anynameyouwish
Gold Member
- Nov 28, 2018
- 5,919
- 1,479
- 170
I see.
So American conservatives have a right to arm themselves to the teeth with weapons of mass destruction but nobody else has that same right?
or privilege?
Who's The Fascist?
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
I see.
So American conservatives have a right to arm themselves to the teeth with weapons of mass destruction but nobody else has that same right?
or privilege?
- Thread starter
- #122
- Thread starter
- #123
Mud, you're so stupid, you give 'stupid' a bad name.
Now...get both of your cerebral neurons ready for work: giving the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism nuclear weapons makes Hussein a war criminal.
If you and he were both found guilty, he'd go to prison, you'd remain in the home for the criminally insane.
So you have nothing to lose!
1. Hussein Obama:
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.
2. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-ProliferationTreaty 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 ...
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia
3.war criminal - an offender who violates international law during times of war
offender, wrongdoer - a person who transgresses moral or civil law
war criminal
4. Is there precedent for the one who gave the weapons used to kill innocents, to be prosecuted????
You betcha'!!!!!
a. "Human rights lawyers say they hope the case signals a trend. In Europe's growing practice of domestic courts' taking on human rights abuses that happened far away, the accused have commonly been foreign military or political officials, rather than local businessmen. But in December, a Dutch court sentenced a Dutch businessman, Frans van Anraat, to 15 years in prison for selling chemicals to Saddam Hussein. The chemicals were used in poison gas weapons that killed Kurdish villagers."
Holding arms dealers accountable at home
b. "....the provision of arms, ammunition, and other forms of military support to known human rights abusers has enabled them to carry out atrocities against civilians. The perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide are on notice that they may be hauled before a national or international criminal tribunal to face charges."
https://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k4/download/13.pdf
c. Dutch Court Convicts Arms Dealer for Role in Liberian Atrocities.
".... an appeals court in the Netherlands sentenced Guus Kouwenhoven, a Dutch businessman and citizen, to 19 years in prison for serving as an accessory to war crimes in Liberia. For years, Kouwenhoven smuggled weapons into the African nation using his timber business as cover. His operation supplied Liberian war criminal Charles Taylor with weapons for use in a conflict that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives."
Dutch Court Convicts Arms Dealer for Role in Liberian Atrocities. What Does It Say About Justice for Economic Crime?
francoHFW
Diamond Member
If we had stopped having a pissing contest with Iran like Obama did, the moderates in Iran would take over. They have the youngest best educated population in any Muslim country. Thanks GOP. Trump really believes that pact gave nuclear weapons to Iran.? Absolute idiocy.
Mud, you're so stupid, you give 'stupid' a bad name.
Now...get both of your cerebral neurons ready for work: giving the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism nuclear weapons makes Hussein a war criminal.
If you and he were both found guilty, he'd go to prison, you'd remain in the home for the criminally insane.
So you have nothing to lose!
1. Hussein Obama:
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.
2. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-ProliferationTreaty 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 ...
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia
3.war criminal - an offender who violates international law during times of war
offender, wrongdoer - a person who transgresses moral or civil law
war criminal
4. Is there precedent for the one who gave the weapons used to kill innocents, to be prosecuted????
You betcha'!!!!!
a. "Human rights lawyers say they hope the case signals a trend. In Europe's growing practice of domestic courts' taking on human rights abuses that happened far away, the accused have commonly been foreign military or political officials, rather than local businessmen. But in December, a Dutch court sentenced a Dutch businessman, Frans van Anraat, to 15 years in prison for selling chemicals to Saddam Hussein. The chemicals were used in poison gas weapons that killed Kurdish villagers."
Holding arms dealers accountable at home
b. "....the provision of arms, ammunition, and other forms of military support to known human rights abusers has enabled them to carry out atrocities against civilians. The perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide are on notice that they may be hauled before a national or international criminal tribunal to face charges."
https://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k4/download/13.pdf
c. Dutch Court Convicts Arms Dealer for Role in Liberian Atrocities.
".... an appeals court in the Netherlands sentenced Guus Kouwenhoven, a Dutch businessman and citizen, to 19 years in prison for serving as an accessory to war crimes in Liberia. For years, Kouwenhoven smuggled weapons into the African nation using his timber business as cover. His operation supplied Liberian war criminal Charles Taylor with weapons for use in a conflict that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives."
Dutch Court Convicts Arms Dealer for Role in Liberian Atrocities. What Does It Say About Justice for Economic Crime?
- Thread starter
- #125
If we had stopped having a pissing contest with Iran like Obama did, the moderates in Iran would take over. They have the youngest best educated population in any Muslim country. Thanks GOP. Trump really believes that packed gave nuclear weapons to Iran.? Absolute idiocy.
Mud, you're so stupid, you give 'stupid' a bad name.
Now...get both of your cerebral neurons ready for work: giving the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism nuclear weapons makes Hussein a war criminal.
If you and he were both found guilty, he'd go to prison, you'd remain in the home for the criminally insane.
So you have nothing to lose!
1. Hussein Obama:
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.
2. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-ProliferationTreaty 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 ...
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia
3.war criminal - an offender who violates international law during times of war
offender, wrongdoer - a person who transgresses moral or civil law
war criminal
4. Is there precedent for the one who gave the weapons used to kill innocents, to be prosecuted????
You betcha'!!!!!
a. "Human rights lawyers say they hope the case signals a trend. In Europe's growing practice of domestic courts' taking on human rights abuses that happened far away, the accused have commonly been foreign military or political officials, rather than local businessmen. But in December, a Dutch court sentenced a Dutch businessman, Frans van Anraat, to 15 years in prison for selling chemicals to Saddam Hussein. The chemicals were used in poison gas weapons that killed Kurdish villagers."
Holding arms dealers accountable at home
b. "....the provision of arms, ammunition, and other forms of military support to known human rights abusers has enabled them to carry out atrocities against civilians. The perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide are on notice that they may be hauled before a national or international criminal tribunal to face charges."
https://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k4/download/13.pdf
c. Dutch Court Convicts Arms Dealer for Role in Liberian Atrocities.
".... an appeals court in the Netherlands sentenced Guus Kouwenhoven, a Dutch businessman and citizen, to 19 years in prison for serving as an accessory to war crimes in Liberia. For years, Kouwenhoven smuggled weapons into the African nation using his timber business as cover. His operation supplied Liberian war criminal Charles Taylor with weapons for use in a conflict that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives."
Dutch Court Convicts Arms Dealer for Role in Liberian Atrocities. What Does It Say About Justice for Economic Crime?
There never were any 'moderates' in Iran, you moron.
It was a story Obama made up and Ben Rhodes admitted.....here, in the NYTimes....
"Rhodes’s innovative campaign to sell the Iran deal is likely to be a model for how future administrations explain foreign policy to Congress and the public. The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented — that the Obama administration began seriously engaging with Iranian officials in 2013 in order to take advantage of a new political reality in Iran, which came about because of elections that brought moderates to power in that country — was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal. Even where the particulars of that story are true, the implications that readers and viewers are encouraged to take away from those particulars are often misleading or false.
