{The Iran Deal Problem} A President’s Intelligence Contrasting Warmongers In The Repugnant, Republican, GOP Party..

President Obama was well into his feisty and freewheeling news conference on the Iran nuclear deal when Major Garrett of CBS News got under the presidential skin.

 

“As you well know, there are four Americans in Iran, three held on trumped-up charges,” Garrett said. “Can you tell the country, sir, why you are content, with all the fanfare around this deal, to leave the conscience of this nation, the strength of this nation, unaccounted for in relation to these four Americans?”

 

The normally cool president reacted slowly, as though trying to control his anger.

 

“The notion that I am content — as I celebrate — with American citizens languishing in Iranian jails?” Obama asked, icily. “That’s nonsense, and you should know better.” After that extraordinary scolding, the president went on to explain that he didn’t link the American captives to nuclear talks because doing so may have made Iran think “we can get additional concessions out of the Americans,” and would have made it “much more difficult for us to walk away” from a deal.

 

Garrett’s question, though loaded, was legitimate; one of those being held on bogus charges in Iran is Jason Rezaian, The Washington Post’s Tehran bureau chief. And Obama’s answer was revealing: Full of Sturm und Drang, he ultimately acknowledged that the United States just doesn’t have the clout to enforce its will.

 

This was an undercurrent of the whole news conference Wednesday afternoon, and of Obama’s overall defense of the Iran deal. He was tough and strong, but in service of the argument that American power is limited — that this is the best deal we could get with our declining leverage. His defenders call it realism; it also may amount to ratifying retreat.

 

Obama took on those who said a better deal would have stripped Iran of all nuclear capability. “The problem with that position is that there is nobody who thinks that Iran would or could ever accept that, and the international community does not take the view that Iran can’t have a peaceful nuclear program,” he said. “And so we don’t have diplomatic leverage.”

 

As for those who argue for continued economic sanctions? Obama said that sanctions “required the cooperation of countries all around the world, many of whom really want to purchase oil from Iran.” If they saw the United States walking away from a deal, “the sanctions system unravels,” he said, and “we have lost credibility in the eyes of the world.”

 

He positioned the nuclear deal as the work of a nation trying to triage its problems in global affairs. “The argument,” he said, “that because this deal does not solve all those other problems, that’s an argument for rejecting this deal, defies logic . . . and it loses sight of what was our original number one priority, which is making sure that they don’t have a bomb.”

 

Broadly, Obama offered his view that “it’s not the job of the president of the United States to solve every problem in the Middle East,” and he said he couldn’t end the Syrian civil war without “buy in” from Russia and Iran. He acknowledged that the nuclear deal might mean more money for Hezbollah, but said, “Is that more important than preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? No.”

 

Even when the news conference took a brief detour into domestic issues — revoking Bill Cosby’s Presidential Medal of Freedom — Obama spoke of powerlessness. “There is no precedent for revoking a medal,” he said. “We don’t have that mechanism.”

 

 

A couple of dozen seats at the news conference were empty, so a smaller-than-usual crowd got to see the rare spectacle of Obama going off script. After finishing his list of pre-selected questioners (and posing a few questions to himself about various objections to the deal), he opened the floor to all comers. “Have we exhausted Iran questions here?” he asked. “I really am enjoying this Iran debate.”

 

There’s little that Obama’s Republican critics in Congress can do about the deal other than vote their symbolic disapproval, and the president seemed to be speaking as much for the history books as for contemporary critics, using phrases such as “historic chance” and “future generations.” But mostly what came through was a defense of what future historians may describe as the Obama doctrine: an America that recognizes the limits of its power and acts less ambitiously.

 

“No one suggests that this deal resolves all the threats that Iran poses to its neighbors or the world,” he said, returning repeatedly to the argument that none of his critics has “presented to me or the American people a better alternative.”

