Wrong.

7.) Obama and Kerry failed to get our hostages released.

The question you pose is ridiculous on its face. The two with the responsibility were unsuccessful again.

8.) There is no provision for Iran to stop their funding and supplying terrorists. Iran refused to stop and Kerry capitulated.

9.) The lifting of all sanctions on Iran immediately is specifically stated in the deal.

I have read the deal as it was given to Congress.
Obviously you have not.

Do you support the deal or reject it as to many in the Democrat leadership, The Republicans and the vast majority of The American People?

Not one of the statements above confirm that you understand any part of the agreement.

First, it is an international agreement and the US was part of a group called P5 + 1. This means that there had to be a consensus among members as to focus and the overall emphasis was on stopping Iran from building a nuclear bomb. The hostages, along with many other issues such as support for outside terrorist groups, were not on the agenda.

Your position on all issues is biased by your hatred for President Obama and you seem to believe the nutty stuff you post should inspire others to join you in this hatred. Hopefully, for the sake of your mental health this is only a part-time vocation.

You also have all the markings of a Limbaugh Dittohead. I've met many like you.

______________________________________________________________________

You don’t like Rush Limbaugh? No surprise there. I hear that from the liberals all the time but they can never explain why he has the largest audience in talk radio and the left has no audience.

Coming from a left-wing zealot your ridiculous rant is exactly that.
Apparently you are still too chicken&hit to say if you support the deal or not.

Typical liberal. Criticize others but take no position yourself.

You don’t like Rush Limbaugh? No surprise there. I hear that from the liberals all the time but they can never explain why he has the largest audience in talk radio and the left has no audience.

The "left" doesn't need anyone to tell them what to think or what to be outraged about.....but thanks for asking.......

The U.S. had Iraq handled but Obama cut and ran allowing ISIS to take over a third on the country.

Muleman, you are a special kind of fool. Well, here's a history lesson for you. In 2008, President George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. It included a deadline of 31 December 2011, before which "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory". The last U.S. combat troops left Iraq on 18 December 2011, in accordance with this agreement.

I don't buy into the spin that hostages are separate from this deal. On principle the failure to secure a release of US citizens as a prelude to good faith negotiations was a colossal failure.

The U.S. had Iraq handled but Obama cut and ran allowing ISIS to take over a third on the country.

Muleman, you are a special kind of fool. Well, here's a history lesson for you. In 2008, President George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. It included a deadline of 31 December 2011, before which "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory". The last U.S. combat troops left Iraq on 18 December 2011, in accordance with this agreement.

________________________________________________________________________

“President George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement”

Crap. No such agreement exists.
That is one of the many lies Obama told as a pretext to his cut and run.

I’ll give you a hint son. If Obama said it, it is generally a lie.

- or as your left-wing friends so love to say: prove it.
Post a link to that document.

The U.S. had Iraq handled but Obama cut and ran allowing ISIS to take over a third on the country.

Muleman, you are a special kind of fool. Well, here's a history lesson for you. In 2008, President George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. It included a deadline of 31 December 2011, before which "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory". The last U.S. combat troops left Iraq on 18 December 2011, in accordance with this agreement.

________________________________________________________________________

“President George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement”

Crap. No such agreement exists.
That is one of the many lies Obama told as a pretext to his cut and run.

I’ll give you a hint son. If Obama said it, it is generally a lie.

- or as your left-wing friends so love to say: prove it.
Post a link to that document.

Actually, if Muleman says it, it is generally a lie.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/15/republicans-blame-obama-iraq-bush-signed-agreement-leave.html

What any of the Republicans blaming Obama for pulling American troops out of Iraq in 2011 should remember, is that in October 2008 George W. Bush was president when the Status of Forces Agreement was drafted and ratified by Iraqi lawmakers a month later in November 2008. The pertinent part of the agreement that President Obama honored was that, “All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.” Still, Republicans are assailing the President for abandoning Iraq they were fully prepared to continue occupying in perpetuity, and forget that besides Bush, an ill-advised strategy by former Republican man-god General David Patraeus mishandling of the so-called “surge” that created the militant insurgency threatening to completely tear Iraq apart and finish completely destabilizing the region Bush’s invasion started eleven years ago.

http://world.time.com/2011/10/21/iraq-not-obama-called-time-on-the-u-s-troop-presence/

President Barack Obama’s announcement on Friday that all 40,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq will leave the country by New Year’s Eve will, inevitably, draw howls of derision from GOP presidential hopefuls — this is, after all, early election season. But the decision to leave Iraq by that date was not actually taken by President Obama — it was taken by President George W. Bush, and by the Iraqi government.

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal. The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. But President Bush hadn’t anticipated that Iraqi democracy would see pro-U.S. parties sidelined and would, instead, consistently return governments closer to Tehran than they are to Washington. Contra expectations, a democratic Iraq has turned out to be at odds with much of U.S. regional strategy — first and foremost its campaign to isolate Iran.

The Iraq that U.S. forces will leave behind is far from stable, and the mounting tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia could well see a renewed flare-up of Iraq’s disastrous sectarian civil war. A jihadist Sunni insurgency has reasserted itself in recent months with a steady uptick in terror attacks, and it could become a vehicle for Saudi proxy warfare against Iran, which backs the Maliki government and various Shi’ite political and military formations, including Sadr’s. Kurdish-Arab tensions are growing in the north, where the fate of such contested cities as Kirkuk remains unresolved and a source of mounting security danger. Iraq’s political future, also, remains contested, with sectarian and ethnic rivalries reflected in the continued failure to pass a low regulating the sharing of oil revenues, and mounting anxiety over the increasingly authoritarian approach of Prime Minister Maliki.

Iraq could yet fail as a state. But it’s not as if the presence of 40,000 U.S. troops has been all that’s holding it together: Those forces no longer patrol Iraq’s cities, and are mostly involved in mentoring Iraqi units, although they have played a major role in mediating Arab-Kurdish conflicts in the north.

Given the unresolved political conflicts that continue to plague the country even after its transition to democratic government — and in light of the rising levels of regional tension — chances are high that the U.S. withdrawal will be preceded and followed by a sharp uptick in violence. Shi’ite insurgent groups are likely to escalate attacks on U.S. forces, hoping to claim credit for driving out the Americans — and, no doubt, to please their Iranian backers. Sunni insurgent groups are likely to raise their own game, in order to challenge the Shi’ite dominated government and demonstrate its inability to ensure security — an exercise that will suit the agenda of their own backers.

The key to ensuring security after a U.S. withdrawal has always been achieving a regional consensus on Iraq that could set the terms for political compromise inside Iraq — or, at least, limit the likelihood of renewed violence. Unfortunately, instead, that withdrawal coincides with a sharp escalation in the Saudi-Iranian cold war, and that will spell trouble for Iraq.

Not that the U.S. will be out of the picture, by any stretch of the imagination. As things stand, the U.S. embassy in Iraq will have 17,000 employees — including at least 5,000 “security contractors”, i.e. non-uniformed military personnel. It’s not hard to imagine that future training needs of the Iraqi military will be undertaken by privateers rather than under the auspices of the Pentagon. And that the CIA — now under the command of Gen. David Petraeus, former U.S. commander in Iraq — will play a more active role in pursuing U.S. objectives on the ground and in the neighborhood.

But as of December 31, no more American soldiers will be doing tours of duty in Iraq. The war that ousted Saddam Hussein, unleashing an insurgency that left 4,500 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, and which will cost the U.S. upwards of $1 trillion, is finally over. Historians will note that the U.S. invasion of Iraq precipitated dramatic changes across the Middle East political landscape in the ensuing decade. But many of those changes were hardly the ones the war’s authors had in mind.

“President George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement”

Crap. No such agreement exists.
That is one of the many lies Obama told as a pretext to his cut and run.

I’ll give you a hint son. If Obama said it, it is generally a lie.

- or as your left-wing friends so love to say: prove it.
Post a link to that document.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf

You will be questioned on this so read it word for word. You might take a course on google skills as well.

You need to apologize as it is you who are wrong again.

“President George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement”

Crap. No such agreement exists.
That is one of the many lies Obama told as a pretext to his cut and run.

