I don’t trust him. No, not Zarif or Rhouhani.
I do not trust the President of the United States and he’s earned that mistrust. As expected Obama was out front preening about his “achievement”:
“Today, after many months of tough, principled diplomacy, we have achieved the framework for that deal. And it is a good deal,” Obama said.
Obama delivered his statement from the Rose Garden where he described it as an “historic” agreement. He said he is “convinced” that, if the framework leads to a final agreement, “it will make our country, our allies, and our world safer.”
The interpretation of this “good deal” varies greatly.
In one corner, ardent supporters, like the White House, touted it as a resolution in which they didn’t waver from their core beliefs. Iranian officials boasted the same.
It’s an interesting deal when no one has to compromise a thing.
There is someone uniquely qualified to analyzing the curiously divergent versions of the agreement and that person is Amer Taheri. In the NY Post he outlines the conflicting positions of the US and Iran regarding this deal. The first thing Taheri notes is that there is no agreement as yet. Then he observes the wildly differing number of words in the translated texts:
First, we have a joint statement in English in 291 words by Iranian Foreign Minister Muhammad Javad Zarif and the European Union foreign policy point-woman Federica Mogherini, who led the so-called P5+1 group of nations including the US in the negotiations.
Next we have the official Iranian text, in Persian, which runs into 512 words. The text put out by the French comes with 231 words. The prize for “spinner-in-chief” goes to US Secretary of State John Kerry who has put out a text in 1,318 words and acts as if we have a done deal.
The there is careful choice of language by the Iranians:
When referring to what Iran is supposed to do, the Iranian text uses a device of Persian grammar known as “nakarah,” a form of verbs in which the authorship of a deed remains open to speculation.
For example: “ It then happened that . . .” or “that is to be done.”
But when it comes to things the US and allies are supposed to do, the grammatical form used is “maerfah” which means the precise identification of the author.
Those US claims about reducing the number of centrifuges?
The American text claims that Iran has agreed to do this or that, for example reducing the number of centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,500.
The Iranian text, however, says that Iran “shall be able to . . .” or “qader khahad boud” in Farsi to do such a thing. The same is true about enrichment in Fordow. The Americans say Iran has agreed to stop enrichment there for 15 years. The Iranian text, however, refers to this as something that Iran “will be able to do,” if it so wished.
Taheri rips into what he generously calls “outrageous claims” by Obama:
The first was that when he became president Iran had “ thousands of centrifuges” which would now be cut down to around 6,000. In fact, in 2008, Iran had only 800 centrifuges. It was on Obama’s watch and because of his perceived weakness that Iran speeded up its nuclear program.
The second claim was that thanks to the scheme he is peddling “all of Iran’s paths” to developing a nuclear arsenal would be blocked. And, yet, in the same remarks he admitted that even if the claimed deal is fully implemented, Iran would still be able to build a bomb in just a year, presumably jumping over the “blocked paths.”
Obama lied again. Imagine that. Then there’s third one in classic Obama straw man style:
Obama’s worst claim was that the only alternative to his attempts at surrendering to the obnoxious Khomeinist regime would be US involvement in “another ground war in the Middle East.”
He ignores the fact that forcing Iran through diplomatic action, sanctions and proximity pressures to abide by six UN resolutions could also be regarded as an alternative. In other words, preemptive surrender is not the only alternative to war.
If you don’t want to bite into the shit sandwich it’s because you want war.
Iran claims the agreement will allow them to continue to enrich uranium at Fordow, not ship enriched uranium out to Russia for processing and that all sanctions will end immediately upon a final agreement.
So Americans are left to choose who they would believe. My money is on the Iranians because Barack Obama is a goddam liar. When Obama tells me this is a good deal all I hear is “You can keep your plan and your doctor no matter what.”
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
The Iranians are world-class liars, too.
Recall when Helmut Schmidt had left his position as Chancellor of Germany he had an interaction in an elevator between just himself and one top Iranian official.
PressTV, Iran’s official state media outlet, flatly stated that Mr. Schmidt used his time in that elevator to DENY that the Holocaust had ever happened.
This ”story” went around the world for three weeks before a shocked Mr. Schmidt learned of it.
As soon as he did learn of it he denied it and reminded the Iranian of exactly what the two of them talked about on that elevator.
That Iranian’s apology was only published inside the German press, not in Iran.
The story died in all but the ME where it still is repeated as if it is true.
