“Outlines” of an “understanding” leading to a “path” allowing for more stalling and nuclear weapons development
This may be Obama’s greatest achievement, rivaling even his highly successful”reset” with Russia, his very, very successful Yemen counter-terrorism strategy, his fearsome threat to Syria’s Assad, which resulted in his quivering surrender of all his chemical weapons, and let’s not forget his very successful incarceration of the g uy whose video caused the Benghazi massacre.
This calls for a celebration in the Rose Garden and an invite to the Bergdahls! Happy Days are here again!
From Politico:
“Obama said he saw three options: The first, the U.S.’s current path of a negotiated agreement with Iran. Second, bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, a move he warned would only set its program back “by a few years.” The third option, Obama said, was to “pull out of negotiations … and hope for the best.”
Funny, he apparently did not see restoring and enhancing economic sanctions as one of his “options”. I guess that figures. That wouldn’t fit well with his “negotiating strategy.” And we guess no one stays bombed anymore. Three years is all you can expect and our hands would be tied if they do not renounce pledges to destroy America and Israel.
The low information crowd in America is really confused on this stuff but hopefully our resident peace poster can clarify matters for them.
A poll out Monday showed that 49 percent of Americans support the talks, while 40 percent disapprove. About two-thirds of respondents to the Pew Research Center poll do not think Iran is serious about “addressing nuclear concerns.” (Huh? Negotiating with Iran is a real good idea but they won’t be serious)
Gary Bauer had this observation writing at Campaign for Working Families:
Negotiators in Switzerland have reached an agreement for this phase of the Iranian nuclear talks. It likely has as many holes as a piece of Swiss cheese.
Earlier today the Associated Press reported: “Western officials say that Iran and the United States have agreed on the outlines of an understanding that would open the path to a final phase of nuclear negotiations.”
So, just to be clear, we’ve got “outlines” of an “understanding” to a “path” that leads to a “phase.” Got it?
Moments ago, Barack Obama walked out on to the White House lawn and delivered his best Neville Chamberlain impersonation, all but declaring “Peace in our time.” Obama declared that this was a “good deal” and our “best option.”
Let’s be clear about something: Obama does not have a deal. All he has is an agreement that the Iranians will continue talking. The new deadline for a final deal is June 30th. This is the third or fourth change of deadlines.
A Fox News poll released yesterday found that 55% of voters believe we cannot trust the Iranians. They don’t have much trust in Obama either: 58% disapprove of the way Obama is handling relations with Iran (a record high disapproval rating on that issue), and 76% of voters believe the president should be required to get congressional approval for any deal he makes with Iran.
DLH with R Mall
more artful hate bilge! if Obama jumped into all the frays in the middle east you want him to, you’d say he was an IMPERIALIST MENACE. You Cheney lovers obviously want 2,000,000 ground troops permanently stationed in those countries. will never happen again. you want Iran to have no nukes? tell BiBi to destroy them as did Israel to Iraq in 1982. C U Birchers election nite. Then you can start your Hate Hillary campaign with “how she stole the election like her predecessor, from Kenya”.
Low information voters who rely on Phil’s wattage for enlightenment and to really give it to us don’t realize that “Birchers” are hardly interventionists. Phil will explain what that means.
Phil exists in his own fact free zone.
D2, You mean “Phil” should “look it up”?!
“low information voters”!!! yay!!! but… I thought the RNC discontinued that?
hey designated,, thanks for the new bumper sticker response. e-mail me at [email protected] where you have no spitball buddies to cheer you on.
🙂
LEONE: give us the “facts”, then > compare the unemployment rate today with ’09 and compare the deficit. give us the real facts…not just a sarcastic bumper sticker reply. tell us how the GOP did not/does not obstruct blue collar job development. 🙂
Earth to PHIL, 93 million no longer in the workforce
HEY DESIGNATED2: I guess U R admitting that, yes, U R a Bircher. it’s not illegal. just misguided. THe TP is isolationist, yes > so that means the “[neo] JB Society” is also isolationist because we all know, even us “low info. voters” who decided Sarah “Africa is a Country” Palin should not be heartbeat away, that the KOchs are carrying on their Daddy’s JB tradition and use the TP as a front group, supply them $$$$ through the AFP.
