Iran Nuclear Negotiations
 

Peaceful nuclear negotiations are obviously going well: :(

Iran's Supreme Leader has warned his country will not step back "one iota" from its nuclear rights, as it resumes talks with world powers in Geneva.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25007901

"going well" and sadface.

I don't understand why you've put these together, would you explain please?

Just sarcasm, BigV.

When the REAL ruler of Iran, announces that they won't give "one iota", in any nuclear negotiations, I thought it might be obvious that the "negotiations" are going absolutely nowhere.

WE are the one's negotiating, not Iran. WE are the one's saying the negotiating is "very close" to making a deal. WE are the one's asking for no more sanctions to be put onto Iran. (Obama)

After all these years, if we don't have every sanction possible put onto Iran, it's just because we're too stupid to do it.

Maybe the Iranians will get upset about the sanctions. Maybe they'll have big rallies, chanting "Death to America" (like the one they just had). Maybe they'll even try to build nuclear weapons. You know, like the one's they've built INSIDE A MOUNTAIN.

Gosh! That couldn't happen, could it, Mr. Obama? :rolleyes:

Sanctions aren't imposed by us, they are imposed by a/the collection of nations. Hate to break it to you but there are almost 200 countries in the world, and a number of them don't give a rat's ass what we want.

Every successful agreement is ongoing while press rumors hype the end of the world. A perfect example was Richard Holbrooke's negotiated surrender of Milosevic. At the time, nobody had a clue that future Balkan massacres were being averted by the Dayton Accords and Milosevic's all but acknowledged surrender.

We have no idea what is really being discussed in Iran Nuclear negotiations. We do know that George Jr seriously gutted the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty when he virtually exempted India. Barring that serious problem, Iranian nuclear negotiations could have successful results. But again, with so many news reports chock full of wild speculation and Netanyahu preaching extremst rhetoric, then we have no idea how those talks are really proceeding.

We also know Iran, on multiple occasions, attempted to negotiate cooperation with the US on many regional problems - including the removal of Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan. Once George Jr gave that wacky extremist "Axis of Evil" speech, then Iranians in power who were trying to work with the US told US negotiators, blunt and to their faces, "You blew it." The message was clear - except to many in the US who get their news from Fox.

This is the first real conversation between the US and Iran since George Jr extremists and their "Axis of Evil" tirade so poisoned those waters.

Every nation is free to impose or not impose any sanction.

That includes us.

If you got this dismissive attitude on sale Bruce, please return it.

Yes, we know about the failings of diplomacy by Bush, but we do also know what's going on in these negotiations.

The French have mentioned a few things. The Iranians won't accept inspections at three facilities, and destruction of their heavy water facility.

You are a student of the Kosovo action? Do you remember what happened to the Dutch soldiers when they secured Srebrenica, and the Serb army demanded they surrender?

The Dutch (U.N.) soldiers were ordered to surrender. Then the Serbs lead the men and boys the Dutch were protecting, out into the forest. The men and boys were all shot, there. The women were raped in the town.

The Dutch soldiers were disarmed, their pants taken away, and they became P.O.W.'s. Not a shot was fired, thanks to the liberal interpretation of "soldier" and "protect", by their commanders. They were soldiers with a liberal and non-violent mandate.

When you walk softly and carry a Teddy Bear, you don't get the same results as when you walk softly, and carry a big stick.

You can see that in the mass graves they've discovered in the forests around Srebrenica, if you need further adjustment to your prejudices. You'll find about 8,000 reasons to change your mind.

Sanctions 101...
.........USA: Hey Iran, no nukes or we won't buy your oil.
199 others: We will, we will buy oil.
.........USA: Hey guys, we have to stick together.
100 others: Oh all right... sulk sulk.
50 others: No, we won't help the USA bully poor Iran.
49 others: OK, we'll go along with an embargo.... pssst Iran, meet me in the alley.
And that concludes Sanctions 101.

I will always be dismissive of people who think they know what's going on with a talk radio education.
Half the time what they think are facts are actually opinions from a source with an agenda.
The other half the facts are right, but they don't have a clue what it means.

Of course there is a huge black market for oil from Iran. It's also true however, that the sanctions have cut off a huge amount of the financial markets, to Iran. That impinges on some segments of Iran's economy, but not all.

