Terrible. Thought so at the time. Even though he was the worst most destructive president in my lifetime.....thought this was horrible as well.how did you feel when this came out?Be honest.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0853096/
SEE RANK
Death of a President (2006)
R | 97 min | Crime, Drama, Mystery | 21 December 2006 (South Korea)
6.4Your rating:-/10
Ratings: 6.4/10 from 6,418 users Metascore: 49/100
Reviews: 121 user | 122 critic | 30 from Metacritic.com
Years after the assassination of President George W. Bush in Chicago, an investigative documentary examines that as-yet-unsolved crime.
Director:
Gabriel Range
Writers:
Gabriel Range, Simon Finch
Stars:
Hend Ayoub, Becky Ann Baker, George W. Bush |See full cast and crew »
Guesser how do you feel about this:
Russian Arms Sales to Iran Degrade U.S. Ability to Strike Nuke Sites
Lawmakers say sale of S-300 is move to stop U.S. strike on Iran
EMAIL
BY: Adam Kredo
April 14, 2015 11:00 am
A bipartisan team of lawmakers is warning that Russia’s decision to arm Iran with advanced missile systems will erode America’s ability to launch a military strike against the Islamic Republic’s contested nuclear sites, according to a letter sent Monday to the Obama administration.
Russia announced Monday that it will reverse a years-long ban on arming Iran with the advanced S-300 air defense missile system. The move was condemned by the Obama administration, which had viewed the ban as a sign of its successful attempts to rein in Russian proliferation.
Iran says the S-300 system could arrive as soon as later this year.
Leading lawmakers are now warning that the S-300 system would significantly boost Tehran’s defense capabilities and help it protect its sensitive nuclear sites from any potential military strike by the United States.
“Maintaining a credible military threat is a necessary component to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability,” Reps. Peter Roskam (R., Ill.) and Ted Deutch (D., Fla.) wrote on Tuesday to Secretary of State John Kerry, according to a copy of the letter obtained by theWashington Free Beacon.
“Allowing the Iranian regime to acquire this advanced system could significantly impact our ability to take military action against Iran, should this become necessary,” the lawmakers said.
Roskam and Deutch maintained that Russia’s sale of the S-300 system to Iran “will significantly enhance Tehran’s military capabilities and threaten to further destabilize the region,” which is already roiled in conflict.
The sale complicates efforts to strike a nuclear agreement with Iran. Russia has been a key U.S. ally in pushing for Tehran to roll back its program.
“This news is particularly concerning in light of ongoing nuclear negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran and casts further doubts on Russia’s role as a constructive partner in this process,” the lawmakers wrote.
Roskam and Deutch have repeatedly expressed concerns about the sale and have petitioned the Obama administration to take action since 2013.
Secretary of State John Kerry phoned his Russian counterpart after the announcement Monday to express his concerns over the matter.
Both the White House and the State Department outlined their concerns during briefings with reporters.
A senior congressional aide familiar with the issue said the S-300 system is an advanced piece of hardware that would boost Tehran’s defense.
“This is not just about preventing any arms to Iran,” the aide said. “This is about stopping the flow of anti-aircraft missiles that would potentially enable Tehran to fend off an attack on its illicit nuclear and military facilities.”
“For years, this administration has said that all options remain on the table when it comes to stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability,” the source said. “Failing to stop a transfer of S-300s from Russia to Iran may not only make a military strike less viable, but take this option off the table altogether.”
In 2010, the Obama administration described the sale of S-300s to Iran as a so-called red line but has declined to explain its stance in light of Monday’s announcement.
Russian Arms Sales to Iran Degrade U.S. Ability to Strike Nuke Sites
Lawmakers say sale of S-300 is move to stop U.S. strike on Iran
Hassan Rouhani, Vladimir Putin / AP
BY: Adam Kredo
April 14, 2015 11:00 am
A bipartisan team of lawmakers is warning that Russia’s decision to arm Iran with advanced missile systems will erode America’s ability to launch a military strike against the Islamic Republic’s contested nuclear sites, according to a letter sent Monday to the Obama administration.
Russia announced Monday that it will reverse a years-long ban on arming Iran with the advanced S-300 air defense missile system. The move was condemned by the Obama administration, which had viewed the ban as a sign of its successful attempts to rein in Russian proliferation.
Iran says the S-300 system could arrive as soon as later this year.
Leading lawmakers are now warning that the S-300 system would significantly boost Tehran’s defense capabilities and help it protect its sensitive nuclear sites from any potential military strike by the United States.
