Iran deal causing fractures

So at the summer DNC meeting it was noted Obama could not even shore up support for his Iran deal. So what was in it for Obama?

CNN reports

The Democratic National Committee’s summer meeting is over, and there is something you won’t find in the official minutes: a resolution supporting President Obama’s Iran nuclear agreement.

The deal has divided the [Democrat] party, to the point where the chairwoman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, has not made her position clear as yet. As the President heads into a veto battle with Congress on the issue, he needs every Democratic vote he can muster. But Jonathan Martin of The New York Times noted he couldn’t get help from the party he leads.

“The Obama-controlled DNC could not pass a resolution this weekend expressing support for President Obama’s Iran deal,” said Martin. “It’s a bit of an embarrassment for the administration, seeing as how it’s his party. He appointed Debbie Wasserman Schultz.”

More at http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/30/politics/ip-obama-trump-jeb–romney/index.html

So Debbie is playing her cards close to her hairspray, eh? Wow that little deal is causing lots of headaches even at the DNC anti-Israel Party.I wonder if she is suffering from a case of crazyitis too? Or she could be one of those Iranian hardliner allies we hear about?

Why hasn’t she jumped to the head of the line and proudly endorsed Obama’s nuclear deal for Iran? Probably ol’ Debbie does not want to make her endorsement, of Obama’s deal, public as she’d have to explain it. She doesn’t do well on explaining things, or answering questions.

Am I to interpret that family feuds are now fashionable in the DNC?

Obama: family feud over Iran deal

Just like a family gathering or reunion with a little tiff, a little nuclear tiff.

Obama: US-Israel Family Feud Will Abate When Iran Deal in Place

Saturday, 29 Aug 2015 | Newsmax

President Barack Obama is comparing tensions between the U.S. and Israel over the Iranian nuclear deal to a family feud and says he expects quick improvements in ties between the longtime allies once the accord is implemented.

“Like all families, sometimes there are going to be disagreements,” Obama said Friday in a webcast with Jewish Americans. “And sometimes people get angrier about disagreements in families than with folks that aren’t family.”

The president’s comments came as momentum for the nuclear accord grew on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers will vote next month on a resolution to disapprove of the deal. Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., became the 30th senator to publicly back the agreement, saying Friday that it was a good deal for America and for allies like Israel.

The looming congressional confrontation has sparked a summer of intense debate between supporters and opponents of the nuclear accord. The deliberations have also divided Jewish Americans, with leaders of many organizations expressing concern about long-term damage to the community.

Read more http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-Obama-Iran-Nuclear/2015/08/29/id/672541/

Oh, because we are good family members is why they are opposed to his deal? Yes, if we weren’t so close, Israel wouldn’t be so upset. Then why were Arabs/Saudis so against it?

With just 34 votes, Democrats could block the bill to prevent the Iran Deal. Obama compares it to a family feud. He’s so confident Israel will be right back on board once the deal is lodged into place. What an arrogant soul he is, if he has one. How is it, too, that he can speak for another sovereign country? Yet he used none of that prophetic vision in negotiating the deal. Why, it was to get a deal at any cost. Any deal that is.

But this is his M/O after all: scorched easrth politics at any cost, then assume the opponent will just live with it after he gets his way. The means to that end is lying, early and often.

After lighting the Mid East ablaze, Obama reaches for the marshmallows and says relax, enjoy the show and don’t worry about the effects, it’ll all be good. You’ll get used to it.

It’s about that time with Obama on Iran deal

What time is it? It must be Obama slime time. Time to get the slime machine in mach speed, like the centrifuges in Iran.

He’s using every nasty slur and label he can to attack anyone, including Jews, who don’t support his Iran “peace in our time” nuclear deal. What’s behind door number one, nuclear bomb. What’s behind door number two, the Ayatolah and a nuclear bomb. Never mind what’s behind the third because you’ll never get passed the first two.

