despite of the support of the taxpaying base and every income demographic > 50k
what a pathetic political existence we live in, high school drop outs and welfare moms rule the roost
and we can kill babies for body parts so the govt can keep the losers alive longer
Well what I do know is what is being sold to the public is complete bullshit..go figure. If you don't watch anything besides CNN or MSNBC to get your info, this seems like a great deal for all.
If you know ANYTHING about what the agreement has been bastardized too...you will understand that Iran will have COMPLETE control over when and where the inspectors are allowed to investigate.
In simple, uneducated, liberal democrat explanation....IRAN GETS TO DECIDE WHAT SITES ARE INSPECTED AND THEY ALSO GET TO CHOOSE WHEN THE INSPECTORS ARE ALLOWED. This is fact.
A whole lot FKING different than what Obama would like to have you believe.
If you know ANYTHING about what the agreement has been bastardized too...you will understand that Iran will have COMPLETE control over when and where the inspectors are allowed to investigate.
In simple, uneducated, liberal democrat explanation....IRAN GETS TO DECIDE WHAT SITES ARE INSPECTED AND THEY ALSO GET TO CHOOSE WHEN THE INSPECTORS ARE ALLOWED. This is fact.
A whole lot FKING different than what Obama would like to have you believe.
NOT TRUE Gassy. But you already know that, unless you are Only Watching Fox Propaganda. They have to allow inspections within 24 days, and like Obama accurately said, that's pretty meaningless, as you can't dismantle and hide a Nuclear Facility in 24 days. It's a way for Iran to save face, which alot of this agreement was.
[h=1]Analysis - U.S., Iran finesse inspections of military sites in nuclear deal[/h] WASHINGTON | By Arshad Mohammed
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (L) speaks with Hossein Fereydoun (C), the brother of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif (R), before the Secretary and Foreign Minister addressed an international press corps gathered at the Austria...
Reuters/US State Department/Handout via Reuters
Major powers and Iran finessed how U.N. inspectors will get access to Iranian military sites in Tuesday's nuclear agreement, with a formula that gives the United Nations strong inspection powers while allowing Tehran to save face.
Deep in the deal's details is a procedure under which Iran would have to provide access to suspect sites, including at its military facilities, within 24 days. If Iran refused, it would face the possibility of U.N. sanctions being slapped back on it.
The procedure was crafted to ensure U.N. inspectors could get access to allay their suspicions about Iran's nuclear activities. But it does not explicitly force Iran to admit that its military sites could be open to foreign inspections, leaving some uncertainty over the access Iran will allow in practice.
In Tuesday's landmark deal, Iran and six major powers struck a compromise under which Tehran will limit its nuclear programme in return for relief from economic sanctions.
One of the most controversial issues in the negotiations was whether the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would be able to visit military sites if they had questions about suspected nuclear activities or facilities within them.
The matter became even harder to resolve, diplomats said, after Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on June 23 said granting access to Iran's military sites was a "red line."
In the end, Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States agreed on language with Iran that requires more of Tehran than the existing global nonproliferation system while avoiding a direct mention of the sensitive military site issue.
"This is rather clever and reflects the interests of all sides," said George Perkovich, vice president of studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace think tank.
INSPECTIONS, 'WITHOUT SAYING SO'
Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty's "Additional Protocol," the IAEA may ask for "managed access" to any site, including military, but a country can legitimately bar access by tying the U.N. nuclear watchdog up in endless negotiations.
This deal aims to close such loopholes with a process under which Iran would give access or otherwise allay IAEA concerns within 24 days, a time frame experts say is tight enough to keep it from sanitising unauthorized nuclear work.
Iran and the IAEA have 14 days to resolve disagreements among themselves. If they fail to, a joint commission comprised of eight members - the six major powers, Iran and the European Union - would consider the matter for a week.
A majority of the eight could then inform Iran of the steps it would then take within three more days.
Majority-rule means the United States and its European allies -- Britain, France, Germany and the EU -- could insist on access or any other steps and that Iran, Russia or China could not veto them.
"This almost inevitably means inspections but without saying so. That’s why diplomats make the big bucks," Perkovich added.