 

He’s right. And this is why it was, sadly, a powerful case — for American weakness. [Dana Milbank Washington Post]

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

Twitter @hrcwhitehouse

 

Washington Post Link http://wpo.st/bupQ0

 

Historic Iran Nuclear Deal Is Reached With The United States, Russia, China, France, Britain And Germany To Avoid Another Middle-Eastern War Like Iraq. Warmonger Benjamin Netanyahu Haven’t Seen The Agreement But Calls It Historic Mistake.

The Historic Mistake America Has Been Making For Decades Is Being Israel’s BITCH, Especially At The Behest Of Warmonger Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu And Moslem Terrorist Is Indivisible.

 

Benjamin Netanyahu In 2003 Told President George W Bush Just Get Rid Of Saddam Hussein And Everything Will Fall Into Place. Well, We Are Witnessing How Well Things Fell Into Place. Warmonger Netanyahu Now Wants America To Bomb Iran, Get Our Soldiers Killed And Add Trillions Of Dollars To Our Nationals Debt. Republicans And Some Shameless Democrats Are Willing To Accommodate This Madness Because War Is Big Business For America’s Despots Like Dick Cheney And Others. {Sheriff Ali}

 

[New York Times] Iran Nuclear Deal Is Reached After Long Negotiations

 

VIENNA — Iran and a group of six nations led by the United States reached a historic accord on Tuesday to significantly limit Tehran’s nuclear ability for more than a decade in return for lifting international oil and financial sanctions, Western diplomats said.

 

The deal culminates 20 months of negotiations on an agreement that President Obama had long sought as the biggest diplomatic achievement of his presidency. Whether it portends a new relationship between the United States and Iran — after decades of coups, hostage-taking, terrorism and sanctions —remains a bigger question.

The White House said that President Obama would speak at 7 a.m. in Washington, beginning a process to sell the deal to Congress and the American public.

 

In 18 consecutive days of talks here, American officials said, the United States secured major restrictions on the amount of nuclear fuel that Iran can keep in its stockpile for the next 15 years. It will require Iran to reduce its current stockpile of low enriched uranium by 98 percent, most likely by shipping much of it to Russia.

 

That measure, combined with a two-thirds reduction in the number of centrifuges spinning at Iran’s primary enrichment center at Natanz, would extend to a year the amount of time it would take Iran to make enough material for a bomb should it abandon the accord and race for a weapon — what officials call “breakout time.”

 

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

Twitter @hrcwhitehouse

 

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/sheriff.g.ali

 

See Facebook Page: Hillary Clinton White House

 

Open New York Times Link For Full Article

 

http://nyti.ms/1L4EQdv

 

 

Chuck Schumer Democratic Snake Oil Salesman Stabbing President Obama In The Back With The Republican Traitors Sabotaging The Iranian Framework Agreement.

WASHINGTON [NYT] In an event as rare as garden tomatoes ripening in January, Senator Charles E. Schumer has little to say.

 

Mr. Schumer, Democrat of New York, set off a tempest this week when he issued a statement strongly supporting a bill that could disrupt a nuclear deal with Iran. With that bill, Congress is trying to ensure it has a say in the final agreement, and the strong stand by Mr. Schumer, the Senate’s No. 3 Democrat, suggested that he could oppose an accord President Obama sees as a potentially legacy-defining achievement.

 

Mr. Schumer has since largely declined to elaborate and has said only that he will wait for a classified briefing before making further comment.

 

His position — annoying to the White House, at odds with the majority of Senate Democrats and expressed during a congressional recess — reflects the vigorous crosscurrents Mr. Schumer faces in his first real test since Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, announced that he would retire, placing Mr. Schumer as heir apparent.

 

Mr. Schumer, long personally hawkish on matters related to Israel, is caught between the Jewish voters and donors in his state and beyond who are pressuring him in conflicting directions, factions within his own party in the Senate, and a watchful White House that is seeking to limit the role of Congress in any deal it may make.