Obama’s closest advisers always understood him to be eager to do a deal with Iran as far back as 2012, and even since the beginning of his presidency. “It’s the center of the arc,” Rhodes explained to me two days after the deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was implemented. He then checked off the ways in which the administration’s foreign-policy aims and priorities converged on Iran. “We don’t have to kind of be in cycles of conflict if we can find other ways to resolve these issues,” he said. “We can do things that challenge the conventional thinking that, you know, ‘AIPAC doesn’t like this,’ or ‘the Israeli government doesn’t like this,’ or ‘the gulf countries don’t like it.’ It’s the possibility of improved relations with adversaries. It’s nonproliferation. So all these threads that the president’s been spinning — and I mean that not in the press sense — for almost a decade, they kind of all converged around Iran.”
In the narrative that Rhodes shaped, the “story” of the Iran deal began in 2013, when a “moderate” faction inside the Iranian regime led by Hassan Rouhani beat regime “hard-liners” in an election and then began to pursue a policy of “openness,” which included a newfound willingness to negotiate the dismantling of its illicit nuclear-weapons program. The president set out the timeline himself in his speech announcing the nuclear deal on July 14, 2015: “Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not.” While the president’s statement was technically accurate — there had in fact been two years of formal negotiations leading up to the signing of the J.C.P.O.A. — it was also actively misleading, because the most meaningful part of the negotiations with Iran had begun in mid-2012, many months before Rouhani and the “moderate” camp were chosen in an election among candidates handpicked by Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Obama administration. By obtaining broad public currency for the thought that there was a significant split in the regime, and that the administration was reaching out to moderate-minded Iranians who wanted peaceful relations with their neighbors and with America, Obama was able to evade what might have otherwise been a divisive but clarifying debate over the actual policy choices that his administration was making. By eliminating the fuss about Iran’s nuclear program, the administration hoped to eliminate a source of structural tension between the two countries, which would create the space for America to disentangle itself from its established system of alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel and Turkey. With one bold move, the administration would effectively begin the process of a large-scale disengagement from the Middle East.
The nerve center for the selling of the Iran deal to Congress, which took place in a concentrated three-month period between July and September of last year, was located inside the White House, and is referred to by its former denizens as “the war room.”
....Rhodes’s war room did its work on Capitol Hill and with reporters. In the spring of last year, legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. “We created an echo chamber,” he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”
The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru
. His lack of conventional real-world experience of the kind that normally precedes responsibility for the fate of nations — like military or diplomatic service, or even a master’s degree in international relations, rather than creative writing — is still startling. Ibid.
Control of news media
"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," Dunn said, admitting that the strategy "did not always make us popular in the press."
The video drew attention after Dunn kicked off a war of words with Fox News last Sunday, calling the network "opinion journalism masquerading as news." The White House stopped providing guests to "Fox News Sunday" in August after host Chris Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Top White House Official Says Obama Team 'Controlled' Media Coverage During Campaign
You swallowed every lie......
francoHFW
Diamond Member
If we had stopped having a pissing contest with Iran like Obama did, the moderates in Iran would take over. They have the youngest best educated population in any Muslim country. Thanks GOP. Trump really believes that packed gave nuclear weapons to Iran.? Absolute idiocy.
Mud, you're so stupid, you give 'stupid' a bad name.
Now...get both of your cerebral neurons ready for work: giving the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism nuclear weapons makes Hussein a war criminal.
If you and he were both found guilty, he'd go to prison, you'd remain in the home for the criminally insane.
So you have nothing to lose!
1. Hussein Obama:
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.
2. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-ProliferationTreaty 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 ...
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia
3.war criminal - an offender who violates international law during times of war
offender, wrongdoer - a person who transgresses moral or civil law
war criminal
4. Is there precedent for the one who gave the weapons used to kill innocents, to be prosecuted????
You betcha'!!!!!
a. "Human rights lawyers say they hope the case signals a trend. In Europe's growing practice of domestic courts' taking on human rights abuses that happened far away, the accused have commonly been foreign military or political officials, rather than local businessmen. But in December, a Dutch court sentenced a Dutch businessman, Frans van Anraat, to 15 years in prison for selling chemicals to Saddam Hussein. The chemicals were used in poison gas weapons that killed Kurdish villagers."
Holding arms dealers accountable at home
b. "....the provision of arms, ammunition, and other forms of military support to known human rights abusers has enabled them to carry out atrocities against civilians. The perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide are on notice that they may be hauled before a national or international criminal tribunal to face charges."
https://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k4/download/13.pdf
c. Dutch Court Convicts Arms Dealer for Role in Liberian Atrocities.
".... an appeals court in the Netherlands sentenced Guus Kouwenhoven, a Dutch businessman and citizen, to 19 years in prison for serving as an accessory to war crimes in Liberia. For years, Kouwenhoven smuggled weapons into the African nation using his timber business as cover. His operation supplied Liberian war criminal Charles Taylor with weapons for use in a conflict that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives."
Dutch Court Convicts Arms Dealer for Role in Liberian Atrocities. What Does It Say About Justice for Economic Crime?
There never were any 'moderates' in Iran, you moron.
It was a story Obama made up and Ben Rhodes admitted.....here, in the NYTimes....
"Rhodes’s innovative campaign to sell the Iran deal is likely to be a model for how future administrations explain foreign policy to Congress and the public. The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented — that the Obama administration began seriously engaging with Iranian officials in 2013 in order to take advantage of a new political reality in Iran, which came about because of elections that brought moderates to power in that country — was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal. Even where the particulars of that story are true, the implications that readers and viewers are encouraged to take away from those particulars are often misleading or false.
Obama’s closest advisers always understood him to be eager to do a deal with Iran as far back as 2012, and even since the beginning of his presidency. “It’s the center of the arc,” Rhodes explained to me two days after the deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was implemented. He then checked off the ways in which the administration’s foreign-policy aims and priorities converged on Iran. “We don’t have to kind of be in cycles of conflict if we can find other ways to resolve these issues,” he said. “We can do things that challenge the conventional thinking that, you know, ‘AIPAC doesn’t like this,’ or ‘the Israeli government doesn’t like this,’ or ‘the gulf countries don’t like it.’ It’s the possibility of improved relations with adversaries. It’s nonproliferation. So all these threads that the president’s been spinning — and I mean that not in the press sense — for almost a decade, they kind of all converged around Iran.”
