Why won’t Obama divulge any details of Iran deal?

Whether you voted for him or not, do you think President Obama should enter into a “deal” with Iran without divulging any of the details or seeking approval of your elected representatives?

This isn’t a partisan issue and it’s very troubling that 47 U.S. senators sent a letter to the Iranian regime – but not a single Democrat enjoined with that effort. And yes, I do find it rather fascinating that Democrat Senator Robert Menendez, former chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee and an outspoken critic of President Obama, finds himself potentially being indicted on corruption charges. Perhaps the message has been received — stay in line or else — after all this does seem to be the Chicago way.

Ponder this: there is potentially damaging policy being pursued by the Obama administration with which, come January 2017, others will have to contend.

If there’s one area where politics and campaign agendas should not prevail it is in the area of our national security. There is no real good side to entering into an agreement with the Iranians. And this is something with long-term ramifications for America long after Obama departs. What we fail to realize is that for Iran, time is of no concern. The Ayatollahs are unified in their objective and have been since the Jimmy Carter failure, which resulted in the return of the Islamic theocratic state and its ideology of death and supremacy.

Unfortunately, America does not have a unified national security strategy and therefore our pendulum swings back and forth, never finding equilibrium.

President Obama has threatened to veto any legislation renewing sanctions against Iran. He has threatened to veto any legislation requiring Congressional (Senate) approval of the Iranian deal. The question all of us must ask is simply why?

What is being hidden from the American people? It’s obviously something pretty critical, given President Obama’s response to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech.

How do we persuade the Iranians to stop seeking a nuclear capability? We must continue to do what brought them to their knees: economic sanctions to delegitimize their regime. We should produce and consume our own energy resources, export to Europe and blockade any oil shipments attempting to depart from Iran. We should demand full disclosure of Iran’s facilities — including those located deep underground. We should support the opposition leadership that just recently had a major conference and rally in Germany — why wasn’t an Obama administration representative there? Oops, that’s right, Mayor Rudy Giuliani was attended.

There is no conceivable reason why President Obama wouldn’t want to keep the hammer ready to fall on Iran. There is even less credence for the president not to want to share these negotiations with the U.S. Senate and seek its approval. A borderline treaty is being offered, something the president cannot do unilaterally — then again, it seems that doesn’t deter him at all.

So is Barack Obama about to make a binding agreement with an Islamic terror-sponsoring regime that is holding Americans prisoner? Is it possible Obama will sign away the future of national security of not just America, but also Israel — and if so, why?

Obama chided the 47 GOP senators who sent a letter to the Iranian regime suggesting they undermined his authority. I wonder what he said when then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria to meet with Bashar Assad during the Bush administration – there’s no difference, as the Bush administration requested Nancy Pelosi refrain.

There is no doubt Iran is an enemy of the United States. What is it that confuses President Obama about this fact?

353 COMMENTS

  1. You can’t be that stupid.
    I know you’re not.
    You’re just counting on your readers to be that stupid.
    You can’t seriously expect the President to reveal every detail of talks that are still ongoing.

    Yes… we can expect him to reveal the terms of any deal before it is approved.
    But no President publicly discloses details of negotiations before any deal is offered.

    What you should be doing here is condemning the 47 senators who decided to usurp the negotiations by suggesting that no deal would happen to the Iranians to try and end negotiations.

      • There is only one traitor. And that’s your daddy, the Traitor-In-Chief, who is destroying America with every stroke of the pen. I have a feeling your would like to see this country destroyed as well. Well, don’t destroy it for the rest of us, just move to Africa and live like you want. No one is stopping you. After all, its your homeland, right ? Go screw it up. Oh, that’s right, it already is.

      • Not everyone in the nation think the country is be destroyed…only you RIGHT RING LOONS!!!! You can’t see politics when it slap you in the face. REPUBLICANS want a boots on the ground WAR! JOIN UP!!!

      • [[ Not everyone in the nation think the country is be destroyed.]]

        You and the rest of the tribe are too drunk on the Obama-ade to know any better. Keep suckin’.

      • What can I say, racist again. You guys just can’t help yourself using that as an excuse to unreasonably and “not really” answer to the “actual” debate at hand.

      • That’s a racist comment. Just like many pointed at OBAMA. That is not what this debate or any should have in it’s commentary. All of us have nationalities that stem from other countries. What nationality are you, you must have some background. You go home if you don’t like the way the majority elected President leads.

    • Brendan: You can’t be serious in your chide. Are you talking about the same President that has no problem telling our enemies what we are or are not doing militarily? He has no problem talking to his followers about what he plans on doing but can’t drive across town to discuss them with our representatives or have those leaders come to the WH before making his pronouncements. I see you have a photo with a uniform on. How’d you feel when he identified the unit that had destroyed bin Laden and put all those people’s lives in jeopardy?

      Somewhere in my past I learned the President is one part of three units that governs our country. Has he even broached a discussion with the other two on what might be the best solutions for handling Iran? Nope.

      Also in my past I learned that a team works best when all know what is going on. This country does not elect kings and empower them to do as they, and only they, see fit. If anyone has messed up the negotiations with Iran it is the National Community Organizer and his administration. They messed up the first time they sat down and tried to negotiate with someone that was already ahead of them in their thinking. Remember Obama’s campaign promise to ‘sit down with our enemies and make peace’. Bear that goal in mind when you criticize. He has an agenda we are not included in.

      • Don’t try to even try reply to Brendan and Uncle Ruckus, they are trolls and post on Allen West’s articles just to and provoke people into a argument. Don’t forget you can’t read the proposal for the internet take over until they get it, then we can see the 300 plus pages and we would find out what was in Obama care after it was launched.

      • Sorry Sue… this sis a discussion board, not a cheerleading board… and that means not everyone is going to agree.

      • Actually, you were discussing me.
        But as to discussing the opinion pieces that Mr West and his editor put up on this site and leave open to discussion… You seem to be suggesting that the only comments that are welcome in any discussion are those that agree with the author.

        That is why I made my “cheerleading” remark.
        Are comments that are critical of Mr West’s opinions welcome or are only comments that agree with him welcome?

      • Well said! We know we can’t trust Obama. He has proven over and over that he doesn’t love America or Americans.

      • Hehas helped many that were in ruins due to prior adminstrations and the American people’s greed, which now seems to be the norm and acceptable. That’s a fact.

      • Looks at the stats over the past 6 years. It’s everywhere. I don’t have time to teach you how to do that. You’ll choose to ignore it anyway.

      • How redundant. They are not ‘my’ stats, they are the stat facts. And please, look them up yourself. Jeez, how lazy.

      • The ACA (OBAMACARE) gives some consumer some protections they did not have in the past, and is more affordable for those in need. It is not an insurance company from government. These policies are from the same private insurance companies you bought from before you are just buying through the MARKETPLACE in order to get a subsidy if you fall in that category of need.

        ALL people were paying for insurance and when they needed to file claims, they would be denied coverage many times so that the CEO’s could end up with anywhere from 9-28 million dollar in a bonus. People with preexisting conditions were being denied coverage altogether. And a lot of other things that left the consumer at a disadvantage.

        Estimates from 2013 prior to implementation of ACA:

        -56M Americans under age 65 will have trouble paying medical bills.
        – Over 35M American adults (ages 19-64) will be contacted by collections agencies for unpaid medical bills.
        – Nearly 17M American adults (ages 19-64) will receive a lower credit rating on account of their high medical bills
        – Over 15M American adults (ages 19-64) will use up all their savings to pay medical bills.
        – Over 11M American adults (ages 19-64) will take on credit card debt to pay off their hospital bills.
        – Nearly 10M American adults (ages 19-64) will be unable to pay for basic necessities like rent, food, and heat due to their medical bills O
        – Over 16M children live in households struggling with medical bills Despite having year-round insurance coverage,

        – 10M insured Americans ages 19-64 will face bills they are unable to pay 1.7M Americans live in households that will declare bankruptcy due to their inability to pay their medical bills – Three states will account for over one-quarter of those living in medical-related bankruptcy: California (248,002), Illinois (113,524), and Florida (99,780)
        -To save costs, over 25M adults (ages 19-64) will not take their prescription drugs as indicated, including skipping doses, taking less medicine than prescribed or
        delaying a refill.

        Now that more people ‘have’ coverage, and those that had coverage have ‘better’ coverage, these atrocities will get better.

      • Stop lying lefty. Obama lied about getting to keep your own doctor, saving $2500 a year and getting everyone covered. Premiums also went up. And when IPAB kicks in, rationing begins. Your boy left 30,000,000 uninsured by design. The same number that was uninsured back in 2010.

      • I saved more than $2500 last year, got to keep my own doctor and my premiums are less by more than 75%. Why do I have to keep repeating myself, so it doesn’t work for everyone, but it works for the majority.

      • [[ I saved more than $2500 last year, got to keep my own doctor and my premiums are less by more than 75% ]]

        You’re a liar.

        http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/local/2015/01/13/florida-health-care-premiums-outpacing-income/21712127/

        Floridians’ share of health care premiums outpacing incomeBy Ledyard King Democrat Washington Bureau and Maureen Groppe, USA TODAY5:31 p.m. EST January 13, 2015

        WASHINGTON — Millions of Floridians have seen their share of health care premiums climb nearly 10 percent annually since 2010 — twice the national average — even as the overall cost of those premiums flattens, a new report concludes.

        More at———http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/local/2015/01/13/florida-health-care-premiums-outpacing-income/21712127/

      • For some reason when I click the link I, ironically, I get an error message, LOL. Seriously, I do and would like to read it. Why, because I live in FLORIDA, so I can’t wait to read more twisted facts. (Remember the State of Florida was one who chose to OPT out of the medicaid expansion and that did leave many uninsured). So before I even read the article, I can tell you it’s skewed by that fact among many others.

      • The link works fine. And the story is from the Tallahassee Democrat dated 1-13-15. So everyone lies except you. Right?

      • I got it now, thanks. And SMH on the lies comment. I just did my taxes and the numbers I reported for my situation are not my opinion, it’s a HARD FACT.

      • Yep, yep, yep. Actually more. From $500.82 with a $500 deductible to $62.32 with a zero deductible. So for me it worked. Sorry for you and all others that it didn’t work for. But I believe in time there will be changes to get the bugs out and it will benefit even more of the majority. Never gonna benefit all.

      • Are you ashamed to be on Obamacare?

        And here is how stupid you are.

        http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20140809/MAGAZINE/308099980

        Average total cash compensation, including bonuses and incentives, for all hospital executive titles surveyed for 2014 was $319,400, a 2.3% increase from $312,300 for those same titles last year. At the system level, compensation packages were higher, though the percentage increase over the previous year was lower than at the hospital level. Across 54 system titles included in the survey this year, the average total cash compensation rose 1.8%, from $425,000 in 2013 to $432,500 this year.

