GOP soooo pissed: Iran deal working out much, much better than expected.

[rdean]

When Bush took office, Iran has ZERO centrifuges. When he left, they had over 6,000. Get it?

Yep, got it, that prick George W. Bush was either selling or giving centrifuges to Iran.

Well, since the loons around here have been claiming Obama is giving nukes to Iran, then...yeah.

Hilarious.
Do they think only the US makes centrifuges? Guess so.

 

[rdean]

Our men on their knees being used for propaganda, sounds so Carter like.

Of course Dean has to blame those taken capture, nothing else fits his apologetic tour.

They admitted they ignored orders and sailed into Iranian territory. And that makes you an ignorant moron. Try to figure out why. So you don't look so stupid in the future. Unless it doesn't bother you. It didn't bother me.

If you believe that bit of BS then that certainly explains why you think Obama and Mrs. Clinton getting 4 killed at Benghazi was over a video.

Here is a blog that explains the situation and you very well. As usual I provide a link, not opinion.

From the link:

If the American people were not suffering from an incompetent and incurious press and media, some of these discrepancies would have come to light and been subject to public debate. One would think the questions remaining over what are now the clear lies about Benghazi would excite some editorial interest.



The explanations pouring out of Obama’s lying Administration spokespersons from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of State simply do not stand the light of day. In fact they insult the intelligence of any knowledgeable citizen with military experience.

But one thing is clear. Secretary of State Kerry was a much better liar about his small boat riverine actions in Vietnam than he is in explaining what was going on with our riverine sailors in the Persian Gulf.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/the_most_plausible_explanation_for_the_10_riverine_sailors_captured_by_iran.html#ixzz3xbk8mUB8

You know that when a link starts off with:

The most plausible explanation for the 10 riverine sailors captured by Ira

It's bullshit based on opinion. How can you not know that?

In the article it is laid out why it is the most plausible. Since the Administration has a record of not telling the truth and the CIA would never tell the truth, more plausible is much more believable then you posting your opinion with absolutely no link or no evidence.

Shuddap. Only a fool thinks someone saying "most plausible" is fact. And it's only "most plausible": to you because it's what you desperately want to believe.

 

[rdean]

When Bush took office, Iran has ZERO centrifuges. When he left, they had over 6,000. Get it?

Yep, got it, that prick George W. Bush was either selling or giving centrifuges to Iran.

Iran deal working out much, much better than expected.

Yep, it sure is and I suspect it will continue to do so right up until the point that Iran successfully tests it's first nuclear weapon at which time I'm sure your story will change to something suitably partisan and divorced from anything resembling objectivity.

How will they make nuclear weapons without nuclear material or centrifuges? Do keep up. Your lack of understanding anything scientific is appalling.

Since your ass is simply too stupid to figure this out, let me enlighten you.

1 - How many centrifuges or nuclear material did Iran have before handing off some that was pretty much meaningless?

2 - You have no clue how many they've had, or how long they had them. Iraq and Iran both have had them since the late 80's. Well before Bush ever took office. They were buying computers, separators and pretty much everything they could get their hands on. Hell son you'd be shocked to figure out what all Clinton was funneling through Yemen.

3 - When you figure out where Iran's real nuclear program is, and that no one is allowed to see it, other than their own inspectors which can tell them any story they choose with no way to verify it....perhaps you'll begin to be marginally less stupid.

I'm not expecting that anytime soon.

Was Bush to blame for Iran’s nuclear expansion? - AEI

At the start of Bush’s presidency, Iran had no operational centrifuge cascades and no stocks of enriched fuel, so it had no means of making a nuclear weapon… By the time Bush left office in January 2009, Iran had just under 4,000 working centrifuges and an additional 1,600 installed. These had, to that point, produced 171 kilos of low-enriched uranium.

There are many sources on the web with pretty much the same numbers. Why are you guys so ignorant? Do you have to practice ignorance or does it simply come from a close mind?

Because some of us have much better knowledge than those "sources on the web". Didn't spend 20 years in the middle east doing business and not know things. Which btw was published info...even if you're too stupid to figure this out. I'd recommend the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists as a good primer....written in 1993 btw.

Ever hear of the Tuwaitha plant? the Tarmiya Plant? the Rashiydya complex? the the Al Furat complex? All established long before Bush...either Bush's presidency for that matter.

Those are just the ones in Iraq, which we had better intel on.

Best start opening your mind....before something bad jumps up and bites you that you never saw coming.

Not really sure what your point is. Do you think nuclear reactor equals nuclear bomb?



I believe Bush when he said Iraq had no WMD's. Funny, Republicans believed him when he lied but refuse to believe him when he told the truth.

 

[Freewill]

Our men on their knees being used for propaganda, sounds so Carter like.

Of course Dean has to blame those taken capture, nothing else fits his apologetic tour.

They admitted they ignored orders and sailed into Iranian territory. And that makes you an ignorant moron. Try to figure out why. So you don't look so stupid in the future. Unless it doesn't bother you. It didn't bother me.

