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.
Pew Research Poll: 48% of Americans Against Military Strike against Syria, Only 29% Support It, 48% Against … ABC/WAPO Poll: 36% For, 59% Against
America has finally reached a bipartisan consensus, they are against Obama’s actions of wanting a military strike against Syria …
A PEW Research poll shows that Barack Obama, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the new found Democrat military hawks have little support among the American people with regards to a military action against Syria for Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his people. According to the poll, 48% of Americans are against military action, while only a meager 29% support it. The numbers against any military action against Syria are negative for Obama across party lines. Finally we have bi-partisan agreement, (Democrats: pro 29% – against 48%) … (Republicans: pro 35% – against 40%) … (Independents: pro 29%, against 50%).
But does Obama care what “We the People” think? Hardly, look how we got Obamacare rammed down our throats. Remember the lies were were told about that as well when the “Campaigner” in Chief misrepresented that as well? Most Americans understand that the using of chemical weapons is hideous, but how is it different from the 100′s of thousands of people previously killed in this Syrian civil war? They also understand that with a “chicken hawk” like Obama at the reigns, an attack on Assad and taking out his military and infrastructure would only allow Al-Qaeda to swoop in to power. So why doesn’t Obama, or does he?
President Obama faces an uphill battle in making the case for U.S. military action in Syria. By a 48% to 29% margin, more Americans oppose than support conducting military airstrikes against Syria in response to reports that the Syrian government used chemical weapons.
The new national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Aug. 29-Sept. 1 among 1,000 adults, finds that Obama has significant ground to make up in his own party. Just 29% of Democrats favor conducting airstrikes against Syria while 48% are opposed. Opinion among independents is similar (29% favor, 50% oppose). Republicans are more divided, with 35% favoring airstrikes and 40% opposed.
The military action is resoundingly looked upon by Americans as doing little good and in fact making matters much worse in the Middle East. A whopping 74% believe that U.S. airstrikes in Syria are likely to create a backlash against the United States and its allies in the region. Gee, ya think? Barack Obama claims that GITMO is a vehicle for terrorist recruitment, um, what the hell does he think a solo US strike with no, none, nada collation would do? Another 61% of Americans think that such a military action could lead to a long term military action in Syria.
CNN also is reporting that another national poll, an ABC News/Washington Post survey shows that only 36% of the public supports launching missile strikes against the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad if the U.S. has determined that Damascus has used chemical weapons against its own citizens. 59% of Americans oppose military action.
Nearly six in 10 Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll oppose unilateral U.S. missile strikes against Syria, and even more oppose arming the Syrian rebels – a complication for Barack Obama and proponents of military action in Congress alike.
Even given the United States’ assertion that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in the civil war there, 59 percent in the national survey, conducted Wednesday through Sunday, oppose U.S. missile strikes, far more than the 36 percent who support them.
The American people have lost trust in Obama and his foreign policy because frankly, he has none. Obama’s vision has worked so well in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and now Syria.
Obama’s Shot Across Syria’s Bow, Limited Military Operation … But What is the Point of Military Action … Does He Realize he is Siding with Al-Qaeda and Now Great Britain, France, German and Arab League Say Not So Fast
President Barack Obama calls for a shot across the bow and a limited military operation in a strike again Syria for their use of chemical weapons. Obama has called for a “Decisive but limited” military action. WHAT? Does this chicken hawk have any idea what he is talking about? So he wants to strike Syria, but does not want regime change. Does Obama realize that helping the rebels actually means that the United States is aiding Al-Qaeda? Yes, the very folks that killed nearly 3000 individuals on 9-11 in NYC, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. President says Syria’s use of chemical weapons affects US interests. How, exactly? One might say that an attack on Syria by the US, especially standing alone, would have a greater consequence on US interests.
Obama claimed he had support from foreign countries in the strike against Syria, not so fast. Great Britain calls for restraint and a political solution through the UN. And upon further evaluation, France changes its tone and seeks a political solution the ultimate goal for Syria. Germany not on board either.