      • Oh Jeez, you don’t read what I post, you don’t even read what your post or the links you think make you sound so intelligent. I said INSURANCE COMPANY CEO’S, not the wages of the HEALTHCAE WORERS. But since you posted the article, you should read it yourself. And now that you’ve brought that end to light, read what is in your link:

        “CEOs at stand-alone or affiliated hospitals earned an average base salary of $662,800 and total cash compensation of $770,900. But CEOs serving multiple-hospital systems bested that, with an average base salary of $955,800 and total cash compensation of $1.25 million. Those pay levels placed these CEOs well within the top 1% of wage earners in the U.S. That has prompted criticism, given the sharp political debates over the merits of giving not-for-profit hospitals tax exemptions and over growing income inequality in the U.S.”

        And remember, these stats are for 2014 without full participation during the entire year. So my bet is both CEO’s of insurance company and Healthcare providers will go down when the plan is in full force. Don’t know about you, but I’m certainly not pulling out the Kleenex on that fact.

      • pssssst……………CEO’s are executives. Look it up.

        [[ And remember, these stats are for 2014 without full participation during the entire year.]]

        Bull crap. The ACA went into effect on 1-1-14. Pay is up for CEO’s.

      • pssssst……….CEO/Executive of Insurance Companies are not the same as CEO’s/Executives of Healthcare providers (such as hospitals and Physician Groups). SMH.

        And many did not get enrolled by 1/1 due to the fiasco of the online systems, etc. like myself. I didn’t get covered until 5/1 because the systems were so messed up. That is why they extended the enrollment period at least twice. So whatever number your talking about (ha I forgot …. oh from your trusty report source) does not reflect the results for an entire year in force. I guarantee much better results and reduced costs, etc. in 2015.

      • CEO pay is going up. Or are you stupid enough to think all ‘other’ executives get raises but not CEO’s. And the ACA started on 1-1-14. Nothing has changed ad far as bonuses. You got suckered by Obama again. No costs were reduced. Take it up with your local newspaper that I linked.

      • Ah foey on you, your not listening again. My costs were drastically reduced and that’s a fact as were many others.

      • Initially they may not be up (this report is too new to be a actual reflection of the results, too early). But eventually maybe salaries in the healthcare industry will go up because more people are insured, lowering the cost and write offs. However, when it comes specifically to the bonus’s of the CEO’s of insurance companies, which I do not believe should even exist at all, I hope they never do. That is costing us in tax payer dollars just as much as the uninsured. And please don’t ask me to prove that with worthless, charts, links and newspaper articles, cause it’s just really common sense.

      • Please.People were insured before. The 30,000,000 that were uninsured in 2009 are still uninsured. Let me give you a ‘worthless’ link……………

        http://tinyurl.com/n78aufp

        ————————————————

        You’re full of crap. You get 75% of your premiums paid by Obamacare. So if anyone is paying the CEO’s, it sure as hell isn’t you or me. ‘It’s just really common sense’ with or without charts..

      • Ah Andy, I can show you just as many links that show the opposite. I know how to google to get the results I want (or don’t want) too. There are many reports out there (I suppose using different sources of information) stating more people are now insured than ever before in history. People that were previously uninsured were waiting in line to get signed up. So how is the 30MM # unchanged. That makes absolutely no sense. You just can’t believe all you read anymore, you know that. However, my common sense is not based on articles, it is based on my specific example that I’ve already mentioned (as well as examples from people I know). It saved me and many thousands. I am also aware from specific examples of people I know that it did cause others to pay more. I don’t know ALL the answers, never said I did. But my example proves it is working for some, I am not lying, I assure you (I know, that means nothing to you) but I am not here to just be a hack. And as I said and said and said, over and over and over, it’s not a perfect system. It needs a lot of work, but it’s a start in the right direction. And the ‘main purpose’ of implementing this act was ‘to to provide insurance and basic healthcare needs to EVERYONE (even those that don’t want it???) with intentions to stop rising costs and taxpayer dollars. Reducing premiums was not a PRIMARY PURPOSE. Making it more affordable was the outcome of the effects of everyone being insured. Common sense (yes common sense) tells me the latter will not emerge overnight, it will take some time to develop as in any first year of a new plan. Bashing the system and claiming you want to do away with it helps in not way. it only causes undue concern of the eyes and ears of those that do not fully understand the plan and that is many. That is why I comment, to unravel some of the gross misunderstandings of those who oppose the plan for the wrong reasons due to a lack of understanding. We still have a lot of work to do. I am certainly in agreement with you on that.

      • You can’t show me anything lefty or you would have done so. So instead of blubbering some anecdotal crap or your hallucinations, put up proof.

      • I can show you but you will continue to not see, so game over big mouth with nothing to say but name calling.

      • You got nothing to show lefty. And I’ve seen you berate other posters so practice what you preach punk.

      • Yet, actual medical cost are coming down and more people are insured than ever before (non corporate insured).

        Did you have an actual point Forrest Chump?

      • [[ Yet, actual medical cost are coming down ]]

        No they aren’t. They go up because the govt subsidizes it. Just like the cost of education goes up because of the govt loans. Don’t be stupid……………….for once.

      • “Sit down with our enemies and make peace.” That’s exactly what he is trying to do. It’s the Republicans agenda to try to “stop him” and he is not going to stand for it. Sounds like his agenda is for the good of the entire country, actually the entire world (our best interests are included). What’s wrong with that.

      • Not a blessed thing, IF the other side wanted to sit down and make peace. You do not change a thousands year old culture by “wanting” to do anything. They have to want to do it. And they don’t want to do it. Those that do, are being slaughtered on a daily basis. The politics of America have nothing to do with what the radical Middle East wants. They want anyone that is not like them, gone from the face of the earth. Stop looking at the politics of the free world and look at the history and facts of the Middle East..

      • Your right, history has always shown us what to do in current situations (especially with the Middle East) and should pave the way to our future. Why even think, let’s just NUKE them, start WW3, kill thousands of innocent people including Americans and be done with it. I was wong to think there was no easy way out.

      • Not without a backlash and our “have to be involved’ at that point. We could not ignore anyone that using weapons of mass destruction and would be forced to step in.

  2. After the childish stunt that Congress just pulled you would trust them with what is going on with Iran? If they could they would have told Pakistan that we are coming for Bin Laden just to embarass the President.

  3. It’s just the GOP folks…

    According to Article Three of the U.S. Constitution, “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

    While some people floated the death penalty, other observers have pointed out that the GOP senators might have violated the Logan Act, which carries a penalty of up to three years in prison.

    The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.

    47 treasonous Republican Senators……who would have thought
    Perhaps 47 Republican Senators should have thought about that before they all signed a letter to the Supreme Ayatollah of Iran, warning him not to make a deal with President Obama.”

    • Ahhhhh, clarification, please? Last I heard the President was supposed to be citizen of the US. So do his 47 letters to the Ayatollah count against him?

    • Since when have we started give a good damn about the laws, rules, procedures, constitution, etc. Your daddy Obama don’t obey them, so why should anyone else? You want Republicans to follow every little rule and procedure, all the while giving your fanatical and devious Dictator free reign to run wild, and wipe his behind with the nations laws and constitution. If you don’t care about the Demonrats ignoring laws, don’t be a hypocrite and expect the other side to play by them either.

    • How anyone can interpret that to mean treason in this case is beyond rational thought. Perhaps I should try some Kool-aid…

      On second thought, I’ll skip the Kool-aid. No way on earth I want to be confused with the mindless hordes who defend this administration at all costs.

  4. If Democrats sent messages to foreign leaders undercutting a Republican president’s efforts, Republicans would call it “treason.”

    your dam right they would,,, while we all watched their little
    pumpkin heads exploding…

    • There are no longer any rules or ethics. Obama has eliminated them. So anything goes. The Republicans are just now finally learning to play by Obama’s own rules; which is no rules at all. Good for them. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

      • No, the Republicans are setting that pace by twisting his intentions on EVERYTHING he does. OBAMA has had enough and won’t tolerate their ruthless wrath and ridiculous accusations anymore. The word courtesy does not exist in the vocabulary. That is why he will not share. He has a better chance negotiating with Iran then with the Republicans.

      • http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/barack-obamas-top-10-apologies-how-the-president-has-humiliated-a-superpower

        June 2, 2009

        Barack Obama’s Top 10 Apologies: How the President Has Humiliated a Superpower

        1. Apology to France and Europe (“America Has Shown Arrogance”)

        Speech by President Obama, Rhenus Sports Arena, Strasbourg, France, April 3, 2009.[1]

        So we must be honest with ourselves. In recent years we’ve allowed our Alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there’s something more that has crept into our relationship. In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

        2. Apology to the Muslim World (“We Have Not Been Perfect”)

        President Obama, interview with Al Arabiya, January 27, 2009.[2]

        My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that.

        3. Apology to the Summit of the Americas (“At Times We Sought to Dictate Our Terms”)

        President Obama, address to the Summit of the Americas opening ceremony, Hyatt Regency, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, April 17, 2009.[3]

        All of us must now renew the common stake that we have in one another. I know that promises of partnership have gone unfulfilled in the past, and that trust has to be earned over time. While the United States has done much to promote peace and prosperity in the hemisphere, we have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms. But I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations; there is simply engagement based on mutual respect and common interests and shared values. So I’m here to launch a new chapter of engagement that will be sustained throughout my administration.

        The United States will be willing to acknowledge past errors where those errors have been made.

        4. Apology at the G-20 Summit of World Leaders (“Some Restoration of America’s Standing in the World”)

        News conference by President Obama, ExCel Center, London, United Kingdom, April 2, 2009.[4]

        I would like to think that with my election and the early decisions that we’ve made, that you’re starting to see some restoration of America’s standing in the world. And although, as you know, I always mistrust polls, international polls seem to indicate that you’re seeing people more hopeful about America’s leadership.

        I just think in a world that is as complex as it is, that it is very important for us to be able to forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions. Just to try to crystallize the example, there’s been a lot of comparison here about Bretton Woods. “Oh, well, last time you saw the entire international architecture being remade.” Well, if there’s just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy, that’s an easier negotiation. But that’s not the world we live in, and it shouldn’t be the world that we live in.

        5. Apology for the War on Terror (“We Went off Course”)

        President Obama, speech at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009.[5]

        Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. I believe that many of these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that all too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight; that all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, too often we set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And during this season of fear, too many of us–Democrats and Republicans, politicians, journalists, and citizens–fell silent.

        In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach–one that rejected torture and one that recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

        6. Apology for Guantanamo in France (“Sacrificing Your Values”)

        Speech by President Obama, Rhenus Sports Arena, Strasbourg, France, April 3, 2009.[6]

        Our two republics were founded in service of these ideals. In America, it is written into our founding documents as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” In France: “Liberté”–absolutely–“egalité, fraternité.” Our moral authority is derived from the fact that generations of our citizens have fought and bled to uphold these values in our nations and others. And that’s why we can never sacrifice them for expedience’s sake. That’s why I’ve ordered the closing of the detention center in Guantanamo Bay. That’s why I can stand here today and say without equivocation or exception that the United States of America does not and will not torture.

