Curious since you are so into thinking for yourself did you actually READ Schumer's lengthy explanation and do you have your OWN critique of it? Let's hear it if you do.
First neither you nor I know or are trained to understand the intricacies of this agreement. In this sense for the 24 day period, as well as other issues, we are both dependent on experts. There appears to be considerable support from experts for this agreement.
What both of us can talk about is how the agreement or deal was negotiated. There was extensive lobbying to get Russia and China and other key countries to participate in sanctions against Iran which were effective enough to get Iran to the negotiating table. Now that there is an agreement the international participants want to resume trade with Iran.
The US was only one member of a 6 member coalition and was not in a position to continuously bring up side bars to the negotiations if they were not related to the main objective which was reducing the amount of time it took Iran to build a nuclear bomb.
Obama's position is that it was the best deal to be had under the circumstances. There will always be a better deal but it was not possible considering the context of discussions.
As an example let’s look at how Netanyahu is functioning within his own coalition with Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel. Even though Netanyahu’s party holds the most seats he is beholden to the other parties with lesser members and if he moves in a direction they don’t want they will bolt and he will either have to find other partners or call an election.
Look at the power Trump currently has in the GOP. If he goes 3rd party he can totally control the election results. So all the macho republicans when it comes to facing Putin and China are kissing Trump's a$$.
The best deal is that Iran has no nuclear capacity now or in the future. I would agree with that but how would it be negotiated. The Republican congress has pretty much decimated Obama’s and Kerry’s reputation so they are no longer credible partners for any new agreement. So someone from congress would have to go and negotiate.
Switzerland is already lifting its sanctions and the Germans and French are already in Iran striking business deals. They are capitalists and they want to make money and their economies are suffering. Kerry has stated that these countries will not go back to the negotiating table because the US Congress wants them to.
Kerry and his team negotiated the best deal that they could get and in this task they far outperformed how Netanyahu is handling the Israeli government or the GOP and republicans are handling Trump.
None of the P 5 +1 are for an agreement where Iran has no nuclear capacity which is the opposition objective. So it is this deal or nothing.
And no deal Obama says will eventually lead to war because Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
How do you think you could get a better deal? Trump says he could cut one in 2 hours. Since he is now the GOP de facto leader maybe he should be sent to cut a new deal.
The best deal is one in which a fascist terrorist regime is not empowered with billions of dollars to increase its hegemony in the most volatilel region on earth. Until Mr. Obama this was the bi-partisan and fully accepted policy of the United States of America.
If you look back at history you will see that both North Korea and Iran accelerated their nuclear programs during this aggressive Bush phase. This was the reason for the sanctions and diplomacy. Now you are saying aggression and war is preferable which is exactly Obama's point that Netanyahu and the GOP are just warmongers. Thanks for verifying this.
You make one serious logical mistake bro. You assume Obama stands for what America stands for. I couldn't possibly disagree more. I think Obama stands for what America is against or has been against much of the time. I stand for what I believe America stands for. And naturally I resent any implication otherwise. I don't blame you though. Since the day he took office Obama has subtely and sometimes vocally let it be known that to oppose him is to be disloyal to America and he is doing it in spades on this isse.
They should make a statute of you with fist clenched and an inflated dick and put it up next to the Statute of Liberty so foreigners really know what America stands for.
Wow! The stunning wit behind that come back has me mesmirized.
You make one serious logical mistake bro. You assume Obama stands for what America stands for. I couldn't possibly disagree more. I think Obama stands for what America is against or has been against much of the time. I stand for what I believe America stands for. And naturally I resent any implication otherwise. I don't blame you though. Since the day he took office Obama has subtely and sometimes vocally let it be known that to oppose him is to be disloyal to America and he is doing it in spades on this isse.
I totally disagree but... 100% applaud your integrity. I wish I had said what you just said when GW was in office. Instead, I just punched people in the mouth.
No BS. I salute you Doug. I really do.
I hope you get over it quickly. Don't let it eat you up... but I truly understand.
GW never said any such thing and if you say he did please post a quote. Please post a quote where he said that people who oppose him are supporting a foreign government or anything like that. If he did it would be wrong then as well. Actually as has become pretty clear, the Democrats who voted FOR the Iraq war like Biden, Clinton and Kerry were the ones playing politics as they quickly shifted gear as soon as it became expedient to do so. Those like Dean who opposed it from the start at least have their integrity.
Curious since you are so into thinking for yourself did you actually READ Schumer's lengthy explanation and do you have your OWN critique of it? Let's hear it if you do.
