And the truth:
image: [url]http://m.snopes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Snopes-Logo-Medium.jpg
[/URL]
[h=2]Rumor Has it[/h]
[h=1]Persian Shrug[/h] 4Email 9Share 0 1Reddit 0Stumble 0Tumblr 5Tweet
NEWS: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry supposedly hid a close familial connection to an Iranian official with whom he negotiated a recent nuclear deal.
Origins: On 28 July 2015, Allen B. West’s web site published an article that relayed the “frightening” news that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry had hidden a close familial connection to an Iranian official with whom he negotiated a recent nuclear deal.
The familial connection outlined was of the nature of John-Kerry’s-daughter-from-a-previous-marriage’s-husband’s-best man’s-father is Mohammad Javad Zarif, the current Iranian minister of foreign affairs, whom Kerry first met over a decade ago. That’s not much of a close family connection, however; and given that John Kerry has been involved in politics at the national level for thirty years now (as a U.S. senator, presidential candidate, and U.S. secretary of state), it’s hardly surprising he would count some other diplomats among his social circle.
Nonetheless, West’s article presented this information as a shockingly new revelation, something that Kerry himself had tried to hide:
West’s article also claimed that John Kerry “only revealed his daughter’s marriage to an Iranian-American once he had taken over as Secretary of State” in 2013, despite the article’s own admission that the marriage had been covered in the New York Times in 2009.
Moreover, although that wedding announcement referred to the groom as “Brian,” it used the full “Persianized” versions of his parents’ names (Nooshin P. Nahed and Dr. Reza M. Nahed) hardly suggestive of the notion that anyone was trying to cover up their nationality. And the statement that “even the official [New York Times] wedding announcement carefully avoids any reference to Dr. Nahed (Nahid)’s birthplace (which is uncommon in wedding announcements) and starts his biography from his college years” is specious, as that wedding announcement also made no mention of the bride’s birthplace and started her biography from her college years (which is in fact quite common in wedding announcements):
John Kerry was confirmed as Secretary of State on 29 January 2013, nearly four years after his daughter Vanessa Kerry married Brian Nahed. Similarly, Mohammed Javad Zarif was confirmed in his role as Iran’s foreign minister in August 2013. Kerry’s first diplomatic contact with Zarif (with respect to nuclear talks in Iran) occurred in September 2013.
Last updated: 31 July 2015
Originally published: 31 July 2015
Read more at http://m.snopes.com/john-kerry-iranian-son-law/#SwE9AF4JqM07lBbP.99
image: [url]http://m.snopes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Snopes-Logo-Medium.jpg
[h=2]Rumor Has it[/h]
[h=1]Persian Shrug[/h] 4Email 9Share 0 1Reddit 0Stumble 0Tumblr 5Tweet
NEWS: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry supposedly hid a close familial connection to an Iranian official with whom he negotiated a recent nuclear deal.
Origins: On 28 July 2015, Allen B. West’s web site published an article that relayed the “frightening” news that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry had hidden a close familial connection to an Iranian official with whom he negotiated a recent nuclear deal.
The familial connection outlined was of the nature of John-Kerry’s-daughter-from-a-previous-marriage’s-husband’s-best man’s-father is Mohammad Javad Zarif, the current Iranian minister of foreign affairs, whom Kerry first met over a decade ago. That’s not much of a close family connection, however; and given that John Kerry has been involved in politics at the national level for thirty years now (as a U.S. senator, presidential candidate, and U.S. secretary of state), it’s hardly surprising he would count some other diplomats among his social circle.
Nonetheless, West’s article presented this information as a shockingly new revelation, something that Kerry himself had tried to hide:
You not might be aware that in 2009, the daughter of Secretary of State John Kerry, Dr. Vanessa Bradford Kerry, John Kerry’s younger daughter by his first wife, married an Iranian-American physician named Dr. Brian (Behrooz) Vala Nahed, an Iranian-American physician.