        In dealing with terrorism, we can’t lose sight of our values and who we are. That’s why I closed Guantanamo. That’s why I made very clear that we will not engage in certain interrogation practices. I don’t believe that there is a contradiction between our security and our values. And when you start sacrificing your values, when you lose yourself, then over the long term that will make you less secure.

        7. Apology before the Turkish Parliament (“Our Own Darker Periods in Our History”)

        Speech by President Obama to the Turkish Parliament, Ankara, Turkey, April 6, 2009.[7]

        Every challenge that we face is more easily met if we tend to our own democratic foundation. This work is never over. That’s why, in the United States, we recently ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. That’s why we prohibited–without exception or equivocation–the use of torture. All of us have to change. And sometimes change is hard.

        Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.

        Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History is often tragic, but unresolved, it can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future.

        8. Apology for U.S. Policy toward the Americas (“The United States Has Not Pursued and Sustained Engagement with Our Neighbors”)

        Opinion editorial by President Obama: “Choosing a Better Future in the Americas,” April 16, 2009.[8]

        Too often, the United States has not pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors. We have been too easily distracted by other priorities, and have failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas. My Administration is committed to the promise of a new day. We will renew and sustain a broader partnership between the United States and the hemisphere on behalf of our common prosperity and our common security.

        9. Apology for the Mistakes of the CIA (“Potentially We’ve Made Some Mistakes”)

        Remarks by the President to CIA employees, CIA Headquarters, Langley, Virginia, April 20, 2009.[9] The remarks followed the controversial decision to release Office of Legal Counsel memoranda detailing CIA enhanced interrogation techniques used against terrorist suspects.

        So don’t be discouraged by what’s happened in the last few weeks. Don’t be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we’ve made some mistakes. That’s how we learn. But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be President of the United States, and that’s why you should be proud to be members of the CIA.

        10. Apology for Guantanamo in Washington (“A Rallying Cry for Our Enemies”)

        President Obama, speech at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009.[10]

        There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. In fact, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law–a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

        So the record is clear: Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies.

      • There is so much good to pull out of those statements, I’m not even going there. The intreptation by the author is wrong.

      • YAWN. Since it appears we are the only two in discussion here, it no longer represents a worthy cause to continue. So let’s end before someone gets the impression that we like talking to each other.

      • [[ YAWN ]]

        Child.

        [[ Since it appears we are the only two in discussion here, it no longer represents a worthy cause to continue. So let’s end before someone gets the impression that we like talking to each other.]]

        I accept your surrender.

      • Ralph asked ig Weapons of mass destruction was liked? Very rational answer, the question on the other hand, was dumb as a door knob.

  5. This sneaky weasel can do this deal with Iran because he is once again using devious wording by calling it an “agreement” instead of a “treaty”. Because if he called it a treaty, congress would have to ratify it. By calling it an “agreement”, this tinhorn dictator can yet again subvert the constitution and sell out the American people.

      • MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! What did he call the letter from the 47 traitors…PROPAGANDA??? MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      • Hey organ grinder monkey, what happened to that transparency cap your BOY used to talk about? You libs are such saps and suckers.

      • Your punk POS POTUS has known about the enrichment program since 2010. They have been a psycho nation since the hostage crisis. I know you like to excuse bad thug behavior by blaming those pointing it out but stop being a deflecting pu$$y for once.

      • Another pu$$y divertion.Your @pe in chief said he would be transparent. The primate lied and you excuse it.Good monkey!

    • He is not doing a “deal” or a “treaty.” OMG, what don’t you people understand. He wants to talk to them about the possibility of a “deal” or a “treaty” vs war and has the guts to do it vs the extreme of dropping bombs that will kill thousands worldwide. One minute you wanting him to pull all troops out (I realize the issues are different) the next you want us to bomb an entire country. Any proposed “deal” or “treaty” that comes out of these “TALKS” or “NEGOTIATIONS” MUST be approved by the government before it is signed. All American’s know that including congress, Mr. President AS WELL AS THE LEADERSHIP OF IRAN. So that letter served no purpose except to embarrass us as a country, which it did. The Iranians even laughed at it and knew exactly what the intentions were, to undermine our President. They’re not stupid. The GOPS accuse OBAMA of done everything bad under the sun. Man, I have never seen people exaggerate so much to show their ego and want to always be right (never listen just want to be heard without hearing the facts). Our President is trying to compromise (yes with terrorists) in his “talks” with him and I am certain will explain their non-compliance in any agreement that is approved by the US will result in severe consequences. He needs to attempt to do this without starting a war because it’s the right thing to do, regardless of their past. War and a show of “power” should not be our first response. Most American’s DO NOT WANT A WAR. But that excludes, obviously, the GOP’s and that my friends is pitiful …. SIDE NOTE: If OBAMA proposed a war on this issue, the tune would reverse and all the GOPS would be opposing it, because they seem to want to do anything to disagree and discredit any and all he tries to accomplish for us. These 47 Reps should be dismissed, no questions asked as they do not represent the better good of the American people.

      • Yes, you are correct. The 47 Republicans that signed the letter screwed the US over once again. Sorry, I misunderstood you comment.

      • So, I am narrow minded if I disagree with you, but ok if I agree? Why do you need to call me narrow minded? John Kerry negotiated with communist Sandinistas on his own. Was that ok with you? Obama approached Russia over Bush’s head. Is that ok? And you did not misunderstand me. The screwing over is being done by a President who has no love of our country and no respect for the rule of law. He has alienated our allies and sided with our enemies over and over again. You can take our president and move to Iran as far as I’m concerned.

      • By narrow minded I meant not looking at the big picture. My apology if it offended you. No, IT IS okay if we disagree. That’s what these discussions boards are for. And I do disagree with your statements about our President. I believe he has our best interests in mind. Unlike the 47 Republicans that signed this letter. But I respect your opinion.

      • Moron. You think your bowing POS apologizing Jew hating, ME loving, Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood funding POTUS has our best interests at heart? And the GOP doesn’t because they sent Iran excerpts from our Constitution? What kind of slimy POS thinks what Obama has done is superior to our Constitution? How many times has the SCOTUS smacked your boy for overreach do far? 12? And now the POS says he’ll use his ‘pen and phone’ to get what he wants? You fool.

      • Stop calling me names. Enough of that!! It’s counterproductive so just stop. You think that has our best interests at heart? Your nor the GOP obviously has our best interests at hearts. The letter they sent was for the purpose of stopping any negotiations from ever taking place, not quote the constitution, any one can read that, even the Iranians. Maybe the letter should have been addressed to you.

      • Screw you! This coward of a POTUS is an embarrassment! He berates Israel while he sucks ISIS, Putin and all ME mullah ass! Your moronic and flat-headed ignorance of our laws also contribute to you hero worship of Obama. So when post like an ass, I’ll tell you about it.

  6. Obama has sided with Iran over America.
    Col. West, with all due respect, if you can say, “There is no doubt Iran is an enemy of the United States,” why can you not say, “There is no doubt Obama is an enemy of the United States,” but insist instead that he is ‘confused’?

      • He has never apologized to Iran you moron… and there is no deal… that is what negotiations are for.
        No surprise that you make excuses for treason

      • Not yet fisty boy. He will you slimy punk. He;s apologized before. Now kiss his nuts Brenda.

        Who committed treason anuz? I mean besides Obama?

      • 47 Republican Senators committed treason.

        As to Obama’s apology… you are a liar.
        Show when he ever apologized.
        You say he apologized before… when?

      • No treason ISIS lover. You can send mail to anyone as US citizen. Stop sobbing.

        Here punk………………

        Barack Obama’s Top 10 Apologies:

        http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/barack-obamas-top-10-apologies-how-the-president-has-humiliated-a-superpower

        The following is a list of the 10 most significant apologies by the President of the United States in his first four months of office as they relate to foreign policy and national security issues.

        1. Apology to France and Europe (“America Has Shown Arrogance”)

        Speech by President Obama, Rhenus Sports Arena, Strasbourg, France, April 3, 2009.[1]

        So we must be honest with ourselves. In recent years we’ve allowed our Alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there’s something more that has crept into our relationship. In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

        2. Apology to the Muslim World (“We Have Not Been Perfect”)

        President Obama, interview with Al Arabiya, January 27, 2009.[2]

        My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that.

        3. Apology to the Summit of the Americas (“At Times We Sought to Dictate Our Terms”)

        President Obama, address to the Summit of the Americas opening ceremony, Hyatt Regency, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, April 17, 2009.[3]

        All of us must now renew the common stake that we have in one another. I know that promises of partnership have gone unfulfilled in the past, and that trust has to be earned over time. While the United States has done much to promote peace and prosperity in the hemisphere, we have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms. But I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations; there is simply engagement based on mutual respect and common interests and shared values. So I’m here to launch a new chapter of engagement that will be sustained throughout my administration.

        The United States will be willing to acknowledge past errors where those errors have been made.

        4. Apology at the G-20 Summit of World Leaders (“Some Restoration of America’s Standing in the World”)

        News conference by President Obama, ExCel Center, London, United Kingdom, April 2, 2009.[4]

        I would like to think that with my election and the early decisions that we’ve made, that you’re starting to see some restoration of America’s standing in the world. And although, as you know, I always mistrust polls, international polls seem to indicate that you’re seeing people more hopeful about America’s leadership.

        I just think in a world that is as complex as it is, that it is very important for us to be able to forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions. Just to try to crystallize the example, there’s been a lot of comparison here about Bretton Woods. “Oh, well, last time you saw the entire international architecture being remade.” Well, if there’s just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy, that’s an easier negotiation. But that’s not the world we live in, and it shouldn’t be the world that we live in.

        5. Apology for the War on Terror (“We Went off Course”)

        President Obama, speech at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009.[5]

        Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. I believe that many of these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that all too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight; that all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, too often we set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And during this season of fear, too many of us–Democrats and Republicans, politicians, journalists, and citizens–fell silent.

        In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach–one that rejected torture and one that recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

        6. Apology for Guantanamo in France (“Sacrificing Your Values”)

        Speech by President Obama, Rhenus Sports Arena, Strasbourg, France, April 3, 2009.[6]

        Our two republics were founded in service of these ideals. In America, it is written into our founding documents as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” In France: “Liberté”–absolutely–“egalité, fraternité.” Our moral authority is derived from the fact that generations of our citizens have fought and bled to uphold these values in our nations and others. And that’s why we can never sacrifice them for expedience’s sake. That’s why I’ve ordered the closing of the detention center in Guantanamo Bay. That’s why I can stand here today and say without equivocation or exception that the United States of America does not and will not torture.