Barack Obama, the community agitator has backed himself into a corner. This is why you do not draw a line in the sand that you are not willing to back up. Don’t play a game of chicken with people who do not care and do not respect you. Speaking of playing a game of chicken, Russia sending warships to the Mediterranean.
President Barack Obama promised Wednesday that any U.S. military strike at Syria would be a “shot across the bow” that avoids seeing America pulled into “any kind of open-ended conflict.”
Speaking in a wide-ranging interview with PBS Newshour, Obama insisted he has not made a decision on how best to respond to the alleged massacre of civilians by forces loyal to Syrian strongman Bashar Assad using chemical weapons.
But “if, in fact, we can take limited, tailored approaches, not getting drawn into a long conflict — not a repetition of, you know, Iraq, which I know a lot of people are worried about — but if we are saying in a clear and decisive but very limited way, we send a shot across the bow saying, stop doing this, that can have a positive impact on our national security over the long term,” the president said.
That would send the Assad regime “a pretty strong signal, that in fact, it better not do it again.”
Obama, making his first public remarks on the crisis since a CNN interview that aired Friday, rejected claims that rebels fighting to topple Assad were behind the Aug. 21 attack.
“We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out. And if that’s so, then there need to be international consequences,” he said.
“I have no interest in any kind of open-ended conflict in Syria, but we do have to make sure that when countries break international norms on weapons like chemical weapons that could threaten us, that they are held accountable,” he said.
The US and UK on Thursday appeared to have backed down from an immediate punitive military strike against Syria, even as embattled President Bashar al-Assad vowed that his country would emerge “victorious” in any confrontation with America and its allies.
A strike by western forces had appeared imminent but US allies were increasingly reluctant to act before hearing the results of a UN probe into the alleged poisonous gas attacks in the war-torn country on August 21.
President Barack Obama has said he had not yet decided whether to attack Syria in response to alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, but a strike still appeared likely as the US stopped seeking a UN mandate.
This is why the United States was out of their collective minds for reelecting a community agitator, a Campaigner in Chief, a misleader as President.
Russian President Vladimir Putin & Kremlin Cheers Obama Victory …They Can’t Wait for His “Flexibility”
Following the election of Barack Obama Tuesday night for a second term, the Kremlin cheered Obama’s victory. Why you might ask? They were looking forward to his new “flexibility” after his last election of course as Obama told Russian President Dmitri Medvedev when Obama thought no one was listening.
MOSCOW – Russian President Vladimir Putin has sent a congratulatory note to President Obama after his re-election Tuesday, his spokesman said. The Kremlin says it will make the text public after the Americans have received it. Putin is also expected to call Obama personally “in the near future.” “In general, the Kremlin took the news about Barack Obama’s victory in the elections very positively,” spokesman Dmitri Peskov said, according to the Interfax news agency. “We have the hope that positive initiatives in bilateral relations and in Russian-U.S. interaction on the international arena in the interests of international security and stability will be developed and improved,” he added. It is perhaps not surprising that the Kremlin is pleased with the outcome of the election, especially since President Obama told then-President Dmitri Medvedev earlier this year that he would have more flexibility after the election to negotiate NATO plans to place components of a missile-defense shield in Eastern Europe.
Former Iranian Hostage Don Cooke Compares Obama’s Foreign Policy to Jimmy Carter … Using the Same Ambivalence as Carter in the 1970′s
Here is a ringing endorsement against Barack Obama and his foreign policy failures.
Don Cooke, former Iranian hostage who was taken hostage by Islamist students and militants at the U.S. Embassy on November 4, 1979 in Tehran at age 23 and held for 444 days, was interviewed by FOX News over the weekend and stated that Barack Obama is showing the same ambivalent foreign policy as Jimmy Carter. There is something to be proud of, having the same ambivalent foreign policy as another failed Democrat president.