“Maintaining a credible military threat is a necessary component to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability,” Reps. Peter Roskam (R., Ill.) and Ted Deutch (D., Fla.) wrote on Tuesday to Secretary of State John Kerry, according to a copy of the letter obtained by theWashington Free Beacon.
“Allowing the Iranian regime to acquire this advanced system could significantly impact our ability to take military action against Iran, should this become necessary,” the lawmakers said.
Roskam and Deutch maintained that Russia’s sale of the S-300 system to Iran “will significantly enhance Tehran’s military capabilities and threaten to further destabilize the region,” which is already roiled in conflict.
The sale complicates efforts to strike a nuclear agreement with Iran. Russia has been a key U.S. ally in pushing for Tehran to roll back its program.
“This news is particularly concerning in light of ongoing nuclear negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran and casts further doubts on Russia’s role as a constructive partner in this process,” the lawmakers wrote.
Roskam and Deutch have repeatedly expressed concerns about the sale and have petitioned the Obama administration to take action since 2013.
Secretary of State John Kerry phoned his Russian counterpart after the announcement Monday to express his concerns over the matter.
Both the White House and the State Department outlined their concerns during briefings with reporters.
A senior congressional aide familiar with the issue said the S-300 system is an advanced piece of hardware that would boost Tehran’s defense.
“This is not just about preventing any arms to Iran,” the aide said. “This is about stopping the flow of anti-aircraft missiles that would potentially enable Tehran to fend off an attack on its illicit nuclear and military facilities.”
“For years, this administration has said that all options remain on the table when it comes to stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability,” the source said. “Failing to stop a transfer of S-300s from Russia to Iran may not only make a military strike less viable, but take this option off the table altogether.”
In 2010, the Obama administration described the sale of S-300s to Iran as a so-called red line but has declined to explain its stance in light of Monday’s announcement.
[h=2]Russian Missile Sales to Iran Cross White House ‘Red Line’[/h]White House narrative on cooperation with Russia collapses
EMAIL
BY: Adam Kredo
April 14, 2015 5:00 am
Russia’s announcement on Monday that it will proceed with the sale of advanced missile systems to Iran crosses a so-called “red line” established by the Obama administration in 2010, according to comments by senior administration officials.
Following years of dissent from the United States, Russia announced on Monday that it would proceed with the sale of the advanced S-300 air defense missile system to Iran, which has been vying to purchase the hardware for years.
The announcement sparked criticism from the Obama administration, which has been pressuring Iran since at least 2010 to withhold the sale.
Russia’s previous ban on selling Tehran the powerful defense system was hailed as a coup by the Obama administration and promoted by it as an example of President Obama’s ability to rein in Russian intransigence on the military front.
However, Monday’s announcement by Russia threatens to complicate an already fractured relationship with Moscow and throw into further jeopardy the ongoing negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear program.
Experts have warned that the reversal threatens to split the international coalition currently working to halt Iran’s nuclear program—a narrative that the White House is working to downplay
The Russian executive order effectively “lifts the ban on transit of the S-300 air defense missile systems via Russian Federation territory (including by air), export from the Russian Federation to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and transfer of the S-300 to the Islamic Republic of Iran outside the Russian Federation’s territory, using ships or aircraft flying the Russian Federation flag,” according to an announcement by Moscow.
Russia’s decision to arm Tehran with the S-300 system erodes a long-promoted narrative by the Obama administration about its success in preventing Russian proliferation.
One senior Obama administration official speaking in 2010 described the S-300 sale as a “red line” for the United States that “couldn’t be crossed,” according to Foreign Policy.
“They’ve made that very clear to us for the last two years that this is not a symmetrical transaction for them and they don’t share the same threat assessment as us vis-a-vis Iran,” the official was quoted as telling Foreign Policy in a 2010 article focused on “how the Obama team convinced Russia not to sell arms to Iran.”
The White House claimed that Moscow’s decision to ban arms sales to Tehran would usher in a new era of cooperation between the United States and Russia.
“The decision was a bold one that acknowledges how important it is to us and how important [Former Russian President] Medvedev takes this reset with President Obama,” the administration official said.
Obama administration officials also told Foreign Policy that it had “made clear to Medvedev and other Russian officials that the sale of the S-300 to Iran was a red line that couldn’t be crossed.”
Monday’s announcement by Russia flies in the face of this purported diplomatic success and left the Obama administration scrambling to respond. Officials in both the White House and State Department declined to discuss with the Washington Free Beacon its previous declaration about Russia’s deal with Iran violating a so-called red line.
“We’ve seen those reports, as they relate to the possible sale of the S-300 anti-ballistic missile system to Iran,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Monday.
