“Death to America” – Obama Has an Iran Deal- World Responds

22 Responses to “Death to America” – Obama Has an Iran Deal- World Responds

1. Chris says:

   Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 11:02 am

   So how many weapons did Obama give Iran in this deal again?

   Oh wait, I’m thinking of master negotiator Ronald Reagan. My bad.
   • Post Scripts says:

     Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 12:07 pm

     Chris, true story: Life-guard Ronald Reagan once saved a young woman from drowning. Ted Kennedy once drowned a young woman while driving. These two examples sums up how I see dems and reps.
2. J. Soden says:

   Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 11:02 am

   Obumble just had to be taken to Walter Reed. Seems he sprained both arms while patting himself on the back . . . .
3. Pie Guevara says:

   Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 11:19 am

   And if you think “snap back” is real, you must be a progressive.

   This administration is insane.
4. Peggy says:

   Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 1:01 pm

   The four Americans being held hostage was not a part of the negotiations. Obama and Kerry left them behind.

   This Could Be The Worst Part Of Obama’s Iran Deal, And No One’s Talking About It:

   “Chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice Jay Sekulow, whose organization has been a tireless advocate on Saeed’s behalf, said: “It is unconscionable that the Obama Administration would sign a deal with Iran without securing the freedom of Pastor Saeed…”

   “President Obama told the Abedini family face-to-face that he considered the release of Pastor Saeed a ‘top priority.’ How could that be a ‘top priority’ when a deal is reached and Pastor Saeed is left behind? What happened today makes a bad deal even worse. We will now focus our attention on convincing Congress to reject this deal,” Sekulow added.”

   http://www.westernjournalism.com/this-could-be-the-worst-part-of-obamas-iran-deal-and-no-ones-talking-about-it/

   The votes in Congress will be all telling. Will there be enough to override Obama’s veto?
5. Peggy says:

   Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 1:12 pm

   From Democrat former senator Joe Lieberman.

   “Former Sen. Joe Lieberman told House lawmakers on Tuesday that they should oppose the new Iran nuclear deal that President Obama announced just hours earlier.

   “There is much more risk for America and reward for Iran than should be in this agreement. It is not the good deal for America that we all wanted,” the Connecticut Democrat said. “This is precisely the outcome that for years we in Congress fought to prevent.”

   http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/lieberman-iran-deal-is-not-the-good-deal-for-america-that-we-all-wanted/article/2568235
6. Tina says:

   Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 2:24 pm

   Smarta** Chris at #1:

   “So how many weapons did Obama give Iran in this deal again?

   Oh wait, I’m thinking of master negotiator Ronald Reagan. My bad.”

   Politico:

   On Nov. 25, Reagan fired North. On the same day, Poindexter resigned.

   Reagan, in a subsequent nationally televised address on March 4, 1987, took responsibility for any actions of which he was unaware, admitting that “what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages.”

   But let’s look at the superior negotiation and leadership skills of Ronald Reagan.

   Context of ‘December 7-8, 1987: Reagan, Gorbachev Sign Arms Reduction Treaty’

   December 7-8, 1987: Reagan, Gorbachev Sign Arms Reduction Treaty

   US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev sign a fundamental disarmament agreement. The two sign the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which has been stalled for years (see September 1981 through November 1983). The INF Treaty eliminates an entire class of intermediate-range nuclear ballistic missiles. It also provides for on-site verifications for each side (which agrees with Reagan’s signature quote, “Trust but verify”). And it marks the first real multi-lateral reduction of nuclear weapons, even if it is only a 5 percent reduction.

   The overall result of Reagan’s strong negotiating skills. Heritage Foundation:

   Soviet Communism, the dark tyranny that controlled nearly 40 nations and was responsible for the deaths of an estimated 100 million victims during the 20th century, suddenly collapsed 20 years ago without a shot being fired.

   In just two years–from 1989 to 1901–the Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet Union disintegrated, and Marxism- Leninism was dumped unceremoniously on the ash heap of history. There was dancing in the street and champagne toasts on top of the Brandenburg Gate. And then most of the world got on with living without asking:

   Why did Communism collapse so quickly?

   Why did a totalitarian system that appeared to be so militarily and economically strong disappear almost overnight?

