Guess Iran leader didn't like BO's secrets

[Horn6721]

MrD
"Truly exempt"? Depends on what the meaning of Is is
here from reuters
www.reuters.com[URL='http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/15/us-iran-nuclear-military-sites']/article/2015/07/15/us-iran-nuclear-military-[/URL][URL='http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/15/us-iran-nuclear-military-sites']sites[/URL]...

Iran has made it clear that they will not allow any inspection of military site just like they made it clear in the weeks leaning up to the agreement there would not be ANYWHERE/ANYTIME INSPECTIONS.( Who ended up right on that issue?)
In any event Iran can stall for months on any inspection request.



Sen Barraso Chair of the RNC Policy Committee has a 15 point policy paper on the agreement that explains quite a few things but for some reason I can't link it.

 

[zork]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...ecret-side-deals-american-people_1000761.html

Kerry looks like he is having a bad day. Probably not as bad a day as many Americans will be having when this **** hits the fan for us or the Israelis after HAMAS starts blowing **** up with their 140 billion worth of new equipment.

 

[zork]

http://observer.com/2015/08/dershowitz-obama-is-an-abject-failure-by-his-own-standards/

 

[Horn6721]

That is one hell of an article. Yes he is Jewish but anyone who dismisses what he has written just because he is Jewish has BO blinders on.

This from a man who has supported BO : Is Dershowitz wrong?
All of this has been said by Obama himself,” Dershowitz explains. “When Obama first set out the red lines, he specified 24/7 inspections—we didn’t get that. He set out that Iran would never have nuclear weapons—we didn’t get that. He set out to end the nuclear facility at Fordow—we didn’t get that. He has crossed his own red lines at least three times.” Asked if he believes that President Obama is a failed leader, Dershowitz, who supported the president in both elections, replied, “I think on the Iran deal he is a failed leader.”

and now with BO openly admitting the released assets will fund terrorism
and with BO laughingly asserting there is no secret deal when even his chief negotiator admits she didn't see the actual " secret deal"
and with reports of information being sent to Congress that Iran is cleaning up ( sanitizing) a military nuke site.

BO likening Republicans to Iranian hardliner smacks of desperation, hoping this rallies dems to his side.

 

[UTChE96]

It appears that several Democrats are going to vote against this treaty even the future leader of the Senate Democrats Chuck Schumer. Will be interesting to see if they can override a veto.

 

[Mr. Deez]

It appears that several Democrats are going to vote against this treaty even the future leader of the Senate Democrats Chuck Schumer. Will be interesting to see if they can override a veto.

I can't see the veto getting overriden. Some of these Dems who oppose the deal will vote No but will not vote to override.

 

[Horn6721]

If enough voters get in touch with any Dem pol up for reelection in 2016 perhaps enough Pols could be persuaded to go against BO.
After all he is outta there and they want to keep their jobs.

since the voting on the deal process is so drawn out I think it will stay in the news and more people will become aware of what the deal actually is and is not.

 

[Driver 8]

He set out that Iran would never have nuclear weapons—we didn’t get that.

So you're saying they will have nuclear weapons? If so, how do you know that?

 

[Horn6721]

Driver
Your boy has admitted it several times since the Deal. His timeframe is it happening after his deal expires
Many others including many military think it will happen during the deal

Or we could just close our eyes and pretend it didn't happen since we can't see it.

Do you think Iran will not get nukes?

 

[Mr. Deez]

If enough voters get in touch with any Dem pol up for reelection in 2016 perhaps enough Pols could be persuaded to go against BO.
After all he is outta there and they want to keep their jobs.

since the voting on the deal process is so drawn out I think it will stay in the news and more people will become aware of what the deal actually is and is not.

The problem is that if you're a Democrat, you're almost surely from a lopsidedly blue district or state. A few aren't, but the vast majority are. That means you have more to fear from a partisan liberal Democrat (who will support the deal for partisan reasons alone) challenging you in the primary than from a moderate or conservative Republican challenging you in the general election. Can you collect enough votes to override from those who are from sung districts combined with some Jewish Democrats who actually oppose it on the merits? Maybe, but it's a long shot.

 

[Horn6721]

Yes MrD Very true
BUT there aren't that many Dems needed to overturn a BO veto. The House will overturn it
and right now there are 3 Dem Senators who have said publically they are against the deal.
As more and more information comes out and Iran keeps giving the West ( yes mostly USA) the finger perhaps the 15? Senators needed to overturn BO's veto won't be that hard to round up.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Yes MrD Very true
BUT there aren't that many Dems needed to overturn a BO veto. The House will overturn it
and right now there are 3 Dem Senators who have said publically they are against the deal.
As more and more information comes out and Iran keeps giving the West ( yes mostly USA) the finger perhaps the 15? Senators needed to overturn BO's veto won't be that hard to round up.