First neither you nor I know or are trained to understand the intricacies of this agreement. In this sense for the 24 day period, as well as other issues, we are both dependent on experts. There appears to be considerable support from experts for this agreement.
What both of us can talk about is how the agreement or deal was negotiated. There was extensive lobbying to get Russia and China and other key countries to participate in sanctions against Iran which were effective enough to get Iran to the negotiating table. Now that there is an agreement the international participants want to resume trade with Iran.
The US was only one member of a 6 member coalition and was not in a position to continuously bring up side bars to the negotiations if they were not related to the main objective which was reducing the amount of time it took Iran to build a nuclear bomb.
Obama's position is that it was the best deal to be had under the circumstances. There will always be a better deal but it was not possible considering the context of discussions.
As an example let’s look at how Netanyahu is functioning within his own coalition with Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel. Even though Netanyahu’s party holds the most seats he is beholden to the other parties with lesser members and if he moves in a direction they don’t want they will bolt and he will either have to find other partners or call an election.
Look at the power Trump currently has in the GOP. If he goes 3rd party he can totally control the election results. So all the macho republicans when it comes to facing Putin and China are kissing Trump's a$$.
The best deal is that Iran has no nuclear capacity now or in the future. I would agree with that but how would it be negotiated. The Republican congress has pretty much decimated Obama’s and Kerry’s reputation so they are no longer credible partners for any new agreement. So someone from congress would have to go and negotiate.
Switzerland is already lifting its sanctions and the Germans and French are already in Iran striking business deals. They are capitalists and they want to make money and their economies are suffering. Kerry has stated that these countries will not go back to the negotiating table because the US Congress wants them to.
Kerry and his team negotiated the best deal that they could get and in this task they far outperformed how Netanyahu is handling the Israeli government or the GOP and republicans are handling Trump.
None of the P 5 +1 are for an agreement where Iran has no nuclear capacity which is the opposition objective. So it is this deal or nothing.
And no deal Obama says will eventually lead to war because Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
How do you think you could get a better deal? Trump says he could cut one in 2 hours. Since he is now the GOP de facto leader maybe he should be sent to cut a new deal.
The best deal is one in which a fascist terrorist regime is not empowered with billions of dollars to increase its hegemony in the most volatilel region on earth. Until Mr. Obama this was the bi-partisan and fully accepted policy of the United States of America.
If you look back at history you will see that both North Korea and Iran accelerated their nuclear programs during this aggressive Bush phase. This was the reason for the sanctions and diplomacy. Now you are saying aggression and war is preferable which is exactly Obama's point that Netanyahu and the GOP are just warmongers. Thanks for verifying this.
Typical Obama tactic. If you don't agree with his "deal" that capitulates and gives Iran everything it wants and normalizes it and gives it billions to carry out war and terror in the region and elsewhere then YOU favor war and aggression. I reject this because its totally made up bs. ANYONE who understands diplomacy understands that it is the art of leveraging your advantages. Obama did NOT leverage American advantages. He gave them away at the outset. You do not reach unfavorable "deals" with regimes like this and you don't reward them upfront. You just don't. If you think that makes me a war mongor or an aggressor then I say you are a liar.
The Iran Deal Benefits U.S. National Security
An Open Letter from Retired Generals and Admirals
On July 14, 2015, after two years of intense international
negotiations, an agreement was announced by the United States,
the United Kingdom, France, Germany, China and Russia to contain
Iran’s nuclear program. We, the undersigned retired military
officers, support the agreement as the most effective means currently
available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.The international deal blocks the potential pathways to a nuclear
bomb, provides for intrusive verification, and strengthens American
national security. America and our allies, in the Middle East and
around the world, will be safer when this agreement is fully
implemented. It is not based on trust; the deal requires verification
and tough sanctions for failure to comply.There is no better option to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon.