I’ll give you a hint son. If Obama said it, it is generally a lie.

- or as your left-wing friends so love to say: prove it.
Post a link to that document.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf

You will be questioned on this so read it word for word. You might take a course on google skills as well.

You need to apologize as it is you who are wrong again.

He won't.

He's a clueless troll who posts clownservative talking points he heard on hannity or limbaugh or beck.

When faced with facts he runs and hides after insulting whoever posted those pesky facts.

Why he hasn't been play penned yet is a mystery.

“President George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement”

Crap. No such agreement exists.
That is one of the many lies Obama told as a pretext to his cut and run.

I’ll give you a hint son. If Obama said it, it is generally a lie.

- or as your left-wing friends so love to say: prove it.
Post a link to that document.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf

You will be questioned on this so read it word for word. You might take a course on google skills as well.

You need to apologize as it is you who are wrong again.

_____________________________________________________________________

What you refer to was no final SOFA. That responsibility fell to Obama who failed to follow through.
For the first three years of his presidency Obama refused to even speak to the Iranian Prime Minister.
It was Obama’s obligation to work out the number of U.S. Troops that would remain for security purposes (Article 27.1) and instead he simply cut and ran.

Nice try but again you fail to understand… anything.

BTW – “You will be questioned on this”
Go fu*k yourself.

Over the weekend 4 more Congressional Democrats stated they will vote against the Obama/Kerry deal.

Full text of the Iran Nuclear Deal:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2165388/iran-deal-text.pdf

Full text of the Iran Nuclear Side Deal:

You and The U.S. Congress are not permitted to read or obtain any portion.

“President George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement”

Crap. No such agreement exists.
That is one of the many lies Obama told as a pretext to his cut and run.

I’ll give you a hint son. If Obama said it, it is generally a lie.

- or as your left-wing friends so love to say: prove it.
Post a link to that document.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf

You will be questioned on this so read it word for word. You might take a course on google skills as well.

You need to apologize as it is you who are wrong again.

_____________________________________________________________________

What you refer to was no final SOFA. That responsibility fell to Obama who failed to follow through.
For the first three years of his presidency Obama refused to even speak to the Iranian Prime Minister.
It was Obama’s obligation to work out the number of U.S. Troops that would remain for security purposes (Article 27.1) and instead he simply cut and ran.

Nice try but again you fail to understand… anything.

BTW – “You will be questioned on this”
Go fu*k yourself.

Maybe you should read the links you were given and you would learn that, once again, you are wrong.

BTW, when are you going to admit that you were wrong about the Antarctic ice melt? When will you admit that you were wrong by calling the S-300 missles ICBM's? When are you going to stop insulting others intelligence when you are wrong with just about everything you post?

Mulesman -

Honestly curious and would like to know what you make of this exerpt from a recent NY Times article on the Iran deal.

You said before "Patriotism trumps politics and ideology."

I think I am WITH you that patriotism should come first for elected members of the US government in this instance.

What are your thoughts on this:

"For Democrats who have long viewed themselves as supporters of Israel, Mr. Netanyahu’s speech sought to impress upon them the likelihood that they will eventually need to make an awkward, painful choice between the president of their country and their loyalty to the Jewish state."

BTW – “You will be questioned on this”
Go fu*k yourself.

You first, sweet cheeks.

“President George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement”

Crap. No such agreement exists.
That is one of the many lies Obama told as a pretext to his cut and run.

I’ll give you a hint son. If Obama said it, it is generally a lie.

- or as your left-wing friends so love to say: prove it.
Post a link to that document.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf

You will be questioned on this so read it word for word. You might take a course on google skills as well.

You need to apologize as it is you who are wrong again.

_____________________________________________________________________

What you refer to was no final SOFA. That responsibility fell to Obama who failed to follow through.
For the first three years of his presidency Obama refused to even speak to the Iranian Prime Minister.
It was Obama’s obligation to work out the number of U.S. Troops that would remain for security purposes (Article 27.1) and instead he simply cut and ran.

Nice try but again you fail to understand… anything.

BTW – “You will be questioned on this”
Go fu*k yourself.

Maybe you should read the links you were given and you would learn that, once again, you are wrong.

BTW, when are you going to admit that you were wrong about the Antarctic ice melt? When will you admit that you were wrong by calling the S-300 missles ICBM's? When are you going to stop insulting others intelligence when you are wrong with just about everything you post?

_____________________________________________________________________

I stand by what I said.
Misrepresenting my statements and then posing a falsehood from that misrepresentation, while a standard liberal tactic, doesn’t make me wrong.

“insulting others intelligence”

What intelligence?

And still all but one liberal will take no position on the deal.

“President George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement”

Crap. No such agreement exists.
That is one of the many lies Obama told as a pretext to his cut and run.

I’ll give you a hint son. If Obama said it, it is generally a lie.

- or as your left-wing friends so love to say: prove it.
Post a link to that document.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf

You will be questioned on this so read it word for word. You might take a course on google skills as well.

You need to apologize as it is you who are wrong again.

_____________________________________________________________________

What you refer to was no final SOFA. That responsibility fell to Obama who failed to follow through.
For the first three years of his presidency Obama refused to even speak to the Iranian Prime Minister.
It was Obama’s obligation to work out the number of U.S. Troops that would remain for security purposes (Article 27.1) and instead he simply cut and ran.

Nice try but again you fail to understand… anything.

BTW – “You will be questioned on this”
Go fu*k yourself.

Maybe you should read the links you were given and you would learn that, once again, you are wrong.

BTW, when are you going to admit that you were wrong about the Antarctic ice melt? When will you admit that you were wrong by calling the S-300 missles ICBM's? When are you going to stop insulting others intelligence when you are wrong with just about everything you post?

_____________________________________________________________________

I stand by what I said.
Misrepresenting my statements and then posing a falsehood from that misrepresentation, while a standard liberal tactic, doesn’t make me wrong.

“insulting others intelligence”

What intelligence?

And still all but one liberal will take no position on the deal.

Comment so stupid muledouche had to post it twice.

Muleman with all due respect you are simply telling us what Rush told you to tell us. I told you I've been exposed to this game before where you are given seconds to answer something like what would you do if Chicago was blown up by terrorists and any hesitation gets you labeled as a stupid liberal.

I am asking you to take a chance and think for yourself. Here is an article by Dr. Jeffrey Lewis who is Director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Yes I know he is an academic and Rush hates them but you have to figure he would not have gotten this position without knowing a lot about nuclear physics.

Here he explains the 24 day issue both in the way it is described in the agreement and the way it has been interpreted by people in opposition to the deal, including Chuck Schumer. I think it is not too much to ask that since you have spent so much energy trying to discredit the agreement--and to drum up hate for Obama which I think is the true motive here--you could at least demonstrate that you understand the agreement.

Chuck Schumer’s Disingenuous Iran Deal Argument

The good senator from New York may be voting his conscience, but he’s got the facts all wrong.

What can be said of the role that the U.S. Congress has tried to establish for itself when it comes to foreign policy? At the risk of out-Dicking former Vice President Cheney himself on the subject of executive authority, Congress is a “branch of government” in precisely the same way that college basketball fans are a “sixth man.” We don’t let fans call plays, other than as some kind of preseason stunt. I am not particularly interested in congressional views about the Iran deal.

Which brings us to New York Sen. Chuck Schumer.

Schumer is one of the most powerful members of the Senate, which is not quite the same thing as saying he’s dignified. Back in the 1990s, when he was a congressman, his House colleagues had a phrase for waking up to find he’d upstaged them in the media: to be “Schumed.” Washingtonians have long joked that the most dangerous place in town is between New York’s senior senator and a microphone. The Washington Post’s Emily Heil has suggested we retire that hackneyed cliché, replacing it instead with this bon mot from former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine:

“Sharing a media market with Chuck Schumer is like sharing a banana with a monkey,” Corzine was quoted as saying in New York magazine. “Take a little bite of it, and he will throw his own feces at you.”

