Obama: “We’ll have 24/7 access to Iran’s nukes” - Obama Adviser “We never said that”. - You can trust Obama & aides almost as much as you can trust Iran. ADDED: Real US enemy is in the WH

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2015 1:39 AM GMT
    The blatant lying of Obama, aides, and Hillary Clinton is a cancer on the Democratic Party.

    Read the following play by play of those scumbags.

    ———————————————

    Obama just promised that "Inspectors will have 24/7 access to Iran’s nuclear facilities.” That lie is right up there with, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." But the Obama spin machine has 5 known stages.

    1. Make a false promise that any expert knows is a lie, e.g. "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"

    2. Act indignant and denounce those experts of having an agenda

    3. When the promise isn't kept, claim that they never made it

    4. When their own words are quoted back to them, say that nobody ever took them seriously because everyone knew it was impossible

    5. Redefine the meaning of words so that they mean what you want them to

    So we're at Stage 5 now as Obama's National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes will illustrate, via Omri Ceren's observant eye.

    more...
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/259468/obama-well-have-247-access-irans-nukes-obama-daniel-greenfield
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2015 2:34 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidI trust what Iran says more than what Obama says.

    I think you're right. The Iranians have been very direct in their statements. They could be blunt because they knew the Obama team would cave in every way.

    Based on what other countries have said, such as France, they must be holding their noses, perhaps hoping Congress will shut it down. Those who would favor it are business interests who just want to do business with Iran and don't care about nukes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2015 3:22 PM GMT
    One other point in addition to the dishonesty: If you believed someone who said before that an acceptable deal required access to all sites with a minimum of notice, but now says it doesn't matter, you have to ask yourself - Doesn't that validate what others said, namely, they wanted a deal, even a bad deal, at all costs? And didn't telegraphing that so obviously greatly weaken their negotiating position?

    This administration is not only composed of dishonest people, but fools as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2015 3:36 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Based on what other countries have said, such as France, they must be holding their noses, perhaps hoping Congress will shut it down. Those who would favor it are business interests who just want to do business with Iran and don't care about nukes.


    I think the rest of the P5+1 are a little better informed than that. Everyone knows Congress hasn't a hope in hell of blocking the agreement (short of a major revolt from the Dems).

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2015 3:53 PM GMT
    In all honesty a strong Iran will be beneficial to the region. Certainly far better than the stone-age Sunni dictatorship in Saudi Arabia which everyone knows has been funding ISIS and all sorts of terror groups.

    Syria and Iraq have been carrying most of the burden of fighting ISIS so it's about time Iran's economy is allowed to prosper so they can blow those apes out of the water and start forming a Shia counterweight in the middle east.

    Bibi can cry all he wants. What has our "greatest ally" done to help in the war against ISIS?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2015 8:26 PM GMT
    AaronH20P saidIn all honesty a strong Iran will be beneficial to the region. Certainly far better than the stone-age Sunni dictatorship in Saudi Arabia which everyone knows has been funding ISIS and all sorts of terror groups.

    Syria and Iraq have been carrying most of the burden of fighting ISIS so it's about time Iran's economy is allowed to prosper so they can blow those apes out of the water and start forming a Shia counterweight in the middle east.

    Bibi can cry all he wants. What has our "greatest ally" done to help in the war against ISIS?


    For once I'm in agreement with you. If the American Right can move on beyond 1979, they will find that, despite the rhetoric from the Iranian leadership, the Iranian people are pretty well informed, open and generally not anti-American: Now you’re thinking of seething crowds of angry men and black-wrapped women screaming “Death to” whoever it is this week. Stonings. Glowering ayatollahs.

    These things exist, just as the danger of being hijacked in South Africa exists, or being randomly shot in America. But they aren’t the norm.

    This week's agreement strengthens the hand of the moderates in Iran. While Iran and the US will probably never be bosom buddies, there are far worse countries and groups in that region for the West to be on good terms with.

  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Jul 15, 2015 8:42 PM GMT
    AaronH20P said
    Bibi can cry all he wants. What has our "greatest ally" done to help in the war against ISIS?


    And exactly what would you expect them to do?
    On whose side should they fight?

    Step into a war that's mostly Muslims killing Muslims?
    Send Jewish troops to fight ISIS on Muslim soil?
    Begin aerial bombing raids on Muslims not fighting them?

    You really didn't think that bullshit through before you wrote it, did you?

