http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/08/20/its-miller-time-judy-that-is/ Lads, thumb, bobby, treeman et al Fool you once shame on them; fool you twice shame on you. Here's how they did it before with the wmd and the push for the Iraq War and how they are doing it again with the Iran deal and the supposed Iranians inspecting themselves ploy. ********* How they fooled you on the Iraq War 1)We know the Bush II administration did an end run around the intelligence agencies and set up their own parallel intelligence-gathering apparatus in order to justify the march to war. And those “rogue” ad hoc groups, mostly centered in the civilian arm of the Pentagon’s policy shop, cherry-picked “talking points” out of unverified rumors and tall stories fed to them by the Iraqi National Congress. INC leader Ahmed Chalabi, who was on the CIA payroll, was the conduit for this, feeding both the “Office of Special Plans” and Miller at the New York Times. Miller’s key role in all this is now the subject of story and song: Chalabi and his fellow “heroes in error” would pass on their carefully calibrated lies to Miller, who would put them on the front page of the New York Times – just in time for Dick Cheney to be asked about it on “Meet the Press” or whatever administration sounding board was being utilized that Sunday morning. The War Party is using the same strategy this time around, feeding disinformation to the media on the Iran deal to our compliant media. Just take a look at the brouhaha over this story by George Jahn of the Associated Press. The Jahn story has caused a media uproar, with the War Party in Washington frothing at the mouth, because the way the story is written makes it appear as if the Obama administration has caved to the Iranians in a way that any lay person looking at this would find appalling. The issue involves the Parchin military facility, which has been the site of suspected past nuclear activity in the early part of the decade, i.e. some 12 years ago – and the means by which it will be inspected. In short, we know the Iranians conducted some type of nuclear research and development at Parchin, and we also know it has long since been abandoned. But the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) protocol calls for the complete revelation of all past military applications of nuclear energy research before its gives its imprimatur to signatories of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). This has nothing to do with the negotiations between Tehran and the P5+1, which were limited to what steps Iran would take now to limit its nuclear activities to purely peaceful means. It was and is a side agreement solely between the IAEA and the Iranians. Yet the Jahn story, promoted as an AP “exclusive,” has this jarring headline: “UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site” – as if the Iranians are suspected of building nukes at Parchin and the hapless toothless UN is going to let the Iranians “self-inspect.” The casual reader is left with the general impression that Iran is being trusted to inspect itself – and that’s the idea. War propaganda is simply telling lies, and that’s what this headline represents.
You realize this is a past nuclear site, not a current one and has nothing to do with the agreement negotiated? What boggles my mind about those who vote against this deal and oppose it overall. If this deal gets voted down by congress via overriding the President, the result will be the U.S. sanctions remain in place, but every other country drops their sanctions and Iran basically can return to what it wants economically. Furthermore, it would then be free to legally develop an atomic bomb within 6 months. How do you resolve that fact???
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...3e6745d8_story.html?postshare=651440258825034 An op piece from Brent Scowcroft, a republican and national security adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and Georg H.W. Bush. He's on point and every single one of his arguments have been played out in this thread.
Glynch, whereas I do believe we all, Democrats and Republicans alike, made a mistake entering into a war with Iraq (although I do NOT agree with a crazed anti-war blogger that you cited saying Bush used nefarious means to start the war). However, I do NOT recant my assessment of Obama's outright assistance to the Muslim cause. He has been so weak (whether by design or incompetence) and so far-leftist in his policies that he is driving the nation too far to the right. That is one reason for the sudden, seemingly unstoppable passion for Donald Trump, who IMO is too far to the right. The nation, IMO, needs a candidate like John Kasich, Ohio governor, who is center right, not crazy right as opposed to Obama's (and your) crazy left. He is the right guy to get us out of the mucky swamp known as Obama's economic malaise. Also, IMO, Kasich is prudent enough to keep us out of any unnecessary wars but strong enough to know when and where to use military force. Of course, I think Hilary is toast, but, if Bill engineers her escape, I would vote for Trump before I would vote for her. She would find a way to cheat the nation out of billions for the sake of her own pocketbook. Trump, at least, would have a Congressional leash, one that Hilary, like Obama, would simply ignore.
poor thumbs At what point do we not look at sane republicans and ask. What country and President do you support? Former National Security Adviser Scowcroft Endorses Iran Deal Brent Scowcroft, the former national security adviser for two Republican presidents and considered a Washington sage, said he supports the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran and pressed Congress to support it.
