Patterico's Pontifications

11/8/2013

Obama Screwing Up on Dealing with Iran Too

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:55 am



We’re talking “deal” with Iran despite no actual reason to do so, and we are already softening on sanctions:

The Obama administration began softening sanctions on Iran after the election of Iran’s new president in June, months before the current round of nuclear talks in Geneva or the historic phone call between the two leaders in September.

While those negotiations now appear on the verge of a breakthrough the key condition for Iran—relief from crippling sanctions—began quietly and modestly five months ago.

A review of Treasury Department notices reveals that the U.S. government has all but stopped the financial blacklisting of entities and people that help Iran evade international sanctions since the election of its president, Hassan al-Rouhani, in June.

Candidate Obama on this issue in 2008:

My presidency will strengthen our hand as we restore our standing. Our willingness to pursue diplomacy will make it easier to mobilize others to join our cause. If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States, it will be clear — to the people of Iran, and to the world — that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation. That will strengthen our hand with Russia and China as we insist on stronger sanctions in the Security Council.

This is about right:

Unlike the pledge about keeping your doctor and your health care plan, this promise is one Obama will likely keep.

77 Responses to “Obama Screwing Up on Dealing with Iran Too”

  1. that valerie jarrett skank has food stamp by his wee lil community organizer balls

    and, like Meghan’s coward daddy likes to say about elections, this is not without consequences

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  2. Cue Israeli attack on Iran out of self-preservation.

    felipe (70ff7e)

  3. Word is out Sauds will be accepting nuclear weapons from Pakis imminently.

    Little surprise following Stooge’s total failure with Sunni initiatives.

    While there is a vanishingly small chance the Sunnis and Shia have secretly arranged a mutual hudna that actuality would have no bearing on the outcome only the opening volleys.

    Nuclear war.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  4. Is this even legal? I realize not much he does is legal, but….

    No wonder Rouhani smiled at him at the UN. That was the quid pro quo.

    Patricia (be0117)

  5. This is just more evidence that ibn Dunham is front and center, first and foremost, a Bolshevik.

    Along with Alinsky, Cloward and Piven, Ayers and Dohrn, the Salafists and Mahdis are simply tools to an end.

    The nutroots, pinkies and the blacks will all be tossed aside the moment the tide of battle enables the Ubermenschen to dispense with the annoyance.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  6. “Tell Vladimir to tell Mahmoud that I’ll have more flexibility once I win reelection.”

    JVW (709bc7)

  7. Obama’s goal, like Bush before him, is to have a deal. To them, diplomacy is the end, not a means. It doesn’t matter what the deal is, it doesn’t matter whether Iran adheres to the terms, all that matters is that they have a deal.

    steve (369bc6)

  8. Obama’s goal, like Bush before him, is to have a deal. To them, diplomacy is the end, not a means. It doesn’t matter what the deal is, it doesn’t matter whether Iran adheres to the terms, all that matters is that they have a deal.

    Exactly. Same way with 404Care. It’s not really going to help anyone, it just gives the appearance that the administration is “doing” something. How adding 30 million or 50 million(depending on the bs coming from the administration on any given day), will improve care, without adding a single new doctor, is an interesting theory.

    I anxiously await the day that my chocolate rations are increased from 5 grams to 4 grams.

    Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 (f7d5ba)

  9. The only question about Israel’s attack on Iran is how forceful it will be. That they haven’t done it yet indicates it will be huge and cost them a great number of casualties. They’ve been hoping they didn’t have to do it, and they’ve been hoping they would have help if they had to. Obama’s betrayal isn’t exactly a surprise (where is that LA Times tape?), but it sure must disappoint.

    Once again, the Jews are on their own.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  10. They have been negotiating about the wrong issues with Iran.

    The negotiating has been all about what is the least thing that Iran can do to get rid of the sanctions.

    They should have been negotiating what can Iran do to convince all others that it has given up on getting a nuclear weapon.

    Sammy Finkelman (9e0380)

  11. 9 Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/8/2013 @ 9:20 am

    The only question about Israel’s attack on Iran is how forceful it will be. That they haven’t done it yet indicates it will be huge and cost them a great number of casualties.

    No, it’s more like they won’t be able to do it more than one time, and how effective can it be?

    And maybe Iran will start a war in response. They could tell Hezbollah to start launching rockets against Israel.

    The raid itself, they are more likely worried about its effectiveness rather than casualties or utter failure.