Military action would be less effective than the deal, assuming it is
fully implemented. If the Iranians cheat, our advanced technology,
intelligence and the inspections will reveal it, and U.S. military
options remain on the table. And if the deal is rejected by America,
the Iranians could have a nuclear weapon within a year. The choice is
that stark.We agree with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General
Martin Dempsey, who said on July 29, 2015, “[r]elieving the risk of a
nuclear conflict with Iran diplomatically is superior than trying to do
that militarily.”If at some point it becomes necessary to consider military action
against Iran, gathering sufficient international support for such an
effort would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic
path a chance. We must exhaust diplomatic options before moving to
military ones.For these reasons, for the security of our Nation, we call upon
Congress and the American people to support this agreement.GEN James “Hoss” Cartwright, U.S. Marine Corps
MGEN William L. Nash, U.S. Army
GEN Joseph P. Hoar, U.S. Marine Corps
MGEN Tony Taguba, U.S. Army
GEN Merrill “Tony” McPeak, U.S. Air Force
RADM John Hutson, U.S. Navy
GEN Lloyd W. "Fig" Newton, U.S. Air Force
RADM Malcolm MacKinnon III, U.S. Navy
LGEN Robert G. Gard, Jr., U.S. Army
RADM Edward "Sonny" Masso, U.S. Navy
LGEN Arlen D. Jameson, U.S. Air Force
RADM Joseph Sestak, U.S. Navy
LGEN Frank Kearney, U.S. Army
RADM Garland “Gar” P. Wright, U.S. Navy
LGEN Claudia J. Kennedy, U.S. Army
BGEN John Adams, U.S. Air Force
LGEN Donald L. Kerrick, U.S. Army
BGEN Stephen A. Cheney, U.S. Marine Corps
LGEN Charles P. Otstott, U.S. Army
BGEN Patricia "Pat" Foote, U.S. Army
LGEN Norman R. Seip, U.S. Air Force
BGEN Lawrence E. Gillespie, U.S. Army
LGEN James M. Thompson, U.S. Army
BGEN John Johns, U.S. Army
VADM Kevin P. Green, U.S. Navy
BGEN David McGinnis, U.S. Army
VADM Lee F. Gunn, U.S. Navy
BGEN Stephen Xenakis, U.S. Army
MGEN George Buskirk, US Army
RDML James Arden "Jamie" Barnett, Jr., U.S. Navy
MGEN Paul D. Eaton, U.S. Army
RDML Jay A. DeLoach, U.S. Navy
MGEN Marcelite J. Harris, U.S. Air Force
RDML Harold L. Robinson, U.S. Navy
MGEN Frederick H. Lawson, U.S. Army
RDML Alan Steinman, U.S. Coast Guard
Typical Obama tactic. If you don't agree with his "deal" that capitulates and gives Iran everything it wants and normalizes it and gives it billions to carry out war and terror in the region and elsewhere then YOU favor war and aggression. I reject this because its totally made up bs. ANYONE who understands diplomacy understands that it is the art of leveraging your advantages. Obama did NOT leverage American advantages. He gave them away at the outset. You do not reach unfavorable "deals" with regimes like this and you don't reward them upfront. You just don't. If you think that makes me a war mongor or an aggressor then I say you are a liar.
You don't need to take this so personally. There is no leverage to get the deal the opposition wants. Obama got the best deal possible under the circumstances. The military leaders below have the same position on the only option other than diplomacy is war.
Sen. Schumer’s illogical case against the Iran deal
by Fareed Zakaria
Dear Sen. Schumer,
When you announced your decision to vote against the nuclear agreement with Iran, you explained your reasons in a nearly 1,700-word statement that is thoughtful in substance and civil in tone. And yet, in the end, I found it unconvincing.
I believe that the agreement is flawed. But it is the most intrusive, demanding and comprehensive set of inspections, verification protocols and snapback measures ever negotiated. Compare the detailed 159-page document with the United States' 1994 accord with North Korea, which was a vaguely worded four-page document with few monitoring and enforcement provisions.
You have three sets of objections, which I will get to, but you fail to note what must happen at the outset, before Iran gets widespread sanctions relief.
Iran must destroy 98 percent of its enriched uranium and all of its 5 percent to 20 percent enriched uranium, remove and store more than two-thirds of its centrifuges (including all advanced centrifuges), terminate all enrichment at its Fordow nuclear facility and render inoperable the key components of its Arak (plutonium) reactor. All of these steps must be completed to the satisfaction of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
It is difficult to imagine that a serious military campaign against Iran would set back its nuclear program as much as this deal does from the start. Fordow, for example, is buried deep in a mountain and would probably survive all but the most intense bombardment.
Your first objections are about the inspections and sanctions. You argue that the inspections are not “anywhere, anytime” and have a 24-day delay that is “troubling.” But all of Iran’s known nuclear facilities are subject to anywhere, anytime monitoring. And for new, suspicious sites, as nuclear expert Jeffrey Lewis points out, “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.”
