Iran Nuclear Deal Reached At Geneva Talks

[TooTall]

Conservatives tried that argument for the Iraq War too. It worked then, I admit, to convince Americans to support the Iraq War.

But it's not working now. Sorry, but there will be no war on Iran. Go be Butthurt over something else.

Are you referring to these 'conservatives'? And, if you are, don't you feel rather ignorant?

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

 

[Amelia]

The agreement, however, does not require Iran to stop enriching uranium to a low level of 3.5 percent, or to dismantle any of its existing centrifuges.

In return for the initial agreement, the United States agreed to provide $6 billion to $7 billion in sanctions relief. Of this, roughly $4.2 billion would be oil revenue that has been frozen in foreign banks.

This limited sanctions relief can be accomplished by executive order, allowing the Obama administration to make the deal without having to appeal to Congress, where there is strong criticism of any agreement that does not fully dismantle Iran’s nuclear program.

The fact that the accord would only pause the Iranian program was seized on by critics who said it would reward Iran for institutionalizing the status quo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/w...ran-on-nuclear-deal-hang-in-balance.html?_r=0

This isn't much of a deal. Iran is smiling and the US appears as weak negotiators because we are.

Did the timing have something to do with it (Actually being a distraction to the failure of Obamacare) or is Obama - Kerry a failing team when it comes to negotiating?

They had to have something they could call a win.

It's just like the ACA in that regard. Didn't matter how bad the legislation was, it had to pass. Obama needed something he could label a win no matter how far away it was from what he promised.

After the Syria keystone cops debacle and the unraveling of Obama's domestic agenda, it hardly mattered what agreement Kerry came up with just as long as they could call it a win.

I am not commenting on how good or bad the Iran agreement is -- just saying that it's irrelevant to the Obama administration how good or bad it is. They needed something done and they needed it soonest and they were going to call it a win no matter what it was.

 

[Mojo2]

Conservatives tried that argument for the Iraq War too. It worked then, I admit, to convince Americans to support the Iraq War.

But it's not working now. Sorry, but there will be no war on Iran. Go be Butthurt over something else.

You don't learn things easily, do you? Stop with the Iraq War. We are pages beyond that. We are talking about Iran now, the agreement just made. Did you read the post about the Little Green Book? Read things and learn.

No, I will not stop with the Iraq War. It's was a failure, and its example will be used against proponents of a more aggressive policy against Iran. Get over it.

The same doofs who wanted a war in Iraq want a war on Iran. And the failure of the Iraq War will be used against conservatives. Tough cookies.

Liberals were 100% vindicated by the debacle of the Iraq War, and liberal warnings should have been heeded.

Liberal policies will now be imposed instead of warmongering conservative policies. Deal with it.

Liberals get to run the foreign policy of the US now. Get over it. There will be more peace and less war. It's on you to get past that.

There's always some dumb son of a bitch who doesn't read the memo.

You haven't paid attention to what has been learned since you last engaged in this matter.

Well, here's something you missed.

We now know that Bush was justified in invading Iraq.

Two reasons.

One.

Saddam had been intentionally leading the world, and more specifically, his hostile neighbors, into believing he actually possessed WMD's as a way to keep them from invading Iraq again. (You recall the eight year Iran/Iraq war that killed millions, right?)

This admission came in a CBS 60 Minutes broadcast with Saddam's FBI interrogator, George Piro.

[ame=http://youtu.be/KDKTqD9_jhM?t=23s]Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions: No WMDS! - YouTube[/ame]

And the second reason is that GWB gave Saddam more than enough time to leave and avoid war.

Or to give up his WMD's and/or come clean.

US President George W Bush gave Iraqi President Saddam Hussein a 48-hour deadline to flee Iraq or face a US-led invasion, saying coalition forces will wage war "at a time of our choosing."

The President, commander in chief of 250,000 US troops poised at the borders of Iraq, told the Iraqi people: "The day of your liberation is near."

Mr Bush issued the ultimatum after UN allies refused to back his bid for a resolution sanctioning military conflict. The diplomatic defeat forced Mr Bush to move toward war with Britain, Spain, Australia and a handful of other nations in his self-described "coalition of the willing".

