"Iran: Top priority to protect nuclear deal from US"

Via Instapundit:  Al Jazeera is reporting that Iran’s mullah dictatorship has decided it must protect the nuclear deal it made with Obama. This is a 180. Last week the ayatollahs and their terrorist cohort were pounding their robed chests and declaring they’d just walk away from the agreement — you know, to trump Trump.

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said the top foreign policy priority for his new government was to protect the nuclear deal from being torn up by the United States.
“The most important job of our foreign minister is first to stand behind the JCPOA and not to allow the US and other enemies to succeed,” Rouhani told parliament on Sunday, using the technical name for the 2015 agreement that eased sanctions in exchange for curbs to Iran’s nuclear programme.
“Standing up for the JCPOA means standing up to Iran’s enemies,” he said on the last day of debates over his cabinet selections.

Now think about that quote from Rouhani, and assume the translation is fair and accurate. Does that mean Obama was Iran’s friend?

(Link to story)

Obama: We do not pay ransom for hostages

Link

Did Obama trade Cash for Hostages?

WSJ:  The Obama administration secretly organized an airlift of $400 million worth of cash to Iran that coincided with the January release of four Americans detained in Tehran, according to U.S. and European officials and congressional staff briefed on the operation afterward.

Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane, according to these officials. The U.S. procured the money from the central banks of the Netherlands and Switzerland, they said.

The money represented the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement the Obama administration reached with Iran to resolve a decades-old dispute over a failed arms deal signed just before the 1979 fall of Iran’s last monarch, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Did the admin mislead the public, media about the Iran deal?

"The Curious Case of the Missing Iranian Nuke Talks Video at the State Department"

A Hillary gaffe or a hint?

Attacking the NRA, the leading democrat presidential candidate said...

Now the real answer to this is for gun-owners to form a different organization that supports the Second Amendment, supports their rights to own guns, use guns, go hunting, go target shooting, but stands against the absolutism of the NRA. You know, the NRA’s position reminds me of negotiating with the Iranians or the communists. There’s no possible discussion. And it’s for political purposes.

Setting aside the NRA barb, didn't Obama just negotiate a deal with the Iranians? A deal Hillary just claimed credit for a few weeks ago?
Or, like the Obama trade deal TTP, is Hillary hinting she is about to flip flop and come out against the Iran deal?

Rubio: Pope Infallible on Theological Issues, Not Political Ones

Link to video

Via Fox News

PBS ombudsman is not amused with Gwen Ifill's Iran deal tweet.

The insight Twitter provides to the minds of influential people, the communicative type is useful. And spouting off has hurt a lot of people too. The Right complains about SJW using Twitter to gang up for destruction while doing the same thing automatically by simply talking among people they follow. Coordinated or not the result is the same.

The format allows for misreading. You think for certain you understand clearly what you're reading, it's right there, yet the format, the popping off aspect of it really does count on people understanding the person behind it. It's clipped nature is easily misread.

But some things are so clear. You know Ifill better than I. How does she intend this to be read?

We hear her saying, "Take that, Bibi." You know her, does she do that thing of explaining somebody else by putting on their voice and putting words in their mouth?" 

Is this Ifill speaking for herself on Twitter exposing her low-class and poorly informed personal joy in the decision or is this Ifill being a real journalist and telling us what the White House is saying?  She refers to a White House sponsored Tweet lauding the deal and snipping the fuse to the bomb of Netanyahu's famously ridiculed illustration. It's childishly retro-abusively provocative of the thin-skinned White House, as we've come to expect, is Ifill channeling a White House with children's boxing gloves?  Pow pow, take that. Or is she speaking for herself? 

[Incidentally, notice what is omitted from the with/without diagram. It's so utterly vacuous it would be risible were it not profoundly tragic. Every reader here could fill the page with what is had with and without this deal. The graphic is the very fast work of a child.]

Everyone I follow agrees Ifill is speaking for herself. Nobody questions it. The ombudsman, Michael Getler, says it is a self-inflicted wound, not the fist time such has happened and  he is not amused. He writes a damning and damaging piece. 

I've seen this phenomena of misreading something then piling on before. You have to remark when you see something outrageous.

Trump said Kelly had blood squirting out of her nose and ... whatever. In that moment I thought it odd for him to say nose and not ears, then recalled bloody noses, then provided blood squirting out of Kelly's ears, whatever, her mouth too, whatever, her eyeballs too whatever, blood all over her face squirting out. That's what I visualized. Quite graphic. I never for one tiny moment thought the nether regions. I never thought the most logical thing, only illogical cartoon things. 

But everyone else did think the logical thing. Conservatives are nothing if not logical.

Everyone did. 

Pervs. And Man did they ever pile on. And there is no telling them otherwise. 

In the Ifill case, I too thought Ifill is speaking for herself and so I chimed in naturally too. I thought she was exposing her prejudices. It's what I expect of PBS. It's also very easy to be 100% wrong.

"UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site"

"Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press."

The newly disclosed side agreement, for an investigation of the Parchin nuclear site by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, is linked to persistent allegations that Iran has worked on atomic weapons. That investigation is part of the overarching nuclear-limits deal.

Evidence of the inspections concession is sure to increase pressure from U.S. congressional opponents before a Senate vote of disapproval on the overall agreement in early September. If the resolution passes and President Barack Obama vetoes it, opponents would need a two-thirds majority to override it. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, has suggested opponents will likely lose a veto fight, though that was before Wednesday's disclosure.