Yes, I listen to Roger Hedgecock's radio show. I catch it about twice a week. No, I don't always agree with him, but Hedgecock was the last successful mayor of the city that has now become "Enron by the Sea", after several liberal Mayors ran it into the ground, giving unions a sweetheart deal and a half.

We came within a knife's edge of declaring bankruptcy, and several years later, we're still in serious debt, and still behind in supplying necessary services. Water pipe replacements are still years behind, and periodically, an old one bursts, and these are water mains! Street repairs, etc. are in the same sad shape.

Don't be so presumptuous, Bruce. I took Poly Sci in college, and get most of my news (by far), from the BBC and other net sites. I have a degree, and a lot more experience than you have.

You may not like my opinions, or my posts, but it doesn't mean they're wrong.

That wasn't Kosovo. It was in Bosnia. It was Bosnian Serb (Orthodox Christians) and a few Greek volunteers vs Bosnian Muslims. As reported by Reuters, the government of Serbia was later cleared of the massacre.

In Kosovo, it was Ethnic Albanians (Muslim) primarily killing Serbs (Christians).

Adak, I don't think you want to admit to this. :rolleyes:

After all, this is a man who:

... and should have never held public office:

InMaybe you need other sources for your discussions.

.

That was completely irrelevant to my comments. Since the Srebrenica massacre was when local European powers were in charge and were screwing to it up. It took another massacre before Clinton finally had a enough and said the Europeans would now do what he said. Once Clinton took over (and the British-French fast reaction forces were deployed), then a solution was quickly negotiated.

Diplomacy was used properly to 'encourage' Milosevic to surrender. Srebrenica happens when powers that be refuse to negotiate a solution and try to solve it with military (ie pathetic safe zone) actions. Actions clearly mocked by the Serbs. Dutch soldiers were sent back without their cloths. And still the powers that be did nothing - militarily or with negotiations.

An Iranian solution is being negotiated from a position of power. What is being traded? Well, we also did not know that an end to the cold war was being negotiated until well after negotiations had been ongoing in great detail.

We know the French went public with complaints of the Iranian negotiations. But we have no idea what the French and all other negotiators were saying at the table. We don't even know if that was only a negotiating tactic by the French. Maybe even planned or encouraged by other parties. We only have speculation.

We know this is the first time Iran has negotiated in earnest with other powers. We don't even know with certainty what they are and are not willing to trade. Since we only have press rumors - not actual confirmed comment from the negotiators sharing a common microphone.

French comments made those negotiations interesting. Also curious is what Israel might be doing to subvert those negotiation.

Oh, I have them. I never heard of someone with acne being barred from holding public office, however.

Yes, he was removed from public office, but the actual "crime" was way more of a technicality. Truth is, Roger had money from school bonds and other income, ACTUALLY going to our schools and roads, and fire trucks and infrastructure, instead of going so much to the unions.

Here's an example of the problem. We have a retired head librarian. She made about $104,000 per year, tops, when she was working full time. She makes about $112,000 per year, now in retirement.

How does she make so much in retirement? Because our liberal politicians allowed all the city union workers to BUY years of service. So the librarian bought about 10 years, at a terrific discount over what she gets back, now and for the rest of her life. And her retirement amount can NOT be reduced. Courts already ruled on that.

Most county union workers (fire, police, etc.), have the same arrangement, but our county runs fine, because the county supervisors limit the amounts. The city never did, unfortunately.

In fact, our city council and Mayor told us the liability that the city faced was all manageable, year after year. We asked "How?" and got nothing but political nonsense and lies for answers. Finally, a whistle blower told us the straight facts, and it was "Oh, Shit!". The city came within an inch of going into bankruptcy (they took a vote on it).

If you want the inside look at a striking Conservative politician today, read up on Governor Walker, of Wisconsin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_W...8politician%29

Wikipedia article on him, doesn't tell the whole story, but he's turned Wisconsin business, and the state budget, from bad, to good, in just a few years.

I don't agree with everything Walker believes, but his impact on Wisconsin's economy has been stunning, in spite of the recession.

I had to laugh at Obama's speech as he gave the medal of freedom to Bill Clinton. He talked about how Clinton cut our deficit, and helped improve our economy, etc.

