America's Life-Preserver!

[PoliticalChic]

As America is about to go under for the last time, a life-preserver- in the person of North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows, Republican, has brought charges against RINO John Boehner.

He wants Boehner out of his position as Speaker, based on his becoming lap-dog for every Obama policy. and leading Congress to impotence.


1. "...conservative Republican who was disciplined earlier this year after defying House leaders is pushing a largely symbolic effort to strip John Boehner of his position as House speaker.

2. Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina on Tuesday filed a resolution to vacate the chair....The proposal was referred to a committee stocked with leadership loyalists, and it is unlikely to emerge.

3. The move, however, reflected the discontent among the more conservative wing of the House GOP, whose members have been frustrated with leaders' willingness to compromise on some legislation.




4. The acrimony within the Republican Party has been on stark display in Congress. Last Friday, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, accused Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., of lying about votes. And more Republican infighting broke out Monday night as an email from an aide to Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, suggested that conservative groups should take Lee's fellow Republicans to task if they opposed him on a legislative maneuver to advance a repeal of President Barack Obama's health care law.



5. The resolution Meadows filed accused the speaker of causing "the power of Congress to atrophy, thereby making Congress subservient to the Executive and Judicial branches, diminishing the voice of the American People."

6. ... it said Boehner "uses the power of the office to punish members who vote according to their conscience instead of the will of the Speaker."

7. Last month, Meadows was briefly stripped of his subcommittee chairmanship in a move backed by Boehner, but House GOP leaders later relented after conservatives objected.





8. ....Meadows, a two-term lawmaker who was elected in the tea party-backed 2010 class and represents the western tip of North Carolina.


9. "There's been no one that's been stronger on the Iran message. And to suggest we can only have one message when we go back home to talk to the American people would be to imply that our town halls can only have one question," Meadows said.

10. Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., who has experienced the wrath of the leadership and is a Boehner foe, complained that the leaders are "not listening to the American people." He faulted leaders for not allowing quick votes against same-sex marriage and federal money for Planned Parenthood.

"He just has the courage to do something about it," Jones said of Meadows."
Conservative pushes symbolic effort against Boehner




Sadly, the Republican leadership has been flaccid at best....

....and destructive to the Constitution, at worst.

 

[Moonglow]

Sadly, the Republican leadership has been flaccid at best....

....and destructive to the Constitution, at worst.

But, but, but, it's Oblama and FDR...
The GOP is sure splintered which makes them most likely to lose in the next election....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sadly, the Republican leadership has been flaccid at best....

....and destructive to the Constitution, at worst.

But, but, but, it's Oblama and FDR...
The GOP is sure splintered which makes them most likely to lose in the next election....

You seem to imagine that a one-party dictatorship is a good thing.


Exactly what I've been posting about Liberals/Progressives.

 

[Moonglow]

Sadly, the Republican leadership has been flaccid at best....

....and destructive to the Constitution, at worst.

But, but, but, it's Oblama and FDR...
The GOP is sure splintered which makes them most likely to lose in the next election....

You seem to imagine that a one-party dictatorship is a good thing.


Exactly what I've been posting about Liberals/Progressives.

Well it's not a one party dictatorship it's political gridlock...these so called professionals are forgetting what their job is, to run the USA and make it function, for which they have done a piss poor job of....

 

[nuhuh]

Sadly, the Republican leadership has been flaccid at best....

....and destructive to the Constitution, at worst.

But, but, but, it's Oblama and FDR...
The GOP is sure splintered which makes them most likely to lose in the next election....

You seem to imagine that a one-party dictatorship is a good thing.


Exactly what I've been posting about Liberals/Progressives.

What precisely would a Tea Party Congress do any different? During the last election everyone said a Republican led congress would focus on job development, it hasn't and a new congress won't either. This is a simple power grab generated by anger within two groups who have no interest in doing the work they were elected to congress to do.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sadly, the Republican leadership has been flaccid at best....