In that scenario Sen. Schumer, you argue that the sanctions snapback provisions are cumbersome. We must have read different documents. The one I’m looking at contains the first mechanism for the automatic reimposition of sanctions ever created, to my knowledge. And they can be triggered by Washington unilaterally. Peter Feaver, a former aide to President George W. Bush, and sanctions expert Eric Lorber, in expressing skepticism about the deal, admit that “we are hard-pressed to come up with other examples when the U.N. Security Council has voted to disenfranchise future U.N. Security Councils and create legally binding decisions on the say-so of a single member.”
You argue that the United States might prefer to restore sanctions in part and that other countries might not go along with this. But the fact that Washington could unilaterally snap back all U.N. sanctions is surely extraordinary leverage that it could use to get other countries to agree to a partial reimposition of sanctions.
You further say that “after 15 years of relief from sanctions, Iran would be stronger financially and better able to advance a robust nuclear program.” Let’s be clear. Iran is going to get sanctions relief no matter what. The international sanctions against Iran were put in place by other countries solely to get to a nuclear deal. None would go along with extending the sanctions, given that Iran has produced what they all regard as an acceptable agreement.
Foreign Policy magazine reported on an extraordinary meeting this month, when top diplomats from the other five great powers involved in the deal met with senators to urge them to support it. The British and Russian envoys explained that if the deal was rejected, the sanctions would “unravel.”
Your final objection is that Iran would use some of its newly freed-up resources “to redouble its efforts to create even more trouble in the Middle East.” That might be true, but the deal does not stop the United States and its allies from countering these activities, as they do today. The non-nuclear tensions between Iran and the United States predate Tehran’s nuclear program, continue today and will persist in the future. But they would be much worse if Iran had a nuclear threshold capacity.
Your basic conclusion is that “if one thinks Iran will moderate .?.?. one should approve the agreement. .?.?. But if one feels that Iranian leaders will not moderate .?.?. then one should conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement.” This is the most puzzling and, frankly, illogical part of your case. If Iran remains a rogue state, all the more reason to put its nuclear program on a leash.
Rejecting this deal would produce an Iran that ramps up its nuclear program, without inspections or constraints, with sanctions unraveling and a United States that is humiliated and isolated in the world. You cannot want this. I respectfully urge you to reconsider your position.
Typical Obama tactic. If you don't agree with his "deal" that capitulates and gives Iran everything it wants and normalizes it and gives it billions to carry out war and terror in the region and elsewhere then YOU favor war and aggression. I reject this because its totally made up bs. ANYONE who understands diplomacy understands that it is the art of leveraging your advantages. Obama did NOT leverage American advantages. He gave them away at the outset. You do not reach unfavorable "deals" with regimes like this and you don't reward them upfront. You just don't. If you think that makes me a war mongor or an aggressor then I say you are a liar.
You don't need to take this so personally. There is no leverage to get the deal the opposition wants. Obama got the best deal possible under the circumstances. The military leaders below have the same position on the only option other than diplomacy is war.
The military leaders? Seriously? What would you expect them to say?
These military leaders go from "Betrayus" to sudden geniuses when they agree with Obama.....Weird.
Typical Obama tactic. If you don't agree with his "deal" that capitulates and gives Iran everything it wants and normalizes it and gives it billions to carry out war and terror in the region and elsewhere then YOU favor war and aggression. I reject this because its totally made up bs. ANYONE who understands diplomacy understands that it is the art of leveraging your advantages. Obama did NOT leverage American advantages. He gave them away at the outset. You do not reach unfavorable "deals" with regimes like this and you don't reward them upfront. You just don't. If you think that makes me a war mongor or an aggressor then I say you are a liar.
You don't need to take this so personally. There is no leverage to get the deal the opposition wants. Obama got the best deal possible under the circumstances. The military leaders below have the same position on the only option other than diplomacy is war.
X2
But what do military leaders & scientists know? Certainly their knowledge is far inferior to a bunch of suits that call themselves senators & members of the HOR. Add to that several disgruntled cynics with layman's knowledge from the ABB WP Forum, and I think we've covered that point.
These military leaders go from "Betrayus" to sudden geniuses when they agree with Obama.....Weird.
We're sorry, but the shot you have taken has completely missed the target. Please reload and try again. This is a recording.
These military leaders go from "Betrayus" to sudden geniuses when they agree with Obama.....Weird.
_____________________________________________________________________
It is the political agenda of the day.
When the military leaders were speaking out about Obama’s Middle East failures, the liberals attacked the military leaders.
When a few military leaders support Obama’s Iran Deal the liberals shout their wisdom.
Creditability matters not. The Obama Adoration Club will say anything and then change it as needed.
