You know it was only a matter of time before Trump pats himself on the back for what the Obama administration accomplished in Iran. You know it was eventually going to happen, Donald Trump taking full credit for the release of Americans held as prisoners in Iran.
At a rally in South Carolina, Trump addressed the audience, telling his followers that because he’s been on the case, things are happening.
“So I’ve been hitting them hard and I think I might have had something to do with it,” Trump told a crowd of activists at the South Carolina Tea Party Convention. “You want to know the truth? It’s a part of my staple thing, I mean, I go crazy when I hear about this, you go absolutely wild because how is it possible?”
Trump has castigated the Iran nuclear deal for months – making it a significant portion of his stump speech. At many campaign rallies, Trump receives a loud cheer from the crowd as he calls Secretary of State John Kerry an incompetent negotiator.
Even though he believed he was due some credit for the prisoner exchange, Trump made clear that he didn’t think that the deal was fair to the United States.
“First of all, it should have taken place three or four weeks ago, whenever the hell they started,” Trump said. “Did you ever see an agreement take so long as this agreement? How long has this thing been going on? Years and years.”
Dick Cheney is wrong. That’s all I need to say and this post will be complete.
But I’ll explain.
The former vice president, who has been wrong on everything that has to do with Iraq, went on Fox News last week. The host asked Mr Cheney to explain why anyone should listen to him on the Iran Deal, when he has been consistently wrong on Iraq.
“Because I was right about Iraq,” Cheney replied.
Newsflash – Dick Cheney lies a lot too!
That statement prompted the White House to released the following video showing just some of the many instances where Cheney has been wrong on Iraq, and the release of the video just happens to coincides with a Republican anticipated speech given by the former VP.
Former vice president Dick Cheney is a liar. He is so good at lying, that an entire party believes the things he say, especially the things he say about President Obama. Often times, Fox News will parrot these lies as truths, but not on Sunday when Dick Cheney encountered Fox News host, Chris Wallace.
Talking about the Iran Deal, Cheney bagged his usual talking point, that the deal is a travesty which will result in Iran getting nuclear weapons and becoming even more stronger than before. Then Chris Wallace asked him about his 8 years in the White House and why the Bush/Cheney administration did nothing to stop Iran from trying to get a nuclear weapon.
“You and President Bush, the Bush-Cheney administration, dealt with Iran for eight years, and I think it was fair to say that there was never any real, serious military threat,” Wallace noted. “Iran went from zero known centrifuges in operation to more than 5,000.”
“So in fairness, didn’t you leave — the Bush-Cheney administration — leave President Obama with a mess?” the Fox News host asked.
“I don’t think of it that way,” Cheney replied. “There was military action that had an impact on the Iranians, it was when we took down Saddam Hussein. There was a period of time when they stopped their program because they were scared that what we did to Saddam, we were going to do to them next.”
“But the centrifuges went from zero to 5,000,” Wallace pressed.
“Well, they may have well have gone but that happened on Obama’s watch, not on our watch,” Cheney wrongly insisted.
“No, no, no,” Wallace fired back. “By 2009, they were at 5,000.”
“Right,” Cheney grumbled. “But I think we did a lot to deal with the arms control problem in the Middle East.”
When you think of today’s Republican, you certainly will not think of Colin Powell. He has bucked his party on most major issues today – when his fellow Republicans make it their duty to go against everything President Obama is for, Powell has done the complete opposite, putting politics aside and supporting the president’s policies if those policies work for America.
Powell appeared on NBC’s Meet The Press and spoke about the Iran Nuclear Deal.
“I think it is a good deal. I studied very carefully the outline of the deal and what’s in that deal. And I’ve also carefully looked at the opposition to the deal,” Powell said, “And my judgement after balancing those two sets of information is that it’s a pretty good deal.”
The General then goes on to explain why the deal makes sense, saying the deal “has stopped this highway race” towards a nuclear weapon for Iran.
President Obama made his announcement today from the Rose Garden and he spoke about a framework of the new Iran deal, a deal the President said will be finalized in June.
In his announcement, the president warned that any “backsliding” from the deal by Iran, would lead to a collapse of the deal and increased sanctions on Iran. And the president also used the opportunity to quashed some of the Republican lies about him not backing Israel, by pledging his continued support for that country.
Watch the announcement below.