If you believe that bit of BS then that certainly explains why you think Obama and Mrs. Clinton getting 4 killed at Benghazi was over a video.

Here is a blog that explains the situation and you very well. As usual I provide a link, not opinion.

From the link:

If the American people were not suffering from an incompetent and incurious press and media, some of these discrepancies would have come to light and been subject to public debate. One would think the questions remaining over what are now the clear lies about Benghazi would excite some editorial interest.



The explanations pouring out of Obama’s lying Administration spokespersons from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of State simply do not stand the light of day. In fact they insult the intelligence of any knowledgeable citizen with military experience.

But one thing is clear. Secretary of State Kerry was a much better liar about his small boat riverine actions in Vietnam than he is in explaining what was going on with our riverine sailors in the Persian Gulf.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/the_most_plausible_explanation_for_the_10_riverine_sailors_captured_by_iran.html#ixzz3xbk8mUB8

You know that when a link starts off with:

The most plausible explanation for the 10 riverine sailors captured by Ira

It's bullshit based on opinion. How can you not know that?

In the article it is laid out why it is the most plausible. Since the Administration has a record of not telling the truth and the CIA would never tell the truth, more plausible is much more believable then you posting your opinion with absolutely no link or no evidence.

Shuddap. Only a fool thinks someone saying "most plausible" is fact. And it's only "most plausible": to you because it's what you desperately want to believe.

The administration is already walking back on the story you a peddling. So what you sell once again is snake oil. I'll go with the most plausible instead of dailykos made up BS.

 

[9aces]

Yep, got it, that prick George W. Bush was either selling or giving centrifuges to Iran.

Yep, it sure is and I suspect it will continue to do so right up until the point that Iran successfully tests it's first nuclear weapon at which time I'm sure your story will change to something suitably partisan and divorced from anything resembling objectivity.

How will they make nuclear weapons without nuclear material or centrifuges? Do keep up. Your lack of understanding anything scientific is appalling.

Since your ass is simply too stupid to figure this out, let me enlighten you.

1 - How many centrifuges or nuclear material did Iran have before handing off some that was pretty much meaningless?

2 - You have no clue how many they've had, or how long they had them. Iraq and Iran both have had them since the late 80's. Well before Bush ever took office. They were buying computers, separators and pretty much everything they could get their hands on. Hell son you'd be shocked to figure out what all Clinton was funneling through Yemen.

3 - When you figure out where Iran's real nuclear program is, and that no one is allowed to see it, other than their own inspectors which can tell them any story they choose with no way to verify it....perhaps you'll begin to be marginally less stupid.

I'm not expecting that anytime soon.

Was Bush to blame for Iran’s nuclear expansion? - AEI

At the start of Bush’s presidency, Iran had no operational centrifuge cascades and no stocks of enriched fuel, so it had no means of making a nuclear weapon… By the time Bush left office in January 2009, Iran had just under 4,000 working centrifuges and an additional 1,600 installed. These had, to that point, produced 171 kilos of low-enriched uranium.

There are many sources on the web with pretty much the same numbers. Why are you guys so ignorant? Do you have to practice ignorance or does it simply come from a close mind?

Because some of us have much better knowledge than those "sources on the web". Didn't spend 20 years in the middle east doing business and not know things. Which btw was published info...even if you're too stupid to figure this out. I'd recommend the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists as a good primer....written in 1993 btw.

Ever hear of the Tuwaitha plant? the Tarmiya Plant? the Rashiydya complex? the the Al Furat complex? All established long before Bush...either Bush's presidency for that matter.

Those are just the ones in Iraq, which we had better intel on.

Best start opening your mind....before something bad jumps up and bites you that you never saw coming.

Not really sure what your point is. Do you think nuclear reactor equals nuclear bomb?



I believe Bush when he said Iraq had no WMD's. Funny, Republicans believed him when he lied but refuse to believe him when he told the truth.

Do you know what a WMD is? I don't believe you do.

Oh....and what are nuclear reactors used for? I don't believe you know that either.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Chaos in the middle east, hoards migrating to europe to rape western women; and the left thinks it's the dawning of the age of Aquarius.
Iran hides behind Russia like Canada hides behind the US and the left thinks Iran has been castrated of nuclear ability.
Wonder how many Kalashnikovs 150 big ones will buy.

 

[rdean]

Chaos in the middle east, hoards migrating to europe to rape western women; and the left thinks it's the dawning of the age of Aquarius.
Iran hides behind Russia like Canada hides behind the US and the left thinks Iran has been castrated of nuclear ability.
Wonder how many Kalashnikovs 150 big ones will buy.

Since Iran is right at Russia's back door, Russia wants Iran to have nuclear weapons.

That's what Republicans believe.

Rational people don't.

 

[Timmy]

Ain't russia in on the deal? China too? It's not just the us and Iran at the table .

 

[rdean]

Ain't russia in on the deal? China too? It's not just the us and Iran at the table .

Shhh, Republicans don't want you to talk about that.