        In dealing with terrorism, we can’t lose sight of our values and who we are. That’s why I closed Guantanamo. That’s why I made very clear that we will not engage in certain interrogation practices. I don’t believe that there is a contradiction between our security and our values. And when you start sacrificing your values, when you lose yourself, then over the long term that will make you less secure.

        7. Apology before the Turkish Parliament (“Our Own Darker Periods in Our History”)

        Speech by President Obama to the Turkish Parliament, Ankara, Turkey, April 6, 2009.[7]

        Every challenge that we face is more easily met if we tend to our own democratic foundation. This work is never over. That’s why, in the United States, we recently ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. That’s why we prohibited–without exception or equivocation–the use of torture. All of us have to change. And sometimes change is hard.

        Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.

        Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History is often tragic, but unresolved, it can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future.

        8. Apology for U.S. Policy toward the Americas (“The United States Has Not Pursued and Sustained Engagement with Our Neighbors”)

        Opinion editorial by President Obama: “Choosing a Better Future in the Americas,” April 16, 2009.[8]

        Too often, the United States has not pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors. We have been too easily distracted by other priorities, and have failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas. My Administration is committed to the promise of a new day. We will renew and sustain a broader partnership between the United States and the hemisphere on behalf of our common prosperity and our common security.

        9. Apology for the Mistakes of the CIA (“Potentially We’ve Made Some Mistakes”)

        Remarks by the President to CIA employees, CIA Headquarters, Langley, Virginia, April 20, 2009.[9] The remarks followed the controversial decision to release Office of Legal Counsel memoranda detailing CIA enhanced interrogation techniques used against terrorist suspects.

        So don’t be discouraged by what’s happened in the last few weeks. Don’t be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we’ve made some mistakes. That’s how we learn. But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be President of the United States, and that’s why you should be proud to be members of the CIA.

        10. Apology for Guantanamo in Washington (“A Rallying Cry for Our Enemies”)

        President Obama, speech at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009.[10]

        There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. In fact, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law–a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

        So the record is clear: Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies.

      • HAHHAHA… you think members of the senate writing a letter to a foreign government to undermine the President’s negotiations isn’t treason… but you think talking to people is apologizing.
        HAHAHA

        Obama never apologized once in any of your examples>

        And, of course, every single example you cited was taken out of context… only showing part of what Obama said..
        Heritage foundation knows people like yo uare too stupid to fact check and look up waht Obama actually said to see teh context of his words.

        here… I’ll give you one.

        the first one you cited, where Obama mentioned American arrogance in a speech in Strasbourg.
        Was he apologizing or was he actually standing up for America and having an honest dialog?

        let’s look at the part of his speech that heritage foundation cut out…

        ***********************
        “It’s more difficult to break down walls of division than to simply allow our differences to build and our resentments to fester. So we must be honest with ourselves. In recent years we’ve allowed our Alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there’s something more that has crept into our relationship. In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

        But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what’s bad.

        On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth. They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both more isolated. They fail to acknowledge the fundamental truth that America cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot confront them without America.”

      • 1. Your so-called proof of Obama apologizing were several statements, all of which were out of context…. and none of which had him apologizing.
        even in the edited statements you posted… there were zero apologies.

        2. Allow me to quote from the Logan act, which has been US law for 216 years…

        “Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without
        authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or
        carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government
        or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures
        or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof,
        in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or
        to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this
        title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

      • The proof is all the apologies. Deal with it.

        Wrong again on your lame interpretation of the Logan Act. The letter cited our Constitution which can be found online by anyone. So what was violated and how?

      • No moron. Show me where the letter is treason. I linked the letter now be a good Obamite and cite what part of the letter is treason.

      • Did already but here it is again. It’s in the “may have” state but I am one that feels that the actions of those 47 Republications does violate this law:

        Updated since this event occurred:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L

        In March 2015, 47 Republican senators sent a letter to the Iranian government regarding President Barack Obama’s attempts to broker a nuclear arms agreement between Iran and six major powers (P5+1).[11][12] The letter warns Iran of the limitations of President Obama’s term in office and constitutional powers – noting that anything done without the advice and consent of the Senate could be undone by the next President. This prompted some commentators to suggest that the letter may have violated the Logan Act.[8][13][14][15] A petition on the White House’s We The People website had accumulated signatures from over 250,000
        people requesting the Obama administration to prosecute the 47 senators under the Logan Act.[3]

        We’ll see what happens.

      • No you didn’t. You showed me the Logan Act. Now where did the GOP violate it? Prove the law was broken without your partisan hackery.

      • I ‘believe’ their actions violated the Logan Act. That is my opinion that supports the ‘at this point in time’ already 250,000 others who signed the petition in place. I am not, however the final decision maker. That’s what our justice system was created to determine. I can only hope these arguments and support describing how this act was violated (it’s a matter of interpretation) are not ignored and does go before the supreme courts in order to come to (what you could possibly even consider) a sound conclusion/decision. There is no “hard tangible” proof Andy. We both know in this case it’s a matter of interpretation of what the letter is saying as well as the consequences it caused and the authority that it went against or undermined. I hope they are indited for the courts to have final say. If found guilty of violating this act, it should be treated as a serious issue that requires serious consequences.

      • [[ I ‘believe’ their actions violated the Logan Act. ]]

        And you are wrong…….

        http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/logan-act/

        The text of the Logan Act makes it a crime for citizens to engage in “any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government . . . with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government . . . in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States.” As Peter explained yesterday, the Senators’ letter certainly seems to fall within this language. But, critically, the citizen must act “without authority of the United States.” Although most assume that means without authority of the Executive Branch, the Logan Act itself does not specify what this term means, and the State Department told Congress in 1975 that “Nothing in section 953 . . . would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution

      • Then you (and the person who wrote this statement regarding the ACT) are stating that members of congress are not to be held at the same level as any Citizen and had full authority to send this letter without approval or knowledge of anyone else??? They are above the law. These would also then have to be apply when your party complains that Obama does something (really anything) and has no authority, is against the constitution and not in the our best interest. Hypocritical in my opinion. They did not act within any authority except what they consider their own. Good for one, good for all…….. NOT.

        …..in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution

        I believe the above excerpt from the statement is where they are guilty and I hope they are prosecuted for a final investigation and determination to show that. I do not see any evidence that this letter was written with that statement in mind. In fact, quite the contrary. I feel they clearly did it out of their hate for OBAMA, their desire to undermine and embarrass him, resentment toward his recent veto where he used his authority they disagreed with, and to potentially prevent the negotiation for coming to fruition at all not to mention the disregard for the consequences of the other Countries involved as well as the American people, thereby killing any chance of a peaceful outcome.

        Now I’m going to practice what I preach and say I could be wrong, but that would be a far stretch from the reality I’ve seen and what’s been going on since the Republicans took over the Senate.

      • I take that to mean you are whipped, waiving the white flag and tired of commenting on my “hard to reply to” facts. So adios, It’s Friday and I have some more challenging things on my agenda. Chow.

      • You got me there. I just showed you good basis for my opinions and you’ve showed me nothing but just talk (OK any maybe sometimes funny) that does not show the walk.

      • No right or wrong here, just passionate expression of our opinions. Is that better for your sensitive feelings?

      • Wrong lefty. There are rights and wrongs in life no matter how much you Obamites wish to ignore them.

        [[ Is that better for your sensitive feelings? ]]

        Says the whimperer who is still butt-hurt over being wrong about the letter the GOP sent to Iran.

      • I’ve been wondering, how exactly did “47 Republican Senators” commit treason? The subjects of the State keep saying this…

      • The President and/or the American people do have a resson to apologize now. For what those 47 Republicans did when they committed treason.

        Example of What the Apology Letter Should Look Like: By Andy Borowitz (see link below letter):

        Dear Iran,
        We, the American people, are writing
        to apologize for the recent actions of 47 of our citizens. While there
        is no excuse for what they did, we believe we owe you an explanation.

        In every country, there are members of the labor force whose lack of
        useful skills makes them virtually unemployable. Different countries
        deal with these people in different ways. In the United States, we
        routinely elect them to Congress.
        Once elected, these people can usually
        be counted upon to do no harm, mainly because they generally do nothing
        at all. Unfortunately, sometimes they decide to “work,” as 47 of them
        did this week. The only reassurance we can offer you is that, having
        worked for the first time in years, they are highly unlikely to exert
        themselves again any time soon.
        Again, please accept our apologies, and know that most Americans find these 47 people even more annoying than you do.
        Sincerely,
        The American People
        More here: http://nyr.kr/1C1OqbW

  7. Of course there will be no information – the real power in the White House is Valerie Jarrett, born in Iran to parents who were members of the Iranian Communist Party. She pulls the strings, Obama obeys. In the US/Iran “talks”, there will be two votes for Iran and no votes for the US. We know how that will turn out, and the details will be hidden or whitewashed to make it seem like a good deal for the US.

    • Does Valerie have a magical wand to give her such power. Evidently, even the POTUS does not have any power against the majority Republican senate.

  8. If Allen West wants to know so badly what’s in the deal, he should write a nice letter to the Grand Ayatollah. Iran might be a murderous theocracy but they answer letters. Or send them an email, I’m sure Mrs. Clinton won’t mind creating an account for him on her server.

    • Whatsamatta boo-boo? You don;t want to know what’s in the deal? Or do you suck on anything Obama does and trust his Muslim ass?

      • There can not be transparency in all that is being done to keep our country safe. Trust me, Obama is on top of ISIS and well knows the history of IRAN. Top secret information can not be leaked to the general people in
        instances where our National Security can be compromised. Hello. What the dopes did by sending this letter is a pure example of leaking information they don’t even have all the facts on yet that will put in danger to good intentions. Beware of the neighbor who lives next door.

      • [[ There can not be transparency in all that is being done to keep our country safe.]]

        Like funding Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood?

        [[ Trust me, Obama is on top of ISIS ]]

        Trust me, Obama is the reason ISIS exists.

        [[ and well knows the history of IRAN ]]

        And I know Obama’s history of sucking ME ass.

        [[ Top secret information can not be leaked to the general people in ]]

        Who said to do that lefty?

        [[ What the dopes did by sending this letter is a pure example of leaking information]]

        Hey moron. Did you read the letter? What was ‘leaked’? Our Constitutional process? Idiot.

        [[ Beware of the neighbor who lives next door. ]]

        How pithy and useless.

      • Bullcrap. Obama can say if progress is being made or not. He is not obligated to give away sensitive information. That does not preclude him from speaking on it at all.

      • Bullcrap, that’s exactly what he is tired of hearing from the Republicans on anything and everything he does and says. Regardless of weather they personally agree or disagree, they do it because they are a part of a party that is visciousley and disrespectfully attacking our own PRESIDENT OF THE ‘UNITED’ STATES. I wouldn’t give them something to spin anymore either.

