“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Friday, September 11, 2015

'Wrong Then, Wrong Now': White House Video Rips Cheney For Iran Deal Criticism



CNN

Timeline On Dick Cheney:
1962 and 1963 -
 Cheney is arrested twice for driving under the influence. 
1966 - Drops out of doctoral program at the University of Wisconsin to work as staff aide for Governor Warren Knowles. 
1968 - Cheney is awarded an American Political Science Association congressional fellowship on staff of Congressman William Steiger and moves to DC.
1969 - Assigned to work for Donald Rumsfeld, the Director of Office of Economic Opportunity in President Richard Nixon's administration. Rumsfeld appoints him to position of special assistant.
1970 - Rumsfeld becomes a White House counselor. Cheney becomes his deputy. 
1971-1973 - Assistant Director of the Cost of Living Council.
1973 - Rumsfeld asks Cheney to join him in Brussels when Nixon appoints Rumsfeld ambassador to NATO. Cheney declines and instead accepts a post as vice president at Bradley, Woods and Company, a DC investment firm that counsels corporate clients on politics and federal policy. 
August 1974 - Gerald Ford succeeds President Richard Nixon and appoints Donald Rumsfeld to head his transition team. Rumsfeld recruits Cheney to serve as his deputy. 
September 1974 - Named deputy assistant to the president.
November 5, 1975-1977 - White House Chief of Staff. 
June 18, 1978 - Has a heart attack. 
January 3, 1979-March 17, 1989 - U.S. Representative from Wyoming. Is re-elected five times.
1981-1987 - Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee.
1984 - Has a second heart attack.
1987 - Elected chairman of the House Republican Conference. 
1988 - Becomes House minority whip. 
1988 - Has a third heart attack and undergoes quadruple bypass surgery.
March 1989 - President George H.W. Bush nominates Cheney for secretary of defense after John Tower's nomination for the position fails to win Senate confirmation.
1989-1993 - Serves as secretary of defense. He directs two military campaigns during this time: Operation Just Cause in Panama and Operation Desert Storm in the Middle East.
July 3, 1991 - Awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George H. W. Bush for his leadership in the Gulf War.
March 1992 - Cheney and other current and former Congressmen are named in a scandal involving overdrafts at the House bank.
1995 - Becomes chairman and CEO of Halliburton, an engineering and construction company for the petroleum industry. 
March 2000 - Asked by George W. Bush to be his running mate. He declines, instead accepting a position vetting potential vice presidential candidates. He accepts in July when Bush asks again.
November 22, 2000 - Cheney checks himself into a hospital with chest pains. Doctors say he had a mild heart attack, and insert a stent to open an artery.
December 12, 2000 - The U. S. Supreme Court reverses a Florida Supreme Court's decision ordering a statewide recount of thousands of questionable ballots - effectively ceding Florida's 25 electoral votes and the presidency to George W. Bush and vice presidency to Dick Cheney by a five to four deciding decision exactly five weeks after Election Day.
March 5, 2001 - Cheney checks himself into George Washington University Hospital with chest pains. He undergoes angioplasty to reopen the artery treated in November 2000. It is determined he did not suffer a heart attack on this occasion. 
June 30, 2001 - Doctors insert a "pacemaker- plus" device to monitor Cheney's heart rhythm and slow it down if it becomes irregular.
November 2, 2004 - George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are re-elected as president and vice president of the United States after Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry concedes on November 3.
September 24, 2005 - Undergoes surgery at George Washington University Hospital for an arterial aneurysm behind his right knee. A similar procedure will be performed on an aneurysm in an artery behind the left knee at a later date.
December 18, 2005 - Makes a surprise visit to troops in Iraq. It is his first trip to the country since 1991.
January 9, 2006 - Cheney is hospitalized briefly at George Washington University Hospital after suffering shortness of breath. The problem is believed to be associated with medication Cheney is taking for a foot ailment. 
February 11, 2006 - During a quail hunting trip in Texas, Cheney accidentally shoots and wounds his hunting companion Harry Whittington.
July 13, 2006 - Cheney, along with Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and a number of unnamed defendants, are named in a federal civil lawsuit by Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson. The suit contends Plame was the victim of intentional and malicious exposure, and that both she and Wilson "suffered a violation of rights guaranteed them under the United States Constitution and the laws of the District of Columbia." The lawsuit is later dismissed.
March 5, 2007 - Doctors at George Washington University Hospital find a blood clot, called a deep venous thrombosis or DVT, in Cheney's lower left leg. He is allowed to return to work after being given blood-thinning medication. 
July 28, 2007 - Vice President Cheney has the battery replaced in his implanted heart defibrillator.
November 26, 2007 - He is diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (an irregular heartbeat), after he visits his doctor complaining of a lingering cough. He undergoes a routine heart procedure intended to shock the heart back into normal rhythm.
September 17, 2009 - Undergoes elective back surgery to deal with pain caused from a case of lumbar spinal stenosis.
February 22, 2010 - Cheney is hospitalized at the George Washington University Hospital after experiencing chest pains. After a stress test and a heart catheterization it is determined Cheney suffered a mild heart attack.
June 25, 2010 - Is hospitalized at George Washington University for conditions related to his coronary artery disease. He has a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implanted in July to help his heart pump.
August 2011 - On a tour to promote the release of his upcoming memoir "In My Time," Cheney criticizes former Bush administration officials Condoleezza RiceColin Powell and George Tenet.Cheney says his book will have "heads exploding" in Washington, DC. 
March 24, 2012 - His office says he is recovering after undergoing successful heart transplant surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, Virginia.
2013 - The medical memoir "Heart: An American Medical Odyssey," co-written by Dick Cheney and Dr. Jonathan Reiner, is released.

