My name is Barack Obama, “Welcome to Fantasy Island” …
A scorching OPED from the not so conservative Washington Post … President Obama’s foreign policy is based on Fantasy. What, you mean its a bad thing to have a foreign and domestic policy based on Unicorns and Pixie dust? Hey Barack, how are those rose-colored glasses fitting these days?
FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality. It was a world in which “the tide of war is receding” and the United States could, without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces. Other leaders, in this vision, would behave rationally and in the interest of their people and the world. Invasions, brute force, great-power games and shifting alliances — these were things of the past. Secretary of State John F. Kerry displayed this mindset on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday when he said, of Russia’s invasion of neighboring Ukraine, “It’s a 19th century act in the 21st century.”
That’s a nice thought, and we all know what he means. A country’s standing is no longer measured in throw-weight or battalions. The world is too interconnected to break into blocs. A small country that plugs into cyberspace can deliver more prosperity to its people (think Singapore or Estonia) than a giant with natural resources and standing armies.
Unfortunately, Russian President Vladimir Putin has not received the memo on 21st-century behavior. Neither has China’s president, Xi Jinping, who is engaging in gunboat diplomacy against Japan and the weaker nations of Southeast Asia. Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is waging a very 20th-century war against his own people, sending helicopters to drop exploding barrels full of screws, nails and other shrapnel onto apartment buildings where families cower in basements. These men will not be deterred by the disapproval of their peers, the weight of world opinion or even disinvestment by Silicon Valley companies. They are concerned primarily with maintaining their holds on power.
The Heritage Foundation reminds us that this is exactly what Heritage’s James Carafano and Kim Holmes warned about early in the Obama presidency.
“The tenets of the Obama Doctrine… do not reflect history or the threats we face,” said Carafano, the E. W. Richardson Fellow, and Holmes, author of Liberty’s Best Hope: American Leadership for the 21st Century. “They will serve to undermine America’s strengths and make it more difficult for friends and allies to figure out where we stand or how we might act in critical times.”
Carafano and Holmes predicted in 2010: “The Obama Doctrine, by seeking to remake America to please others, will fail because, in the end, no one will like the instability, vulnerability, and economic stagnation that follow from a weaker America.”
As the Jawa Report opines, “When you’ve lost the Washington Post, you’ve pretty much lost all foreign policy credibility.”
Hey Liberals, Remember When Sarah Palin Predicted in 2008 That If Obama was Elected President, Putin and Russia Would Invade Ukraine … SHE WAS RIGHT!
HEY AMERICA, HOW’S THAT “HOPEY-CHANGEY STUFF” WORKING OUT FOR YA?
Remember in 2008 when then GOP Vice Presidential nominee said during a campaign rally in a Reno, Nevada, “After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.” Palin was mocked profusely for her comments by the Left and the liberal MSM. Flash-forward to present day … GUESS WHO WAS CORRECT? Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is now saying “I told you so” from her Facebook page following reports of a Putin – Russian “military invasion” in the Crimean area of Ukraine.
Um, I’m usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did …
Yes, I could see this one from Alaska. I’m usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did, despite my accurate prediction being derided as “an extremely far-fetched scenario” by the “high-brow” Foreign Policy magazine. Here’s what this “stupid” “insipid woman” predicted back in 2008: “After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”
With special thanks to JWF, they found this liberal gem from the past where Sarah Palin was mocked for her foreign policy comments regarding what would happen between Russian and Ukraine if Barack Obama was elected in 2008.
Palin helpfully offered four scenarios for such a crisis, one of which was this strange one:
After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.
As we’ve said before, this is an extremely far-fetched scenario. And given how Russia has been able to unsettle Ukraine’s pro-Western government without firing a shot, I don’t see why violence would be necessary to bring Kiev to heel. Watch the upcoming parliamentary elections in December to see if Moscow gets the pliable new government it wants.
So where are all those Democrats, Libs and liberal media types with their apologies? Doesn’t it just crush liberals that Sarah Palin was more correct on Russia than their Obamamessiah.
