Obama administration to defend Iran nuclear deal in Senate

[webfact]

Obama administration to defend Iran nuclear deal in Senate
DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A trio of Obama administration officials will stand stalwart behind the Iranian nuclear deal despite deep concern on Capitol Hill that Iran will try to evade nuclear inspectors and use billions from sanctions relief to further destabilize the Middle East.

Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday are to pose tough questions to Secretary of State John Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew about the deal that Congress is expected to vote on in September. The three were on Capitol Hill Wednesday for back-to-back classified briefings in the House and the Senate.

A debate is under way between supporters and the opposition, which includes many Jewish groups that point to Iran's pledge to destroy Israel. Vote counters are eyeing Democrats, especially those who represent large Jewish constituencies and likely will be lobbied hard to oppose the deal at home during the August recess.

Most Democrats — except Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois who announced his support earlier in the week — came out of the classified briefings saying they were still deciding whether to support the agreement, which Congress has 60 days to review.

"I think the deal is a dramatic improvement over the status quo from day 1 through probably year 10 to 15. Thereafter my questions are about our ability to detect cheating after some of the provisions start to expire," said Virginian Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, who sits on the committee.

"I'd be shocked if there's more than a handful of Republican 'yes' votes if there are any at all," said Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy. "But I've talked to most all my colleagues on the Democratic side. ... I think the administration is one-by-one picking off some of the most important lingering questions from Democrats."

Murphy, another member of the committee, said he still has questions about whether the inspection protocol will be as rigorous as the administration claims, but that if it is, he'll support the deal.

Most Republicans exited the meetings still opposed.

Republican Rep. Tom Cotton said: "Iran is a terror-sponsoring anti-American regime. ... This deal is going to give tens of billions of dollars — at a minimum — without doing anything to rein in their support for terror or their support for America's enemies."

Cotton and Republican Rep. Mike Pompeo wrote a letter to Obama on Wednesday, complaining that the agreement includes two "side deals" the International Atomic Energy Agency was negotiating separately with Iran — issues that the Congress has not been privy to.

State Department spokesman John Kirby said there were no "side" or "secret" agreements between Iran and the IAEA that the United States and the five other world powers have not been briefed on in detail. "These kinds of technical arrangements with the IAEA are as a matter of standard practice not released publicly."

The deal does not need congressional approval to take effect, but Republicans are expected to try and sink it with legislation that would block Obama from lifting sanctions imposed by Congress. The president has vowed to veto any such bill, and it would take a two-thirds majority in each house of the Republican-controlled Congress to override him.
_____

Associated Press writers Laurie Kellman, Joan Lowy and Donna Cassata contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-07-23

[TVGerry]

"Whether the deal is approved or disapproved, we will never stop supporting our friends in the region and the people of Palestine, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and Lebanon," he said.

"Even after this deal our policy towards the arrogant US will not change." - Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

Yes you just know these people are going to honor the deal.

Well done Obama!

[arjunadawn]

This deal is treason, plain and simple (I dont care how many other dog pecker gnats sat in on conference). Just as US representatives were unable to possess and debate a document regarding free trade likewise this Iran debacle has a few side deals regarding Iranian military nuke sites, which are contained separately and will not be made available for advise and consent. This information has come from our international partners. Thus, whatever is contained in the language can by definition be partial, and thus only faulty conclusions can be reached by the US senate. Equally as telling is the race of the US to the UN to obtain some consent of that body to provoke or manipulate the US senate upcoming deliberations. De facto information regarding an issue directly impacts on the legitimacy of the process- this is why election night coverage of exit polls are skewed in accordance with east coast west coast time- the commentary here adversely effects there. This was the aim of Obama with regard to short circuiting the US Senate with a UN action immediately, rather than at or after the 60 day mark for deliberation provided the US Senate. Obama sought to alienate and neuter senate opposition. The problem is the UN is a supranational body with no jurisdiction nor indeed, direct representation of Americans- illegal unless otherwise ratified by treaty. This is not that case.