66 comments:

  1. Only Dick Cheney could interpret the last decade or two of U.S. foreign policy as a testament to the efficacy and morality of war.

    The closer you look, the more revealing Cheney’s litany is. Obama has been vilified for suggesting that opponents of the nuclear deal are putting the United States on the road to war. But at the end of his AEI speech, Cheney all but proposes war. Sure, he says America just needs the “credible threat of military action.” But he offers no suggestions for how Obama could make that threat credible without actually going to war. Nor does he explain why his own administration’s military threats against Iran weren’t credible during its eight years in office.

    In fact, Cheney doesn’t cite historical examples of America or Israel threatening military action. He cites historical examples of America or Israel taking military action. Even Muammar al-Qaddafi, the one leader Cheney cites as having abandoned his nuclear program without being attacked, didn’t give up his program because the U.S. threatened war against Libya. Qaddafi gave it up, according to Cheney himself, because the United States waged war against Iraq. Cheney says he’s drawing on the lessons of history for his alternative to the Iran nuclear deal. But the only lesson he’s drawing is that war works.

    For all his dishonesty about the details of the agreement with Iran, there is an underlying honesty to Cheney’s broader perspective. Recognizing that Americans have no appetite for another Middle Eastern war, most deal opponents have spent the summer insisting that they really, really believe in diplomacy with Iran, just not Obama’s kind. Cheney doesn’t bother. The end of his AEI speech is a paean to the effectiveness of military force as a means of stopping nuclear proliferation. Only Dick Cheney could interpret the last decade or two of U.S. foreign policy as a testament to the efficacy and morality of war. But the former vice president has his own relationship with reality. When dissonant information intrudes, he simply mutters “right,” and keeps on going.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/dick-cheney-iran-deal-military-force/404296/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cheney was vice president for eight years in an administration that watched the Iranian nuclear program progress and never took military action against Iran.

    Finally, at AEI, Cheney said “President Obama went on Israeli TV and effectively ruled out the option of force” against Iran. Actually, Obama has said military force remains an option to stop Tehran’s nuclear program again and again and again and again. As recently as August 21, Obama wrote in a letter to Congressman Jerry Nadler that “Should Iran seek to dash toward a nuclear weapon, all of the options available to the United States—including the military option—will remain available through the life of the deal and beyond.”

    Cheney’s reference was to an interview with Israeli TV in which Obama said, “A military solution will not fix it. Even if the United States participates, it would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program but it will not eliminate it.” But in that interview, Obama wasn’t ruling out military force. He was merely acknowledging what even advocates of military force admit: that the Iranians can rebuild their program after a strike. Claiming that Obama “effectively ruled out the option of military force” is not only dishonest. It’s also ironic—because Cheney was vice president for eight years in an administration that watched the Iranian nuclear program progress and never took military action against Iran.

    One gets the feeling, however, that Cheney regrets that. Near the end of his AEI speech, the former vice president turned to his proposed alternative to Obama’s accord with Iran. Most critics of the nuclear deal argue that the United States can reject the current agreement, stiffen sanctions, force its allies to maintain theirs, and thus force the Iranians into a better deal. Cheney, however, said nothing about toughening sanctions. His substitute plan for preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons consisted of only one thing: military force.

    “[T]here are lessons from the past on which we can draw,” Cheney declared. He then cited Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor; the Gulf War, in which the U.S. destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program; the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which Cheney said convinced Libya to abandon its nuclear program; and Israel’s 2007 attack on a nuclear reactor in Syria. “In each of these cases,” Cheney argued, “it was either military action or the credible threat of military action that persuaded these rogue regimes to abandon their weapons programs. Iran will not be convinced to abandon its program peacefully unless it knows it will face military action if it refuses to do so.”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/dick-cheney-iran-deal-military-force/404296/

    ReplyDelete
  3. The war monger Cheney, five time draft dodging mother fucker that he, life time federal welfare recipient, lost a round yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. if he was such a "war monger" why didn't he attack iran?????