 

It is a struggle that several Senate Democrats with large Jewish constituencies face but who, unlike Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the co-sponsor of the bill pushing for congressional oversight of Iranian sanctions, have been typically strongly supportive of the White House.

  

  Twitter @sheriffali

 

   http://nyti.ms/1z11IAo

President Obama Slams Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu For Trying To Dictate United States Foreign Policy

“Mr. Netanyahu is acting as if he alone can dictate the terms of an agreement that took 18 months and involved not just Iran and the United States but Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. He wants to appear reasonable. “I’m not trying to kill any deal; I’m trying to kill a bad deal,” he said on NBC News’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. But he offers no workable options.”

 

Question: When is Israel going to allow the UN Inspectors to Inspect Israel’s Nuclear Sites for Nuclear Weapons placed there by The United States Government, subsequent to the Golan Heights War in 1967? Israel possesses over 200 Nuclear Warheads in Violation of the NNPT – Non Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.

 

 The Pentagon confirmed the Israeli Nuclear Weapons due to a Law Suit filed by the Associated Press under The Freedom of Information Act.

 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has gone into overdrive against a nuclear agreement with Iran. On Monday, his government made new demands that it claimed would ensure a better deal than the preliminary one that Iran, President Obama and other leaders of major powers announced last week. The new demands are unrealistic and, if pursued, would not mean a better deal but no deal at all.

 

There are important details to be worked out before a final agreement is expected to be concluded by June 30. Even so, the framework is surprisingly comprehensive and offers the best potential for preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. [Source NYT]

 

The United States Republican Traitors are also to be blamed for buttressing Benjamin Netanyahu’s perniciousness.

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

 

Israel’s Leading News Paper Haaretz Said; “Iran Nuclear Framework Agreement: Not a bad deal!”

Israel will have a hard time fighting this agreement, or portraying it as bad; if Iran upholds the terms, its nuclear threat will be severely mitigated.

 

Thursday night’s dramatic declaration of a framework nuclear agreement between Iran and the world powers surprised almost everyone outside of the locked negotiating rooms at the hotel in Lausanne, Switzerland, including the doubtful, cynical journalists waiting outside those rooms over the past eight days for the results. Also surprised, though they’ll never admit it, were many officials, including Israelis, who have vehemently attacked the emerging deal in recent months.

 

In contrast to the messages conveyed in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech at Congress, the Israeli government’s public position over the last two years and the Pavlovian response that came out of Jerusalem on Thursday night, the framework agreement is not a bad deal at all. In-depth examination of the details shows that the deal includes many positive aspects that preserve Israeli security interests and answer some of Jerusalem’s concerns.

Iran perhaps scored some victories in terms of the narrative. Its rights, as it sees them, were respected by the world powers, and Iran can declare that its nuclear facilities won’t be closed, that uranium enrichment will continue, and that the humiliating sanctions will be lifted. But the world powers made significant achievements of their own on the real practical issues.

The framework agreement levels many restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program for generations to come. The Israeli government’s claims that in a decade, Iran’s nuclear program will be normalized in the eyes of the world, and that the Islamic Republic could then do as it wishes, have turned out to be baseless.

 

Correct, the limitations on the number of centrifuges Iran will be allowed to operate will expire in 10 years’ time. It would have been preferable if that timeframe was longer. However, over the next 15 years, Iran won’t be able to enrich uranium past 3.5 percent, and at that level, it cannot be used for nuclear weapons. The most the Iranians could do with such uranium would be to use it for peaceful purposes, or leave it in storage, collecting dust.

 

Also, the tight, invasive oversight of Iran’s nuclear program as defined by the framework, which will certainly be fleshed out in the final agreement, includes allowing UN inspectors into every Iranian nuclear facility, as well as uranium mines and storage facilities for a period of between 20 and 25 years.

