Alexander Hamilton Slams Obama!

[CrusaderFrank]

1. Liberals/Progressives/Democrats no longer honor either the Founders nor the Constitution, so the following will most certainly be met with a shrug: they simply don't care.

But....it is important to remind real Americans whence our guidance....
All have seen the tyrant ignore the restrictions of the Constitution....and the particular issue today is Obama's wish to enter into an agreement with Iran as his decision alone.




2. Where does the problem arise?
"The President... shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...."

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2


3. Now...why give Obama's plan a second glance?
"Commentators have exposed how bad the Iran deal is in various ways...the deal can't be fixed. Even if sanctions relief were somewhat more gradual, even if the number of centrifuges were somewhat lower, even if the inspections regime were somewhat more robust—the basic facts would remain: Iran gets to keep its nuclear infrastructure, including the most sensitive parts of it. The sanctions come off. And the inspectors can be kicked out. So Iran, a state-sponsor of terror, an enemy of the United States, an aggressive jihadist power, a regime dedicated to the destruction of Israel, will become a threshold nuclear weapons state.

4. ... less of a "deal" than a series of cascading concessions to Iran. Some of the particulars are so indefensible that they may become the best vehicle for stopping or killing the deal. ....
... no sanctions relief if Fordow, which Obama himself said was utterly unnecessary for a peaceful nuclear program, stays open.
No sanctions relief if there aren't any-time, any-place inspections.
No sanctions relief if the centrifuges don't stop spinning, or if enriched uranium isn't shipped out of the country.
No sanctions relief without recognition of Israel's right to exist. .... Congress should—multiply examples of the arrows that can be launched to try to bring down this vulnerable deal.




5. Britain has a parliamentary system of government, and so Neville Chamberlain's parliamentary majority ensured the Munich agreement would go forward. The U.S. Constitution, on the other hand, provides for a separation of powers. As Hamilton explains in Federalist #75:

"However proper or safe it may be in governments where the executive magistrate is an hereditary monarch, to commit to him the entire power of making treaties, it would be utterly unsafe and improper to intrust that power to an elective magistrate of four years' duration. ... The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which contain its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States."
Special Editorial Kill the Deal The Weekly Standard

Exactly WHY should we believe ANYTHING William Kristol or any of the neocons say? They were the warmongers who helped remove the regional buffer to Iran...Saddam Hussein Ba'athist Iraq leadership and now Iraq's government is ruled by Iran's allies...the Shi'ite majority.

Kristol and the neocon want to bring a NEW war of ideology to America...but like their last failed war, NONE of them will be fighting that war, and none of their sons or daughters will be either.

What sort of imbecile denies the truth by claiming not to like the truth-teller?

Oh...your sort of imbecile: a reliable Democrat voter.


"They were the warmongers who helped remove the regional buffer to Iran...Saddam Hussein Ba'athist Iraq leadership.
1. You don't really want me to provide the huge list of Demorat elites who voted in line with exactly what Bush did.....do you?

2. Are you ready to deny that ISIS and all we are facing currently is a direct result of this petit mal President refusing to leave a counter-balance of US troops in Iraq?
Sure you are....but that would identify you as both a liar and a fool.
Go for it.

I guess "banana republic' dictators just force their will on other nations. So why doesn't Obama force the Iraqi government to accept troops in their country?

Who gives a shit if those American sons and daughters would not be granted legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails? Certainly not Kristol, the neocons, or you PC.

Let's see if you are educable:

Obama made the huge mistake in refusing to negotiate an agreement to leave US troops in Iraq.
This is the source of the problem with ISIS: they're there because we weren't.

"Obama's 2012 Debate Boast: I Didn't Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq
Obama then denied that he ever supported a status of forces agreement that would have left troops in Iraq....Get that?
He wouldn't even attempt to get a status of forces agreement.

MR. ROMNEY: [W]ith regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should have been a status of forces agreement. Did you —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: That's not true.

MR. ROMNEY: Oh, you didn't — you didn't want a status of forces agreement?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, but what I — what I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.