On Thursday evening, right in the middle of the first GOP debate, Schumer reached back, took aim, and heaved a large one. He penned a long piece for Medium that some anonymous hack described as “thoughtful and deliberate.” Uh, ok. Maybe compared to Mike Huckabee’s outrage about “oven doors,” but good grief our standards for political discourse have fallen.

Schumer’s missive came across a bit like your crazy uncle who gets his opinions from talk radio and wants to set you straight at Thanksgiving. (I’m probably not the only one who thinks so. But then, I don’t have to pretend Schumer is some great statesman lest he put a hold on some future appointment or nomination.)

Consider how Schumer describes the inspections regime in the Iran deal.

Schumer starts by repeating the claim that “inspections are not ‘anywhere, anytime’; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling.” This would be very troubling if it were true. It isn’t. The claim that inspections occur with a 24-day delay is the equivalent of Obamacare “death panels.” Remember those? A minor detail has been twisted into a bizarre caricature and repeated over and over until it becomes “true.”

Let’s get this straight. The agreement calls for continuous monitoring at all of Iran’s declared sites — that means all of the time — including centrifuge workshops, which are not safeguarded anywhere else in the world. Inspectors have immediate access to these sites.

That leaves the problem of possible undeclared sites. What happens when the International Atomic Energy Agency suspects that prohibited work is occurring at an undeclared site? This is the problem known as the “Ayatollah’s toilet.” It emerged from the challenge of inspecting presidential palaces in Iraq in the 1990s, which — despite the U.N. Special Commission’s demands for immediate access — the Iraqis argued were off-limits.

Far from giving Iran 24 days, the IAEA will need to give only 24 hours’ notice before showing up at a suspicious site to take samples. Access could even be requested with as little as two hours’ notice, something that will be much more feasible now that Iran has agreed to let inspectors stay in-country for the long term. Iran is obligated to provide the IAEA access to all such sites — including, if it comes down to it, the Ayatollah’s porcelain throne.

But that’s not all. The Iran deal has a further safeguard for inspections at undeclared sites, the very provision that Schumer and other opponents are twisting. What happens if Iran tries to stall and refuses to provide access, on whatever grounds? There is a strict time limit on stalling. Iran must provide access within two weeks. If Iran refuses, the Joint Commission set up under the deal must decide within seven days whether to force access. Following a majority vote in the Joint Commission — where the United States and its allies constitute a majority bloc — Iran has three days to comply. If it doesn’t, it’s openly violating the deal, which would be grounds for the swift return of the international sanctions regime, known colloquially as the “snap back.”

This arrangement is much, much stronger than the normal safeguards agreement, which requires prompt access in theory but does not place time limits on dickering.

What opponents of the deal have done is add up all the time limits and claim that inspections will occur only after a 24-day pause. This is simply not true. Should the U.S. intelligence community catch the Iranians red-handed, it might be that the Iranians would drag things out as long as possible. But in such a case, the game would be over. Either the Iranians would never let the inspectors into the site, or its efforts to truck out documents or equipment, wash down the site, or bulldoze buildings, etc., would be highly visible. These tactics would crater the deal, with predictable consequences. (Schumer also takes a shot at the snap back. Say what you will about the probability of getting all parties to agree to reimpose sanctions, but agreements like this have never had such an enforcement provision before.)

Even if nefarious Iranian runarounds could be hidden, these efforts, over the course of a few weeks, would not suffice to hide environmental evidence of covert uranium enrichment. Schumer even admits as much. But, he insists, other weapons-related work, like high explosive testing without any nuclear materials, might go undetected.

This, too, is a specious objection. For comparison, opponents of this deal have spent enormous amounts of time demanding access to Iran’s Parchin facility, where precisely this sort of weaponization work appears to have taken place between 1996 and 2002. That was more than a decade ago. There is a certain tension between the claim that a few weeks is much too long and that access to a site 13 years after the fact is absolutely necessary. A person might get suspicious that these arguments aren’t to be taken at face value.

The simple truth is, some aspects of weapons work are hard to detect — no matter what. So what’s the alternative? To not prohibit that work? To permit Iran to do things like paper studies on nuclear weapons development because it’s hard to verify the prohibition? Again, that’s crazy. The Iran deal defines weapons work in far more detail than any previous agreement. That’s a good thing — and those of us who are skeptical of Iranian intentions should welcome it, not use it to attack the deal. The law insists that drug dealers pay their taxes. They don’t, but every now and again the feds put a gangster away for tax evasion. (Ask Al Capone.) Western intelligence services have shown considerable ingenuity in acquiring documents from Iran’s nuclear program. Even if it’s not guaranteed they would do so in the future, the prohibitions in the deal create additional opportunities to stop an illicit weapons program.

Some of us might think it’s good that the agreement puts defined limits on how much Iran can stall and explicitly prohibits a long list of weaponization activities. Opponents, like Schumer — apparently for want of anything better — have seized on these details to spin them into objections. A weaker, less detailed agreement might have been easier to defend against this sort of attack, perhaps.

But let’s not be too critical of Schumer’s insincerity. Despite having repeated these and other arguments against the Iran deal, Schumer, although a member of the Democratic leadership, has gone out of his way to signal that other caucus members should vote their conscience.

Congress has a long history of members voting against agreements while working to pass them.

Congress has a long history of members voting against agreements while working to pass them. Sen. Mitch McConnell, when he was minority leader, openly opposed the New START agreement, while paving the way for a small number of Republican senators to cross party lines to secure its ratification. Schumer appears to be doing something similar in this case, stating his personal opposition but not whipping votes against the deal.

That might be something less than a profile in courage, but it’s how Congress works. And I think it’s a pretty good reason not to let these characters anywhere near foreign policy. But then again, I would have advised the president to veto the Cardin-Corker bill that established this farce of a process. But Obama signed it and here we are.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/09/upchuck-senator-schumers-disingenuous-iran-deal-argument/

[Edited on 8/11/2015 by Swifty]

Comment so stupid muledouche had to post it twice.

_____________________________________________________________________

Seems that ron is still angry that his wife threw his a$$ out and the judge gave her 65% of his welfare checks.

Muleman with all due respect you are simply telling us what Rush told you to tell us. I told you I've been exposed to this game before where you are given seconds to answer something like what would you do if Chicago was blown up by terrorists and any hesitation gets you labeled as a stupid liberal.

I am asking you to take a chance and think for yourself. Here is an article by Dr. Jeffrey Lewis who is Director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Yes I know he is an academic and Rush hates them but you have to figure he would not have gotten this position without knowing a lot about nuclear physics.

Here he explains the 24 day issue both in the way it is described in the agreement and the way it has been interpreted by people in opposition to the deal, including Chuck Schumer. I think it is not too much to ask that since you have spent so much energy trying to discredit the agreement--and to drum up hate for Obama which I think is the true motive here--you could at least demonstrate that you understand the agreement.

Chuck Schumer’s Disingenuous Iran Deal Argument

The good senator from New York may be voting his conscience, but he’s got the facts all wrong.

What can be said of the role that the U.S. Congress has tried to establish for itself when it comes to foreign policy? At the risk of out-Dicking former Vice President Cheney himself on the subject of executive authority, Congress is a “branch of government” in precisely the same way that college basketball fans are a “sixth man.” We don’t let fans call plays, other than as some kind of preseason stunt. I am not particularly interested in congressional views about the Iran deal.

Which brings us to New York Sen. Chuck Schumer.

Schumer is one of the most powerful members of the Senate, which is not quite the same thing as saying he’s dignified. Back in the 1990s, when he was a congressman, his House colleagues had a phrase for waking up to find he’d upstaged them in the media: to be “Schumed.” Washingtonians have long joked that the most dangerous place in town is between New York’s senior senator and a microphone. The Washington Post’s Emily Heil has suggested we retire that hackneyed cliché, replacing it instead with this bon mot from former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine:

“Sharing a media market with Chuck Schumer is like sharing a banana with a monkey,” Corzine was quoted as saying in New York magazine. “Take a little bite of it, and he will throw his own feces at you.”

On Thursday evening, right in the middle of the first GOP debate, Schumer reached back, took aim, and heaved a large one. He penned a long piece for Medium that some anonymous hack described as “thoughtful and deliberate.” Uh, ok. Maybe compared to Mike Huckabee’s outrage about “oven doors,” but good grief our standards for political discourse have fallen.

