...there was a point where this guy finally realized he'd made a bad deal, and it was NOT better than no deal at all.
Posted on 02/26/2015 1:42:11 PM PST by Nachum
The Obama administration’s negotiations over nuclear matters are a disaster. The administration’s defenders are vigorously rebutting allegations that President Obama has made too many concessions in the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. Their defense is a simple statement of fact: There is no agreement yet, so how can the critics be right? They assert that we must wait until the outcome is agreed upon before we can assess it. The concern, however, is both bipartisan and international — with many Democrats voicing alarm and with Israel and the Arab states alike frustrated that a seemingly desperate administration has placed Iran’s interests above those of its allies. While Obama’s defenders are technically accurate in that Iran has not yet agreed to what has been placed on the negotiating table, press reports citing U.S. officials have provided information on the status of all key issues under consideration and the likely provisions of an agreement, if Tehran is ultimately able to take yes for an answer. Of course, if current negotiating trends continue, the terms could get even worse than described below. They certainly won’t get better. The concessions already acknowledged by U.S. officials include: • There will be no limits on Iran’s ballistic-missile force, the presumed delivery means for its nuclear weapons. The U.S. position of seeking limits on the missile force was abandoned when the Supreme Leader objected. • There will be no resolution of Iran’s weaponization activities — described as “very alarming” by the Obama White House in November 2011 — before an agreement is reached. Iran is likely to promise once again to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency in its investigation, but no serious observer would expect anything other than continued obstructionism by Iran. At one point, a resolution of weaponization activities was a precondition for an
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Yesterday Kerry testified before the House that there would be no need to present this “historic agreement” before the senate for examination, debate and ratification. Why not? If not ratified by the Senate, the American government is not legally bound by its provisions. Also if the deal is so good why wouldn’t Kerry want it publicly examined and debated? Four ears ago there was a bipartisan consensus that the mad mullahs of Iran should never be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons. Obama apparently changed his mind or always thought otherwise.
...there was a point where this guy finally realized he'd made a bad deal, and it was NOT better than no deal at all.
Great post..your timing beat me. But you left out the great quote from Mr. Chamberlain. He held up that piece of paper and proclaimed:
“We have PEACE in OUR time.” Shortly thereafter his watch and time STOPPED.
Iran is whooping our fag leader around just as moochelle does.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.