      Delete


  4. Deuce ☂Fri Sep 11, 12:08:00 AM EDT
    You are warned:

    Harassment and bullying content on Blogger

    Blogger strongly believes in freedom of speech. We believe that having a variety of perspectives is an important part of what makes blogs such an exciting and diverse medium. With that said, there are certain types of content that are not allowed on Blogger. While Blogger values and safeguards personal commentary, material that seeks to single-out another person for threat of serious harm or malicious attack is not allowed on Blogger.

    If you found a blog that violates our policy, please use the form below to report it to our team. Please submit each blog only once. While we don't reply to individual reports, we will review every submission as soon as possible and take action as necessary.
    Please provide the URL of the blog in question (e.g. http://example.com). *
    Where is the information located on the blog?
    (e.g. post dated May 1st, 2005, in the user's profile, etc.) *


    Deuce ☂Fri Sep 11, 12:09:00 AM EDT
    My suggestion. Get lost.


    Deuce ☂Fri Sep 11, 12:11:00 AM EDT
    I have saved and deleted your other two harassments on this post.

    Get lost. Your type is not wanted here.




    Is that aimed at yourself or Jack?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This blog is nothing but bullying by the blog's owner.

      Delete
  5. 14 years ago today the friends of Deuce, the Gazans, cheered as the towers fell and passed out candy...

    that's a fact Jack...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Deuce has for years told us that Iran had every RIGHT to it's nuclear program, that with Israel as it's neighbor it would be stupid for it not to have a nuke bomb.

    Deuce stand with those that bombed America 14 years ago.

    I stand with America and Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Did I hit a nerve there deuce???

    Did the Sniper attacks in Phoenix AZ and the reappearance of Jack Hawkins too much to digest???

    LOL

    Reality is funny...

    ReplyDelete
  8. September 11, 2015
    Last ditch efforts to stop the Iran deal
    By Thomas Lifson

    It may well be that yesterday marked the beginning of the Iran deal, as Carol Brown laments. But some have not given up the fight and are pursuing strategies to snatch victory from the jaws of Obama. Two paths are apparent, both involving the courts.

    Speaker Boehner has announced that he may sue. Jake Sherman writes in Politico:

    Speaker John Boehner said Thursday he might sue President Barack Obama again.

    The Ohio Republican said Obama has not turned over the entirety of the Iran agreement for congressional review as mandated by law. Boehner said legal action is “an option that’s very possible.”

    “If you read the provisions in [the congressional review law], it’s pretty clear that the president has not complied,” Boehner said Thursday during his weekly news conference. “Because it makes clear that any side agreements and any other type of an agreement — including those that do not directly involve us — must be turned over as part of it. I do not believe that he’s complied.”

    The speaker said the agreement is "worse than anything I could’ve ever imagined."

    Although the courts have generally been reluctant to become involved in disputes between the legislative and executive branches, a recent Obamacare decision gives some hope. Northwestern University constitutional law professor Eugene Kantorovitch explains in the Washington Post:

    In fact, there are at least two paths to invalidating any sanctions relief implemented by the president – a lawsuit by a House of Congress, or action involving state sanctions laws.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yesterday a D.C. Federal district court issued a landmark ruling in House of Representatives v. Burwell, upholding the House of Representatives standing to challenge Executive action under the Affordable Care Act. The question of institutional legislative standing is a fairly novel one, and thus this is an important decision.

      Whether it survives on appeal, the decision creates a major and previously unanticipated opening for a congressional lawsuit challenging the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The constitutional argument would focus on the non-transmission of documents required under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (the Corker-Cardin deal), which would seem to satisfy the standing test established by the district court.

      Omri Ceren, in an email, summarizes the complex argument:

      It begins in the usual place: the 60 day review process hasn't started because the Iran-IAEA side deals haven't been transmitted to Congress. But the injury isn't just that waiving sanctions is illegal, which is the way the argument usually proceeds. Instead the Kontorovich argument is that Congress has been denied its Article I prerogative to exercise its legislative authority: since binding action on the JCPOA can only occur between Day 1 and Day 60 of the Corker "period of review," and since that clock hasn't started so we're not in Day 1, Congress has been denied the ability to act on the JCPOA. (snip)

      White House spokesperson Earnest was asked about possible Congressional litigation at today's White House press briefing. His answer: "we've been clear that the [transmitted] documentation included all the documentation that was in the possession of the United States government" [b].

      Delete
    2. That answer is unlikely to satisfy Congress and may not pass judicial scrutiny. The White House appears to have intentionally not called for the side deals, lest they have to transmit them. Olli Heinonen - a 27 year IAEA veteran who sat atop the agency's verification shop - has explained that the U.S. could very easily call for the side deals because the U.S. is a member of the IAEA Board: "According to the IAEA rules and practices such documents could be made available to the members of the IAEA Board... If a board member asks it and others resist the distribution ... this can be overcome by a vote... Simple majority is enough, and no vetoes exist in the IAEA system."