Mr Bush warned that war could lead to retaliatory strikes by terrorists on US interests and home and abroad, and said he had ordered increased security at airports and along US waterways.

"These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible," he said. "We will not be intimidated by thugs and killers."

For the first time since he drew the nation's attention to Iraq last year, Mr Bush focused on the questions most asked by Americans: Why war? And why now?

Spelling out the threat, he said Saddam has weapons of mass destruction he might share with terrorists, has a history of hating Americans and is a destabilising force in the Middle East.

"The United States did nothing to deserve or invite this threat but we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety," the president said from the White House.

"The tyrant will soon be gone," he said.

Bush tells Saddam: flee Iraq or face war | Mail Online

 

[Erand7899]

What Iran does is not our business. Our interference in the Middle East for the past 60 plus years is why we've become a terrorist target.

To the contrary, our existence as a super power that supports the existence of Israel, is why we have become a terrorist target. Simplistic, but true.

And if we just submit we will all be okay.

Right?

Israel fights for itself as well as for US.

NOT the other way around.

Obviously, my comments were far too simplistic for your comprehension. We will always be a target of radical Islamists because we are a superpower that stands in their way of world conquest. We also support Israel and that makes us a double target. Submission to the demands of the terrorists would only lead to more demands.

Our mistakes in the Middle East involve vain attempts at creating democratic societies in countries that are nowhere near ready for democracy. We should have left Iraq shortly after we defeated Saddam, and let the Iraqis figure out their own future. The same applies to Afghanistan.

I fully support the United States backing of Israel, and I fully support sending Iran back into the stone age. Bomb their power plants and their refineries and leave them in the dark and on foot. Hard to build a nuclear bomb in that atmosphere.

 

[Pheonixops]

you Obama cult followers are a danger to us and our country




Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
November 24, 2013 9:38 am

Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake - YouTube

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was less than pleased with the P5+1 and Iran nuclear deal. Prime Minister Netanyahu called the deal, “ a historic mistake, it’s not made the world a safer place.”

from
Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake | Washington Free Beacon

Well, the six world powers who agreed to this deal, disagree with netanyahu. If he doesn't like it, that's his problem and he can deal with it. If we are making headway in a positive direction with Iran, I think that's a good thing.

world powers?
really

That's what they were referred to in the article. I'm guessing it may be the EU and some other countries. My main point is that if we can at least start a dialogue and try and move this forward in a peaceful and mutually beneficial manner, it's worth a try.

I have no angst toward Israel as a nation, there are a lot of good people there and I wish them well. I'm sure that there are plenty of Israelis who don't like netanyahu's policies as well.

Israelis Protest Against Budget, PM's Expenses - Inside Israel - News - Israel National News

 

[rightwinger]

Rebblicans don't get to ...

Bomb, bomb, bomb......bomb, bomb Iran

I can see why they are disappointed

what happened to bomb bomb bomb Syria? Libya, and every other country he can in the middle east?

that saying belongs to your Dear Leader

but nice try

All this does is buy them off for a couple years if that long... then another President will have to deal with them again and again and again

Much like Syria, Egypt and Libya....he resolved the issue without resorting to a US invasion

A welcome change from the invade first, find a reason later, Republicans

 

[Pheonixops]

you Obama cult followers are a danger to us and our country




Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
November 24, 2013 9:38 am

Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake - YouTube

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was less than pleased with the P5+1 and Iran nuclear deal. Prime Minister Netanyahu called the deal, “ a historic mistake, it’s not made the world a safer place.”

from
Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake | Washington Free Beacon

Well, the six world powers who agreed to this deal, disagree with netanyahu. If he doesn't like it, that's his problem and he can deal with it. If we are making headway in a positive direction with Iran, I think that's a good thing.

Are you the frigging reincarnation of that fuckin Brit appeaser, Nevillie Chamberlain???

Tell me how your attitude is any different from the Brits and the French selling Czechoslovakia down the river to Hitler?

LOL, why would you say that?

That's a totally silly comparison, maybe you can articulate your reason for that comparison so I can understand better.