These military leaders go from "Betrayus" to sudden geniuses when they agree with Obama.....Weird.
_____________________________________________________________________
It is the political agenda of the day.
When the military leaders were speaking out about Obama’s Middle East failures, the liberals attacked the military leaders.
When a few military leaders support Obama’s Iran Deal the liberals shout their wisdom.
Creditability matters not. The Obama Adoration Club will say anything and then change it as needed.
Which is it? You said the the military personnel do not speak out on political issues. When given proof that you are wrong, you attack those that post it. Make up your mind. You also said the military personnel don't like Obama. But there were some high ranking military people supporting the Iran deal. Now they don't matter?
These military leaders go from "Betrayus" to sudden geniuses when they agree with Obama.....Weird.
_____________________________________________________________________
It is the political agenda of the day.
When the military leaders were speaking out about Obama’s Middle East failures, the liberals attacked the military leaders.
When a few military leaders support Obama’s Iran Deal the liberals shout their wisdom.
Creditability matters not. The Obama Adoration Club will say anything and then change it as needed.
Which is it? You said the the military personnel do not speak out on political issues. When given proof that you are wrong, you attack those that post it. Make up your mind. You also said the military personnel don't like Obama. But there were some high ranking military people supporting the Iran deal. Now they don't matter?
______________________________________________________________________
You missed the point entirely but that is common for you.
These military leaders go from "Betrayus" to sudden geniuses when they agree with Obama.....Weird.
_____________________________________________________________________
It is the political agenda of the day.
When the military leaders were speaking out about Obama’s Middle East failures, the liberals attacked the military leaders.
When a few military leaders support Obama’s Iran Deal the liberals shout their wisdom.
Creditability matters not. The Obama Adoration Club will say anything and then change it as needed.
Which is it? You said the the military personnel do not speak out on political issues. When given proof that you are wrong, you attack those that post it. Make up your mind. You also said the military personnel don't like Obama. But there were some high ranking military people supporting the Iran deal. Now they don't matter?
______________________________________________________________________
You missed the point entirely but that is common for you.
No, you did. You were caught in yet one more unsupported "fact" that you provided.
These military leaders go from "Betrayus" to sudden geniuses when they agree with Obama.....Weird.
_____________________________________________________________________
It is the political agenda of the day.
When the military leaders were speaking out about Obama’s Middle East failures, the liberals attacked the military leaders.
When a few military leaders support Obama’s Iran Deal the liberals shout their wisdom.
Creditability matters not. The Obama Adoration Club will say anything and then change it as needed.
Which is it? You said the the military personnel do not speak out on political issues. When given proof that you are wrong, you attack those that post it. Make up your mind. You also said the military personnel don't like Obama. But there were some high ranking military people supporting the Iran deal. Now they don't matter?
______________________________________________________________________
You missed the point entirely but that is common for you.
No, you did. You were caught in yet one more unsupported "fact" that you provided.
____________________________________________________________________
Your type attacked the military ”leaders” when they opposed Obama’s Middle East plan then praise them when a few of them support Obama’s Iran plan.
Why?
These military leaders go from "Betrayus" to sudden geniuses when they agree with Obama.....Weird.
_____________________________________________________________________
It is the political agenda of the day.
When the military leaders were speaking out about Obama’s Middle East failures, the liberals attacked the military leaders.
When a few military leaders support Obama’s Iran Deal the liberals shout their wisdom.
Creditability matters not. The Obama Adoration Club will say anything and then change it as needed.
Which is it? You said the the military personnel do not speak out on political issues. When given proof that you are wrong, you attack those that post it. Make up your mind. You also said the military personnel don't like Obama. But there were some high ranking military people supporting the Iran deal. Now they don't matter?
______________________________________________________________________
You missed the point entirely but that is common for you.
No, you did. You were caught in yet one more unsupported "fact" that you provided.
____________________________________________________________________
Your type attacked the military ”leaders” when they opposed Obama’s Middle East plan then praise them when a few of them support Obama’s Iran plan.
Why?
I never did that. You will not find one post from me that ever said that. You are lying.
Your type attacked the military ”leaders” when they opposed Obama’s Middle East plan then praise them when a few of them support Obama’s Iran plan.
Why?
Actually there are 35 generals and admirals and they acted patriotically when they joined up to write the letter. By minimizing their number and belittling what they have done here you are insulting their service. I know these differentials and inversions are part of the Rush program but you have to take some responsibility for what you post.
You constantly twist or invent facts and invert relationships to make cheap points. The inability to make your own arguments--except through a constant barrage of BS--is what tags you as a Rush dittohead.