Non-proliferation experts said the regime falls short of the "anywhere, anytime" inspections demanded by critics of the deal, including many Republicans, but said that would only be possible in a country that has been defeated militarily.
"It’s not a perfect procedure. It would be good to get no notice inspections, but that simply wasn’t in the cards," said Bob Einhorn, a nonproliferation specialist at the Brookings Institution think tank and former U.S. negotiator with Iran.
NO ACCESS TO IRANIAN "BEDROOMS"
In hailing the agreement on Tuesday, U.S. President Barack Obama said it meant that "inspectors will have 24/7 access to Iran’s key nuclear facilities."
Obama, who on Wednesday said the deal represented the "most vigorous inspection and verification regime, by far, that has ever been negotiated," was referring only to Iran's declared nuclear sites.
Sites that the IAEA has suspicions about, including any that may be within Iran's many military complexes, fall under the separate procedure with its 24-day time limit.
The word "military" occurs only once in the agreement, where it says that access requests would not be aimed at interfering with Iranian military or other national security activities.
Senior Iranian officials said they would provide the "managed access" called for under the Additional Protocol and said little about the additional procedures stipulated under the new deal.
"Managed access" is a mechanism to allow the minimum needed IAEA oversight to ensure there is no diversion to clandestine nuclear or nuclear-related activities, while limiting access to protect a legitimate military or industrial secrets.
"We have nothing to hide. We have always cooperated with the IAEA and allowed them to visit our sites," a senior Iranian official told reporters in Vienna on Tuesday. "However, it does not mean that we are going to share our intelligence with others or allow them to enter to our bedrooms to investigate."
U.S. officials said they believed that Tehran had committed to providing access to any site, including military, though they acknowledged the possibility it might refuse.
If it found Iran to be in breach of the deal, the United States could, single-handedly, move to "snap back" U.N. sanctions on Iran.
Under an agreement among Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, the U.N. Security Council's permanent members who each have veto power, a resolution to re-impose sanctions would be drafted in such a way that none could block it.
Reinstating the U.N. sanctions in full would be to a wield a heavy hammer against Iran and one that the major powers might be loathe to use.
However, a senior U.S. official raised the possibility of re-imposing some but not all sanctions through a "partial snapback," making the punishment more a scalpel than hammer.
Asked if Washington expected Tehran to honour demands for access, and hence avoid any need to reimpose U.N. sanctions, a senior U.S. official told Reuters: "I hope so."
[h=2]Iran Bans U.S. Inspectors from All Nuclear Sites[/h]No Americans permitted under final nuclear deal
U.S. and Iranian officials confirmed Thursday that no American nuclear inspectors will be permitted to enter the country’s contested nuclear site under the parameters of a deal reached with world powers this week, according to multiple statements by American and Iranian officials.
Under the tenants of the final nuclear deal reached this week in Vienna, only countries with normal diplomatic relations with Iran will be permitted to participate in inspections teams organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The revelation of this caveat has attracted concern from some analysts who maintain that only American experts can be trusted to verify that Iran is not cheating on the deal and operating clandestine nuclear facilities.
The admission is the latest in a series of apparent concessions made by the United States to Iran under the deal. Other portions of the agreement include a promise by the United States to help Iran combat nuclear sabotage and threats to its program.
U.S. and Iranian officials confirmed Thursday that no American nuclear inspectors will be permitted to enter the country’s contested nuclear site under the parameters of a deal reached with world powers this week, according to multiple statements by American and Iranian officials.
Under the tenants of the final nuclear deal reached this week in Vienna, only countries with normal diplomatic relations with Iran will be permitted to participate in inspections teams organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The revelation of this caveat has attracted concern from some analysts who maintain that only American experts can be trusted to verify that Iran is not cheating on the deal and operating clandestine nuclear facilities.
The admission is the latest in a series of apparent concessions made by the United States to Iran under the deal. Other portions of the agreement include a promise by the United States to help Iran combat nuclear sabotage and threats to its program.
In his statement on the deal, President Obama seemed to suggest that Iran will never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. He said that this "long-term deal with Iran... will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon." He then repeated this assurance: "because of this deal, the international community will be able to verify that the Islamic Republic of Iran will not be able to develop a nuclear weapon." These seemingly categorical statements were intended to assure the world that President Obama would keep his earlier promise that Iran will never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
But is that what the deal itself does?