"Here's one thing I've learned as commander in chief," Obama said at the end of the exchange. "You've got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean
Obama s 2012 Debate Boast I Didn t Want to Leave Any Troops in Iraq The Weekly Standard




a. "This month, Colin Kahl, the senior Pentagon official in charge of Iraq policy at the time, explained why the White House insisted on Iraq’s parliament approving the changes to the SOFA.

He wrote in Politico Magazine that in 2011 Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, “told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections.

Yet this time around, Obama is willing to accept an agreement from Iraq’s foreign ministry on U.S. forces in Iraq without a vote of Iraq’s parliament. “We believe we need a separate set of assurances from the Iraqis,” one senior U.S. defense official told The Daily Beast on Sunday. This official said this would likely be an agreement or exchange of diplomatic notes from the Iraq’s foreign ministry. “We basically need a piece of paper from them,” another U.S. official involved in the negotiations told The Daily Beast.

The official didn’t explain why the parliamentary vote, so crucial three years ago, was no longer needed.”
Obama Does a U-Turn on Immunity for U.S. Troops in Iraq - The Daily Beast


The official didn’t explain why the parliamentary vote, so crucial three years ago, was no longer needed.”

Obama rejected it.

Obama and any simpleton who voted for him share responsibility for every massacre and slaughter by ISIS



Wash that blood off your hands.....if you can.

WOW, how dishonest are you PC? I guess ethics and honesty are not part of your character.

Colin H. Kahl
Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections. But for any agreement to be binding under the Iraqi constitution, it had to be approved by the Iraqi parliament. This was the judgment of every senior administration lawyer and Maliki’s own legal adviser, and no senior U.S. military commander made the case that we should leave forces behind without these protections. Even Sen. John McCain, perhaps the administration’s harshest Iraq critic, admitted in a December 2011 speech discussing the withdrawal that the president’s demand for binding legal immunities “was a matter of vital importance.” Moreover, because the 2008 security agreement had been approved by the Iraqi parliament, it seemed both unrealistic and politically unsustainable to apply a lower standard this time around.

Unfortunately, Iraqi domestic politics made it impossible to reach a deal. Iraqi public opinion surveys consistently showed that the U.S. military presence was deeply unpopular (only in Iraqi Kurdistan did a majority of people want American G.I.s to stay). Maliki was willing to consider going to parliament to approve a follow-on agreement, but he was not willing to stick his neck out. Other political factions would have to support the move, and the support wasn’t there. The Sadrists, a populist Shia movement that was now a major bloc in the parliament, were dead set against U.S. troops remaining. Ayad Allawi and Sunni politicians aligned with the Iraqiyya coalition supported a continued U.S. presence, but they knew that most of their Sunni constituents did not. They also wanted to condition their support on Maliki agreeing to additional political concessions. The Kurds were more active in their advocacy for a follow-on agreement, but they could not convince others to go along. So when Iraq’s major political bloc leaders met in early October 2011 in an all-night session, they agreed on the need for continued U.S. “trainers” but said they were unwilling to seek immunities for these troops through the parliament. The die was thus cast. Obama and Maliki spoke on Oct. 21 and agreed that U.S. forces would depart as scheduled by the end of the year.

Read more: No Obama Didn t Lose Iraq - Colin H. Kahl - POLITICO Magazine

Condi got the Iraqi parliament to make a deal, stop fluffing Obama. He fucked this up intentionally and is only pretending to be a total incompetent

 

[JWBooth]

someone is off her medications this morning.

Why should that morning be different from any other day?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

why do you fucking liberscum always come up with this "off your medications" thing ?

It's down the middle Alinsky tactics... The 'Meds' comment seeks to isolate the threat by projecting mental instability. The idea being that those observing the exchange will naturally desire to not be affiliated with the individual presumably already diagnosed as mentally ill.

Which is made all the more ironic by such being the sole tactic of those saddled with delusion, presenting an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

 

[JoeB131]

why do you fucking liberscum always come up with this "off your medications" thing ?

is it because you people are so fucking drugged up you feeeel everyone else has their head so pickled with drugs they can not function without them ?????

me thinks most of you should find a different DR. and get off that 20+ pill a day addiction.

Have you read PC's posts. PC Comes off like someone who is locked up in the house all day because she can't function in an office.