The United States, he added, “has previously made known our objections to that sale” and did so again on Monday in private phone calls with the Kremlin.
The sale of the S-300 system to Iran could violate international economic sanctions still in place, Earnest said.
State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said that while the sale of the S-300 to Iran would not violate United Nations Security Council sanctions on Tehran, it remains a concern to the United States.
“We don’t believe it’s constructive at this time for Russia to move forward with it,” Harf told reporters.
“We think given Iran’s destabilizing actions in the region, in places like Yemen or Syria or Lebanon, that this isn’t the time to be selling these kinds of system to them,” Harf explained. “So in general, that’s what our concerns are based on.”
Elliott Abrams, a former White House National Security Council (NSC) member, wrote that the breakdown in the Obama administration’s campaign to block the sale is yet another sign of Washington’s waning influence.
“American ‘red lines’ aren’t what they used to be, Medvedev is gone, and the ‘reset’ with Russia is an embarrassment,” Abrams wrote at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). “So is the way the Obama administration claimed credit for changing Russia’s policy toward Iran.”
AP
BY: Adam Kredo
April 14, 2015 5:00 am
Russia’s announcement on Monday that it will proceed with the sale of advanced missile systems to Iran crosses a so-called “red line” established by the Obama administration in 2010, according to comments by senior administration officials.
Following years of dissent from the United States, Russia announced on Monday that it would proceed with the sale of the advanced S-300 air defense missile system to Iran, which has been vying to purchase the hardware for years.
The announcement sparked criticism from the Obama administration, which has been pressuring Iran since at least 2010 to withhold the sale.
Russia’s previous ban on selling Tehran the powerful defense system was hailed as a coup by the Obama administration and promoted by it as an example of President Obama’s ability to rein in Russian intransigence on the military front.
However, Monday’s announcement by Russia threatens to complicate an already fractured relationship with Moscow and throw into further jeopardy the ongoing negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear program.
Experts have warned that the reversal threatens to split the international coalition currently working to halt Iran’s nuclear program—a narrative that the White House is working to downplay
The Russian executive order effectively “lifts the ban on transit of the S-300 air defense missile systems via Russian Federation territory (including by air), export from the Russian Federation to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and transfer of the S-300 to the Islamic Republic of Iran outside the Russian Federation’s territory, using ships or aircraft flying the Russian Federation flag,” according to an announcement by Moscow.
Russia’s decision to arm Tehran with the S-300 system erodes a long-promoted narrative by the Obama administration about its success in preventing Russian proliferation.
One senior Obama administration official speaking in 2010 described the S-300 sale as a “red line” for the United States that “couldn’t be crossed,” according to Foreign Policy.
“They’ve made that very clear to us for the last two years that this is not a symmetrical transaction for them and they don’t share the same threat assessment as us vis-a-vis Iran,” the official was quoted as telling Foreign Policy in a 2010 article focused on “how the Obama team convinced Russia not to sell arms to Iran.”
The White House claimed that Moscow’s decision to ban arms sales to Tehran would usher in a new era of cooperation between the United States and Russia.
“The decision was a bold one that acknowledges how important it is to us and how important [Former Russian President] Medvedev takes this reset with President Obama,” the administration official said.
Obama administration officials also told Foreign Policy that it had “made clear to Medvedev and other Russian officials that the sale of the S-300 to Iran was a red line that couldn’t be crossed.”
Monday’s announcement by Russia flies in the face of this purported diplomatic success and left the Obama administration scrambling to respond. Officials in both the White House and State Department declined to discuss with the Washington Free Beacon its previous declaration about Russia’s deal with Iran violating a so-called red line.
“We’ve seen those reports, as they relate to the possible sale of the S-300 anti-ballistic missile system to Iran,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Monday.
The United States, he added, “has previously made known our objections to that sale” and did so again on Monday in private phone calls with the Kremlin.
The sale of the S-300 system to Iran could violate international economic sanctions still in place, Earnest said.
State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said that while the sale of the S-300 to Iran would not violate United Nations Security Council sanctions on Tehran, it remains a concern to the United States.
“We don’t believe it’s constructive at this time for Russia to move forward with it,” Harf told reporters.
“We think given Iran’s destabilizing actions in the region, in places like Yemen or Syria or Lebanon, that this isn’t the time to be selling these kinds of system to them,” Harf explained. “So in general, that’s what our concerns are based on.”
Elliott Abrams, a former White House National Security Council (NSC) member, wrote that the breakdown in the Obama administration’s campaign to block the sale is yet another sign of Washington’s waning influence.