Or, as stated by its critics, does it actually assure that Iran will be allowed to develop a nuclear arsenal after a short delay of several years? That is the key question that the Obama administration has refused to answer directly. It must do so before Congress can be asked to buy a pig in a poke for the American people.
There is an enormous difference between a deal that merely delays Iran's development of a nuclear arsenal for a period of years and a deal that prevents Iran from ever developing a nuclear arsenal.
Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel and many other critics of this deal describe it as merely a delay, while the Obama administration seems to be suggesting by its rhetoric that the deal will prevent Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon.
But is that what the deal itself does?
Or, as stated by its critics, does it actually assure that Iran will be allowed to develop a nuclear arsenal after a short delay of several years? That is the key question that the Obama administration has refused to answer directly. It must do so before Congress can be asked to buy a pig in a poke for the American people.
There is an enormous difference between a deal that merely delays Iran's development of a nuclear arsenal for a period of years and a deal that prevents Iran from ever developing a nuclear arsenal.
Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel and many other critics of this deal describe it as merely a delay, while the Obama administration seems to be suggesting by its rhetoric that the deal will prevent Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon.
[h=1]US inspectors will be banned from all Iranian nuclear sites under controversial deal amid warnings 'only American experts can tell if they are cheating'[/h]
PUBLISHED: 11:52, 17 July 2015 | UPDATED: 13:51, 17 July 2015
U.S. nuclear experts will not be part of the teams inspecting Iran's nuclear sites under the deal agreed with world's powers this week, officials have confirmed.
The inspection teams ensuring that Tehran adheres to the agreement to curb their nuclear program will be made up of experts from countries which has diplomatic relations with Iran.
As the U.S. currently does not, no Americans will be involved in the on the ground inspections of the nuclear facilities, National Security Adviser Susan Rice said.
Scroll down for video
+5
Banned: National Security Adviser Susan Rice has confirmed that no Americans nuclear experts will be involved in the on the ground inspections in Iran of the nuclear facilities
.
- Only countries with 'diplomatic relations' to Iran make up inspection teams
- As the U.S. does not, no American nuclear experts will be taking part
- NSA Susan Rice also confirmed no independent U.S. inspections in Iran
- Nuclear deal with UN requires Iran to dismantle key elements of program
- Inspectors will have access to nuclear facilities, but must request visits
PUBLISHED: 11:52, 17 July 2015 | UPDATED: 13:51, 17 July 2015
U.S. nuclear experts will not be part of the teams inspecting Iran's nuclear sites under the deal agreed with world's powers this week, officials have confirmed.
The inspection teams ensuring that Tehran adheres to the agreement to curb their nuclear program will be made up of experts from countries which has diplomatic relations with Iran.
As the U.S. currently does not, no Americans will be involved in the on the ground inspections of the nuclear facilities, National Security Adviser Susan Rice said.
Scroll down for video
+5
Banned: National Security Adviser Susan Rice has confirmed that no Americans nuclear experts will be involved in the on the ground inspections in Iran of the nuclear facilities
.
Obama Wants Debate on Iran Deal. Just Kidding
By Bernard Goldberg
Published July 17, 2015
image: http://www.creators.com/editorial_cartoons/13/32629_image.jpg?ref=relatedBox
We all remember Barack Obama's bold promise on the eve of the election in 2008, when he said he would "fundamentally" transform the United States if he were elected president. Don't say he didn't warn us.
And he has gone about making good on his promise in many ways.
He started with the so-called Affordable Care Act, which he rammed through Congress without a single Republican vote — a massive bulk of legislation that was based on a slick marketing campaign about how we could keep our doctor and health plan if we liked them, which turned out to be untrue for millions of Americans. And there was the promise that our premiums would go down. Instead they're going up — and in some cases faster than even a lot of critics thought.
There were Mr. Obama's new ideas about getting our economic house in order, which mainly consisted of a nearly $1 trillion stimulus plan that didn't stimulate very much and raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans. But after more than six years in office, the economic recovery is still only limping along. As for the national debt, when Mr. Obama came into office it was around $10 trillion. When he leaves it'll be about double that. How's that for fundamentally transforming the United States of America?
