Featured Post

Towards a Pro-America, Pro-West Foreign Policy

For years, I have written in this humble blog that Obama and his team have created an unprecedented foreign policy disaster. The disaster be...

Saturday, May 7, 2016

On the Iran Deal: Guess What?

OK, we see that the pretentious little twit who calls himself the "Deputy National Security Advisor," Ben Rhodes, has given a "tell all" interview to the NY Times.  In this multi-thousand word piece, Rhodes, in essence, boasts about how he managed to con the media into supporting the fake Iran deal. Read it yourselves, but I consider the piece fawning; others say it's actually quite critical of Rhodes. I find that the NYT is in awe of Rhodes, and how he "has rewritten diplomacy for the digital age." You decide whether that's the case, or he's just a highly skilled liar who realized how lazy, ignorant, and anti-Western the media are and took advantage of that to promote the horrendous "agreement" with Iran. He is a replay of Jonathan Gruber and his lies and manipulations on Obamacare.

This humble blog, let me remind its five or six readers, was onto the fake nature of the Iran nuclear deal from the start. Over a year ago, in one post on this deal I noted that,
The ol' Obama PR machine and its media acolytes are spinning like centrifuges, praising the "deal" to the sky. In all these mushrooming detonations of praise and self-congratulation one simple, little, itsy-bitsy fact has been overlooked. I hate to be the party pooper, but, well, there is no deal.
I wrote quite a bit about this nonsense (here, herehereherehere, and here, for example) noting that there was no deal, no treaty, nothing and that the whole thing was just a way to make the issue go away.

I asked repeatedly that we be shown the signatures; I wanted to see where the Iranians had agreed to what the White House was saying. There were, of course, no signatures, and when the Iranians talked about the deal they made quite clear that they did not agree with the White House version. The so-called deal was a dangerous scam by which Obama could release billions of dollars to the Iranian regime, stab Israel in the back, and destroy decades of US foreign policy--oh, and, of course, claim a legacy of having solved the apparently intractable problem of Iranian nukes . . . by letting the Iranians have nukes and lying about it.

Nothing to see here, move along, just progressives lying, nothing new . . .

30 comments:

  1. Then again, isn't a lot of public diplomacy nothing but putting the best face possible on a lousy situation?

    Don't get me wrong. I agree that the O maladministration's foreign policy has been a disaster, and president Shrill's maladministration will probably continue it, while getting us into a ground war in Syria and Libya. Further, it speaks volumes of the expertise available to the MSM that it could be so bamboozled by creative writing prof. Rhoades.

    But, what else might the O [mal-]administration have done, especially since it puts rhetoric and form over substance?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm not surprised after the Rhodes' article and then there's this:
    http://www.amusingplanet.com/2016/05/the-highway-of-death.html
    James the Lesser

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for weighing in on this subject.
      James the Lesser

      Delete
    2. James you did a magnificent job!

      Delete
    3. Thank you Whitewall, but I'm afraid I did nothing in this case. The credit must go to Mr. Mad.

      Delete
  3. Michael Totten points out that Iran is again recruiting child soldiers, suggesting it is badly over extended in Syria. The billions Obama has given them will help a lot.
    http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/iran-recruits-child-soldiers-%E2%80%93-again

    ReplyDelete
  4. After reading the article, tedious as it is, my opinion of the Obama administration is simply reinforced: His advisors, being young and not versed in any historical context, have a great deal of difficulty separating reality from "image". If they tell themselves enough times that this is how things should be, they will soon decide that this is how things are.

    A concept widely held among the digital generations who have never experienced reality. In the same way that CGI movies are now considered just the same as actual filmed events.

    Graham

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is so true and sad. In marketing, people can invent entire people, products, degrees, heck, countries and worlds. But it's when people believe their own BS that things get dangerous. This concept that *selling* the Iran 'non-deal' as 'safe' for America will *make* the deal safe for America, is exactly BS that's been swallowed whole.

      It's my hypothesis that this stems from rampant secularism/atheism at its heart. The belief that the world is as it is only by happenstance, and not due to some greater plan or struggle between peoples, ideologies, etc, leads many to believe these problems are simpler than they are. "Why do we fear a nuclear armed Iran? How are they not just like us? They're humans just the same as us, there's no difference." Which blatantly misses the point of the apocalyptic death cult that has full ownership of Iran. So long as the white house believes that the Ayatollah doesn't actually have faith in the religion he preaches, and instead is merely manipulating his population for his own personal gain, they can treat him like a 'rational actor' who would be fearful of the consequences of a nuclear armageddon.

      I have no doubt that the faith of some in Iran's Mullahcracy is put on just for show and dollars, but to extend that to those high up in the food chain is foolhardy. By default, we should believe that people believe what they say they believe. In light of that, Iran should scare the crap out of everybody. But if you're a cynical secular atheist running the white house, you don't, and you just take what you can get.... because even though you "know" the mullahs are rational atheist actors, they still come across as kind of crazy and unwilling to bend on anything.. so you give them what they want.

      This is Obama Chamberlain's moment.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    2. You're probably right, #1482. There's no truth except one's subjectivistic feelings these days--unless those feelings contradict the officially sanctioned feelings of the hour.