“American ‘red lines’ aren’t what they used to be, Medvedev is gone, and the ‘reset’ with Russia is an embarrassment,” Abrams wrote at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). “So is the way the Obama administration claimed credit for changing Russia’s policy toward Iran.”
Obama's red lines......whatever. Isis does not fear much less respect Obama and neither does Russia or Iran. Yet he lets red lines get crossed and exposes Israel to threat after threat. Yet Guesser wants to go back 30 years and downgrade one of the best and strongest Presidents in our history. Like I said, comparing Obama and Reagan is like comparing apples and oranges. Despite all the talks (concessions) with Iran Obama has never included releasing any and all hostages being held by them or their allies. Like the article above says, “American ‘red lines’ aren’t what they used to be,"
That reflects just how weak Obama is and how other countries view him. There is no liberal press to defend him outside of the U.S. so the truth is there for all to see.
That reflects just how weak Obama is and how other countries view him. There is no liberal press to defend him outside of the U.S. so the truth is there for all to see.
EVERYTHING Hussein does either:
a) Weakens America/Americans
b) Distances America's allies
c) Strengthens America's enemies
d) Serves Islam
e) Harms Israel
Or some combination of the above.
There are NO counter examples, so comparing this cancer to ANY past president, (D) or (R), detracts from how much of a cancer this ego-maniacal psychopath truly is.
Laugh at his 'incompetence' all you want...this fraud is inherently evil.
a) Weakens America/Americans
b) Distances America's allies
c) Strengthens America's enemies
d) Serves Islam
e) Harms Israel
Or some combination of the above.
There are NO counter examples, so comparing this cancer to ANY past president, (D) or (R), detracts from how much of a cancer this ego-maniacal psychopath truly is.
Laugh at his 'incompetence' all you want...this fraud is inherently evil.
Vit, we know that it happened 7 1/2 months after he was sworn in but the reality is that 90% of plan was conceived under Clinton's watch. They began their plan in 1998, over 3 years ahead of the actual plan. Man, these are just the facts. Sure there was intelligence indicating some sort of attack was coming but realistically do you shut the country down for weeks not knowing what you are looking for? Clinton had several chances to get Bin Laden but he was too distracted with the Monica situation to stay focused. Blame him, it is as much his fault as it is Bush's because the majority of the planning happened on his watch.
Yeah, yeah, I know, he sat there for 20 minutes reading a story to school kids in Florida. I remember, I sat in my office for 30 minutes listening to the news stating that it was a small airplane that hit the first tower. It wasn't until later that they knew for sure it was a terrorist attack when the second plane hit..
To put 911 solely on Bush is a false narrative yet you go unchallenged when you spew the hatred towards the guy. GHWB took responsibility for the first WTC bombing in 1993 because the planning happened on his watch. You didn't hear people blaming Clinton even though he was in office at the time.
By the way, Clinton's intelligence team had the same information about WMD's and passed it on to Bush. Hillary voted for the war based on her own husband's intelligence.
Funny how the far left seems to conveniently fail to mention these facts. Bush accepted responsibility because he was a bad politician not a bad person.
Tell it to the uninformed Gruberites, they will believe anything but the facts are the facts.
youre missing the entire point. These terrorists do not care who is president. They kill no matter what. And we've been thru the entire 9/11 thing a bunch of times here. Much of your Clinton blaming info is incorrect or half truths. It happened on bush watch and Richard Clarke made quite clear the bush administration did not take any terror threat seriously
You don't get it either. Everyone knows where Obama's place is except him. If you were him would you not respond in some manner to that cartoon. He lives in his own little world. Yes the cartoon is disgusting, never said it wasn't but if you look at the world through Obama's eyes then you just don't get it. Obama is a joke and the cartoon is all on him. If they respected and/or feared him then they would not have dared to make that cartoon. Think about it. It is not about loving or hating Obama, it is all about our country and the way we are falling in the eyes of the world because of Obama. This cartoon should be an eye opener for Obama instead he just keeps squinting and seeing what he wants to see.
I am one that has multiple tours including 18 months in Afghanistan Vit. It hasn't weakened anything. Most would go back tomorrow if asked because we believe in the task at hand which is to kill as many terrorists as possible.
4K killed is a very small amount compared to the total force. Recruiters right now are turning people away.
Your claim these wars have weakened our fighting force is very inaccurate.
Others have different opinions. Anytime you take over 30k out of ones military it has to have some affect.
I think obamas unwillingness to want to place troops anywhere else makes me think our military is thining out a bit. In fact I think Obama has said the last 2 wars has been taxing on our military personnel