UNREAL … Barack Obama Skips National Security Team Meeting on Russia and Ukraine, But He Declares “Happy Hour” for Democrats
This president is just not serious about anything unless it has to do with Obamacare … God Help Us!
As reported at The Weekly Standard, President Obama’s team met the other day to discuss the ongoing situation on Ukraine as Russia is invades the and Barack Obama was no where to be found. But don’t worry, Susan Rice, Obama’s National Security adviser, briefed him. Yes, the same Susan Rice. Former Democrat President Bill Clinton played the sax; however, it looks like
Nero Obama is playing the violin.
A White House official emailed some reporters to say that President Obama’s team met today to discuss the ongoing situation on Ukraine. It appears President Obama did not attend.
According to Time magazine’s Zeke Miller, Obama skipped the meeting. “Obama did not attend the meeting, but WH official says he has been briefed by Susan Rice and his national security team,” says Miller.
But wait, on Friday after the Russians sent troops in Ukraine, Barack Obama completed his “Russian Speech”, he did find the time to declare an official ‘happy hour’ with Democratic Party. What is wrong with this guy? He finds the time to go on ‘The View’ and do NCAA Basketball bracketology, but foreign policy meetings as the Russians invade is off limits.
WITH BARACK OBAMA AS PRESIDENT, JOE BIDEN AS VP AND JOHN KERRY AS SECRETARY OF STATE … GOD HELP US ALL …
Twitter – @CBSNews
Twitter – @ZekeJMiller
Remember When Barack Obama Ridiculed Mitt Romney During 2012 Presidential Debates about Russia … ‘1980s Are Calling to Ask for Their Foreign Policy Back’ … How Do Those “Rose Colored” Glasses Fit There Barack?
Yet another reason why you don’t elect, let alone reelect SNARK or a Campaigner is Chief …
Remember when Barack Obama made the snide, wise-a$$, ridiculing comment during the 2012 presidential debates to GOP candidate Mitt Romney regarding Russia and that the 1980′s want their foreign policy back? And everyone thought Obama was so cute making such a witty comment. So what do you think of Obama’s comments now as Russia and Vladimir Putin have invaded Ukraine. Just curious America, how’s that “Hopey-Changey” stuff working out for ya? Where is your
Moses Obamamessiah now? By the way Barack, how do those rose colored glasses fit?
Fox News’ Bret Baier opened a segment of his show Friday night by flashing back to an October 2012 presidential debate where President Obama ridiculed Republican presidential nominee Romney about his concern over Russia’s “geo-political” threat.
“You said Russia. Not Al Qaida. You said Russia,” Obama said regarding biggest threats. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because…the cold war’s been over for 20 years.”
Mitt Romney’s intelligent, powerful and correct retort was as follows:
“Russia, I indicated, is a geopolitical foe … and I said in the same paragraph I said and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin …”
Is it any wonder why at this moment so many Americans wish that had a do-over of the 2012 presidential election and they would not vote for Barack Obama. He has been wrong and an epic failure on everything in be domestic and foreign policy. What else would you expect but snark from an individual who was completely unqualified to be president?
Russian President Putin Laughs at Obama’s Weak Statements as Russian Troops Invade the Crimea Region of Ukraine (Update: Russian Parliament Unanimously Approves Military Intervention in Ukraine)
Elections do have consequences, especially when you elect a community agitator, a Campaigner in Chief, a Golfer in Chief, rather than a serious Commander in Chief …
Russian President Vladimir Putin looks to bring back the footprint and prestige of the former Soviet Union while Barack Obama makes the United States less influential and respected in the world. President Barack Obama issued a stern warning to Putin that Russia’s actions were a “clear violation,” “breach of International law” in Ukraine. Obama also went on to say “that he was deeply concerned” and “there would be costs” and the U.S. would stop participating in preparatory meetings for the G8 summit set to be held in Sochi June 4-5. Obama said in an unscheduled statement from the White House briefing room, “Any violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would be deeply destabilizing, which is not in the interests of Ukraine, Russia or Europe.” I am guessing that Putin has made a cost/benefit analysis that it is in the best interest of Russia. Who honesty thinks that Putin is afraid of anything Obama says?