So, besides the obvious, palpable betrayals openly contained in the Obama capitulation to avowed enemies, islamic shia Iran (one more islamic body with the US as the avowed enemy), the process itself does not remotely pass a sniff test for legitimacy. It is crafted in secret, manipulated by and through multiple political bodies to sway and provoke each other, in ways to achieve a very opaque outcome- no one has any idea what is actually going on in this text with regard to the primary and two secondary secret agreements.

In protective intelligence it is a widely known cornerstone that the enemy gets to choose the time and place of attack. There is very little the protectee gets to choose (routes/times). When protecting someone it is necessary to get it right every single time. It only requires an attacker to be right one single time. With the growing network of avowed islamic enemies of the US not only growing in numbers but also growing in orders of magnitude of their threat ability, it increasingly becomes unlikely that the US will be able to protect the protectee- America.

If the US was yesterday threatened by 1,000 islamic jihadis with knives and tomorrow it will be 10,000 with knives, they still have knives. If the US is threatened by 200 islamic jihad groups/states with guns and explosives today and tomorrow it is 201 islamic jihad groups/states with guns explosives, plus hundreds of billions of more dollars (between DAESH and Iran combined), a secure track to nuclear break out, etc... it decreases any reasonable ability of America to protect and defend Americans... always! (Note: During era of Iranian sanctions al Quds suffered least. Does any reasonable mind therefore conclude that fresh billions will be invested into Iranian social/public infrastructure directly? Nonsense).

The sad fact is it is correct that under Obama massive wealth has been transferred into the islamic jihad world- not roads, bridges, food, water, sanitation, industry, infrastructure, but weapons, munitions, explosives, ordinance, chemicals, surface to air missiles, vehicles, uniforms, meals, land, cover for status, cover for action, political interference, and moral legitimacy. One may not like what is implied above but realize, I imply nothing. A man or state should be judged by actions alone. From the first actions of this president at a Cairo speech through a never ending roller-coaster ride of islam and race, this president has pivoted his entire administration around the false narrative of both Islam as a Religion of Peace and simultaneously taking non stop actions to channel and transfer vast sums of wealth not into islamic peoples but into islamic jihad directly. This is manifest most obviously by the Muslim Brotherhood, DAESH, al Quds/Iran, ad naseum. Obama has done more to further islamic jihad/terrorism than any other since the islamic prophet and the Four Noble Caliphs. It is a historical fact.

[Jingthing]

I wouldn't call it treason.

I would call it optimistic. Some might call it recklessly optimistic.

It's a gamble that the nature of the Iranian leadership will change significantly in about ten years.

It's not a good bet but it's theoretically possible.

To be fair, the status quo isn't a good bet either.

[arjunadawn]

I wouldn't call it treason.

I would call it optimistic. Some might call it recklessly optimistic.

It's a gamble that the nature of the Iranian leadership will change significantly in about ten years.

It's not a good bet but it's theoretically possible.

To be fair, the status quo isn't a good bet either.

Fair enough. However, as 500 Americans (at least) were killed by Iranian Quds forces and proxies a better word than optimism would have to be found for me to use. It actually makes little difference that the US should or not have been in Iraq; it is utterly certain Iran should not have been killing Americans. So, there is a long, unbroken line of Iranian aggression against US forces/Americans and an unbroken affirmation to war upon and destroy America.

I could use recklessly optimistic but for other reasons that place this deal in context I see no reason to believe, after 7 years, this deal will be the first islamic interaction (under this admin) that benefited the US long term. This deal is a tightly wrapped, tightly controlled, perception deal. It is designed not to succeed but to postpone, and to be wrapped tightly until it does. Indeed, no thing that aspires to failure can succeed. Failure now or ten years is still failure.

Yes, it is theoretically possible. Yes, the status quo sucks too. I know.

Because I deeply hold the strategic aim for this region is not sitting on the table for all to consider the context in which this deal takes place is vague to most. The US is definitely trying to push a bipolar middle east. The faulty premise is that it will exist in relation to its own status quo; nonsense. This deal has changed everything and will begin an arms race.