 

[JoeB131]

It's down the middle Alinsky tactics... The 'Meds' comment seeks to isolate the threat by projecting mental instability. The idea being that those observing the exchange will naturally desire to not be affiliated with the individual presumably already diagnosed as mentally ill.

Which is made all the more ironic by such being the sole tactic of those saddled with delusion, presenting an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

Naw, guy. you see, the thing is, insanity is defined as trying the same thing expecting a different result.

We tried what you wingnuts prescribed, and it was a fucking disaster, in case you missed the Great Recession thing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"....the United States and other powers announced a tentative deal they claimed would block Iran from getting nukes. Although Iran declared victory and accused America of spinning the terms, President Obama hailed the unsigned outline as a “good deal” that would “make the world safer.”

Obama’s goal of bringing Iran in from the cold is, like much of his presidency, a vision divorced from reality. His hollow rhetoric echoes the appeasers who sought to stop Hitler in 1939 by giving him what he wanted.


....Obama wants peace at any price. His refusal even to call the enemy by its name reflects a willful blindness to an ideology that has declared war on us. A survey of the global battlefield says we are in retreat.

Against all evidence, Obama has provided his own answer, imagining Iran as a “nation” that wants peace and can be managed, even with a nuclear bomb. His willful misreading is astounding, given Iran’s continued support for terrorism everywhere. That defines it as a “cause,” which is why it must be confronted."
It s war out there Obama New York Post

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama is going out with a bang, a destabilized Middle East complete with a nuclear Iran

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obama is going out with a bang, a destabilized Middle East complete with a nuclear Iran

Hasan Nidal alive, and Detroit dead.....and Iran with a nuc.


Let's keep in mind who put this incompetent in office.

 

[G.T.]

Lets keep in mind iran wont have a nuke in 2016 and the middle east hasnt been stable since

Im at a loss.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Obama is going out with a bang, a destabilized Middle East complete with a nuclear Iran

Hasan Nidal alive, and Detroit dead.....and Iran with a nuc.


Let's keep in mind who put this incompetent in office.

And keep in mind that these same people will laugh gleefully as they elect the murderer Hillary Clinton.

I say this continually - This country is doomed. we ARE 15th Century England now.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Lets keep in mind iran wont have a nuke in 2016 and the middle east hasnt been stable since

Im at a loss.

Lets keep in mind iran wont have a nuke in 2016 and the middle east hasnt been stable since

Im at a loss.

The Midele East is going to explode within the next 5 years. Exactly as foretold. It is coming to fruition.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Lets keep in mind iran wont have a nuke in 2016 and the middle east hasnt been stable since

Im at a loss.

1. "Im at a loss."
Truer words were never said.


2."....iran wont have a nuke in 2016...."

• 'By using the approximately 9,000 first generation centrifuges operating at its Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant, Iran could theoretically produce enough weapon-grade uranium to fuel a single nuclear warhead in about 1.7 months.'
• Iran s Nuclear Timetable Iran Watch

3. "...wont have a nuke in 2016...." is not the same as this:

"Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[G.T.]

Lets keep in mind iran wont have a nuke in 2016 and the middle east hasnt been stable since

Im at a loss.

Lets keep in mind iran wont have a nuke in 2016 and the middle east hasnt been stable since

Im at a loss.

The Midele East is going to explode within the next 5 years. Exactly as foretold. It is coming to fruition.

I hope its explosion ends one of the many retarded religions. Good riddance it will be.

 

[kiwiman127]

1. Liberals/Progressives/Democrats no longer honor either the Founders nor the Constitution, so the following will most certainly be met with a shrug: they simply don't care.

But....it is important to remind real Americans whence our guidance....
All have seen the tyrant ignore the restrictions of the Constitution....and the particular issue today is Obama's wish to enter into an agreement with Iran as his decision alone.




2. Where does the problem arise?
"The President... shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...."

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2


3. Now...why give Obama's plan a second glance?
"Commentators have exposed how bad the Iran deal is in various ways...the deal can't be fixed. Even if sanctions relief were somewhat more gradual, even if the number of centrifuges were somewhat lower, even if the inspections regime were somewhat more robust—the basic facts would remain: Iran gets to keep its nuclear infrastructure, including the most sensitive parts of it. The sanctions come off. And the inspectors can be kicked out. So Iran, a state-sponsor of terror, an enemy of the United States, an aggressive jihadist power, a regime dedicated to the destruction of Israel, will become a threshold nuclear weapons state.