Economic Malaise? You realize the Obama has lead the U.S. to the best economic situation of any major world economy. Europe did belt tightening and it totally backfired. Every major economy is weak except for one - the U.S. - which has created more jobs than both prior bushes combined. I ask you the question not a single conservative on this board has yet had the guts to answer when I asked them - wtf would you do with Iran?
Two percent growth for the economy is very weak. That's why Obama has to include part-time workers to prop up employment numbers and ignores that a disproportionate number of American workers are under employed or have dropped out of the work force. What would I do with Iran? If they violate the "agreement" in any way, I would increase the economic sanctions as well as seize their frozen assets and put the money into the U.S. Treasury. BTW, how about that Obama stock market?
It's in the blood and nature of Republican to reject this deal? Why Republicans Reject the Iran Deal — and All Diplomacy
U.S. growth rate is the highest amongst developed countries and beats out every other major 1st world economy coming out of one of the worst economic shocks in history second only to the great depression. The real unemployment rate - or U6 - is at 10% - when Obama took over it was 14%. 10% is historically about average and not considered detrimental. So you are saying that with Iran you would take the agreement? Basically you support the nuke deal then right? Obama stock market? Why does Obama control what the stock market does ona day to day level? If you want to attached it to Obama the S&P500 is still more than double it was back when he came into power.
You sound just as stupid as people who would've said "How 'bout that Bush stock market?" in September 2008.
First, I hope Congress rejects the Iranian "deal." However, I am assuming Obama will impose his will by successfully vetoing the rejection of this travesty. My response was predicated on this outcome. Second, I attribute the frailty of the stock market, just as you attribute its past frailty to Bush 43, directly to Obama and his policies. Third, you are using government employment job figures, which are wildly manipulated by the Obama administration. The real figures, according to Fox Business News and even CNN business news, are quite different.
You mean that stock market where he called the bottom? Yeah that stock market has been pretty good. The market has been up like 270% since then. Glad you are happy about Obama's call too.
Over the years (too many of them, I'm afraid) I have discovered that the people who resort to name calling generally are doing so because their position is so weak they cannot offer a rational disagreement or argument (as opposed to quarrel). I have my opinions, and I respect yours even though I sometimes agree and sometimes disagree.
I think your opinions regarding the president are consistently not grounded In reality and consists of half truths and speculative leaps. My two cents, of course. I mean if you tried reading the details of the agreement, you'd probably understand Hussein isn't the sole czar in charge of the framework. But reading the details and forming opinions for yourself unfiltered might be something different. We all suffer from having other people's thoughts becoming our own in certain topics. I myself have been victim to that in hindsight. No harm, no foul in that?
Yours is merely a softer aspersion, but aspersion nonetheless. Where is your quotation(s) of the "deal" that I need to read that will prove, or at least strengthen, your argument? Why are Republicans (obvious) and Democrats, including Shumer, opposed to the "deal" -- uh, because they read it? Impress me with your acumen ... please.
Ok, you still have yet to articulate what you would have done as president instead. That is what I have been asking for the past 3 months without an answer. Just sounds like people are attacking for the sake of attacking. Being a partisan hack is fine, but just come out and admit it. Some republicans say no deal would be better. Which would mean that sanctions would end (except from the U.S.) - Iran could get most of its assets and oil sales, and become a nuclear power. Is that what you would have rather had then right? No deal? Frailty? The stock market just had one of the greatest bull runs in history of stock markets. Corporate America has recorded the greatest profits ever known to human society. There's more money than ever. I think again you need to look at things more objectively. The truth is that Obama really hasn't had much to do with the stock market either direction. Up or down. What he has been able to do is push through a stimulus bill at the beginning of his presidency that helped stabilize a free fall and give time for fed policy to fuel a recover. That's about it. Seriously? You think the way they calculate numbers changed when Obama took office? Based on what? And what are the real figures? You haven't put them forward. Are you sure you aren't wearing a tin hat?