[samthefish]

I wouldn't call it treason.

I would call it optimistic. Some might call it recklessly optimistic.

It's a gamble that the nature of the Iranian leadership will change significantly in about ten years.

It's not a good bet but it's theoretically possible.

To be fair, the status quo isn't a good bet either.

Fair enough. However, as 500 Americans (at least) were killed by Iranian Quds forces and proxies a better word than optimism would have to be found for me to use. It actually makes little difference that the US should or not have been in Iraq; it is utterly certain Iran should not have been killing Americans. So, there is a long, unbroken line of Iranian aggression against US forces/Americans and an unbroken affirmation to war upon and destroy America.

I could use recklessly optimistic but for other reasons that place this deal in context I see no reason to believe, after 7 years, this deal will be the first islamic interaction (under this admin) that benefited the US long term. This deal is a tightly wrapped, tightly controlled, perception deal. It is designed not to succeed but to postpone, and to be wrapped tightly until it does. Indeed, no thing that aspires to failure can succeed. Failure now or ten years is still failure.

Yes, it is theoretically possible. Yes, the status quo sucks too. I know.

Because I deeply hold the strategic aim for this region is not sitting on the table for all to consider the context in which this deal takes place is vague to most. The US is definitely trying to push a bipolar middle east. The faulty premise is that it will exist in relation to its own status quo; nonsense. This deal has changed everything and will begin an arms race.

Iranians killing 500 Americans. If I remember correctly Americans kill almost as much Iranians with one missile?! Who overturned Iran's DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader. Who started Iran's nuclear program? Stop bitching,it is all your own doing! Jews will be ok, they are the Chosen People. Trust your god

[Jingthing]

Iranians killing 500 Americans. If I remember correctly Americans kill almost as much Iranians with one missile?! Who overturned Iran's DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader. Who started Iran's nuclear program? Stop bitching,it is all your own doing! Jews will be ok, they are the Chosen People. Trust your god

Will secular and atheist Jews be OK, then?

Dude, being the "chosen people" whatever you think that means which I reckon is pretty twisted, has not been much of a help.

"The Jewish imagination is paranoia confirmed by history." (Simon Schama, BBC)

When people say they want to kill us, we've learned, THEY MEAN IT.

[BKKBobby]

I wouldn't call it treason.

I would call it optimistic. Some might call it recklessly optimistic.

It's a gamble that the nature of the Iranian leadership will change significantly in about ten years.

It's not a good bet but it's theoretically possible.

To be fair, the status quo isn't a good bet either.

Fair enough. However, as 500 Americans (at least) were killed by Iranian Quds forces and proxies a better word than optimism would have to be found for me to use. It actually makes little difference that the US should or not have been in Iraq; it is utterly certain Iran should not have been killing Americans. So, there is a long, unbroken line of Iranian aggression against US forces/Americans and an unbroken affirmation to war upon and destroy America.

I could use recklessly optimistic but for other reasons that place this deal in context I see no reason to believe, after 7 years, this deal will be the first islamic interaction (under this admin) that benefited the US long term. This deal is a tightly wrapped, tightly controlled, perception deal. It is designed not to succeed but to postpone, and to be wrapped tightly until it does. Indeed, no thing that aspires to failure can succeed. Failure now or ten years is still failure.

Yes, it is theoretically possible. Yes, the status quo sucks too. I know.

Because I deeply hold the strategic aim for this region is not sitting on the table for all to consider the context in which this deal takes place is vague to most. The US is definitely trying to push a bipolar middle east. The faulty premise is that it will exist in relation to its own status quo; nonsense. This deal has changed everything and will begin an arms race.

Iranians killing 500 Americans. If I remember correctly Americans kill almost as much Iranians with one missile?! Who overturned Iran's DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader. Who started Iran's nuclear program? Stop bitching,it is all your own doing! Jews will be ok, they are the Chosen People. Trust your god

You are refering to the commercial airliner shot down in the gulf I guess.

That was only a mistake, the crappy radar mistook it for a fighter jet. I dont know why the commander in charge got a medal for it...