Schumer’s missive came across a bit like your crazy uncle who gets his opinions from talk radio and wants to set you straight at Thanksgiving. (I’m probably not the only one who thinks so. But then, I don’t have to pretend Schumer is some great statesman lest he put a hold on some future appointment or nomination.)

Consider how Schumer describes the inspections regime in the Iran deal.

Schumer starts by repeating the claim that “inspections are not ‘anywhere, anytime’; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling.” This would be very troubling if it were true. It isn’t. The claim that inspections occur with a 24-day delay is the equivalent of Obamacare “death panels.” Remember those? A minor detail has been twisted into a bizarre caricature and repeated over and over until it becomes “true.”

Let’s get this straight. The agreement calls for continuous monitoring at all of Iran’s declared sites — that means all of the time — including centrifuge workshops, which are not safeguarded anywhere else in the world. Inspectors have immediate access to these sites.

That leaves the problem of possible undeclared sites. What happens when the International Atomic Energy Agency suspects that prohibited work is occurring at an undeclared site? This is the problem known as the “Ayatollah’s toilet.” It emerged from the challenge of inspecting presidential palaces in Iraq in the 1990s, which — despite the U.N. Special Commission’s demands for immediate access — the Iraqis argued were off-limits.

Far from giving Iran 24 days, the IAEA will need to give only 24 hours’ notice before showing up at a suspicious site to take samples. Access could even be requested with as little as two hours’ notice, something that will be much more feasible now that Iran has agreed to let inspectors stay in-country for the long term. Iran is obligated to provide the IAEA access to all such sites — including, if it comes down to it, the Ayatollah’s porcelain throne.

But that’s not all. The Iran deal has a further safeguard for inspections at undeclared sites, the very provision that Schumer and other opponents are twisting. What happens if Iran tries to stall and refuses to provide access, on whatever grounds? There is a strict time limit on stalling. Iran must provide access within two weeks. If Iran refuses, the Joint Commission set up under the deal must decide within seven days whether to force access. Following a majority vote in the Joint Commission — where the United States and its allies constitute a majority bloc — Iran has three days to comply. If it doesn’t, it’s openly violating the deal, which would be grounds for the swift return of the international sanctions regime, known colloquially as the “snap back.”

This arrangement is much, much stronger than the normal safeguards agreement, which requires prompt access in theory but does not place time limits on dickering.

What opponents of the deal have done is add up all the time limits and claim that inspections will occur only after a 24-day pause. This is simply not true. Should the U.S. intelligence community catch the Iranians red-handed, it might be that the Iranians would drag things out as long as possible. But in such a case, the game would be over. Either the Iranians would never let the inspectors into the site, or its efforts to truck out documents or equipment, wash down the site, or bulldoze buildings, etc., would be highly visible. These tactics would crater the deal, with predictable consequences. (Schumer also takes a shot at the snap back. Say what you will about the probability of getting all parties to agree to reimpose sanctions, but agreements like this have never had such an enforcement provision before.)

Even if nefarious Iranian runarounds could be hidden, these efforts, over the course of a few weeks, would not suffice to hide environmental evidence of covert uranium enrichment. Schumer even admits as much. But, he insists, other weapons-related work, like high explosive testing without any nuclear materials, might go undetected.

This, too, is a specious objection. For comparison, opponents of this deal have spent enormous amounts of time demanding access to Iran’s Parchin facility, where precisely this sort of weaponization work appears to have taken place between 1996 and 2002. That was more than a decade ago. There is a certain tension between the claim that a few weeks is much too long and that access to a site 13 years after the fact is absolutely necessary. A person might get suspicious that these arguments aren’t to be taken at face value.

The simple truth is, some aspects of weapons work are hard to detect — no matter what. So what’s the alternative? To not prohibit that work? To permit Iran to do things like paper studies on nuclear weapons development because it’s hard to verify the prohibition? Again, that’s crazy. The Iran deal defines weapons work in far more detail than any previous agreement. That’s a good thing — and those of us who are skeptical of Iranian intentions should welcome it, not use it to attack the deal. The law insists that drug dealers pay their taxes. They don’t, but every now and again the feds put a gangster away for tax evasion. (Ask Al Capone.) Western intelligence services have shown considerable ingenuity in acquiring documents from Iran’s nuclear program. Even if it’s not guaranteed they would do so in the future, the prohibitions in the deal create additional opportunities to stop an illicit weapons program.

Some of us might think it’s good that the agreement puts defined limits on how much Iran can stall and explicitly prohibits a long list of weaponization activities. Opponents, like Schumer — apparently for want of anything better — have seized on these details to spin them into objections. A weaker, less detailed agreement might have been easier to defend against this sort of attack, perhaps.

But let’s not be too critical of Schumer’s insincerity. Despite having repeated these and other arguments against the Iran deal, Schumer, although a member of the Democratic leadership, has gone out of his way to signal that other caucus members should vote their conscience.

Congress has a long history of members voting against agreements while working to pass them.

Congress has a long history of members voting against agreements while working to pass them. Sen. Mitch McConnell, when he was minority leader, openly opposed the New START agreement, while paving the way for a small number of Republican senators to cross party lines to secure its ratification. Schumer appears to be doing something similar in this case, stating his personal opposition but not whipping votes against the deal.

That might be something less than a profile in courage, but it’s how Congress works. And I think it’s a pretty good reason not to let these characters anywhere near foreign policy. But then again, I would have advised the president to veto the Cardin-Corker bill that established this farce of a process. But Obama signed it and here we are.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/09/upchuck-senator-schumers-disingenuous-iran-deal-argument/

[Edited on 8/11/2015 by Swifty]

_______________________________________________________________________

I’ve never heard a Rush Limbaugh show.
Apparently you listen regularly.

Your post is from a far-left zealot who will say anything to try and bolster Obama and Kerry’s bad deal.

I’ll stick with the actual facts of the bad deal.

Are you comfortable with the side deal that The U.S. has no part of and am allowed to read?

look, i know there are some that do not trust Media Matters, but we all don't trust other websites either from either side of the fence. with that said i am going to post this article. take it for what you want.

it reads alot better on the website.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/11/four-demonstrably-false-claims-about-the-iran-d/204881

Four Demonstrably False Claims About The Iran Deal That Are Showing Up On The Opinion Pages
Research 1 hour and 48 minutes ago ››› DANIEL ANGSTER

Conservative opposition to the internationally-negotiated deal to limit Iran's ability to obtain a nuclear weapon has been the subject of numerous editorials and op-eds in U.S. newspapers that have pushed false information about the agreement and warned that it compromises U.S. and Israeli security, despite widespread praise from nuclear arms control experts who say the deal is "excellent compared to where we are today."

Iran Agrees To Historic Deal With U.S And World Powers To Maintain Transparent, Peaceful Nuclear Program

Nuclear Deal Lifts U.S. Economic Sanctions On Iran In Exchange For Guarantee Of Verifiable Peaceful Nuclear Program. President Obama and the leaders of world powers England, France, Russia, China, and Germany reached a landmark nuclear agreement with Iran that "lifts economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for guarantees that its nuclear energy program remains peaceful." The New York Times reported that the agreement includes a "snapback mechanism to renew United Nations sanctions" in the event that Iran is perceived as violating the deal that "allows the full raft of penalties to resume automatically":

The agreement lifts economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for guarantees that its nuclear energy program remains peaceful. It is to be endorsed by a Security Council resolution that is expected to pass when it comes up for a vote on Monday. The resolution is to take effect 90 days later, a window of time long enough to let Congress consider the matter and for President Obama to veto a rejection, if necessary.

The so-called snapback mechanism to renew United Nations sanctions is one of the most unusual parts of the deal. In the event that Iran is perceived as violating it, the agreement allows the full raft of penalties to resume automatically, without a vote on the Council that would risk a veto by one of its permanent members -- namely, Russia, Iran's closest ally on the Council.