      • OK, emailing him now. Obama, please do your job and dismiss these 47 despicable republicans from their offices. Great idea. https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrB8p3IRQJVJV8AqLyJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTI0ZGlvMnZ1BHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZAM3YTFkMzNmNTYxNGFkZDNkNGM1NDNmMTVlMWYyZThlMgRncG9zAzEzMARpdANiaW5n?.origin=&back=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Ddespicable%2Bme%2Bcharacter%26_adv_prop%3Dimage%26va%3Ddespicable%2Bme%2Bcharacter%26fr%3Dyhs-mozilla-002%26hsimp%3Dyhs-002%26hspart%3Dmozilla%26nost%3D1%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D130&w=640&h=1136&imgurl=www.iwallpapers.co%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F08%2FPopular-animated-filem-Despicable-Me-2-characters-wallpapers-640×1136-06.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cablecable.info%2Fpopular-animated-filem-despicable-me-2-characters-wallpapers-640-1136%2F&size=74.5KB&name=Popular+Animated+Filem+%3Cb%3EDespicable%3C%2Fb%3E+%3Cb%3EMe%3C%2Fb%3E+2+%3Cb%3ECharacters%3C%2Fb%3E+Wallpapers+640+1136&p=despicable+me+character&oid=7a1d33f5614add3d4c543f15e1f2e8e2&fr2=&fr=yhs-mozilla-002&tt=Popular+Animated+Filem+%3Cb%3EDespicable%3C%2Fb%3E+%3Cb%3EMe%3C%2Fb%3E+2+%3Cb%3ECharacters%3C%2Fb%3E+Wallpapers+640+1136&b=121&ni=192&no=130&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=131fdickt&sigb=15pol0c0p&sigi=13q8r06jj&sigt=12quhf66h&sign=12quhf66h&.crumb=wap97YdseGR&fr=yhs-mozilla-002&hsimp=yhs-002&hspart=mozilla

      • Now that was an intelligent statement. You don’t belong on this blog. You are nothing but a troll.

        My response to someone who did present intelligent questions:
        1)
        I believe he does not share in these negotiation because he does not
        trust the GOP due to their unprecedented racist actions to discredit him
        and throw him under the bus for everything and anything under the son.
        The writing of the letter to IRAN signed by 47 republication kinda makes
        it clear to me that he is correct. They hate him (these types of haters and racists should not be representing Americans) and will do anything
        to discredit him. 2) Everything about the sanction issue I absolutely
        agree with you on, they should not have been lifted. Not sure what he was thinking. Definitely a
        mistake on his and whomever supported him on that issue. 3) It’s an
        opinion and/or judgement people are making that he is intending to
        violate the constitution by signing this treaty on his own. I don’t
        know why it’s even being talked about because he has not done this and I
        don’t believe he intends to. Even if he wanted to he couldn’t because
        what you say is absolutely true and it’s the law, and everyone know,
        including him, it must be done with senate approval. So these
        statements are have no weight what so ever and are insignificant because
        they are just conjecture. 4) I am one that believes he does not want
        the GOP involved the negotiations because he already knows what they want,
        and that is nothing but WAR (sure it may help the economy some, but at
        the cost of many innocent lives). I would hope the majority don’t want that). I
        believe he wants to try to come up with a better alternative, then
        propose it to the senate with all the facts he gathers in the meetings
        of the 6 countries involved during these negotiations. They can’t
        discombobulate the game this way. I suppose I’m giving him the benefit
        of the doubt. But that is what I feel and I hope he succeeds. If not,
        then we move to plan B. But to go to war (or support another country do
        go to war) without attempting Plan A is one I disagree with. 4) I do
        not believe the man is stupid (I don’t believe any person would be that
        stupid) and would ever make any attempt to allow both countries to have
        nuclear weapons, that just sounds ridiculous to me. If that is his
        intention, it will never pass. I somehow he is able to do this on ‘his own’ (doubtful), at that point is where I see that
        impeachment proceedings should begin immediately. I would hope that we
        all agree that no country should have nukes period. No country should
        have that much POWER, agree on that. Weapons of mass destruction should
        be abolished altogether. Maybe that is a naive statement, but I hope
        not. And let me make clear while I have the opportunity, I am not a
        member of any party, never was. My opinions are based on pure common
        sense and logic. I don’t agree to just agree or disagree to just
        disagree and stand by my party. I am an independent and use black and
        white logic facts to form my opinions and in no way think ‘Im always
        right. One of the biggest flaws in this world today is the problem
        people have in admitting they ‘could be wrong.’ And that just seems to
        be the way the Republicans are acting more and more like these days. If
        it were the democrats that sent this letter, you could bet I’d be right
        up there criticizing them for their wrong doing, disregard of our
        President and embarrassment it caused the US. What I see is the same
        untrustworthy people that worked on Wall street also hold positions in
        government. And there is no getting around it. We have just become too
        big for it to be kept a secret anymore. We are a pathetically corrupt
        society . Am I’m very shaken up and sad about that.

      • [[ Now that was an intelligent statement.]]

        About as intelligent as some Stepford Wive Obamite saying the GOP Senators broke the law and Obama can fire them. Do yourself a favor kid, learn the law, learn the Constitution and then you MAY, MAY be equipped to discuss what a POTUS can and cannot do. And screw your ‘troll’ crap. Any libtard that starts the ‘fire the GOP’ or ‘the GOP are traitors’ crap gets what they deserve from me. So as long as you post like a leftard idiot I will treat you like one.

      • This is just a joke of course (not sure it’s really funny) just to
        shed some lite on how ridiculous these 47 REPS made themselves look, in addition to the US as a whole.

        ———————————————————————-

        March 10, 2015 Iran Offers to Mediate Talks Between Republicans and Obama Article Written By Andy Borowitz – Borowitz Report – The New Yorker

        TEHRAN (The Borowitz Report)—Stating that “their continuing hostilities are a threat to world peace,” Iran has offered to mediate talks between congressional Republicans and President Obama.

        Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, made the offer one day after Iran received what he called a “worrisome letter” from Republican leaders, which suggested to him that “the relationship between Republicans and Obama has
        deteriorated dangerously.”

        “Tensions between these two historic enemies have been high in recent years, but we believe they are now at a boiling point,” Khamenei said. “As a result, Iran feels it must offer itself as a peacemaker.”

        He said that his nation was the “logical choice” to jumpstart negotiations between Obama and the Republicans because “it has become clear that both sides currently talk more to Iran than to each other.”

        He invited Obama and the Republicans to meet in Tehran to hash out their differences and called on world powers to force the two bitter foes to the bargaining table, adding, “It is time to stop the madness.”

        Hours after Iran made its offer, President Obama said that he was willing to meet with his congressional adversaries under the auspices of Tehran, but questioned whether “any deal reached with Republicans is worth the paper it’s written on.”

        For their part, the Republicans said they would only agree to talks if there were no preconditions, such as recognizing President Obama’s existence.

        NOTE ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Andy Borowitz is a New York Times best-selling author and a comedian who has written for The New Yorker since 1998. He writes the Borowitz Report for newyorker.com.

    • A good example of what the letter should look like.

      Quoted from a Facebook post by Andy Borowitz:

      “A Letter to Iran
      Dear Iran,
      We,
      the American people, are writing to apologize for the recent actions of
      47 of our citizens. While there is no excuse for what they did, we
      believe we owe you an explanation.

      In every country, there are
      members of the labor force whose lack of useful skills makes them
      virtually unemployable. Different countries deal with these people in
      different ways. In the United States, we routinely elect them to
      Congress. Once elected, these people can usually be counted upon to do
      no harm, mainly because they generally do nothing at all.
      Unfortunately, sometimes they decide to “work,” as 47 of them did this
      week. The only reassurance we can offer you is that, having worked for
      the first time in years, they are highly unlikely to exert themselves
      again any time soon.

      Again, please accept our apologies, and know that most Americans find these 47 people even more annoying than you do.

      Sincerely,
      The American People”

      About the Author: Andy Borowitz is an American writer, comedian,
      satirist, and actor. Borowitz is a New York Times-bestselling author
      who won the first National Press Club award for humor. He is known for
      creating the satirical column The Borowitz Report, which has an audience
      in the millions and was acquired by The New Yorker. In a profile on CBS
      News Sunday Morning, he was called “one of the funniest people in
      America”.

  9. The “potential” answers?? Any means to get attention Mr. West, huh. You are one of the most narcissistic people on the face of the planet. Of course, we all know the answers to why you write such dribble – to drive ultra-conservatives to you site to generate ad revenue. Have to hand it to you though – you’re cashing in – laughing all the way to the bank.

  10. Because he does not want to sacrifice the integrity of the deal by
    allowing the press and Republicans to leak sensitive information and
    twist and sabotage his intentions …. AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.

      • How is it bad faith and how is it pandering?
        Should we never try to negotiate with our adversaries?

      • What deal can be brokered when their stated goal is to kill you. They chant death to America everyday and I believe they mean what they say.

      • I’m not saying we’re going to be best friends with Iran… especially not while the extremists are running the show over there. But it may be possible to broker an arrangment that is in both our interests.
        We didn’t negotiate deals with the soviets because we were friends. We did what was in both our interests

      • For the ridiculous (oblivious intent) of the letter the 47 Republicans sent, rightfully so in hopes they will still have an open mind to negotiate. Hey it may not work, but it’s worth a try.

      • Don’t antagonize by name calling or baby talk accusations. It’s a bad form, a cop out and really inappropriate on any site.

      • Guess you forgot about the cold war the US had with Russia. The mullahs are running the show in Iran they want a war.

        Iran is again asserting that Armageddon is at hand and that the Islamic regime’s followers, indeed all of Islam, must prepare for a monumental change in the world.

        Officials of the Islamic regime last month held their annual conference

        image: http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png on the Mahdism Doctrine to prepare for the coming of the last Islamic messiah, the Shiites’ 12th Imam, Mahdi.

        Shiites, whose clerics rule Iran with an iron fist

        image: http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png, believe that at the end of times, Mahdi, a 9th century prophet, will reappear with Jesus Christ at his side, kill all the infidels and raise the flag of Islam in all four corners of the world, establishing worldwide Islamic governance.

        Ali Larijani, the speaker of Iran’s parliament, said at the conference that, “I hope (Iran’s) Islamic Revolution is that of the righteous government

        image: http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png before the coming,” according to Fars News Agency, the regime’s media outlet run by the Revolutionary Guards.

        “Righteous government” is a key to Mahdi’s return, the Shiites believe.

        A high Iranian politician said recently that he believes the Syrian revolution could be the catalyst for sparking a worldwide conflagration that will usher in an era of Muslim domination of the world.
        Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/iran-armageddon-at-hand-prepare-for-war-islamic-mahdi-expected-to-return-with-jesus-kill-infidels/#LKO4MuHvXR7CbBP6.99
        So I ask you again how can you bargain with people who want to kill you.

      • We have always negotiated with people who wanted to kill us.

