Dragon makes a good point. I am pretty sure we all know every admin distorts the truth to achieve the end they want. That is not the issue here nor can it be a justification . Because a POTUS in the past has distorted/ lied does that mean this POTUS gets a pass on this or any of his lies/ distortions? For BO "Plausible deniability" has come to mean he knows nothing and even if he says something that turns out to be proven a lie/ dostort he didn't actually say what he said.
I'm not sure any of the past administrations ever reached the level of incompetency and secrecy as the current administration. Nixon doesn't even come close and he's about the only one that can be brought up unless you want to go back a century to Grant. I know the left will say W but that's just the hate coming out.
Bush and Obama are the yin and yang of FAIL. GWB, with his faulty intelligence reports and eagerness for regime change in Iraq, led America into an incredibly costly ($1 trillion dollars by some counts, along with tens of thousands of U.S. troops killed or injured) war that has left the public (rightfully) war weary and a U.S. Treasury that is running on fumes. Obama, on the other hand, is the polar opposite: an idealist who thinks that the power of good intentions can overcome messy realities in the Middle East, where centuries/millenia of conflict and tensions still simmer. The political pendulum in America has swung from one incompetent extreme to the other, knocking over a lot of pins in the process. It's so beautiful, one has to laugh if not cry. The Islamic theocratic government of Iran, from its very inception, has absolutely hated the United States. Obama-Kerry's willingness to trust them when their (defiant) words and actions indicate unabated enrichment of uranium far beyond what is needed for "peaceful energy" purposes, is the pinnacle of naivete. Iran is adjusting their nuclear program so as not to cross the most obvious thresholds in order to get economic sanctions relief. They'll take the relief and continue building 5% uranium stockpiles, which is only a short way from having weapons grade uranium. When the time comes for them to "break out", they won't have far to go at all (assuming that they don't get there via plutonium or secret enrichment locations first).
An idealist? Really? I don't see that at all (and don't say it's because I'm racist, hate him, etc.) Idealism is the last thing I think of with this administration. That's my opinion and I'm all about having one and not getting in trouble with the government.
When a President, in his inter/nationally broadcast inauguration speech, says "We'll extend a hand if they'll unclench their fist" to a nation/government that appears dead set on acquiring nuclear [weapons] capability, that fits my definition of an idealist. I should add that it was a very nice and poetic gesture to make, although (unfortunately) laughable as well.
If Idealist = Credulous, unrealistic, gullible, susceptible, beguiled or duped, then I'm with you. Otherwise, I don't think idealism is the word here. Foreign diplomacy is not a strength of this administration. They only know how to bow.
HHD You are not paying attention. BO is STRONG at looking into the tv cameras and announcing that he knew nothing. Think how many times he has said that this year alone That is strong, sick weak and incompetent but strong in thinking his supporters will buy it every time and so far?
Can someone explain to me how BO thinks he can get away with lie after lie after lie. Lies that are so easily disproved? Take this lie about the agreement just signed with Iran. BO announced that under the agreement, 'Iran cannot use its next-generation centrifuges, which are used for enriching uranium.' He also said the Islamic republic 'will halt work at its plutonium reactor. The actual agreement which is available for any BO supporter to read has no such commitments. How stupid inept or hubristic does the jack *** BO have to be to think his lie wouldn't be exposed?
paso aren't you one of the posters who has made the point that you aren't going to do other people's research?
I figured you could not back this claim up. I link things all the time including a link on this thread to the White House outline of the interim agreement. I looked on the web for the actual agreement and the one that I found seems to follow the White House outline except the 20% HEU is treated a bit more complexly than the outline. If this is or was some huge lie, I would like to know. I get that Iran, for domestic consumption, is reluctant to admit to any agreement or restriction. I am asking to see the actual agreement and an example of a "lie" by Obama because I do not see it when comparing the two.
paso so for you to think BO admin to be tellling the truth and the text released by Iran is not true you would need to see BO refute that the text released by Iran is not the actual text? I am asking 1. which ' release' is factual, The one that Bo releaed on his web site or the one the Iranians released that it says shows BO 's release distorts? and I am asking which is it that iran has NO right to enrich as Kerry insists when asked by Stepanoplis if the deal included iran's right to enrich? Kerry says No there is NO right to enrich. so who is right? The Link
I have looked at the White House release and the actual agreement. The White House summary accurately reflects the agreement. You are certainly welcome to point out where it is inaccurate or as you claim a "lie". I am asking you to put up or shut up.