Of course, that was done because the Conservatives in the Congress, had their "Contract with America", and worked hard to make sure those cuts in spending, and those helps to businesses, happened. It wasn't Bill Clinton's idea. He was just smart enough to go along with it, and of course, busy with a certain stain on a blue dress. ;)

It's too bad Obama didn't learn how to get and keep an economy healthy, from watching what Clinton did, during his term. :(

Yes, when you say what you mean, and mean what you say, negotiations can move ahead - if both parties want it.
Diplomacy hell - the Serb armies surrendered when they were facing superior military strength.

Israeli Premier has been with Putin in Russia. Repeated again that he "promises the Iranians will never have nuclear weapons"., at a press conference. He made that very clear!

It's possible the next Israeli leader will feel differently, and both sides will peacefully keep their nuclear weapons (if Iran does get them). Personally, I'm not optimistic that such a "cold war" between Israel and Iran, will be able to take hold and sustain itself. Perhaps when a new Iranian Supreme leader is in place, it might work, who knows?

I'm impressed how easily the interpretations in Adak's postings can change, depending
on whether his intent is praising a "conservative-" or berating "liberal-" theme...

Isn't that just another way of saying:
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. ???

Then in his next paragraph we have the concept of an annuity being one of
those loathsome things that he ascribes to "liberal politicians" and "union workers"...

Of course, the courts have ruled on it because annuities are designed up to do exactly that.
An annuity can be for as much retirement income "fixed, or for life" as they wish and can afford.

Here is a short video on "annuities"... it's a commercial, but still fair and balanced.

I'm pretty sure even conservatives in private business also buy annuities for their retirement.

It just goes on and on and... :headshake

That's only one part of the problem. As has been posted here long ago, Turkey said they too will need nuclear weapons if Iran has them. Pakistan is rumored to have set aside some nuclear weapons for Saudi Arabia should Iran build one. Khan (of Pakistan) has successfully created a new market for Pakistani exports.

Does not help that George Jr blew a giant hole in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by offering nuclear material to India. And that Iran and N Korea both need nuclear weapons because of his 'Axis of Evil' speech that said we will unilaterally attack both nations. These nuclear proliferation problems were created, in part, by an American government that even invented Saddam's WMDs because they (ie Cheney) only saw solutions in military actions. It is a legacy we and the region must now live with. And a lesson on why problems must be solve diplomatically.

Concepts even explained in "The Art of War" were violated by Cheney who could only understand military solutions - with contempt for the American serviceman. He never understood the power or need for diplomacy (which explains his contempt for Colin Powell). Cheney routinely violated those and many other well understood concepts. And so we have these now serous nuclear problems.

Iran is now stuck in the nuclear development pipeline because we said we would unilaterally attack Iran. And inadvertently may have created or encouraged a region wide nuclear standoff. It may not only be Israel and Iran. Both Turkey and Saudi Arabia will also need those weapons. Pakistan will be happy to provide them.

Yes, Saudi's have already ordered their first nuclear package from Pakistan. I'm sure others will follow, if Iran is able to keep theirs.

Nobody in the Middle East trusts Iran not to get nuclear weapons, if it has nuclear facilities hidden in the mountains, and without any inspectors from the international community.

We had to get India into nuclear arms, because it had two threats that were very real:

1) China was ready to annex a large part of Northern India.

2) Pakistan was ready to annex all of the Kashmir region.

And both of the above already had nuclear weapons, and aggressive nationalistic policy leaders in place.

North Korea HAD already been working on a nuclear bomb, long before we knew about it, or George Bush Jr. was president. When that became known, THEN they became part of Bush's "Axis of Evil", and it is hard to say he's wrong.

OK, the "Axis" part is wrong, simply because there is no unity between these countries. No Treaties to support each other, etc., are known to exist, so there is no axis. Sorry George! ;)

When a country swears it will wipe you out, and works hard to develop nuclear weapons to make it possible, in secret, it's only logical to put them on your Evil list, isn't it?

How much more evil do they have to be?

Many problems can't be solved diplomatically. Iran for instance, won't budge "one iota" from it's position. North Korea has negotiated, but only to go right back to working on nuclear weapons, again. Still threatening to wipe out South Korea, the U.S., and our friendly nations. ("puppets" in their words).

The only reason the Cold War came to an end, is because the Soviet Union ran out of money - they were utterly broke.

There WAS no "diplomatic solution" until they couldn't feed their people, and prepare for war, anymore.

We have to include Iran in the Evil category, not because they are developing nuclear facilities, but because they sponsor (HUGELY) Hezbollah. You may recall that Hezbollah was the group that bombed the Marine barracks when they were in Lebanon, trying to keep the peace in that countries civil war.