Anyway post the links of liberals attacking the military. Make your arguments with real facts. Was there ever a case where two high ranking officers acted together? I doubt it.
Your type attacked the military ”leaders” when they opposed Obama’s Middle East plan then praise them when a few of them support Obama’s Iran plan.
Why?
Actually there are 35 generals and admirals and they acted patriotically when they joined up to write the letter. By minimizing their number and belittling what they have done here you are insulting their service. I know these differentials and inversions are part of the Rush program but you have to take some responsibility for what you post.
You constantly twist or invent facts and invert relationships to make cheap points. The inability to make your own arguments--except through a constant barrage of BS--is what tags you as a Rush dittohead.
Anyway post the links of liberals attacking the military. Make your arguments with real facts. Was there ever a case where two high ranking officers acted together? I doubt it.
__________________________________________________________________________
35 generals and admirals is a few.
I never belittled what they have done. – that is your lie.
You know “these differentials and inversions are part of the Rush program”? I wouldn’t know because I have, as I posted before, never listened to Rush. Obviously you listen regularly.
“Anyway post the links of liberals attacking the military.”
It was widely reported but you would have missed that since you live in an information void.
The rest of your post is yet another example of your inability to understand factual information due to your incessant need to attack the majority of The American People and bow before Obama the failure.
I spent more than three hours yesterday at Gen. Odierno’s retirement celebration and reception. With more than a hundred senior military officers in attendance, not one supported the Obama/Kerry deal.
The active duty officers, watching their words carefully, expressed their revulsion and the retired senior officers openly loathed the horrible deal and warned of the dire situation to come.
Get informed son. You may learn something.
I spent more than three hours yesterday at Gen. Odierno’s retirement celebration and reception. With more than a hundred senior military officers in attendance, not one supported the Obama/Kerry deal.
The active duty officers, watching their words carefully, expressed their revulsion and the retired senior officers openly loathed the horrible deal and warned of the dire situation to come.
Between you and Dougtan I feel like I’m in a Walter Mitty sequel.
Bottom of page General Odierno supports agreement although he is concerned of funds being spent to support terrorism.
It is hard to be a propagandist in the age of google. You should tell Rush to pay you for spreading his BS.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/iran-deal-vote-count/article/2570101
I spent more than three hours yesterday at Gen. Odierno’s retirement celebration and reception. With more than a hundred senior military officers in attendance, not one supported the Obama/Kerry deal.
The active duty officers, watching their words carefully, expressed their revulsion and the retired senior officers openly loathed the horrible deal and warned of the dire situation to come.Between you and Dougtan I feel like I’m in a Walter Mitty sequel.
Bottom of page General Odierno supports agreement although he is concerned of funds being spent to support terrorism.
It is hard to be a propagandist in the age of google. You should tell Rush to pay you for spreading his BS.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/iran-deal-vote-count/article/2570101
I hope you aren't buying that our resident chief troll was anywhere near a retirement party for Gen. Odierno. He probably was doing a search on the military and the Iran agreement. I found the same info that Odierno retired yesterday. If Mule was really going to that retirement party, we would have heard about it for weeks and he would have told us prior to the party that he would question all of the high ranking people there. The fact is that Mule jumped the shark once again. But I will admit that it was good for a laugh trying to imagine Muletroll mingling with people who despise those who want to fight wars from there armchair. 😛
keller, you take the tin foil off your windows.
The CIA, in their monitoring of your brain waves, has determined that there is nothing there
Isn’t interesting the all but one of our left-wing friends here has not stated that they support the Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear Deal?
Is it because they have not read the actual deal?
Is it because they lack the analytical skills to understand the deal?
Or is it because they are so bent over for their failed leader Obama that they simply won’t admit the truth?
They attack anyone who makes a strong argument against this horrendous and weak deal.
What do our narrow-minded friends propose to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power?
Preventing Iran from getting the bomb was their stated position for decades.
What changed?
Isn’t interesting the all but one of our left-wing friends here has not stated that they support the Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear Deal?
Is it because they have not read the actual deal?
Is it because they lack the analytical skills to understand the deal?
Or is it because they are so bent over for their failed leader Obama that they simply won’t admit the truth?They attack anyone who makes a strong argument against this horrendous and weak deal.
What do our narrow-minded friends propose to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power?
Preventing Iran from getting the bomb was their stated position for decades.
What changed?
What changed? We have a President that wants Iran to have nukes because he hates Israel.
