ADVERTISEMENT

So I thought this was a "forever" deal? Now it's not?

IMCC965

HB Legend
May 12, 2009
21,526
3,757
113
61
North Liberty
What is wrong with this president and his administration? One day it's "forever" the next day it's only for 13 years and problem for another president. What a total dick.




President Obama admitted Tuesday in a broadcast interview that his nuclear agreement with Iran only delays Tehran from eventually acquiring a weapon, which could come immediately after Year 13 of the agreement -- leaving the problem for future presidents.
Obama made the comments about Tehran's so-called "breakout time" in an interview with NPR News that aired Tuesday morning. The president was attempting to answer the charge that the deal framework agreed upon by the U.S., Iran, and five other nations last week fails to eliminate the risk of Iran getting a nuclear weapon because it allows Tehran to keep enriching uranium.
Obama said that Iran would be capped for a decade at 300 kilograms of uranium -- not enough to convert to a stockpile of weapons-grade material.
"What is a more relevant fear would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero," Obama said.
The stark admission -- after his energy secretary even claimed the deal was a "forever agreement" -- came as the president seeks to quiet a growing chorus questioning whether the deal he and world leaders have negotiated merely delays the certainty of a nuclear-armed Iran. Obama has insisted confidently that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on his watch, which ends in roughly 20 months, but has made no similar assurances about his successors.

Under the terms of the deal framework, Iran's breakout time would be expanded from the present two to three months to at least a year. But that constraint would stay in place only for 10 years, at which point some restrictions would start phasing out.
Although Obama acknowledged that Iran's breakout time could shrink, he said at least the world would have better insight into Iran's capabilities because of extensive inspections in the earlier years.
"The option of a future president to take action if in fact they try to obtain a nuclear weapon is undiminished," Obama said.
Tehran has always maintained it doesn't want a nuclear bomb, but the international community has been skeptical, and America's close ally Israel considers a nuclear Iran an existential threat. U.S. lawmakers and foreign policy hawks have questioned how Obama can strike a diplomatic deal with a country that continues to threaten Israel and tops the U.S. list of state sponsors of terror.
Obama, who is also working to restore ties to longtime U.S. foe Cuba, has suggested cautiously in the past that a nuclear agreement could be a precursor to Iran pursuing a more amicable relationship with the world community. But in the days since the framework deal was announced in Switzerland, his administration has sought to emphasize that the deal relies on inspections, not trust, and is worthwhile even if the Iranian regime remains venomously anti-American.
"I think there are hard-liners inside of Iran that think it is the right thing to do to oppose us, to seek to destroy Israel, to cause havoc in places like Syria or Yemen or Lebanon," Obama said. "If they don't change at all, we're still better off having the deal."
In a portion of the same interview that aired Monday, Obama also rejected a call by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for any Iran nuclear deal to recognize his nation's "right to exist," claiming it would be a "fundamental misjudgment" to link the two issues.
"The notion that we would condition Iran not getting nuclear weapons in a verifiable deal on Iran recognizing Israel is really akin to saying that we won't sign a deal unless the nature of the Iranian regime completely transforms. And that is, I think, a fundamental misjudgment," Obama said.
The comments were a rebuke to Netanyahu, who on Friday blasted the Iran framework deal and said his Cabinet is uniformly opposed to it. He also demanded that any final agreement include "a clear and unambiguous Iranian recognition of Israel's right to exist … the survival of Israel is non-negotiable."
Obama also told NPR, "I want to return to this point: we want Iran not to have nuclear weapons precisely because we can't bank on the nature of the regime changing. That's exactly why we don't want to have nuclear weapons. If suddenly Iran transformed itself to Germany or Sweden or France, then there would be a different set of conversations about their nuclear infrastructure."

Link
 
Originally posted by naturalmwa:
I thought you didn't like that it was a forever deal? Now you do?
I think this highlights (YET AGAIN) that Obama and his administration cannot accomplish anything and stick to it. They constantly move goalposts around and claim victory. Also they continue to blame previous administrations for all issues.

If people can't see this for what it is, they intentionally don't want to.
 
Originally posted by Pepperman:
Originally posted by naturalmwa:
I thought you didn't like that it was a forever deal? Now you do?
I think this highlights (YET AGAIN) that Obama and his administration cannot accomplish anything and stick to it. They constantly move goalposts around and claim victory. Also they continue to blame previous administrations for all issues.

If people can't see this for what it is, they intentionally don't want to.
Mission Accomplished

original.jpg
 
Yes, that was a major gaffe by President Bush. Not hard to admit it. Do you see me deflecting or trying to say it isn't?
 
Originally posted by Pepperman:
Yes, that was a major gaffe by President Bush. Not hard to admit it. Do you see me deflecting or trying to say it isn't?
Nope, not at all. Just making sure everyone realizes presidents from both sides of the aisle do the same thing, viz. leave their messes for the next president.
 
Originally posted by mstp1992:

Originally posted by Pepperman:
Yes, that was a major gaffe by President Bush. Not hard to admit it. Do you see me deflecting or trying to say it isn't?
Nope, not at all. Just making sure everyone realizes presidents from both sides of the aisle do the same thing, viz. leave their messes for the next president.
Yep. We have had 14+ years of stupidity. Republican. Democrat. POTUS. Congress. All of it.
 
Originally posted by Pepperman:
Originally posted by naturalmwa:
I thought you didn't like that it was a forever deal? Now you do?
I think this highlights (YET AGAIN) that Obama and his administration cannot accomplish anything and stick to it.  They constantly move goalposts around and claim victory.  Also they continue to blame previous administrations for all issues.

If people can't see this for what it is, they intentionally don't want to.