        And no, i did not forget the cold war.
        Perhaps you have. We avoided war many times by negotiating with our enemies during the Cold War.
        How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis ended?

      • Obama is the Neville Chamberlain of our time. Rather than negotiating with strength, trust and verifying, his position of weakness, of believe and trusting Iran is dangerous. Iran has already said they will destroy the little Satan (Israel) and then come for the big Satan (America). Iran has lied about their nuclear ambition from day one and hid their sites and the amount and grade of uranium they have processed. The nations that have nuclear weapons have used them as defensive weapons and deterrents. Iran will not, they will be used as offensive weapons to intimidate or kill. After all Iran through terrorism and proxy wars has killed more Americans than any country in the world. When Iran chants death to America I believe them!

      • The sanction that Congress had imposed were working but Obama lifted them. I would do what Iran does, arm the insurgents in the country too fight and over throw the Mullahs who run the government. Bombing, assassination, decapitation strike fear and chaos in the political leaders the same way Iran does. Fight fire with fire.

      • No, two wrongs don’t make a right. Extreme measure needed when and IF these negotiations fail. I don’t agree with lifting the sanctions either. Remember, I am not of any party so I don’t agree just to agree. But see, that’s a smart response because it could be another alternative (or even a plan in Obama’s pocket) which is against what all of you are suggesting, that we don’t negotiate at all.

      • When the stated goal of Iran is to wipe the US off the map (kill) what is left to negotiate? How to be wiped off the map and when?

      • Do not discredit something that has not yet even happened. This goal you speak of can be changed through negotiation, still to be seen.

      • Back to my original question, if the person you are negotiating with tells you they are going to kill you where does the negotiation start, what is left to negotiation?

      • Um, seriously? How about not killing at all to start. What people say and do are two different things. And as you’ve stated above, they have lied about other things.

      • Look at what ISIS is doing, that will be Iran on steroids if they get nuclear weapons after all Iran has killed more Americans than any country with terrorist and by proxy war and I don’t hearing them singing
        Kumbaya. But have a nice life, no longer for you and I to discuss this topic.

      • Both Iran and ISIS need to be dealt with, that we can agree on. It’s only the method we debate. Since ISIS is a terrorist group and not a Muslim Country (as are many others), I think this group needs to be dealt with on different terms than negotiations. My prediction is we shall soon see the end to ISIS and the American’s will be a part of their demise.

      • He created them, that’s a funny one. But yes, he is one of many who should take responsibility to help fix the problems, and that’s what he is trying to do. So let him. Don’t sabotage his efforts.

      • Not funny at all. our punk POS POTUS who sucks ME ass left Iraq and up pops ISIS. Now the little Muslim POTUS, who called ISIS ‘JV’ has a mess the clean up. His mess.

      • It’s despicable, unfathomable and a threat to the safety and security of the entire world, just as all terrorist groups are. I’m not sure, are you implying they were born from inside the Iranian empire. Possible. I pray every day we see the end of them is in the very near future.

      • Because then we will have to get involved, as the WAR will have then begun, prior to any effort to settle the matter in the better manner though these upcoming negotiation/talks and keeping in mind the best interests of all countries involved, not just the US. Isreal knows they will lose without our support, that’s why they also try to defame OBAMA’s name. Something needs to be done, no doubt. But let’s agree on it and not be forced in to it by the manipulation of the GOP’s (who seem to love war, it does raise revenue, but lets not forget how many lives it will kill). Let’s do first things first, if negotiations fail, then we will have no choice to go to the next step, and I hope that’s not war either. Why jump to war which will only cause innocent deaths in more than one country when we have an opportunity to make this right in other ways. American’s have more power when it comes to negotiating terms then Israel. There is more at state for the Iranian to fear. I don’t believe Americans has ever jumped to a war in our history without trying to resolve with a better end in sight. Why change that now? It’s been a righteous, successful and the respected American way for hundreds of years.

      • Don’t know how to interpret English. Absolutely not, that’s not what I said and you know it. No country should have them, including us. “So let’s kill them all” says Andy.

      • Obama doesn’t want Israel to be able to bomb Iran. Who the hell put him in charge of Israel’s right to defend itself? Stop being an Obama sheep.

      • Again, you are miss quoting and quite full of it. Obama can’t stop Israel from bombing Iran, never said he could. No one should WANT Israel to bomb Iran!! He is trying to solve this problem in a peaceful manner,something you would not understand. Put your uniform on and go to Israel and march with them. Can’t stop you from that, when are you purchasing your plane ticket?

      • Obama threatened Israel. Deal with it. And if Israel feels it’s in their best interests to bomb Ian’s nuclear capabilities, that is THEIR business. Do you live in Israel? No? Then shut up and sit down.

      • Quoted from a post by Andy Borwitz:

        “A Letter to Iran
        Dear Iran,
        We, the American people, are writing to apologize for the recent actions of 47 of our citizens. While there is no excuse for what they did, we believe we owe you an explanation.

        In every country, there are members of the labor force whose lack of useful skills makes them virtually unemployable. Different countries deal with these people in different ways. In the United States, we routinely elect them to Congress.
        Once elected, these people can usually be counted upon to do no harm, mainly because they generally do nothing
        at all. Unfortunately, sometimes they decide to “work,” as 47 of them did this week. The only reassurance we can offer you is that, having worked for the first time in years, they are highly unlikely to exert themselves again any time soon.
        Again, please accept our apologies, and know that most Americans find these 47 people even more annoying than you do.
        Sincerely,
        The American People”

        A quote from me “Time for ‘you’ to join your constituents to sit down and shut up yourself.”

      • Bendan, you are the most logical person on this site and show your statements are backed by facts rather then what in most cases appears to be delusional paranoia, racist hatred for our President and lack of any rationale. Then they stoop so low by calling people names. That only shows ignorance, the inability to suppport their claims and a lack of desire to do what’s in the best intetest of all people, both Americans and those of other Nations. I represent no party, I just know out of common sense what these 47 Reps did was wrong.

      • Two idiots from the same pod. Or Brenda’s sock.

        Hey sock, what was ‘leaked’ in the letter the GOP sent to Obama;s new buddy?

      • Absolutely nothing, it was a message of insignificance as far as any real information (that was not already knows by all parties involved). The intent however, had selfish and evil intentions, and in my opinion was undermining the President authority and trying to say the Iranians should not even bother with any negotiations because they had final approval implying that was not going to happen, so why bother. What these 47 REPS showed at a minimum was insubordination and a lack of regard for consequences of how stupid we look in the eyes of the entire world.

      • [[ Absolutely nothing, it was a message of insignificance as far as any real information ]]

        Then stop bleating that there was something leaked.

        [[ The intent however, had selfish and evil intentions,]]

        In the infected mind of lib scum, the Constitution is always ‘evil’ if it doesn’t fit their political agenda.

        [[ and in my opinion was undermining the President ]]

        So the POTUS is no longer the POTUS in the eyes of Iran because the GOP cited the Constitution?

        [[ should not even bother with any negotiations because they had final approval implying that was not going to happen,]]

        Which is Constitutionally accurate as well as a distinct possibility. And?

        [[ What these 47 REPS showed at a minimum was insubordination]]

        Look up ‘insubordination’ kid. You’ll be smarter for it.

        [[ and a lack of regard for consequences of how stupid we look in the eyes of the entire world.]]

        So you prefer a primping narcissist with thin skin over the Constitution.

      • I represent no party. My opinions are based on common sense and logic. Selfish, evil, undermining the President, insubordinate (1. the quality or condition of being insubordinate, or of being disobedient to authority; defiance:) and lack of regard for consequences, all are accurate descriptions of their actions. Possibility is not no possibility. This has nothing to do with the breaking any aspect of the Constitution. This has to do with pure stupidity. No, I prefer a President who has morals. You are the narcissist.

      • Hey stupid. Over the last 35 years, what has led to believe that you can negotiate with Iran? Because your punk POTUS thinks so?

      • Because we have negotiated with them in the past… Reagan, Clinton and both Bush Presidents all negotiated with Iran

      • To get hostages back RR did. Bill Clinton paid them and apologized to them When did the Bush’s negotiate with Iran? Iran is enriching uranium. What the hell do you think it is for?

      • HAHAHA… You think Reagan negotiated to get the hostages back?

        And when did Clinton apologize to them liar?
        Oh… and if Bush didn’t veto the negotiations in 2005 when Iran was trying to negotiate, we might not be in the mess we are now.

      • [[ You think Reagan negotiated to get the hostages back? ]]

        All I know is that RR was in for day and out came the hostages.

        Here ya go pu$$y…………

        http://tinyurl.com/ny336xz

        That year, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and President Clinton mandated what could be considered an apology to the Iranian people for the 1953 CIA-assisted coup that overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, and replaced him with the Shah, thus leading to the 1979 Islamic Revolution two decades later. Albright and Clinton also acknowledged that the U.S.-backed government of the Shah “oppressed political opponents.”

        Hey lying scum. When did Bush ‘veto negotiations’? Links.

      • HAHAHA… you are retarded.

        1. Clinton never apologized… nice try.

        2. I was being polite about Reagan… but since you need to be educated…
        Reagan had nothing to do with releasing the hostages.
        The Iranians had agreed to release the hostages as a result of a deal made with the Carter administration.
        The Iranians hated Carter so much that they delayed the release until the minute Reagan was sworn in as one lats “F.U.” to carter by not allowing them top be released while he was President.

        But Reagan did negotiate with Iran over the next 8 years… secretly… he paid them off by releasing billions in seized assets and illegally selling them weapons in exchange for hostages and to help fund the Contras.

        3. Also since you called me a liar for saying Bush vetoed negotiations with Iran in 2005, and since you don’t know how to use google, here you go…
        fifth paragraph…
        http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/iran-nuclear-program-negotiations-115877.html#.VQCWguEzBqE

      • [[ HAHAHA… you are retarded.]]

        That would account for your mental illness son.

        [[ Clinton never apologized… nice try.]]

        Sure he did inbred. I gave you the link.

        [[ but since you need to be educated…]]

        You eat your own ch!t and wear a hockey helmet because you bang your head against the wall. I doubt you could teach anyone anything.

        Prove your Carter crap after you clean the scat off your plate.

        Like I said before stooge, RR did negotiate to get hostages released. You’re repeating what I already told you.

        Your link proves nothing leftard. From your rag sheet link………

        Twice, Iran has come to the negotiating table. The first time was in 2003-05, when the Iranian negotiating team of Hassan Rohani and Javad Zarif — not yet president and foreign minister — made a proposal to cap Iran’s centrifuges at about 3,000. The United States was not a direct participant in those talks with several European states, but it is widely acknowledged that the George W. Bush administration vetoed the talks for essentially the same reason as opponents of the present negotiations. It was believed that the danger of permitting Iran to operate several thousand centrifuges was too great. Moreover, the coercive pressures available to the United States and the international community had scarcely been tried, and sanctions had not really begun to bite.