And he wanted to pump life into the long-neglected middle class. Since he's been president middle class incomes have gone down, not up.
He wanted to transform America by ending the long war in Iraq and so he didn't push for a deal that would have left some American troops there to maintain stability. Now we have an unstable Iraq and something new — the Islamic State.
As the visionary he believes he is, he determined that climate change was Public Enemy Number One and unleashed the EPA on the coal industry. He has refused to green light the XL pipeline project. He spent truckloads of money on solar energy companies that went bankrupt.
He bypassed Congress and issued an executive order allowing illegal immigrants to stay in this country without fear of deportation.
He snubbed Congress again when he opened diplomatic relations with Cuba and didn't push for an end to political repression in that country.
And now, we have a deal with Iran — a deal that may very well transform America, and not in a good way.
But let's set aside for now whether the deal with Iran is, as Israel's Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu called it, an "historic mistake" — an assessment on which just about all Republicans and some Democrats concur. And let's focus instead on something President Obama told the American people during his remarks on national television right after the deal was made.
Mr. Obama acknowledged that, "on such a tough issue, it is important that the American people and their representatives in Congress get a full opportunity to review the deal. After all, the details matter. And we've had some of the finest nuclear scientists in the world working through those details. And we're dealing with a country — Iran — that has been a sworn adversary of the United States for over 35 years. So I welcome a robust debate in Congress on this issue, and I welcome scrutiny of the details of this agreement."
Too bad he didn't mean any of it, because here's what else the president said: "I am confident that this deal will meet the national security interest of the United States and our allies. So I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal."
So he wants the American people and Congress to go through the deal; he welcomes scrutiny of the agreement; he welcomes debate … but for what purpose? Nothing the American people or their representatives in Congress say will matter to him. His mind is made up — and closed to any ideas that conflict with his.
Yet he gets away with this kind of thing. Journalists should have pointed out his hypocrisy. They didn't.
Nor did they hold him accountable for what he went on to say, a low-rent tactic he uses quite a bit.
"We do not have to accept an inevitable spiral into conflict," the president said. "And we certainly shouldn't seek it. And precisely because the stakes are so high, this is not the time for politics or posturing."
With Mr. Obama there can be no legitimate disagreement. Those who don't see things the way he does are unserious; they posture and play politics. He alone is above the fray.
This is the way of narcissists.
It may be unfair to believe that President Obama cares more about his legacy than he does about America, but one is tempted nonetheless to think just that. To secure his place in history he promised to fundamentally transform this country — and he clearly meant it.
Back then, tough questions should have been asked. Why the need to "fundamentally transform" America? What is so wrong with the United States? And if the media weren't busy slobbering, they might have also paid more attention to something his wife said, five months earlier.
"We are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation," Michelle Obama said on May 14, 2008.
There is a reason they're dancing in the streets of Tehran. And it's not because Mr. Obama made a good deal for the United States or its allies. The mullahs are not concerned about our wellbeing. Nor are they concerned about his legacy. Mr. Obama is on top of that one.
Published July 17, 2015
image: http://www.creators.com/editorial_cartoons/13/32629_image.jpg?ref=relatedBox
We all remember Barack Obama's bold promise on the eve of the election in 2008, when he said he would "fundamentally" transform the United States if he were elected president. Don't say he didn't warn us.
And he has gone about making good on his promise in many ways.
He started with the so-called Affordable Care Act, which he rammed through Congress without a single Republican vote — a massive bulk of legislation that was based on a slick marketing campaign about how we could keep our doctor and health plan if we liked them, which turned out to be untrue for millions of Americans. And there was the promise that our premiums would go down. Instead they're going up — and in some cases faster than even a lot of critics thought.
There were Mr. Obama's new ideas about getting our economic house in order, which mainly consisted of a nearly $1 trillion stimulus plan that didn't stimulate very much and raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans. But after more than six years in office, the economic recovery is still only limping along. As for the national debt, when Mr. Obama came into office it was around $10 trillion. When he leaves it'll be about double that. How's that for fundamentally transforming the United States of America?