Of course you’re not aware of it.
Brian (Behrooz) Nahed is son of Nooshin and Reza Vala Nahid of Los Angeles. Brian’s Persian birth name is “Behrooz Vala Nahid” but it is now shortened and Americanized in the media to “Brian Nahed.” At the time his engagement to Bradford Kerry, there was rarely any mention of Nahed’s Persian/Iranian ancestry, and even the official wedding announcement in the October 2009 issue of New York Times carefully avoids any reference to Dr. Nahed (Nahid)’s birthplace (which is uncommon in wedding announcements) and starts his biography from his college years.
… And unfortunately, we’re going to have to live with the consequences. At least, I hope we live.
First off, Dr. Brian Nahed’s birthplace neither is, nor has been, a secret, as it’s plainly stated in his official workplace biography on the Massachusetts General Hospital web site:Of course you’re not aware of it.
Brian (Behrooz) Nahed is son of Nooshin and Reza Vala Nahid of Los Angeles. Brian’s Persian birth name is “Behrooz Vala Nahid” but it is now shortened and Americanized in the media to “Brian Nahed.” At the time his engagement to Bradford Kerry, there was rarely any mention of Nahed’s Persian/Iranian ancestry, and even the official wedding announcement in the October 2009 issue of New York Times carefully avoids any reference to Dr. Nahed (Nahid)’s birthplace (which is uncommon in wedding announcements) and starts his biography from his college years.
… And unfortunately, we’re going to have to live with the consequences. At least, I hope we live.
Born in New York, Dr. Nahed attended UCLA where he majored in Neuroscience, graduating Phi Beta Kappa. He attended the Yale School of Medicine where he was awarded the Doris Duke Clinical Research Fellowship. Dr. Nahed completed his internship and neurosurgery residency at the Massachusetts General Hospital.
Yes, the daughter of the U.S. Secretary of State is shockingly married to a doctor from … New York! And not just any New Yorker, but one who suspiciously received his education at schools of such dubious repute as UCLA and Yale.
West’s article also claimed that John Kerry “only revealed his daughter’s marriage to an Iranian-American once he had taken over as Secretary of State” in 2013, despite the article’s own admission that the marriage had been covered in the New York Times in 2009.
Moreover, although that wedding announcement referred to the groom as “Brian,” it used the full “Persianized” versions of his parents’ names (Nooshin P. Nahed and Dr. Reza M. Nahed) hardly suggestive of the notion that anyone was trying to cover up their nationality. And the statement that “even the official [New York Times] wedding announcement carefully avoids any reference to Dr. Nahed (Nahid)’s birthplace (which is uncommon in wedding announcements) and starts his biography from his college years” is specious, as that wedding announcement also made no mention of the bride’s birthplace and started her biography from her college years (which is in fact quite common in wedding announcements):
The bride, who is a stepdaughter of Teresa Heinz Kerry and Richard J. Charlesworth, and the bridegroom, a son of Nooshin P. Nahed and Dr. Reza M. Nahed of Los Angeles, were married Saturday evening at Brandegee House, a Tuscan-style villa in Boston. The Right Rev. M. Thomas Shaw, the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, officiated.
Dr. Kerry and Dr. Nahed, both 32, are residents at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. She is in her third year of a residency in internal medicine; he is in his fifth year of a residency in neurological surgery.
She graduated summa cum laude from Yale and received a master’s of science in health policy, planning and financing from the London School of Economics and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. She received her medical degree cum laude from Harvard, and while in London, from 2004 to 2005 was a Fulbright Scholar.
This supposedly troubling connection had been previously “discovered” in a March 2015 JewsNews blog post titled “Sec of State John Kerry Reveals daughter Married Iranian-American with Extensive Ties to Iran”:Dr. Kerry and Dr. Nahed, both 32, are residents at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. She is in her third year of a residency in internal medicine; he is in his fifth year of a residency in neurological surgery.