Isn’t interesting the all but one of our left-wing friends here has not stated that they support the Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear Deal?
Is it because they have not read the actual deal?
Is it because they lack the analytical skills to understand the deal?
Or is it because they are so bent over for their failed leader Obama that they simply won’t admit the truth?They attack anyone who makes a strong argument against this horrendous and weak deal.
What do our narrow-minded friends propose to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power?
Preventing Iran from getting the bomb was their stated position for decades.
What changed?What changed? We have a President that wants Iran to have nukes because he hates Israel.
Actually, I posted why I supported the deal. But since you and mule fool are too lazy to read anything you missed it. Color me surprised. You two are clueless idiots. 😛 😛
Isn’t interesting the all but one of our left-wing friends here has not stated that they support the Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear Deal?
Is it because they have not read the actual deal?
Is it because they lack the analytical skills to understand the deal?
Or is it because they are so bent over for their failed leader Obama that they simply won’t admit the truth?They attack anyone who makes a strong argument against this horrendous and weak deal.
What do our narrow-minded friends propose to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power?
Preventing Iran from getting the bomb was their stated position for decades.
What changed?What changed? We have a President that wants Iran to have nukes because he hates Israel.
______________________________________________________________________
That is a fact.
Obama’s hated of The Jewish People may lie in his race based culture.
He has been well trained by the likes of Jesse Jackson calling Ney York “Hymietown” and Louis Farrakhan claiming that “lying, murderous, Zionist Jews were behind the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
Some black “leaders” claimed that Jews were responsible for the slave trade.
Check The Congressional Black Caucas’s vote record on Israel.
Sitting in Rev. Wright’s church for twenty years cannot have helped. Rev. Wright has repeatedly voiced his hatred of Jews
You forgot to call Obama a communist.
Getting off your game there son.
You forgot to call Obama a communist.
Getting off your game there son.
_________________________________________________________________________
That's socialist. Try to get it right junior.
Isn’t interesting the all but one of our left-wing friends here has not stated that they support the Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear Deal?
Is it because they have not read the actual deal?
Is it because they lack the analytical skills to understand the deal?
Or is it because they are so bent over for their failed leader Obama that they simply won’t admit the truth?They attack anyone who makes a strong argument against this horrendous and weak deal.
What do our narrow-minded friends propose to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power?
Preventing Iran from getting the bomb was their stated position for decades.
What changed?What changed? We have a President that wants Iran to have nukes because he hates Israel.
Actually, I posted why I supported the deal. But since you and mule fool are too lazy to read anything you missed it. Color me surprised. You two are clueless idiots. 😛 😛
+1
Anyone who says "[w]e have a President that wants Iran to have nukes because he hates Israel" and means it is not operating with a full deck.
American Jewish organizations are spending about $25 million on anti-deal advertising while J Street which supports the deal is spending about $2 million. The authors outline their methodology and basically show that overall Americans support the Iran deal and among Jews the support is even higher.
On the Iran deal, American Jewish ‘leaders’ don’t speak for most Jews
By Todd Gitlin and Steven M. Cohen
The conflict over the Iran deal has exposed a substantial rift between American Jews and the groups generally known as “the Jewish leadership,” “major Jewish organizations” and “influential Jewish organizations.” These leaders and groups are not, in fact, leading American Jewish opinion on the Iran deal. They are defying it. They doubtless represent the views of their board members, but those views are at odds with the majority of rank-and-file American Jews, who, in fact, support the deal more than Americans generally.
Many major Jewish organizations oppose the Iran deal. Among the most prominent are the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. (The Conference of Presidents explicitly states that it “advances the interests of the American Jewish community.”) Those who support the claims of AIPAC and its allies that dominate the Conference of Presidents often do not pause to note that the largest American Jewish organization to support the Iran deal, J Street, was denied membership in the otherwise inclusive umbrella body last year.
One of us (Cohen) conducted a poll last month for the Jewish Journal on the Iran accord. This is the only poll of American Jews on the subject to explicitly include Jews with no religion — those who said that, “aside from religion,” they “consider themselves Jewish.” They were asked their opinion of “an agreement .?.?. in which the United States and other countries would lift major economic sanctions against Iran, in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons.” Of the three-quarters who said they knew enough to offer an opinion on the deal, 63 percent supported it.
Simultaneously, the same polling agency asked the same questions of a sample of all Americans. Of those who said they knew enough, 54 percent supported the deal, while 46 percent opposed it. (Only 52 percent of this total sample said they knew enough.)