 

[HenryBHough]

Capitulate first then grovel.

Yeah, this "president" has established a pattern.......

 

[Stephanie]

Rebblicans don't get to ...

Bomb, bomb, bomb......bomb, bomb Iran

I can see why they are disappointed

what happened to bomb bomb bomb Syria? Libya, and every other country he can in the middle east?

that saying belongs to your Dear Leader

but nice try

All this does is buy them off for a couple years if that long... then another President will have to deal with them again and again and again

Much like Syria, Egypt and Libya....he resolved the issue without resorting to a US invasion

A welcome change from the invade first, find a reason later, Republicans

what did he resolve?
so now everything is all about INVASION..he can bomb bomb bomb the hell out of counties and you don't call that, Invading them? now all those countries HATE US
what a joke

 

[velvtacheeze]

Conservatives tried that argument for the Iraq War too. It worked then, I admit, to convince Americans to support the Iraq War.

But it's not working now. Sorry, but there will be no war on Iran. Go be Butthurt over something else.

Are you referring to these 'conservatives'? And, if you are, don't you feel rather ignorant?

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

They changed their mind after it was obvious that the Iraq War was a mistake.

 

[Mojo2]

Conservatives tried that argument for the Iraq War too. It worked then, I admit, to convince Americans to support the Iraq War.

But it's not working now. Sorry, but there will be no war on Iran. Go be Butthurt over something else.

Are you referring to these 'conservatives'? And, if you are, don't you feel rather ignorant?

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Great post!

Here's my 2 cents!

This is by a critic of the war and the Right.

"The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 defined 'regime change' as the official U.S. policy toward Iraq. That regime change sanctions bill was cited as a basis for the Authorization of Military Force Against Iraq in 2002; the infamous vote that ushered in the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003."

FCNL: Iran Leak Reveals Senate Push for Regime Change​

 

[mudwhistle]

Rebblicans don't get to ...

Bomb, bomb, bomb......bomb, bomb Iran

I can see why they are disappointed

what happened to bomb bomb bomb Syria? Libya, and every other country he can in the middle east?

that saying belongs to your Dear Leader

but nice try

All this does is buy them off for a couple years if that long... then another President will have to deal with them again and again and again

Much like Syria, Egypt and Libya....he resolved the issue without resorting to a US invasion

A welcome change from the invade first, find a reason later, Republicans

Problem is people died as a result of Obama's involvement in Syria and Libya. Egypt did a total reversal from Obama's efforts, so erase that one.

What you consider to be a success is highly dubious. I'm not going into details because they are quite lengthy and already explained to you on numerous occasions.

 

[velvtacheeze]

Settle down, people...

This doesn't mean diddly-squat, in the final analysis...

This is only an interim 6-month band-aid on a much larger problem...

Best to hold-off on making any hasty judgments one way or another until next April or May...

When they start dealing with the Tough Stuff on a more permanent basis...

The Obama administration has set a precedent of giving in. Get Kerry and Jarrett out of there and get someone stronger in there without a daily influence of Obama.

Most Americans want a deal, and would rather put up with a nuclear Iran than a war with Iran.

Sorry, but your preferred policy of endless aggression against Iran lost at the polls in November 2012. Go be Butthurt over something else.

 

[mudwhistle]

Settle down, people...

This doesn't mean diddly-squat, in the final analysis...

This is only an interim 6-month band-aid on a much larger problem...

Best to hold-off on making any hasty judgments one way or another until next April or May...

When they start dealing with the Tough Stuff on a more permanent basis...

The Obama administration has set a precedent of giving in. Get Kerry and Jarrett out of there and get someone stronger in there without a daily influence of Obama.

Most Americans want a deal, and would rather put up with a nuclear Iran than a war with Iran.

Sorry, but your preferred policy of endless aggression against Iran lost at the polls in November 2012. Go be Butthurt over something else.

Allowing Iran to go nuclear is like allowing Charles Manson to go nuclear.

They can close down oil production in the region within hours and start a war the will inflame our terrible relations with Russia even further.