As the rest of the world watches Ukraine, so does the White House.
Amid reports of Russian military and paramilitary presence in Ukraine, President Obama spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin for 90 minutes today, calling on Russia to withdraw its forces.
Obama “expressed his deep concern over Russia’s clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is a breach of international law,” according to a White House readout, warning that Russia’s activity “would negatively impact Russia’s standing in the international community” and “will lead to greater political and economic isolation,” according to the White House’s paraphrasing.
The U.S. will also stop participating in preparatory meetings for the G8 summit set to be held in Sochi June 4-5, the White House said.
UPDATE I: Charles Krauthammer: ‘The Ukrainians – and I Think Everybody – Are Shocked by the Weakness of Obama’s Statements’.
Some were astonished by Barack Obama’s comments as being incredibly weak, present company included. If you watch the above video and Obama’s statements you can see that this president does not get it. The weak, naive president’s statement sounded in more of a professorial lecture of a laundry list of feel good items like Obama was at a State of the Union speech rather than facing down a ruthless individual. Putin is KGB, he is merely laughing at Obama’s weak response and wanting no part in confrontation.
The Blaze reports on Charles Krauthammer’s comments from Fox News ‘Special Report’. Welcome to what 1980 would have looked like had the voters of the United States not had the common sense and where with all to elect Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter.
Syndicated columnist and political commentator Charles Krauthammer on Friday said President Barack Obama’s statement on the alleged Russian invasion of Crimea, Ukraine, was so weak it was “staggering.” In fact, he argued the president “could not have issued a more flaccid statement.”
Krauthammer told Bret Baier that the “Ukrainians — and I think everybody — are shocked by the weakness of Obama’s statements.”
“I find it rather staggering,” he added. “What he’s saying is we’re not going to really do anything, and we’re telling the world.”
But the request appeared likely to go unheeded as the Kremlin issued a defiant-sounding statement saying Putin stressed to Obama that the situation in Ukraine poses “real threats” to the life and health of Russian citizens and compatriots who live in Ukrainian territory.
“Vladimir Putin emphasized that, in the case of a further spread in violence in eastern regions (of Ukraine) and Crimea, Russia maintains the right to protect its interests and the Russian-speaking population that lives there,” the Kremlin statement said.
Russia Invaded Ukraine: ‘Invasion’ by Russian Soldiers
Russia invading Ukraine … Looks like a scene from ‘Red Dawn’
Putin’s War in Crimea Could Soon Spread to Eastern Ukraine And nobody—not the U.S., not NATO—can stop him, Welcome to 1979 and Jimmy Carter.
Why is Putin doing this? Because he can. That’s it, that’s all you need to know. The situation in Kiev—in which people representing one half of the country (the Ukrainian-speaking west) took power to some extent at the expense of the Russian-speaking east—created the perfect opportunity for Moscow to divide and conquer. As soon as the revolution in Kiev happened, there was an unhappy rumbling in the Crimea, which has a large Russian population and is home to the Russian Black Sea Fleet. It was a small rumbling, but just big enough for Russia to exploit. And when such an opportunity presents itself, one would be foolish not to take it, especially if one’s name is Vladimir Putin.
UPDATE III: Russian Parliament Unanimously Approves Military Intervention in Ukraine, even after Russians had already invaded the Crimean peninsula.
Russia’s parliament approved a motion to use the country’s military in Ukraine after a request from President Vladimir Putin as protests in Russian-speaking cities turned violent Saturday, sparking fears of a wide-scale invasion.
The motion follows President Barack Obama’s warning Friday “there will be costs” if Russia intervenes militarily, sharply raising the stakes in the conflict over Ukraine’s future and evoking memories of Cold War brinkmanship.