Edited July 23, 2015 by BKKBobby

[Kannikapor88]

Mr. B. Hussein Obama will go down in history as the US Pres. that cleared the way for Nuclear Weapons to #1 Terrorist Sponsor Iran ... Well done Mr. Obama - say hello in Kenya from me ...

[ToddinChonburi]

Now what I read was the inspectors have to give a 14 day warning on were they want to inspect. This should be fun to watch. Was it 5 or 6 countries that are on board with this. Now that makes me go mmmmmmmm . I smell fish rotting.

[Jingthing]

Now what I read was the inspectors have to give a 14 day warning on were they want to inspect. This should be fun to watch. Was it 5 or 6 countries that are on board with this. Now that makes me go mmmmmmmm . I smell fish rotting.

They can still say no even with the delay.

[chuckd]

Some side deals were struck that even Kerry doesn't seem t know about...or at least doesn't want to talk about.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Lawmaker: Kerry doesn't know what's in the Iran side deal

By CHARLES HOSKINSON • 7/22/15 8:15 PM

After classified briefings Wednesday with Secretary of State John Kerry and other administration officials, lawmakers say they aren't satisfied with the explanation of side deals on Iran's nuclear program that weren't sent to Congress, and still want to see the original documents.

Rep. Mike Pompeo said Kerry told lawmakers that he has not read the side deals, never possessed a copy of them, and approved the nuclear agreement without knowing their details.

"These side deals were essential to getting a deal signed in the first place. Iran believed these side deals to be important to an overall agreement, and so should the United States. It is essential for Secretary Kerry to know what's in the deal, and it is essential for the U.S. Congress to know what's in this deal," the Kansas Republican said.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/lawmaker-kerry-doesnt-know-whats-in-the-iran-side-deal/article/2568797

[Ulysses G.]

I wouldn't call it treason.

I would. Treason or utter stupidity. Either one fits.

[chuckd]

Now what I read was the inspectors have to give a 14 day warning on were they want to inspect. This should be fun to watch. Was it 5 or 6 countries that are on board with this. Now that makes me go mmmmmmmm . I smell fish rotting.

This entire agreement is rotten from the core.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama's dishonesty on Iran

By WASHINGTON EXAMINER • 7/23/15 12:01 AM

Under the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran, that nation's theocratic regime receives relief from economic and arms sanctions in exchange for curtailment of its nuclear program. But there's a catch — when inspectors seek to verify Iran's compliance, the Iranians can delay the inspection of any site for at least 24 days.

But before the deal was struck, the Obama administration had promised much more — "anytime, anywhere" inspections, on demand. When asked about this on Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry displayed symptoms of amnesia.

Read the article to find out the truth about "anytime, anywhere": http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2568779

[Mudcrab]

OMG the US of Americans.... find a conspiracy theory everywhere!!!

[thaibeachlovers]

Trying to defend the undefendable. This farce is just trying to give Obama something to claim as his legacy. Probably would have agreed to anything.

[Jingthing]

I wouldn't call it treason.

I would. Treason or utter stupidity. Either one fits.

Then stupidity it is because I think its outrageous to question Obama's patriotism.

[Mudcrab]

Good Lord.....can't you people see this as the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation.

if the USA can bring Iran on side in the ISIS war (and it is a war) then there is a fair chance of containing ISIS.

Without Iran onside there is little chance...as Turkey has just seen and Europe and mainland USA will find out...to their cost.

It's called international politics people........would the broader USA sacrifice Israel to make the USA safe...well I'll leave that to your own conclusions.

[Ulysses G.]

Probably would have agreed to anything.

He pretty much did.

[chuckd]

Good Lord.....can't you people see this as the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation.

if the USA can bring Iran on side in the ISIS war (and it is a war) then there is a fair chance of containing ISIS.

Without Iran onside there is little chance...as Turkey has just seen and Europe and mainland USA will find out...to their cost.

It's called international politics people........would the broader USA sacrifice Israel to make the USA safe...well I'll leave that to your own conclusions.