      Kantorovitch therefore cautions that:

      Congress should insist on not voting on anything labelled a “resolution of disapproval.” Indeed, Congress cannot competently act on a resolution of disapproval, both because such a resolution lacks any legal force until the period of review commences, and because they have been denied the relevant information necessary to fulfill their constitutional role.

      As to the second path, revolving around state sanctions:

      Many states have their own Iran sanctions’ laws, and many are are moving to implement or strengthen such. Many of the state sanctions regimes provide that they terminate if federal sanctions are suspended. Such a state may well be sued by those subject to the state sanctions, arguing that the state sanctions are preempted by federal law, on the view that federal sanctions have been suspended or waived. The plaintiffs in such a case would certainly have standing. But as a defense to such a suit, the state could then argue that in fact the federal sanctions have not been waived or suspended, under the terms of Corker-Cardin.

      Delete
    3. Such an argument would be eminently justiciable, as standing generally applies to plaintiff’s claims, not to defenses. It is not unheard for the legality of something to be non-justiciable in a direct challenge, but reviewable in an enforcement action. To put if differently, state law can’t be preempted by an invalid federal action.

      Meanwhile, Senator Ted Cruz recommends two more steps, in addition to noting the lack of complete documentation mentioned above:

      Leader McConnell should schedule a vote on a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that, if the agreement had been introduced as a treaty, it would not be ratified. This will put senators on record and will make clear that there is insufficient support in the Senate for approving the agreement as a treaty.

      Third, given President Obama’s regrettable history of lawlessness, it is reasonable to assume that he will simply ignore the law and declare that he is lifting sanctions under the agreement anyway. On that assumption, we should make clear to the CEOs of banks holding frozen Iranian funds that their misplaced reliance on the president’s lawlessness would not necessarily excuse them from the obligation to comply with existing federal sanctions laws. And if they release billions in funds to Khamenei, they risk billions in civil (and possibly even criminal) liability once President Obama leaves office. Having spent years advising major corporations in private practice, I can say that their general counsels will likely tell them their legal exposure is real, which could well result in the banks deciding not to release the funds to Iran, despite the president’s actions.

      The real Rubicon to be crossed in the Iran deal is the release of financial assets to Iran. Once they are gone, they cannot be gotten back, and based on statements from Iran as late as yesterday, it is certain they will be employed in part to rain down death and destruction on Israel, the United States, and all who do not adhere to the mullahs’ version of Islam. One can imagine Obama’s fury of banks decline to release funds based on liability worries.

      Hat tip: Karin McQuillan

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/09/last_ditch_efforts_to_stop_the_iran_deal.html#ixzz3lQnUleQP
      Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

      Delete
    4. The People of the USA and its Congress aren't even sure what the side deals contain.

      We don't know what in the 'agreement' in its entirety.


      Oh, it September 11th all right..............

      Delete
    5. what's and it's

      How can anyone support an agreement when they do not know what is in it ?

      I'm just a farmer and even I know better than that.

      Delete
  9. On February 26, 1993, a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 1,336 pounds (606 kg) urea nitrate–hydrogen gas enhanced device[1] was intended to send the North Tower (Tower 1) crashing into the South Tower (Tower 2), bringing both towers down and killing tens of thousands of people.[2][3] It failed to do so but killed six people and injured more than a thousand.[4]

    The attack was planned by a group of terrorists including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal A. Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmed Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing: Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad and Salameh. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property, and interstate transportation of explosives. In November 1997, two more were convicted: Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind behind the bombings, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb.


    This war didn't start on 9/11/01

    ReplyDelete
  10. "The White House appears to have intentionally not called for the side deals, lest they have to transmit them."

    Good Lord this is out and out insanity.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sirhan Bishara Sirhan (Arabic: سرحان بشارة سرحان‎, Sirḥān Bishārah Sirḥān; born March 19, 1944) is a Palestinian of Jordanian citizenship who was convicted of the 1968 assassination of U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy. He is currently serving a life sentence at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego County, California.

    Sirhan was born in British-ruled Jerusalem and is a strong opponent of Israel. In 1989, he told David Frost, "My only connection with Robert Kennedy was his sole support of Israel and his deliberate attempt to send those 50 bombers to Israel to obviously do harm to the Palestinians."[1] Some scholars believe that the assassination was the first major incident of political violence in the United States stemming from the Arab–Israeli conflict in the Middle East.[2]


    This war didn't start in 1967

    ReplyDelete
  12. The arabs and moslems occupiers of North Africa started the war in the Americas in 1783....