The poll asked whether Congress should “vote to approve or oppose the deal.” Jews leaned heavily toward approval, 54 percent to 35 percent, with 12 percent undecided. By contrast, the national sample divided 41 percent for vs. 38 percent against, with 21 percent undecided.
Jews support the agreement despite their mixed — even skeptical — views of its outcomes. Asked whether “this agreement would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons over the next 10 years or so,” just 43 percent were “somewhat” or “very” confident, while 54 percent were “not so confident” or “not confident at all.”
So more than three-fifths of American Jews who express an opinion support the deal, compared with a bit more than half of Americans overall. Jews are far more sharply divided over the deal than non-Jews. The old saw “two Jews, three opinions” understates the matter.
But among the official “Jewish leaders,” this is hardly the case. AIPAC says that the deal “would facilitate rather than prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and would further entrench and empower the leading state sponsor of terror.” The American Jewish Committee says the deal creates only “a temporary freeze” on Iranian nuclear weapons. The ADL agrees that it “represents a pause, not a stop to Iran’s nuclear weapons quest.” None of them offer any plausible alternative means to close the door on that quest.
Why is the “Jewish leadership” so unrepresentative of the population it claims to speak for on one of the most consequential and controversial American foreign policy decisions of our time? Why did these Jewish organizations announce plans to spend more than $20 million on advertising against the deal, while J Street raised $2 million to spend in favor?
For one thing, the dominant leadership is somewhat older and more conservative than Jews on the whole. Perhaps even more important, it disproportionately represents wealthy Jews. Contrary to age-old anti-Semitic propaganda, the wealthy are a small minority of all Jews, but among all Americans, this is a plutocratic age. Those who pay pipers call tunes. Some Democratic members of Congress, such as Sen. Charles Schumer , who objects to the deal, ignore the fact that among self-described Jewish Democrats polled, about five times as many support the deal as oppose it (62 percent vs. 13 percent). Of the 10 Jewish senators, Schumer is, at this writing, the only one to have formally voiced opposition to the deal. Five support it (Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Al Franken, Bernie Sanders and Brian Schatz) and the remaining four (Michael Bennet, Richard Blumenthal, Benjamin Cardin and Ron Wyden) have yet to declare.
What accounts for the disparity between the views of American Jews overall and the views of the Jewish establishment? As we learned by analyzing the Pew Research Center’s 2013 survey of Jewish Americans, those who belong to Jewish organizations (18 percent of all Jews) differ in many ways from those who do not. The affiliated are more affluent (31 percent have incomes of at least $150,000, as opposed to 24 percent among the unaffiliated), more Republican (18 percent vs. 12 percent) and less likely to identify as liberal (46 percent vs. 53 percent). Even in 2013, the organizationally affiliated were more likely to disapprove of President Obama’s handing of the Iran issue (42 percent as opposed to 33 percent).
But perhaps the most critical distinction is that the affiliated include hardly any of the large minority of Jews who profess no religion. These “Jews with no religion” (JNRs, in Pew’s lexicon) did not answer “Jewish” when asked their faith but did say they were Jewish when asked, “Aside from religion, do you consider yourself Jewish or partially Jewish, or not?” These JNRs account for 5 percent of Jewish organization members but more than five times as many (27 percent) nonmembers. In the Jewish Journal survey, while 39 percent of Jews-by-religion want Congress to reject the deal, only half as many (19 percent) of the JNRs are opposed.
While our survey technique explicitly included JNRs, other recent surveys on the views of American Jews — such as a July poll commissioned by the Israel Project, which opposes the nuclear deal — rely solely on the religion question to qualify respondents and fail to ask the follow-up: “Aside from religion, do you consider yourself Jewish or partially Jewish?” In other words, Jewish organizations are understandably populated by Jews who are more engaged in conventional Jewish life. Not so understandably, surveys that purport to delineate American Jewish opinion frequently ignore what is perhaps the fastest growing “denomination” in American Judaism: Jewish with no religion.
Plainly, the idea that American Jews speak as a monolithic bloc needs very early retirement. So does the canard that their commitment to Israel or the views of its prime minister overwhelms their support for Obama and the Iran deal. So does the idea that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu leads, or represents, the world’s Jews. So does the notion that unrepresentative “leaders” speak for American Jews generally on the urgent matter of nuclear arms in the Middle East. They may speak for their donors, leaders and members, but they certainly do not speak for the American Jewish public at large and, in particular, the large population of American Jewish liberals who overwhelmingly support the deal and want their senators and representatives to approve it next month.
