The destructive that wants the US of A to be part of the Caliphate ?

[Ross]

(verything in red is my emphasis, thank you.)

5 CRAZY FACTS
FROM SENATE HEARING
ON IRAN DEAL

by JOEL B. POLLAK 23 Jul 2015

Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, and Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew are making the rounds on Capitol Hill in an effort to sell the Iran deal. Their appearance at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday did not go well, as the three men struggled to answer basic questions and objections to the substance of the deal, as well as the process through which it had been rushed to the UN Security Council before coming to Congress. There were several new revelations at the hearing. Here are the 5 most important.

1. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will likely rely on Iran to test its own military sites. According to one of the two secret "side deals" between Iran and the IAEA, tests at military sites will be conducted by Iran itself. Kerry said that he could not confirm that, as it was classified, but he said that the IAEA was satisfied that it could obtain the information it needed. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)4%
suggested that was like setting a fox to guard the henhouse. A better analogy might be: it is like asking O.J. Simpson to find the killer.

2. The Iran deal does not retain ballistic missile sanctions for eight years–it relieves them immediately. Menendez pointed out to Kerry that this week's UN Security Council Resolution 2231 merely provides that Iran is

"called upon" to refrain from "

any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons" for eight years, while Resolution 1929, which it replaced, said that Iran "shall not" do such activity. Kerry had no answer, but claimed the U.S. fought hard for the (meaningless) eight-year extension.

3. The Obama administration contrived the deal's 90-day delay as a propaganda trick. Kerry claimed that the Iran deal, as codified by the UN Security Council, would only be implemented after a 90-day delay so that Congress would be able to complete its 60-day review under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (the "Corker bill"). However, Resolution 2231 is not contingent on Congress's approval and the administration will not ask for a Security Council re-vote if Congress rejects the deal–nor could it, because others wield a veto.

(My note: Obama turned our authority over to others bypassing our laws ans our elected officials in congress.)

4. The administration does not plan to re-authorize existing U.S. sanctions on Iran when they expire in 2016. This was a sticking point for Menendez, who noted that the Iran deal prevents the U.S. from re-applying existing nuclear sanctions once Iran complied with the deal. Surely, then, we would want to extend the existing sanctions until Iran complied? If the snap-back provisions of the Iran deal are to be effective, surely they must snap back to...something? The administration is evidently prepared to concede yet more ground to Iran.

5. John Kerry does not think Israel's government (or opposition) knows what it is talking about. Kerry cited–and the State Department's Marie Harf tweeted–a blog post about a former Israeli intelligence official who likes the Iran deal, adding that Israelis "who know what they are talking about" support it. Kerry was questioned about his source, as well as the claim itself. Did he not think Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knows what he is talking about? Kerry deflected, saying only that Netanyahu knows his own fears.

(What is good about any of this?)

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/23/5-crazy-facts-from-senate-hearing-on-iran-deal/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

[redcliffsw]

Why do you think its not a good deal?

There are no good deals from Washington or Iran.  How can you trust Republicans, reconstructed Democrats and Iranians? 

Do you prefer to defend liberty or do you want more entanglements and War?  Every new law passed in this country is a freedom lost.

[Anmar]

First, I'd like to point out that Brietbart.com is not a reliable news source.  Its opinion journalism with an agenda.  They are more interested in purporting a viewpoint instead of reporting the facts.  That being said, lets look at what you don't like about the deal...

1. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will likely rely on Iran to test its own military sites. According to one of the two secret "side deals" between Iran and the IAEA, tests at military sites will be conducted by Iran itself. Kerry said that he could not confirm that, as it was classified, but he said that the IAEA was satisfied that it could obtain the information it needed. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)4%
suggested that was like setting a fox to guard the henhouse. A better analogy might be: it is like asking O.J. Simpson to find the killer.

There is no factual basis for this allegation.  The deal allows the IAEA to conduct the tests, wherever it wants in Iran.  This is just conjecture based on unfounded rumor.

2. The Iran deal does not retain ballistic missile sanctions for eight years–it relieves them immediately. Menendez pointed out to Kerry that this week's UN Security Council Resolution 2231 merely provides that Iran is

"called upon" to refrain from "

any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons" for eight years, while Resolution 1929, which it replaced, said that Iran "shall not" do such activity. Kerry had no answer, but claimed the U.S. fought hard for the (meaningless) eight-year extension.

Iran already has ballistic missiles that can reach its middle eastern neighbors, including Israel.  Furthermore, an American ban on the import of such missiles in Iran is pointless, because the Russians and Chinese will gladly sell them to Iran anyway.  In fact, the Russians probably already have.

3. The Obama administration contrived the deal's 90-day delay as a propaganda trick. Kerry claimed that the Iran deal, as codified by the UN Security Council, would only be implemented after a 90-day delay so that Congress would be able to complete its 60-day review under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (the "Corker bill"). However, Resolution 2231 is not contingent on Congress's approval and the administration will not ask for a Security Council re-vote if Congress rejects the deal–nor could it, because others wield a veto.

(My note: Obama turned our authority over to others bypassing our laws ans our elected officials in congress.)

If the republicans really wanted to block this treaty, they screwed up.  Think of the house resolution in terms of the trade authority.  Essentially what congress did was abscond its burden of ratification prior to the agreement.  Under the constitution, any treaty that is not self executing must be ratified by Congress.  Here, Congress has tentatively approved the deal even before it was agreed to.  Now instead of voting to ratify the treaty, congress has to vote to NOT ratify the treaty.  Obama doesn't have the constitutional authority to make that change.  Its questionable if congress can even do so.  But make no mistake, it was Congress (democrats AND republicans) that changed the process here,  not Obama.