    Learn real history

    ReplyDelete
  13. this is a gem in light of the thousands of posts by the anti-israel folks here...

    While Blogger values and safeguards personal commentary, material that seeks to single-out another person for threat of serious harm or malicious attack is not allowed on Blogger.

    LOL

    Had to read that a second time...

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All blogger has to do is review those hundreds of Jack/Rat posts and poof, this blog is toast.

      lol

      Delete
  14. Producer Prices, YoY, continue to run Down 0.8%

    PPI-FD

    ReplyDelete
  15. CNN/ORC does a poll with 40% cell phone - 60% landline, and manages to find a 51% / 42% Republican split.

    CNN/ORC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is going to be a crazy year for polling.

      Delete
  16. .

    if he was such a "war monger" why didn't he attack iran?????

    Had things gone better for him, he would have eventually gotten around to it but at the time his backup singers, Bibi and the Neocons were all singing "Iraq, Iraq, nuclear bomb aspirant and the most dangerous enemy of world peace."

    History proved him wrong but it is a lesson the self-deluded Cheney and his neocon ilk refuse to learn.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually once again either you are ignorant or you lie.

      israel always said Iran was the problem not iraq.

      maybe you should stop slinging shit and learn some real history

      Delete
  17. .

    Deuce stand with those that bombed America 14 years ago.

    Straight from WiOland, that alternate reality where up is down and left is right, where Wahhabi Saudi Arabia is confused with Shia Iran, and Dick Cheney the peacemaker lies down with the lambs. (Although that last one might on a certain level might be true.)

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hardly.

      Deuce stands with Hamas.

      As does Rufus and Rat.

      Do you?

      Delete
    2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM0dAFsZ8k

      look at the video if you dare.

      Delete
    3. .

      What's that got to do with your comment ass hole. Iran didn't bomb us on 9/11. The fruits of Saudi Arabian Wahhabism did.

      Were is that 28 pages that was redacted from the 9/11 report?

      As for my comment on Bibi and Iraq, listen to it in his own words.

      Bibi Unplugged

      look at the video if you dare. Go to 2:55, for his comments on Iraq.

      .

      Delete
    4. 'ass hole'

      Now now, I will leave if you continue in such manner Q

      Well I'm leaving for a bit anyway, but....

      Delete
    5. Bibi was spot on.

      What specifically did he say that was incorrect?

      Not a dam thing.

      Delete
    6. .

      Bibi was spot on. What specifically did he say that was incorrect?

      What alternative universal are you calling in from? You sir are nutz. He was wrong about everything.

      Israeli PM Binyamin “Chicken Little” Netanyahu tried to scaremonger about Iraq in 2002, as his contribution to the Anglo-American war of aggression on that country. “there is no question whatsoever,” Netanyahu said, “that Saddam” was seeking nuclear weapons. He said that Israeli intelligence reported to him that Russian scientists and North Korea were on site and actively aiding this phantom nuclear weapons program.

      There was no Iraqi nuclear weapons program in 2002; it was dismantled in the early 1990s by United Nations inspectors. There were none of the chemical or biological weapons Netanyahu spoke of. No Russians. No North Koreans. Bupkes.

      h/t Washington’s blog

      Netanyahu also warned that Iraq would give nuclear warheads (which it did not have) to “terrorist groups.”

      He also argued that no inspections could possibly find “mobile weapons sites” (which are impossible), implying that invasion and occupation was the only course open.

      Netanyahu proved that neither he nor the Israeli intelligence organization, Mossad, had the slightest actual intelligence on Iraq, and that neither should be trusted to provide such intelligence to the US. Clearly, some right wing Israeli leaders always want the US entangled in regional wars in the Middle East, insofar as they are seeking US support in a hostile region. They therefore habitually exaggerate the dangers, and are little more than bullshit artists.

      Netanyahu’s comments on Iraq are almost verbatim what he is now saying about Iran.


      http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/netanyahu-2002-iraq-has-centrifuges-the-size-of-washing-machines-to-produce-a-bomb.html

      Or, we have this comment which is telling in light of his comments on how easily America "can be moved in the right direction"

      If a preemptive action will be supported by a broad coalition of free countries in the United Nations, all the better. But if such support is not forthcoming, then the United States must be prepared to act without it.[Emphasis added.]

      The United States must prepared to act? What an arrogant prick.

      Here's more...

      http://www.lobelog.com/remember-bibis-wisdom-on-iraq-11-years-ago/

      You'll note that he is still working from the same script with Iran.

      .

      .

      Delete
  18. There are only Two people on this blog that advocate for violence against groups of people, based on their race, ethnicity, or religion.

    And, Rat, Deuce, Quirk, and Rufus aren't among them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. I advocate defending ourselves.

      Delete
    3. Wio get lost. Personally, I don’t believe your a Jew. You are a disgrace, a bigot, and not all that bright.