In the narrative that Rhodes shaped, the “story” of the Iran deal began in 2013, when a “moderate” faction inside the Iranian regime led by Hassan Rouhani beat regime “hard-liners” in an election and then began to pursue a policy of “openness,” which included a newfound willingness to negotiate the dismantling of its illicit nuclear-weapons program. The president set out the timeline himself in his speech announcing the nuclear deal on July 14, 2015: “Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not.” While the president’s statement was technically accurate — there had in fact been two years of formal negotiations leading up to the signing of the J.C.P.O.A. — it was also actively misleading, because the most meaningful part of the negotiations with Iran had begun in mid-2012, many months before Rouhani and the “moderate” camp were chosen in an election among candidates handpicked by Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Obama administration. By obtaining broad public currency for the thought that there was a significant split in the regime, and that the administration was reaching out to moderate-minded Iranians who wanted peaceful relations with their neighbors and with America, Obama was able to evade what might have otherwise been a divisive but clarifying debate over the actual policy choices that his administration was making. By eliminating the fuss about Iran’s nuclear program, the administration hoped to eliminate a source of structural tension between the two countries, which would create the space for America to disentangle itself from its established system of alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel and Turkey. With one bold move, the administration would effectively begin the process of a large-scale disengagement from the Middle East.
The nerve center for the selling of the Iran deal to Congress, which took place in a concentrated three-month period between July and September of last year, was located inside the White House, and is referred to by its former denizens as “the war room.”
....Rhodes’s war room did its work on Capitol Hill and with reporters. In the spring of last year, legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. “We created an echo chamber,” he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”
The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru
. His lack of conventional real-world experience of the kind that normally precedes responsibility for the fate of nations — like military or diplomatic service, or even a master’s degree in international relations, rather than creative writing — is still startling. Ibid.
Control of news media
"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," Dunn said, admitting that the strategy "did not always make us popular in the press."
The video drew attention after Dunn kicked off a war of words with Fox News last Sunday, calling the network "opinion journalism masquerading as news." The White House stopped providing guests to "Fox News Sunday" in August after host Chris Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Top White House Official Says Obama Team 'Controlled' Media Coverage During Campaign
You swallowed every lie......
The UK France Germany Italy etc agree with me. You have the orange clown and Rush Limbaugh. Sean hannity etc or whereever you're getting this crap from it's all the same GOP propaganda machine, super duper. It would be nice if any of these amazing ideas came to fruition for the orange clown, but that is not history of trump. He's a terrible businessman he's just a spoiled brat narcissist.and if he really believes half of what he says he is a brainwashed functional moron.
- Thread starter
- #127
If we had stopped having a pissing contest with Iran like Obama did, the moderates in Iran would take over. They have the youngest best educated population in any Muslim country. Thanks GOP. Trump really believes that packed gave nuclear weapons to Iran.? Absolute idiocy.
Mud, you're so stupid, you give 'stupid' a bad name.
Now...get both of your cerebral neurons ready for work: giving the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism nuclear weapons makes Hussein a war criminal.
If you and he were both found guilty, he'd go to prison, you'd remain in the home for the criminally insane.
So you have nothing to lose!
1. Hussein Obama:
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.
2. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-ProliferationTreaty 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 ...
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia
3.war criminal - an offender who violates international law during times of war
offender, wrongdoer - a person who transgresses moral or civil law
war criminal
4. Is there precedent for the one who gave the weapons used to kill innocents, to be prosecuted????
You betcha'!!!!!
a. "Human rights lawyers say they hope the case signals a trend. In Europe's growing practice of domestic courts' taking on human rights abuses that happened far away, the accused have commonly been foreign military or political officials, rather than local businessmen. But in December, a Dutch court sentenced a Dutch businessman, Frans van Anraat, to 15 years in prison for selling chemicals to Saddam Hussein. The chemicals were used in poison gas weapons that killed Kurdish villagers."
Holding arms dealers accountable at home
b. "....the provision of arms, ammunition, and other forms of military support to known human rights abusers has enabled them to carry out atrocities against civilians. The perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide are on notice that they may be hauled before a national or international criminal tribunal to face charges."
https://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k4/download/13.pdf
c. Dutch Court Convicts Arms Dealer for Role in Liberian Atrocities.
".... an appeals court in the Netherlands sentenced Guus Kouwenhoven, a Dutch businessman and citizen, to 19 years in prison for serving as an accessory to war crimes in Liberia. For years, Kouwenhoven smuggled weapons into the African nation using his timber business as cover. His operation supplied Liberian war criminal Charles Taylor with weapons for use in a conflict that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives."
Dutch Court Convicts Arms Dealer for Role in Liberian Atrocities. What Does It Say About Justice for Economic Crime?
There never were any 'moderates' in Iran, you moron.
It was a story Obama made up and Ben Rhodes admitted.....here, in the NYTimes....
"Rhodes’s innovative campaign to sell the Iran deal is likely to be a model for how future administrations explain foreign policy to Congress and the public. The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented — that the Obama administration began seriously engaging with Iranian officials in 2013 in order to take advantage of a new political reality in Iran, which came about because of elections that brought moderates to power in that country — was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal. Even where the particulars of that story are true, the implications that readers and viewers are encouraged to take away from those particulars are often misleading or false.
Obama’s closest advisers always understood him to be eager to do a deal with Iran as far back as 2012, and even since the beginning of his presidency. “It’s the center of the arc,” Rhodes explained to me two days after the deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was implemented. He then checked off the ways in which the administration’s foreign-policy aims and priorities converged on Iran. “We don’t have to kind of be in cycles of conflict if we can find other ways to resolve these issues,” he said. “We can do things that challenge the conventional thinking that, you know, ‘AIPAC doesn’t like this,’ or ‘the Israeli government doesn’t like this,’ or ‘the gulf countries don’t like it.’ It’s the possibility of improved relations with adversaries. It’s nonproliferation. So all these threads that the president’s been spinning — and I mean that not in the press sense — for almost a decade, they kind of all converged around Iran.”
In the narrative that Rhodes shaped, the “story” of the Iran deal began in 2013, when a “moderate” faction inside the Iranian regime led by Hassan Rouhani beat regime “hard-liners” in an election and then began to pursue a policy of “openness,” which included a newfound willingness to negotiate the dismantling of its illicit nuclear-weapons program. The president set out the timeline himself in his speech announcing the nuclear deal on July 14, 2015: “Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not.” While the president’s statement was technically accurate — there had in fact been two years of formal negotiations leading up to the signing of the J.C.P.O.A. — it was also actively misleading, because the most meaningful part of the negotiations with Iran had begun in mid-2012, many months before Rouhani and the “moderate” camp were chosen in an election among candidates handpicked by Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Obama administration. By obtaining broad public currency for the thought that there was a significant split in the regime, and that the administration was reaching out to moderate-minded Iranians who wanted peaceful relations with their neighbors and with America, Obama was able to evade what might have otherwise been a divisive but clarifying debate over the actual policy choices that his administration was making. By eliminating the fuss about Iran’s nuclear program, the administration hoped to eliminate a source of structural tension between the two countries, which would create the space for America to disentangle itself from its established system of alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel and Turkey. With one bold move, the administration would effectively begin the process of a large-scale disengagement from the Middle East.
The nerve center for the selling of the Iran deal to Congress, which took place in a concentrated three-month period between July and September of last year, was located inside the White House, and is referred to by its former denizens as “the war room.”
....Rhodes’s war room did its work on Capitol Hill and with reporters. In the spring of last year, legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. “We created an echo chamber,” he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”
The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru
. His lack of conventional real-world experience of the kind that normally precedes responsibility for the fate of nations — like military or diplomatic service, or even a master’s degree in international relations, rather than creative writing — is still startling. Ibid.