....and destructive to the Constitution, at worst.

But, but, but, it's Oblama and FDR...
The GOP is sure splintered which makes them most likely to lose in the next election....

You seem to imagine that a one-party dictatorship is a good thing.


Exactly what I've been posting about Liberals/Progressives.

What precisely would a Tea Party Congress do any different? During the last election everyone said a Republican led congress would focus on job development, it hasn't and a new congress won't either. This is a simple power grab generated by anger within two groups who have no interest in doing the work they were elected to congress to do.

You miss the point: the Republicans in charge aren't conservatives.

They're simply Democrat-lite.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Boehner's a RINO too now?

lol, more proof that the Right wants to get nothing done, period.

 

[nuhuh]

Sadly, the Republican leadership has been flaccid at best....

....and destructive to the Constitution, at worst.

But, but, but, it's Oblama and FDR...
The GOP is sure splintered which makes them most likely to lose in the next election....

You seem to imagine that a one-party dictatorship is a good thing.


Exactly what I've been posting about Liberals/Progressives.

What precisely would a Tea Party Congress do any different? During the last election everyone said a Republican led congress would focus on job development, it hasn't and a new congress won't either. This is a simple power grab generated by anger within two groups who have no interest in doing the work they were elected to congress to do.

You miss the point: the Republicans in charge aren't conservatives.

They're simply Democrat-lite.

My point was you criticize one-party dictatorships while your party offers nothing different.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sadly, the Republican leadership has been flaccid at best....

....and destructive to the Constitution, at worst.

But, but, but, it's Oblama and FDR...
The GOP is sure splintered which makes them most likely to lose in the next election....

You seem to imagine that a one-party dictatorship is a good thing.


Exactly what I've been posting about Liberals/Progressives.

What precisely would a Tea Party Congress do any different? During the last election everyone said a Republican led congress would focus on job development, it hasn't and a new congress won't either. This is a simple power grab generated by anger within two groups who have no interest in doing the work they were elected to congress to do.

You miss the point: the Republicans in charge aren't conservatives.

They're simply Democrat-lite.

My point was you criticize one-party dictatorships while your party offers nothing different.

My party?
'My party' would be one that honors the Constitution.

These Republicans aren't conservatives.

They're simply Democrat-lite

 

[nuhuh]

Sadly, the Republican leadership has been flaccid at best....

....and destructive to the Constitution, at worst.

But, but, but, it's Oblama and FDR...
The GOP is sure splintered which makes them most likely to lose in the next election....

You seem to imagine that a one-party dictatorship is a good thing.


Exactly what I've been posting about Liberals/Progressives.

What precisely would a Tea Party Congress do any different? During the last election everyone said a Republican led congress would focus on job development, it hasn't and a new congress won't either. This is a simple power grab generated by anger within two groups who have no interest in doing the work they were elected to congress to do.

You miss the point: the Republicans in charge aren't conservatives.

They're simply Democrat-lite.

My point was you criticize one-party dictatorships while your party offers nothing different.

My party?
'My party' would be one that honors the Constitution.

These Republicans aren't conservatives.

They're simply Democrat-lite

Whatever "your party" is they will do diddly squat if they are successful in replacing Boehner. What can we expect to see? Instead of 60 votes to repeal the ACA can we expect one a day until Obama is gone? What leadership.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Right around here constantly claims that it's the Democrats who won't compromise,

and yet at every opportunity the Right wants more and more uncompromising Republicans in positions of power.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You seem to imagine that a one-party dictatorship is a good thing.


Exactly what I've been posting about Liberals/Progressives.

What precisely would a Tea Party Congress do any different? During the last election everyone said a Republican led congress would focus on job development, it hasn't and a new congress won't either. This is a simple power grab generated by anger within two groups who have no interest in doing the work they were elected to congress to do.

You miss the point: the Republicans in charge aren't conservatives.