      Delete
  19. US FIRST PATRIOTS BEAT NETANYAHU, THE ISRAELI FIRSTERS, AIPAC AND THE GOP LIKUDS FORCE

    40 Democratic senators and two independent senators stood with President Obama on Thursday, preventing any congressional condemnation of the UN Security Council’s Vienna agreement with Iran over its civilian nuclear enrichment program.

    By the genteel rules of the senate, proponents of the censure vote needed 60 senators to prevent a filibuster. They had 58.
    Four Democratic Senators sided with the Israel lobbies loyal to far right Likud Party prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, but that the lobbies could not persuade more Democrats makes this defeat their most severe since the early 1980s when they failed to block weapons sales to Saudi Arabia. This Iran vote was far more consequential
    .
    How did Obama win?

    1. First, the Israel lobbies in Washington made the issue a partisan one– a huge mistake on their parts. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and billionaire gadfly Sheldon Adelson all associated the deal with the Democratic Party, and opposition to it as Republican. When, outrageously, the GOP invited Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to address Congress, the Democrats in Congress asked for a sidebar with him, and he absolutely refused. I think we may conclude that when the Israel lobbies support positions susceptible of bipartisan support, they can have fair success. But when they support the position of one party against the other, they likely lose. They also lose when they are not united. A major member of the Israel lobbies, J Street, lobbied heavily for the deal.
    2. The Obama administration arranged for Democratic members of Congress to be briefed by US allies in Europe that were involved in the negotiations. British PM David Cameron, French Pres. Francis Hollande, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel came out strongly for the deal. The Europeans pointed out that no one in the international community was going to continue sanctions on Iran if the deal was shot down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3. Democrats were scarred by the Iraq War, and Obama’s argument that without the nuclear deal there likely will be a US war on Iran down the road, proved persuasive.
      4. In the Democratic party, by the beginning of September, the Iran deal had 70% support. Adelson’s, and Saudi Arabia’s, campaigns of commercials on radio and television backfired. Congresspeople tend to listen to their constituents.
      5. Cheney.

      Delete
    2. http://www.juancole.com/2015/09/reasons-defeated-effort.html

      Delete
    3. And, I think, Most Importantly, it is a damned good deal. :)

      Delete
    4. So when Iran cheats will you support sanctions and or military retribution?

      Delete
    5. Big believer in retribution.

      The US Liberty comes to mind as well as nailing Saudi Arabia after 911.

      Had we taught Israel a lesson that it never would have forgot in 1967 for killing and wounding over 150 US servicemen, there never would have been a 911. When I have time, I’ll explain.

      Delete
  20. Not quite as much fun as another ME cakewalk brought to us by the slam-dunk neocon muthafuckers.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jeb Bush 2016: Columba Bush praises Miriam Adelson in op-ed – POLITICO

    August 25, 2015 Politics, Republican Freak Show
    [blog ed. note — Whores, whores, whores. Whores.]



    Columba Bush, the wife of Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, penned a laudatory op-ed on Sunday praising the anti-drug addiction work of Dr. Miriam Adelson, one half of one of the political world’s most powerful donor couples.

    Adelson and her husband, Sheldon, founded the Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Clinic for Drug Abuse Treatment & Research in 2000. Recounting a recent visit to the Las Vegas clinic in which she met the doctor, Bush praised Adelson and her staff for their work with those suffering from opioid prescription drug addiction.

    via Jeb Bush 2016: Columba Bush praises Miriam Adelson in op-ed – POLITICO.

    ReplyDelete
  22. In 2012, the 18 to 29 cohort was 19% of the vote. The 30 to 44 age group was 27%.

    The Over 65'ers were only 16% of the electorate.

    But, the latest CNN/ORC Poll didn't even have enough of the 18 to 34 year old group to "break out" into a percentage (you have to have a certain percentage for the results to be statistically significant.

    They had enough of the "over 65'ers," however (in spite of the fact that this group is less than 2/3rds, exit poll-wise, of the 18 - 34 voters,) to make a statistical determination.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is really important, because the 18 - 29 contingent voted for the Democrat 60 - 37 (the 30 - 44 cohort also voted pro-D, but by a smaller 52 - 45.)

      Whereas, the Over 65 crowd voted Republican by 56 - 44.

      Delete
  23. Carson 51
    Clinton 46

    Bush 49
    Clinton 47

    Trump 48
    Clinton 48


    CNN General Election Hypothetical Poll

    Clinton 'panicking'

    Wow

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For Hillary Clinton, it's time to diaper up, or


      Time to Wet the Bed
      Column: The Hillary campaign should start panicking

      BY: Matthew Continetti
      September 11, 2015 5:00 am

      In early July, during another rough patch for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, Dan Pfeiffer took to CNN to reassure his party. Pfeiffer used to be President Obama’s top communications aide. The title of his op-ed was “Stop the bed-wetting: Hillary Clinton’s doing fine.” Bed-wetting, Pfeiffer explained, “is a term of art in Obamaland.” Ah, the president and his acolytes. Such sophisticates.