Control of news media
"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," Dunn said, admitting that the strategy "did not always make us popular in the press."
The video drew attention after Dunn kicked off a war of words with Fox News last Sunday, calling the network "opinion journalism masquerading as news." The White House stopped providing guests to "Fox News Sunday" in August after host Chris Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Top White House Official Says Obama Team 'Controlled' Media Coverage During Campaign
You swallowed every lie......
The UK France Germany Italy etc agree with me. You have the orange clown and Rush Limbaugh. Sean hannity etc or whereever you're getting this crap from it's all the same GOP propaganda machine, super duper. It would be nice if any of these amazing ideas came to fruition for the orange clown, but that is not history of trump. He's a terrible businessman he's just a spoiled brat narcissist.and if he really believes half of what he says he is a brainwashed functional moron.
"Sean hannity etc or whereever you're getting this crap from...."
I got it from the NYTimes....you saw the link.
"The UK France Germany Italy etc agree with me."
Three of the four lined up with the Nazis, too.
With you, that makes four.
Everything I've posted is linked, sourced and documented....while you are simply our best source of greenhouse gases.
Don't forget: I'm never wrong.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,251
- 52,473
- 2,290
No, it didn't...and again, you moron.....150 billion dollars in easily moveable cash, allowing Iran to move money around bank sanctions and they gave it to their terrist minions to murder people...as well as funding their advancing missle and nuclear weapon science.....you are an idiot...
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,251
- 52,473
- 2,290
If we had stopped having a pissing contest with Iran like Obama did, the moderates in Iran would take over. They have the youngest best educated population in any Muslim country. Thanks GOP. Trump really believes that packed gave nuclear weapons to Iran.? Absolute idiocy.
Mud, you're so stupid, you give 'stupid' a bad name.
Now...get both of your cerebral neurons ready for work: giving the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism nuclear weapons makes Hussein a war criminal.
If you and he were both found guilty, he'd go to prison, you'd remain in the home for the criminally insane.
So you have nothing to lose!
1. Hussein Obama:
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.
2. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-ProliferationTreaty 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 ...
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia
3.war criminal - an offender who violates international law during times of war
offender, wrongdoer - a person who transgresses moral or civil law
war criminal
4. Is there precedent for the one who gave the weapons used to kill innocents, to be prosecuted????
You betcha'!!!!!
a. "Human rights lawyers say they hope the case signals a trend. In Europe's growing practice of domestic courts' taking on human rights abuses that happened far away, the accused have commonly been foreign military or political officials, rather than local businessmen. But in December, a Dutch court sentenced a Dutch businessman, Frans van Anraat, to 15 years in prison for selling chemicals to Saddam Hussein. The chemicals were used in poison gas weapons that killed Kurdish villagers."
Holding arms dealers accountable at home
b. "....the provision of arms, ammunition, and other forms of military support to known human rights abusers has enabled them to carry out atrocities against civilians. The perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide are on notice that they may be hauled before a national or international criminal tribunal to face charges."
https://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k4/download/13.pdf
c. Dutch Court Convicts Arms Dealer for Role in Liberian Atrocities.
".... an appeals court in the Netherlands sentenced Guus Kouwenhoven, a Dutch businessman and citizen, to 19 years in prison for serving as an accessory to war crimes in Liberia. For years, Kouwenhoven smuggled weapons into the African nation using his timber business as cover. His operation supplied Liberian war criminal Charles Taylor with weapons for use in a conflict that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives."
Dutch Court Convicts Arms Dealer for Role in Liberian Atrocities. What Does It Say About Justice for Economic Crime?
There never were any 'moderates' in Iran, you moron.
It was a story Obama made up and Ben Rhodes admitted.....here, in the NYTimes....
"Rhodes’s innovative campaign to sell the Iran deal is likely to be a model for how future administrations explain foreign policy to Congress and the public. The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented — that the Obama administration began seriously engaging with Iranian officials in 2013 in order to take advantage of a new political reality in Iran, which came about because of elections that brought moderates to power in that country — was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal. Even where the particulars of that story are true, the implications that readers and viewers are encouraged to take away from those particulars are often misleading or false.
Obama’s closest advisers always understood him to be eager to do a deal with Iran as far back as 2012, and even since the beginning of his presidency. “It’s the center of the arc,” Rhodes explained to me two days after the deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was implemented. He then checked off the ways in which the administration’s foreign-policy aims and priorities converged on Iran. “We don’t have to kind of be in cycles of conflict if we can find other ways to resolve these issues,” he said. “We can do things that challenge the conventional thinking that, you know, ‘AIPAC doesn’t like this,’ or ‘the Israeli government doesn’t like this,’ or ‘the gulf countries don’t like it.’ It’s the possibility of improved relations with adversaries. It’s nonproliferation. So all these threads that the president’s been spinning — and I mean that not in the press sense — for almost a decade, they kind of all converged around Iran.”
In the narrative that Rhodes shaped, the “story” of the Iran deal began in 2013, when a “moderate” faction inside the Iranian regime led by Hassan Rouhani beat regime “hard-liners” in an election and then began to pursue a policy of “openness,” which included a newfound willingness to negotiate the dismantling of its illicit nuclear-weapons program. The president set out the timeline himself in his speech announcing the nuclear deal on July 14, 2015: “Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not.” While the president’s statement was technically accurate — there had in fact been two years of formal negotiations leading up to the signing of the J.C.P.O.A. — it was also actively misleading, because the most meaningful part of the negotiations with Iran had begun in mid-2012, many months before Rouhani and the “moderate” camp were chosen in an election among candidates handpicked by Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Obama administration. By obtaining broad public currency for the thought that there was a significant split in the regime, and that the administration was reaching out to moderate-minded Iranians who wanted peaceful relations with their neighbors and with America, Obama was able to evade what might have otherwise been a divisive but clarifying debate over the actual policy choices that his administration was making. By eliminating the fuss about Iran’s nuclear program, the administration hoped to eliminate a source of structural tension between the two countries, which would create the space for America to disentangle itself from its established system of alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel and Turkey. With one bold move, the administration would effectively begin the process of a large-scale disengagement from the Middle East.
The nerve center for the selling of the Iran deal to Congress, which took place in a concentrated three-month period between July and September of last year, was located inside the White House, and is referred to by its former denizens as “the war room.”
....Rhodes’s war room did its work on Capitol Hill and with reporters. In the spring of last year, legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. “We created an echo chamber,” he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”
The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru
. His lack of conventional real-world experience of the kind that normally precedes responsibility for the fate of nations — like military or diplomatic service, or even a master’s degree in international relations, rather than creative writing — is still startling. Ibid.
Control of news media
"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," Dunn said, admitting that the strategy "did not always make us popular in the press."
The video drew attention after Dunn kicked off a war of words with Fox News last Sunday, calling the network "opinion journalism masquerading as news." The White House stopped providing guests to "Fox News Sunday" in August after host Chris Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Top White House Official Says Obama Team 'Controlled' Media Coverage During Campaign
You swallowed every lie......