 

[velvtacheeze]

The Obama administration has set a precedent of giving in. Get Kerry and Jarrett out of there and get someone stronger in there without a daily influence of Obama.

Most Americans want a deal, and would rather put up with a nuclear Iran than a war with Iran.

Sorry, but your preferred policy of endless aggression against Iran lost at the polls in November 2012. Go be Butthurt over something else.

Allowing Iran to go nuclear is like allowing Charles Manson to go nuclear.

They can close down oil production in the region within hours and start a war the will inflame our terrible relations with Russia even further.

Why would Iran want to start a war? Why would they want to close down oil production? They would have nothing to gain from it. You wingers have gone INSANE.

 

[Jackson]

Stephanie has a new thread which brings up a new question.

Is Obama violating the law: Iran Sanctions Act passed by Congress and signed by him in 2010?

Can an Executive Order negate an existing law?

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...nts/hr2194.pdf

We need experts to weigh in here.

 

[Pheonixops]

In the meantime, I predict liberals here will try to somehow use this as a cover for the failure of Obamacare.

That's sounds like an RNC talking point, I expect to hear the same crap being spewed by hannity, limbaugh, beck and the rest of that group.

Obomacare and Iran are two separate issues.

 

[mudwhistle]

Most Americans want a deal, and would rather put up with a nuclear Iran than a war with Iran.

Sorry, but your preferred policy of endless aggression against Iran lost at the polls in November 2012. Go be Butthurt over something else.

Allowing Iran to go nuclear is like allowing Charles Manson to go nuclear.

They can close down oil production in the region within hours and start a war the will inflame our terrible relations with Russia even further.

Why would Iran want to start a war? Why would they want to close down oil production? They would have nothing to gain from it. You wingers have gone INSANE.

Actually the leaders in Iran are pretty insane. They dream of wiping out Israel and cutting off the Gulf from oil production to it's customers like the U.S. It's why the Saudis are buying nukes for Pakistan.

 

[blackhawk]

Rebblicans don't get to ...

Bomb, bomb, bomb......bomb, bomb Iran

I can see why they are disappointed

what happened to bomb bomb bomb Syria? Libya, and every other country he can in the middle east?

that saying belongs to your Dear Leader

but nice try

All this does is buy them off for a couple years if that long... then another President will have to deal with them again and again and again

Much like Syria, Egypt and Libya....he resolved the issue without resorting to a US invasion

A welcome change from the invade first, find a reason later, Republicans

There is still a civil war going on in Syria and the man Obama said must go Assad is still in power no matter how we might have felt about him a democratically elected leader in Morsi was overthrown by the military this comes after we threw the man before him under the bus and of course Libya where we had a consulate and C.I.A annex attacked our ambassador and three others murdered. Ignoring a problem till it comes back to bite you in the ass is not resolving it.

 

[Mojo2]

Conservatives tried that argument for the Iraq War too. It worked then, I admit, to convince Americans to support the Iraq War.

But it's not working now. Sorry, but there will be no war on Iran. Go be Butthurt over something else.

Are you referring to these 'conservatives'? And, if you are, don't you feel rather ignorant?

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

They changed their mind after it was obvious that the Iraq War was a mistake.

When it became clear to me what great and wonderful outcomes might result from a successful conduct of the Invasion/War/Transition/Handover/Withdrawal, I became a big fan of GWB and supported a successful outcome in Iraq rather a sure defeat as the Dems. were (and in the media still are) pushing for.

Remember, the war could have gone either way. And but for a few events it would have been seen as a big win for the Iraqi people, the American people, the Bush administration, American prestige and respect abroad, future engagements with foreign leaders, 'Conservatism', and lastly, it would have been a big win for GWB.

Yeah. The year 2000 marked a turning point. The election and the recount brought out the worst in the passionate, impulsive, out of control Liberals and Leftists.

And those passions have sometimes turned to hatred and it has become a movement and it has only spread and grown hotter since then.

Bottom line: I changed my mind after I saw what a great thing COULD have resulted if everyone involved was working towards victory.

And there are STILL a whole crap load of Libs and Lefts who would have PREFERRED we'd lost and left Iraq in disgrace.