      Clinton shouldn’t panic, Pfeiffer argued, because she remains ahead in polling and in fundraising, because Bernie Sanders “is not Barack Obama,” and because “Hillary Clinton circa 2015 is not Hillary Clinton circa 2008.” Elections, after all, “are about fundamentals,” and “the fundamentals point to a decisive if hard fought victory for Clinton.” Of course, “A lot can change in the coming months.”

      No kidding. As we enter the fall campaign season, Pfeiffer’s case seems laughably self-assured and unpersuasive. Now is precisely the time for Clinton and her team to wet the bed—indeed, they may already be doing so.

      Polling? Recent surveys have Sanders beating Clinton not only in New Hampshire, which borders his home state of Vermont, but also in Iowa, where the Daily Mail notes that Clinton has dropped 12 points in just two months. Support for Clinton nationally has been on a downward trajectory ever since she launched her campaign in April. She spent $2 million on television ads in August—and her numbers fell.

      This week’s Monmouth poll has Joe Biden, who hasn’t decided to run, with the best positive rating of the Democratic candidates. He comes in second to Clinton in the horse race, with large numbers of Democrats saying they’d switch to him if he announces his campaign. “A Biden candidacy would be substantially worse for Clinton than Sanders,” observes the Washington Post..............

      http://freebeacon.com/columns/time-to-wet-the-bed/


      When you're down to Drinkin' Joe Biden, plagiarist, to pull your spuds out of the fire, you have no lower to go....

      Delete
  24. Republican opponents vowed to fight on.

    “This is a bad deal with decades-long consequences for the security of the American people and our allies. And we’ll use every tool at our disposal to stop, slow and delay this agreement,” said House Speaker John Boehner following the Senate vote.
    ----------------------------
    The GOP vowed to fight on to kill the healthcare bill. I think there have been as many as 50 bills to date.

    ReplyDelete
  25. September 11, 2015
    Obamacare enrollment tumbles
    By Thomas Lifson

    Is anyone other than the Obama administration surprised that the actual enrollment report for Obamacare issued by the Centers for Medicare Services came out almost two million lower than the level claimed just last spring? Investor’s Business Daily editorializes:

    ObamaCare enrollment has fallen sharply since March, and that's before consumers confront huge rate hikes for 2016. These are not the signs of a successful program.

    In its latest enrollment report, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says 9.9 million were still enrolled in ObamaCare exchange plans.

    That's almost 2 million fewer than the administration claimed in the spring, when it bragged that 11.7 million had signed up, and way below the Congressional Budget Office's earlier forecast of 13 million.

    And if this year is anything like last year, that 9.9 million will dwindle further as the year goes on.

    This turkey of a program costs more and delivers less than promised when it was passed without a single Republican vote. The Democrats own its failure.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/09/obamacare_enrollment_tumbles.html#ixzz3lRu49u4J
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook



    Dr. Ben Carson is the fellow to fix this fiasco.....

    ReplyDelete
  26. Deficit continues to fall.

    August Deficit the smallest in 7 years.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Summary of Key Findings

    According to new data derived from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS),
    median annual household income in July 2015 was $55,218. The July 2015 median was
    not statistically different than the June 2015 median ($55,204). The Sentier Household
    Income Index for July 2015 was 96.2 (January 2000 = 100).
    These findings come from a report issued today by Sentier Research, titled “Household
    Income Trends: July 2015,” which presents monthly trends in household income from
    January 2000 to July 2015.
    The lack of change in median annual household income in July still leaves the median
    significantly higher than the low point in our household income series that occurred in
    August 2011. Median income in July 2015 ($55,218) was 2.0 percent higher than in July
    2014 ($54,120), and 6.5 percent higher than in August 2011 ($51,872).
    The period since
    August 2011 has been marked by an uneven, but generally upward trend in the level of
    real median annual household income. Many of the month-to-month changes in median
    income during this period have not been statistically significant. However, the cumulative
    effect of the various month-to-month changes since August 2011 resulted in the income
    improvement noted above. (See Figure 1 at the back of this report.)
    According to Gordon Green of Sentier Research, “Although median annual household
    income did not change significantly in July, we continue to see a general upward trend in
    income since the low-point reached in August 2011. Our time series charts clearly
    illustrate that although the economic recovery officially began in June 2009, the recovery
    in household income did not begin to emerge until after August 2011.”

    What this release does not make clear is that these amounts are in inflation-adjusted dollars (constant to July, 2015.)