   What role did Western strategy and leadership play in the fall–or was it all due, as the Communists might put it, to a correlation of objective forces?

   A decade ago, I edited a collection of essays by some of the world’s leading authorities on Communism who suggested that a wide range of forces– political, economic, strategic, and religious–along with the leadership of principled statesmen and brave dissidents brought about the collapse of Soviet Communism. … Soviet economics, economist Andrzej Brzeski wrote, was fatally flawed from the beginning. Replacing private property rights with state ownership gave rise to a huge class of functionaries committed only to preserving their domains and pleasing their political bosses.

   Only the sustained use of force, credible terror, and a sense of isolation, Brzeski wrote, could keep the Communist system from collapsing. …

   “The fall of the [Soviet] empire,” former Czech president Vaclav Havel wrote, “is an event on the same scale of historical importance as the fall of the Roman Empire.” And yet what do many historians say about the collapse of Soviet Communism?

   That it was inevitable. That it happened in spite of and not because of President Truman’s historic policy of containment and President Reagan’s prudential policy of peace through strength. And the most misleading and untrue of all the conclusions: That the real hero of the Cold War was Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.

   It is true that Gorbachev publicly repudiated the Brezhnev Doctrine–that the Soviet Union will use force if necessary to ensure that a socialist state remains socialist–and in so doing undercut the Communist leaders and regimes of Eastern and Central Europe in the critical year of 1989. But why did Gorbachev abandon the Brezhnev Doctrine?

   We must understand: He was not a liberal democrat but a modern Leninist who was trying to use glasnost and perestroika to preserve a one-party state with himself as the unelected head. Gorbachev discarded the Brezhnev Doctrine and adopted the Sinatra Doctrine–let the satellite states of Eastern and Central Europe practice Communism their way–for two reasons:

   The Soviet Union no longer possessed in 1989 the military might that it had in 1956 when it brutally suppressed the Hungarian Revolution or in 1968 when it snuffed out the Prague Spring.

   The Soviet Union desperately needed the trade and technology of the West to avoid economic collapse that it knew it would not obtain if it enforced the Brezhnev Doctrine.

   There is one Western leader above all others who forced the Soviets to give up the Brezhnev Doctrine and abandon the arms race, who brought down the Berlin Wall, and who ended the Cold War at the bargaining table and not on the battlefield. The one leader responsible more than any other for leading the West to victory in the Cold War is President Ronald Reagan. …

   In January 1977, four years before he was sworn in as the 40th President of the United States, Ronald Reagan told a visitor that he had been thinking about the Cold War and he had a solution: “We win and they lose.”

   For 40 years, the United States and the West had been following a policy of containment, détente, accommodation. Ronald Reagan decided it was time to stop playing for a tie and seek victory in the Cold War.

   From his first week in office, President Reagan went on the offensive against the Soviet Union. In his first presidential news conference, Reagan denounced the Soviet leadership as still dedicated to “world revolution and a one-world Socialist-Communist state.”

   The establishment was appalled at what it called saber-rattling and uninformed analysis. Harvard intellectuals like Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and John Kenneth Galbraith insisted that the Soviet Union was economically strong and militarily powerful– the only responsible policy was a continuation of détente leading at some future time to convergence between Communism and democracy.

   Reagan did not agree. Based on intelligence reports and his own analysis, the President concluded that Communism was cracking and ready to crumble. He took personal control of the new victory strategy, chairing 57 meetings of the National Security Council in his first year in the White House.

   The President was determined to reassure those who had lived behind the Iron Curtain for nearly 40 years that they had not been forgotten and that a new day of freedom would soon dawn for them. He never tired, for example, of praising the Hungarian people for their courageous stand for freedom and against tyranny in 1956. In October 1981, on the 25th anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution, he said that the Freedom Fighters’ example had given “new strength” to America’s commitment to freedom and justice for all people. In his address to the British Parliament in 1982, Reagan described how “man’s instinctive desire for freedom and self-determination” surfaces again and again as shown in Hungary in 1956.

   He first went public with his Cold War analysis in May 1982 when he declared in a speech at his alma mater that the Soviet empire was “faltering because rigid centralized control has destroyed incentives for innovation, efficiency, and individual achievement.”