She graduated summa cum laude from Yale and received a master’s of science in health policy, planning and financing from the London School of Economics and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. She received her medical degree cum laude from Harvard, and while in London, from 2004 to 2005 was a Fulbright Scholar.
Here we have an example that demonstrates this reality further and it comes via Kenneth Timmerman, who has picked up on the fact that the new Secretary of State — John Kerry — has a son-in-law with family still living in Iran. This reality could conceivably affect how Kerry deals with the Iranians.
Certainly, even leftists can comprehend this concept without inserting race into their thought processes (oh, wait). Imagine a scenario in which a representative of Iran’s mullahs approaches the State Department with a list of demands that, if not met, could have serious consequences for Kerry’s in-laws living in Iran.
That article referenced a Daily Caller piece which had indeed exposed the Kerry family’s dark secret … over two years earlier: Certainly, even leftists can comprehend this concept without inserting race into their thought processes (oh, wait). Imagine a scenario in which a representative of Iran’s mullahs approaches the State Department with a list of demands that, if not met, could have serious consequences for Kerry’s in-laws living in Iran.
In a greeting to the Iranian people on the occasion of the traditional New Year (Nowruz) holiday last week, Secretary of State John Kerry exposed a secret that journalists and academics have been agonizing over for the past six weeks: the fact that his daughter has married an Iranian-American who has extensive family ties to Iran.
Kerry may have figured that by revealing the family tie himself he could diffuse the situation, and make it more difficult for the regime to put pressure on his son-in-law’s family. Of course, that’s assuming Kerry in fact plans to do anything that angers the regime.
The “secret” referenced above was, again, reported upon in a 2009 New York Times article cited by nearly every subsequent article, most of which perplexingly framed it as suppressed information each time they re-revealed it. (Although many of those articles repeat the claim that Mohammad Javad Zarif’s son was the best man at John Kerry’s daughter’s wedding, we haven’t been able to independently confirm that piece of information yet.)Kerry may have figured that by revealing the family tie himself he could diffuse the situation, and make it more difficult for the regime to put pressure on his son-in-law’s family. Of course, that’s assuming Kerry in fact plans to do anything that angers the regime.
John Kerry was confirmed as Secretary of State on 29 January 2013, nearly four years after his daughter Vanessa Kerry married Brian Nahed. Similarly, Mohammed Javad Zarif was confirmed in his role as Iran’s foreign minister in August 2013. Kerry’s first diplomatic contact with Zarif (with respect to nuclear talks in Iran) occurred in September 2013.
Last updated: 31 July 2015
Originally published: 31 July 2015
Read more at http://m.snopes.com/john-kerry-iranian-son-law/#SwE9AF4JqM07lBbP.99
Gassy, get off the sauce. Iran has already co-operated by signing the pact. If they don't co-operate with the terms, they suffer sanctions again. The reason they signed the pact was to end the sanctions. It is to their benefit to co-operate. If they don't, they get sanctioned again. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/w...k-is-easy-way-to-reimpose-iran-penalties.html
The fact that you are quoting a story by a hack who works for War Criminal Allen West is more than embarrassing. But also expected.
Michele Hickford is a communications strategist and award-winning advertising copywriter. She has held senior marketing positions at Turner Broadcasting and USA Networks, and is the author of "Do I Need To Slap You?" She served in Congressman West's congressional office and as Press Secretary for his 2012 campaign. She is also Editor-in-Chief of Allenbwest.com
Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.or...-daughters-wedding?f=must_reads#ixzz3hXlBOmVi
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Seventeen unclassified Iran deal items have been locked in ultra-secure facilities ordinarily used for top secret info. Why is the Obama administration trying to bury this material?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-documents-obama-doesn-t-want-you-to-see.html
It looks a lot like ObamaCare all over again.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-documents-obama-doesn-t-want-you-to-see.html
It looks a lot like ObamaCare all over again.
It’s so fucking good for the world that Obama has to beg for it’s support.