ISIS is Sunni.

Iran is Shiite.

They have been at war for 1500 years without the help of a nuclear agreement from Obama and Kerry.

That's called international reality.

Edit in before the pedantic members get their hands on the post.

The "they" referenced above relates to Shiites and Sunnis, not ISIS and Iran.

Edited July 23, 2015 by chuckd

[thaibeachlovers]

Good Lord.....can't you people see this as the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation.

if the USA can bring Iran on side in the ISIS war (and it is a war) then there is a fair chance of containing ISIS.

Without Iran onside there is little chance...as Turkey has just seen and Europe and mainland USA will find out...to their cost.

It's called international politics people........would the broader USA sacrifice Israel to make the USA safe...well I'll leave that to your own conclusions.

Iran will fight IS with or without the US.

[willyumiii]

I can not believe the nerve of this President!

He is assuming that peace is a good thing!

What does he think this 1968???

Real Americans want war!

There is no corporate profit to be made from peace!

What the heck is this African, Muslim without a birth certificate thinking?

I think impeachment is in order here!

Cheney for President in 2016..a real leader!

(sarc)

[arjunadawn]

I wouldn't call it treason.

I would call it optimistic. Some might call it recklessly optimistic.

It's a gamble that the nature of the Iranian leadership will change significantly in about ten years.

It's not a good bet but it's theoretically possible.

To be fair, the status quo isn't a good bet either.

Fair enough. However, as 500 Americans (at least) were killed by Iranian Quds forces and proxies a better word than optimism would have to be found for me to use. It actually makes little difference that the US should or not have been in Iraq; it is utterly certain Iran should not have been killing Americans. So, there is a long, unbroken line of Iranian aggression against US forces/Americans and an unbroken affirmation to war upon and destroy America.

I could use recklessly optimistic but for other reasons that place this deal in context I see no reason to believe, after 7 years, this deal will be the first islamic interaction (under this admin) that benefited the US long term. This deal is a tightly wrapped, tightly controlled, perception deal. It is designed not to succeed but to postpone, and to be wrapped tightly until it does. Indeed, no thing that aspires to failure can succeed. Failure now or ten years is still failure.

Yes, it is theoretically possible. Yes, the status quo sucks too. I know.

Because I deeply hold the strategic aim for this region is not sitting on the table for all to consider the context in which this deal takes place is vague to most. The US is definitely trying to push a bipolar middle east. The faulty premise is that it will exist in relation to its own status quo; nonsense. This deal has changed everything and will begin an arms race.

Iranians killing 500 Americans. If I remember correctly Americans kill almost as much Iranians with one missile?! Who overturned Iran's DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader. Who started Iran's nuclear program? Stop bitching,it is all your own doing! Jews will be ok, they are the Chosen People. Trust your god

You are refering to the commercial airliner shot down in the gulf I guess.

That was only a mistake, the crappy radar mistook it for a fighter jet. I dont know why the commander in charge got a medal for it...

It does not matter if it is a mistake or not. In fact, for my purposes, lets assume everything said about overturning governments and missiles is correct. No one suggested otherwise. The point is in the absurdity of thinking such a deal is meaningful. Indeed, by the above protest my point is strengthened, not defeated. Regardless of real or perceived wrongs in the past there is simply no common ground upon which to base the assumption Iran gives a rat's ass about being accepted into America's vision of a state actor. These deal is one more pretense upon which to redistribute power and wealth. It is not difficult to see things from the Iranian perspective- just listen to what they say. The ridiculous notion that Iran speaks to domestic and international audiences is nonsense. Iran speaks the same to both audiences and the US is its enemy. This agreement, whatever it is called, fits well within the worn and tried framework of islamic expediency of entering into treaties, etc., insofar as doing so furthers Islam, re-consolidates forces, and is overall aimed at increasing the capacity for jihad. To suggest these are not the foundation of all Iranian actions is sheer madness; of course it is.

[Ulysses G.]

What the heck is this African, Muslim without a birth certificate thinking?

I think impeachment is in order here!

