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.
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.
And yet…
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?
So, yesterday a bunch of Republicans decided to do whatever they could to torpedo active nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran. You see, the United States is trying to stop Iran from producing a nuclear weapon and so far, the negotiations are succeeding. But that success is something the Republicans can’t stand and they are going above and beyond to make sure those negations fail.
Today, it’s Ted Cruz’s turn to try and scare Iran into leaving the negotiation table. He appeared before a presidential forum sponsored by the International Association of Firefighters, and said this:
“If we do not see real leadership in Washington to stand up and defend this country , to acknowledge radical Islamic terror for what it is, and to defeat ISIS and stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, we are risking yet another horrible tragedy here at home that could well entail the men and women in this room once again running into a scene of heartbreaking devastation that could have and should have, been prevented.”
After mentioning the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979, he reminded the room of “the costs, the ravages of radical Islamic terrorism, whether it’s the Boston bombing,” the Fort Hood shooting or “the horror of 9/11.”
“I believe a deal right now this administration is negotiating will only accelerate Iran’s acquiring of a nuclear weapon,” Cruz said.
Congressional Republicans are tired of blocking domestic policies. They are now openly engaging in foreign and international obstruction of the President’s policies, and they don’t care who sees their obvious and sickening hate for this president.
Republican U.S. senators warned Iran’s leaders on Monday that any nuclear deal with President Barack Obama could last only as long as he remains in office, an unusual partisan intervention in foreign policy that could undermine delicate international talks with Tehran.
The open letter was signed by 47 senators, all but seven of the Republicans in the Senate, and none of Obama’s fellow Democrats, who called it a “stunt.” Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif dismissed it as a “propaganda ploy” from pressure groups he called afraid of diplomatic agreement.
In the letter, the senators said Congress plays a role in ratifying international agreements. Noting Obama will leave office in January 2017, they said any deal not approved by Congress would be merely “an executive agreement” that could be revoked by Congress.
The White House said the letter was a partisan effort to undermine Obama’s foreign policy by lawmakers who oppose a deal. “Congressional Republicans are ready to fast-forward to the military approach before the diplomatic approach has been given the opportunity to succeed,” spokesman Josh Earnest said.
A Western diplomat said the action was “without precedent.” “It’s 100 percent an American issue, but obviously it could become a real problem,” the diplomat said.
Iran’s Zarif blasted the Republicans. “I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement ‘with the stroke of a pen’ … it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law,” he said in a statement.
Vice President Cheney said on Monday that the deal the U.S. and its international partners reached with Iran last month over its nuclear program is suspect because of some of the Obama administration’s initial missteps in implementing the president’s new health care law.
“I don’t think that Barack Obama believes that the U.S. is an exceptional nation,” Cheney complained on Fox and Friends. “Nobody cares much in the Middle East anymore what the U.S. thinks because we don’t keep our commitments.”
The former vice president moved to Iran and without mentioning any specific criticisms of the agreement, claimed it’s bad because of unrelated health care issues. “We don’t follow through and Iran we’ve got a very serious problem going forward and a deal now been cut,” he said. “The same people that brought us you can keep your insurance if you want are telling us they’ve got a great deal in Iran with respect to their nuclear program. I don’t believe it.”
Things were hairy there for a couple of months, what with the government shutdown (Republicans’ fault) and the still incomprehensible fail of the healthcare website (all you, Democrats), but slowly and surely, things seem to be turning around, just in time for the holidays.
The best part, though, is that thousands of people are effectively signing up for health insurance through state exchanges and Medicaid, and will soon have a much better experience on healthcare.gov. I went on the site and breezed through the process here in New Jersey. In late October, that didn’t happen.
Of course, this will be a long, messy process. The Saudis and Israelis are wary and nervous about a reinvigorated Iran, and for good reason. Iran threatens the Saudi near-monopoly on oil in the region and their Sunni government is a natural enemy for the Iranian Shiite mullahs who really run the country. Israel is, of course, afraid that Iran will ignore any limits placed on it by a treaty and once their economy improves, will go ahead and build nuclear weapons and use them on Jerusalem.
If you thought it was difficult to solve the Israeli-Palestinian issue, then this will be well-nigh impossible, but it has to work. Iran once had a vibrant economy and the people are committed to a free-market system. The religious leaders might have to make more concessions to the business sector, as the Chinese Communist Party has done in the name of capitalism, and my sense is that a rising middle class will not look kindly on a regime that would threaten that prosperity with a risky and suicidal strike on Israel. And really, do you think Iran would nuke the Old City, with its timeless Muslim shrines? I might be naive, but I don’t.
As for the Saudis, they have been fed on American weapons and support, while suppressing any free speech or political movements that could give women the right to drive, much less tolerate a free press or alternative political parties. Yet we see them as an ally and the somewhat more free Iranians as the third leg of the axis of evil. Never forget that 15 of the 19 September 11 conspirators were radicalized Saudis. That says something about the level of repression inside that country. I suspect that their bigger fear is what their society will need to undergo in order to compete in a world where Iran and Iraq have freer economies.
Clearly, we are at the beginning of the process and Obama and Kerry have to make sure that Israel is protected from any mischief, nuclear or otherwise. But Israel also has to solve its own problem with settlements and a two state solution to the Palestinian problem. Interesting times indeed.
The Republicans, and some influential Democrats such as Charles Schumer of New York, have lined up against the Iran agreement and the Republicans continue to hope and pray that people don’t sign up for health care. In addition, the House has said that they won’t be voting on the immigration bill this year (though most Americans support a path to citizenship), and this while Chris Christie is considering supporting a Dreamer bill in New Jersey (or at least the idea of one). As long as the GOP hard right continues to play hardball, the Democrats will begin to look better and better as we move towards November. Something to be thankful for?
Just another example of Republican obstruction if they think the President might win on a particular issue. Top level Republicans are now calling for stronger sanctions against Iran after a new deal was announced over the weekend. Republicans know that increased sanctions would kill the deal, so they’re jumping on that plan ASAP!
Under the deal reached in Geneva in the early hours of Sunday morning the Islamic Republic agreed to freeze significant parts of its nuclear program and increase transparency in exchange for the lifting of $7 billion worth of sanctions which have been punishing the Iranian economy for years.
However top Republican lawmakers have said that now is the time to step up the sanctions against the regime, since, they argue, they have been instrumental in forcing Iran to the negotiating table. Speaking on ABC Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) told the ‘This Week’ program:
“Instead of easing them, now is the time to tighten those sanctions and let’s get a long term deal to prevent them from developing a weapon.”
Kevin McCarthy of California, the House Majority Whip, said that it was time to move forward with new sanctions in the Senate.
However the Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Sarif was unequivocal about the consequences of a new round of sanctions:
“If there are new sanctions, then there is no deal. It’s very clear. End of the deal. Because of the inability of one party to maintain their side of the bargain.”
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By agreeing to this, we can analyze browsing behavior and unique IDs on this site. Declining or revoking consent may affect certain features.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