From the FOX News Insider:
Cooke said the crisis started during a period – under President Jimmy Carter – of “ambivalent” foreign policy toward the Middle East. He said only after the election of Ronald Reagan did the Iranian government realize the U.S. was serious and release the hostages.
“At this point, (Iran) sees ambivalence in the U.S. foreign policy and they don’t see any particular reason to stop (their nuclear program). … The sanctions are starting to bite, but I wish we had gone to these very punishing sanctions a bit earlier. Maybe we might see results by now,” Cooke said.
LVRJ Rips Obama over Benghazi Terrorist Blunder, Lies and Cover Up … Obama unworthy commander-in-chief
No truer words have ever been spoken … the Las Vegas Review Journal reports that President Barack Obama is unworthy of being Commander in Chief.
The LVRJ blast Barack Obama for his handling of the Benghazi attacks that gave rise to the death of four Americans including US Ambassador Stevens. The Obama administration botched Benghazi before, during and after the attacks. We are always very critical of the MSM; however, we give kudos when it is deserved. It certainly is here.
The Obama administration sat by doing nothing for seven hours that night, ignoring calls to dispatch help from our bases in Italy, less than two hours away. It has spent the past seven weeks stretching the story out, engaging in misdirection and deception involving supposed indigenous outrage over an obscure anti-Muslim video, confident that with the aid of a docile press corps this infamous climax to four years of misguided foreign policy can be swept under the rug, at least until after Tuesday’s election.
I have to admit I am impressed by the LVRJ and their extremely truthful accounts of this story and Obama’s failure as Commander in Chief. However, the MSM has all but avoided it, namely the TV media. Instead of providing answers to things that he knows first hand, Obama has dodged the questions so the the outcome is done after the election. Is that what we need as a Commander in Chief, a president that would hold off on the truth of the death of 4 Americans for his own political gain?
Not only did the White House do nothing, there are now reports that a counterterrorism team ready to launch a rescue mission was ordered to stand down.
Read the full story HERE, it is an eye opener, especially coming from the MSM. Could this have an affect in Nevada voting? The end result is that Obama has lost the right yo be president.
FOX News Catherine Herridge: State Department Culpable in Death of Ambassador Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty & Sean Smith
Is this the “SMOKING GUN” … Just imagine America if the rest of the MSM did their jobs and covered the Benghazi murders and Obama White House cover up like they did “Watergate”?
Last night FOX News foreign policy analyst Catherine Herridge went ‘On the record’ with Greta van Susteren and made a damning but factually correct statement … “From what I see the State Department has culpability in the death of the US Ambassador and three Americans.”
This followed the release of the “classified” cable from Ambassador Stevens on August 15 to the State Department that stated the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack.”
VIDEO Hat Tip – The Gateway Pundit
“What I see is a growing body of evidence that the State Department has culpability in the death of the ambassador and those three Americans. The warnings were specific. They were direct. They named the enemy and they said that this consulate needed more support. And it also indicated in the cable that the consulate should probably move long term into the annex. We now know that’s the CIA facility in Benghazi… I think it’s important that the people who died have themselves honored with the facts and I think we’re starting to get the facts.”
However, instead we are presented with no answers and stonewalling from President Barack Obama and his Administration. Obama claims we must wait for the investigation, yet he refuses to tell America what he knew and when he knew it. Sound familiar America? Barack Obama, the Democrat Obamamessiah is nothing more than Richard Nixon with a “D”.
In the below video, former Bush AG Michael Mukasey is questioning why Barack Obama needs an investigation before he reveals what he personally knew and when he knew it about the Benghazi attack and whether he took any action to stop it. Heck, how about help once the attack began! The reason why not … his reelection.