Instead, the snapback mechanism allows any of the six world powers that negotiated the deal to flag what it considers a violation. They would submit their concerns to a dispute resolution panel. If those concerns remained unresolved, the sanctions would automatically resume after 30 days, or "snap back." According to the draft Security Council resolution, this means that the previous penalties "shall apply in the same manner as they applied before."

Preventing a resumption of sanctions would require a vote by the Security Council. That in turn can be vetoed by those who would want the sanctions resumed, presumably the United States and its Western allies.

The snapback provision allows the United States, as one of Iran's toughest critics on the Council, to use the veto power to its advantage. "It's reversing the power of the veto," one Council diplomat said. "The ones that will likely veto are the ones likely to push for the snapback." [The New York Times, 7/16/15; Media Matters, 8/7/15]

FALSEHOOD: Iran Has A Secret, Advantageous Side Deal With International Atomic Energy Agency

Writing In The Columbus Dispatch, David Harsanyi Claimed A"Secret" Deal Exists Between IAEA And Iran. David Harsanyi, editor of The Federalist, wrote about a "secret" deal between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Iran concerning the inspections of nuclear facilities:

How many of the voters now familiar with Huckabee's comment understand that there is a secret side deal between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Tehran? How many Americans outraged by Huckabee's comment know that the IAEA will rely on Iran to collect samples at one of its military bases? Do they know that we will give the Iranian regime hundreds of billions of dollars to fund Hamas and Hezbollah -- organizations that aren't squeamish about expressing their views on a second Holocaust? [Columbus Dispatch, 8/1/15]

Chicago Tribune: Bilateral Agreements Between The IAEA And Iran Undermine The Inspection Process. The editorial board of the Chicago Tribune called on the Obama administration to give members of Congress access to the confidential inspection deal between the IAEA and Tehran so lawmakers can learn more details about inspections.

Under the main agreement, Iran is supposed to allow access to its military or civilian sites where IAEA inspectors suspect Iran has done nuclear weapons research and development. High on the list is Parchin, a military complex that the IAEA has tried to inspect for the last three years because experts believe Iran tested nuclear weapons-related equipment there before 2004. But now we learn from Congressional hearings that a separate Iran-IAEA accord could put Iran, not international inspectors, in charge of taking environmental samples at Parchin, under still-to-be-determined IAEA supervision. Sen. James Risch of Idaho of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee aptly compared that arrangement to allowing professional athletes suspected of drug abuse to mail in their own urine samples.

We'd guess the Parchin inspection probably won't turn up much. Since the IAEA demanded to visit Parchin in 2012, Iran has had plenty of time to scrub and reconstruct the base.

But Parchin is just one military facility that the IAEA should visit. What are the ground rules for all the others? Will Iran call the shots? Or will the IAEA? That's unclear. Kerry and other U.S. officials tell Congress they don't have the confidential IAEA-Iran document so they can't turn it over.

Please.

Here's a simple two-step process for the administration to resolve these questions. Step one: Get the document from the IAEA. Step two: Turn it over to Congress. [Chicago Tribune, 8/2/15]

FACT: Confidential Inspection Agreements Are Routine In Nuclear Arms Reduction Deals And Unrelated To U.S. Role In Inspections

Center On Arms Control And Non-Proliferation: Confidential Inspections Have Proven Trustworthy And Shield Informants Who Help Ensure Effective Inspections. According to the Center On Arms Control and Non-Proliferation (CACNP), bilateral confidential agreements like the one in the just-concluded Iran nuclear deal have featured in many nuclear arms reduction deals - most recently with Libya. CACNP has warned that revealing information about agreements between the IAEA and Iran could jeopardize potential informants.

Under the deal, Iran must submit a full report to the IAEA regarding its nuclear history before it can receive any sanctions relief. The IAEA will review the report and follow-up with Iran in order to conclude its investigation. The IAEA has said that it expects to complete this report by the end of 2015.

Some critics are calling this a secret side deal between the IAEA and Iran; however, this is standard operating procedure, and every such agreement the IAEA has with other countries is also confidential. This was even true during the IAEA's inspections into Libya. While the general public is not privy to the details of the arrangement, it is safe to assume that the United States government has been fully briefed on the procedures.

The arrangement specifies procedural information regarding how the IAEA will conduct its investigation into Iran's past nuclear history, including mentioning the names of informants who will be interviewed. Releasing this information would place those informants, and the information they hold, at risk.

The United States Is a Key Member Of The IAEA And Will Analyze Iranian Inspection Data At Vienna Headquarters. While the IAEA is a non-aligned United Nations organization, its 164 members control inspections protocol. The United States is a charter member of the IAEA - the agency was created in response to U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower's 'Atoms for Peace' speech at the UN in 1953 -- and supplies a large portion of its experts and funding.

Thomas Shea, who spent more than two decades as an IAEA inspector, says Iran does not accept any American inspectors today. He recently told the Atlantic Council that he hopes that will change.

"I do think that there's a need for more Americans on the staff," he said, pointing out that the U.S. pays a quarter of the IAEA's $380 million annual budget. Shea says this should entitle the U.S. to have one out of four of the inspector jobs.

[...]

The IAEA needs to make sure that its reports on Iran are viewed around the world as objective, [Trevor Findlay of Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs] said. He thinks the U.S. could do more in Vienna, where the inspectors' reports are analyzed and where the IAEA's task force on Iran is based.

"The United States often provides cost-free experts to the agency, they provide technology, they provide intelligence information, so the role of the United States is critical," Findlay said. [NPR,7/18/15; IAEA, accessed 8/7/15]

NPR: Absence Of U.S.-Iranian Diplomatic Relations Excludes Americans From On-The-Ground Inspections. According to NPR, because the U.S. does not maintain normal diplomatic relations with Iran, American inspectors are unable to obtain the necessary visas to enter Iran as part of an IAEA delegation. The public radio station quoted the agreement as saying that Iran "will generally allow the designation of inspectors from nations that have diplomatic relations with Iran."

Since the U.S. and Iran broke off ties after the 1979 Islamic revolution, it appears unlikely that any American inspectors will be getting a first-hand look at the Iranian nuclear facilities.

Trevor Findlay of Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs says it is not necessary and, perhaps, not helpful, to have American inspectors inside Iran.

"In the Iraq case that was a significant point of controversy," Findlay told NPR. The presence of US inspectors in UN teams in Iraq "caused political difficulties and in the end was counterproductive." [NPR, 7/18/15]

FALSEHOOD: Iran Could Deny Inspectors Access To Sites And Hide Incriminating Material During Appeals Process

Abilene Christian University Professor Neal Coates: Iranians Could Scrub Nuclear Sites During Inspection Delay Period. In a sarcasm-laced op-ed for the Abilene Reporter-News headlined, "All for the Iran deal...if you are Iranian," professor Neal Coats of Texas' Abilene Christian University wrote mockingly about the terms of agreement and said he "had no fear" that Iranians would try to hide evidence of banned activities in the time it takes IAEA inspectors to win access to undeclared nuclear sites:

Instead, there will be a robust and verifiable inspections program. I don't mind the U.S. has given up insistence on "anytime, anywhere" inspections. Under the agreement, Iran can deny inspectors access to any undeclared nuclear site. Shouldn't any country?

The denial is then adjudicated by a committee and can go through several bodies, on all of which Iran sits. Even if inspectors prevail, the approval process can take 24 days. I have no fear of scrubbing at suspected sites -- managed access will work. [Abilene Reporter-News, 8/9/15]

Former Congresswoman Shelly Berkley: Iran Will Use 24-Day Delay To 'Conceal Its Activities.' Israel Project board member and former U.S. Rep. Shelly Berkley (D-NV) wrote an op-ed for the Las Vegas Review-Journal that said provisions in the deal that allow Iran to delay some inspections would give it the ability to "conceal its activities."