 

Twitter @sheriffali

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.650355

Warmongers; McCain Told Netanyahu “Show Contempt For Obama And Bomb Iran;” John Bolton In The NYT Said; “Only Option, US Must Bomb Iran”

According to a 2013 study by the Costs of War Project at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University, America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost the United States more than $4 trillion. Over the coming decades, that number will likely rise by trillions more. If you include America’s military operations in Pakistan, these wars have taken the lives of roughly 300,000 people. And almost 15 years later, both Iraq and Afghanistan are virtually failed states.

 

This does not mean The New York Times should never publish op-eds proposing new wars. Although always tragic, war can sometimes be less horrible than the alternative. And it does not mean The New York Times should never publish op-eds by people who have supported disastrous wars. Even commentators who have made huge errors in the past may still contribute useful arguments in the present. At least I hope so, given that I supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq myself.

 

But what The New York Times should not do is let people who have supported disastrous wars in the past propose new wars casually. If you want to advocate for a new war in the most prestigious newspaper in the United States, you should have to grapple, at least briefly, with the potential dangers. Given the costs, both financial and human, of America’s post-9/11 conflicts, that’s not too much to ask.

 

Which brings me to John Bolton’s Thursday New York Times op-ed, “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” Bolton was both a booster, and a minor architect, of the war in Iraq. As George W. Bush’s undersecretary of state in late 2002, he told the BBC that, “We are confident that Saddam Hussein has hidden weapons of mass destruction and production facilities in Iraq.” He added that, “the Iraqi people would be unique in history if they didn’t welcome the overthrow of this dictatorial regime,” and that although building a democracy would prove a “difficult task,” the people of Iraq “are fully competent to do it.” So competent, in fact, that “the American role [in post-war Iraq] actually will be fairly minimal.”

 

That’s what Bolton said publicly. Privately, according to a 2005 report by the Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee, he distributed classified information about Joe Wilson in an attempt to smear the former ambassador, who was then questioning President Bush’s claim that Iraq had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. Bolton also played a key role in forcing out Jose Bustani, director of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, because he feared Bustani’s inspectors in Iraq would undermine the case for war. It was behavior like this that led Washington Post columnist David Ignatius to observe that Bolton “epitomizes the politicization of intelligence that helped produce the fiasco over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.”

 

Should this disqualify Bolton from penning a New York Times op-ed urging America to bomb Iran? No. But it should have disqualified him from penning the op-ed he published on Thursday.

 

In the section of his op-ed in which he calls for war, Bolton writes:

 

The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed.

 

Rendering inoperable the Natanz and Fordow uranium-enrichment installations and the Arak heavy-water production facility and reactor would be priorities. So, too, would be the little-noticed but critical uranium-conversion facility at Isfahan. An attack need not destroy all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but by breaking key links in the nuclear-fuel cycle, it could set back its program by three to five years. The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.

 

That’s it. Robert Gates, who led the CIA under George H.W. Bush before becoming George W. Bush and Barack Obama’s defense secretary, has said bombing Iran could prove a “catastrophe,” and that Iran’s “capacity to wage a series of terror attacks across the Middle East aimed at us and our friends, and dramatically worsen the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and elsewhere is hard to overestimate.” Meir Dagan, who led Israel’s external spy service, the Mossad, from 2002 to 2011, has warned that an attack on Iran “would mean regional war, and in that case you would have given Iran the best possible reason to continue the nuclear program.” In the aftermath of a military strike, he added, “The regional challenge that Israel would face would be impossible.”

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

http://m.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/john-bolton-times-iran-bomb-war/388850/

 

 

“The Ukraine Cease-Fire Will Fall Apart Because There Are Three Charlatans That Are Chameleons In The Midst With Self Interest; Vladimir Putin, Francois Hollande And Angela Merkel.