    Sammy Finkelman (9e0380)

  12. Stave wrote:

    Obama’s goal, like Bush before him, is to have a deal. To them, diplomacy is the end, not a means. It doesn’t matter what the deal is, it doesn’t matter whether Iran adheres to the terms, all that matters is that they have a deal.

    Absotively, posilutely right. Unfortunately, that’s been a common failing of American presidents dating back — at the very least — to the Paris Peace Accords.

    The undiplomatic Dana (3e4784)

  13. They need a diplomatic achievement to help Hillary in 2016. That shouldn’t make any sense, but it does.

    The prescient Dana (3e4784)

  14. No, it’s more like they won’t be able to do it more than one time, and how effective can it be?

    Try 10,000 men on the ground pouring flourine down the bunkers. Hold the airports as long as you can and try to get your guys out. Not all will.

    This won’t be done from the air without US support.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  15. Or, maybe they say F-it and use nukes.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  16. This is a very dangerous game teh won is playing, what with the serial backstabbing of allies and cozying up to people who hate us. It’s almost like Obama had set out to destroy fundamentally transform US foreign policy.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  17. They need a diplomatic achievement to help Hillary in 2016.

    But if Hillary has any sense, she’ll have to denounce betraying Israel.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  18. “I mean, think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny, compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.”

    President Unilateral Redline Blameshifter
    May 18, 2008

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  19. I always thought Obama was an incompetent, but he’s exceeded my worse expectations. Seriously, that’s not mere rhetorical flourish.

    I thought we could survive four years of his incompetence at a cost. But his reelection has me worried. I don’t know how we are going to survive eight years of his incompetence.

    He is doing damage that may take a generation to repair.

    SPQR (768505)

  20. Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/8/2013 @ 9:52 am

    Try 10,000 men on the ground pouring flourine down the bunkers. Hold the airports as long as you can and try to get your guys out. Not all will.

    They won’t have anything like 10,000 men. A big problem is what countries to fly over. Syria is maybe best right now, but then it is either Turkey or Iraq. Turkey is no longer co-operating very much with Israel, so Iraq might be best.

    If they had help from Saudi Arabia they could try a different route, but this is unlikely to happen, and if it does there could eb a double cross.

    This won’t be done from the air without US support.

    The Obama Adminsitration wants it very well known (by Iran/Syria) that if Israel does anything, they didn’t have a U.S. support

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  21. Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/8/2013 @ 9:52 am

    This won’t be done from the air without US support.

    They have to do it by air anyway.

    Israel’s probable plan would be something like this:

    1) Wait as late as possible – not only for diplomatic reasons, but also to push the danger as much as possible into the future. So let Iran work on things, as long as the critical point has not been passed and they don;’t change anything.

    2) Iran, to protect itself against a U.S. air raid, has buried everything important deep underground. So….Block the entrances and exits.

    This should gain an extra 6 months at least

    3) Repeat as necessary. This is the key. This is the thing hard for Israel, acting alone, to do.

    The U.S.A. is more capable, both diplomatically and militarily, of applying a policy of “repeat as necessary”

    That was the policy that worked with Iraq from 1991 to 2002. It wasn’t the sanctions that kept Saddam Hussein under control during that period – it was the no-fly zone and occasional bombing to enforce it. Saddam never dared to take his nuclear program out of mothballs.

    The problem is, “repeat as necessary” seems never to have been put on the table.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  22. If they had help from Saudi Arabia they could try a different route

    Sammy, they will be using forward bases in Saudi Arabia to stage it. The Saudis fear Iranian nukes as much as the Israelis; it is an existential threat to them, too. Why do you think they’re so pissed off at Chauncey Gardiner right now?

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  23. Sammy and Iran will have similar surprises.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  24. Repeat as necessary. This is the key. This is the thing hard for Israel, acting alone, to do.

    And this is why they WILL NOT follow your script.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  25. Saudi Arabia would probably, at most, use Israel for that, and then turn around and condemn it.

    I just can’t see such an arrangement working. They’d have to claim Israel had captured an airfield in Saudi Arabia.

    Maybe this – the distance is not too far – Israel overflies Saudi Arabia, relying on a secret promise to let its planes them land and refuel on the way back, then impounds the planes and pilots.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  26. There’s Iranian air defences too.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  27. “Repeat as necessary. This is the key. This is the thing hard for Israel, acting alone, to do.”

    Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/8/2013 @ 10:22 am

    And this is why they WILL NOT follow your script.

    They could still do a one-off and hope something changes. If it gets too dangerous they will.

