Okay everyone's on board. The talking points are disseminated. They have their marching orders. They are off!! I kept flipping over to FOX last night WAITING. I knew it was coming--"they're coming, they're coming", well into the night. I think this one threw them back off their heels. They took time to gather momentum for FREIGNED IRE and now its ATTACK time! But they never fail to deliver. Even they won't go out to the edge of the limb. And note below how they use the FRENCH to make their point. (The same 'French' who left the negotiations and flew back 24 hours later when there was a breakthrough). Hell they even use 'qualified' language--"reportedly", "initial". (Oh yeah, and there seem to be some serious distortions regarding enrichment below from what I just heard from NPR this morning). (Hell, the more I read RW (*)(*)(*)(*), the more I think this is even a better deal than I thought). US reportedly backed down on initial goals in Iran talks Published April 03, 2015FoxNews.com McFarland: Obama, Kerry 'got played' by Iran U.S. negotiators reportedly lowered the bar for their own goals during talks over Iran's nuclear program in response to resistance from the Tehran team. And, on the heels of a framework deal being announced in Switzerland, France's top diplomat on Friday admitted his country had initially held out for firmer terms. The emerging reports indicate the U.S. team, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, gradually backed down over the course of the talks as Iran's delegation dug in. The Wall Street Journal, citing current and former U.S. representatives at the discussions, claimed the White House had initially hoped to persuade Iran to dismantle much of the country's nuclear infrastructure when talks started in late 2013, only to be told categorically that Iran would not do so. The Journal reported that one Iranian diplomat called the nuclear program "our moon shot," comparing it to the U.S. space program in the 1960s as a symbol of national pride and advancement. From that point, the Journal reports, the U.S. accepted that any possible deal would likely enable Iran to continue to enrich some uranium to produce nuclear fuel and turned their focus to extending Iran's so-called "breakout time" or the minimum period that Iran would need to build... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-iran-nuclear-talks-to-framework-deal-report/
lol, a country who's greatest natural resource is oil needs nuclear energy... uh huh. And look at what you highlighted! The french wanted tougher terms. They could have got them if Kerry had walked when the french did, but that bumbling idiot had to sweeten the pot for the Iranians. Kerry should have demanded that they recognize the right of Israel to exist, that they stop their regional ambitions of expansion, that they completely abandon any type of nuclear research, and that they let U.S., not U.N. inspectors come in with freedom to go anywhere at any time to verify that they have dismantled their nuclear program, for energy or for weapons. THEN, and only then, would we lift sanctions.
I'm going to ask the OBVIOUS question?? Do they refine their oil? Can they refine the oil? We have and REFINE oil. Yet we have a hundred nuclear power plants around the country. So Iran isn't allowed?? (I actually remember the answer so while those who don't know scramble to find it or gloss over the obvious question--they were severely restricted in refinery capacity until pretty RECENTLY. They amped up their refining capacity starting in the middle of the last decade. I don't know the particulars of where they stand now. So let's use some critical thinking. NOW they are willing to back off enrichment of nuclear material?? I don't think those 2 things are unrelated but I'll leave that to experts to discern).
Obama passed up a chance to positively alter the balance of power in the Mideast when Irans Revolutionary Guards were shooting down unarmed protestors, protesting what they perceived as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's fraudulent election in Tehran's streets. They were chanting "Obama where are you?" as they were being shot dead. Most attributed Hussein Obama's inaction to Hussein Obama's timidity and inexperience. Taking out the Mullahs would have greatly benefitted the United States militarily, curtailing terrorist activities against American forces in both adjacent Iraq and Afghanistan, closing both revolving doors for terrorists entering and leaving Afghanistan and Iraq. Second, Assad would have collapsed on his own and ISIS would likely not exist. it would have been a boon militarily and economically as well, greatly decreasing the blood and treasure the US would need to spend. The IED's Iran produced and shipped to those two neighboring countries for use against us would have stopped. Any US President with the US's best interests at heart would have moved, George HW Bush, George W Bush, Ronald Reagan, John McCain, Mitt Romney, all except Hussein Obama who chose not to, who, secretly, during his first campaign offered the Iranians a far better deal than they would get negotiating with George W Bush at the time. To deliberately not move to advance the United States interests in order to further your own personal aggrandizement, later, puts you in High Crimes and Misdemeanor territory there, president Andreas Lubitz Hussein Obama.
You mean in 2009? 4 or 5 months after BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA was inaugurated while IRAQ CONTINUED TO CHURN and BURN and so did our economy?? The protesters THEN? Another war in the Middle-East while our economy IMPLODED? Are you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing kidding me or this board?? And as for the 4 REPUBLICANS named?? YEAH, sure, you know for a fact they could and would have done just that. Romney, who lost, gave his useless laden 2 cents worth. "Well I would have ..." Yeah,I remember. Of course this BS story line has since been factchecked. (Nothing is EVER factual on THIS BOARD when it comes to ad hominen attacks on Obama). But you are right! WE DIDN'T 'BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB' Iran as McCain called for. http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/politics/fact-check-romney-iran/index.html
It all makes absolute perfect sense.Obama was desperate to prove his Foreign Policy bona fides { talk about a contradiction }. Obama is universally understood to be a disaster in Foreign Affairs. Comparison are know no longer limited to Jimmy Carter.But now those like Neville Chamberlain { historic appeaser }. Obama is so desperate for some legacy that he is not merely pressing but running a long con.A Long con takes more inner intelligence and effort than Obama's usual short con approach.