To override, they're going to need 44 (assuming everybody votes) House Democrats and could need more if a few moderate Republicans decide to vote with the White House. Is that a foregone conclusion? They'll need 13 Democratic senators to override or perhaps 14 if Sue Collins decides to vote with the White House. It does look like Schumer will not only oppose the deal in the initial vote but will also vote to override. That's very encouraging. In fact, his statement on the issue is actually pretty well-stated, very detailed for a politician's statement, and makes a lot of sense.

 

[Horn6721]

MrD
Well if any elected Pol reads Sen. Schumer's memo I don't see how they could vote for the deal. It is an extremely bottom line explanation of why he will vote against the deal. Perhaps the best argument of all the great reasons and flaws he points out is that there is nothing in Iran's history since the overthrow including Iran's actions this week at that military site to think Iran is or has any chance of moderating. I know some ike to pretend Rouhani is moderate but now that the deal is done He is showing who he really is.

Thank you for posting that link> I was against the deal just based on what has been put in the public. Schmer made it much clearer.

BTW this statement from him
"Over the years, I have learned that the best way to treat such decisions is to study the issue carefully, hear the full, unfiltered explanation of those for and against, and then, without regard to pressure, politics or party, make a decision solely based on the merits."
reminded me of what you usually say on many incomplete news topics. Are you Jewish?

 

[Mr. Deez]

reminded me of what you usually say on many incomplete news topics. Are you Jewish?

LOL. No, I'm actually quite the Gentile by faith (evangelical Christian) and by ethnic background (Welsh with a touch of Italian). However, I have been told that Italians are just Jews with better food, so perhaps that's the connection.

 

[Driver 8]

Your boy has admitted it several times since the Deal.

My boy. Mah boy is mah homie, bruh. Come correct jive crackah! lol, now seriously.

Do you think Iran will not get nukes?

You stated as fact that Iran will have nuclear weapons and this deal had already failed at preventing that. Fait accompli. Ain't it fun to pretend to know things.

Anyway, maybe Iran will come around and be cool. It could happen.

 

[Horn6721]

You read this in my post , "He set out that Iran would never have nuclear weapons—we didn’t get that."
and so you replied "You stated as fact that Iran will have nuclear weapons and this deal had already failed at preventing that"
?? read it again. Pay attention. Notice the quotation marks
I NEVER said as fact Iran would get nukes. I was quoting Dershowitz.

But BO did repeatedly said the US isn't bluffing when it says we will do what we must to prevent Iran from getting a nuke> I know you are aware he said that even at the UN.

Now he is saying that even with his deal why yes after the deal ends Iran will be within months of having a nuke. Some think it will be sooner including some in the military. And after what is going on at that ' military site" they might be right.

BTW
If it weren't so sad it would be funny that Politico is reporting BO leaked Schumer's position on how Chuck would vote ever after Schumer asked BO not to. And according to Schumer BO was the only one who knew.

 

[Mr. Deez]

If it weren't so sad it would be funny that Politico is reporting BO leaked Schumer's position on how Chuck would vote ever after Schumer asked BO not to. And according to Schumer BO was the only one who knew.

That's ******. Gee, I can't imagine why Obama has poor relations with Capitol Hill (even with Democrats) and has to bring in his VP when a deal needs to get done.

 

[Driver 8]

I NEVER said as fact Iran would get nukes. I was quoting Dershowitz.

My mistake, apologies for the error.

 

[zork]

No matter how jingoist you go, until there are bombs going off in your neighborhood, you're not jingoist enough for the right wingers, here or in Iran.

http://www.gq.com/story/the-wire-qa-ted-koppel-remembers-the-iran-hostage-crisis

...
GQ: As a correspondent and later an anchor, what was different about this story from others you’d reported?

TK: The public passion for it. It struck people as so outrageous, and they were angry about it. They were angry about seeing pictures of the hostages blindfolded and pushed around the US embassy. And when you think about it, the US embassy is, in fact, US territory. So this was an invasion.

GQ: In the thirty years since, the crisis is often referred to as America’s first battle with Islamic extremism. Is that your perception of it?

TK: I think we did a number of stories that reflected that, over the months, but I don’t think that was the public perception of what was going on. I mean, the public perception—if you’ll forgive the language—was: "Those ******* ragheads have taken American diplomats and American citizens, and by God they’d better give them back, or else." There wasn’t really a profound appreciation in much of the country, that the United States didn’t have access to many "or else’s."

There was a lot of blame both afterward and during the crisis that the press made it more sensationalistic and ultimately may have made negotiations more difficult.

Part of the criticism, which I think is a perfectly valid, is that night after night after night we tended to show the screaming crowds in front of the embassy. And people who were in Tehran would say later, "You know something? You walk two blocks away from the embassy, and everything is peaceful. Everything is perfectly quiet; there are no demonstrations going on in the rest of the city. These are just sort of rent-a-crowds that they put out there." And after that was brought to our attention, we did try to limit and not show as many pictures of that, and when we did we put it into the proper context, that this wasn’t going on all over Iran.

But look, I ran into Jimmy Carter many, many years later at some event at the White House, and he said, "You know, there were only two people who really benefited from all of that—you and the Ayatollah Khomeini."