   A month later, he told the British Parliament at Westminster that the Soviet Union was gripped by a “great revolutionary crisis” and that a “global campaign for freedom” would ultimately prevail. In memorable language, he predicted that “the march of freedom and democracy…will leave Marxism- Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.”

   Reagan directed his national security team to come up with the necessary tactics to implement his victory strategy. The result was a series of top-secret national security decision directives (NSDDs).

   NSDD-32 declared that the United States would seek to “neutralize” Soviet control over Eastern and Central Europe and authorized the use of covert action and other means to support anti-Soviet groups in the region, especially in Poland.

   NSDD-66 stated that it would be U.S. policy to disrupt the Soviet economy by attacking a “strategic triad” of critical resources–financial credits, high technology, and natural gas. The directive was tantamount to a “secret declaration of economic war on the Soviet Union.”

   NSDD-75 stated that the U.S. would no longer coexist with the Soviet system but would seek to change it fundamentally. America intended to roll back Soviet influence at every opportunity When Gorbachev became chairman of the Soviet Politburo in March 1985, he took command of a disintegrating empire. President Reagan understood this fundamental fact and, negotiating from strength, forced Gorbachev over the course of four summit meetings to concede that the Soviet Union could not win an arms race but had to sue for peace.

   In addition to the summits, two events stand out in the second half of the Reagan presidency.

   In June 1987, Reagan stood before the Brandenburg Gate and challenged the Soviet leader: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” No Western leader had ever before dared to issue such a direct challenge.

   In the spring of 1988, President Reagan traveled to Moscow and beneath a gigantic white bust of Lenin at Moscow State University delivered an eloquent address on the blessings of democracy, individual freedom, and free enterprise. He quoted the beloved Russian poet Pushkin: “It’s time, my friend, it’s time.” It was clear the President meant it was time for a free Russia.

   The following year, the Berlin Wall came tumbling down and Communism collapsed in Eastern and Central Europe. A pivotal event of “The Year of Miracles” came in September when Hungary opened its borders with Austria for more than 13,000 East Germans–the first breaching of the once-impregnable Berlin Wall.

   President Reagan forced the Soviet Union to abandon its goal of world socialization by challenging the Soviet regime’s legitimacy, by regaining superiority in the arms race, and by using human rights as a weapon as powerful as any in the U.S. or Soviet arsenal.

   The Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky was in an eight-by-ten foot cell in a Siberian prison in early 1983 when his Soviet jailers permitted him to read the latest issue of Pravda, the official Communist Party newspaper.

   Splashed across the front page, Sharansky recalled, was a condemnation of Reagan for calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” Tapping on the walls and talking through toilets, political prisoners spread the word of Reagan’s “provocation.” The dissidents were ecstatic. Finally, Sharansky wrote, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth–a truth that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us.

   Lech Walesa, the founder of the Solidarity movement that brought down Communism in Poland and prepared the way for the end of Communism throughout Eastern and Central Europe, put his feelings about Reagan simply: “We in Poland…owe him our liberty.”

   So too do the many millions who lived behind the Iron Curtain and were caught up in one of the longest conflicts in history–the Cold War–which, because of leaders like Ronald Reagan, ended in victory for the forces of freedom.

   Heritage Foundation:

   The Reagan Administration believed itself to be embarking on a new and ambitious Cold War pol­icy, one guided by the President’s own aims and ideas. The policy papers evidenced a special atten­tion to the political, economic, and technological weaknesses of the Soviet Union, and to how the United States could shape the decision-making environment in which Soviet leaders acted. The papers also show that the administration looked to a new, younger generation of Soviet leaders for the kind of interlocutor who might be willing to intro­duce more flexibility in Soviet policy. While the administration set out the general means by which it would pursue its policy-for example, a vigorous military competition, efforts to destabilize the Sovi­et economy, covert action, and public diplomacy- it did so more as a means of providing options rath­er than dictating specific measures, and thus gave itself strategic flexibility in carrying out its policy objectives.

   The Reagan Administration also set forth pro­posals for arms negotiations with the Soviet Union that called for deep reductions in each side’s nucle­ar arsenal. As its plan for intermediate-range nucle­ar forces, or INF, talks, the administration proposed that if the Soviet Union eliminated its intermediate-range missiles, the United States would not deploy its own missiles, which it had planned to do in Western Europe in 1983. On strategic weapons, Reagan insisted that the name of the talks be changed from SALT, or Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, to START, or Strategic Arms Reduction Talks. He set out a START plan that called for dramatic cuts in strategic weapons, particularly on the Soviet side.