The UK France Germany Italy etc agree with me. You have the orange clown and Rush Limbaugh. Sean hannity etc or whereever you're getting this crap from it's all the same GOP propaganda machine, super duper. It would be nice if any of these amazing ideas came to fruition for the orange clown, but that is not history of trump. He's a terrible businessman he's just a spoiled brat narcissist.and if he really believes half of what he says he is a brainwashed functional moron.
"Sean hannity etc or whereever you're getting this crap from...."
I got it from the NYTimes....you saw the link.
"The UK France Germany Italy etc agree with me."
Three of the four lined up with the Nazis, too.
With you, that makes four.
Everything I've posted is linked, sourced and documented....while you are simply our best source of greenhouse gases.
Don't forget: I'm never wrong.
"The UK France Germany Italy etc agree with me."
Three of the four lined up with the Nazis, too.
With you, that makes four.
I love it when these asshats use Europe as an example we should follow.....12 million murdered innocent men, women and children would disagree.....
francoHFW
Diamond Member
If we had stopped having a pissing contest with Iran like Obama did, the moderates in Iran would take over. They have the youngest best educated population in any Muslim country. Thanks GOP. Trump really believes that packed gave nuclear weapons to Iran.? Absolute idiocy.
Mud, you're so stupid, you give 'stupid' a bad name.
Now...get both of your cerebral neurons ready for work: giving the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism nuclear weapons makes Hussein a war criminal.
If you and he were both found guilty, he'd go to prison, you'd remain in the home for the criminally insane.
So you have nothing to lose!
1. Hussein Obama:
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.
2. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-ProliferationTreaty 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 ...
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia
3.war criminal - an offender who violates international law during times of war
offender, wrongdoer - a person who transgresses moral or civil law
war criminal
4. Is there precedent for the one who gave the weapons used to kill innocents, to be prosecuted????
You betcha'!!!!!
a. "Human rights lawyers say they hope the case signals a trend. In Europe's growing practice of domestic courts' taking on human rights abuses that happened far away, the accused have commonly been foreign military or political officials, rather than local businessmen. But in December, a Dutch court sentenced a Dutch businessman, Frans van Anraat, to 15 years in prison for selling chemicals to Saddam Hussein. The chemicals were used in poison gas weapons that killed Kurdish villagers."
Holding arms dealers accountable at home
b. "....the provision of arms, ammunition, and other forms of military support to known human rights abusers has enabled them to carry out atrocities against civilians. The perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide are on notice that they may be hauled before a national or international criminal tribunal to face charges."
https://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k4/download/13.pdf
c. Dutch Court Convicts Arms Dealer for Role in Liberian Atrocities.
".... an appeals court in the Netherlands sentenced Guus Kouwenhoven, a Dutch businessman and citizen, to 19 years in prison for serving as an accessory to war crimes in Liberia. For years, Kouwenhoven smuggled weapons into the African nation using his timber business as cover. His operation supplied Liberian war criminal Charles Taylor with weapons for use in a conflict that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives."
Dutch Court Convicts Arms Dealer for Role in Liberian Atrocities. What Does It Say About Justice for Economic Crime?
There never were any 'moderates' in Iran, you moron.
It was a story Obama made up and Ben Rhodes admitted.....here, in the NYTimes....
"Rhodes’s innovative campaign to sell the Iran deal is likely to be a model for how future administrations explain foreign policy to Congress and the public. The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented — that the Obama administration began seriously engaging with Iranian officials in 2013 in order to take advantage of a new political reality in Iran, which came about because of elections that brought moderates to power in that country — was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal. Even where the particulars of that story are true, the implications that readers and viewers are encouraged to take away from those particulars are often misleading or false.
Obama’s closest advisers always understood him to be eager to do a deal with Iran as far back as 2012, and even since the beginning of his presidency. “It’s the center of the arc,” Rhodes explained to me two days after the deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was implemented. He then checked off the ways in which the administration’s foreign-policy aims and priorities converged on Iran. “We don’t have to kind of be in cycles of conflict if we can find other ways to resolve these issues,” he said. “We can do things that challenge the conventional thinking that, you know, ‘AIPAC doesn’t like this,’ or ‘the Israeli government doesn’t like this,’ or ‘the gulf countries don’t like it.’ It’s the possibility of improved relations with adversaries. It’s nonproliferation. So all these threads that the president’s been spinning — and I mean that not in the press sense — for almost a decade, they kind of all converged around Iran.”
In the narrative that Rhodes shaped, the “story” of the Iran deal began in 2013, when a “moderate” faction inside the Iranian regime led by Hassan Rouhani beat regime “hard-liners” in an election and then began to pursue a policy of “openness,” which included a newfound willingness to negotiate the dismantling of its illicit nuclear-weapons program. The president set out the timeline himself in his speech announcing the nuclear deal on July 14, 2015: “Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not.” While the president’s statement was technically accurate — there had in fact been two years of formal negotiations leading up to the signing of the J.C.P.O.A. — it was also actively misleading, because the most meaningful part of the negotiations with Iran had begun in mid-2012, many months before Rouhani and the “moderate” camp were chosen in an election among candidates handpicked by Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Obama administration. By obtaining broad public currency for the thought that there was a significant split in the regime, and that the administration was reaching out to moderate-minded Iranians who wanted peaceful relations with their neighbors and with America, Obama was able to evade what might have otherwise been a divisive but clarifying debate over the actual policy choices that his administration was making. By eliminating the fuss about Iran’s nuclear program, the administration hoped to eliminate a source of structural tension between the two countries, which would create the space for America to disentangle itself from its established system of alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel and Turkey. With one bold move, the administration would effectively begin the process of a large-scale disengagement from the Middle East.
The nerve center for the selling of the Iran deal to Congress, which took place in a concentrated three-month period between July and September of last year, was located inside the White House, and is referred to by its former denizens as “the war room.”
....Rhodes’s war room did its work on Capitol Hill and with reporters. In the spring of last year, legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. “We created an echo chamber,” he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”
The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru
. His lack of conventional real-world experience of the kind that normally precedes responsibility for the fate of nations — like military or diplomatic service, or even a master’s degree in international relations, rather than creative writing — is still startling. Ibid.
Control of news media
"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," Dunn said, admitting that the strategy "did not always make us popular in the press."
The video drew attention after Dunn kicked off a war of words with Fox News last Sunday, calling the network "opinion journalism masquerading as news." The White House stopped providing guests to "Fox News Sunday" in August after host Chris Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Top White House Official Says Obama Team 'Controlled' Media Coverage During Campaign
You swallowed every lie......
The UK France Germany Italy etc agree with me. You have the orange clown and Rush Limbaugh. Sean hannity etc or whereever you're getting this crap from it's all the same GOP propaganda machine, super duper. It would be nice if any of these amazing ideas came to fruition for the orange clown, but that is not history of trump. He's a terrible businessman he's just a spoiled brat narcissist.and if he really believes half of what he says he is a brainwashed functional moron.