    They cannot destroy the site. If you say they could with a nuclear bomb, besides this being the last thing anyone wants to see happen – it breaks the nuclear taboo and releases radioactivity into the atmosphere – it anyway could be done later.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  28. Sammy–for the sake of those of us who have other things to do and are multitasking this afternoon—briefly, what is the point you are hoping to make on this thread?

    elissa (d0035d)

  29. It’s the U.S. military and Obama that’s fixated on a one-time blow. One time blows won’t work.

    “Repeat as necessary “is an easy to follow, and not difficult to do, WORKABLE strategy for the U.S. to follow.

    All you need for it is the diplomatic courage to defend it…

    Once committed to it, you might even get a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing “repeat as necessary” as Russia and China would not like to get the U.S. used to acting outside the ambit of the United Nations Security Council.

    If the U.S. acts like Russia and China can veto things, well, then they will. If it acts like they can’t, then they’ll get behind it to maintain the power of their veto. They have to save the veto for the most important things to them.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  30. “what is the point you are hoping to make on this thread?”

    elissa – PRINCE BANDAR!!!!!!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  31. The point is – severtal asstrtions I think here are wrong.

    The most important is that you shouldn’t be so sure Israel will, or can, take care of the problem.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  32. The problem with Iran’s nukes will be taken care of the exact same way the problem with Pakistan’s nukes was taken care of.

    nk (dbc370)

  33. Obama to Iran: If you like your nuclear program, you can keep your nuclear program.

    It’s not up to him….It’s up to Bibi!

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  34. Prince bandar is probably responsible for circulating this idea of a partial Israeli-Saudi alliance – he may even have gotten some people in Israel’s government believing that.

    I don’t know where this idea comes from – or the idea there should be a nuclear strike on Iran, by either the U.S. or Israel.

    “Repeat as necessary” is the best, safest and simplest strategy.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  35. Right now we are heading toward a kind of Munich -which Hitler violated pretty fast. There could be some modest lifting of sanctions in exchange for promises of nothing much. Kerry calls this a multi-stage deal.

    The effect of this could be to make military action in the future necessary, as if Iran breaks the agreement there won’t be enough time for sanctions to be tried again. Right now the sanctions are biting.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  36. Sammy:

    The most important is that you shouldn’t be so sure Israel will, or can, take care of the problem.

    I think everyone, including Israel, is uncertain whether they can take care of this problem. Uncertainty might keep Obama from acting but I don’t think it will stop Israel. Iran is a grave threat to Israel so Israel can’t afford to do nothing.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  37. The most important is that you shouldn’t be so sure Israel will, or can, take care of the problem.

    But if they have to, they will try. Do you expect them to give up and accept that one day a nuke will fall? Sure, they’d would retaliate, but they’d all be dead and that’s not acceptable.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  38. “Repeat as necessary” is the best, safest and simplest strategy.

    And Plan A is so good that if the US government is made up of aholes and weasels, you won’t have a Plan B, C, D & E?

    Obama is selling Israel out, both to the Iranians and to the Palestinians. Why should they expect him to “have their back”? If you like this alliance, you can keep this alliance? Really?

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  39. Saudi women drivers should invade Iran. That would do more damage than any freaking airstrikes.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  40. The problem with Iran’s nukes will be taken care of the exact same way the problem with Pakistan’s nukes was taken care of.

    Pray tell.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  41. steve:

    7. Obama’s goal, like Bush before him, is to have a deal. To them, diplomacy is the end, not a means. It doesn’t matter what the deal is, it doesn’t matter whether Iran adheres to the terms, all that matters is that they have a deal.

    I don’t agree with this statement. I think Bush added one important aspect to his policy that Obama stopped. Specifically, in addition to diplomatic efforts, Bush actively provided aid and support to Iranian and Middle Eastern groups working to establish democratic reforms.

    Thus, like Obama, Bush used international pressure to cause Iran to change its nuclear policy, but he also did something Obama won’t do: Support Iranian opposition groups to undermine the Iranian regime and its hardline stance.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  42. Pray tell.

    Iran will have nukes and we just won’t talk about it.

    nk (dbc370)

  43. Exactly.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  44. We made a mistake in the Clinton administration (and again in W’s) when we did not use the military to stop the North Koreans. The only thing that will stop a state from gaining the “security” of nuclear weapons is the likelihood that seeking them makes them less secure, to the point of regime endangerment. We should have made an example of the Norks. We probably should have done so with the Pakistanis, but the Cold War made that difficult in several ways.