Jewish Magazine Accuses White House of Using ‘Jew-Baiting’ and ‘Bigotry’ to Smear Iran Deal Critics

Aug. 9, 2015 10:08am Sharona Schwartz | The Blaze

The Jewish online magazine Tablet has accused the White House of engaging in “Jew-baiting” and “racial and ethnic prejudice” to slander critics of the Iran deal, including New York Sen. Chuck Schumer.

The magazine’s editors compared the behavior of the White House to “the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally.”

Schumer, a Jewish Democrat, announced on Thursday that he was breaking with President Barack Obama and would vote to oppose the Iran nuclear agreement.

In the editorial, titled “Crossing a Line to Sell a Deal,” the editors of Tablet on Friday asserted that the “White House and its allies shouldn’t need to smear American Jews — and a sitting senator — as dual loyalists to make their case.”

While the editors noted that they “support the president” and “sympathize” with his efforts to combat Iran’s nuclear weapons pursuit, they wrote, “What we increasingly can’t stomach — and feel obliged to speak out about right now — is the use of Jew-baiting and other blatant and retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice as tools to sell a political deal, or to smear those who oppose it.”

“Accusing Senator Schumer of loyalty to a foreign government is bigotry, pure and simple. Accusing Senators and Congressmen whose misgivings about the Iran deal are shared by a majority of the U.S. electorate of being agents of a foreign power, or of selling their votes to shadowy lobbyists, or of acting contrary to the best interests of the United States, is the kind of naked appeal to bigotry and prejudice that would be familiar in the politics of the pre-Civil Rights Era South,” the editors wrote.

“This use of anti-Jewish incitement as a political tool is a sickening new development in American political discourse, and we have heard too much of it lately — some coming, ominously, from our own White House and its representatives,” Tablet wrote. “Let’s not mince words: Murmuring about ‘money’ and ‘lobbying’ and ‘foreign interests’ who seek to drag America into war is a direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card.”

“It’s the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally, not from the President of the United States — and it’s gotten so blatant that even many of us who are generally sympathetic to the administration, and even this deal, have been shaken by it,” the editors wrote.

“Whatever one feels about the merits of the Iran deal, sales techniques that call into question the patriotism of American Jews are examples of bigotry — no matter who does it,” the editors added.

Read more The Blaze

Time for Obama to unleash another divisive attack campaign on his opponents — even if they be Democrats.  The White House has threatened that anyone vying for leadership would be held to account for past positions. Dems have already announced they will oppose Schumer for leader based on this position. Of Course if Schumer was not such a racist, bigot, backed by Jew billionaire lobby, anti-peace extremist, dual loyalist, war monger, and ally to the radicalized “death to America” Islamists in Iran. Any questions?

How the truth became politically incorrect to Obama

The story here is not only that truth became politically incorrect to Obama but also, more importantly, that anyone endorsing or trafficking in truth became the opposition to Obama. Imagine that, just by aligning oneself with the truth turns one into an enemy of Obama. And by extension, considering his position, it thereby turns one into an enemy of the state. We see how all this works. In effect, truth has become Obama’s chief enemy, and thereby an enemy of the state.

Of course it would be a difficult thing for media to accept. Fortunately, they don’t have to worry about such a thing. That would admit being played or hoodwinked by Obama.

The Iran deal reveals a chunk of this truism about Bary Soetoro. Go back to his campaign days where, asked about Iran, he always favored talking to Iran. His supporters loved it. Conservatives took issue with that for exactly the reasons we witnessed, of “negotiation” with the talks. Of course we were told we were wrong that talks do not equal negotiating. But they do and did. Now we also see how that negotiation turned out .

So they made it so complex, attaching side deals, which no one will see between Iran and IAEA, that it would be purposefully hard to understand. Trust us, they said, it is a good deal. (a good deal of BS) See it would require trust. However, trust does not make it a good deal. But “trust” is the fallacy that Obama has peddled all along, since his early days as Senator, to his first campaign to today. We are always to just trust him, with little or no basis for it, and then we get screwed in the end. Trust though is a central ingredient in his modus operandi and agenda. It’s the top necessary ingredient with Obama. Which is why I called his a faith-based campaign: “Hope and change” and “change you can believe in.”