paso ? I never claimed the White house website's version of the agreement is a lie. I pointed out with links that the Iranian gov't said the WH version distorted the final agreement Iran posted what they said is the actual version of the final agreement. I asked and ask again, if the version iran put out is not the final agreement why has BO etc not refuted it and posted the actual final agreement instead of a summary? I did say there appears to be a lie with the BO admin when Kerry says on ABC that iran does not have the right to enrich. We know BO etc lie so I guess this isn't that big a surprise What exactly do you think I should put up? I think putting up you tube of BO's boy Kerry saying Iran has NO right to enrich proves my point. When or if BO gets around to posting the entire text of the final agreement we can compare it to the one Iran posted and see if Iran posted the same one
According to the White House summary and the Interim Agreement, Iran can (for at least the next 6 months) enrich uranium to 5% under daily inspections of the IAEA. These daily inspections include amounts and purity. 5% enriched uranium cannot be used in a nuclear weapon. I am not sure where the word "right" comes from because it is only implied from the Interim Agreement (BTW it is called something other than the Interim Agreement). So the answer is sort of yes to 5% (because the Interim Agreement only restricts above this) or no for weapons grade. Here is the Interim Agreement: The Link edit: I did not consider the impact of the Non-Proliferation Treaty on this issue. I believe Secretary of State Kerry is correct that Iran cannot enrich uranium in violation of the NPT. I see nothing in the Interim Agreement (Joint Statement) that would overrule the NPT.
paso thank you so Kerry was wrong. Iran does have the right. maybe he was waiting for Pelosi to read the agreement for him.
And watching what Sec. of State Kerry said he is 100% correct. Iran, as a signatory nation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, is in violation of it by enriching uranium. This is separate from the Interim Agreement (I think it is called the Joint Statement or something silly like this). There is nothing in the Joint Statement that overrules or overrides the NPT. The Joint Statement also clearly and obviously calls for further negotiations.
Sorry guys. I think Kerry is correct. The JS does not overrule the Non-Proliferation Treaty ("NPT"). I had not watched the entire video when I wrote my previous answer. You cannot (and I should not) analyze the JS without taking into consideration the NPT. The NPT is a treaty and the JS does not (and indeed cannot) overrule it. The JS restricts enrichment above 5%. It really does not say anything one way or the other about enrichment to 5%. By not restricting it, you could claim it impliedly allows it. This would be true except for the NPT.
So who decides whether or not the NPT is going to be enforced? It sounds like we signed an agreement that implies willful violation of the NPT. Which agreement superceedes the other? Does the president have the authority to make an agreement which implies violation of the NPT? Who will enforce the NPT? Why should other countries comply with the NPT if we are going to make random exceptions to its enforcement? BTW, wiki states: After the agreement was concluded, Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif stated that the pact ensures Iran's right to enrich. Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov also stated that the agreement recognized Iran's right to enrichment, so long as the program is under IAEA control. Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman agreed with this assessment of the language in the agreement, although he was displeased by it. By contrast, Secretary of State John Kerry, who led the American negotiation team, disputed that the agreement guaranteed a "right to enrich." According to Iran expert Ray Takeyh the agreement showed that uranium enrichment is "respected in practice but not acknowledged just yet." The agreement does not provide a clear answer about whether or not Iran has a right to enrich uranium. It refers to Iran's "right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes" and in its first phase allows Iran to continue some enrichment activities. Regarding a comprehensive long-term solution, the text states "This comprehensive solution would enable Iran to fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the NPT in conformity with its obligations therein. This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment program with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the program." But my question based on this is what will happen if Iran chooses to continue enrichment? What enforcement mechanism will this administration use, if Iran chooses to enrich? Only the US thinks that Iran is unable to enrich. If the US allows enrichment to continue, it shows that this administration is not telling the truth and the agreement allows enrichment or it shows that the US is unwilling to enforce the agreement that it just signed. And btw, Iran is enriching uranium as we speak so at this point it sounds like we aren't going to enforce the NPT or this new agreement. And from the NY Post: As much as any other foreign policy issue during President Obama’s five years in office, the question of Iran sanctions now finds him at odds with a hefty portion of his own party’s lawmakers, as well as most Republicans. A bipartisan juggernaut of senior senators is spending the remaining week of the Thanksgiving recess forging agreement on a new sanctions bill that the senators hope to pass before breaking again for Christmas.
?? So the USA and other Western nations signed this agreement with Iran, according to paso's post Halt all enrichment above 5% and dismantle the technical connections required to enrich above 5%. and then Kerry's says without exception in response to George's question on this NEW agreement "" there is no inherent right to enrich: when there clearly is. As even paso agrees Kerry and BO will still try to paly word games. I kinda wish the BO supporters on here would not stoop to the Bo loes and dodges
Somehow your post reminds me of a dog chasing its tail. Do you know what the NPT is? Did Iran sign it?
sounds like a complete clusterfuck. Kerry and Obama think the agreement says one thing and everyone else thinks it says something else entirely. And by de facto, nuclear enrichment in Iran will continue. Meanwhile Democrats and Republicans in the Democrat controlled Senate want to increase sanctions against Iran. Israel and most of the middle east want to end Iran's nuclear program. And getting Russia and China back on board with sanctions will be nearly impossible.
Doesn't sound like he thinks it's a good deal Here is a link to an article by a law professor at the University of Alabama who has written several books regarding non-prolifieration law. I don't think he is impressed...
