DescentBB

GARRETT: Can you tell the country, sir, how you are content, with all the fanfare of this deal, to leave the conscience of this nation, the strength of this nation unaccounted for in relation to [the four Americans currently jailed in Iran]…

OBAMA: I’ve got to give you credit for how you craft those questions. First of all, the notion that I am “content” [pause] as I “celebrate” with American citizens languishing in Iranian jail [pause]… Major, that’s nonsense. And you should know better.

Major Garrett just pulled a Helen Thomas on Obama- and rather than act presidential (like all of his predecessors) and respond to tangential questions that have little connection to the issue at hand in a respectful manner- Obama blew up and acted petty and petulant.

(For those that don't remember or never knew- Helen Thomas was a White House reporter for many decades and was known for pointed questions asked in a 'disrespectful manner' of many presidents.)

Now while I do agree with Obama in that hostages held should not be used as bargaining tools for other unrelated issues- the fact that he made a deal about potentially devastating nuclear weapons that could kill millions with a nation's tyrannical leadership THAT WOULD HOLD HOSTAGES in the FIRST PLACE should give one pause.

It's clear that Obama's ego and a need for a 'legacy' trumps all other considerations.

A nuclear arms race in the Middle East?

A murderous theocratic tyranny with nuclear bombs?

Meh- all are meaningless against what could be a diplomatic 'triumph' for this president.

actually, the deal is a good one for the US, and shows how far we've come from the utter stupidity of the predecessors, whose only answer was military action. To pull this off, you had to get Iran, the US, Europe, Russia and China on the same page. Thank goodness we have someone in charge who can think that way. By the way, consider it a done deal. Apparently, Joe Biden worked his magic with the Congress today, and there are no votes sufficient to block the deal there.

As for Garrett, the suggestion IS rude, thinking that Obama is 'just alright' with prisoners being held, but one cannot tie up a major nuke deal over 4 people, or tie the two together in ANY way, because, as noted by someone at State, Iran would seek further concessions upon that release. Best to work on that issue separately.

callmeslick wrote:actually, the deal is a good one for the US, and shows how far we've come from the utter stupidity of the predecessors, whose only answer was military action.

Military action was NOT the "only answer." Standing firm and holding tightening sanctions was the answer. Military force was the last option- not the ONLY option.

The presentation of 'this is the only deal or it's WAR' is a false premise. In fact, Obama has almost guaranteed war with this 'deal' and not avoided it. More people will die for his 'legacy.'

callmeslick wrote:Apparently, Joe Biden worked his magic with the Congress today, and there are no votes sufficient to block the deal there.

-which if true, is tragic.

Total capitulation is not a negotiating tactic. The mullahs are laughing at Obama.

ThunderBunny wrote:

callmeslick wrote:actually, the deal is a good one for the US, and shows how far we've come from the utter stupidity of the predecessors, whose only answer was military action.

Military action was NOT the "only answer." Standing firm and holding tightening sanctions was the answer. Military force was the last option- not the ONLY option.

just listen to Cheney's analysis. Military force or threat of force was our only focus. As for sanctions, EVERY expert interviewed over the past 8 months that I saw insisted that sanctions were going to fall apart completely before the end of 2016, leaving you with WHAT option, again?

callmeslick wrote:Apparently, Joe Biden worked his magic with the Congress today, and there are no votes sufficient to block the deal there.

-which if true, is tragic.

Total capitulation is not a negotiating tactic. The mullahs are laughing at Obama.

no they aren't. The only people whining are Israel(who we pay over 3 billion a year to for defense) and the Sunni states, similarly armed by the US, and, of course, the GOP, who would complain if Obama struck gold reserves the size of Colorado. No tears from me. I reiterate, the deal is a good one, a sound one, and speaks volumes to a new attitude by the US which has been evolving, and largely kept us out of wars for 7 years now. May that trend continue.

anyone remember the "bomb iran" song by the POW?

yep, I remember that one, and this:

that POW fella, mentioned earlier, always good for a chuckle in the hands of satirists:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz ... rns-mccain

The U.S. should take a look in it's own rearview mirror, because WE are the ones who started Iran down it's road into the nuclear age.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... am/6622194

funny how that happens huh TC.

the US gives developing countries something, the populace find out and revolt and suddenly that something is painted to be evil.

like hitting a bees nest with a bat and being surprised the swarm comes out.

We were for the despot before we were against the despot. And Americans wonder why a lot of the world hates our guts.

http://www.rt.com/news/chemical-weapons-iran-iraq-980/

tunnelcat wrote:The U.S. should take a look in it's own rearview mirror, because WE are the ones who started Iran down it's road into the nuclear age.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... am/6622194

Nice of your link to conveniently omit Jimmy "The Rabbit" Carter turning his back on the Shah and thus ushering in the govt. Iran has now.

what some folks(see:Woody, but lots of others out there) don't grasp is that the Shah was going down eventually, to that faction. Surely as South Vietnam was doomed to fall or Russia was due to implode. In no case did the US really affect anything save perhaps the timing.

We'll never know what would of happened if Carter would of aided a close ally. Kinda like today with Obama throwing Egypt and Israel under the bus.