“I’m submitting a request for using the armed forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine pending the normalization of the socio-political situation in that country,” Putin said in his request sent to parliament.
I cannot reiterate more the words from The Lonely Conservative … “Elections have consequences. Not just for us here in the US, but for the world. Mission accomplished.” Amen Sister!!!
Reversal of Fortune: 53% of Americans Believe President Barack Obama is Not Respected on World Stage, 41% Think He Is
Leading from Behind: Remember when everyone said that all we had to do was elect Barack Obama and the world would respect us?
What happened to Barack Obama, the International Rock star? Now for the first time in his presidency, a majority of Americans think he is not respected Internationally. According to a recent Gallup poll, 53% of Americans believe that Obama is not respected on the world stage, while 41% think he is. This is quite a turn-around from 2013 where 51% thought he was respected and 43% thought he was not. Barack Obama is not only destroying America from within, he is dwindling America’s respect in the world as well. Can you say … EPIC FAILURE!
Does anyone really wonder why so many Americans have ‘Buyers Remorse’ and if they had a chance to have a re-vote on the 2012 election, they would not vote for Obama to be president. Barack Obama can thank his lucky stars he was not elected the President of Ukraine. Speaking of the Ukraine, the Obama administration is warning Russia against intervening in Ukraine after the country’s parliament ousted president Viktor Yanukovych. As seen in the poll below that world leaders do not respect Barack, does anyone think Putin is scared of Obama? Hardly.
For the first time, more Americans think President Barack Obama is not respected by other world leaders than believe he is. Americans’ opinions have shifted dramatically in the past year, after being relatively stable from 2010 to 2013.
The results are based on Gallup’s annual World Affairs poll, conducted Feb. 6-9. Although opinions about a president’s perceived world standing often track with his job approval rating, a majority of Americans still thought world leaders respected Obama in 2010 and 2011, when his job approval was similar to what it is now. Thus, the recent decline may be more tied to specific international matters from the past year, such as the revelation the U.S. was listening in on foreign leaders’ phone calls, the situation in Syria, increased tensions with Russia, and an uneasy relationship between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Check out the amazing reversal in numbers from Democrats and Independents on their beliefs that Barack Obama is no longer respected as a world leader on the world stage. With Democrats a shift from +14 in 2013 to -11 in 2014. And for Independents, a shift from +12 in 2013 to -15 in 2014.
What would you rather have America, a Cowboy or a coward?
Posted February 24, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
Barack Obama, Bystander in Chief, Community Agitator, Divider in Chief, Epic Fail, Foreign Policy, Gallup, Germany, Leading from Behind, Lost in Smallness, Misleader, NSA, Obamanation, Polls, Russia, Scandal, United States, US National Security, We the People, World | 2 comments
Immigration Quotas …If Its Good Enough for the Swiss, Why is Immigration Quotas & Restricting Free Movement Across US-Mexican Border s Bad Thing for America?
Switzerland wants to protect its borders and regulate immigration. Imagine that, a country wants to regulate who comes in to their country and does not want to allow free movement across EU borders. Those racist Swiss.
Swiss and European leaders reacted warily on Monday to the narrow approval by Swiss voters of a proposal to limit the number of foreigners allowed to live and work in Switzerland.
A bare majority voted in a referendum on Sunday to cut immigration quotas and require that Swiss nationals be given priority in hiring. The result could have far-reaching implications for relations between Switzerland and the 28-member European Union, of which it is not a member.
Laurent Fabius, France’s foreign minister, said Monday that the European Union would have to reconsider its relationship with Switzerland.
“It is a vote that causes concern because it means that Switzerland wants to withdraw into itself,” Mr. Fabius told RTL radio.
Viviane Reding, vice president of the European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union, told the BBC that Switzerland could not “pick and choose” among its agreements with the bloc, adding, “it is a whole package they have signed up to.” She said that the Swiss government must now explain how it intends to apply the results of the referendum.