McConnell was ready cave before he had all the information. And people wonder how is Trump doing so well.

"Iraq Vets Take On Obama Over Iran Deal"

“We are going to challenge those people who are on the fence,”

 “Our main argument is that veterans know Iran better than Washington, D.C., does. You’ve got a lot of veterans out there who are pretty upset about this, so we are looking to capture their voices and make sure they are heard.” Michael Pregent - former intelligence adviser to Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Ray Odierno who served in Iraq.

Link to video

"Chuck Schumer Opposes Iran Nuclear Deal"

“Advocates on both sides have strong cases for their point of view that cannot simply be dismissed,” Mr. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said in a lengthy statement. “This has made evaluating the agreement a difficult and deliberate endeavor, and after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval.”

“There are some who believe that I can force my colleagues to vote my way,” Mr. Schumer said. “While I will certainly share my view and try to persuade them that the vote to disapprove is the right one, in my experience with matters of conscience and great consequence like this, each member ultimately comes to their own conclusion.”

Mr. Schumer said his chief concern was that Iran would still be free after a decade to build a nuclear bomb.

Schumer said that after 10 years "we will be worse off with this agreement than without it."

"Obama: If Congress kills Iran deal, rockets will fall on Tel Aviv"

"If Congress succeeds in killing the deal and Iran were to subsequently walk away from the agreement and start enriching uranium again to weapons-grade levels, the opponents of the deal will pressure the US government into launching a preemptive strike against the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities, the president was said to have argued."

“But the result of such a strike won’t be war with Iran,” Rosenbaum said, quoting the president.

Iran is not going to launch a full-fledged assault on America, knowing that its military, with an annual budget of $15 billion, stands no chance against the US Army and its budget of close to $600 billion, the president said. Rather, Iran’s terrorist proxies will attack American and Israeli targets, for instance by ramming aircraft carriers or arming terrorist groups along Israel’s borders.

“They will fight this asymmetrically. That means more support for terrorism, more Hezbollah rockets falling on Tel Aviv,” Rosenbaum quoted Obama as saying. “I can assure that Israel will bear the brunt of the asymmetrical response that Iran will have to a military strike on its nuclear facilities.”

How does Obama know how Iran will respond to an attack on it's nuclear facilities? 

"Iran: Obama Admin Lying About Nuclear Deal for ‘Domestic Consumption’"

"Kerry and other top administration officials have been defending the deal on Capitol Hill in recent days, claiming that it will rein in the Islamic Republic’s contested nuclear program and fix its nuclear “breakout” period, the time required for it to obtain the amount of highly enriched uranium necessary for a nuclear weapon, at one year."

When addressing claims this week by the administration that the deal shuts down Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure, Iranian officials scoffed and said that the Obama administration is misleading the public in order to sell the deal...

“The remarks by the western officials are ambiguous comments which are merely uttered for domestic use and therefore we should say that there is no ambiguity in this (nuclear) agreement,” the Fars news agency quoted Baeidinejad saying in an interview with state-controlled radio.

Is not like Obama hasn't lied before, when trying to get something he wants.

Has anybody called for the Iranian leader to resign?

"Iran's supreme leader tweeted a graphic Saturday that appears to depict President Obama holding a gun to his head as Britain relaxed its travel advice to the nation, citing decreased hostility under the Iranian government."

US president has said he could knock out Iran’s military. We welcome no war, nor do we initiate any war, but.. pic.twitter.com/D4Co7fVuVg

— Khamenei.ir (@khamenei_ir) July 25, 2015

Kerry's bait-and-switch

"Kerry Says ‘Nobody Has Ever Talked About Dismantling’ Iran’s Nuclear Program, But in 2013 Insisted Dismantlement Was The ‘Whole Point’ of Sanctions Regime"

 

Link to video

"In light of Obama’s Iran nuclear deal"

 

Link to video

Iran makes deal with the devil

Why would they do that? As learned theologians they know the devil is duplicitous will betray them and will have their souls.

APNewsBreak through Yahoo, Diplomats: Iran announcement planned Monday.

Subject to review by Iran and the six world powers at the talks.

On Thursday Kerry was ready to flounce now says a few tough thing remain and they're getting to some real decisions.

Iran's President Hassan Rouhani said a deal is close but not quite done.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov arrived in Vienna

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi is also expected.

Other foreign ministers of the six nations negotiating with Iran are already in Vienna

Twitter.Com #IranDeal There are some funny things here. Hope you don't have to sign on to see it e.g., How Ancient Persians Made Major Decisions: they discussed the matter drunk and wrote down their decisions then reviewed them again as a group when sober. Also vice-versa, decide sober and review drunk.

Amusing but that could not be the case today. If Persian leaders are anything it's sober.

Evil Bloggerlady asks "what could go wrong?" including an attachment of Iran hanging gay men.

Anne Bayefsky points out Iran agreement will set off a chain reaction allowing Iran :
1) Become a major nuclear power
2) Have ballistic missiles that can reach U.S.
3) Dominate Mideast oil fields
4. Get over 50 billion to finance global terror

Jon Williams tells followers to watch a video about Iran's population of 70% under 35 years of age, a nation of contradictions struggling to change.

ABC US News | World News

Not sure the video works until it's posted. It displays at the link.