I would call Iran many things, but a peace loving nation is not one of them. Nuclear ambitions aside, they do NOT seek peace. They sponsor terror.

Iraq didn't have WMD, when we invaded, but they had them previously - we know, because we sold them specialized equipment for creating poison gas, decades before. Saddam had the program terminated after the outcry over his gassing of the Kurds in a few villages, reached the media.

Saddam never had nuclear weapons, or facilities to create them, but he did have a LOT of mobile missile launchers, aimed at Israel. Before the advent of the better Patriot Missile defense system (and now Iron Dome, etc), those would have been devastating, if used. We had a hell of a hard time finding and destroying them, btw.

If you're hunting for outrage or sympathy for Saddam being deposed in Iraq, you won't find it here. I wouldn't have done it probably, but I don't have the benefit of intelligence briefings by the CIA, etc., either. The world is not a worse place, because Saddam and his topmost regime, are gone from Iraq.

Too much soundbyte reasoning in those statements. Even the story of Marine barracks in Lebanon changes completely once we include numerous other facts - that cannot be presented in soundbytes.

Take India. India already has plenty of nuclear weapons. They did not need that hole in the Non-Proliferation Treaty. What George Jr was doing to undermine that treaty (as he was doing to other treaties even with Russia) is confounding.

Meanwhile, we also know Clinton literally flew shuttle diplomacy between India and Pakistan to defuse what was almost a nuclear exchange. Because India had more than enough nuclear weapons before George Jr was president.

India did not need more nuclear material. But appreciate a paranoia in Pakistan. Every year, as many babies are born in India as the entire population of Pakistan. The most serious threat to nations of that region (and to the US) is Pakistan. Putting more nuclear material in that region (in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty) does not make it safer.

That is a simple example. That cannot be explained in a soundbyte. Those other points required many times more facts not possible in soundbyte conclusions.


Iran clearly has interest in negotiating a solution. Because embargos do work. Iran elected a moderate leader; not a wacko extremist like Ahmadinejad. Somehow a consortium of world top power sent naive idiots to negotiate a resolve to the Iranian crisis? That is the theme of your posts. As if American, British, UN, French, Russian, et al negotiators know less than you?

We know they are negotiating in a hotel because Iran finally has interest in settling this problem. Because sanctions have been so effective as to even get extremists removed from power.

Now let's see what people who know better finally resolve.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25074729

Iran has agreed to curb some of its nuclear activities in return for about $7bn (£4.3bn) in sanctions relief, after days of intense talks in Geneva.

US President Barack Obama welcomed the deal, saying it included "substantial limitations which will help prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon".

Iran agreed to give better access to inspectors and halt some of its work on uranium enrichment.

President Rouhani said the interim deal recognised Iran's nuclear "rights".

But he repeated, in a nationwide broadcast, that his country would never seek a nuclear weapon.

I applaud their efforts in this negotiation, but Iran has not put a REAL stop to their nuclear ambitions.

As Israeili Prime Minister Netanyahu, states here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25083875
(video link near the middle of the article)

Some sanctions that took years to put into place, and more years to become effective, will be removed, but Iran could be back enriching it's uranium in a matter of a few weeks. The plutonium is still there, the heavy water reactor is still functioning.

Not just still THERE, but still a working nuclear facility.

The world powers have told Iran it's OK to have their own nuclear enrichment site. If Iran can have one, then everyone can have one - that's clear. This is a major precedent, surely.

And what about the inspections? They can be held daily, at just two facilities - notably, NOT at the heavy water facility.

Hoping for the best here; short term, it's easy to see it as a win-win, but I'm not optimistic about the terms of this deal, being enough to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. How hard can it be to have your nuclear weapons program run from sites OTHER THAN, the two being inspected, over and over?

We can win wars frequently, but we're not nearly as good at winning negotiations.

What have we won with war lately?

Bibi will not be satisfied with anything short of war. Thankfully he isn't part of our government, although he does have his minions.

Wars are won only when we are reluctant to engage. Wars are lost by nations in a hurry to conduct one.

Israel's Likud is an example of the latter. Likud will heavily compaign for unilateral attacks (and against peace) where they are more often successful - the US Congress.

Well said.

1)
With the help of the cold war arms race, we destroyed the Soviet pact of nations aligned with Russia. Many are now independent, and democratic republics. That is to say, their lack of a vibrant economy, destroyed themselves, with few bullets having been fired.