Indeed, the question of access to nuclear sites is already buried in red tape. Although President Obama asserts that "the IAEA will have access where necessary, when necessary," Iran will have up to 24 days to stonewall the IAEA and conceal its activities. And if agreement on access to a site can't be reached, there is no mechanism to resolve it, which means the vital work of preventing Iran from weaponizing what the regime dishonestly insists is a civilian nuclear program cannot be carried out. [Las Vegas Review Journal, 7/18/15]

FACT: Highly Detectable Traces Of Uranium Remain Even After Removal

International Nonproliferation Expert: Uranium's 4 Billion Year Half-Life Makes It Highly Traceable And Difficult To Hide From Inspectors. Jon Wolfsthal, deputy director of the Center for Nonproliferation and senior director for arms control and nonproliferation at the U.S. National Security Council, explained that uranium's elemental makeup makes it difficult to conceal even in places where it is no longer stored (emphasis added):

U.S. officials say they will make sure the IAEA has what it needs. Jon Wolfsthal, a nuclear expert in the White House, told the Atlantic Council that the Obama administration is already offering technology to ensure Iran adheres to strict limits on its uranium enrichment program.

He cited the cameras and online enrichment monitors that will be installed at enrichment facilities.

"It's sort of like a thermostat. You could set it so that when it hits 3.67, you are good," Wolfsthal explained, referring to the level to which Iran can enrich uranium under the deal. "When it hits 3.68, it sends an alarm out and we know they've gone above the enrichment level."

IAEA inspectors won't just be monitoring known nuclear sites. They will also try to make sure there are no hidden facilities.

If inspectors want to go a site, Iran has a maximum of 24 days to let inspectors in or satisfy the IAEA's requests in other ways before Iran is found in non-compliance. Wolfsthal disagrees with those who say this deal gives Iran too much leeway.

"Are we worried Iran is going to build an underground enrichment or reprocessing facility? If they are, they can't get rid of it in 24 days," he said, describing uranium as a "pesky element" with a half-life of about 4 billion years. "That doesn't easily go away." [NPR, 7/18/15]

Global Nuclear Security Expert: Criticism Of Inspection Regime Is "Particularly Ridiculous To Anyone Who Knows Anything About Inspecting Nuclear Programs." Joe Cirincione of the Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation, said experts are in agreement that nothing could be added to the deal to increase the effectiveness of the inspections (emphasis added):

Joe Cirincione, president of the Washington-based Plowshares Fund, added[add space]Iran has very little, if any, room for error to hide a secret attempt at a nuclear program.

"The claims about the inspection regime are particularly ridiculous to anyone who knows anything about inspecting nuclear programs. If Iran were to flush the evidence down the toilet, they'd have a radioactive toilet. And if they were to rip out the toilet, they'd have a radioactive hole in the ground. They simply won't be able to cheat," he said.

"There is no silver bullet," to preventing a secret Iranian program, [Carnegie Endowment Nuclear Policy Program co-director James] Acton noted. "There is nothing else that could be included in this agreement that solves the problem. What it does contain is a series of provisions that significantly mitigate the chance."

In other words, while a black program may be hypothetical, it is logistically very, very difficult. And Iran was never going to allow inspectors 24/7 access to its entire territory, so the system put in place here helps create roadblocks to a secret program being spun up, Reif said.

According to [the senior director for arms control and nonproliferation at the U.S. National Security Council, Jon] Wolfsthal, Washington aims to expand the funding, technological expertise and personnel it contributes to the IAEA to ensure "24/7 monitoring.

"We're providing satellite coverage, live camera feeds, radio identification, tamper seals. ... We will know whatever goes on in those facilities," he said. [Defense News, 7/18/15]

FALSEHOOD: Sanctions Relief Will Greatly Increase Iran's Ability To Fund Terrorism

New Hampshire Union Leader Editorial Suggested Nuclear Deal Was Reckless Because Sanctions Relief Will Allow Iran To Fund Terrorists. The Union Leader seized on President Obama's statements that sanctions relief could "flow to activities that we object to" as a sign the deal would fund terrorism and should be rejected.

President Obama on Wednesday called his Iran deal "the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated." Minutes later, he conceded, "Now, this is not to say that sanctions relief will provide no benefit to Iran's military. Let's stipulate that some of that money will flow to activities that we object to."

Listing those activities, he specifically mentioned Iraq's financiaha hal support for terrorist organizations.

In an interview with The Atlantic, published Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry also conceded that lifting Iran's sanctions would increase funding for Syria's oppressive regime and terrorist organization Hezbollah. "Yes, but it's not dispositive," he said. "It's not money that's going to make a difference ultimately in what is happening."

Obama and Kerry admit the Iran deal will supply cash for the ongoing war against our friends and allies, and they call opponents of the deal "reckless." Incredible. [Union Leader, 8/5/15]

FACT: Intelligence Experts Believe Iran Will Use Sanction Relief To Restart Economy And Pay Down Debts; Also, Terrorists Would Benefit More From Rejection Of The Deal

Center On Arms Control And Non-Proliferation: Sanctions Relief Will Mostly Go To Servicing Iran's Outstanding Debts And Repairing Crippled Economy. CACNP citied a CIA report that showed much of the money that enters Iran after the sanctions are lifted would go to propping up the economy and paying down debts.

Furthermore, according to a report recently released by the CIA, Iran will use most of the released funds it receives from sanctions relief to bolster its economy, not to aid militant groups it supports.

Iran needs to invest in domestic development and reinvigorate its economy. Iranian President Rouhani has promised to revive the economy by completing formerly halted development projects and bringing down the rate of inflation--progress the Iranian people have been demanding.

Critics of the Iran deal like to exaggerate the amount of blocked funds Iran will receive, claiming that Iran will receive up to $300 billion in sanctions relief. According to US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, that figure is more like $50 billion. Iran owes at least $20 billion to China in addition to tens of billions in non-performing (unpaid) loans and has around $500 billion worth of pressing domestic investment requirements and government obligations.

Richard Nephew, Program Director of Economic Statecraft, Sanctions and Energy Markets at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, suggested "the issue of Iranian support for terrorism is not whether they have the financial resources to do it but rather whether they have the political will, opportunity, and foreign policy incentive... to do so. A nuclear deal will not change this."

CACNP: If The Deal Is Rejected And Iran Obtains A Bomb, Terrorist Allies Could Benefit From Protection Of Nuclear Deterrence. CACNP warned that "if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, the nuclear deterrent that Iran would extend to its terrorist allies would pose an even greater threat. This deal eliminates that threat, preventing a dramatically worse security situation."

Brookings: An Iranian Nuclear Weapon Could Be Used To Deter Israeli Retaliation Against Terrorist Groups. A Brookings Institute report on nuclear deterrence highlighted the threat of Iran extending nuclear deterrence to terrorist organizations as more dangerous than a conventional attack from Iranian.

For its part, Israel does not have to worry about a conventional Iranian attack as do Persian Gulf states, but it does worry at least as much about an Iranian nuclear arsenal as the Arab states because of the potential spur to Iranian asymmetric aggression against the Jewish state. Most Israeli strategic thinkers discount the likelihood of an Iranian nuclear strike. What they do expect is that, should Iran believe that its own nuclear capability can deter Israeli military retaliation, Tehran will press Hizballah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and its other Palestinian allies to attack Israel both more frequently and with much greater ferocity. [Brookings Institute, 5/1/2010]

FALSEHOOD: Iran Deal Makes The U.S. And Israel Less Safe

National Review Editor: The Nuclear Deal Allows Iran "To Become A Threshold Nuclear Power." In an op-ed appearing in Texas' Times Record News, National Review editor Rich Lowery said the nuclear deal would leave Iran on the threshold of a nuclear weapon:

This deal is the result of coercive diplomacy absent coercion. In essence, it allows Iran to become a threshold nuclear power (preserving much of its nuclear infrastructure and continuing to enrich) in exchange for us not having to do anything to try to stop Iran from becoming a threshold nuclear power. [Times Record News,8/10/15 accessed via Nexis]

Columbus Dispatch Op-Ed: Obama Trusts Iran To Uphold Agreement, But Dismisses Its Threat To Destroy Israel. The Federalist's David Harsanyi wrote a guest op-ed for The Columbus Dispatch in which he called President Obama "gullible or incompetent" for signing the Iran deal and suggested the president subscribes to a 'dangerous philosophy" on the Middle East.

As many other anti-Semites do, the Iranian government has denied that 6 million Jews were exterminated in Europe, in an attempt to weaken the case for Zionism and the need for a Jewish homeland. The idea that Jews have a duty to pre-emptively defend themselves when threatened is predicated on this recent history, and Iranian mullahs know it.