"Sean hannity etc or whereever you're getting this crap from...."
I got it from the NYTimes....you saw the link.
"The UK France Germany Italy etc agree with me."
Three of the four lined up with the Nazis, too.
With you, that makes four.
Everything I've posted is linked, sourced and documented....while you are simply our best source of greenhouse gases.
Don't forget: I'm never wrong.
France did not line up with the Nazis dingbat. They were occupied and they had about 20% fascist just like we do now. Who would go along with a fascist dictatorship here. Your article is 33 years old and proves nothing obviously. And I can't read it LOL
francoHFW
Diamond Member
If we had stopped having a pissing contest with Iran like Obama did, the moderates in Iran would take over. They have the youngest best educated population in any Muslim country. Thanks GOP. Trump really believes that packed gave nuclear weapons to Iran.? Absolute idiocy.Mud, you're so stupid, you give 'stupid' a bad name.
Now...get both of your cerebral neurons ready for work: giving the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism nuclear weapons makes Hussein a war criminal.
If you and he were both found guilty, he'd go to prison, you'd remain in the home for the criminally insane.
So you have nothing to lose!
1. Hussein Obama:
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.
2. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-ProliferationTreaty 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 ...
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia
3.war criminal - an offender who violates international law during times of war
offender, wrongdoer - a person who transgresses moral or civil law
war criminal
4. Is there precedent for the one who gave the weapons used to kill innocents, to be prosecuted????
You betcha'!!!!!
a. "Human rights lawyers say they hope the case signals a trend. In Europe's growing practice of domestic courts' taking on human rights abuses that happened far away, the accused have commonly been foreign military or political officials, rather than local businessmen. But in December, a Dutch court sentenced a Dutch businessman, Frans van Anraat, to 15 years in prison for selling chemicals to Saddam Hussein. The chemicals were used in poison gas weapons that killed Kurdish villagers."
Holding arms dealers accountable at home
b. "....the provision of arms, ammunition, and other forms of military support to known human rights abusers has enabled them to carry out atrocities against civilians. The perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide are on notice that they may be hauled before a national or international criminal tribunal to face charges."
https://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k4/download/13.pdf
c. Dutch Court Convicts Arms Dealer for Role in Liberian Atrocities.
".... an appeals court in the Netherlands sentenced Guus Kouwenhoven, a Dutch businessman and citizen, to 19 years in prison for serving as an accessory to war crimes in Liberia. For years, Kouwenhoven smuggled weapons into the African nation using his timber business as cover. His operation supplied Liberian war criminal Charles Taylor with weapons for use in a conflict that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives."
Dutch Court Convicts Arms Dealer for Role in Liberian Atrocities. What Does It Say About Justice for Economic Crime?
There never were any 'moderates' in Iran, you moron.
It was a story Obama made up and Ben Rhodes admitted.....here, in the NYTimes....
"Rhodes’s innovative campaign to sell the Iran deal is likely to be a model for how future administrations explain foreign policy to Congress and the public. The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented — that the Obama administration began seriously engaging with Iranian officials in 2013 in order to take advantage of a new political reality in Iran, which came about because of elections that brought moderates to power in that country — was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal. Even where the particulars of that story are true, the implications that readers and viewers are encouraged to take away from those particulars are often misleading or false.
Obama’s closest advisers always understood him to be eager to do a deal with Iran as far back as 2012, and even since the beginning of his presidency. “It’s the center of the arc,” Rhodes explained to me two days after the deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was implemented. He then checked off the ways in which the administration’s foreign-policy aims and priorities converged on Iran. “We don’t have to kind of be in cycles of conflict if we can find other ways to resolve these issues,” he said. “We can do things that challenge the conventional thinking that, you know, ‘AIPAC doesn’t like this,’ or ‘the Israeli government doesn’t like this,’ or ‘the gulf countries don’t like it.’ It’s the possibility of improved relations with adversaries. It’s nonproliferation. So all these threads that the president’s been spinning — and I mean that not in the press sense — for almost a decade, they kind of all converged around Iran.”
In the narrative that Rhodes shaped, the “story” of the Iran deal began in 2013, when a “moderate” faction inside the Iranian regime led by Hassan Rouhani beat regime “hard-liners” in an election and then began to pursue a policy of “openness,” which included a newfound willingness to negotiate the dismantling of its illicit nuclear-weapons program. The president set out the timeline himself in his speech announcing the nuclear deal on July 14, 2015: “Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not.” While the president’s statement was technically accurate — there had in fact been two years of formal negotiations leading up to the signing of the J.C.P.O.A. — it was also actively misleading, because the most meaningful part of the negotiations with Iran had begun in mid-2012, many months before Rouhani and the “moderate” camp were chosen in an election among candidates handpicked by Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Obama administration. By obtaining broad public currency for the thought that there was a significant split in the regime, and that the administration was reaching out to moderate-minded Iranians who wanted peaceful relations with their neighbors and with America, Obama was able to evade what might have otherwise been a divisive but clarifying debate over the actual policy choices that his administration was making. By eliminating the fuss about Iran’s nuclear program, the administration hoped to eliminate a source of structural tension between the two countries, which would create the space for America to disentangle itself from its established system of alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel and Turkey. With one bold move, the administration would effectively begin the process of a large-scale disengagement from the Middle East.
The nerve center for the selling of the Iran deal to Congress, which took place in a concentrated three-month period between July and September of last year, was located inside the White House, and is referred to by its former denizens as “the war room.”
....Rhodes’s war room did its work on Capitol Hill and with reporters. In the spring of last year, legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. “We created an echo chamber,” he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”
The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru
. His lack of conventional real-world experience of the kind that normally precedes responsibility for the fate of nations — like military or diplomatic service, or even a master’s degree in international relations, rather than creative writing — is still startling. Ibid.
Control of news media
"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," Dunn said, admitting that the strategy "did not always make us popular in the press."
The video drew attention after Dunn kicked off a war of words with Fox News last Sunday, calling the network "opinion journalism masquerading as news." The White House stopped providing guests to "Fox News Sunday" in August after host Chris Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Top White House Official Says Obama Team 'Controlled' Media Coverage During Campaign
You swallowed every lie......
The UK France Germany Italy etc agree with me. You have the orange clown and Rush Limbaugh. Sean hannity etc or whereever you're getting this crap from it's all the same GOP propaganda machine, super duper. It would be nice if any of these amazing ideas came to fruition for the orange clown, but that is not history of trump. He's a terrible businessman he's just a spoiled brat narcissist.and if he really believes half of what he says he is a brainwashed functional moron.
"Sean hannity etc or whereever you're getting this crap from...."
I got it from the NYTimes....you saw the link.
"The UK France Germany Italy etc agree with me."
Three of the four lined up with the Nazis, too.
With you, that makes four.
Everything I've posted is linked, sourced and documented....while you are simply our best source of greenhouse gases.
Don't forget: I'm never wrong.
"The UK France Germany Italy etc agree with me."
Three of the four lined up with the Nazis, too.
With you, that makes four.