That's the biggest step toward world freedom of nations, since the break up of the Ottoman Empire, almost a hundred years ago, so it's a VERY big deal.

2)
We stopped the German nationalists/fascists, twice. If we had not done so, we would now be either German servants/slaves, or exterminated in more efficient gas chambers/crematoriums.

This is what the Germans told the Lithuanians after they were conquered in WWII, when asked what will become of us:

"We are leaving for the Eastern Front. You will be allowed to work for us, until we get back. Eventually, you will be liquidated."

So stopping the fascists was a pretty big deal, if you aren't fond of Cyclon B gas.

3)
We replace a repressive dictator in Iraq. Bush lied to us to do it, but still, it's done, and I'm not sad about knocking off a regime that gassed it's own citizens, and started two wars (with Iran and us, in Desert Shield), and invaded two other countries: Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Whether you believe the ripple effect of this was the springboard for the "Arab Spring" or not, is up to you. Some would say it was, and I find their argument of the time line, believable.

4)
We knocked a big hole in Al-Qaeda's groups of religious fascists. It hasn't put them out of business, but they're busy dodging hellfire missiles, pretty much, to attack us very successfully.

5)
The U.N. was begun to work out issues that without diplomacy, would lead to war. Without WWI and WWII, there wouldn't be a U.N.

6)
Since the US was not attacked directly (much), during these wars, we were hugely benefited by the industrial capacity we had, to be the supplier or war material, to the Allies. This gave us a huge increase in wealth in our country.

We rose to be a superpower, in the space of a mere 50 years or less. Every American has benefited from that.

And that's just for starters.

I agree with number 2 in the second case.

It's not your opinions I question it's your facts. When they come from talk radio, they aren't facts they're someone else's opinion, and what you heard, or thought you heard, is not verifiable unless you can link to transcripts.

Then argue your case, but let's leave off the ad hominem attacks.

Wherever my assertions come from, what do you care? Your facts all came from somewhere else as well, unless you attended the Iran nuclear negotiations, personally. Well, did you? :rolleyes: No, you got your "facts" from some media outlet, same as I did. If you choose to believe the lies coming out of the White House, you go right ahead.

Take the Iran nuclear negotiations deal just reached. Iran's President is saying the 5+1 nations agreement means that the world recognizes Iran's right to enrich nuclear material. Which is stunning, because Obama says no such change in the nuclear proliferation treaty has been made, and Iran has no such right.

The ACTUAL terms of the treaty, have not been printed by any outlet I have found.

I've heard three interpretations of the inspections in the treaty:

1) We can inspect two nuclear facilities, every day, if we like, but not the Plutonium enrichment site, or any other site.

2) We can inspect the Plutonium plant, as well as two other facilities, but not the facility where nuclear weapons are believed to be researched and developed in. That site is off limits.

3) We can inspect ONLY sites ACKNOWLEDGED by the Iranian authorities. That means we'll never find a nuclear weapons site, in a million years of inspections. The Iranians will simply not acknowledge that site for inspections.

Which of the above is correct? We don't know. The treaty language could be so ambiguous that it's simply unclear - but without the actual wording, no one knows.

Obama has reached out to the Iranians, as he said he would years ago - fine. The two parts I don't like are:

1) The treaty has not been put out to the media, so we can read it.

2) Obama stiffed our allies, by dealing directly with Iran, without their knowledge, for months before this treaty meeting. The French, Saudi's, and especially Israel, were livid about this. The Saudi's and the Israeli's have now been left with a huge lack of security they must try to mitigate.

I'm expecting this treaty - or is this just an agreement - will have to reach the Congress somehow. Maybe then, we'll find out what the facts really are about this THING.

Allowing nuclear enrichment, in THE COUNTRY that is the worlds biggest supporter of terrorism - by far, (Hezbollah, Hamas, Rev. Guards in Iraq, fighting us, etc.), should be undertaken with a great deal of clarity as to the terms, and complete verification, with unannounced inspections at ANY facility the IAEA wants to inspect, on any day.

Adak, is there anything even slightly illogical between those two remarks ?
How do you know the White House is lying ?

You also say:
NPR News uses similar words, but to different meanings:
Eyder Peralta
November 24, 2013

In your opinion, what is "the White House lie" ?