The side deals, as they are referred to, are unknown to Kerry and even Obama. By law, all materials of the deal must be given to Congress. So how can they sign off on something they don’t know the details of, and cannot see? But that is what Obama is asking of Congress. It’s a good deal, trust us, “peace in our time.” Trust is the operative word.

Remember Reagan’s maxim of trust and verify?

We always verify after the fact that he lied to us. But it always shows in the end our trust was without merit. We always get a raw deal or royally screwed. He is not happy enough to screw us in the present, he wants to stick to future generations too. There are normally multiple layers of screwage. He also sets it up where future negotiations with Iran will be necessary. Then the future administration(s) will have to deal with Tehran. We really made Iran some kind of a partner.

Every step along the way on issues Obama abused our trust and destroyed the grounds for it. I can’t say he actually destroyed our trust because people cannot accept that their trust was shot through, because that would be admitting they were taken, lied to, or hoodwinked. Who wants to admit being a mark? But they continue to trust him.

It is a serial abuse relationship Obama has with even many of his voters and base. (they aren’t all communists though they endorse Marxist people, which is another subject) To admit it is more than they can take. Each step Obama requires people to just trust him.

Seeing is believing, or not.

We know it is not the transparency he promised, another lie. So behind their backs he is abusing their trust in him. A few, and I don’t know how many, are probably privy to this whole charade Obama plays but who also believe in the destination anyway, so it is acceptable. Remember the professor of Obamcare, Jonathan Gruber, and his repeated statements that they had to lie to us. Which is more profound, that they believed they had to lie to us or that lying is such a necessary tactic in their agenda?

Well, it was the same premise in the Iran deal, they had to lie to the American people. From the beginning they said we would have anytime anywhere access and that would be in any agreement. Now we see we don’t have anywhere anytime access. Then Kerry said that anywhere anytime was not promised, or part of the plan. He denied that there were any side deals and, low and behold, there are side deals. They denied that sanctions were working though they claim that sanctions, in fact — ones congress not Obama imposed — were the pressure that brought them to the negotiation table. Then they condemned any talk of new sanctions or reinstatement of the previous ones, which Obama lifted. They claimed eliminating the prospect of a nuclear Iran was the objective, while they in effect enshrined their nuclear ability. They also denied that containment was their strategy, but voila theirs is a strategy of containment.

Furthermore, let’s back up again to the campaign trail. Obama claimed his mission was to stop proliferation. In fact he wants to eliminate all nuclear weapons. We now see he has proliferated them starting a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. He said he would do these things with, he assured us, the purest of motives. Now we look at what really motivated him.

The political strategy, lie a lot — early and often.

Probably the biggest parallel theme to things though is the lies. Its a tactic and an overall strategy of his. Tell us anything in order to get his way, pass legislation, accomplish his mission or goal — preferably the opposite of what he is doing. Obamacare was built on lies and illusion. He sold the initial idea that it would only affect those who didn’t have insurance or medical coverage. Hello, it affected everyone. He said if you liked your plan you could keep your plan. Wrong, you couldn’t. He said if you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor. Wrong. He said it would lower the cost of your insurance, saving average family 2500 per/yr. In fact, it increased the cost and for some families by 2500 a year. He said it would lower our debt while it added to it.

But probably the central, critical lie he used from the onset was that, since there was a majority of people already covered, it would not affect them. That made it very palatable. It basically was only going to help those who had no coverage. So people went along because they believed it would not affect them personally, least not negatively. And many of those are the very ones it affects the most, and in the worst way. Now they have soaring premiums and deductibles. It was a pack of lies, actually built on a foundation of lies. Sound familiar? Then came Professor Gruber who said just that. Well, then it was the lie that he was nothing and not connected with drafting the law. Actually he was an architect of the law. See?