I love it when these asshats use Europe as an example we should follow.....12 million murdered innocent men, women and children would disagree.....
you blame German Nazis and Italian fascists for that not the countries they were occupying. The point is, we want Health Care daycare paid parental leave taxing the rich more than the rest cheap college and training great vacations and infrastructure just like every other modern country has including Australia New Zealand Canada. Only we don't thanks to you brainwashed functional morons.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
It is their money, brainwashed functional moron. And they stopped their advancing missile and nuclear weapons science until you idiots got in charge. The president is as dumb as his most ignorant supporters, about half the party. Who believed everything Fox Rush Limbaugh the orange clown tell him. No one else in the world believes that crap
- Thread starter
- #133
If we had stopped having a pissing contest with Iran like Obama did, the moderates in Iran would take over. They have the youngest best educated population in any Muslim country. Thanks GOP. Trump really believes that packed gave nuclear weapons to Iran.? Absolute idiocy.Mud, you're so stupid, you give 'stupid' a bad name.
Now...get both of your cerebral neurons ready for work: giving the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism nuclear weapons makes Hussein a war criminal.
If you and he were both found guilty, he'd go to prison, you'd remain in the home for the criminally insane.
So you have nothing to lose!
1. Hussein Obama:
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.
2. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-ProliferationTreaty 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 ...
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia
3.war criminal - an offender who violates international law during times of war
offender, wrongdoer - a person who transgresses moral or civil law
war criminal
4. Is there precedent for the one who gave the weapons used to kill innocents, to be prosecuted????
You betcha'!!!!!
a. "Human rights lawyers say they hope the case signals a trend. In Europe's growing practice of domestic courts' taking on human rights abuses that happened far away, the accused have commonly been foreign military or political officials, rather than local businessmen. But in December, a Dutch court sentenced a Dutch businessman, Frans van Anraat, to 15 years in prison for selling chemicals to Saddam Hussein. The chemicals were used in poison gas weapons that killed Kurdish villagers."
Holding arms dealers accountable at home
b. "....the provision of arms, ammunition, and other forms of military support to known human rights abusers has enabled them to carry out atrocities against civilians. The perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide are on notice that they may be hauled before a national or international criminal tribunal to face charges."
https://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k4/download/13.pdf
c. Dutch Court Convicts Arms Dealer for Role in Liberian Atrocities.
".... an appeals court in the Netherlands sentenced Guus Kouwenhoven, a Dutch businessman and citizen, to 19 years in prison for serving as an accessory to war crimes in Liberia. For years, Kouwenhoven smuggled weapons into the African nation using his timber business as cover. His operation supplied Liberian war criminal Charles Taylor with weapons for use in a conflict that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives."
Dutch Court Convicts Arms Dealer for Role in Liberian Atrocities. What Does It Say About Justice for Economic Crime?
There never were any 'moderates' in Iran, you moron.
It was a story Obama made up and Ben Rhodes admitted.....here, in the NYTimes....
"Rhodes’s innovative campaign to sell the Iran deal is likely to be a model for how future administrations explain foreign policy to Congress and the public. The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented — that the Obama administration began seriously engaging with Iranian officials in 2013 in order to take advantage of a new political reality in Iran, which came about because of elections that brought moderates to power in that country — was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal. Even where the particulars of that story are true, the implications that readers and viewers are encouraged to take away from those particulars are often misleading or false.
Obama’s closest advisers always understood him to be eager to do a deal with Iran as far back as 2012, and even since the beginning of his presidency. “It’s the center of the arc,” Rhodes explained to me two days after the deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was implemented. He then checked off the ways in which the administration’s foreign-policy aims and priorities converged on Iran. “We don’t have to kind of be in cycles of conflict if we can find other ways to resolve these issues,” he said. “We can do things that challenge the conventional thinking that, you know, ‘AIPAC doesn’t like this,’ or ‘the Israeli government doesn’t like this,’ or ‘the gulf countries don’t like it.’ It’s the possibility of improved relations with adversaries. It’s nonproliferation. So all these threads that the president’s been spinning — and I mean that not in the press sense — for almost a decade, they kind of all converged around Iran.”
In the narrative that Rhodes shaped, the “story” of the Iran deal began in 2013, when a “moderate” faction inside the Iranian regime led by Hassan Rouhani beat regime “hard-liners” in an election and then began to pursue a policy of “openness,” which included a newfound willingness to negotiate the dismantling of its illicit nuclear-weapons program. The president set out the timeline himself in his speech announcing the nuclear deal on July 14, 2015: “Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not.” While the president’s statement was technically accurate — there had in fact been two years of formal negotiations leading up to the signing of the J.C.P.O.A. — it was also actively misleading, because the most meaningful part of the negotiations with Iran had begun in mid-2012, many months before Rouhani and the “moderate” camp were chosen in an election among candidates handpicked by Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Obama administration. By obtaining broad public currency for the thought that there was a significant split in the regime, and that the administration was reaching out to moderate-minded Iranians who wanted peaceful relations with their neighbors and with America, Obama was able to evade what might have otherwise been a divisive but clarifying debate over the actual policy choices that his administration was making. By eliminating the fuss about Iran’s nuclear program, the administration hoped to eliminate a source of structural tension between the two countries, which would create the space for America to disentangle itself from its established system of alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel and Turkey. With one bold move, the administration would effectively begin the process of a large-scale disengagement from the Middle East.
The nerve center for the selling of the Iran deal to Congress, which took place in a concentrated three-month period between July and September of last year, was located inside the White House, and is referred to by its former denizens as “the war room.”
....Rhodes’s war room did its work on Capitol Hill and with reporters. In the spring of last year, legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. “We created an echo chamber,” he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”
The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru
. His lack of conventional real-world experience of the kind that normally precedes responsibility for the fate of nations — like military or diplomatic service, or even a master’s degree in international relations, rather than creative writing — is still startling. Ibid.
Control of news media
"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," Dunn said, admitting that the strategy "did not always make us popular in the press."
The video drew attention after Dunn kicked off a war of words with Fox News last Sunday, calling the network "opinion journalism masquerading as news." The White House stopped providing guests to "Fox News Sunday" in August after host Chris Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Top White House Official Says Obama Team 'Controlled' Media Coverage During Campaign
You swallowed every lie......
The UK France Germany Italy etc agree with me. You have the orange clown and Rush Limbaugh. Sean hannity etc or whereever you're getting this crap from it's all the same GOP propaganda machine, super duper. It would be nice if any of these amazing ideas came to fruition for the orange clown, but that is not history of trump. He's a terrible businessman he's just a spoiled brat narcissist.and if he really believes half of what he says he is a brainwashed functional moron.
"Sean hannity etc or whereever you're getting this crap from...."
I got it from the NYTimes....you saw the link.
"The UK France Germany Italy etc agree with me."
Three of the four lined up with the Nazis, too.
With you, that makes four.
Everything I've posted is linked, sourced and documented....while you are simply our best source of greenhouse gases.
Don't forget: I'm never wrong.
