Posted on 07/26/2015 1:30:22 PM PDT by Kaslin
Only one?
This is a Dorkbama/Kerry fiasco.
It is a googol of flaws.
At a minimum.
Where would a “veto” come in to the Senate duty to accept or reject. That is not subject to Presidential action, though of course politics is vulnerable to Presidential clowning.
This writer is out to lunch. Obama wants Iran to have nukes and is seeing to it.
I took this as satirical
You got that right
Bialosky, like so many others, doesn’t understand Obama’s intent at all.
This is an arms transfer agreement, at its core, wrapped in the cloak of arms control language.
God willing, we will get regime change in the USA, and be done with these treasonous bastards like Obama and Kerry and their quest to destroy this country. And yes, Iran needs regime change as well.
There is no deal to “stifle” Iran’s nuclear program. It is the complete opposite and while most of us see it here, it surprises me that so few in even the “conservative” media see it.
This agreement does the precise opposite. It provides Iran with a window allowing them to develop nukes unmolested. We guarantee the safety of their program. We undertake to make sure that not only will we not stop them, we will protect them from anyone else who might try to stop them. And we undertake to provide $160 billion dollars to fund their program.
This agreement is the precise opposite of how it is presented to be. The Obama regime has sided with Iran. The regime has sided against Israel. So why do we not get anything for doing so? Because America is still Iran’s enemy, despite the regime’s alliance with them. That should tell you that the regime is also America’s enemy and has been from day one.
As some have pointed out, the Obama regime is now the number one “state sponsor of terrorism” in the world. Now think back to exactly how ISIS (or ISIL as the regime prefers to call them) was born.
What makes you think that the the author does not understand that arrogant pos’ intend?
It’s amazing how much the Democrats have changed. Roosevelt and Truman demanded the unconditional surrender OF our enemies, but Obama surrenders TO them.
Flaw? As in singular; only one?
Flaws!
Medvedev: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you ...”
Obama: “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”
Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”
“This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” That statement tells us much about the president’s mindset.
The specific mention of missile defense is worrisome enough. Mr. Obama has retreated from the missile defense plan that was negotiated with European allies during the George W. Bush administration. Apparently, he is signaling Moscow that he intends to retreat further. The clear implication from the president’s comments is that he cannot tell the American people before the election what he plans to do after the election.
In addition, there is the phrase “on all these issues,” implying more is at stake than just missile defense.”
Article: Obama plans double cross on missile defense
When it comes to keeping America safe, we shouldn’t be too flexible:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/29/obama-plans-double-cross-on-missile-defense/print/
__________________________________________
That's true for a treaty, but this abortion is not considered a treaty.
What would be subject to veto here is the vote provided for by the Corker bill, which Zero signed. The Corker bill allows Congress to vote to disapprove the agreement. But in order to overcome a veto of such a disapproval, two thirds of each house would have to vote to disapprove.
A successful Corker bill vote, unlikely as it is, would keep the US sanctions in place. However, the UN is already moving forward to remove the international sanctions.
So, it's an epic fail no matter what.
Given that Obama's stated goal is to fundamentally destroy, i mean, "TRANSFORM", the United States of America, words like "fail" take on a whole different meaning.
|
|||||||||
His words. “While negotiating with an adversary” - Iran and Obama are simpatico, not adversaries.
We propped up the Soviet Union too. Why should we treat mad-dog Islamists any differently? /s
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.
