Posted on 04/30/2018 9:47:42 PM PDT by Texas Fossil
I think the more important question is, where did the Uranium 1 Uranium go? And who made money off the sale to the Mullahs? And with what did they pay off the U1 “beneficiaries?” Was it from the Pallet of US Taxpayer Cash? Was this part of the “insurance policy?” And the media is concerned about Trump and the Russians. What a laugh, NOT!
And who ran the State Dept and the “Intellegence” services during that time? I heard Buchanan say that yesterday and thought how could he be that stupid... Lost a lot of respect for him then.
sounds like an issue that Europe and the middle east should clear up on their own. If they have answers they know what to do.
Not our circus not our monkeys.
> “The EU intelligence agencies should have this information as well—so why are the U.K., France, and Germany supporting a nuclear-armed Iran?”
Macron and Merkel are controlled by globalists. They are expendable, easily replaced if they buck the globalist plan. EU has their own form of ‘deep state’ that control EU economies vis ECB and BIS. Macron and Merkel are in effect pawns in the game.
May is politically correct and walking the moderate fine line. She was against BREXIT but she says she will respect the will of BREXIT voters only she will advance globalism at every opportunity. If she can help turn back BREXIT, she will.
Why are all these faces of EU members so set on globalism?
For the same reason that Neville Chamberlain returned to Britain proclaiming ‘Peace In Our Time’. The globalist agenda is delusional. Merkel actually thinks all these issues are ‘manageable’.
What’s really going on is that no one wants to appear to be belligerent or extreme. They want to be seen as moderate, as reasonable, as accommodative. They will leave all the rest to the likes of Trump while they show disdain to his presence. In sum, they are cowards.
Saw Bibi’s presentation yesterday - was thinking Obama just watched another piece of his rotted and puss-filed legacy get squeezed into the hazardous waste receptacle...
The signatories to the deal include Russia, China, France, UK, the EU, Iran, and the US. Why should the exit of the US end the deal? We left TPP and the Paris Climate Accord and they survived.
It is up to Iran to decide if it still honors the agreement. If Iran leaves, then it demonstrates that Iran was always bent on getting nuclear weapons. There could very well be an ongoing clandestine program despite the verification inspections. Iran lied at the very onset of the deal.
It is ironic that Russia is part of this deal. The Dems are calling for more sanctions on Russia as part of their campaign to take down Trump for collusion with the Russians. No one seems to be questioning Russia’s motives for signing the Iran deal or the part Russia played in the negotiations. Russia built the Iranian nuclear plant and has a deal to build three more.
The truth is that everyone benefited from the Iran deal except the US.
The EU wants the trade and the oil. It is all about the money, the long-term effect aside. The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.
“Where’d that money go, Obama?”
TREASON. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. HANG OBAMA.
..................
The Hegelian Dialectic subsumes all such oddities.
Nobody’s foolin’ nobody. If the sun rises in the East, then it demonstrates that Iran was always bent on getting nuclear weapons.
“Pat Buchanan claimed that unanimous U.S. Intelligence agencies certified that Iran had no nuclear weapons program in 2007 and again in 2011.”
I don’t think Pat takes his medicines. He gets a little wacky at times.
Obama official says he pushed a ‘narrative’ to media to sell the Iran nuclear deal
One of President Obama’s top national security advisers led journalists to believe a misleading timeline of U.S. negotiations with Iran over a nuclear agreement and relied on inexperienced reporters to create an “echo chamber” that helped sway public opinion to seal the deal, according to a lengthy magazine profile.''
“All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”
Rhodes set up a team of staffers who were focused on promoting the deal, which apparently included the feeding of talking points at useful times in the news cycle to foreign policy experts who were favorably disposed toward it. “We created an echo chamber,” he told the magazine. “They [the seemingly independent experts] were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”
In the article, Rhodes speaks contemptuously of the Washington policy and media establishment, including The Washington Post and the New York Times, referring to them as “the blob” that was subject to conventional thinking about foreign policy.
“We had test-drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like [the anti-nuclear group] Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked,” Rhodes says. Speaking of Republicans and other opponents, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Rhodes adds that he knew “we drove them crazy.”
“To void it, we simply have to denounce it. Congressional consent isn’t required.”
It’s a statute, passed by both houses of Congress and signed by POTUS.
It is acknowledged by most Congress cannot compel the POTUS to follow it, but POTUS cannot unilaterally impose sanction that would otherwise require Congressional approval/initiation.
It is structured in law just like all of our trade deals.
For that we can thank Bob Corker and the Republicans in the Senate.
see my #56
“Pat Buchanan has said many things that are antisemitic.”
Can you cite just one?
I know he has lambasted US Government for giving too much credence to Israel in foreign policy, but I have not seen an antisemetic statement from him.
Thank you.
First off, I'm not going off topic, I replied to your post about Buchanan. Yes, Buchanan claims to be Jeffersonian, which is somewhat admirable to a point. Had GWB been more Jeffersonian, we would be much better off. Unfortunately, going back 20 years, he blames everything wrong in our foreign policy on Israel. All our wars are Israel's fault, the entire mid-east issue is Israel's fault. He has ranted many times that there are too many Jews in Congress and other positions of power in the USA, Jews have too much influence, NeoCons are all Jews, Jewish Americans are not loyal to the USA, etc. At the same time, he writes highly sympathetic pieces for Iran and the Palestinians. I'm not attacking Buchanan, I have followed him since the 80's, but these are his positions and he repeats them regularly going back 2 decades. Buchanan has some great conservative policy positions, but I'm not going to ignore or deny his faults.
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.