France did not line up with the Nazis dingbat. They were occupied and they had about 20% fascist just like we do now. Who would go along with a fascist dictatorship here. Your article is 33 years old and proves nothing obviously. And I can't read it LOL
Really...you fool.....is that why England sunk the French fleet?????
Open a book once in your life.
- Thread starter
- #134
There never were any 'moderates' in Iran, you moron.
It was a story Obama made up and Ben Rhodes admitted.....here, in the NYTimes....
"Rhodes’s innovative campaign to sell the Iran deal is likely to be a model for how future administrations explain foreign policy to Congress and the public. The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented — that the Obama administration began seriously engaging with Iranian officials in 2013 in order to take advantage of a new political reality in Iran, which came about because of elections that brought moderates to power in that country — was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal. Even where the particulars of that story are true, the implications that readers and viewers are encouraged to take away from those particulars are often misleading or false.
Obama’s closest advisers always understood him to be eager to do a deal with Iran as far back as 2012, and even since the beginning of his presidency. “It’s the center of the arc,” Rhodes explained to me two days after the deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was implemented. He then checked off the ways in which the administration’s foreign-policy aims and priorities converged on Iran. “We don’t have to kind of be in cycles of conflict if we can find other ways to resolve these issues,” he said. “We can do things that challenge the conventional thinking that, you know, ‘AIPAC doesn’t like this,’ or ‘the Israeli government doesn’t like this,’ or ‘the gulf countries don’t like it.’ It’s the possibility of improved relations with adversaries. It’s nonproliferation. So all these threads that the president’s been spinning — and I mean that not in the press sense — for almost a decade, they kind of all converged around Iran.”
In the narrative that Rhodes shaped, the “story” of the Iran deal began in 2013, when a “moderate” faction inside the Iranian regime led by Hassan Rouhani beat regime “hard-liners” in an election and then began to pursue a policy of “openness,” which included a newfound willingness to negotiate the dismantling of its illicit nuclear-weapons program. The president set out the timeline himself in his speech announcing the nuclear deal on July 14, 2015: “Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not.” While the president’s statement was technically accurate — there had in fact been two years of formal negotiations leading up to the signing of the J.C.P.O.A. — it was also actively misleading, because the most meaningful part of the negotiations with Iran had begun in mid-2012, many months before Rouhani and the “moderate” camp were chosen in an election among candidates handpicked by Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Obama administration. By obtaining broad public currency for the thought that there was a significant split in the regime, and that the administration was reaching out to moderate-minded Iranians who wanted peaceful relations with their neighbors and with America, Obama was able to evade what might have otherwise been a divisive but clarifying debate over the actual policy choices that his administration was making. By eliminating the fuss about Iran’s nuclear program, the administration hoped to eliminate a source of structural tension between the two countries, which would create the space for America to disentangle itself from its established system of alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel and Turkey. With one bold move, the administration would effectively begin the process of a large-scale disengagement from the Middle East.
The nerve center for the selling of the Iran deal to Congress, which took place in a concentrated three-month period between July and September of last year, was located inside the White House, and is referred to by its former denizens as “the war room.”
....Rhodes’s war room did its work on Capitol Hill and with reporters. In the spring of last year, legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. “We created an echo chamber,” he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”
The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru
. His lack of conventional real-world experience of the kind that normally precedes responsibility for the fate of nations — like military or diplomatic service, or even a master’s degree in international relations, rather than creative writing — is still startling. Ibid.
Control of news media
"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," Dunn said, admitting that the strategy "did not always make us popular in the press."
The video drew attention after Dunn kicked off a war of words with Fox News last Sunday, calling the network "opinion journalism masquerading as news." The White House stopped providing guests to "Fox News Sunday" in August after host Chris Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Top White House Official Says Obama Team 'Controlled' Media Coverage During Campaign
You swallowed every lie......
The UK France Germany Italy etc agree with me. You have the orange clown and Rush Limbaugh. Sean hannity etc or whereever you're getting this crap from it's all the same GOP propaganda machine, super duper. It would be nice if any of these amazing ideas came to fruition for the orange clown, but that is not history of trump. He's a terrible businessman he's just a spoiled brat narcissist.and if he really believes half of what he says he is a brainwashed functional moron.
"Sean hannity etc or whereever you're getting this crap from...."
I got it from the NYTimes....you saw the link.
"The UK France Germany Italy etc agree with me."
Three of the four lined up with the Nazis, too.
With you, that makes four.
Everything I've posted is linked, sourced and documented....while you are simply our best source of greenhouse gases.
Don't forget: I'm never wrong.
"The UK France Germany Italy etc agree with me."
Three of the four lined up with the Nazis, too.
With you, that makes four.
I love it when these asshats use Europe as an example we should follow.....12 million murdered innocent men, women and children would disagree.....
you blame German Nazis and Italian fascists for that not the countries they were occupying. The point is, we want Health Care daycare paid parental leave taxing the rich more than the rest cheap college and training great vacations and infrastructure just like every other modern country has including Australia New Zealand Canada. Only we don't thanks to you brainwashed functional morons.
Liberals and Nazis stand for the very same things.
Workers Welfare Programs:
In the best passage of Government largess, the Nazi regime fostered a purified liberal concept to enhance the living standard of German citizens across all segments of society. In order to stimulate the spirit of integrity, comradeship and happiness, Adolf Hitler fanned numerous programs and instituted strict rules for officials to carry them in eternal way.
a) Highly Subsidized International vacation trips.
b) Between 1933-1938 Strength through Joy (KDF) movement Organized 134,000 theater and concert events for 32 million people. 2 million people went on cruises and weekend trips and 11 million went on theater trips.
c) Nazis ensured that every citizen had a Radio.
d) 5 day week.
e) Free Public Health.
f) Trade Unions were banned. All workers had to join German labor Front. Strikes for higher wages were banned. People who refused to work were imprisoned. With fall in Inflation, purchasing power increased and wages actually fell.
g) Large factories had to provide rest areas, cafeterias, dressing rooms, even playing fields and swimming pools
h) They also banned "lock outs" for industries. No "reverse strikes"for them either.
LIES YOUR TEACHER TAUGHT YOU: Nazi Hitler Economic Social and Political Policies
I'm never wrong/
Ringtone
Platinum Member
- Sep 3, 2019
- 6,142
- 3,522
- 940
By definition, God is not a material entity. God is apprehended by the mind via reason.
Ringtone
Platinum Member
- Sep 3, 2019
- 6,142
- 3,522
- 940
Therefore, the classical liberalism of the Lockean tradition of natural law and the inalienable rights thereof--the sociopolitical ethos on which this nation was founded--is false.
Is that your point?
Ringtone
Platinum Member
- Sep 3, 2019
- 6,142
- 3,522
- 940
So you're saying that you don't grasp the aim of the three-fifths compromise? Are you telling us that you're a brainwashed product of the state schools?
Ringtone
Platinum Member
- Sep 3, 2019
- 6,142
- 3,522
- 940
Nonsense! The natural law of individual liberty and the inalienable rights thereof were extrapolated from the preeminent, moral imperative expounded by the Bible.
Similar threads