   November 18, 1981 Reagan speaks to Members of the National Press club on arms reduction and nuclear weapons:

   Let me turn now to our hopes for arms control negotiations. There’s a tendency to make this entire subject overly complex. I want to be clear and concise. I told you of the letter I wrote to President Brezhnev last April. Well, I’ve just sent another message to the Soviet leadership. It’s a simple, straightforward, yet, historic message. The United States proposes the mutual reduction of conventional intermediate-range nuclear and strategic forces. Specifically, I have proposed a four-point agenda to achieve this objective in my letter to President Brezhnev.

   The first and most important point concerns the Geneva negotiations. As part of the 1979 two-track decision, NATO made a commitment to seek arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union on intermediate range nuclear forces. The United States has been preparing for these negotiations through close consultation with our NATO partners.

   We’re now ready to set forth our proposal. I have informed President Brezhnev that when our delegation travels to the negotiations on intermediate range, land-based nuclear missiles in Geneva on the 30th of this month, my representatives will present the following proposal: The United States is prepared to cancel its deployment of Pershing II and ground-launch cruise missiles if the Soviets will dismantle their SS-20, SS-4, and SS-5 missiles. This would be an historic step. With Soviet agreement, we could together substantially reduce the dread threat of nuclear war which hangs over the people of Europe. This, like the first footstep on the moon, would be a giant step for mankind.

   Now, we intend to negotiate in good faith and go to Geneva willing to listen to and consider the proposals of our Soviet counterparts, but let me call to your attention the background against which our proposal is made.

   During the past six years while the United States deployed no new intermediate-range missiles and withdrew 1,000 nuclear warheads from Europe, the Soviet Union deployed 750 warheads on mobile, accurate ballistic missiles. They now have 1,100 warheads on the SS-20s, SS-4s and 5s. And the United States has no comparable missiles. Indeed, the United States dismantled the last such missile in Europe over 15 years ago.

   As we look to the future of the negotiations, it’s also important to address certain Soviet claims, which left unrefuted could become critical barriers to real progress in arms control.

   The Soviets assert that a balance of intermediate-range nuclear forces already exists. That assertion is wrong. By any objective measure, as this chart indicates, the Soviet Union has developed an increasingly overwhelming advantage. They now enjoy a superiority on the order of six to one. The red is the Soviet buildup; the blue is our own. That is 1975, and that is 1981.

   Now, Soviet spokesmen have suggested that moving their SS-20s behind the Ural Mountains will remove the threat to Europe. Well, as this map demonstrates, the SS-20s, even if deployed behind the Urals, will have a range that puts almost all of Western Europe — the great cities — Rome, Athens, Paris, London, Brussels, Amsterdam, Berlin, and so many more — all of Scandinavia, all of the Middle East, all of northern Africa, all within range of these missiles which, incidentally, are mobile and can be moved on shorter notice. These little images mark the present location, which would give them a range clear out into the Atlantic.

   The second proposal that I’ve made to President Brezhnev concerns strategic weapons. The United States proposes to open negotiations on strategic arms as soon as possible next year.

   I have instructed Secretary Haig to discuss the timing of such meetings with Soviet representatives. Substance, however, is far more important than timing. As our proposal for the Geneva talks this month illustrates, we can make proposals for genuinely serious reductions, but only if we take the time to prepare carefully.

   The United States has been preparing carefully for resumption of strategic arms negotiations because we don’t want a repetition of past disappointments. We don’t want an arms control process that sends hopes soaring only to end in dashed expectations.

   Now, I have informed President Brezhnev that we will seek to negotiate substantial reductions in nuclear arms which would result in levels that are equal and verifiable. Our approach to verification will be to emphasize openness and creativity, rather than the secrecy and suspicion which have undermined confidence in arms control in the past.

   While we can hope to benefit from work done over the past decade in strategic arms negotiations, let us agree to do more than simply begin where these previous efforts left off. We can and should attempt major qualitative and quantitative progress. Only such progress can fulfill the hopes of our own people and the rest of the world. And let us see how far we can go in achieving truly substantial reductions in our strategic arsenals.