The fact that you are singling Obama out for "moving goal posts" and "claiming victory" as though it's unique in politics, shows you must not want to see much of anything.

Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Originally posted by mstp1992:
Originally posted by Pepperman:
Originally posted by naturalmwa:
I thought you didn't like that it was a forever deal? Now you do?
I think this highlights (YET AGAIN) that Obama and his administration cannot accomplish anything and stick to it.  They constantly move goalposts around and claim victory.  Also they continue to blame previous administrations for all issues.

If people can't see this for what it is, they intentionally don't want to.
Mission Accomplished

original.jpg
This is another "big lie" told by the left. The mission accomplished banner was never about the war rather the mission of that particular ship. It was done with that ships mission and was coming into port. The sign was accurate but as these things normally go the left tells a lie and continues to tell it.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
AFLAHAWK is 100% correct about the "Mission Accomplished" deal. Should Bush have been more aware of a sign behind him? Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that the whole narrative behind the picture is totally incorrect. Keep using it though if it makes you feel better.

Remember Rumsfield getting in trouble for saying it was going to be "a long, hard slog"? There were plenty of honest voices at the beginning of the conflict that were criticised on the right.
 
Bullshit. The mission accomplished mantra was done to indicate the coalition forces had things under control and things would end sooner than later.

However, it still is apropos as an example of presidents leaving their messes for the next president.

This post was edited on 4/8 7:09 AM by mstp1992
 
Natural....joel...mstp1992....does anyone have anything to say about what the President actually said? About what this deal mean? Or about how is own administration is going back and forth about whether this is a 'forever deal' or not?

Instead we talk about.......Bush.

rolleyes.r191677.gif
 
Originally posted by timinatoria:

Natural....joel...mstp1992....does anyone have anything to say about what the President actually said? About what this deal mean? Or about how is own administration is going back and forth about whether this is a 'forever deal' or not?

Instead we talk about.......Bush.

rolleyes.r191677.gif
It's all they know how to do.
 
I take it IMCC is on vacation. That's the only thing that could explain his heightened level of obsession with his President.
 
The point made by the original poster and other like-minded posters was that the Obama administration goes back and forth on their promises and deals; insinuating, that this was unique to the Obama administration. The details of the Iran nuclear deal are irrelevant to their point. It had nothing to do with the positives and/or negatives of the deal. Rather, the point was the deal was made "forever" but in fact is only for "13 years".

My point was not to comment on the deal itself, but instead to acknowledge that ALL presidents make deals in which subsequent presidents must deal with the consequences, be they positive or negative.

Understand?
 
Originally posted by mstp1992:
The point made by the original poster and other like-minded posters was that the Obama administration goes back and forth on their promises and deals; insinuating, that this was unique to the Obama administration. The details of the Iran nuclear deal are irrelevant to their point. It had nothing to do with the positives and/or negatives of the deal. Rather, the point was the deal was made "forever" but in fact is only for "13 years".

My point was not to comment on the deal itself, but instead to acknowledge that ALL presidents make deals in which subsequent presidents must deal with the consequences, be they positive or negative.

Understand?
Sorry, I thought the OP was talking about how screwed up the administration is on this deal. My bad.
 
Originally posted by timinatoria:

Natural....joel...mstp1992....does anyone have anything to say about what the President actually said? About what this deal mean? Or about how is own administration is going back and forth about whether this is a 'forever deal' or not?

Instead we talk about.......Bush.

rolleyes.r191677.gif
No I don't have much to say yet. I prefer to wait until the final deal is actually set. Then I'll debate it with you. All signs point to this outline being better than the alternatives and better than the speculation just a few weeks ago.
 
Originally posted by timinatoria:
Originally posted by mstp1992:
The point made by the original poster and other like-minded posters was that the Obama administration goes back and forth on their promises and deals; insinuating, that this was unique to the Obama administration. The details of the Iran nuclear deal are irrelevant to their point. It had nothing to do with the positives and/or negatives of the deal. Rather, the point was the deal was made "forever" but in fact is only for "13 years".

My point was not to comment on the deal itself, but instead to acknowledge that ALL presidents make deals in which subsequent presidents must deal with the consequences, be they positive or negative.

Understand?
Sorry, I thought the OP was talking about how screwed up the administration is on this deal. My bad.
tumblr_inline_n05afgpbJe1qa6uw8.gif
 
This just in: George Bush is no longer President. Apparently he hasn't been President for the last several years.
 
Timin........please show me where I mentioned "Bush" in this post?


I too don't have much to say at this time asthe deal is still being interpreted....and actually, there is no "deal" yet, just an agreement to seek a deal.

Initially, I would surmise the agreement reached to date is better than the GOP was talking about and NOT final by any stretch. Also, it sounds like Pbama is willing to allow teHOP/Congress participate inthrocess as far as some form of approval.

Right now, Iranians, Americans and Euros area.l "interpreting"what has been agreed to And like most prelimlnary agreements, it shows a lot of talking and defining is yet to occur.
 
Originally posted by joelbc1:
Timin........please show me where I mentioned "Bush" in this post?


I too don't have much to say at this time asthe deal is still being interpreted....and actually, there is no "deal" yet, just an agreement to seek a deal.

Initially, I would surmise the agreement reached to date is better than the GOP was talking about and NOT final by any stretch. Also, it sounds like Pbama is willing to allow teHOP/Congress participate inthrocess as far as some form of approval.

Right now, Iranians, Americans and Euros area.l "interpreting"what has been agreed to And like most prelimlnary agreements, it shows a lot of talking and defining is yet to occur.
Easy for you to say...........
 
Originally posted by lucas80:
I take it IMCC is on vacation. That's the only thing that could explain his heightened level of obsession with his President.
Not my president. Never voted for him and I think he's a criminal.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT