How To Judge A Leader: Study History

[PoliticalChic]

1. What does a real President do when the other side refuses to agree to his terms?

According to Marx, communism was inevitable....and the Soviets lived by this creed.
The battle of wills was played out between Gorbachev and Reagna in Reykjavik in 1986.


"At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.

Reagan [a nuclear abolitionist at heart] was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future." FindArticles.com | CBSi



2. So ended the Reykjavik Summit....with no deal.
Returning home, Reagan, gave a speech:

" While we parted company with this American offer still on the table, we're closer than ever before to agreements that could lead to a safer world without nuclear weapons. I'm always aware that, as President, I'm not just making decisions for today's Americans, but tomorrow's Americans as well. I was not about to bargain away a safer world for you tomorrow.

It's my sincere hope that Mr. Gorbachev will review the great strides we made in Iceland and join with us in reducing nuclear weapons and in building technology that protects lives rather than destroying them. That's the only protection we have today."
Ronald Reagan: Remarks to Students From Southern Regional High School of Manahawkin, New Jersey, in Baltimore, Maryland




Compare those words and actions with the simpleton who insured that the world's most prominent state supporter of terrorism will......will....have nuclear weapons.
Only those who have failed George Santayana's test can continue to support Hussein Obama.




3. "The American economy was also made from sterner stuff than Gorbachev's collapsing command economy. After the faux prosperity of the 1970s, fueled by skyrocketing oil prices and infusions of Western loans, the Soviet economy went into a terminal tail spin while its U.S. counterpart turned on its afterburners…"
Ibid.

a. "The Soviets could no longer meet US economic and strategic competition. They therefore had to meet Reagan's terms. Gorbachev announced his acceptance of the 'zero-zero option' on INF missiles on July 22, 1987."
John O’Sullivan, The President, the Pope, And the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World, p. 289





Could Obama have used the same 'weapon' to make certain that Iran never gained nuclear arms?

Soooo....why didn't he?

 

[PoliticalChic]

4. While Reagan is a study in the judicious use of power, Obama the obverse: powerful behind the unquestioning obedience of the Democrats. Even when sanctions were doing to Iran exactly what the power of the American economy did to the USSR, Hussein Obama managed to force the barbaric 7th century state to accept nuclear weapons.


The sanctions were strangling them.
This from the Left-leaning Brookings Institute...

"....the sanctions against Iran — and the context for them internationally and within Iran — have changed dramatically. Since 2010, the sanctions’ impact on Iran has been severe: its oil exports and revenues plummeted; the value of its currency eroded; trade disruptions shuttered businesses and exacerbated inflation.

Quietly, a backlash emerged among Iran’s political elites against the country’s creeping isolation, and the June 2013 presidential election ushered in a moderate new president and the beginnings of a diplomatic breakthrough on the nuclear crisis — achievements that most observers attribute to the impact of sanctions."
Why “Iran Style” Sanctions Worked Against Tehran (And Why They Might Not Succeed with Moscow)



The sanctions against Iran were doing exactly what they were designed to do: bring Iran to the bargaining table...and giving up their nuclear program.


Hussein Obama acted quickly to remove the sanctions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ronald Reagan did everything he could to stem the proliferation of nuclear weapons.


5. This was before Obama decided it was imperative for Iran to have nuclear weapons..... his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:


June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."


June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."


October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"


November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."


February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."


January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."


July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."


May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."


November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."


December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."


December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."


January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."


March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."


March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."


March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."


March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.


March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...bc1fce-071d-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_print.html


September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
Obama's Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon


Did he change....or was a nuclear armed Iran always his intention?

 

[PoliticalChic]

On the one hand, there was Reagan, who obviated the greatest nuclear threat, the USSR.
Then, there was this:


6. "Obama’s hidden Iran deal giveaway

"...Obama announced the “one-time gesture” of releasing Iranian-born prisoners .... Jan. 17, 2016, in their highly choreographed rollout of the prisoner swap and simultaneous implementation of the six-party nuclear deal, according to a POLITICO investigation.

In reality, some of them were accused by Obama’s own Justice Department of posing threats to national security. Three allegedly were part of an illegal procurement network supplying Iran with U.S.-made microelectronics with applications in surface-to-air and cruise missiles like the kind Tehran test-fired recently, prompting a still-escalating exchange of threats with the Trump administration.


When federal prosecutors and agents learned the true extent of the releases, many were shocked and angry. Some had spent years, if not decades, working to penetrate the global proliferation networks that allowed Iranian arms traders both to obtain crucial materials for Tehran’s illicit nuclear and ballistic missile programs ....

.... the Obama administration did a lot more than just downplay the threats posed by the men it let off the hook... the White House derailed its own much-touted National Counterproliferation Initiative at a time when it was making unprecedented headway in thwarting Iran’s proliferation networks.


“This is a scandal,” she said. “The cases bear all the hallmarks of exactly the kinds of national security threats we’re still going after. It’s stunning and hard to understand why we would do this.”
Obama’s hidden Iran deal giveaway




Still no cogent explanation as to why this poseur would

a. demand that the worst supporter of terrorism be gifted with nuclear weapons

b. reverse decades of American policy on non-proliferation


There can be only one answer, and it is based on hatred, and authored by evil intent.