   To symbolize this fundamental change in direction, we will call these negotiations START — Strategic Arms Reduction Talks.

   The third proposal I’ve made to the Soviet Union is that we act to achieve equality at lower levels of conventional forces in Europe. The defense needs of the Soviet Union hardly call for maintaining more combat divisions in East Germany today than were in the whole Allied invasion force that landed in Normandy on D-Day. The Soviet Union could make no more convincing contribution to peace in Europe, and in the world, than by agreeing to reduce its conventional forces significantly and constrain the potential for sudden aggression.

   Finally, I have pointed out to President Brezhnev that to maintain peace we must reduce the risks of surprise attack and the chance of war arising out of uncertainty or miscalculation.

   I am renewing our proposal for a conference to develop effective measures that would reduce these dangers. At the current Madrid meeting of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, we’re laying the foundation for a Western-proposed conference on disarmament in Europe. This conference would discuss new measures to enhance stability and security in Europe. Agreement in this conference is within reach. I urge the Soviet Union to join us and many other nations who are ready to launch this important enterprise.

   All of these proposals are based on the same fair-minded principles — substantial, militarily significant reduction in forces, equal ceilings for similar types of forces, and adequate provisions for verification.

   My administration, our country, and I are committed to achieving arms reductions agreements based on these principles. Today I have outlined the kinds of bold, equitable proposals which the world expects of us. But we cannot reduce arms unilaterally. Success can only come if the Soviet Union will share our commitment, if it will demonstrate that its often-repeated professions of concern for peace will be matched by positive action.

   Preservation of peace in Europe and the pursuit of arms reduction talks are of fundamental importance. But we must also help to bring peace and security to regions now torn by conflict, external intervention, and war.

   The American concept of peace goes well beyond the absence of war. We foresee a flowering of economic growth and individual liberty in a world at peace.

   This agreement with Iran is NOTHING like Reagan’s agreement with the Soviets. We caved to Iran’s demands!
7. RHT447 says:

   Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 2:25 pm

   “Russia had long been Iran’s primary arms supplier, with total sales of nearly $3.4 billion between 1991 and 2010. Russia hopes that the lifting of US sanctions will lead to a resumption of large-scale arms transfers.”

   Ya think? “Transfers”? Try “sales”. Iran will now have billions to spend, which V. Putin will use to upgrade his military.

   Re: #4

   Point well taken. Just to add some detail—

   “It looked as if she were holding herself up to get a last breath of air. It was a consciously assumed position. … She didn’t drown. She died of suffocation in her own air void. It took her at least three or four hours to die. I could have had her out of that car twenty-five minutes after I got the call. But he [Ted Kennedy] didn’t call.”

   —diver John Farrar, Inquest into the Death of Mary Jo Kopechne, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Edgartown District Court. New York: EVR Productions, 1970.
8. Post Scripts says:

   Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 3:02 pm

   Apparently the hostage Americans were discussed on several occasions, but their release was not part of the negotiation…that was a mistake. Release of illegally held American should have been mandatory before a deal was signed. Otherwise we are negotiating from a position of weakness. We hold all the trump cards, but we play the game so weakly it makes Iran think they are the winners here.
9. Pie Guevara says:

   Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 4:48 pm

   Tina just owned Chris again. Shooting this dog is Tina’s delight.
10. Dewey says:

    Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 8:36 pm

    Interesting we have no idea what is in these pages yet. Just an overview fr press release.

    The GOP is ranting and raving for AIPAC and Bibi without even reading it, fundraising is all they care about….. GOP has planned an Iran war for years. As McCain sings Bomb Bomb Iran.

    Cor L Wilkerson says some of the same people are saying the same things they said about Iraq. Dusted off the old war template and this is Politics,

    “My party is playing politics” “Doing everything they can to damage this president even at the expense of this country.”

    He worked on it a bit and got the agreement this morning over 100 pages

    “This agreement is probably the most historic” It is tighter than any other in history, but any agreement is imperfect.”

    He thinks Iran may comply if we comply and it is to be taken seriously. He is a republican.

    I say the GOP is irresponsible and care about nothing but fearmongering for $ and votes.