NY Times Goes in the the Tank for Barack Obama & Hillary Clinton … Revisionist History Report Says Al-Qaeda Not Linked to Benghazi Attack & Was Fueled by Anti-Islam Video
hands liberal MSM on deck … its time to shill for Obama and namely protect Hillary Clinton for 2016 … Benghazi-gate, What Benghazi-gate?
The NY Times reported this morning that Al Qaeda was not linked to the Benghazi consulate attack that killed four Americans, including US Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Instead, the attack was led by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. However, most astonishingly, the Times was back touting that the attack was “fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.” GOOD GRIEF. Hmm, doesn’t the Times realize that Hillary Clinton is already on record that in September of last year, Clinton suggested the attack was the work of Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda affiliates?
Darrell Issa disputes NY Times Propaganda Piece on Benghazi and tries to educate a bias NBC ‘Meet the Press’ David Gergory
Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
A fuller accounting of the attacks suggests lessons for the United States that go well beyond Libya. It shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty, and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies of convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-Western sentiment. Both are challenges now hanging over the American involvement in Syria’s civil conflict.
The attack also suggests that, as the threats from local militants around the region have multiplied, an intensive focus on combating Al Qaeda may distract from safeguarding American interests.
In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation.
You thought the MSM was in the tank for Obama? You haven’t seen nuthing yet. They will be all-in, all the time for Hillary Clinton from now until the 2016 presidential election. The Libs in the MSM now have to make up for a weakened, scandal plagued, dishonest and untrustworthy lame duck Barack Obama, the lie and disaster that is Obamacare and an anemic economy. So why not start with as Powerline calls it, some revisionist history on Benghazi. It would appear that we have found Hilary’s weak spot and the MSM must now cover it up … but what difference does it make?
The Times stops short of claiming that the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi was “spontaneous.” It says, instead, that the attack was not “meticulously planned.”
That may or may not be true. But the quality of the planning — good enough, as it turned out — seems irrelevant. Again, what matters is that the State Department should have been prepared for the attack and taken action accordingly. This the New York Times does not dispute.
It also matters that the Obama administration’s account of the attack, per Susan Rice, was inaccurate even if one accepts the Times’ dubious reporting. The Times acknowledges this, though it chooses to characterize Rice’s account as just a “misstatement.”
The adequacy or inadequacy of the Obama administration’s response as the Benghazi attacks unfolded also matters. So does the treatment of those in the State Department who have dared to question Hillary Clinton’s actions relating to Benghazi.
Whatever else the Times story demonstrates, I believe it shows that this story won’t go away as long as Hillary Clinton aspires to be president.
The 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya was an “Al Qaeda-led event” according to multiple on-the-record interviews with the head of the House Intelligence Committee who receives regular classified briefings and has access to the raw intelligence to make independent assessments.
“I will tell you this, by witness testimony and a year and a half of interviewing everyone that was in the ground by the way, either by an FBI investigator or the committee: It was very clear to the individuals on the ground that this was an Al Qaeda-led event. And they had pretty fairly descriptive events early on that lead those folks on the ground, doing the fighting, to the conclusion that this was a pre-planned, organized terrorist event,” Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., told Fox News in a November interview.
“Not a video, that whole part was debunked time and time again,” Rogers added of the attack which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, Foreign Service officer Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, “which just leads to questions of why the administration hung with that narrative for so long when all the folks who participated on the ground saw something different.”
Quinnipiac Poll: Obama’s Job Approval Rating Falls to Low of 38% … Obamacare at 34%, Handling the Economy 37%, Not Honest & Trustworthy 52%
HOW LOW CAN THE
LION LYING KING GO …
According to the UK Daily Mail, a recent Quinnipiac poll has President Barack Obama’s job approval rating continuing to fall, down to 38% while a whopping 57% disapprove. Barack Obama’s poll numbers are reaching epically bad levels as there is no end in sight for Americans finding out further bad news regarding Obamacare and the 2000 unread pages in how it affects people’s lives. Americans continue to find out and realize that they were lied to and the impacts are directly being felt. Obama is seeing lows across the board in handling the economy, healthcare, foreign policy and is seeing support from key groups like Latinos and Millennials completely fall apart. But wait, there is one thing that Obama gets high marks in, 52% polled say that Obama is not honest or trustworthy.