        So the talks took place anuz. The US did not participate. So how was there a veto? Do you have a link to the veto? Lib-scum are stupid people.
        So when does Barry Hussein’s apology trip to Iran begin?

      • Wow… you are beyond retarded.
        1, Your link id not prove that Clinton apologized… the writer did not say Clinton apologized he said that saying supporting the shah was a mistake (something every historian agrees with) was sort of an apology… you don’t even read the links you attach.

        2. You moron… you claimed Reagan released the hostages in Iran.
        HE DID NOT.
        Their release was negotiated by the Carter administration.
        You know nothing about what Reagan did which is why when I said he illegally negotiated with Iran for the release of hostages later, you stupidly thought that was for the hostages held in Iran because you know nothing of what was happening in the 80’s.
        Reagan’s illegal negotiations were with the terrorist group Hezbollah who were holding hostages in Lebanon… Iran backed Hezbollah, so Reagan had to negotiate through Iran.
        You retard.. I bet you had no idea that there were multiple different hostage situations in the 80’s… that had nothing to do with the Americans that were held in Iran.

        3. Oh my god… you don’t understand how the United States could veto the deal if they were not part of the talks?
        WOW… you just keep shining a light on your ignorance for all to see.
        Let’s see if you can follow this step by step….
        *the deal would have involved lifting sanctions against Iran.
        *the sanctions were approved by a UN vote and could only be lifted by a UN vote.
        *The United States is a permanent member of the UN security council and can veto any decision by the UN.

        DUH! Do you understand now how the United States could veto a deal that had to be approved by the UN?

        4. You need proof that the Carter administration negotiated the release of the hostages?
        Really?
        You think Reagan… who didn’t even have an administration yet and was only President for a few minutes negotiated their release?

        Fine… here is your proof.
        read the bio of former Secretary of State Warren Christopher from the Washington Post’s obituary.
        It shows how he negotiated the release under the Carter administration.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/former-secretary-of-state-warren-christopher-dies-at-85/2010/09/21/ABCPk6t_story.html

      • This guy AMartin doesn’t understand much other than what $hit tastes like & what it’s like to have a mom that’s a hooker. Deaf ears, dumb mind.

      • I know your ol’ lady understands what my beef tastes like. Now go give Brenda a reach around punk.

      • 1] Clinton apologized. It is in my link. Learn to read.

        2] Go about six posts backs where I said RR negotiated with Iran to get hostages back. YOU moronically assumed I was talking about 1979-80 and not Iran/Contra. Now prove Carter negotiated anything. He TRIED to and failed. That is when the rescue attempt was made. And if Iran/Contra upset you then I am sure Obama negotiating with Iran now upsets you as does him funding Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. No?

        3] Bush never vetoed anything inbred. In fact, talks took place without the US being there

        https://www.opendemocracy.net/david-morrison-peter-oborne/us-scuppered-deal-with-iran-in-2005-says-then-british-foreign-minister

        the EU3 eventually made proposals in August 2005 [3], they required Iran to cease enrichment and related activities permanently and to make arrangements for the supply of reactor fuel from abroad, which could be cut off at any time.

        and a proposal was offer to Iran and they responded as the link below proves……..

        https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/2005/infcirc658.pdf

        Next time dig a little deeper instead of sucking Politicos balls. I’m getting sick of schooling you terrorist ass.

        4] Hey dope…………

        In the meantime, despite the fact that the Carter administration had arranged for the shah to leave the United States for Panama, the crisis continued unabated. In April 1980, months of negotiations failed to result in the release of the hostagesthe United States broke off diplomatic relations with Iran. Carter approved a hostage rescue mission by an elite paramilitary unit, the American commandos led by Colonel Charles Beckwith.6 It was a dismal failure.

      • Clinton did not apologize retard.
        You provided a link where a writer said his words were like an apology… but if you read his words you can see he did not actually apologize.

        i provided proof that the Carter administration did negotiate the release of the hostages.
        Did you even read the link at the bottom of my last comment?
        Yes diplomatic relations broke off and we tried to rescue them… and then we resumed diplomatic negotiations months later.
        The final agreement was signed by the Carter administration on January 19, 1981
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_Accords

        Oh and liar… you were talking about the hostages in Iran because in your previous comment you said that Reagan got them out after being in office only one day… what other hostages were you talking about retard?

      • Sure he did Brenda………….

        http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/30/flashback-us-apologized-to-iran-in-2000-for-past-actions/

        The Clinton Administration tried this tactic. President Clinton confessed in “unprompted” remarks that “Iran … has been the subject of quite a lot of abuse from various Western nations. And I think sometimes it’s quite important to tell people, look, you have a right to be angry at something my country or my culture or others that are generally allied with us today did to you 50 or 60 or 150 years ago.”

        You provided an obituary that proved nothing. I proved that Carter didn’t do squat.

        [[ you were talking about the hostages in Iran because in your previous comment you said that Reagan got them out after being in office only one day ]]

        Wrong again Jihadist………..

        My first post………….Andy Martin Brendan • 20 hours ago

        “To get hostages back RR did.”

        Your response……………

        Brendan Andy Martin • 20 hours ago

        “HAHAHA… You think Reagan negotiated to get the hostages back?”

        My response to that…………..

        “All I know is that RR was in for day and out came the hostages.”

        So be a good terrorist and show me where I said ‘Reagan got them out’. Looks like I said ‘ All I know is that RR was in for day and out came the hostages’.Now is that a true statesment or not Inbredna?

      • You are still denying that the Carter administration negotiated the release of the hostages.
        hahaha
        How were the hostages in Iran released.
        If you think the Carter administration didn’t negotiate their release, how do you think they were released?
        Do you think they all escaped and stole a plane?

        Go look up the “Algiers Accords”
        That was the deal to release the hostages that was made between the Iranian government and the carter administration.
        Are you denying that it happened?

      • [[ You are still denying that the Carter administration negotiated the release of the hostages ]]

        Because it didn’t happen.

        Wait a minute! The Algiers Accords? Where we gave Iran all of the Shah’s assets that we had in our banks? Where we agreed to this crap too……………….?

        Point I: Non-Intervention in Iranian Affairs
        1.The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs.

        Is that the deal that supposedly got our hostages back? So we paid for them like RR did per Iran/Contra?

        Tell me Brenda, with respect to point 1, isn’t Obama failing to adhere to the following? ……….’not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs’. And therefor wasn’t GW correct in not attending the talks in 2005 in accordance with same? So if you are to be believed, Reagan did the same thing Carter did to get hostages back and Obama is in violation of this accord.

      • 1. Good to see you finally admit that the Carter administration negotiated the release of the hostages.

        2. Reagan lied to Congress and illegally sold Iran weapons in exchange for hostages held by Hezbollah. Reagan armed Hezbollah. wrap your head around that.
        There was an arms embargo against Iran. Just giving them money wouldn’t help them get weapons… Reagan illegally armed them.

        3. Negotiating with the Iranian government is NOT interfering with their internal affairs.

      • 1] Good to see you agree with paying terrorists for hostages. Who woulda thunk that YOU would approve of that?

        2] Reagan allegedly did what Carter DEFINITELY did. Good to see you’re a ‘partisan retard’.

        3] Oh Obama is without a doubt in violation of the following………..

        The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs.

      • 1. Carter released Iranian assets that were seized. Not a penny came from US money.

        2. Reagan sold Iran weapons… Carter did not.
        BIG DIFFERENCE!
        There was an arms embargo against Iran. Reagan broke the law.

        3. negotiating with a country’s government is NOT interfering with their internal affairs you dope

      • 1] Carter paidfor hostages with the Shah’s money.Typical lib. Take what isn’t their’sand give it away to someone else. Then the POS PROMISES that no other future POTUS will ever get involved in ANYTHING they do within their own nation……………..and now we have that nuclear problem that Obama is intervening in.

        2] Carter gave Iran permission to develop nukes without our interference, Reagan did not.

        3] Sure it is inbred. What Iran does INTERNALLY is none of our business according to Carter. Obama is in violation.

      • hahahaha…. the Shah was dead and we had billions in seized Iranian assets
        Oh… and how do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis ended?
        One of the concessions was we had to promise to never interfere with the internal affairs of Cuba.

        Carter did not give Iran permission to develop nukes you dolt.
        he led the embargo against them.. the same embargo Reagan defied.

        And negotiating a deal with a government is NOT interfering with their internal policies.
        HAHAHA

      • So punk Carter gave away the Shah’s survivors estate. Atta lib!

        Carter resolved the Cuba Missile Crisis too? i thought it was Brian Williams. And read real slowly here kid. The USSR was the problem with the CMC moron. Not Cuba. Check your history ISIS boy.

        Telling Iran how much uranium they can enrich is a violation of the accords punk.

      • Keep waving that stupid flag.

        i didn’t say you had to like Carter’s deal… I was just pointing it out to you because you spent so long denying that he had a deal.

        i pointed out the Cuban missile crisis to illustrate that making deals to not interfere in countries is not something that Carter invented.
        And dumbass… I know the USSR was the problem… part of our deal was that we had to promise the USSR that we would not interfere with Cuba… duh!

        telling Iran what they can do internally is a violation of the accords… negotiating with them to change what they do is not

      • [[ Keep waving that stupid flag.]]

        So much for you being an American soldier instead of a terrorist.

        Carter and RR did similar moves to get hostages. Yet scum like you ignore what Carter did.

        Hey slime, Cuba was the USSR’s gofer. So stop saying idiocy like we cut a deal with Cuba since you have no clue what happened. Lemme help you stupid. Here was the turning point as to why the USSR pulled out…………….

        https://youtu.be/MSV9_J8Csts

        [[ telling Iran what they can do internally is a violation of the accords… negotiating with them to change what they do is not]]

        So in ‘negotiation’s’ we will not tell Iran what to do???? LOL you friggin dope!!!

      • Wow. You are truly dense.
        I wasn’t talking about the American flag you moron.
        The stupid flag you are waving is literally a flag with the word “stupid” printed on it and when you write your dumbass comments, you are waving that flag for all to see.

        Oh and Carter and Reagan did not do the same thing
        Reagan illegally sold weapons to Iran, arming terrorists.
        Carter did not.

      • Yep! Here is what Jimmah Catah agreed to Brenda…………’The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs.’ That means Iran can make nukes because it is an INTERNAL affair.

      • hahaha
        Sure.. if you live in a world where you think developing nuclear weapons is an internal affair and not an external threat.

        funny that the rest of the world sees Iran developing nukes as an external threat to other nations, not an internal affair.

        Are you saying you don’t think Iran developing nuclear weapons is an external threat?
        wow

      • hahaha… you don’t even know what flip-flopping is.
        Please show were i ever changed my position on this.
        Please show where I previously said that Iran’s nuclear program was an internal matter an I flip-flopped on that.
        HAHAHA

      • You flip flopped Brenda. You cited an international agreement having the full weight of international law as the reason the hostages were released. I show you where Obama is in violation and you say ‘so what’. We are not to interfere with ANYTHING they do INTERNALLY.