      Delete
  5. It's almost comical. The terms Obama accepted "after extremely difficult negotiations" was the same offer that was rebuffed by George W. Bush *and* Bill Clinton. From my readings, the primary 'sticking point' between Iran and the US (under Bush and Clinton) was that the US would not accept continued enrichment within Iran after it had directly flouted its agreement.
    Guess what? That 'difficult negotiation' was the same as Obama/Kerry merely saying: "Yes, we'll accept what everybody else refused."

    And here again, Trump is *SPOT ON*. Kerry/Obama came to the 'negotiating table' without the will to walk away As a result, they were dictated terms.

    These 'negotiations' weren't Obama/Kerry negotiation with Iran. This was a negotiation between Obama and the people in the US government who want to keep America safe. That's basically what the NYT article says... it's not a matter of negotiation with Iran, as much as it was selling Iran's agenda to America.
    When it comes down to it, they (being Obama and Iran) got the clean end of the stick. America got the 'other' end.

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dip,

    On another Topic: Australia will hold a Federal Election on 2 July. It is a double dissolution, where the House of Reps and all of Senate seats are open, as opposed to half the Senate seats in the usual cycle. The polling currently shows the government and the ALP at 50/50. It will be interesting because, as I predicted when he came to power replacing Abbott, Turnbull has lost a large part of the conservative voter base, who simply won't accept him dragging the LNP to the left on many issues. I predict the Government will suffer a much reduced majority in the lower house, and the balance of power in the Senate will be held by minor parties. How I wish we had a Trump of our own to shatter the comfortable power sharing of the major parties.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Nothing to see here, move along, just progressives lying, nothing new . . ." and all done with less than 140 bits on a hand held device. That is the new universe for the attention span of today's tech savvy population.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps you've dated yourself whitewall? It's 'bytes', or possibly some multiple there of if unicode other than the minimal subset of UTF-8! :)

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    2. You're right. I was hurrying along.

      Delete
  8. What possible motivation could those two malicious misfits have to turn the Middle East into a nuclear wasteland? (Include Valarie in this query.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why ending dependence on fossil fuels and preventing global warming, nothing prevents global warming like nuclear winter. Clearly it's a win-win policy and if millions die that's only of interest to the statisticians.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I would note, this comes from the same political party who bleated "Bush lied, people died!" over and over again along with a criminally complicit media.

    Projection, definitely an issue with the Left. They claimed Bush lied to get us into Iraq, and now we see WHY they say these things -- when the Left has the power, they DO abuse it, constantly.

    Weaponized IRS and EPA. The NSA hoovering up all the metadata they can wrap their slimy tentacles around. Blatant lies in regards to terrorism and foreign policy (or lack thereof). Renewal AND expansion of the Patriot Act (which was a horror under Bush per the hypocritical Left).

    No, everything the Left accuses the Right of, the Left is either already doing, or planning to do. The Obama Administration has just been more blatant and brazen about it.

    The mask is well and truly off.

    ReplyDelete
  12. That the deal is a fraud isn't news. What is news is the gloating. What does that portend for U.S. foreign policy? Is this essentially Obama's way of telling us that Iran gets missiles and nukes and he's not going to lift a finger to stop it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The gloating, Anonymous, is a Leftist cheering the further undermining of the USA and the West.

      Delete
  13. I hope he's still giggling when the Iranians initiate a nuke someplace and are walluu snackbaring themselves silly over it. Of course he will be, who am I kidding ? Unless it's where he lives. The irony factor there would be small comfort

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Soetoro will be living in Dubai so he will be fine.

      Delete
  14. I don't understand why Obama wanted to release 1.5 billion to the greatest sponsor of terrorism on earth. Watching the Europeans line up to kiss the ring in Tehran was nauseating.
    If anyone thinks we can turn this off now they are delusional. The Europeans would sell their own mothers for business contracts. They will never allow this to turn back.
    Why did he do it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hatred of America, hatred of western Europe and European culture, hatred of Judeo Christian heritage and ethics, sympathy toward Shia Islam, Valerie Jarrett. In short, all the reasons a committed Leftist does what he does.

      Delete
  15. While I think the "agreement" (should be capitulation) with Iran is abominable, I cannot agree with the Diplomad that this was crafted and facilitated by a "highly skilled" liar. There is NO skill required when the entire MSM, twitterati and Facebook morons are in on the BIG CON, and no defence of the egregious "agreement" is demanded.
    That is worrying, however the larger failure of your governmental institutions that are supposed to provide a check to such abuse is cause for much angst, literally everybody from the Predident down has ignored their oath of office. There are NO honourable men or women looking out for the USA's best interests and safety.
    I hope that a future President Trump might be able to restore some honour to these institutions but fear that is an impossible task.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, he could start by abolishing the DOE and EPA. Enforcing our immigration laws and instituting a much more fair income tax that doesn't cause peasants like me to employ a tax accountant.

      Delete
    2. All worthy targets and one hopes that they will attract attention, however I was referring to your new governance mode where your halfrican king involves you in wars and invokes new taxes at his whim. Seems to me your country was based on the premise that this could not happen, and that Congress and the Supreme Court would provide the "checks and balances" to provide sensible and cost-effective governance.

      Delete
  16. Methinks Diplomad Sir, you might be something of a troublemaker.

    https://20committee.com/2016/05/12/as-boyish-ben-rhodes-drops-truth-bombs-obamas-media-mask-crumbles/

    ***

    ReplyDelete