Once a president loses the trust of the people, they are finished, #You Lie!
Barack Obama is facing poll numbers that are now in the same territory as President George W. Bush’s following Hurricane Katrina.
The Quinnipiac University Polling Institute released numbers on Tuesday showing that just 38 per cent of registered voters approve of the job Obama is doing as president, with a whopping 56 per cent saying they disapprove.
The president has lost his landslide electoral edge among young voters, too, with a negative 41–49 per cent rating among 18- to 29-year-old voters. His once formidable support among Hispanics has also evaporated: They now support him by an historically small 50–43 per cent margin.
Worse for Obama’s fast-approaching legacy-building years, the public believes he is not ‘honest and trustworthy,’ by a 52–44 per cent score. A smaller majority, 51 per cent, said he lacks ‘strong leadership qualities.’
Today, Obama gets negative scores of 6 – 92 percent among Republicans, 30 – 62 percent among independent voters, 31 – 64 percent among men, 44 – 49 percent among women and 29 – 65 among white voters. Approval is 76 – 18 percent among Democrats and 85 – 9 percent among black voters.
- 37 – 59 percent on his handling of the economy
- 34 – 62 percent on health care
- 42 – 49 percent on foreign policy
- 40 – 48 percent approval for his handling of the situation in Iran
- 49 percent young voters now saying they disapprove of his job performance
- 43 percent of Hispanics now oppose Obama
Deal Reached Between Iran & Six World Powers (US, Britain, Russia, China, France and German) Over Tehran’s Nuclear Program … Obama Claims It Will Put “Substantial Limitations” to Prevent Iran From Creating a Nuclear Weapon (Israel PM Calls Deal a ‘Historic Mistake’
OH DEAR GOD … From the President who gave us Obamacare and promised Americans that if they liked their insurance and doctors, they could keep them, PERIOD! comes the following promised deal.
The WAPO is reporting that an agreement was reached over night between Iran and six world powers, the United States, Britain, Russia, China, France and German, that will freeze key parts of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for temporary relief on some economic sanctions. What does this mean? For the next six months Iran is supposedly going to freeze or reverse progress at all of it’s major nuclear facilities and is supposed to halt the installation of new centrifuges used to enrich uranium and caps the amount and type of enriched uranium that Iran is allowed to produce. For this Iran will some relief of trade sanctions and access to some of its frozen currency accounts overseas, concessions said to be valued at less than $7 billion over the six month term of the deal.
Iran and six major powers agreed early Sunday on a historic deal that freezes key parts of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for temporary relief on some economic sanctions.
The agreement, sealed at a 3 a.m. signing ceremony in Geneva’s Palace of Nations, requires Iran to halt or scale back parts of its nuclear infrastructure, the first such pause in more than a decade.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif hailed the deal, which was reached after four days of hard bargaining, including an eleventh-hour intervention by Secretary of State John F. Kerry and foreign ministers from Europe, Russia and China.
“It is important that we all of us see the opportunity to end an unnecessary crisis and open new horizons based on respect, based on the rights of the Iranian people and removing any doubts about the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program,” Zarif told reporters in English. “This is a process of attempting to restore confidence.”
Hmm, and we are supposed to trust Iran why exactly? Well at this point very few Americans trust the Obama administration. As anyone knows, an agreement is only as good as those signing it. The fact that Iran has never kept its word means nothing to
Neville Chamberlain Barack Obama.
Just mere hours after the nuclear deal was reached, the Associated Press reported that Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said the deal recognizes Tehran’s “rights” to maintain an atomic program.