    But now: Norks, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea, Argentina … and the danger goes up something like N*log(N) every time you get another player.

    It’s so easy to do nothing.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  45. B-b-b-ut some of Obama’s best friends are Jewish !
    Or something.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  46. Iran will have nukes and we just won’t talk about it.

    Pretty sure the Republicans will.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  47. I think the deal that Iraanian president Hassan Rouhani is trying to negotiate is like this:

    Iran’s nuclear program will be set back about a month, but the bite of the sanctions will set back about 6 months to a year. Even longer, as it may take time to get it started again.

    The U.S. will call this deal a first step, but that will be the only step.

    So when it starts again, Iran will have a good chance of getting to a nuclear test (assuming that they are interested in testimg it before using it) before the sanctions bite too hard.

    What could spoil this is Khamenei getting too impatient or greedy.

    Sammy Finkelman (9e0380)

  48. 44. Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/8/2013 @ 11:46 am

    We made a mistake in the Clinton administration…when we did not use the military to stop the North Koreans.

    Clinton was competent. All his big mistakes, whether it had to do with North Korea, Rwanda, Bosnia, or not capturing Osama bin Laden, were on purpose.

    Jimmy Carter didn’t go to North Korea by himself.

    Sammy Finkelman (9e0380)

  49. 42. 43. Comment by nk (dbc370) — 11/8/2013 @ 11:31 am

    Iran will have nukes and we just won’t talk about it.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/8/2013 @ 11:37 am

    Exactly.

    That’s only possible if they don’t test it.

    Sammy Finkelman (9e0380)

  50. The mullahs pine for the return of teh 12th Sammy…

    Colonel Haiku (9b8fed)

  51. There’s a problem here.

    Are the sanctions on Iran because of:

    A) It’s a bad government that violates human rights.

    B) It supports terror.

    C) It has a nuclear bomb program

    D) It has killed American soldiers.

    E) All of the above and intervention in Syria too.

    The U.S. sanctions are really all of the above. Other sanctions may be more limited, but he U.S. alone can cut Iran off from using electronic banking.

    Sammy Finkelman (9e0380)

  52. It takes a rare level of skill to accomplish in a few short months what the rest of the world considered impossible until now:

    The Obama has managed to piss off both the Saudis, and the Israelis, simultaneously, to the point where there is serious talk about them making a de facto alliance against the Iranians (who used to be our,and Israel’s ally, but never mind).

    Orcadrvr (5daf3f)

  53. ‘It’s a gift’ as he told Harry Reid,

    narciso (3fec35)

  54. I thought we could survive four years of his incompetence at a cost. But his reelection has me worried. I don’t know how we are going to survive eight years of his incompetence.

    I’m with you on this, SPQR. Five years ago I would have said that America is a resilient country, so no matter what bozo we saddle ourselves with for four or even eight years, we can overcome the damage that he does to the country. Now I think that the evil genius of the left in general and Obama in particular has been to sap our resiliency. Instead of clawing our way out of the mess, we’ll be encouraged to lower our standard of living and accept diminished freedom in return for what at least appears to be a social safety net, even though it is worn and tattered.

    JVW (709bc7)

  55. The reason people are mentioning nukes is this:

    The US is the only country that has the reliable capability to degrade Iran’s widespread nuclear facilities with conventional weapons. We are the only ones who have enough planes, bombs, pilots, and refueling capacity to do the number of flights in a short time that are needed.

    Anyone else, like Israel, has to use nukes to get the job done right. And if you’re doing Iran right and you’re using nukes, you’re going to want to use a few others in some other special areas just to keep the ant’s nest confused.

    luagha (5cbe06)

  56. I thought we could survive four years of his incompetence at a cost. But his reelection has me worried. I don’t know how we are going to survive eight years of his incompetence.

    Well, I’ve been saying that his re-election will cause more damage to the US than the VietNam War. I am coming to believe I’ve been optimistic. He may set the record.

    Biden(!) would be a marked improvement.

    I would dearly love to see a poll that asked people who they voted for in 2012. Bet you Romney wins by 15 points.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  57. luagha–

    Israel can also do it with airborne, assuming they are willing to lose a lot of them. Bunkers are susceptible to chemical attacks from the ground. It’s just that getting back out might be hard.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  58. 57. Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/8/2013 @ 5:51 pm

    I would dearly love to see a poll that asked people who they voted for in 2012. Bet you Romney wins by 15 points.

