they would cave. They did. And have convinced themselves that they scored a victory by delaying the lifting by five to eight years. (Ostensibly. The language is murky. The interval could be considerably shorter.)
IDBillzFan Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Worse than we could have imagined Washington Post, by Charles Krauthammer The more disheartening part of this article is actually here... Congress won’t get to vote on the deal until September. But Obama is taking the agreement to the U.N. Security Council for approval within days . Approval there will cancel all previous U.N. resolutions outlawing and sanctioning Iran’s nuclear activities. Meaning: Whatever Congress ultimately does, it won’t matter because the legal underpinning for the entire international sanctions regime against Iran will have been dismantled at the Security Council. Ten years of painstakingly constructed international sanctions will vanish overnight, irretrievably. Even if Congress rejects the agreement, do you think the Europeans, the Chinese or the Russians will reinstate sanctions? The result: The United States is left isolated while the rest of the world does thriving business with Iran.
Recommended Posts