Nowadays, the mullahs threaten in various ways to bring about a second Holocaust. And the same administration that trusts Iran to uphold its end of an agreement doesn't believe that Iran is earnest about its project to destroy the Jewish state.

Huckabee's remark was unhelpful in the way that conjuring up the Holocaust to make political points always is predictably unhelpful -- even if, believe it or not, there are events that are historically analogous. Accusing the president of marching Jews "to the door of the oven" suggests that the president is interested in starting genocide on purpose, as opposed to suggesting that he is gullible or incompetent or subscribing to a dangerous philosophy when it comes to the Middle East. [Columbus Dispatch, 8/1/15]

Former Rep. Shelly Berkley: Iran Deal Makes U.S. "Less Secure." Former member of Congress and current Israel Project board member Shelly Berkley (D-NV) said the deal to reduce Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium would make the United States less secure in an op-ed for the Las Vegas Review Journal.

"It's not enough for us to trust when you (Iran) say that you are only creating a peaceful nuclear program. You have to prove it to us," the president told Thomas Friedman of The New York Times. "And so this whole system that we built is not based on trust; it's based on a verifiable mechanism, whereby every pathway (to a nuclear weapon) that they have is shut off."

The president's claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Therefore, the task before us now is to persuade federal legislators that the right deal with Iran is a deal that leaves America and its allies more, and not less, secure. That means challenging the Iranians not just on their nuclear ambitions, but on their broader drive for regional domination. [Las Vegas Review Journal, 7/18/15]

FACT: The Deal Deprives Iran Of Ability To Produce Weapons-Grade Uranium, And Closes Other Pathways To Bomb

Washington Post: The Deal Will Reduce Iran's Ability To Enrich Uranium Far Below Weapons Grade. The Washington Post reported that the nuclear deal limits Iran to uranium enrichment levels far below what's needed to make a nuclear weapon.

[Washington Post, 715/15]

Global Nuclear Security Expert: The Deal Cuts Iran's Ability To Obtain A Bomb Using Enriched Uranium, Plutonium, Or By Covert Methods. Joe Cirincione of the Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation, detailed in an article for Slate how the deal will block Iran's path to a bomb via enriched uranium or plutonium or by covert methods.

This deal blocks [the uranium] path. Iran has agreed to rip out over two-thirds of the 19,000 centrifuges it has installed. Just over 5,000 centrifuges will be allowed to continue enriching uranium. All will be located at one facility at Natanz. The deep underground facility at Fordow that so worried Israeli planners (since it could not be destroyed with their weapons) will be shrunk to a couple of hundred operating centrifuges--and these are prohibited from doing any uranium enrichment. They will be used to purify other elements and be closely monitored.

Furthermore, Iran must shrink its stored stockpile of uranium gas from some 10,000 kilograms to just 300 kilograms--and cannot enrich any uranium above 3.67 percent. This limit lasts for 15 years.

Together, these cuts mean that even if Iran tried to renege on the agreement, it would take it at least a year to make enough uranium for one bomb--more than enough time to detect the effort and take economic, diplomatic, or military steps to stop it.

Uranium path, blocked.

Without the deal there is a second way Iran could make a bomb--with plutonium. The bomb at Hiroshima was made of uranium; the bomb at Nagasaki was made of plutonium. Unlike uranium, plutonium does not exist in nature. It is made inside nuclear reactors, as part of the fission process, and then extracted from the spent fuel rods. Iran is constructing a research reactor at Arak that would have produced about 8 kilograms of plutonium each year, or enough theoretically for about two bombs.

Under the new deal, Iran has agreed to completely reconfigure the Arak reactor so that it will produce less than 1 kilogram a year. The old core will be shipped out of the country. Further, Iran has agreed to never build facilities that could reprocess fuel rods and all spent fuel will be shipped out the country.

Plutonium path, blocked.

Finally, without the deal Iran could try to build a covert facility where it could secretly enrich uranium. The verification and monitoring system required by this deal makes that all but impossible.

Inspectors will now track Iran's uranium from the time it comes out of the ground to the time it ends up as gas stored in cylinders. There will be state-of-the-art fiber-optic seals, sensors, and cameras at every facility, inventories of all equipment, tracking of scientists and nuclear workers, and 24/7 inspections. Inspectors will also monitor the manufacture of all centrifuges and related machinery. A special "procurement channel" will be set up through which all of Iran's imported nuclear-related equipment must go.

This makes it extraordinarily difficult for Iran to cheat. Iran might want to set up a covert enrichment plant, but where would it get the uranium? Or the centrifuges? Or the scientists? If a 100 scientists suddenly don't show up for work at Natanz, it will be noticed. If the uranium in the gas doesn't equal the uranium mined, it will be noticed. If the parts made for centrifuges don't end up in new centrifuges, it will be noticed. Iran might be able to evade one level of monitoring but the chance that it could evade all the overlapping levels will be remote.

Covert path, blocked. [Slate, 7/14/15]

Independent Arms Control Experts: "The Deal Is Excellent Compared To Where We Are Today." Experts from several leading nuclear arms control organizations agree that the nuclear deal with Iran leaves the world safer than the status quo.

Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, believes "the deal is excellent compared to where we are today."

"It puts a gap between [Iran's] ability to build a bomb and actually doing it, and the gap is big enough for us to do something about it if we detect them moving toward a bomb," Lewis said. "At the highest macro level, I think that's fantastic."

As to critics who say a better deal should have been reached, Kingston Reif, director for disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Arms Control Association, puts it in simple terms: "A perfect deal was not attainable.

"Overall, it's a very strong and good deal, but it wasn't negotiations that resulted in a score of 100-0 for the US," Reif said. "That's not how international negotiations go."

Added James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program and senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment: "You can't compare this to a perfect deal, which was never attainable." [Defense News, 7/18/15]

New York Times: "29 U.S. Scientists Praise Iran Nuclear Deal." The New York Times reported that 29 of the nation's top scientists with an expertise in nuclear weapons issues wrote a letter to President Obama praising the merits of the nuclear deal and calling it "innovative" and "stringent."

Twenty-nine of the nation's top scientists -- including Nobel laureates, veteran makers of nuclear arms and former White House science advisers -- wrote to President Obama on Saturday to praise the Iran deal, calling it innovative and stringent.

The letter, from some of the world's most knowledgeable experts in the fields of nuclear weapons and arms control, arrives as Mr. Obama is lobbying Congress, the American public and the nation's allies to support the agreement.

[...]

The first signature on the letter is from Richard L. Garwin, a physicist who helped design the world's first hydrogen bomb and has long advised Washington on nuclear weapons and arms control. He is among the last living physicists who helped usher in the nuclear age.

Also signing is Siegfried S. Hecker, a Stanford professor who, from 1986 to 1997, directed the Los Alamos weapons laboratory in New Mexico, the birthplace of the bomb. The facility produced designs for most of the arms now in the nation's nuclear arsenal.

Other prominent signatories include Freeman Dyson of Princeton, Sidney Drell of Stanford and Rush D. Holt, a physicist and former member of Congress who now leads the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society.

Most of the 29 who signed the letter are physicists, and many of them have held what the government calls Q clearances -- granting access to a special category of secret information that bears on the design of nuclear arms and is considered equivalent to the military's top secret security clearance.

[...]

The letter uses the words "innovative" and "stringent" more than a half-dozen times, saying, for instance, that the Iran accord has "more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated nonproliferation framework." [New York Times, 8/8/15]

I’ve never heard a Rush Limbaugh show.
Apparently you listen regularly.

Your post is from a far-left zealot who will say anything to try and bolster Obama and Kerry’s bad deal.

I’ll stick with the actual facts of the bad deal.

Are you comfortable with the side deal that The U.S. has no part of and am allowed to read?

"Low information voter" is a limbaughism which you use continually. There are also secret identifiers and an app you have to be a liberal to get. You've been tagged.

You need to debate in a way we can understand your position. Go though the two articles above and argue for your facts but you have to refute the point as it is articulated in the agreement as well. If you are unable to do that then your opinion has no substance.