Do you believe the lie about the Benghazi attack that killed our Ambassador? You know, the one that Susan Rice was instructed to tell PERSONALLY by Obama?

Ever hear of anybody going to an anti-video demonstration with c4 explosives, RPG launchers, squad level machine guns, and mortars?

Naw, me neither! :mad:

The eye-witnesses who survived the attack have been forbidden by the President, to speak of it, with anyone, or face jail time. It's been over a year now. Why do you suppose Obama ordered that?

When the President has personally worked out some "Agreement" with a former enemy, but the full content is not revealed, do you really believe he's telling us ALL the facts about the agreement?

Or do you think he's NOT telling us all the facts? Just the facts that make him look good? You know, because the Democrats have a mid-term election in 2014, and his popularity in the polls, is as low as Bush's ever was. So low, that Democrats voted to change Obamacare, in the House last month. :eek: They want to be re-elected, and Obama is becoming radioactive with the voters.

Politicians have a LONG history of outrageous lies to the public, because a lot of what they lied about, wasn't known by the public. Now, we know, if we want to.

One example:
JFK, was a horrible womanizer, who used to bring along his current girl friend, on trips around the country. He infuriated Jackie Kennedy, by including the gf in the reception line, forcing Jackie to shake hands with her. In French, Jackie protested to the French Canadian Mayor of the City they were visiting - then dutifully shook her hand.

The press knew it, the secret service knew it (arranged for it in fact), but was it ever reported in the news?

NEVER!

The Iranian president announced to a cheering crowd, that the agreement supports Iran's right to have nuclear facilities. But Obama is telling us that Iran still has no right to have nuclear facilities which could create nuclear weapons fuel. But the Plutonium facility is not closing down, and it's not being dismantled either.

Also, the terms of the inspections. Sec. of State Kerry says everything in the agreement will be "verified, verified, verified". But others are saying inspections will be very limited, and never include the suspected nuclear weapons development facility.

And both can't be right.

If Obama had nothing to hide, why wouldn't the agreement be put out in full, to the media, or at least, to Congress, and then to the media?

When politicians hold back info, it's because it's embarrassing to them, or to their party, or both. They'd rather fall back to lying.

Like Clinton saying he "didn't have sex with that woman". His defense: "It depends what you definition of is (having sex), is".

And Republicans lie just as much, unfortunately. Look at Senator Edwards - his wife is dying of cancer, and still supporting him on his Presidential nomination campaign. Only to find out he's had a mistress for years, and one or two kids with the mistress.

Mostly, politicians don't lie. They "shave" the truth, to make themselves look good, and simply leave off the bad truths, and hope you won't find it.

The famous "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" that lead to our going into the Vietnam War, never happened - total fabrication to justify fighting the communist take over of a VERY corrupt and murderous, South Vietnam gov't.

Net result: 50,000 + American soldiers killed.

That's what I believe Obama and Kerry are doing here, with the Iran negotiations. They are shaving the truth, so they don't look bad, but it won't end well. It puts all of the Sunni Muslim countries around Iran (notably Saudi Arabia, etc.), and Israel, in a security nightmare.

I have argued my case, repeatedly. I've spent hours rounding up verifiable facts, with links to the sources, crossed the T's and dotted the I's. But you know what, it's a waste of my fucking time. The Breitbart foot soldiers won't acknowledge verifiable facts, they'll just spout another outrageous "fact" fabricated from whole cloth or so twisted it's mom wouldn't know it.

This is true, but it seems that hasn't stopped a shitload of people weighing in on what they think about the agreement.

All the clowns are playing to their minions, whether it be Islamic Clerics, Likud, the tea party, or whatever. They must keep the minions entertained.

If you want to waste your time writing a reference book without much research, go right ahead. Your sources are media outlets - not real journalism research

I am writing up ideas I hear and also some personal observations and thoughts. My sources are also media outlets - some you'd like, some you wouldn't like. I'm not trying to write a historical thesis here.

If you want to believe an anti-video demonstration in Benghazi included c4 explosive, squad level machine guns, RPG launchers, and mortars, you are perfectly free to do that. Since Obama has given them a gag order under penalty of prison time, and no one can speak to them about Benghazi, just how do you think we could research the matter further?

Sensible people know better. It was a lie, straight from Obama, to Susan Rice, who promptly trotted it out to no less than four political talk shows, in a single weekend.

Looks like the kooks are gaining traction.