Vladimir Putin wants the Ukrainian Eastern Land Border to buttress Crimea’s waterfront with Ukraine; Francois Hollande built two Air Craft Carries for Russia at a total cost exceeding 1.6 Billion US Dollars. France hasn’t been able to deliver the First Carrier that has been completed since the end of last year due to the ongoing Sanctions against Russia; and, Angela Merkel has always been in a conspiracy with Putin dating back prior to Putin annexing Crimea.

 

The Only true protector Ukraine has is the United States and that is fact because we want nothing from Ukraine, except for the Ukrainian people to be a Democratic Country having the freedom to live out their God given lives. [Sheriff Ali]”

 

“MINSK, Belarus — A new cease-fire and an overall compact to end the war in eastern Ukraine was announced here on Thursday by the leaders of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine after marathon overnight bargaining that threatened to derail the attempt. Even as the agreement was announced, it appeared fragile, with officials on all sides saying that there was more work to be done.

 

The cease-fire is scheduled to take effect at midnight on Saturday, but the fact that the leaders used three separate news conferences to announce the accord suggested a lack of unity. Still, after such a concentrated effort, all the leaders chose to accent the idea that there was at least a chance that the yearlong war could be quieted.

 

The negotiations “consisted of a long night and a long morning, but we have arrived at an accord on a cease-fire and a global end to the conflict,” President François Hollande of France said. “It is a relief for Europe.”

 

Mr. Hollande said a broader agreement on ending the war would ultimately hinge on border control and the resolution of questions like the withdrawal of heavy weapons. [New York Times]

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

 

Open New York Times Link For Full NYT Article.

http://nyti.ms/1F0X6RN

 

 

 

Obama Enlists 9 Allies to Help in the Battle Against ISIS

 

It seems that it is only President Obama that actually cares about the devastation for our Soldiers if he would re-invade Iraq and put our Soldiers on the ground. There are so many different factions fighting inside of Iraq that it is difficult for an Iraqi to most of the time know the difference between friend and foe, much less our Soldiers.

 

For all of the criticism Mr. Obama took, he did manage to put together a Nine [9] member Alliance to fight the ISIS Terrorism. The other part of this puzzle is that Mr. Obama is coordinating “Middle-Eastern Ground Troops” as we continue to use Air Strikes, thus keeping our Soldiers from being mixed up on the ground in this maddening Religious and bifurcated Civil War.

 

Bush and Cheney should of thought of that prior to sending tens of thousands of our Soldiers in the middle of hell where thousands died and tens of thousands got severely injured.

 

Republicans are quick to send other people children, wives, husbands, sons and daughters and parents into the fires of hell, without a single thought about the cost of “one lost life.” I wish the American people would somehow grow up to the reality of life when they go to the Voting Booth. [S ALI]

 

“NEWPORT, Wales — President Obama escalated the American response to the marauding Islamic State in Iraq and Syria on Friday, recruiting at least nine allies to help crush the organization and offering the outlines of a coordinated military strategy that echoes the war on terror developed by his predecessor, George W. Bush, more than a decade ago.

 

In his most expansive comments to date about how the United States and its friends could defeat ISIS, a once-obscure group of Sunni militants that has now upended the Middle East and overshadowed Al Qaeda, Mr. Obama said the effort would rely on American airstrikes against its leaders and positions, strengthen the moderate Syrian rebel groups to reclaim ground lost to ISIS, and enlist friendly governments in the region to join the fight.

 

While the president’s aides maintained that he has not yet decided to authorize airstrikes in Syria — which he has already done on a limited basis in Iraq — Mr. Obama likened his developing strategy on ISIS to the American effort against Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal regions, which has relied heavily on airstrikes.”[NYT]

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

 

 

http://nyti.ms/1qC7xSG

 

John McCain and Lindsay Graham words embolden Putin’s resolve!

Subsequent to Russia’s invasion of Crimea, Ukraine, both John McCain and Lindsay Graham have taken to the “airways” and have continued to make disparaging remarks about President Obama.