    Yeah.. you just had to take a cheap shot, didn't ya?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2015 9:31 PM GMT
    bobbobbob said
    AaronH20P said
    Bibi can cry all he wants. What has our "greatest ally" done to help in the war against ISIS?


    And exactly what would you expect them to do?
    On whose side should they fight?

    Step into a war that's mostly Muslims killing Muslims?
    Send Jewish troops to fight ISIS on Muslim soil?
    Begin aerial bombing raids on Muslims not fighting them?

    You really didn't think that bullshit through before you wrote it, did you?

    Yeah.. you just had to take a cheap shot, didn't ya?


    On whose side should they fight? Are you seriously asking that?

    And yes they could start by bombing some of their infrastructure as Jordan has. Israel definitely has the capability to do that. Steven Sotloff was an Israeli citizen too.

    And for a country that has always been extremely paranoid about it's survival for being surrounded by hostile Arabs, the fact that Israel doesn't even seem to consider the most extremist Islamic group in memory a threat to their national security is at the very least suspicious.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2015 10:29 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidI trust what Iran says more than what Obama says.


    They still have the .....b()mb.......blast off! Good by Israel....
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Jul 16, 2015 5:58 AM GMT
    Hey SouthBeach... I bet you're going to have to work overtime on your thread about Obama's lies once this mess starts coming together.

    I liked that line in his news conference when he was asked about how this deal on Iran's nuclear weapons could be a good deal for the US, France the UK when people in Iran were celebrating it as a victory for them....

    He said something to the effect of the leaders of Iran were misrepresenting the deal to their constituents... lying to them.. then he said. "that's what's politicians do."............

    Like any possible doubt of that hasn't been erased by his perpetually lying ass.....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2015 6:05 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidThe blatant lying of Obama, aides, and Hillary Clinton is a cancer on the Democratic Party.
    Just like the lying of all former Republican Presidents were (and still are) a cancer on the Repugnant Party.

    That's exactly why B. Sanders is steadily gaining popularity. People want something different, and don't understand that the POTUS is nothing more than a sock puppet for the wealthy elite that control the country.

    Maybe Bernie can change things for the better? I don't know, but I'm willing to give him my vote and at least try for something different. What's the worst that could happen?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2015 6:27 AM GMT
    paulflexes said
    socalfitness saidThe blatant lying of Obama, aides, and Hillary Clinton is a cancer on the Democratic Party.
    Just like the lying of all former Republican Presidents were (and still are) a cancer on the Repugnant Party.

    That's exactly why B. Sanders is steadily gaining popularity. People want something different, and don't understand that the POTUS is nothing more than a sock puppet for the wealthy elite that control the country.

    Maybe Bernie can change things for the better? I don't know, but I'm willing to give him my vote and at least try for something different. What's the worst that could happen?

    Worst that could happen? Be on the road to Greece. The problem with socialism, as Margaret Thatcher said, is eventually you run out of other people's money.

    Sanders is refreshingly truthful, but so is Trump who would be much better for the country - just comparing the two.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2015 7:10 PM GMT
    The real enemy of the US is in the White House

    -------------------------------

    Obama's Iran deal presser: A lie a minute

    Is it more worrisome that the president is lying about what's in the Iran deal, or that he actually believes what he's saying?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/obamas_iran_deal_presser_a_lie_a_minute.html

    -------------------------------

    The timeline of Obama's Iran capitulation

    Some suggest that President Obama was naïve, or misguided, or a poor negotiator to end up with such a bad deal. Normally this would be true – if one believed that Obama really wanted what he said he wanted. But I don't believe that anyone could be so inept. I must conclude that he has lied all along about what he wanted and was merely saying so as a cover for his true goals.

    At one point in negotiations, Iran was down for the count. Rather than delivering a coup de grâce by tightening sanctions, Obama released sanctions and money, thereby resuscitating Iran. Who does that? Certainly not someone who wanted to win.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/the_timeline_of_obamas_iran_capitulation.html

    -------------------------------

    The Iran Deal: Making War More Likely?

    The deal is done. Iran has sort-of promised it won’t build nuclear weapons, but even the promise has serious caveats: Iran can continue to build weapons platforms to deliver the non-existent weapons; it can cooperate with friendly countries to acquire enhancements to weapons delivery technology; and it can prevent entry to requested facilities by international inspectors for 24 days per request; it need not account for prior military activity. And Iran will be vastly richer.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/the_iran_deal_making_war_more_likely.html