4. ... less of a "deal" than a series of cascading concessions to Iran. Some of the particulars are so indefensible that they may become the best vehicle for stopping or killing the deal. ....
... no sanctions relief if Fordow, which Obama himself said was utterly unnecessary for a peaceful nuclear program, stays open.
No sanctions relief if there aren't any-time, any-place inspections.
No sanctions relief if the centrifuges don't stop spinning, or if enriched uranium isn't shipped out of the country.
No sanctions relief without recognition of Israel's right to exist. .... Congress should—multiply examples of the arrows that can be launched to try to bring down this vulnerable deal.




5. Britain has a parliamentary system of government, and so Neville Chamberlain's parliamentary majority ensured the Munich agreement would go forward. The U.S. Constitution, on the other hand, provides for a separation of powers. As Hamilton explains in Federalist #75:

"However proper or safe it may be in governments where the executive magistrate is an hereditary monarch, to commit to him the entire power of making treaties, it would be utterly unsafe and improper to intrust that power to an elective magistrate of four years' duration. ... The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which contain its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States."
Special Editorial Kill the Deal The Weekly Standard

Oh brother.
PC, I think you need to go back even further in history. What did Moses say about Obama, that's what's important to me.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Lets keep in mind iran wont have a nuke in 2016 and the middle east hasnt been stable since

Im at a loss.

Lets keep in mind iran wont have a nuke in 2016 and the middle east hasnt been stable since

Im at a loss.

The Midele East is going to explode within the next 5 years. Exactly as foretold. It is coming to fruition.

I hope its explosion ends one of the many retarded religions. Good riddance it will be.

Yeah, and I'm the bitter curmudgeon

 

[G.T.]

Lets keep in mind iran wont have a nuke in 2016 and the middle east hasnt been stable since

Im at a loss.

Lets keep in mind iran wont have a nuke in 2016 and the middle east hasnt been stable since

Im at a loss.

The Midele East is going to explode within the next 5 years. Exactly as foretold. It is coming to fruition.

I hope its explosion ends one of the many retarded religions. Good riddance it will be.

Yeah, and I'm the bitter curmudgeon

So now you agree!

That's progress.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Liberals/Progressives/Democrats no longer honor either the Founders nor the Constitution, so the following will most certainly be met with a shrug: they simply don't care.

But....it is important to remind real Americans whence our guidance....
All have seen the tyrant ignore the restrictions of the Constitution....and the particular issue today is Obama's wish to enter into an agreement with Iran as his decision alone.




2. Where does the problem arise?
"The President... shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...."

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2


3. Now...why give Obama's plan a second glance?
"Commentators have exposed how bad the Iran deal is in various ways...the deal can't be fixed. Even if sanctions relief were somewhat more gradual, even if the number of centrifuges were somewhat lower, even if the inspections regime were somewhat more robust—the basic facts would remain: Iran gets to keep its nuclear infrastructure, including the most sensitive parts of it. The sanctions come off. And the inspectors can be kicked out. So Iran, a state-sponsor of terror, an enemy of the United States, an aggressive jihadist power, a regime dedicated to the destruction of Israel, will become a threshold nuclear weapons state.

4. ... less of a "deal" than a series of cascading concessions to Iran. Some of the particulars are so indefensible that they may become the best vehicle for stopping or killing the deal. ....
... no sanctions relief if Fordow, which Obama himself said was utterly unnecessary for a peaceful nuclear program, stays open.
No sanctions relief if there aren't any-time, any-place inspections.
No sanctions relief if the centrifuges don't stop spinning, or if enriched uranium isn't shipped out of the country.
No sanctions relief without recognition of Israel's right to exist. .... Congress should—multiply examples of the arrows that can be launched to try to bring down this vulnerable deal.