    When they did polls like this in 1973 and 1974 about the 1972 election, McGovern eventually carried Texas. (according to what I think Taylor Branch said)

    The only thing that could produce similar results would be Obamacare.

    But one problem is that the percentage of people answering polls has gone way down since that time. Getting an accurate poll requires very careful adjustments and weightings.

    Sammy Finkelman (9e0380)

  59. 56. 58.

    Comment by luagha (5cbe06) — 11/8/2013 @ 2:59 pm

    The reason people are mentioning nukes is this:

    The US is the only country that has the reliable capability to degrade Iran’s widespread nuclear facilities with conventional weapons.

    Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/8/2013 @ 5:56 pm

    Israel can also do it with airborne, assuming they are willing to lose a lot of them. Bunkers are susceptible to chemical attacks from the ground. It’s just that getting back out might be hard.

    This is all true if you want to do it all with one blow. You would neede that kind of thing to destroy what is deep underground.

    However, you only need to block the entrances and exits and danage the surrounding roads, to make it pretty seless. It would then take 6 months or more to repair, and the raid coud then be repeated.

    An argument against any kind of raid is maybe the Iranians have other locations unknown to us, or other sources of nuclear bombs, like North Korea.

    The whole Iranian nuclear bomb project could just be a distraction from a North Korean purchase, or it could be a condition for the sale in order to cover up the source of the bomb (except that that won’t work, owing to analysis of isotopes)

    Sammy Finkelman (9e0380)

  60. 47. SF: What could spoil this is Khamenei getting too impatient or greedy.

    Yep, that seems to have happened:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/world/iran-nuclear-talks.html?hpw&rref=world&pagewanted=all

    The deal would have given Iran access to a lot of money (but no lifting of sanctions) in exchange for freezing their nuclear program.

    Maybe it got hung up on details, like how to prevent Iranian cheating.

    Diplomats were traveling to Geneva yesterday and there was supposed to be a press conference – it wasn’t happening even as it got close to qand past midnight Geneva time.

    Iran was being offered the wrong thing. The only thing Iran should be offered is a promise of no military attack for X number of months as long as whatever is negotiated is being abided by.

    The goal has to be Iran making a decision to eliminate any nuclear program, and seeking to find out what it needs to do convince the world that it has. Not Iran seeking to find out what’s the least it can do to eliminate sanctions.

    Interesting: France and other countries could lift sanctions more easily, but felt they’d have aharder time putting them back if the prospect of a complete agreement unraveled or Iran reneged on its pledges. Why? Maybe because you’d have to get unanimity again and/or get China and India to go along and both of them were given time.

    Sammy Finkelman (9e0380)

  61. The program has been underway for 25 years, under Khamenei’s aegis, he has never been against nuclear development, the problem is they don’t have anyone with the skill of an AQ Khan

    narciso (3fec35)

  62. A wild hair in the mix:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-11-08/we%E2%80%99re-most-dangerous-moment-cuban-missile-crisis

    Oh, sheesh. How come much of the MSM hasn’t focused on that story? The posting at zerohedge.com is the first up-to-the-minute report I’ve come across on Fukushima.

    I find it interesting that the one time when various environmental activists (liberal in particular) can appropriately and correctly sound the alarm, too many of them are oddly quiet about Japan’s ill-fated nuclear plant. Or, more tellingly, they (and, most crucially, their cabal throughout the MSM) continue to spend more time fretting over and yakking about CO2 and global warming.

    Mark (58ea35)

  63. it seems like France stopped the deal.

    Gov Christie was asked about this. He said he couldn’t comment. So he’s still not ready to run for president.

    Sammy Finkelman (9e0380)

  64. It’s a sad commentary when even Socialist France objects to Chauncey Obama’s capitulation to the mad mullahs and Revolutionary Guard of Iran.

    Colonel Haiku (901963)

  65. The American Left has always done it’s best to undermine America’s influence and interests in the rest of the world. Obama is no different in that respect. Elections have consequences.

    Colonel Haiku (901963)

  66. 64. Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 11/10/2013 @ 6:36 am

    Or, more tellingly, they (and, most crucially, their cabal throughout the MSM) continue to spend more time fretting over and yakking about CO2 and global warming.

    And their only remedy is turn back the clock, or since that can’t actually be done slow down the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Since even a great effort can only have most margina effect, exaggerate the danger but claim that is some magical tipping point (in terms of % CO2 in the atomosphere) above which you get real danger of famine, crop failures, or whatever so all you have to do is stay below that arbitrary figure.