You lose this round so you get a big zero.

The Soviet Union for one you dim wit. It works all the time.

________________________________________________________________________

That was done by President Reagan and President Bush. Two great Presidents.
The deal is by Obama a proven failure and considered the worst President of the modern era.

Works all the time? I think the Ukraine would not agree

Next.

Next? Mule - you carry a burden of ignorance so heavy that it must be difficult to raise your head from the pile of dirty underwear you rest it on at night.

The US is currently a signatory on 100's if not 1000's of treaties. You are obviously unqualified to intellectually take part in a discussion on foreign affairs.

We are involved in treaties with countries as diverse as Afghanistan and Slovenia. We are signed on to treaties with Angola, Cuba, Bhutan, Botswana, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, China, Congo, Croatia, Cyprus, Djibouti, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, European Atomic Energy Community, European Organization for the Exploitation of Meterological Satellites, France, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, International Fusion Energy Organization, Iran (Yeah - Currently involved in a treaty with Iran you Butt Napkin), Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Korea, Kosovo, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Mexico, Mongolia (Scary Mongols), Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, NIUE, Pakistan, Palestine Liberation Organization (the PLO Mutton Head), Qatar, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore,... the list goes on.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/218912.pdf

Where do I stand on the treaty?

Ratify it! Of course ratify it. The Republicans got nothing. Something better? What a $*cking joke. The Republican list of solutions is as vastly empty as the desert sands.

You Right Wing no answer piles of ignorance need to shut up and leave the negotiating to your elders. You got nothing but loud mouths.

Republicans claim to want a better deal but refuse to answer how they get that better deal when the sanctions that brought Iran to the table fall apart when the deal is squashed. They say that turning down the deal won't lead to war. They will be held to what they say and there will be countless i told you sos if we end up in another mid eastern quagmire.

“President George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement”

Crap. No such agreement exists.
That is one of the many lies Obama told as a pretext to his cut and run.

I’ll give you a hint son. If Obama said it, it is generally a lie.

- or as your left-wing friends so love to say: prove it.
Post a link to that document.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf

You will be questioned on this so read it word for word. You might take a course on google skills as well.

You need to apologize as it is you who are wrong again.

_____________________________________________________________________

What you refer to was no final SOFA. That responsibility fell to Obama who failed to follow through.
For the first three years of his presidency Obama refused to even speak to the Iranian Prime Minister.
It was Obama’s obligation to work out the number of U.S. Troops that would remain for security purposes (Article 27.1) and instead he simply cut and ran.

Nice try but again you fail to understand… anything.

BTW – “You will be questioned on this”
Go fu*k yourself.

You are wrong and just a plain out fool. Just cut bait before you make a total fool of yourself. Geeesh!!!

“President George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement”

Crap. No such agreement exists.
That is one of the many lies Obama told as a pretext to his cut and run.

I’ll give you a hint son. If Obama said it, it is generally a lie.

- or as your left-wing friends so love to say: prove it.
Post a link to that document.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf

You will be questioned on this so read it word for word. You might take a course on google skills as well.

You need to apologize as it is you who are wrong again.

_____________________________________________________________________

What you refer to was no final SOFA. That responsibility fell to Obama who failed to follow through.
For the first three years of his presidency Obama refused to even speak to the Iranian Prime Minister.
It was Obama’s obligation to work out the number of U.S. Troops that would remain for security purposes (Article 27.1) and instead he simply cut and ran.

Nice try but again you fail to understand… anything.

BTW – “You will be questioned on this”
Go fu*k yourself.

You are wrong and just a plain out fool. Just cut bait before you make a total fool of yourself. Geeesh!!!

That ship has sailed!

I’ve never heard a Rush Limbaugh show.
Apparently you listen regularly.

Your post is from a far-left zealot who will say anything to try and bolster Obama and Kerry’s bad deal.

I’ll stick with the actual facts of the bad deal.

Are you comfortable with the side deal that The U.S. has no part of and am allowed to read?

"Low information voter" is a limbaughism which you use continually. There are also secret identifiers and an app you have to be a liberal to get. You've been tagged.

You need to debate in a way we can understand your position. Go though the two articles above and argue for your facts but you have to refute the point as it is articulated in the agreement as well. If you are unable to do that then your opinion has no substance.

You lose this round so you get a big zero.

____________________________________________________________________

Low-info voter is a commonly used term. Who coined it is irrelevant.

“You need to debate in a way we can understand”
No son.
If you are unable to understand that is your problem, not mine.
Try to keep up.

The Soviet Union for one you dim wit. It works all the time.

________________________________________________________________________

That was done by President Reagan and President Bush. Two great Presidents.
The deal is by Obama a proven failure and considered the worst President of the modern era.

Works all the time? I think the Ukraine would not agree

Next.

Next? Mule - you carry a burden of ignorance so heavy that it must be difficult to raise your head from the pile of dirty underwear you rest it on at night.

The US is currently a signatory on 100's if not 1000's of treaties. You are obviously unqualified to intellectually take part in a discussion on foreign affairs.

We are involved in treaties with countries as diverse as Afghanistan and Slovenia. We are signed on to treaties with Angola, Cuba, Bhutan, Botswana, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, China, Congo, Croatia, Cyprus, Djibouti, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, European Atomic Energy Community, European Organization for the Exploitation of Meterological Satellites, France, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, International Fusion Energy Organization, Iran (Yeah - Currently involved in a treaty with Iran you Butt Napkin), Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Korea, Kosovo, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Mexico, Mongolia (Scary Mongols), Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, NIUE, Pakistan, Palestine Liberation Organization (the PLO Mutton Head), Qatar, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore,... the list goes on.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/218912.pdf

Where do I stand on the treaty?

Ratify it! Of course ratify it. The Republicans got nothing. Something better? What a $*cking joke. The Republican list of solutions is as vastly empty as the desert sands.

You Right Wing no answer piles of ignorance need to shut up and leave the negotiating to your elders. You got nothing but loud mouths.

Republicans claim to want a better deal but refuse to answer how they get that better deal when the sanctions that brought Iran to the table fall apart when the deal is squashed. They say that turning down the deal won't lead to war. They will be held to what they say and there will be countless i told you sos if we end up in another mid eastern quagmire.

______________________________________________________________________

“Republicans claim to want a better deal but refuse to answer how they get that better deal when the sanctions that brought Iran to the table fall apart when the deal is squashed”

The Republicans and Democrats have clearly said what they would so instead of the weak deal.
The sanctions “falling apart” are solely Obama and Kerry’s doing.
Both the Republicans and Democrats have said they wanted to make the sanctions even more stringent.

“They say that turning down the deal won't lead to war.”

Correct. The “war” lie comes from only Obama who uses it to falsely claim that is what The Republicans want. Political rhetoric from a lame president desperate for a legacy item since he has no other.

I don’t know where you get your spin from but you might want to source actual information, not Obama’s mouth pieces.

The reality may be as simple as he thinks its a bad deal. Can't anyone disagree with Obama without being give a psychiatric diagnosis? Plent of people do not trust Iran as far as you could throw a bus

Anyone who disagrees with Obama on anything is either

1. being paid off by nefarious intersts.
2. playing politics
3. Sadly misinformed

There is no ground for reasonable disagreement. And Obama himself will be happy to make that clear to you as often as it takes.

Over on Facebook people have been ripping Schumer for weeks saying he would agree to the deal. Then when Hillenbrand decided to support the deal and Schumer followed with his non support the same people on Facebook were ripping him and accusing him of having a backroom deal with Obama to cover his butt with his constituents. Now they are all eating crow. They all owe him a huge apology.

It's Gillibrand.

quote:
I just hope we have to reinstate the draft so Americans have skin in the game. Once our children and grand children start dying and coming home maimed, maybe then we will realize that diplomacy is a better answer.

___________________________________________________________________

When has diplomacy ever worked with a country sworn to destroy us?

The Soviet Union for one you dim wit. It works all the time.

What history are you studying? Diplomacy dodn't do squat. COld blooded deterrence is what did the trick. The Soviets knew and understood that a move on Europe would bring catastrophe. So they didn't move.