 

[justfor]

On the one hand, there was Reagan, who obviated the greatest nuclear threat, the USSR.
Then, there was this:


6. "Obama’s hidden Iran deal giveaway

"...Obama announced the “one-time gesture” of releasing Iranian-born prisoners .... Jan. 17, 2016, in their highly choreographed rollout of the prisoner swap and simultaneous implementation of the six-party nuclear deal, according to a POLITICO investigation.

In reality, some of them were accused by Obama’s own Justice Department of posing threats to national security. Three allegedly were part of an illegal procurement network supplying Iran with U.S.-made microelectronics with applications in surface-to-air and cruise missiles like the kind Tehran test-fired recently, prompting a still-escalating exchange of threats with the Trump administration.


When federal prosecutors and agents learned the true extent of the releases, many were shocked and angry. Some had spent years, if not decades, working to penetrate the global proliferation networks that allowed Iranian arms traders both to obtain crucial materials for Tehran’s illicit nuclear and ballistic missile programs ....

.... the Obama administration did a lot more than just downplay the threats posed by the men it let off the hook... the White House derailed its own much-touted National Counterproliferation Initiative at a time when it was making unprecedented headway in thwarting Iran’s proliferation networks.


“This is a scandal,” she said. “The cases bear all the hallmarks of exactly the kinds of national security threats we’re still going after. It’s stunning and hard to understand why we would do this.”
Obama’s hidden Iran deal giveaway




Still no cogent explanation as to why this poseur would

a. demand that the worst supporter of terrorism be gifted with nuclear weapons

b. why reverse decades of American policy on non-proliferation


There can be only one answer, and it is based on hatred, and authored by evil intent.

The topic isn't bad but I dont wanna read such long texts. Cut it to short.

 

[PoliticalChic]

On the one hand, there was Reagan, who obviated the greatest nuclear threat, the USSR.
Then, there was this:


6. "Obama’s hidden Iran deal giveaway

"...Obama announced the “one-time gesture” of releasing Iranian-born prisoners .... Jan. 17, 2016, in their highly choreographed rollout of the prisoner swap and simultaneous implementation of the six-party nuclear deal, according to a POLITICO investigation.

In reality, some of them were accused by Obama’s own Justice Department of posing threats to national security. Three allegedly were part of an illegal procurement network supplying Iran with U.S.-made microelectronics with applications in surface-to-air and cruise missiles like the kind Tehran test-fired recently, prompting a still-escalating exchange of threats with the Trump administration.


When federal prosecutors and agents learned the true extent of the releases, many were shocked and angry. Some had spent years, if not decades, working to penetrate the global proliferation networks that allowed Iranian arms traders both to obtain crucial materials for Tehran’s illicit nuclear and ballistic missile programs ....

.... the Obama administration did a lot more than just downplay the threats posed by the men it let off the hook... the White House derailed its own much-touted National Counterproliferation Initiative at a time when it was making unprecedented headway in thwarting Iran’s proliferation networks.


“This is a scandal,” she said. “The cases bear all the hallmarks of exactly the kinds of national security threats we’re still going after. It’s stunning and hard to understand why we would do this.”
Obama’s hidden Iran deal giveaway




Still no cogent explanation as to why this poseur would

a. demand that the worst supporter of terrorism be gifted with nuclear weapons

b. why reverse decades of American policy on non-proliferation


There can be only one answer, and it is based on hatred, and authored by evil intent.

The topic isn't bad but I dont wanna read such long texts. Cut it to short.

Perhaps you can find another thread that fits your attention span.

 

[justfor]

Of course. I have already.

On the one hand, there was Reagan, who obviated the greatest nuclear threat, the USSR.
Then, there was this:


6. "Obama’s hidden Iran deal giveaway

"...Obama announced the “one-time gesture” of releasing Iranian-born prisoners .... Jan. 17, 2016, in their highly choreographed rollout of the prisoner swap and simultaneous implementation of the six-party nuclear deal, according to a POLITICO investigation.

In reality, some of them were accused by Obama’s own Justice Department of posing threats to national security. Three allegedly were part of an illegal procurement network supplying Iran with U.S.-made microelectronics with applications in surface-to-air and cruise missiles like the kind Tehran test-fired recently, prompting a still-escalating exchange of threats with the Trump administration.


When federal prosecutors and agents learned the true extent of the releases, many were shocked and angry. Some had spent years, if not decades, working to penetrate the global proliferation networks that allowed Iranian arms traders both to obtain crucial materials for Tehran’s illicit nuclear and ballistic missile programs ....

.... the Obama administration did a lot more than just downplay the threats posed by the men it let off the hook... the White House derailed its own much-touted National Counterproliferation Initiative at a time when it was making unprecedented headway in thwarting Iran’s proliferation networks.


“This is a scandal,” she said. “The cases bear all the hallmarks of exactly the kinds of national security threats we’re still going after. It’s stunning and hard to understand why we would do this.”
Obama’s hidden Iran deal giveaway




Still no cogent explanation as to why this poseur would

a. demand that the worst supporter of terrorism be gifted with nuclear weapons

b. why reverse decades of American policy on non-proliferation


There can be only one answer, and it is based on hatred, and authored by evil intent.

The topic isn't bad but I dont wanna read such long texts. Cut it to short.

Perhaps you can find another thread that fits your attention span.

 

[PoliticalChic]