    How about we find out what it is, study the details and/or research by those who are privy to the deal…

    I have no opinion yet. What we do know is anything Obama does is bad just because.

    Reagan? Why is he the model and praise of the Tea Party?

    Besides of the failed trickle down …………. ?

    Reagan got caught supplying weapons to murderous regimes 2 X’s
    Iran Contra?

    Trippled the national Debt in only 8 years

    Provided the funding that created a terrorist organization later to become known as Al Queida.

    Caved in to the demands of terrorists 2 X’s

    Supported the racist Apartheid in South Africa

    138 members of the Reagan admin were Indicted, Investigated, or convicted of crimes.

    Robbed the Social Security Trust fund to pay for budget shortfalls.

    That is a model President for republicans? The left is all evil?
11. Dewey says:

    Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 9:31 pm

    BTW what were Iranians singing in the streets?

    “Death to no one, Long Live Life”

    Why don’t we cut the corn and give peas a chance.

    I told you I am not a huge Obama fan, that said I do like some things he has done.

    I will learn about this deal before I have an opinion.

    Every single GOP candidate fundraising instead of studying the deal first is a threat not presidential material.
12. Harold says:

    Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 6:00 am

    All we get from the progressive left in defending Obama (constantly) is what Republican Presidents did before his reign.

    No mention of anyone saying Obama has build on the past decisions of his predecessors to improve Americas position in the world. From either side these days. Unless your an ideologue Progressive.

    Recently Obama said (along with other useless blather) that “if Iran violates the deal, all of these sanctions will snap back into place. So there’s a very clear incentive for Iran to follow through and there are very real consequences for a violation.”

    Another “line in the sand” promise

    Now we have Obama stating the world is in a better place because of his Iranian deal, Sounds a lot another fruitless Obama statement ‘if you like your doctor’ blah blah blah. Just hot air Obama spewing words of meaningless blather to bolster his tarnished term in office.

    People have quickly realized that “Obama care” was NOT the God send of medical care cost reduction in America.

    How soon will we realize his mistake here that will permit Iran to build up it military strength in the middle east, and then what will it cost in American lives to correct it.
    • Post Scripts says:

      Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 9:42 am

      Harold now you just made a doosey of a point when you exposed Obama’s flawed thinking, “if Iran violates the deal, all of these sanctions will snap back into place. So there’s a very clear incentive for Iran to follow through and there are very real consequences for a violation.”

      Our leverage (sanctions) is gone when the treaty was signed. The sanctions on Iran were only working because we had the support of Europe, China and Russia, not to mention Arab countries, but it was a house of cards kind of support. Russia wants to sell military hardware to Iran, China and Europe wants their oil and of course there is all kinds of money to be made by general trade with Iran. Once that starts the genie is out of the bottle it’s going to be almost impossible to put it back. If Obama thinks sanctions can be suddenly imposed again like they were, he’s delusional. But, I state the obvious…he is delusional. Look at his foreign policy or rather lack of a foreign policy! This man is off the rails crazy! His measured response to ISIS has all but insured an Islamic caliphate filled with war criminals who hate us enough to commit suicide if it will hurt us.

      Our military casualties are worse now than they ever were under Bush. Afghanistan is about to fall to back the enemy just like most of Iraq, because Obama surrendered our gains and created a power vacuum that could only be filled by radical Islamic nutcases. Like Cesar, he’s fired a number of our best generals who disagreed with his strategy, like courageous restraint while taking fire. That’s one of the most dumb assed things I’ve ever heard of, it’s about as clever as his racial interventions. Well, I could go on…but, what’s the point? You know it true, I know its true, and here we sit, just waiting him out, praying he doesn’t screw up the nation even more before his time is up. Obama – worst president ever. He was completely unprepared and unqualified on every level of what it takes to be a leader.
13. Chris says:

    Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 8:56 am

    Harold: “All we get from the progressive left in defending Obama (constantly) is what Republican Presidents did before his reign”

    That’s because so much of the criticism against Obama here comes with the implied or stated premise that he is the “worst president ever,” that his behavior is unprecedented, or that Republican’s would handle these situations so much better. How many times have we heard “If only we had a strong negotiator like Reagan back in office…” Completely ignoring that Reagan did the same thing, only he gave weapons to Iran? Even Tina’s very lengthy reply above mostly dodges this point, and cites a source which claim Reagan was “unaware” of Iran-Contra, which is simply false.