Unless the Kerry/+6/Iran meetings had a line-by-line transcript all initialed by all parties as accurate, I would not trust one word of it.
IF Obama’s side is being honest, then Iran’s side is lying.
Or visa-versa.
Or both sides are spinning a very iffy arrangement for their own ends.
Taheri is a joke i
in 2002 he cliamed bin Laden was dead in an op piece in the New York Timeslaims of Osama bin Laden’s death in 2002[edit]
in 2006 he claimed that minorities were going to be forced to wear certain clothes That has yet to happen
in 2005 Taheri claimed that the Iranian UN Ambassador was one of the students involved in taking the hostages at the US Embassy. It was later proved that during that time he was a teaching assistant in san Francisco
Before using Taheri as an “expert” you might have checked what wiki has to say about him
Oh by the way The Pope likes this agreement have you noticed how frequently you differ from him ?
The former heads of both military and civilian intelligence in israel also back this agreement.
And Obamacare???? Dr J I am sure that YOU have most excellent healthcare coverage, how has Obamacare effected you? Do you still see the doctor that you want or has this been taken away from you ?
the French British Russians Chinese all must sign on for the sanctions to be lifted but you are always only mentioning Obama
The Iranians are known liars. I WANT to believe the US has hammered out a good deal, but it so happens that Obama is also a known liar. He doesn’t just lie about domestic issues, either; he lies whenever the facts can harm him or his precious “legacy”. Benghazi, for instance. Iraq, before and after he became President. Libya. Ukraine. Israeli elections. Obamacare, IRS, Fast and Furious, Deepwater Horizon. The VA. The economy. Lies aplenty.
So, it boils down to which side is the most determined and all Obama is determined to do is get a deal while the Iranians are determined to get a bomb. Those sound like compatible goals.
There really is no plan. There is spin with no substance. I predict that this spin will continue by this administration until mid June and Obama will agree to much less than what he professes right now. (There is some really serious issues not addressed in the “framework” right now!)
Yeah, I trust the GOP who wants to get us into another perpetual war which will kill millions. Not. Idiots.
@Bill: Wow you’ve trotted out all the dis-proven bullshit, haven’t you? Lol!
@Miskall: And you can keep your health insurance and/or doctor period!! You trust this POS?? Would you prefer we fight the enemy on our land??
The only thing that Obama has said that has been true was his desire to fundamentally transform the United States. Everything else out of this Choom Gang traitor’s mouth is a lie.
@Miskall:
The Republican administration had won the war in Iraq and with a successful spring offensive in Afghanistan could possibly have severely harmed the Taliban. Obama blocked the spring offensive and squandered a victory in Iraq, allowing ISIS to spread like a plaque. Incompetent, naive liberals always prepare the way for the next war, never knowing how to avoid one other than running from it. Clinton ignored al Qaeda and bin Laden and we had 9/11. Obama ignored security in Iraq and we have ISIS and war throughout the region. Obama bows to Iran, paves the way for their nuclear weapon; what type of war will result from that ineptitude and stupidity? Blindly supporting what Obama does is just as monumentally stupid as what Obama himself does.
Not a one has been disproved, though all have been stonewalled and suppressed. Refer yourself to the last line of the paragraph above, please.
@Miskall: Why don’t we just surrender unconditionally to Iran and ISIS. Who wants a messy war? We just kneel down, stretch out our necks, and hope for the best? Actually, Obama might actually go for that strategy to justify his Peace Prize.
@AngelArtiste, #9:
Iran is currently at war with ISIS. We’re on the same side in that particular effort. Would you like to change that, so we could be fighting a war in Iraq on two fronts?
This President is the first one to make me consider a military solution as a viable/acceptable option to his Presidency.
Bottom line is we are going to get shafted when we can’t trust the President or the Iranians to do the right thing. When I say Iranians I mean Valerie Jarrett..
@Greg:
Which side are we supposed to be on? They both want death to “The Great Satan”. As long as they are fighting each other, we shouldn’t interrupt, but it is only a matter of time before they join forces. It appears that the only alternative is complete, abject surrender to the forces of evil that want to slaughter us, in the minds of leftist pacifists. Of course, they probably think they can reason with similarly-minded people who hate America.
After 1400 years of conflict, joining forces isn’t likely to happen anytime soon.
@Greg: Oh! Greggee, Greggee, Greggee, such a tremendous intellect going to waste.