4. The administration does not plan to re-authorize existing U.S. sanctions on Iran when they expire in 2016. This was a sticking point for Menendez, who noted that the Iran deal prevents the U.S. from re-applying existing nuclear sanctions once Iran complied with the deal. Surely, then, we would want to extend the existing sanctions until Iran complied? If the snap-back provisions of the Iran deal are to be effective, surely they must snap back to...something? The administration is evidently prepared to concede yet more ground to Iran.

This is one of those "duh" moments.  Of course we're going to lift sanctions.  Do you expect Iran to give up nuclear weapons out of the goodness of their hearts?  No.  This is a deal, a trade-off.  They get what they want and we get what we want.  Our part of the bargain is lifting sanctions.  The snap-back sanctions are easy to impose.  If Iran doesn't comply, you vote to re-introduce sanctions.

What the article fails to acknowledge is that those sanctions were going to be lifted with or without us.

5. John Kerry does not think Israel's government (or opposition) knows what it is talking about. Kerry cited–and the State Department's Marie Harf tweeted–a blog post about a former Israeli intelligence official who likes the Iran deal, adding that Israelis "who know what they are talking about" support it. Kerry was questioned about his source, as well as the claim itself. Did he not think Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knows what he is talking about? Kerry deflected, saying only that Netanyahu knows his own fears.

Some people in Israel support the deal, some don't.  Its pretty obvious, and has been widely reported around the world (even in Israel) that Netanyahu has grossly exaggerated Iran's nuclear capabilities for political gain.  After all his antics over the last few years, I don't understand why anyone would trust a word coming out of Netanyahu's mouth.

Now, Instead of copying and pasting someone else's opinion, lets hear what YOU don't like about the deal, not what some political hack posing as a journalist doesn't like.

[redcliffsw]

So do you think the Republicans will support the deal?  They probably will as they'ver done in the past with most socialist stuff.  They'll go for it.  Republicans have been leaders of socialism for 150 years and they'll never change.  To think that Republicans are conservative is silly.

As the Repubklicans have been leaders participating in the removing of Confederate flags and monuments, they're standing for the socialism and New World Order that they favor.  No surprise there from the Republicans.  Republicans are more like Obama than they'll ever admit.  They're socialists.

How's that for facts?

[Anmar]

I think that most Republicans do support the deal, because they don't want to be responsible for another Iraq.  Deep down, they all know that the Iraq war was a HUGE mistake, and they recognize that the same people who took us to war there are pushing for war with Iran.  Iran has much more difficult geography, is much larger, has a  more advanced military, and actually has allies.  You can say what you want about the Iraq war, but the fact is that after over 10+ years in Iraq, we have nothing to show for it.  Iran will only be worse.

Republicans politicians know this, but publicly still oppose the deal.  Why?  Israel.  The most powerful lobbying groups in D.C. are the pro-Israel lobby.  American Israelis donate to campaigns like no other group.  In order to get that campaign money, American politicians fall over themselves trying to do shit for Israel. 

So Republicans will publicly oppose the bill to grandstand to their base, and to ensure they satisfy the Israel lobby so they can get their elections paid for.  But at the end of the day, I think they will do whats best for t he country, and ratify the treaty. 

I think the treaty is a good idea.  I hope Iran complies, and we should give them the opportunity to comply.  If they don't, then we can put sanctions back in place with the backing of the UN.  Without the treaty, we have no more options.

[Ross]

Iraq was based on a lie about Weapons of Mass Destruction that were never found.
Iran is not a lie.
Iran says frequently death to America.
Kerry told them it is stupid to chant that.
Their reply:Death to America.
Iran laughs at Obama as a fool.
Iran says Obama is lying about the deal.
The muslims have started colonies here in the us. Cops are afraid to enter them.
They have started Sharia Law and courts here in America and said they will kill all Americans.
ISIS - alQuida all the same to me have recruited American Citizens to perform Jihad.
They have brought their war to our shores, to our cities.

Why would they comply?

Once they get the money watch them fall into non-compliance.
Once they get all thse billions they won't care about the sanctions.

They don't care who they kill.

I argued that Iraq was a mistake before we went, but I feel this is very real and very bad.

I pray for peace but I don't see it happening with lies on the part of all parties involved.

[Anmar]

Iraq was based on a lie about Weapons of Mass Destruction that were never found.
Iran is not a lie.
Iran says frequently death to America.
Kerry told them it is stupid to chant that.
Their reply:Death to America.
Iran laughs at Obama as a fool.
Iran says Obama is lying about the deal.
The muslims have started colonies here in the us. Cops are afraid to enter them.
They have started Sharia Law and courts here in America and said they will kill all Americans.
ISIS - alQuida all the same to me have recruited American Citizens to perform Jihad.
They have brought their war to our shores, to our cities.

Why would they comply?

Once they get the money watch them fall into non-compliance.
Once they get all thse billions they won't care about the sanctions.

They don't care who they kill.

I argued that Iraq was a mistake before we went, but I feel this is very real and very bad.

I pray for peace but I don't see it happening with lies on the part of all parties involved.

You read to many bullshit articles...

[Ross]

You read to many bullshit articles...

Perhaps I do, But it stiil smells bad.
I try to get a well rounded view but heck I don't think any of the media can be trusted to provid acurate information all the time.

What is a person to do trust just one or two of the media and ignore everything else.

[redcliffsw]

You got that right!

[Anmar]

Perhaps I do, But it stiil smells bad.
I try to get a well rounded view but heck I don't think any of the media can be trusted to provid acurate information all the time.

What is a person to do trust just one or two of the media and ignore everything else.

I have a feeling you only read/trust anything from conservative viewpoint, and ignore anything from the center or the left.