        Tell me Brenda, would it be okay with you if we conducted surveillance of mosques here to make sure we can spot radicals?

      • hahaha
        disagreeing with you is not flip-floppoing.
        UI changed nothing in my opinion.
        Nuclear weapons are an external threat…, period.

        Let’s end this once and for all.
        Do you agree that nuclear weapons are an external threat and not an internal affair?
        If your answer is yes… then quit complaining.
        If your answer is no, then you are admitting that you don’t see a nuclear Iran as a threat

      • Hey Brenda. What they develop INTERNALLY is not to be messed with by us per the language Carter agreed to. I expect traitorous scum like you to ignore law when it suits you. Are you saying you want to ignore the deal?

      • Wrong kid.
        Nuclear weapons are an external threat.
        The deal was that we would not attempt to overthrow their government from within as we had in the past… nor would we support opposition political parties withing Iran.

        And why do you think it is traitorous to oppose Iran’s nuclear program?
        Do you support Iran developing nuclear weapons?

        Shame on you for not knowing how dangerous that is

      • [[ Wrong kid.Nuclear weapons are an external threat.]]

        Read the language sperm burper. What they may or not be doing is internal. Now show me where Iran threat ended to nuke us.

        [[ And why do you think it is traitorous to oppose Iran’s nuclear program?]]

        Do you want to ignore the agreement Carter signed?

      • Do you support the law? That IS what we were talking about………………..until I showed Obama for the law breaker he is.

  11. Any efforts,decisions,or results must be fully embraced by congress and the American People, the dangers that a nuclear Iran presents are virtually unfathomable given their rabid Islamic vision for themselves to not only America but much of the Middle east and Europe.

    • Agreed. Any deal must be approved by Congress before being finalized.
      But Congress should not be attempting to sabotage talks before a deal can even be proposed.

      • Typical partisan retard.
        Every time Obama sneezes, you accuse him of treason.
        But here you have a direct violation of the Logan act and you make lame excuses for it.

      • [[ Typical partisan retard.]]

        Yes you are.

        [[ Every time Obama sneezes, you accuse him of treason ]]

        Every time he acts treasonous, you kiss his ass.

        [[ But here you have a direct violation of the Logan act and you make lame excuses for it. ]]

        Typical partisan retard. Prove it was violated Brenda.

      • With all do respect President Obama has a sordid history of trying to go around congress several times using executive actions that go beyond our Constitution. Article I,Sect.I and Sect 8 are being ignored by this President. His actions have lead to these senators taking this action. Most on the right are now seeing this as a positive development that can actually be helpful to the Obama team. It lets Iran know that congress and the American People will not stand for some kind of weak treaty that is beneficial to Iran in any way.

      • Of course many on the far right see this as a good thing.
        They don’t care about America succeeding… they just want Obama to fail.

  12. My thoughts on the matter from day one have been thus: What does he have to offer them? Do they need us to get them parts for the reactor? Money?
    What promise does he think he can get from them that he has any real reason to think they’ll stick to?
    They chant death to Israel pretty much every day, death to America. Why do we owe them anything? They killed our troops when we were in Iraq. Again, why do we owe them the time of day? NO. YOU CAN’T BE TRUSTED WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS. PERIOD.

    Who that’s not insane could disagree?

  13. At some point, likely when Congress gets a treaty to debate, if it gets that far, they will want to see the negotiating notes for purposes of transparency. They can’t be hidden forever.

  14. Iran doesn’t want to negotiate, Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon and attack Israel, Europe and America. Iran has refused time after time to allow inspectors to look at their enrichment facilities. Iran is the #1 sponsor of terrorism in the world. What part of this do you not understand Brendan, Ruckus & Rafael

    • Since this specific instance of an attempted negotiation has not occurred yet, this is a mute point. We shall soon see what they want, if these negotiation even have a chance after that letter was written.

      • Which part of Mike’s statement don’t you understand, Angeladvocate???? Iran’s intent has been clear from the beginning. They now have ICBMs (a delivery system for weapons of war) which you don’t need to operate a power plant. They have built their enrichment plants under mountains in order to keep them from being seen. Why would you do that if your intent is peaceful? Why would you prevent the inspections you agreed to if your intent is peaceful? You really need to take a beginning psychology class and throw in a class on Middle East history while you’re at it..

      • Let’s be clear now, it was clear in the past (beginning), it is not clear now. That’s what this negotiation will determine.

      • Are you serious????? lolllllllll Iran’s intent has always been clear. It’s the American negotiators that aren’t clear, aren’t owning up to Iran’s intent. lolllllll

      • Better check you history again. One such traitor was Ms Pelosi when she took a trip to see Pres Assid when the White House told her not to. We can kinda, maybe overlook Pres Obama’s 47 letters to the Ayotollah without Congressional approval. If you wanna change subjects there are other Administration supposed treasonous violations to compare. And in case you missed this part….the Congress is equal to the President when it comes to governing this country. They both have defined tasks but they are equal. Sooooooo treason would be really, really, really hard to prove. I just think they wrote the letter to the wrong person. And they did it openly, not like the letters to the Ayotollah or the negotiations with Iran.

  15. Don’t like Obama one bit, but this supposed ‘secrecy’ is shared by 5 other nations that are involved in the negotiations. The real reason, made obvious within the last week, is that Israel is determined to derail the whole thing. Netanyahu, as well as his neocon cronies, have made that very clear. Again, there are a total of 6 nations involved in this thing. It’s not just Obama. Maybe a matter of semantics as to whether this is a treaty or not, I don’t know. But if it IS a treaty, then Congress will have their say.

  16. Quoted from a Facebook post by Andy Borowitz:

    “A Letter to Iran
    Dear Iran,
    We, the American people, are writing to apologize for the recent actions of 47 of our citizens. While there is no excuse for what they did, we believe we owe you an explanation.

    In every country, there are members of the labor force whose lack of useful skills makes them virtually unemployable. Different countries deal with these people in different ways. In the United States, we routinely elect them to Congress. Once elected, these people can usually be counted upon to do no harm, mainly because they generally do nothing at all. Unfortunately, sometimes they decide to “work,” as 47 of them did this week. The only reassurance we can offer you is that, having worked for the first time in years, they are highly unlikely to exert themselves again any time soon.

    Again, please accept our apologies, and know that most Americans find these 47 people even more annoying than you do.

    Sincerely,
    The American People”

    About the Author: Andy Borowitz is an American writer, comedian,
    satirist, and actor. Borowitz is a New York Times-bestselling author
    who won the first National Press Club award for humor. He is known for
    creating the satirical column The Borowitz Report, which has an audience
    in the millions and was acquired by The New Yorker. In a profile on CBS
    News Sunday Morning, he was called “one of the funniest people in
    America”.

  17. This is just a joke of course (not sure it’s really funny) just to shed some lite on how ridiculous these 47 REPS made themselves look, in addition to the US as a whole.

    March 10, 2015
    Iran Offers to Mediate Talks Between Republicans and Obama
    Article Written By Andy Borowitz – Borowitz Report – The New Yorker

    TEHRAN (The Borowitz Report)—Stating that “their continuing hostilities are a threat to world peace,” Iran has offered to mediate talks between congressional Republicans and President Obama.

    Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, made the offer one day after Iran received what he called a “worrisome letter” from Republican leaders, which suggested to him that “the relationship between Republicans and Obama has deteriorated
    dangerously.”

    “Tensions between these two historic enemies have been high in recent years, but
    we believe they are now at a boiling point,” Khamenei said. “As a result, Iran feels it must offer itself as a peacemaker.”

    He said that his nation was the “logical choice” to jumpstart negotiations between Obama and the Republicans because “it has become clear that both sides currently talk more to Iran than to each other.”

    He invited Obama and the Republicans to meet in Tehran to hash out their differences and called on world powers to force the two bitter foes to the bargaining table, adding, “It is time to stop the madness.”

    Hours after Iran made its offer, President Obama said that he was willing to meet with his congressional adversaries under the auspices of Tehran, but questioned whether “any deal reached with Republicans is worth the paper it’s written on.”

    For their part, the Republicans said they would only agree to talks if there were no
    preconditions, such as recognizing President Obama’s existence.

    NOTE ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Andy Borowitz is a New York Times best-selling author and a comedian who has written for The New Yorker since 1998. He writes the Borowitz Report for newyorker.com.

  18. Iran’s Supreme Leader hit out on Thursday at a letter by U.S. Republican senators threatening to undo any nuclear deal between Washington and Tehran, saying he was worried because the United States was known for “backstabbing,” Mehr news agency reported.

    Ayatollah Ali Khamenei added at a meeting with President Hassan Rouhani and senior clerics that whenever negotiators made progress, the Americans became “harsher, tougher and coarser,” Mehr reported!!

      • Thanks. This dimwit can’t figure out how to do that, you should understand. It’s a picture and doesn’t appear they allow those to be posted??

      • Could be a pic, could be HTML. But it will not show up from her computer unless she makes it available via a server. She could get a cloud account, upload it there and get a link for it and post it here.

      • I’m not as Techy as you I see that you have that benefit (compliment). Being politically correct, another issue for much debate.

      • Thanks. I help where I can when it comes to tech. And I am never PC. No one should be. You take your stand, support it with evidence and let the chips fall where they may.

    • Only the village idiot uses Thinkprogress.

      No Logan Act violation kid………..

      http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/logan-act/

      Although most assume that means without authority of the Executive Branch, the Logan Act itself does not specify what this term means, and the State Department told Congress in 1975 that “Nothing in section 953 . . . would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution.

  19. MARCH 13, 2015

    Congress’s Approval Rating No Longer Detectable by Current Technology

    WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) – After a challenging week for the legislative body, the approval rating of the United States Congress has shrunk to a point where it is no longer detectable by the technology currently available, a leading pollster said on Friday.

    Davis Logsdon, who heads the highly regarded Opinion Research Institute at the University of Minnesota, said that his polling unit has developed highly sensitive measurement technology in recent years to gauge Congress’s popularity as it fell into the single digits, but added that “as of this week, Congress is basically flatlining.”

    “At the beginning of the week, you could still see a slight flicker of approval for Congress,” he said. “Then—bam!—the lights went out.”

    Logsdon said, however, that people should resist drawing the conclusion that Congress’s approval rating now stands at zero. “They may have support in the range of .0001 per cent or, say, .0000001 per cent,” he said. “Our equipment just isn’t advanced enough to measure it.”

    Logsdon said that the swift descent of Congress’s approval rating below detectable levels has surprised experts in the polling profession. “A couple of years ago, when they shut down the government, I wondered, What could they possibly do to become less popular than this?” the pollster said. “Now we know.”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here