@Greg:
I don’t believe ISIS is 1400 years old. Sunni vs Shia may be, but historical memories can be quickly forgotten if a common enemy is targeted. Islamists of all versions hate us, and it doesn’t matter much who detonates the bombs.
What exactly is your argument? That Obama is supremely competent in negotiations with deadly enemies without Congress’s interference? So far, he has demonstrated the opposite. He has consistently been on the wrong side of every middle east conflict, and his “red lines” disappear like his Obamacare promises. Do I need to spell it out for you? He is a fuking incompetent leftist liar. He cannot be trusted in ANYTHING.
Great point.
Lest we forget almost every Muslim movement is led by some charismatic, like Osama bin Laden was.
And, for those who never read his letters in ”The Al Qaeda Reader,” you missed an exchange between him as leader of all al Qaeda and his leader of all of Iraq’s al Qaeda.
The two men disagreed about a shiite/sunni alliance.
But Osama put his underling in his place…..
We unite to fight the infidel now and LATER we will wipe out all apostates of Islam including those creeps we are fighting along side right now, Osama wrote.
His underling obeyed.
The irony here is it does not matter what Iran does going forward, Obama will still claim success. He will never admit to getting snookered and his followers will drink it down with gusto.
There is no agreement. You waste your time when you evaluate the deal. There is no paper. Nothing changes as of April 2. Iran will build and test an atomic bomb and drop it on Tel Aviv. 6 months? One year? I dunno. Once we had the U235 the bomb came quickly.
Then World War Three begins. Mutual Assured Destruction for all.
@Mully: Obama cares about two things here: making a “legacy” deal and having someone to blame when it fails. Based on what Gruber tells him, he thinks he has both.
@john: Silly man! There is no agreement, only concessions.
If anyone is interested, this is the State Department’s outline of points to be included in any prospective nuclear agreement with Iran. It’s hoped that such an agreement can be finalized by the end of June:
Fact sheet from State Department: Parameters of plan on Iran nuclear program
The related Washington Post article: Iran agrees to nuclear restrictions in framework deal with world powers
@Randy, #22:
U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, on Face the Nation this past weekend. He discusses the proposed nuclear agreement with Iran in some detail.
This doesn’t sound like it’s only concessions to me. It sounds like it could be a serious and effective constraint on Iran’s nuclear program.
What we’ve got without such an agreement is basically nothing.
By the way, this guy’s appointment was confirmed in the U.S. Senate by a vote of 97 to zero.
@Greg: Greggie Greggie Greggie, any real agreement MUST be approved by the legislature!! You think this POS that Oblama is pushing will get 97 votes in the Senate?? MORON!!
@Greg:
You don’t get it, Greg. This man, this State Department, this administration has NO credibility. None. Their words are a waste of breath. They would just as soon lie to you as look at you. What they say about the “deal” matters not one way or another. We will, indeed, have to see it to know what it in it.
I suppose relying on attitude rather than reasoning avoids putting any dangerous strain on long-disused brain cells.
@Greg: How about relying on past performance?
@Bill: Bill, it’s no use trying to make poor Greggie believe the truth!! Greggie you mean past performance like lying to America and telling them if they like their doctor and/or health insurance they can keep them “period”!! I’ll rely on the fact that Oblama as you will blame Bush for every mistake he makes just as you do. There is enough scandals and lies within Oblama’s administration to account for lack of trust!! Obama shows more care and trust with the Iranians who cry death to America than he does to Israel as the Iranian regime sponsors terror throughout the world and cry death to America and Death to Israel!! No proof Reid told the truth yet either!! Geggie has ZERO credibility, brains, or integrity!!
@Bill, #28:
The right is apparently incapable of making any objective appraisals of past performance. They have firmly set attitudes about each past president that cannot be altered by any amount of factual information. Consider:
Ronald Reagan is a saint to the right and has become a model of current conservative values, even though a number of highly questionable things were done during his presidency, and even though he would have rejected certain attitudes and positions embrace by current-day conservative politicians;
Clinton was ineffective and contemptible, even though he presided over a lengthy period of economic prosperity and left office with the highest approval rating of any American president since Harry Truman;
George W. Bush evidently did few things wrong, despite missed warnings before 9/11, failure to maintain focus on al Qaeda in Afghanistan, a monumental miscalculation concerning the long-term costs and consequences of an unnecessary war in Iraq, a demonstration of just how far unitary executive theory could be taken without people noticing, and having had the U.S. economy come crashing down around his ears during his final two years in office.
Obama, on the other hand, is reviled and detested on the right, despite having pulled the U.S. economy out of what could have become a terminal nose dive, rescuing critical American industries, keeping critical state, county, and local governments afloat, dealing as best he could with the totally screwed up situation the invasion and occupation of Iraq had created, extending health insurance to millions of Americans who formerly couldn’t get it, etc. He has attempted to deal in a humane, positive, and comprehensive fashion with the consequences of decades of inattention to a broken immigration system—something that no other president has been prepared to attempt; something that the howling republican Congressional majority most certainly could address, but somehow will never, ever get around to. I suppose they’re too busy at the moment trying to scuttle nuclear negotiations with Iran, despite the fact that they have no good alternative to Obama’s approach to that problem, either.
Obama has his faults and his flaws and has had his failures and miscalculations the same as any other past American president. Anyone who judges the merits and failures of presidential administrations by a single honest, objective standard, however, is not going to reach the extremely negative conclusion that the right has been incessantly pitching for 6 continuous years.
Basically, the right hates Obama for his successes and his worthy efforts even more than they hate him for his failures. They claim anyone who doesn’t hate him must be a worshipful follower, rather than an objective person who has drawn a different conclusion.
@Greg: I swear, there should be a law against liberals voting.
Reagan took a terrible economy and turned it around unlike Obama that took a terrible economy (a derivative of liberal social engineering) and kept it terrible. Reagan took a strong stand against Communism and brought it to its knees. Obama kow-tows to our enemies.
Funny; Bush ignored all those “warnings”, yet Clinton did nothing to kill or capture bin Laden, despite all the warnings HE got. Clinton willfully ignored multiple opportunities to deal with bin Laden. Yet, Bush supposedly ignored a compelling case Clinton made to deal with al Qaeda. Yeah, right.
Obama has not ONE success to his credit. None. Nothing. All he has accomplished is rack up a distinctive list of scandals and corruption. He has lied more often and more boldly since anyone, including Nixon.
Furthermore, he does not react well to his failure. In fact, he acts like a rather immature baby, lashing out and blaming all around him. When the failures accumulate he feels the need to whip up some racial animus. No amount of damage or wreckage is too much to avert attention away from his ineptitude.
Those suffering from the emotional taint in their analysis of this administration are those such as yourself. A combination of ideological blindness and an embarrassed reluctance to admit what a monumental mistake it was to support and vote for such a failure.
But, like a good liberal, you seek others to blame for your naivete on others. I’m sorry you support the greatest failure that has ever entered the White House.
Thank you. That post serves as an instructive example of the very thing I was talking about.
@Greg:
I see that, unlike my point-by-point refutation of your accusations with facts, you merely retort with “Nuh-uh!!”.
Tell me, Greg; if bin Laden and al Qaeda was such a perceived threat so that Bush’s failure to take drastic action on them immediately after taking office (January, 2001… just 6 1/2 months before 9/11), such as immediately implementing armored doors on cockpits (you have no idea how long a program such as that would take), then why didn’t Clinton have anything in place or even STARTED before he left office? What, exactly, was it that Sandy Berger had to go to the National Archives and stuff in his underwear during the 9/11 hearings?
Iraq was won and pacified. We needed troops there to maintain security until the factions could work out their differences. Obama completely screwed that up for headlines.
He also kicked some 7 million paying customers OFF their insurance. What a deal. Costs going up, benefits lost, efficiency down.
Uh, wrong. Really bad wrong. Bush attempted comprehensive immigration reform and had a deal worked out that, while it went too far with forgiving illegal immigrants, had been agreed upon. That is, until Obama and Schumer inserted the poison pill of making the work visas requirement expire after 3 years. Then, the agreement fell apart. So, you have it all wrong; Obama actually PREVENTED reform and, for lack of the ability to work with anyone that will not agree to HIS way 100%, had opted to act illegally (blocked currently by federal judges).
Obama, like any human, certainly has his faults and flaws. But, he is also a leftist demagogue, too immature to accept compromise. He has allowed the shut down of the government, collapse of negotiations and budget compromise to fall apart because he wants it all his way (and, of course, he has no probing press to answer too), thus causing chaos and disagreement. He also seems to go out of his way to stir up racial animus. Of course, any evidence to the contrary is more than welcome.
Weak and silly, Greg. Exceptionally weak and silly.