And he wanted to pump life into the long-neglected middle class. Since he's been president middle class incomes have gone down, not up.
He wanted to transform America by ending the long war in Iraq and so he didn't push for a deal that would have left some American troops there to maintain stability. Now we have an unstable Iraq and something new — the Islamic State.
As the visionary he believes he is, he determined that climate change was Public Enemy Number One and unleashed the EPA on the coal industry. He has refused to green light the XL pipeline project. He spent truckloads of money on solar energy companies that went bankrupt.
He bypassed Congress and issued an executive order allowing illegal immigrants to stay in this country without fear of deportation.
He snubbed Congress again when he opened diplomatic relations with Cuba and didn't push for an end to political repression in that country.
And now, we have a deal with Iran — a deal that may very well transform America, and not in a good way.
But let's set aside for now whether the deal with Iran is, as Israel's Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu called it, an "historic mistake" — an assessment on which just about all Republicans and some Democrats concur. And let's focus instead on something President Obama told the American people during his remarks on national television right after the deal was made.
Mr. Obama acknowledged that, "on such a tough issue, it is important that the American people and their representatives in Congress get a full opportunity to review the deal. After all, the details matter. And we've had some of the finest nuclear scientists in the world working through those details. And we're dealing with a country — Iran — that has been a sworn adversary of the United States for over 35 years. So I welcome a robust debate in Congress on this issue, and I welcome scrutiny of the details of this agreement."
Too bad he didn't mean any of it, because here's what else the president said: "I am confident that this deal will meet the national security interest of the United States and our allies. So I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal."
So he wants the American people and Congress to go through the deal; he welcomes scrutiny of the agreement; he welcomes debate … but for what purpose? Nothing the American people or their representatives in Congress say will matter to him. His mind is made up — and closed to any ideas that conflict with his.
Yet he gets away with this kind of thing. Journalists should have pointed out his hypocrisy. They didn't.
Nor did they hold him accountable for what he went on to say, a low-rent tactic he uses quite a bit.
"We do not have to accept an inevitable spiral into conflict," the president said. "And we certainly shouldn't seek it. And precisely because the stakes are so high, this is not the time for politics or posturing."
With Mr. Obama there can be no legitimate disagreement. Those who don't see things the way he does are unserious; they posture and play politics. He alone is above the fray.
This is the way of narcissists.
It may be unfair to believe that President Obama cares more about his legacy than he does about America, but one is tempted nonetheless to think just that. To secure his place in history he promised to fundamentally transform this country — and he clearly meant it.
Back then, tough questions should have been asked. Why the need to "fundamentally transform" America? What is so wrong with the United States? And if the media weren't busy slobbering, they might have also paid more attention to something his wife said, five months earlier.
"We are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation," Michelle Obama said on May 14, 2008.
There is a reason they're dancing in the streets of Tehran. And it's not because Mr. Obama made a good deal for the United States or its allies. The mullahs are not concerned about our wellbeing. Nor are they concerned about his legacy. Mr. Obama is on top of that one.
Overall I'd say bad deal because we can't trust Iran and allowing them to become an economic power is going to strengthen them over time. However, our hand wasn't as strong as people are saying, the status quo was pretty much over and US knew that. They got 10% of the worlds oil reserves and once they ramp up production, they can begin selling a good portion of their day to day production to China. Sanctions only work if you have cooperation across the board.
We would've had a lot more leverage if we could threaten invasion, but because Iraq was such a disaster for us, that threat likely would ring hollow.
The one potential silver lining is they do have a very young population and once those people get a piece of the benefits associated with exporting the world's most valuable commodity, they will never want the sanctions to comeback.
As far as weapons inspections, I dunno anything about that. Moving a uranium facility every 3 weeks seems pretty hard but if you wanna end the world I guess you could make the logistics work.
We would've had a lot more leverage if we could threaten invasion, but because Iraq was such a disaster for us, that threat likely would ring hollow.
The one potential silver lining is they do have a very young population and once those people get a piece of the benefits associated with exporting the world's most valuable commodity, they will never want the sanctions to comeback.
As far as weapons inspections, I dunno anything about that. Moving a uranium facility every 3 weeks seems pretty hard but if you wanna end the world I guess you could make the logistics work.