So now we have an Iran deal following the same formula. Tell the people anything at the beginning, lie and promise them anything. Whatever means to the ends. Then deny what you said and did. But then Gruber’s admission was even worse than admitting they lied. It was, yes we lied to the stupid American people. But it even went a step deeper than that.

Daily Caller

Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber said that lack of transparency was a major part of getting Obamacare passed because “the stupidity of the American voter” would have killed the law if more people knew what was in it.

Catch that? First he told us they had to lie to the stupid people. Then he suggested they had to lie to us because we are stupid. In effect, we are the cause for their lying. It’s our fault they lied.(that’s something like the ultimate lie) Like: I’ll admit I lied but the reason was because you made it so necessary. It’s all our fault and we’re stupid, so we probably can’t even understand that. Geesh. Maybe one day we’ll come up to their level and be able to understand — surely it won’t be soon. By then they will be even smarter. It’s not even that government knows best, it is that the progressives know better than all.

Then there was Senator Hillary CLinton’s statement to General Petraeus that his report “requires the willing suspension of disbelief.” Take that from the Liars Club. Ironically, that is exactly what Obama and his administration, including Hillary, requires from us — “suspension of disbelief.” We know he’s lying to us, but let’s not pay much attention to that detail. Instead, let’s accept what he says as the truth. Most places would call deceit on that level fraud. Just like the kind that ushered Obama into office. But in his campaign, at the time, he was busy pointing out Hillary’s lies. Round and round it goes, where it stops only Obama knows. But it never will stop because he cannot allow the lies to end.

RightRing | Bullright

Allen West on Obama’s Iranian deal

Time for a heavy dose of truth… from Allen West. Its a dirty job, someone has to do it.

Published on Jul 22, 2015

Former Florida Congressman Allen West absolutely exploded over the Iran nuclear deal during a fiery speech at a “Stop Iran Deal Rally” in New York City’s Times Square on Wednesday. The Republican strongly criticized President Barack Obama’s leadership on the issue, calling him a “weakling” and “charlatan.” West asked the crowd of thousands “what message” the United States is sending by negotiating with the “number one state sponsor of terrorism” and a country that is holding “four Americans hostage.” more

Also see the many comments on it at Right Scoop

(H/T to Dave)

Bottoms up, I wonder how that echoed through the White House? Likely not well. The problem is truth telling. I’ve had this discussion with Peppermint. When you really think of it, just realize how rare truth telling has become. It blows my mind to think about that. And West sure brought it home with this speech, Thomas Paine reference and all.

Wacky world of Obama: emphasis is ‘the bomb’

Thomas Sowell has once again boiled the Iran problem down to logical terms. But logic is not on the list of ingredients in Obama’s left. Politics is the dominant one.

The most catastrophic decision in human history?

Thomas Sowell sees Obama-Iran agreement ‘betting the lives of millions of Americans’
WND

Recent statements from United Nations officials, that Iran is already blocking their existing efforts to keep track of what is going on in their nuclear program, should tell anyone who does not already know it that any agreement with Iran will be utterly worthless in practice. It doesn’t matter what the terms of the agreement are, if Iran can cheat.

It is amazing – indeed, staggering – that so few Americans are talking about what it would mean for the world’s biggest sponsor of international terrorism, Iran, to have nuclear bombs, and to be developing intercontinental missiles that can deliver them far beyond the Middle East. […/]

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/the-most-catastrophic-decision-in-human-history/

My working theory seems to coincide with Sowell’s. It is fairly simple, since with Obama he always wants plausible deniability on any of his failures. It is simply that, while called an agreement or “deal,” it is something else to Obama. It is foremost an illusion. Even he knows it — not that he believes it is any great achievement. (if he does, then flag him at the WH bar.) No, its an illusion or replacement for a real agreement. Something that is practically worthless yet he can hail as an agreement.