 

John McCain, the ultimate “war-monger” and a man who didn’t see a war that he didn’t like, have repeatedly called President Obama – “Feckless.”

 

McCain’s side-kick Lindsay Graham has been permeating that Benghazi is the reason why Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea, Ukraine. With words like that coming from two of the Republicans top demagogues, why Putin shouldn’t be embolden to continue down the road of perdition.

 

It is perhaps perplexing to World Leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel and others, that America’s other rabble-rousers like Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Donald Rumsfeld [The Gang that couldn’t shoot straight], why should they the Europeans, whose own interest is at stake, implant their countries into such debauchery.

 

I think that it is a fact that “History” does repeat itself. According to some accounts it was estimated that the loss of life to stop Hitler at Munich would have been approximately 3,000,000. With such a large number many felt that Hitler would soon come to his senses. But, as we are aware, Hitler had totally lost his mind and by the time Hitler was stopped and World War 11 ended, approximately 63,000,000 people had lost their lives.

 

Chancellor Merkel in a most recent interview said that she thinks Vladimir Putin is living in a different world and that he is out of touch with reality. Well, so was Hitler! I am not advocating War, but I am advocating that Putin’s problem is the world’s problem and as such, all civilized society should speak with one voice and that is especially true when it comes to America’s self-serving Politicians, seeking to destroy one man’s reputation, President Obama, for self-gain and recognition.  

 

Putin said in 2005 that the greatest travesty of the 20^th Century was the collapse of the Soviet Union. Then in 2008 he invaded Georgia and now he is in complete control of Crimea. For those that do not know, Vladimir Putin’s job with the Kremlin was a “recruiter,” and he was very good at what he did.

 

Vladimir Putin may not be trying to recreate the USSR, but it sure looks like he is attempting to create The United States of Russia, by brutal force!

The Jewish Jihadist, Benjamin Netanyahu; internecine polices doesn’t help us with Iran!

Considering that Israel is largest recipient of America’s foreign aid for which they received in 2012 THREE BILLION DOLLARS, and in addition, the United States unequivocal guarantee of securing Israel’s security and sovereignty, one would think that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would do his part in supporting our efforts for a long term peace, rather than the obnoxious, obstructionist, equally destructive part that Mr. Netanyahu continues to promulgate.

 

The agreement that was reached on November 23, 2013 with Iran, did not only involve the United States, but, included Russia, China, France and United Kingdom, all Permanent Members of The United Nations Security Council and in addition, The European Union Foreign Policy Chief and Germany’s Foreign Minister.

 

It is always necessary to have the five permanent members of the United Nations Council on the same side, because, any one of the five permanent members veto, would render any “International” effort moot.  

 

However, prior to the agreement being reached and subsequent, Mr. Netanyahu got on every News Outlet and denounced the agreement as a Historic Mistake. Keep in mind that this is the same man that continues to erect Jewish Settlements in the West Bank and equally destructive, Mr. Netanyahu always take the “hard-line” position when it comes to a most vital Policy as it pertain to a Two-State Settlement between Israel and Palestine.

 

No one is that much of a “fool” to believe that this initial agreement is going to resolve Iran’s Nuclear ambitions, but, after thirty years of having gotten no where in resolving our differences with Iran, it is good that some process begins.

 

Along with Benjamin Netanyahu’s parasitic views we find on the Sunday programs Richard Haass. This is the same man that told former President George W. Bush that the war with Iraq would only last six days. There are other Congressional Representatives in the Senate and the House, mostly Republicans, who have voted to cut food stamp benefits, but, are also hell-bent on predicting that the agreement is a mistake and are jockeying for war!

 

The American People had better wake up and remain conscious, because in 2003, 80% of Americans supported Bush’s effort for the invasion of Iraq and we know how well that turned out. At the present time 56% of Americans support the diplomatic route with Iran, while 36% is against, but, most of the time many Americans are like tumbleweed, they roll with the wind!