While Republicans continue to crucify President Obama for even trying to negotiate a deal with Iran that would end that country’s nuclear program, a new Washington Post poll finds that Republicans are once again on the wrong side of the issue, as Americans overwhelming support the negotiations.
Overall, the poll finds 59 percent support an agreement in which the United States and its negotiating partners lift major economic sanctions in exchange for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. Thirty-one percent oppose a deal.
Support outpaces opposition across nearly all demographic and political groups, with liberals (seven in 10) and Democrats (two-thirds) the most supportive. At least six in 10 independents and moderates also back the broad idea of a deal with Iran.
Republicans are about evenly divided on an Iran deal, with 47 percent in support and 43 percent opposed. The split contrasts with Republican lawmakers’ widespread backing of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech deriding the potential deal in early March before a joint meeting of lawmakers. Additionally, all but seven Republican senators signed a letter to Iran’s leadership warning that Congress or a future president could override any agreement made by the Obama administration.
We’re going to need our mucking boots today because we’re going to wade into the Middle East. Until now, I have assiduously avoided all mention of the region because it’s messy and confusing and controversial and, quite frankly, my ideas have, shall we say, evolved over time. But the events of the day are far too important and compelling for me to stay away from the issues, so I am now going to opine. With FEEling.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a first and world-class jerk who has no business actually running a government. His comments last week on the eve of the Israeli elections regarding a two state solution with the Palestinians and his warnings about Israeli Arabs voting in droves have only widened the differences between Israel and both the US government and many American Jews. His speech in front of Congress, orchestrated by the House Republican leadership and done without consulting or notifying the Obama Administration, was a new low in political gaming and rogue foreign policy. That the speech almost ended up actually costing Netanyahu his election, and thus his need to play the racist, far-right card, told us that he would do anything to win votes (not a bad thing in and of itself, mind you). His persistent warnings about Iran’s intentions to build a bomb and use it on Israel are complicating the nuclear talks between the US and Iran, and his approval of new Israeli settlements is angering our allies around the world.
Netanyahu and his right wing government, is the only institution that is standing between Israel’s future existence and radical, terrorist, anti-Semitic entities that want to destroy it. His focus on Israel’s security is a prerequisite for winning and holding national office and, along with the economy, is the main issue for both domestic and foreign consumption. He’s a strong leader and has been able to navigate his way through the thickets of his country’s political system en route to 4 national election victories.
I support Israel and believe that it must survive and thrive as a testament to its Jewish roots, its democracy, its vibrant culture and its place as an island of hope in a hostile world. I also believe that there should be a state for the Palestinians because the present political and social arrangement is unsustainable and in some cases, inhuman. But now we are stuck because the current state of world affairs is so polarized and unforgiving that any compromise seems impossible. Radical Islamic groups would like nothing more than to see Israel destroyed. Israel needs to confront its adversaries and deserves the right to defend itself against attacks from both rockets and words.
What to do? The easy thing is to say that the Arab and Islamic states need to formally recognize that Israel exists and will continue to exist, and that the Israelis need to recognize that they will have to give up some land that they won in the six-day war of 1967. Militant groups will need to give up their weapons and stop using them against Israel, and Israel will need to loosen some of the border restrictions so that the Palestinians can freely conduct commerce and make their economy grow. Sounds easy, right?
Of course it isn’t and Netanyahu isn’t going to help. He’s going to hold a hard line now and wait to see who the next US president is going to be, hoping it’s someone he can work with, since his relationship with Obama is probably irreparable. I’m sure he’d love to see a more aggressive neo-conservative Republican, but I think Hillary Clinton would fit the bill too.
In the meantime, he’ll continue to oppose anything that might threaten Israel and will oppose any agreement with the Iranians. And there will be an agreement with the Iranians because deep down I think the Iranians want an agreement on their nuclear program. The Iranian economy is in shambles because of sanctions and the middle class (yes, there is a middle class) is demanding a place in the larger world. A nuclear agreement would also hold the Iranians to specific actions and inspections that, while there are many who say they will ultimately ignore any limits, will require Iran to play by the world’s rules if it wants to be taken seriously. I could be utterly misreading the politics, but I don’t think so. Attacking Israel with a nuclear weapon will only invite Iran’s destruction. They clearly don’t want that.
The prospects for genuine peace in the region look about as bleak as they ever have, and it will probably take a new generation of leadership to improve them. Of course, weren’t we saying the same thing in the 1970s?