As part of the deal, according to Zarif, Iran retains the right to nuclear technology, including the enriching of uranium under the terms of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons — which requires it not to create nuclear weapons or enable other countries to obtain them.
Iran has agreed to what U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry described as “unprecedented international monitoring” of its nuclear program.
Check out at the 3:40 mark in the video above and also reported on by the Gateway Pundit that
Neville Chamberlain Barack Obama says, “Iran should be able to access ‘Peaceful’ nuclear energy. Are you kidding me. This would be a kin to the Russian village of Oymyakon, that has the coldest recorded temperatures of any permanently inhabited location should have access to peaceful air conditioning. Exactly how could one be this clueless and trusting, unless you are Charlie Brown thinking that this is the one time Lucy will not pull the ball away before you kick it? In the very sentence that Obama claims Iran should have access to nuclear energy, he comments they have a record of violating its obligations. Um, and it is going to be different this time, how exactly?
“Iran should be able to access peaceful nuclear energy, but because of its record of violating its obligations, Iran must accept strict limitations on its nuclear program.”
The NRO opines, that this is a “Foreign-Policy Disaster”. Yeah, how did that piece of paper signed by Adolph Hitler and peace in our time work for Britain and Europe?
This wretched deal offers one of those rare occasions when comparison with Neville Chamberlain in Munich in 1938 is valid. An overeager Western government, blind to the evil cunning of the regime it so much wants to work with, appeases it with concessions that will come back to haunt it. Geneva and Nov. 24 will be remembered along with Munich and Sep. 29.
Barack Obama has made many foreign-policy errors in the past five years, but this is the first to rank as a disaster. Along with the health-care law, it is one of his worst-ever steps. John Kerry is a too-eager puppy looking for a deal at any price.
With the U.S. government forfeiting its leadership role, the Israelis, Saudis, and perhaps others are left to cope with a bad situation made worse.
UPDATE I: Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, said in a statement broadcast live on television Sunday morning: “Trust is, of course, a two-way street, and we must also find this trust in others. The first step in creating that trust has been taken.” But then again, who has proved they cannot be trusted?
One of the achievements of Sunday’s agreement, according to Rouhani, is that “the sanctions will be broken. The cracks in the sanctions started began last night, and in future those gaps will be grow.”
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has long doubted the sincerity of Western leaders, expressed guarded approval of the agreement.
Responding to a letter from Rouhani, Khamenei thanked the efforts of Iran’s negotiating team, led by foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, but asked them to continue their vigilance in dealing with old enemies.
“God willing, standing against the arrogant powers is and will be the main criteria on the path forward for those in charge of this issue,” Khamenei wrote.
UPDATE II: Israeli Leader Calls Iran Deal ‘Historic Mistake’ … I think they would know better than John Kerry or Barack Obama seeing that it is Israel that is in the cross-hairs of Iran.
Because why would the Obama administration not get the OK from its greatest ally in the Middle East and the target of Iran’s offensive nuclear capability? PM Netanyahu said, ”What was reached last night in Geneva is not a historic agreement, it is a historic mistake. Today the world became a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world made a significant step in obtaining the most dangerous weapons in the world.”
Israel’s prime minister harshly condemned the international community’s nuclear deal with Iran on Sunday, calling it a “historic mistake” and saying he was not bound by the agreement.
Speaking to his Cabinet, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the world had become a “more dangerous place” as a result of the deal and reiterated a long-standing threat to use military action against Iran if needed, declaring that Israel “has the right and the duty to defend itself by itself.”
Israel believes Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon, and in the weeks leading up to Sunday’s agreement, Netanyahu had warned the emerging deal was insufficient.
He had called for increased pressure on Iran, and warned that any relief from economic sanctions would make Iran less willing to compromise during a coming, six-month period aimed at reaching a final agreement.
Netanyahu told his Cabinet that Sunday’s deal gave Iran much-needed relief from the sanctions, but left most of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact. In particular, he cited Iran’s continued ability to enrich uranium, a key step in making a nuclear bomb.