At least Cheney would not have given away the farm with such an idiotic "deal". Kerry and fearless leader gave up everything including the 'kitchen sink' and got little in return. Iran and other radical Islamists are celebrating like it is 1999. That does not mean anything good.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[BKKBobby]

I wouldn't call it treason.
I would call it optimistic. Some might call it recklessly optimistic.
It's a gamble that the nature of the Iranian leadership will change significantly in about ten years.
It's not a good bet but it's theoretically possible.
To be fair, the status quo isn't a good bet either.

Fair enough. However, as 500 Americans (at least) were killed by Iranian Quds forces and proxies a better word than optimism would have to be found for me to use. It actually makes little difference that the US should or not have been in Iraq; it is utterly certain Iran should not have been killing Americans. So, there is a long, unbroken line of Iranian aggression against US forces/Americans and an unbroken affirmation to war upon and destroy America.

I could use recklessly optimistic but for other reasons that place this deal in context I see no reason to believe, after 7 years, this deal will be the first islamic interaction (under this admin) that benefited the US long term. This deal is a tightly wrapped, tightly controlled, perception deal. It is designed not to succeed but to postpone, and to be wrapped tightly until it does. Indeed, no thing that aspires to failure can succeed. Failure now or ten years is still failure.

Yes, it is theoretically possible. Yes, the status quo sucks too. I know.

Because I deeply hold the strategic aim for this region is not sitting on the table for all to consider the context in which this deal takes place is vague to most. The US is definitely trying to push a bipolar middle east. The faulty premise is that it will exist in relation to its own status quo; nonsense. This deal has changed everything and will begin an arms race.

Iranians killing 500 Americans. If I remember correctly Americans kill almost as much Iranians with one missile?! Who overturned Iran's DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader. Who started Iran's nuclear program? Stop bitching,it is all your own doing! Jews will be ok, they are the Chosen People. Trust your god

You are refering to the commercial airliner shot down in the gulf I guess.

That was only a mistake, the crappy radar mistook it for a fighter jet. I dont know why the commander in charge got a medal for it...

It does not matter if it is a mistake or not. In fact, for my purposes, lets assume everything said about overturning governments and missiles is correct. No one suggested otherwise. The point is in the absurdity of thinking such a deal is meaningful. Indeed, by the above protest my point is strengthened, not defeated. Regardless of real or perceived wrongs in the past there is simply no common ground upon which to base the assumption Iran gives a rat's ass about being accepted into America's vision of a state actor. These deal is one more pretense upon which to redistribute power and wealth. It is not difficult to see things from the Iranian perspective- just listen to what they say. The ridiculous notion that Iran speaks to domestic and international audiences is nonsense. Iran speaks the same to both audiences and the US is its enemy. This agreement, whatever it is called, fits well within the worn and tried framework of islamic expediency of entering into treaties, etc., insofar as doing so furthers Islam, re-consolidates forces, and is overall aimed at increasing the capacity for jihad. To suggest these are not the foundation of all Iranian actions is sheer madness; of course it is.

I dont believe that the Islamic Republic is on a jihad mission. I think they want to stay in power and I firmly believe that they are rational, and far from mad. I know we disagree.

And dont get me wrong, Im against dictatorships and also against forcing religion on people.

[JDGRUEN]

I wouldn't call it treason.

I would. Treason or utter stupidity. Either one fits.

Then stupidity it is because I think its outrageous to question Obama's patriotism.

The combination of Obama and Patriotism is an Oxymoron ...

[JDGRUEN]

I can not believe the nerve of this President!

He is assuming that peace is a good thing!

What does he think this 1968???

Real Americans want war!

There is no corporate profit to be made from peace!

What the heck is this African, Muslim without a birth certificate thinking?

I think impeachment is in order here!

Cheney for President in 2016..a real leader!

(sarc)

It is absurd to believe this Iran deal has anything to do with creating or maintaining PEACE ... a totally ridiculous notion to even state the word PEACE in conjunction with the GIVE AWAY to Iran ...

[Publicus]

I wouldn't call it treason.