The White House is mounting a vigorous push to convince liberals to back the Iran deal.
In recent days, President Obama, Vice President Biden and other top officials have reached out a number of times to persuade Democrats — especially in the House — to back the agreement, amid signs that the crucial bloc may be splintering.
On Thursday evening, Obama spoke by phone with thousands of people affiliated with liberal activist groups Organizing for Action, the Center for American Progress and Credo Action.
He warned his allies that if they don’t speak up, the same people who got the U.S. into the Iraq War could sink the Iran deal, which would lift sanctions against the country in exchange for it scaling back its nuclear program.
http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...out-with-personal-appeals-to-liberals-on-iran
The White House is mounting a vigorous push to convince liberals to back the Iran deal.
In recent days, President Obama, Vice President Biden and other top officials have reached out a number of times to persuade Democrats — especially in the House — to back the agreement, amid signs that the crucial bloc may be splintering.
On Thursday evening, Obama spoke by phone with thousands of people affiliated with liberal activist groups Organizing for Action, the Center for American Progress and Credo Action.
He warned his allies that if they don’t speak up, the same people who got the U.S. into the Iraq War could sink the Iran deal, which would lift sanctions against the country in exchange for it scaling back its nuclear program.
http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...out-with-personal-appeals-to-liberals-on-iran
"Snapback Sanctions" (if Iran doesn't comply) have been debunked numerous times in this thread. It would take years to reimplement them and no one in the Piss5 has the will to do so.
This deal is going through. A few years from now another US president will undo it in conventional warfare. Hopefully it's not too late by then.
This deal is going through. A few years from now another US president will undo it in conventional warfare. Hopefully it's not too late by then.
[h=1]Obama Goes Nuclear on Iran Deal Opponents[/h] [h=3]Republicans who oppose the deal will be tarred as traitors. [/h] July 31, 2015
Daniel Greenfield
Obama has decided that two wildly unpopular policies, one foreign and one domestic, will be the final legacy of his wildly unpopular administration. The domestic policy is gun control. The foreign policy is Iranian nukes. While Americans will be disarmed, Iran will be getting ready for its ballistic missiles.
Ramming through wildly unpopular policies is what this administration does best. More than anything else, this administration will be remembered for the mix of bullying, smears, pop culture distractions, outright lies, bureaucratic sabotage and blatant lawbreaking with which it achieved its policy goals.
Iran is no different.
The sales pitch is going badly. John Kerry has probably managed to dissuade more senators by testifying than he would have if he had taken the fifth. A viral video featuring the Iran lobby’s Thomas Pickering lecturing failed movie star Jack Black on the importance of the deal earned all the wrong kind of laughs.
Too many Democrats are still sitting on the fence. Some have come out against the deal. So the White House is looking for weak points in a potential coalition against the deal.
Its opening move is a classical “Divide and Conquer” strategy that tries to split pro-Israel Democrats from Republicans. The Democrats are being told that a rejection of the deal means war with Iran. If they don’t back the deal, they will be warmongers. Those who oppose the deal with Iran will face the same anti-war coalition that targeted those Democrats who supported Bush’s overthrow of Saddam.
The deal is too unappealing to be sold on its merits, so it is instead being presented as the only alternative to a war. Obama and Kerry love nuance when it comes to finding all the positive sides to making deals with Iran or the Taliban, but quickly abandon it at home in favor of a polarized argument in which opponents of their latest terrorist appeasement are warmongers and traitors.
Jewish Democrats, in particular, are being told that Israel and Jews will be blamed for such a war.
John Kerry has already come out and said that Israel will be blamed. That’s nothing new for the Democratic Party. It wasn’t that long ago when Senator Hollings was claiming that Bush had invaded Iraq and passed tax cuts for the “Jewish vote”. To Jon Stewart, Obama referenced the Iraq War and suggested that the people against the deal “are not going to be making sacrifices” if there is a war.
