Obama compares Iranian hardliners to GOP and then …

Obama, in his speech attempting to rally support for his nuke deal with Iran, compared the hardliners in Iran to Republicans.

“It’s those hardliners chanting ‘Death to America’ who have been most opposed to the deal,” he claimed, though those are the very people with whom he negotiated his cave in. “They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus.”

This remark was greeted with laughter and applause, according to the White House website.

The only difference between hardliners in Iran and Republicans is that Obama will negotiate with hardliners.

Overlooked by many in the media was Obama’s confession that his deal will fund more terrorism in the Middle East:

Now, this is not to say that sanctions relief will provide no benefit to Iran’s military.  Let’s stipulate that some of that money will flow to activities that we object to. We have no illusions about the Iranian government, or the significance of the Revolutionary Guard and the Quds Force. Iran supports terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. It supports proxy groups that threaten our interests and the interests of our allies — including proxy groups who killed our troops in Iraq.  They try to destabilize our Gulf partners. But Iran has been engaged in these activities for decades. They engaged in them before sanctions and while sanctions were in place.

So, the deal will provide funds to those who wish to kill more Americans.

Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Can I get a witness?

Hezbollah fighters take an oath to continue to fight against Israel. (AP photo)

Advertisements

27 comments on “Obama compares Iranian hardliners to GOP and then …

  1. Josh “not so” Earnest…tap dancing on Morning Joe trying to defend the President’s “finger poke in the eye” comments…

  2. nyp says:

    So you are therefore oppposed to any deal at all with Iran to eliminate its nuclear weapons capacity, since any deal would require a phase-out of economic sanctions. You want to go straight to war. That should work out well.

    BTW, Hassan Rouhani is not a “hardliner.”
    Mohammad Javad Zarif is not a “hardliner.”
    Ali Akbar Salihi is not a “hardliner.”

  3. Oh, Rouhani is not a hardliner.

    Saying ‘Death to America’ is easy. We need to express ‘Death to America’ with action.”

    – Hassan Rouhani
    President of Iran

    http://www.clarionproject.org/content/hassan-rouhani-we-need-express-death-america-action

  4. “Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif echoed Velayati’s assessments, telling the Iranian parliament yesterday that ballistic missile usage “doesn’t violate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).” And while it violates a paragraph in the annex of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, that resolution is “non-binding” as well as irrelevant, “because we don’t design any of our missiles for carrying nuclear weapons,” he added.”

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259547/iran-still-chanting-death-america-arnold-ahlert

  5. Nyp says:

    What time do you want to start the bombing?

  6. Rincon says:

    “The only difference between hardliners in Iran and Republicans is that Obama will negotiate with hardliners.” Great line Thomas, although, as a moderate, I feel compelled to point out that the converse is also true. It did make me smile though.

    As for the funding of our enemies, I agree that it is an unpalatable aspect of the deal, which is still better than its alternatives. Nevertheless, if you worry about funding America’s enemies, why aren’t you writing about the greatest “funder” of all, Saudi Arabia?

  7. OK, Saudis are big funders too.

  8. nyp says:

    Let’s make war on them as well. But first, we need to start Mr. Mitchell’s war with Iran.

  9. James Taranto’s WSJ piece quotes Obama on his deal funding the Iran terrorist partners and then says:

    “You might say we’ve always been at war with Westasia. Obama has gone full Orwell here. He claims that his “diplomacy” precludes the possibility of any “sort of war” while acknowledging it will feed a war machine. He is quite literally claiming that war is peace.”

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/full-orwell-1438882438

  10. nyp says:

    So you oppose any agreement to limit Iranian development of nuclear weapons. You simply want war. Another Middle East war.

  11. Steve says:

    “Another Middle East war.”

    That is all they know. Or understand.

  12. Nyp says:

    Add Steve to the group that wants to declare war on Iran.

  13. Steve says:

    Declare?

    How does one declare war when it’s been ongoing for 2000 years?