    Press Release

    ReplyDelete
  28. How Obama’s Nuke Deal Leads to the Next Iraq War
    Obama’s original Iraq treason led to his Iran treason today.
    September 11, 2015
    Daniel Greenfield


    Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

    In his sales pitch for the nuclear deal with Iran that even he admitted gives the terrorist regime a near zero breakout time to the bomb, Obama pulled out every conceivable stop. He even accused opponents of trying to get the country into a war with Iran just as they had “brought the country” into the Iraq War.

    But Obama was responsible for the rise of ISIS and his deal with Iran sets the stage for the next Iraq War. His original Iraq treason led to his Iran treason today.

    To understand why that is, it’s important to realize how we got here.

    Obama campaigned on a rapid withdrawal from Iraq. As with so much else, he lied. But his plan for a rapid withdrawal did win an endorsement from one key ally. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki backed Obama’s push for a swift withdrawal, stating that American soldiers should leave “as soon as possible.”

    Maliki was Iran’s man in Baghdad who had been picked by Qasem Soleimani of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The IRGC had conducted the Shiite terror campaign against American soldiers in Iraq. Maliki’s endorsement of Obama meant an endorsement from the godfather of Iran’s terror machine whose IEDs were responsible for the murder of over 500 American soldiers.

    In exchange for backing Maliki, the Iranian terror boss had demanded that the Iraqi leader get all American soldiers out of the country. Obama’s proposal for Iraq was really Iran’s proposal for Iraq.

    Soleimani and Maliki both wanted Americans out so that Iran could advance the Shiite takeover of Iraq.

    While Obama had no say during Maliki’s first government, he made sure that Iran’s puppet would get a second government. Ayad Allawi, the former interim Prime Minister, stated that Biden told him to drop his bid. Allawi claimed that the administration wanted to keep Maliki in power so as not to upset Iran.

    "They wanted to leave, and they handed the country to the Iranians," Allawi said.

    Handing over Iraq to Iran had been a key part of Obama’s plan.....................

    ................ The next Iraq War may already be here. When it drags in our soldiers, it will be because Obama’s Iraq policy continues driving a civil war by favoring Iran over Iraq’s Sunnis. The nuclear deal gave Obama the opportunity to avert that war by sending a clear message to Iran. Instead Obama sent up a white flag.

    The current phase of the war in Iraq was caused by Obama’s original Iranian political solution. The next phase of the war will be caused by the fallout from his latest dirty deal with Iran.

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260070/how-obamas-nuke-deal-leads-next-iraq-war-daniel-greenfield


    But Obama was responsible for the rise of ISIS and his deal with Iran sets the stage for the next Iraq War. His original Iraq treason led to his Iran treason today.

    Yup, and you'd have to be willfully blind not to see it....

    ReplyDelete
  29. “GEE, I WONDER WHY NOT?”

    WACO - Perhaps police and prosecutors have it all figured out or are still sorting things out. Perhaps there's a reason why 177 bikers, even those who didn't fire a gun or throw a punch, still face the prospect of 15 years to life in prison.

    But more than 100 days after a bloody clash at a Twin Peaks restaurant in May left nine dead, authorities remain tight-lipped about what happened and are proceeding with one of the largest criminal prosecutions ever in Texas. No details have been shared about which of the motorcycle riders allegedly harmed anyone else, as well as how many of the dead or 18 wounded were shot by police.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ..because it was a cop riot and a whole bunch of cops should be in jail.

      Delete
  30. All the bikers were clones of good ol' Marlon Brando, and that is for sure.

    The bikers should have the badges and bunches and bunches and bunches of Police Officers should be in prison.

    Then the area will have decent law enforcement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is know as a Transvaluation of all Values.

      But I'm never gettin' within one thousand miles of Waco, myself...........

      Delete
  31. It is hard to exaggerate the damage inflicted on AIPAC by the congressional defeat of its efforts to torpedo the Iran nuclear deal. It is not as if AIPAC won’t live to fight again, because it will, but this defeat has ruptured the status quo, possibly forever.

    The extent of its efforts to defeat the deal was unprecedented even for a lobby known for its no-holds-barred wars against past White House initiatives it considered unfriendly to Israel, going all the way back to the Ford administration. AIPAC, and its cutout Citizens For A Nuclear Free Iran, reportedly budgeted upwards of $20 million for a campaign that included flooding the airwaves with television spots; buying full-page newspaper ads, arranging fly-ins of AIPAC members to Washington, organizing demonstrations at offices of AIPAC-friendly members of Congress who were believed to be wavering, and ensuring that problematic legislators were officially warned by precisely the right donor. Rank-and-file AIPAC members were largely irrelevant to the process. Money did the talking, and also the yelling and the cursing when necessary.

    As one congressional staffer put it to me, “Taking money from AIPAC is like getting a loan from the mob. You better not forget to pay it back. They walk into this office like they own it.”

    ReplyDelete