They're simply Democrat-lite.

My point was you criticize one-party dictatorships while your party offers nothing different.

My party?
'My party' would be one that honors the Constitution.

These Republicans aren't conservatives.

They're simply Democrat-lite

Whatever "your party" is they will do diddly squat if they are successful in replacing Boehner. What can we expect to see? Instead of 60 votes to repeal the ACA can we expect one a day until Obama is gone? What leadership.

Mark this well: I never expect to see conservatives control the Republican Party much less the political landscape.
No, we're past the tipping point.

America will never again function under the Constitution as the law of the land.

I, for one, saw the handwriting on the wall when they shredded "Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate."
Treaty Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia




Instead, this Republican Congress reversed the clause, and gave Obama a deal that required a supermajority to overturn his sell-out to Iran.


"One thing I don’t understand is why Corker didn’t demand that the final deal be regarded as a treaty for constitutional purposes and require ratification by two-thirds of the Senate, ...

They’ll need two-thirds for a veto override anyway if Obama rejects their verdict on his agreement with Iran. Plus, Corker’s scheme seems to contemplate a House vote on the terms of the deal too, which may also attract a bipartisan veto-proof majority. Having supermajorities lined up against the deal in both chambers of Congress is better than having a supermajority in just one."
Oh my Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously backs bill demanding congressional vote on Iran deal Hot Air

Of course, as long as there is a lock-step Liberal/Democrat Party, they will never get that supermajority, and Iran will get a nuclear bomb.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What precisely would a Tea Party Congress do any different? During the last election everyone said a Republican led congress would focus on job development, it hasn't and a new congress won't either. This is a simple power grab generated by anger within two groups who have no interest in doing the work they were elected to congress to do.

You miss the point: the Republicans in charge aren't conservatives.

They're simply Democrat-lite.

My point was you criticize one-party dictatorships while your party offers nothing different.

My party?
'My party' would be one that honors the Constitution.

These Republicans aren't conservatives.

They're simply Democrat-lite

Whatever "your party" is they will do diddly squat if they are successful in replacing Boehner. What can we expect to see? Instead of 60 votes to repeal the ACA can we expect one a day until Obama is gone? What leadership.

Mark this well: I never expect to see conservatives control the Republican Party much less the political landscape.
No, we're past the tipping point.

America will never again function under the Constitution as the law of the land.

I, for one, saw the handwriting on the wall when they shredded "Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate."
Treaty Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia




Instead, this Republican Congress reversed the clause, and gave Obama a deal that required a supermajority to overturn his sell-out to Iran.


"One thing I don’t understand is why Corker didn’t demand that the final deal be regarded as a treaty for constitutional purposes and require ratification by two-thirds of the Senate, ...

They’ll need two-thirds for a veto override anyway if Obama rejects their verdict on his agreement with Iran. Plus, Corker’s scheme seems to contemplate a House vote on the terms of the deal too, which may also attract a bipartisan veto-proof majority. Having supermajorities lined up against the deal in both chambers of Congress is better than having a supermajority in just one."
Oh my Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously backs bill demanding congressional vote on Iran deal Hot Air

Of course, as long as there is a lock-step Liberal/Democrat Party, they will never get that supermajority, and Iran will get a nuclear bomb.

Anyone with standing can challenge the constitutionality of that arrangement.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

As America is about to go under for the last time, a life-preserver- in the person of North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows, Republican, has brought charges against RINO John Boehner.

He wants Boehner out of his position as Speaker, based on his becoming lap-dog for every Obama policy. and leading Congress to impotence.

This bozo thinks the do-nothing congress is going to get something done in the last year of Obama, in an election yeah? Does he like bridges, I have a great one for sale...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Of course, as long as there is a lock-step Liberal/Democrat Party, they will never get that supermajority, and Iran will get a nuclear bomb.