    The arbitrary figure and date (CO2 not higher than x% in 20xx) is selected so that it should sound just barely achieveable. Never mind that even if they did it, we’ll climb above that figure in another 2 or 3 or 6 years.

    Take off the table all other ideas, like mitigation, seeding the ocean, or injecting sulfer dioxide in the arctioc atmosphere, so that the only “remedy” is their program.

    And lie – say that about the only cause of temperature and rainfall fluctuation is Co2, or other gases like methane.

    Sammy Finkelman (9e0380)

  67. The French delegation objected to the proposed U.S. deal.
    “As I speak to you, I cannot say there is any certainty that we can conclude” the talks, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said on French radio according to the Reuters news agency, noting that France could not accept a “sucker’s deal.”

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/11/france-steps-in-halts-iran-nuclear-deal-calls-obama-a-sucker.html

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  68. Pretty effing sad (and incredibly dangerous) state of affairs…

    Colonel Haiku (2fee4a)

  69. Heh. I don’t know of you saw this over at Powerline. Side by side photos of Benjamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama in their “youth”. As the photos show and the headline summarizes–we drew the short straw.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/11/netanyahu-vs-obama.php

    elissa (ade380)

  70. elissa,
    I still can’t believe the person in that picture was ever taken seriously at anything, let alone became the president of the USA.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  71. Indeed elissa, it is striking the poor level of commentary that passes itself off as wisdom;

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/global-security-newswire/senate-sanctions-push-plays-divisive-role-in-iran-nuclear-haggling-20131108

    narciso (3fec35)

  72. 569 on Virginia election thread: Comment by Colonel Haiku (404b97) — 11/11/2013 @ 3:58 pm

    “We are not blind and I don’t think we are stupid”

    – John Kerry, as he stood at the podium

    It’s just that these negotiations with Iran are:

    TOO BIG TO FAIL

    Sammy Finkelman (d7b491)

  73. Came across this on Yahoo Finanace under Boeing posts & can’t help but thinking of Obama’s NLRB appt. fiasco, still in limbo, which inspires this union member, moi, to gladly pay dues to Right to Work. Sounds like a book worth reading esp’ly for those who appreciate the Gibson Guitar & Lumber Liquidators “Obama’s army” invasion
    • 15 minutes ago Flag
    0users liked this posts users disliked this posts0Reply
    Former Secret Service agent blasts ‘toxic’ administration
    Dan Bongino, the Secret Service agent who turned on President Obama and is running for Congress, says he believes the “toxic” administration is “using government as a weapon exclusively to intimidate enemies.”

    Bongino, a 12-year veteran of the Secret Service who once defended Obama and the Clintons with his life, is now running as a Republican for Congress in Maryland and has released a book,“Life Inside the Bubble.”

    He told us: “We’re in a very dangerous place right now. There are so many scandals going on right now with this administration, any one of them in my opinion could be absolutely catastrophic for what this country stands for.” Taking on Obamacare, he said, “That scandal in itself is a huge deal. We are in such a dangerous place with this administration, they use this government as a shiny new toy — this little red ball they just got — because they are so inexperienced with it.

    “That wasn’t necessarily the case with the Clintons, and I was pretty much enmeshed in Hillary’s Senate campaign. Although I disagreed with a lot of their political positions . . . I can’t tell you that they thought government was a weapon exclusively to intimidate their enemies. But this administration constantly seems to use government [as a weapon] because they are inexperienced with it — it’s like giving a kid a Bowie knife and saying, ‘Have fun.’ They gave this administration which has no experience the reins of government and they have just gone wild.”

    Bongino said he grew tired of listening to Obama talk. “Protecting President Clinton, I never found his speeches to be toxic, like if you disagreed you were his mortal enemy. With Obama, you are not just his political enemy, you are his real enemy if you disagreed. I couldn’t listen to it any more.” Less

    Judy Eaton (aee826)

  74. With Obama, you are not just his political enemy, you are his real enemy if you disagreed.

    He and his “left-hand man,” Valerie Jarrett, are apparently very vindictive people, which probably validates studies that reveal liberals in private may be just the opposite of what they fancy about themselves. Or that they’re exactly what they perceive their political opposites to be all about.

    Mark (58ea35)

  75. Yes, Mark – Jarrett’s supposed remark, paraphrasing, about you were either with us or against us and now it’s payback time sums it up. The IRS is their favorite weapon of choice.

    Judy Eaton (aee826)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0938 secs.