That’s right Phil. Dick Cheney and the Bircherrrrz have the same foreign policy outlook. Which am I again?.
a guy who admires Cheney and finds the JB Society quite credible. if you are in the TP, then you are essentially a Bircher. 🙂
And then, Phil, there’s always Barack “America has 57 states” Obama and Tom “I bought a part ownership in the Obama presidency for only $50 million” Steyer. Look it up.
sure . earth to me. howz about baby boomer retirement? 🙂 U R off the point…Obama now has 5.5% unemploy. and a deficit cut in half. aw,…it’s ok.
I suppose your fact based reasoning would also count those workers who have died in the 93 million total.
I knew that was a-comin’…big diff. OBAMA knows there are 50 states and gaffed. PALIN believed Africa is a Country, pal, ask the McCain staff. sorry, no seegah.
Phil, that is a very telling response. I think it is understandable now why Veritaspac tolerates, and even invites your participation. As a representative of the left you are an embarrassment (however “ad hominem” that seems to you). Sarah Palin doesn’t know Africa is a country but Barack “knows” there are not 57 states in America? How do you know in either case? (And since when is your authority for all things “accurate” the “McCain staff”?)
In President Obama’s “defense”, he may not have “gaffed” so much as his confusion between the United States of America and the “The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation” founded in 1969. It has 57 members, 56 of which are also member states of the United Nations (Wikipedia, Look it up).
I have 3 decades of exp. in Labor Security for the State, as an Employer Advocate, when I analyzed labor statistics. your “93” is incredibly off base. if U go on percentages of AVAILABLE workers, under 65 or so, not tallies, you get a much more accurate picture. YES, there are large numbers of retirees in the last 5 years or so, from people born around 1950.
you say “93” while not pointing out the good number of jobs created since ’09 (and without GOP support – you know, the record number of filibusters/clotures on transportation/infrastructure bills to get people the hell off unemployment).
he has gotten unemployment to 5.5% (yeah, yeah, the underemployment number is probably 10% +). that same pseudo formula says that Bush Ii left Obama at least 18%.
Labor Security for the State?
As an Employer Advocate?
Does that mean you are representing the taxpayer?
It must be bureaucrateeze for something but I am not sure I have it figured out yet even from the explanation. He helped employers find workers I guess, maybe worked in a state unemployment office.
thanks 4 not getting personal > sorry, but I WAS REMINDED EVERY SINGLE DAY about the importance of delivering cost effective services that small to medium employers requested! I was ALSO involved in the first PROFESSIONAL SERVICE GROUP concentrating on professional-managerial-technical job seekers who searched for jobs in a more scientific way > the numbers of placements were outstanding, and the money delivered back to the tax base greatly exceeded the tax money invested. the cost effectiveness was noted for at least 10 years or – I guarantee – the Federal-State powers that be, would haved nixed it!
Not getting personal Phil, you wrote “exp. in Labor Security for the State, as an Employer Advocate”
I have no idea what any of that means and after your testy reply, I am not any better informed.
you are not better informed? are you kidding? concentrate! 🙂 I was not testy, my friend. why not just accept that Labor Specialist just might included analysis at that level. I am constantly getting challenged as to my exp & creds by you guys for some reason. you take the TIME to look up my FB, then say it can’t be much or just not relatable. then say it’s not getting personal 🙂
You did not write Labor Specialist, you wrote Labor Security.
You brought up the subject of your credentials.
I wrote Labor Security, ok > Employer Advocate and Employment Specialist. I *was* outstationed at an unemployment center in the 1970s > I delivered on the job training contracts to small and medium employers plus other requested service. had monthly placement goals which were set according to “cost effectiveness” in usage of taxpayer money. dig? 🙂