In the reality of it, he has created future deniability for the inevitable problem of a nuclear Iran. Just as Clinton says we really tried to get bin Laden. The failure doesn’t matter if spun as a great attempt. Obama is using a similar strategy. All that matters is what he says about it later. So the here-and-now present doesn’t matter, it will be how he frames it after that counts. That is his philosophy. Of course, the world and reality does not function on great attempts or excuses. Chamberlain’s ‘peace in our time.’ What counts are results.

Not in Obama’s world. All the emphasis is placed on the attempt. Emphasis is the key or the bomb. More and more, perception seems to be all that matters to the left. And when the people disapprove of the product, then our perception is faulty. (the border, illegal immigration, scandals, IRS, Benghazi, spending, Obamacare, Islamic terrorism, ISIS, Israel, Mid East policy)

They say we must wait for a deal before criticizing the parts. When Pelosi said we have to pass it before we know what is in it, she wasn’t whistling Dixie. They have to know how it ends, too, so they can spin it into a masterpiece. By the time you know exactly what is in the bad deal — and possibly will not know everything — they’ll have refashioned it into a diplomatic achievement, even if the result is wrong. It will be historic even if its a failure. Nuclear physics, meet Obama philosophy.

Hillary ushers in Clinton 3.0

Once again, liberals are in a position they’ve grown to dislike: they have to defend the Clintons. While she has positioned herself to run for president, Hillary has an albatross hanging over her.

To the Clintons, this may seem like a great rally cry to round everyone up behind her. But it is a task liberals would rather not have. It’s bad enough they have to defend the Clinton’s entire record anyway but to intentionally give them something else which they must defend her on, against the vast right-wing conspiracy, is an added job on top pf it all.

Remember in the Clinton years she lectured the press telling them the big story media should care to talk and write about is the one about the vast right-wing conspiracy victimizing the Clintons. She scolded them to do that with righteous ambition, which would suit their fancy just fine. They did.

Now again she issues the call to arms after committing an intentional offense while in office — offending even progressives. And she expects that since they have grown used to the job, are experienced at it — and since she is a woman of historic potential — that it will be all the easier for them to jump to her defense. Well, they really have no choice with all the marbles on her — just how she wants it. Let the talking points begin.

Hillary and Iran, two peas in a pod

Hillary’s email problem has a parallel with the Iran negotiations. Both are more matters of illusion than substance. Clinton defenders lecture us not to criticize her emails because we don’t know what is in them. That’s the Dems favorite shell game. With Iran, they say you don’t know what the deal is so you cannot criticize it. They say we must see the deal or emails before passing judgement.(and they aren’t anxious for us to see either)

So, in other words, Hilllary’s email content will determine if she did anything wrong? Both parties have about zero credibility. Where Iran operates on religious motivations, Hillary operates on political ones.

Yet this is the tack the Democrats are taking with Hillary. Wait and see, never mind that she is already outside any ethics or the law itself. Never mind she negotiated 4 months to turn over what she did. Iran negotiations were extended at least twice and they still refuse to allow inspectors full access. We won’t get to see Hillary’s server either.

In both cases the obfuscation is obvious. In both we’re told to withhold judgement and that they are in compliance so far. Hillary was not compliant when she set the whole thing up. She will point to Colinn Powell, Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie. Iran will point to ISIS as the big problem. Neither is to be trusted by any rational thinking person. (Democrats are irrational) Both claim to be in compliance with all the rules that they did nothing wrong, and have no ulterior motives. Right.

Both “require the willing suspension of disbelief.”

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s distraction, classic projection

Obama called Netanyahu’s speech a distraction.

Daily Caller reported:

“Your administration has described Prime Minister Netanyahu’s plans to address to Congress on Iran tomorrow as ‘destructive,’” Mason told Obama. “What damage has really been done?”

“I don’t think it’s permanently destructive,” Obama replied. “I think that it is a distraction from what should be our focus. Our focus should be how do we stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.”