Classified August Cable Signed By Ambassador Stevens Warned Benghazi Consulate Couldn’t Withstand ‘Coordinated Attack’ and Obama Administration Did Nothing
The Obama Administration knew and did absolutely nothing …
A little less than a month before the Benghazi, Libya consulate attack, Ambassidor Stevens sent an cable to the State Department that the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack”. As reported by FOX News and ignored by the rest of the in the tank for Obama MSM. The classified cable was sent on August 15 and addressed to Hillary Clinton and the State Department stating that terror groups were on the rise such as Islamist militias, Al-Qaeda, QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.
The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.
Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.
“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.
According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.
As we are reminded by Hot Air, this was not the first of such warnings, it was at least the third. There is no way that the State Department can claim that they were not aware of the dangerous situation on the ground in Benghazi as the consulate had been attacked on multiple occasions. It is also impossible to believe, as stated at NRO, that this escalation of violence and danger had not been passed on to the White House and President Obama.
However, Obama continues to stonewall and refuse to answer questions as to why Ambassidor Steven’s pleas for security went unanswered and why Steven’s cries for help on 9-11 were denied. The result, Stevens and three others were murdered by terrorists as the Obama WH blamed a video tape knowing full well what the truth was.
How can anyone justify not only not securing the facility, but abandoning them and leaving them to die? This is why Obama refuses to answer questions. Benghazigate is worse than Watergate as people died, yet the MSM refuses to cover the story because it would harm their candidate. Shameful, simply shameful.
Charles Woods, Father of Murdered Navy Seal, Tyrone Woods, Blasts Obama: “Like Shaking Hands With Dead Fish” & Hillary Clinton “Not Sincere”
Another Obamanation …
Charles Woods, the father of murdered Navy Seal, Tyrone Woods, who was murdered in Benghazi, Libya at the hands of radical Islamic terrorist is speaking out and blasting President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Charles Woods was extremely critical of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton stating, shaking hands with Obama was ‘Like Shaking Hands With Dead Fish’ and Hillary Clinton “Did Not Appear To Be One Bit Sincere At All” He appeared on the Lars Larson Show, listen below.
Father of Former Navy SEAL Killed in Benghazi Recounts Meeting President, Sec. of State: Shaking Hands With Obama ‘Like Shaking Hands With Dead Fish’…. Hillary Clinton “Did Not Appear To Be One Bit Sincere At All”
Charles Woods, Father Tyrone Woods calls into the Lars Larson Radio Program
CHARLES WOODS: “I could tell…He kinda mumbled, I’m sorry. His face was looking at me but his eye were looking over my shoulder like he couldn’t look me in the eye”
How could you blame a father from being so critical of the Obama Administration who refuses to provide a family answers to the death of his son and is covering up what really happened? Obama and his minions have stonewalled those he want the truth in a political four-corners offense to make this “not optimal” reelection story of the death of four Americans do away. They pretend like they care, but from the mouth of a parent of a deceased son, that is hardly the case.
Did You Miss This … Rush Limbaugh Discusses the Drive By MSM Shocked by Focus Group Voter Reaction to Debate between Romney & Obama
More MSM bias … they just were stunned that voters reacted positive to Mitt Romney, Just Stunned!!!
If the liberal MSM was shocked by the reaction of focus group voters following the third and final presidential debate, they are in for a doozy election eve. The CBS focus group of undecided voters in Ohio gave the debate win to Mitt Romney. OUCH, that was not what the liberal media wanted to hear.
Rush Limbaugh discusses the shock of the MSM as only he can.
To the audio sound bites! This morning on CBS This Morning, I have a portion here of National Correspondent Dean Reynolds’ report on a panel of undecided Ohio voters who watched last night’s debate and what they got from it.
Now, you can’t see it, obviously. This is radio. But Norah O’Donnell’s face in this sound bite is priceless. These people cannot believe what they are hearing. What we have here is an undecided Ohio voter on this panel, Norah O’Donnell and the cohost Charlie Rose. And they start off here with Dean Reynolds, who is a CBS correspondent in Ohio.
REYNOLDS: When it was all over, they were asked who won. The president got two votes. Governor Romney got six. All had made up their minds, at least for now.