I would. Treason or utter stupidity. Either one fits.

Then stupidity it is because I think its outrageous to question Obama's patriotism.

The combination of Obama and Patriotism is an Oxymoron ...

Trying to challenge the president's patriotism and loyalty to the Constitution is rightwing political spam.

[FangFerang]

This deal is treason, plain and simple (I dont care how many other dog pecker gnats sat in on conference). Just as US representatives were unable to possess and debate a document regarding free trade likewise this Iran debacle has a few side deals regarding Iranian military nuke sites, which are contained separately and will not be made available for advise and consent. This information has come from our international partners. Thus, whatever is contained in the language can by definition be partial, and thus only faulty conclusions can be reached by the US senate. Equally as telling is the race of the US to the UN to obtain some consent of that body to provoke or manipulate the US senate upcoming deliberations. De facto information regarding an issue directly impacts on the legitimacy of the process- this is why election night coverage of exit polls are skewed in accordance with east coast west coast time- the commentary here adversely effects there. This was the aim of Obama with regard to short circuiting the US Senate with a UN action immediately, rather than at or after the 60 day mark for deliberation provided the US Senate. Obama sought to alienate and neuter senate opposition. The problem is the UN is a supranational body with no jurisdiction nor indeed, direct representation of Americans- illegal unless otherwise ratified by treaty. This is not that case.

So, besides the obvious, palpable betrayals openly contained in the Obama capitulation to avowed enemies, islamic shia Iran (one more islamic body with the US as the avowed enemy), the process itself does not remotely pass a sniff test for legitimacy. It is crafted in secret, manipulated by and through multiple political bodies to sway and provoke each other, in ways to achieve a very opaque outcome- no one has any idea what is actually going on in this text with regard to the primary and two secondary secret agreements.

In protective intelligence it is a widely known cornerstone that the enemy gets to choose the time and place of attack. There is very little the protectee gets to choose (routes/times). When protecting someone it is necessary to get it right every single time. It only requires an attacker to be right one single time. With the growing network of avowed islamic enemies of the US not only growing in numbers but also growing in orders of magnitude of their threat ability, it increasingly becomes unlikely that the US will be able to protect the protectee- America.

If the US was yesterday threatened by 1,000 islamic jihadis with knives and tomorrow it will be 10,000 with knives, they still have knives. If the US is threatened by 200 islamic jihad groups/states with guns and explosives today and tomorrow it is 201 islamic jihad groups/states with guns explosives, plus hundreds of billions of more dollars (between DAESH and Iran combined), a secure track to nuclear break out, etc... it decreases any reasonable ability of America to protect and defend Americans... always! (Note: During era of Iranian sanctions al Quds suffered least. Does any reasonable mind therefore conclude that fresh billions will be invested into Iranian social/public infrastructure directly? Nonsense).

The sad fact is it is correct that under Obama massive wealth has been transferred into the islamic jihad world- not roads, bridges, food, water, sanitation, industry, infrastructure, but weapons, munitions, explosives, ordinance, chemicals, surface to air missiles, vehicles, uniforms, meals, land, cover for status, cover for action, political interference, and moral legitimacy. One may not like what is implied above but realize, I imply nothing. A man or state should be judged by actions alone. From the first actions of this president at a Cairo speech through a never ending roller-coaster ride of islam and race, this president has pivoted his entire administration around the false narrative of both Islam as a Religion of Peace and simultaneously taking non stop actions to channel and transfer vast sums of wealth not into islamic peoples but into islamic jihad directly. This is manifest most obviously by the Muslim Brotherhood, DAESH, al Quds/Iran, ad naseum. Obama has done more to further islamic jihad/terrorism than any other since the islamic prophet and the Four Noble Caliphs. It is a historical fact.

"This deal is treason" -- your definition of treason is neither grammatically nor semantically correct. Fox news and rush Windbag are not teachers, nor even news. Ypou should read a book, instead of having the far right propaganda machine feed you your daily dumbing down porridge.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed. Get back on the topic, which is about the Iran nuclear agreement.