Posted on May 17, 2016
White House snubs Chaffetz, refuses to let aide testify after controversial Iran remarks | Fox...
876
6
10
1
1
0
Be honest is anyone surprised? His first major lie in a line of many to be the most transparent Administration that turned out to be the most secretive.
White House snubs Chaffetz, refuses to let aide testify after controversial Iran remarks | Fox...
Posted from foxnews.comPosted in these groups: 
Barack Obama
Iran
Barack Obama Iran
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 2
2
2
0
Sounds like someone has to many secrets that they don't want ot in the open.
(2)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
I agree. They don't want the American Public to know just how corrupt they really are
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
PO2 Mark Saffell - PO; I have to admit that FOX News is getting a lot of mileage out of "Don't bother to read the actual text of the deal for yourself because we'll tell you what we say it is.".
And, of course "... a senior presidential adviser’s appearance “threatens the independence and autonomy of the President, as well as his ability to receive candid advice and counsel.” ..." couldn't possibly be true. (Unless, of course, it's said by a Republican President - in which case it is unquestionable and axiomatic.)
And, of course "... a senior presidential adviser’s appearance “threatens the independence and autonomy of the President, as well as his ability to receive candid advice and counsel.” ..." couldn't possibly be true. (Unless, of course, it's said by a Republican President - in which case it is unquestionable and axiomatic.)
(0)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
COL Ted Mc Well I will admit I haven't read it nor has most of anyone else. BUT when we free up billions to a country that backs terrorists to me that is bad.
My biggest issue recently is the allowing Iran to continue building missiles and testing them and the lack of teeth in inspections. As for evidence, I guess you missed the missile test.
My biggest issue recently is the allowing Iran to continue building missiles and testing them and the lack of teeth in inspections. As for evidence, I guess you missed the missile test.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO2 Mark Saffell - PO; And Iran is different from Pakistan? How? Or different from (the former "South") Vietnam? How? Or the IRA? How? Or the original government of "South" Korea? How?
I didn't miss the missile test, there wasn't anything about "missile tests" included in "the deal".
I didn't miss the missile test, there wasn't anything about "missile tests" included in "the deal".
(0)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
COL Ted Mc Thank you. you proved my point about it being a bad deal and I do recall this President and Kerry telling America that the deal did stop missile testing and development but that turns out to be a lie once more.
and what in the world does all those other countries have to do with this conversation? Funny you bring up some that Dems got us neck deep into.
and what in the world does all those other countries have to do with this conversation? Funny you bring up some that Dems got us neck deep into.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO2 Mark Saffell - PO; Well then the solution is obvious - simply kill off all the Democrats and the whole world will be perfect. Right?
The negotiations were to deal with the POSSIBILITY that Iran would develop NUCLEAR WEAPONS (which it had a legal right to do) and had nothing whatsoever to do with whether Iran would develop artillery/rockets which MIGHT be able to carry nuclear weapons IF Iran had any.
There is no mention of artillery whatsoever even though Saddam Hussein's "Project Babylon" would have given Iraq the ability to shell Israel (and even though the improvements in computer technology made "multiple chamber" artillery MUCH more practical [heck, even Mr. Bush didn't demand that the Iranians didn't develop any weapons which were capable of firing at targets outside of Iran {I suppose that someone told him that EVERYONE would laugh at that demand}]).
A deal that gets you everything that you could feasibly and realistically get but doesn't get you stuff that there was no rational reason to even consider expecting to be able to get is NOT a "Bad Deal" - it's "The Best Deal That Could Be Got".
The negotiations were to deal with the POSSIBILITY that Iran would develop NUCLEAR WEAPONS (which it had a legal right to do) and had nothing whatsoever to do with whether Iran would develop artillery/rockets which MIGHT be able to carry nuclear weapons IF Iran had any.
There is no mention of artillery whatsoever even though Saddam Hussein's "Project Babylon" would have given Iraq the ability to shell Israel (and even though the improvements in computer technology made "multiple chamber" artillery MUCH more practical [heck, even Mr. Bush didn't demand that the Iranians didn't develop any weapons which were capable of firing at targets outside of Iran {I suppose that someone told him that EVERYONE would laugh at that demand}]).
A deal that gets you everything that you could feasibly and realistically get but doesn't get you stuff that there was no rational reason to even consider expecting to be able to get is NOT a "Bad Deal" - it's "The Best Deal That Could Be Got".
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google