Wait, Netanyahu’s focus is stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. That is the chief objective. Obama’s focus, however, is….well, take your pick

But Obama did take the opportunity before the speech to preemptively attack Bibi:

“Netanyahu made all sorts of claims. This was going to be a terrible deal. … None of that has come true.”

And Obama has made all kinds of claims like about Obamacare, lies. At least now the world knows who they don’t trust. So why should anyone listen to Obama?

On the day Bibi delivered a joint session speech, Obama rolled out his new initiative. As Valerie Jarrett explained to MSNBC, his new program is Let Girls Learn. I’m sure there was absolutely no other day he could have rolled that out.(Biden was abroad lol) And he calls Netanyahu’s timing politically suspicious?

USA Today: “President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama will announce the “Let Girls Learn” initiative Tuesday afternoon at the White House.”

Obama did take time to come out to criticize his speech as nothing new.

NBC: “On the core issue, which is how do we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon which would make it far more dangerous … the prime minister didn’t offer any viable alternatives,” Obama said.

Solomon had a famous saying too, “nothing new under the sun.” This is a man, Obama, who when running for office in 08, gave his great speech in Berlin, Germany and I don’t remember anyone yelling that “he is running for election, gasp!”

He started the Berlin speech with a phony disclaimer.

I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen – a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.

What average “citizen of the world” would have the venue to give a speech? But Obama has a problem with someone in office, as one of our closest allies, coming to give a speech while still running for reelection? A distraction?

Please don’t Judas me

Speaker Boehner made a weekly press release tied to the “destructive” comments from Obama’s adviser, the notorious Susan Rice.

“The president’s national security advisor says it’s destructive for the prime minister of Israel to address the United States Congress. I couldn’t disagree more,” Boehner said.

“The American people and both parties in Congress have always stood with Israel and nothing, and no one, could get in the way.” – Jerusalem Post

Well, that is no One but Obama and until now! Nothing but nothing will get in Obama’s way of talking with Iran though — even if it is destructive to everything else, and all other relationships. They are almost possessed by that.

Several Democrats have said they will skip the speech. Some said, like Obama, that it is inappropriate for Netanyahu to address the US Congress just two weeks before Israeli elections. Others said they do not want a foreign leader weighing in on US foreign affairs. – More> Jerusalem Post

Rice decries politics of Bibi’s visit

You can file this under ‘you have got to be kidding me’. Sure enough, with Susan Rice that seems to be her theme.


(Rice interview with Charlie Rose)

Well, it is the Dems who have spun this up into a political frenzy. But of course having so many Dems working behind the scenes for Netanyahu’s ouster doesn’t help their case.

Now they have a formal boycott in effect. They are politicizing the entire event. Even Biden says he will be away, unable to attend. (he’s traveling with a broad… er traveling abroad)

Rice: “We want the relationship between the United States and Israel to be unquestionably strong, immutable, regardless of political seasons in either country, regardless of which party may be in charge in either country. We’ve worked very hard to have that, and we will work very hard to maintain that.”

Worked very hard at that? She’s probably still peddling the video cause for Benghazi.

Does Susan Rice have any credibility on anything? Dems have played politics with Israel, and its security, for six years now. To say that the relationship has always been apolitical means she doesn’t understand the administration. Of course she understands, she just said that like their other lies and utterances which conflict with reality.

[on Iran] “They have enabled us to validate that they have, in fact, taken all the steps that they committed to take and that they’re in full compliance. That model will need to be sustained in any comprehensive agreement.”

Depends what they are in compliance with, doesn’t it? Validated! The irony is we have an administration and president that cannot be trusted any more than Iran, but who demands trust in making a nuclear deal with Iran. That’s specious logic. Sustained, really?

Dems in nuclear meltdown over Bibi. Now there’s a “comprehensive” disagreement.

Obama parsing on Iran “deal”

Holding their fire does not mean holding Obama’s feet to the fire.