...

GQ: You’ve since traveled to Iran, you’ve covered the country extensively since ’79. As you’re watching and reading about what’s going on there now, tell me what direction you see US-Iranian relations going.

TK: Well, the tragedy is that there is a huge segment of Iranian society, mostly the well-educated, who really love the United States and love American culture--and much of what we have seen these last few weeks [in June 2009] in Iran is a reflection of those people who feel smothered by the conservative mullahs, and by the Revolutionary Guard, which has turned into a really corrupt bunch of thugs, who are now almost Mafia-like in the way they control the building industry, the construction industry, all kinds of industries throughout Iran. There is an internal rift, but the intelligentsia, the people who would love to kiss and make up with the United States, are not in power, and the people who are in power are fundamentalists for the most part.

And as such, they look upon our culture and society as being corrupt; they look upon the way the United States has treated Iran over the last sixty years as being duplicitous, and dangerous, and murderous, and they are not wrong! The United States, together with Britain’s MI6 and the CIA helped overthrow the government of Prime Minister Mossadeq in 1953 and installed the shah. There are a lot of things that they have done to us that are contemptible, but there are also a lot of things that we have done to them that are contemptible. We, in our culture, tend to be of the "Oh, forgive and forget, let’s put it behind us, can’t we all be friends, let’s make a new start." They are still a nation divided; the whole Muslim world in many ways is still divided because of events that took place 1100 years ago, and the idea that they’re going to quickly forget and forgive—it’s not likely to happen. I would love to see a renewal of relations with Iran, but it’s just not likely to happen anytime soon.

more from Ted: from 2006:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6497391

KOPPEL: [snip]

Well, I was in Iran the first time in 1974 and I was over there with Henry Kissinger. I was diplomatic correspondent at the time and traveled with him and I remember how painful it was for him because he had a group of about eight of his state department correspondents with him and we were giving the Shah all kinds of trouble about his human rights record, and that wasn't exactly where he wanted to go and it wasn't where Dr. Kissinger wanted us to take it.

But then I was there in 1977 with Jimmy Carter - New Year's Eve - and it was, remember, just a few months before the Shah was overthrown, and Jimmy Carter raised a champagne toast in the Shah's palace, citing him as an island of stability in a troubled sea.

CONAN: Interestingly, when you got back to Iran this time around you spoke with some of the people who were involved in the takeover of the United States embassy back in 1979, and then for so many days thereafter, including the former spokeswoman for the Iranian hostage takers who became known to us as Sister Mary, and you spoke to her about the meaning of a famous term that - used in this day to describe the United States.

(Soundbite of ABC News broadcast)

KOPPEL: I first heard that phrase, the Great Satan, thinking, what a silly phrase. They don't really mean it. But you did mean it. You meant exactly that. You meant that the United States was, in a sense, the embodiment of evil.

SISTER MARY: I think that Imam made that reference to the United States based on the understanding that the Americans have no recognition for human rights and (unintelligible) their interests. The only thing that they see is to protect those interests by any means.

CONAN: Again, that woman among the hostage takers so many years on Tehran, Ted Koppel.

KOPPEL: Yeah, sure. Her name is Epticara(ph), and a few years ago she actually became the first woman vice president of Iran. She is not - she no longer holds that title. Interesting woman. When she was a child, she spent a few years in Philadelphia, hence that almost totally accent-free American English that she speaks.

CONAN: And interestingly, there are any number of one-time hostage takers who have used that to leverage their careers in Iran.
KOPPEL: Leveraged their careers, yes, but it hasn't always worked out that well for them. There is one young man - well, he's not that young anymore either, but he was a young then when he helped organize the taking of the U.S. Embassy and when he went through the gates himself and indeed became something of a national hero at the time. Then, just a few years ago, he started up a polling organization of his own and made the results of that poll available to the Gallup Organization, and the polls showed that 73 percent of the - certainly of the people that he had polled in the Tehran area - favored improving relations with the United States and maybe even reestablishing relations with the United States. He was tried on an espionage count or two for giving that information - it was charged not only to Gallup but to the CIA - and spent two years in prison, I believe nine months of which he spent in solitary confinement.

Then there is this:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/koppel-terrorism/2013/08/11/id/519792/

...
But Republican Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, disagreed. As chairman, he said he sees the same threat briefings as President Barack Obama, and the threat is real.

He did accuse the president, however of not being forthright with the public. "I'm not seeing his rhetoric is meeting reality," McCaul said.

Obama has failed to explain the value of the National Security Agency programs that capture virtually all electronic communications between Americans, but are intended only to spy on terrorists, McCaul said.

"He has not adequately explained them or defended them, and now he's in a bit of a mess," he said. In a time when people don't trust the administration with their tax records, they don't trust them with their phone records either, McCaul said.

 

[Horn6721]

Driver
Thank you. And to be really fair it is something I could have said.

 

[zork]

winners/losers list:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/Iran/irandealmf.pdf