  14. Bill says:

    There has always been an alternative to “declaring” war on Iran. That is to continue the sanctions and continue international pressure. Now, Obama and Kerry have given them the surety of obtaining a bomb as well as billions of dollars to fund their role as the number 1 state supporting terrorism in the middle east. Our geniuses have agreed to lift all sanctions and the embargo against their acquisition of more conventional weapons. They now have the time and resources to develop their ICBMs capable of delivering an atomic warhead. In the negotiations, no mention was ever made as to the U. S. Citizens being held in Iranian prisons. Recall how well Clinton’s nuclear treaty with North Korea worked out or Neville Chamberlain’s deal with Adolph Hitler. Are the ayatollahs more trustworthy than those actors? I rather doubt it since it is perfectly all right under Sharia law for a Muslim to lie to an infidel. .

  15. nyp says:

    No, you can’t “continue the sanctions and continue international pressure.” If the Republicans kill the JCPOA the international sanction disappear. Sure, the US sanctions will continue, but those are irrelevant, as we have had no trade with Iran for 35 years. It is the international sanction regime that Obama built that will dissolve if the deal is killed. The Chinese want the Iranian oil. The Russians want strategic influence. The French want commercial contracts. If you think the international sanctions will continue after the Republicans kill the deal you are completely deluded.

    So, the Iranians get sanction relief, and they resume the reprocessing of weapons-grade plutoneum that the JCPOA prohibits them from engaging in. That is what your approach leads to.

  16. Steve says:

    “I examined this deal in three parts: nuclear restrictions on Iran in the first 10 years, nuclear restrictions on Iran after 10 years, and nonnuclear components and consequences of a deal,” he wrote. “In each case I have asked: Are we better off with the agreement or without it?”

    Mr. Schumer said that the inspection regime in the first 10 years of the agreement would be too weak, and that provisions to reimpose sanctions if Iran cheated were too onerous. He said his most serious concerns were with the freedom that Iran would have after 10 years to quickly build a nuclear weapon.

    “To me, after 10 years, if Iran is the same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement than without it,” he said.

    Charles Schumer, announcing he will oppose approval of this deal.

    It’s not Republicans…it’s representative government (for once) at work.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/07/us/politics/schumer-says-he-will-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1

  17. Bill says:

    Good for Schumer. Any member of Congress who favors this agreement gives tacit approval to funding and creating a nuclear armed theocracy that favors the complete annihilation of Israel and western civilization as we know it.

  18. nyp says:

    Another 215,000 jobs added in July. Unemployment down at 5.3%, with economists predicting it will be in the 4% range by year-end. 5.7 million new jobs created in the past two years — the strongest such period in fifteen years. And 13 million new jobs in the past 65 months.

    I blame that job-killing ObamaCare.

  19. Another fawning off topic post…with numbers that will all be revised down two months from now. More lipstick…

  20. nyp says:

    Actually, the previous quarters’ numbers were revised slightly upwards.

    What is the opposite of trying to put lipstick on a pig?

  21. nyp says:

    What if the Republicans keep the US from signing onto the Iran deal, but the Iranians announce that they will comply with the terms of the deal so long as the rest of the world ends their sanctions? After all, we have no trading relationship with Iran, the current value of our commercial business is very low. Does anyone doubt that Russia, China, France, Germany, etc. will jump at the offer? What would we do then?

  22. Rincon says:

    “IAEA inspectors have the right to a physical or technical presence in all of Iran’s nuclear sites and will conduct regular monitoring of Iran’s entire nuclear fuel cycle and supply chain, from uranium mines and mills to centrifuge production, assembly, and storage facilities. This means Iran would need to set up an entirely parallel set of facilities and a separate supply chain if it sought to have a covert nuclear weapons program. This kind of program would be extremely difficult to hide under this deal.”
    And, “Reinstalling the 13,000 centrifuges that Iran is required to remove would be a significant challenge, because — under the deal — the centrifuges have to be dismantled and put into storage under constant monitoring.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal/q-and-a?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=email491-text3&utm_campaign=irandeal

    True or false?

  23. Steve says:

    “What if the Republicans keep the US from signing onto the Iran deal”……

    Good. Then we don’t have to spend as much as a dime on the effort.

    BTW,,,I did not know you think Chuck Schumer is a Republican, Nyp. But I am gratified to find you will throw your own under the bus and even happier to see them finding the same problems (with this deal) we are.

  24. nyp says:

    So, Iran goes ahead with the deal, the international sanctions are dropped, and the US is left completely isolated.

  25. Steve says:

    Someone order a whambulance for Nyp!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s