Obama's Epic Failures

[LHDR]

It amazes how people with nearly zero insight have confidence to be critical of this deal. Like others have pointed out, the fact that German and British (conservative) administrations are part of this deal suggests that Obama is on the side of reason. No certainty for anyone, of course, but I, for one, am optimistic that we'll look back at this 20 years from now and see it as a very positive achievement for the Middle East.

[pueno]

[mac]

BB--what are you going to do now that you have discovered that Republicans were in charge when the last two countries got nukes? Do you think we don't see that you hold Obama to a different standard than you held them?

Did you take spelling lessons from NW, or did you just fail your way through school? No talking points--I listened to the press conference. Try it. It's called thinking.

[isobars]

[mac]

Nonsense from mr fictionary. Let's look at a brief history of US efforts to thwart Iran, going back to the last administration, and what leverage the US actually has. Most of this is courtesy of a nice little read: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/23/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-could-have-gotten-cr/

The US has imposed sanctions against Iran since 1979. But the sanctions were given more teeth in 2006 (Bush administration) when the UN joined in economic sanctions. Within the Bush administration, Cheney argued for preemptive attacks on Iran to destroy their nuclear capability. Based on intelligence that indicated that those faciliites were far underground, and Cheney's rather unhinged argument for using nuclear weapons, Bush not only did not follow Cheney's advice, but distanced himself from the mad bomber/torturer.

The UN sanctions were strengthened in 2010 (Obama administration), and in response to Republican paranoia, Congress passed a rider targeting the Central Bank of Iran. The UN sanctions did not include that provision because China and Russia objected.

According to most people who live in a fact-based world, the UN sanctions of 2010 had a severe impact on the Iran economy. But not, as everyone agrees, on their nuclear program, which was very close to a bomb in 2013. Some say months away. Some, including the Iran ex-patriots that I know, say that the economic collapse put immense pressure on the leadership in Iran, despite the popularity of using the US as a scapegoat.

With the agreement of the other five nations involve in the negotiations, it is clear that the UN sanctions will be lifted, no matter what Congress does. One cannot be sure exactly what effect US-only sanctions against the banks will have--but the presense of US sanctions from 1979 until 2010 had little effect.

Part of the efforts by the GOP to define the narrative are claims that Obama and the left trust Iran. Nonsense. Iran was always a bigger threat in the Middle East than Iraq. It is clear to those in the Middle East, after the Iraq fiasco, that the US army can be bogged down in urban fighting in the Middle East, and cannot successfully navigate the sectarian conflict. So the threat of military action, short of a nuclear attack, has less effect on Iran than it did before the invasion of Iraq. Ironically, it is economic sanctions, strengthened by diplomatic efforts by Obama and scorned by the GOP, that have brought about some movement. I am pretty sure that the top leadership in the GOP understand this, and are gambling that a bellicose position will help them in the 2016 elections. I am convinced that they are wrong--it was Obama's position on the foolishness of the Iraq war that helped him defeat Hillary in 2008. As they saying goes, those who fail to heed the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.

[nw30]

beaglebuddy, it's not mic, it's muc.

muc wrote:
"Obama's response on hostages went right by you, eh? More than 20 American's have been kidnapped overseas since 2009, and I think we can find useful criticisms of the US efforts to free those captured. But if we let the taking of hostages by any group--and there are many, all over the globe (did you know that?) creates a moral hazard. If that drives foreign policy, you've turned it over to the SLA. Or any nickel and dime group that manages to kidnap an American. Very interesting story in the New Yorker about the efforts to rescue hostages from ISIS. Clear that you didn't think that one through."

Because there are so many, that makes it okay?
Maybe if they were harvested for their body parts, for research, "ahem", that would make it even more better.
Liberal minds work in very bizarre ways.

[nw30]

muc also wrote:
"You haters are so easy to light up, and astonishingly ignorant. Remember when Pakistan started the work that led to nuclear weapons? Their efforts began in 1972--Richard Nixon was president. By 1978, the CIA knew they had a nuclear weapons program--Jimmy Carter was president. They tested their devices in 1998--Clinton was president. How about North Korea? The most recent addition to the nuclear club. Work started a long time ago, but the final run-up leading to manufacture and testing of a bomb (announced by North Korea October 9, 2006), George W. Bush was president. I guess BB is going to try to impeach him once he finds out."

Why didn't you include the virtues of Clinton's nuclear deal with NK, using Clinton's own words?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TcbU5jAavw

And yet you keep bringing up things like "As they saying goes, those who fail to heed the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it."
So when Iran gets their bomb, and they will, it will be the fault of who the prez. is at the time, disregarding any deal done by a predecessor which would leave both Clinton and BHO off the hook.
Okaaaaaay.
More bizarre liberal logic.

Wait, I'll provide a response for you, "but it's okay, NK hasn't dropped their bomb on anyone yet."
Okaaaaaay.

So the fix is in? That's probably what BHO is counting on, 'the current prez. will take the heat long after I'm out of here, and my sycophants will make sure of that'.

[beaglebuddy]

[mac]

Boy, I can't wait until the next bit of bizarre right wing logic. Beaglebuddy starts by saying we just cannot let a country get a nuclear weapon, and that would make Obama a terrible president. But wait, since the end of WWII, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea have all gotten nuclear weapons. And it took multiple presidencies for it to occur. So you can't really blame Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or whomever. I guess BB will stop raising funds to impeach Bush, eh?

Next, we can ask whether a president responded appropriately. So let's turn the clock back to 2003, just before Bush decided to invade Iraq--without the coalition that his father had. At that time, Iran was clearly the greatest threat to both the United States and Israel, and as we know, working on a nuclear weapons program. The United States had devastated Iraq in the earlier Gulf War, with few casualties, and was probably at the peak of its perceived military might. So what did Georgie do? Invaded the wrong country, lost an insurrection (and operations in some cities like Fallujah), and in the de-Bathification process destroyed the Iraq military, sending seasoned and well trained officers out of work where many of them became the corps of ISIS. While he did achieve some level of UN sanctions, it is clear that the sanctions negotiated under Obama in 2010 were stronger and had a much greater effect.

When Obama took office, Iran had enough fissionable material to make a bomb.

[boggsman1]

Holy shit, if there's a better spot in the lower 48 than Pistol River, I haven't been there...still blowing 28 at 10 at night...unreal.