Obama to Congress: ‘Hold your fire’ on Iran sanctions

Kevin Liptak, CNN
Fri January 16, 2015

“My main message to Congress at this point is just hold your fire. Nobody around the world least of all the Iranians doubt my ability to get additional sanctions pass if these negotiations fail,” Obama added later.

On Iran, Obama turned a question on whether he’d veto additional sanctions on Iran back on his counterparts in Congress — including those in his own party.

“Why is it that we would have to take actions that would jeopardize the possibility of getting a nuclear deal over the next 60 or 90 days?” Obama asked.

Obama added later: “I am not, repeat not, suggesting that we are on immediate war footing should negotiations with Iran fail.”

More: http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/16/politics/cameron-obama-press-conference/

 

Go to the tape: (bold my emphasis)

I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT THE CHANCES THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY GET A DIPLOMATIC DEAL [are] PROBABLY LESS THAN 50/50.

THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, INCLUDING THOSE FOLKS IN MY OWN PARTY, IS WHY IS IT THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE ACTIONS THAT MIGHT JEOPARDIZE THE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING A DEAL OVER THE NEXT 60 TO 90 DAYS?

Let “might jeapordize the possibility of getting a deal” sink in.

The construction of an argument, Obama style:

I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THE RISKS ARE. I THINK DAVID SHARES MY ASSESSMENT HERE. UNDER THE INTERIM DEAL THAT BROUGHT IRAN TO THE TABLE, WE WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO INITIATE NEW SANCTIONS. NOW YOU WILL HEAR ARGUMENTS: “THESE TECHNICALLY AREN’T NEW SANCTIONS, THEY ARE SIMPLY LAWS PUTTING IN PLACE THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS”. — I ASSURE YOU THAT IS NOT HOW IRAN OR OUR PARTNERS WOULD INTERPRET IT. THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE ENTIRE NEGOTIATIONS COLLAPSE IS VERY HIGH. IF THAT HAPPENS, THERE IS NO CONSTRAINTS ON IRAN GOING BACK AND DOING WHAT THEY CAME TO DO BEFORE THEY CAME TO THE TABLE — DEVELOPING A HEAVY WATER REACTOR THAT ONCE BUILT [IS] EXTRAORDINARILY DIFFICULT TO DISMANTLE, AND VERY DIFFICULT TO HIT MILITARILY.

So the original deal was to take future sanctions off the table (“all options on the table”?) just to get the ball rolling. But even that wasn’t bad enough, he and Kerry have been dismantling the ‘old’ sanctions. Now he protests the sanctions Congress has in mind.

The question is why would anyone ban more sanctions, let alone remove current ones, before getting any kind of deal? He said taking “new sanctions” off the table was the means to getting them to the table in the first place.

Then he keeps referring to the chance of undermining the “possibility” of a deal. So everything is based on a “possibility” Obama admits is less than a 50/50 chance. Is anyone making the odds on that? But long odds equal appeasement in Obama’s brain.

If the likelihood is not very good, why take anything off the table to start? What did you get for your concession? The same shoddy possibility of getting a deal. But in Iran’s mind it is another concession, more time along with enrichment ability. We get the same “chance”. Keeping score? He also takes credit for Congress’s original sanctions.

It’s a spiraling spider web. Rather than explanations he makes excuses. Tehran was probably sitting there watching saying, “just what we thought all along, and it sounds even better in a White House press conference.”

THAT’S NOT THE ONLY OPTIONS THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE. I HAVE CONSISTENTLY SAID WE LEAVE ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE. CONGRESS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT IF THIS DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION FAILS, THE RISKS AND LIKELIHOOD THAT THIS ENDS UP BEING A MILITARY CONFRONTATION IS HEIGHTENED. CONGRESS WILL HAVE TO OWN THAT AS WELL.

Because, either way, he is setting it up so Congress is on the hook for the failure that ensues. The golden rule is never take any responsibility for failures.

ref: http://www.c-span.org/video/?323842-1/news-conference-president-obama-british-prime-minister-david-cameron

RightRing | Bullright