If that's how you feel, then show
how it was incorrect ... rather than just asserting that it was.
For starters, you can explain what we
obtained from the Iranians ...
Or point to something documenting how their nuclear program
didn't increase on Bush's watch ...
Or show some evidence that the US was
talking to them.
We aren't supposed to negotiate with terrorists which we know their leader has a hardline anti-American stance.
Terrorist:
a word that is becoming essentially meaningless due to it's overuse and misapplication ...
... one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter ...
Not sure how you didn't understand the point that Obama and his minions constantly blame the poor economy and anything bad on Bush but when it comes to this deal he gets no credit.
Well, since you quoted my
statement and then said this:
"The really odd part of the statement is that Bush is to blame for the economy and everything bad several years later but yet gets no credit for everything he did to stop Iran"
... and referenced no other
statement in your reply, I understood you to be referring to
my statement. If you were referring to another, which one was it pray tell ?
Obviously the Iranians were interested in having the sanctions eased, getting the Iranians to this point wasn't Obama's doing.
Assuming you think that sanctions are actually what brought them to the table and given the fact that Obama signed legislation that imposed even harsher sanctions, and that as the Executive, he was the one who imposed and enforced said sanctions, how can you say that it
wasn't (any of) Obama's doing ?
On June 24, 2010, the United States Senate and House of Representatives passed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA), which President Obama signed into law July 1, 2010. The CISADA greatly enhanced restrictions in Iran. Such restrictions included the rescission of the authorization for Iranian-origin imports for articles such as rugs, pistachios, and caviar. In response, President Obama issued Executive Order 13553 in September 2010 and Executive Order 13574 in May 2011, and Executive Order 13590 in November 2011.
Is your Obama Derangement Syndrome so bad that you have to deny him all responsibility for something that he may have played some part in causing ?
As to the theory that sanctions are what drove them to the table:
It was not sanctions that brought Iran to the table - FT.com
I also read another from a former State diplomat which posited a similar premise - that it wasn't sanctions so much as it was a (partial) change in leadership (the election of Rouhani)
Correct but the word of a liar, terrorist, and extremist has no value
On that basis the word of the USG has no value ...
so there is no reason to celebrate or claim Obama has done anything at all other than fall for the same type of BS promises that they broken before.
The ODS is very strong in this one I fear ...
yes, very, very strong ...
Oh and hand these extremists and terrorists several billion dollars like a complete idiot.
It's the money of the government of Iran ...
Yes ... very, very strong ...
They are the important ones.
The statement has already been walked back or conceded in a limited way ...
The fact of the matter, is that Iran does have the right to enrich (at least to enrich for peaceful purposes - which is what Iran claims to be doing) ... and it is acknowledged (by implication) in the NPT ... if you doubt that fact, read the relevant language in the NPT.
BTW, I've heard it asserted (but haven't verified it myself) that the USG has actually argued the right to enrich both ways (does have/does not have) ...
depending on the country involved ...
#forgettheruleoflaw #wejustmakeitupaswegoalong