    Criticism of Obama doesn’t bother me. Hypocrisy bothers me.
    • Post Scripts says:

      Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 10:13 am

      Chris, what are you talking about? Obama IS the worst president ever! lol (Rightwing bias coming out)

      IMHO, he’s an unqualified failure of the highest magnitude, a bungler par excellance,’ a would be despot issuing presidential orders to circumvent checks and balances, a race divider not a uniter, a deceiver who deliberately has sold out his liberal base with false promises. He has made America weak in the eyes of the world. It was on his watch that America slipped from being the worlds greatest economic power.

      I dunno why, but you just don’t see it for some reason. I can’t figure that part out, unless its the influence at the university? I know you’re not dumb guy, quite the opposite! You’re concerned about moral behavior and doing right thing too. We often agree on moral issues.

      Dewey is very concerned about the country too and doing the right thing, but he gets off track in the old conspiracy world too much… but, you, you’re a special case. You’re in a position to do a lot of good, if you were just a bit more balanced between left and right. Maybe it will come with age, that’s my hope. Until then, I am enjoying seeing the new Chris, one who has moderated his tone and tries to conduct himself with dignity! You’re doing great!
14. Chris says:

    Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 11:16 am

    …And he smells bad too! 😉

    Jack, you know I disagree with you on a lot of the issues you bring up about Obama. You call him a “race divider,” but I see his comments as acknowledging real divisions that already exist in way that calls for more unity. You say we’ve lost economic power because of him, but IMO most of that loss was occurring prior to his presidency as a result of global phenomena, not any one presidency. You say he’s lost the respect of the world, but his global approval ratings are higher than Bush’s were.

    I don’t think he’s anywhere near the best president we’ve ever had but nor do I think he’s the worst. I thank you for the compliments but I think most of our differences of opinion are just that, not indicators of intelligence.
15. Tina says:

    Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 11:54 am

    Re Dewey #12:

    Iranian Parliament Chants “Death to America” – Votes to Ban Nuclear Inspections (VIDEO)

    Chanting ‘Death to America, Israel,’ millions march in Iran on al-Quds Day

    Obama had an opportunity way back in 2009 to support the student uprising in Iran. This was at a time when we had the upper hand and the region was still relatively stable. Obama chose not to support the students demanding freedom from the oppressive regime. Instead ha has waited until the region is in chaos to talk to the tyrants and ultimately cave to their demands.
16. Peggy says:

    Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 12:17 pm

    Is Obama up to his dirty tricks again?

    Obama Not Waiting for Congress to Review Iran Deal Before Going to UN:

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/obama-not-waiting-congress-review-iran-deal-going-un?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cns&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=n-obama-congress-un
17. Chris says:

    Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 1:13 pm

    Tina as I understand it, the Iranian demonstrators in 2009 did not want public support from the U.S., given the complicated political relationships between the two nations. From what I’ve heard the choice not to openly support them was a strategic decision meant to avoid delegitimizing them in the eyes of the Iranian public. Many Iranians accused the movement of being Western engineered, and thus not truly representative of the Iranian people, and Obama didn’t want to feed into that. But I could be mistaken.
18. Tina says:

    Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 2:39 pm

    Chris as I understand it those students were inspired by Obama’s Cairo speech. Words mean things. Obama had a moral responsibility to lend them his support, if not with arms, at least with an immediate strong admonishment to the Iranian government.

    In my opinion a smart man would have keyed off the protest and his response to continue to hammer the Iranian government on their abysmal human rights record and their sponsoring of terrorists. Had he done this he would have laid the foundation to negotiate from a position of strength and the moral high ground. Instead he seems to have bent to the will and demands if the Iranians giving them everything they want and getting nothing of substance in return.

    I’m not surprised at any of this. It was my opinion that he was not prepared for this job before the election of 2008. Also, his record now after nearly seven years has been to treat enemies like buddies and our allies and friends like dirt under his shoes. Now maybe this all stems from inexperience. given his communist roots I’m afraid it has all been calculated.
19. Pie Guevara says:

    Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 4:29 pm

    Well, at least the Obama fools think the deal with Iran is a good thing. This administration depends on fools.

Comments are closed.