5. Britain has a parliamentary system of government, and so Neville Chamberlain's parliamentary majority ensured the Munich agreement would go forward. The U.S. Constitution, on the other hand, provides for a separation of powers. As Hamilton explains in Federalist #75:

"However proper or safe it may be in governments where the executive magistrate is an hereditary monarch, to commit to him the entire power of making treaties, it would be utterly unsafe and improper to intrust that power to an elective magistrate of four years' duration. ... The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which contain its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States."
Special Editorial Kill the Deal The Weekly Standard

Oh brother.
PC, I think you need to go back even further in history. What did Moses say about Obama, that's what's important to me.

Maybe Moses meant these words for Obama to proclaim:
"What shall I do unto this people? they be almost ready to stone me."
Exodus 17:4

 

[G.T.]

1. Liberals/Progressives/Democrats no longer honor either the Founders nor the Constitution, so the following will most certainly be met with a shrug: they simply don't care.

But....it is important to remind real Americans whence our guidance....
All have seen the tyrant ignore the restrictions of the Constitution....and the particular issue today is Obama's wish to enter into an agreement with Iran as his decision alone.




2. Where does the problem arise?
"The President... shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...."

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2


3. Now...why give Obama's plan a second glance?
"Commentators have exposed how bad the Iran deal is in various ways...the deal can't be fixed. Even if sanctions relief were somewhat more gradual, even if the number of centrifuges were somewhat lower, even if the inspections regime were somewhat more robust—the basic facts would remain: Iran gets to keep its nuclear infrastructure, including the most sensitive parts of it. The sanctions come off. And the inspectors can be kicked out. So Iran, a state-sponsor of terror, an enemy of the United States, an aggressive jihadist power, a regime dedicated to the destruction of Israel, will become a threshold nuclear weapons state.

4. ... less of a "deal" than a series of cascading concessions to Iran. Some of the particulars are so indefensible that they may become the best vehicle for stopping or killing the deal. ....
... no sanctions relief if Fordow, which Obama himself said was utterly unnecessary for a peaceful nuclear program, stays open.
No sanctions relief if there aren't any-time, any-place inspections.
No sanctions relief if the centrifuges don't stop spinning, or if enriched uranium isn't shipped out of the country.
No sanctions relief without recognition of Israel's right to exist. .... Congress should—multiply examples of the arrows that can be launched to try to bring down this vulnerable deal.




5. Britain has a parliamentary system of government, and so Neville Chamberlain's parliamentary majority ensured the Munich agreement would go forward. The U.S. Constitution, on the other hand, provides for a separation of powers. As Hamilton explains in Federalist #75:

"However proper or safe it may be in governments where the executive magistrate is an hereditary monarch, to commit to him the entire power of making treaties, it would be utterly unsafe and improper to intrust that power to an elective magistrate of four years' duration. ... The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which contain its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States."
Special Editorial Kill the Deal The Weekly Standard

Oh brother.
PC, I think you need to go back even further in history. What did Moses say about Obama, that's what's important to me.

Maybe Moses meant these words for Obama to proclaim:
"What shall I do unto this people? they be almost ready to stone me."
Exodus 17:4

They be?

Who knew moses was a gangster rapper

 

[RandallFlagg]

Lets keep in mind iran wont have a nuke in 2016 and the middle east hasnt been stable since

Im at a loss.

Lets keep in mind iran wont have a nuke in 2016 and the middle east hasnt been stable since

Im at a loss.

The Midele East is going to explode within the next 5 years. Exactly as foretold. It is coming to fruition.

I hope its explosion ends one of the many retarded religions. Good riddance it will be.

Have no fear yoda. What replaces it will be right up YOUR alley. Randall Flagg will be your reality.

 

[G.T.]

Lets keep in mind iran wont have a nuke in 2016 and the middle east hasnt been stable since

Im at a loss.

Lets keep in mind iran wont have a nuke in 2016 and the middle east hasnt been stable since

Im at a loss.

The Midele East is going to explode within the next 5 years. Exactly as foretold. It is coming to fruition.

I hope its explosion ends one of the many retarded religions. Good riddance it will be.

Have no fear yoda. What replaces it will be right up YOUR alley. Randall Flagg will be your reality.

Im not into guys and my alley is an exit only

: /


Sorry homey