What's wrong with Iran having the bomb? Oh right, you don't want them to. And while they may not have taught this where you came from, we didn't ask permission, no country ever did, and we are only fuckers in the history of the world to use the damn things, as a weapon of terror on non-military targets no less.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course, as long as there is a lock-step Liberal/Democrat Party, they will never get that supermajority, and Iran will get a nuclear bomb.

What's wrong with Iran having the bomb? Oh right, you don't want them to. And while they may not have taught this where you came from, we didn't ask permission, no country ever did, and we are only fuckers in the history of the world to use the damn things, as a weapon of terror on non-military targets no less.

"What's wrong with Iran having the bomb?"


Remedial coming right up:


Here are some of your lord and master's 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

 

[nuhuh]

Of course, as long as there is a lock-step Liberal/Democrat Party, they will never get that supermajority, and Iran will get a nuclear bomb.

What's wrong with Iran having the bomb? Oh right, you don't want them to. And while they may not have taught this where you came from, we didn't ask permission, no country ever did, and we are only fuckers in the history of the world to use the damn things, as a weapon of terror on non-military targets no less.

"What's wrong with Iran having the bomb?"


Remedial coming right up:


Here are some of your lord and master's 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."


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

So, six of the world's most powerful countries and their leaders are wrong about the agreement? Because so far, they are all in common agreement that Iran will not be able to possess a nuclear device for ten to fifteen years. The only bitching is coming from partisans, so I'm not convinced that there is a honest argument about what is going to happen here.
If Israel is so outraged why aren't they fighting their own war? they certainly have the capability and the military muscle or is it that they know what a firestorm this will ignite so they need a major power to back them up? Sincerely, I'm tired of Israel being in the center of Middle East squabbles and if anyone hasn't noticed they have never fired a single shot at Al Qaeda or ISIS or joined us in any adventure anywhere in the Middle East so I'm content letting this agreement go into effect and keeping the option to react violently if it isn't adhered to. Enough is enough.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course, as long as there is a lock-step Liberal/Democrat Party, they will never get that supermajority, and Iran will get a nuclear bomb.

What's wrong with Iran having the bomb? Oh right, you don't want them to. And while they may not have taught this where you came from, we didn't ask permission, no country ever did, and we are only fuckers in the history of the world to use the damn things, as a weapon of terror on non-military targets no less.

"What's wrong with Iran having the bomb?"


Remedial coming right up:


Here are some of your lord and master's 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."


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

So, six of the world's most powerful countries and their leaders are wrong about the agreement? Because so far, they are all in common agreement that Iran will not be able to possess a nuclear device for ten to fifteen years. The only bitching is coming from partisans, so I'm not convinced that there is a honest argument about what is going to happen here.
If Israel is so outraged why aren't they fighting their own war? they certainly have the capability and the military muscle or is it that they know what a firestorm this will ignite so they need a major power to back them up? Sincerely, I'm tired of Israel being in the center of Middle East squabbles and if anyone hasn't noticed they have never fired a single shot at Al Qaeda or ISIS or joined us in any adventure anywhere in the Middle East so I'm content letting this agreement go into effect and keeping the option to react violently if it isn't adhered to. Enough is enough.

"The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT, is an international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament."
"UNODA - Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)". un.org.


Wise up.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Of course, as long as there is a lock-step Liberal/Democrat Party, they will never get that supermajority, and Iran will get a nuclear bomb.

What's wrong with Iran having the bomb? Oh right, you don't want them to. And while they may not have taught this where you came from, we didn't ask permission, no country ever did, and we are only fuckers in the history of the world to use the damn things, as a weapon of terror on non-military targets no less.

"What's wrong with Iran having the bomb?"


Remedial coming right up:


Here are some of your lord and master's 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."


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

I don't give a fuck what Obama says, nations do not need to ask permission to build weapons, and we, of all nations, have no fucking right to talk in this case. We are the only bastards crazy enough to use them and mass slaughter innocents in the process.