That type of rhetoric sounded better coming from politicians who had served in the military, instead of a career community organizer who refers to a “Corpse-man” and uses Marines as umbrella stands.
Jewish Democrats who oppose the deal will be “Senator Lieberman-ed”, primaried by the left, smeared and added to the list of neo-con warmongers. Non-Jewish Democrats may be allowed a place at the table, like Kerry or Hillary, but only after they serve a penal term of appeasement as Secretary of State.
The Pollard release meanwhile begins the process of splitting Republicans from a pro-Israel coalition. The leverage is once again accusations of treason. Obama’s supporters showed where their argument was bound to end up when they spread the #47Traitors hashtag targeting Senators opposed to the deal.
Israel certainly hadn’t arranged for Pollard’s release. The administration isn’t being accommodating or trying to win over anyone. It’s calculatedly turning a former spy into a talking point during a debate involving Israel to add weight to the treason talking point.
Democrats who oppose the deal will be smeared as warmongers. Republicans who oppose it will be tarred as traitors.
Pollard’s shelf life as a talking point will be limited, but it won’t be hard to manufacture further scandals. An official here or there will be investigated for inappropriate contacts with Israeli officials or pro-Israel groups. The charges will fall apart on any real scrutiny, but the story will have achieved its results.
The last time the left wanted to kneecap pro-Israel opposition to Iran, it manufactured the Rosen-Weissman case targeting two AIPAC officials heavily involved in lobbying for sanctions on Iran. The case fell apart, but not before AIPAC offices had been raided and the media had written up a spy drama. But the real goal had been to link AIPAC to Feith, Wolfowitz and other Republican enemies of the left.
Now that the left controls the White House, it has even more leeway for its political witch hunts.
Reviving the Pollard case sends Republicans the message that national security and pro-Israel policies are a contradiction in terms. It also intimidates Jewish critics of the deal on both sides of the aisle. This is an administration that has used the IRS against its political opponents, including pro-Israel opponents like Z Street, and will not hesitate to use every arm of government against its domestic political enemies.
While the “Israel Lobby” is an incessant topic, the Iran lobby which, until Hagel’s resignation, controlled the offices of the Vice President, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense is a black topic. Just about every critic is passed off as a pawn of an Israeli or Jewish organization, but mentioning that Secretary of State John Kerry has an Iranian son-in-law with reported connections to Iran’s Foreign Minister is off limits.
Obama welcomed in people like Charles W. Freeman, a Chinese state oil company board member and apologists for PRC atrocities from Tiananmen Square to Tibet, and Hamas fan Robert Malley, who wouldn’t have passed a security check to be dogcatchers in a dogless town. But now suddenly everyone else will be held to standards that Obama’s people don’t recognize or abide by for themselves.
The White House and its allies define any opposition as treason. Unwilling to force Iran to abandon its nuclear program, they are instead going nuclear on opponents of the deal. If they can split up the burgeoning coalition in Congress against the deal with accusations of treason, their own treasonous efforts to let Iran go nuclear and force the United States out of the Middle East will succeed.
And even if the tactic alone doesn’t win the day, it’s still an effective distraction.
ObamaCare was even more unpopular than the Iran deal, but Obama and his media allies kept up a barrage of distractions, attacks, smears and publicity stunts. Pollard is another way to swallow up airtime with a counter-topic while keeping opponents off balance. If Obama can’t sell the deal on its merits, he can always keep shifting the conversation to keep opponents on the defensive.
Selling the Iran deal on its merits has failed. It’s now being sold as the only alternative to war. Obama and Kerry had insisted, “No deal is better than a bad deal”, but now argue that their bad deal is better than no deal. And they demand that critics of their deal take responsibility for the alternative.
The entire line of argument is an admission that the deal is indefensible. The only possible defense of it is an attack on critics. Some of these attacks are crude. Others are subtle. Some attack directly, while others induce doubt, apathy and division.
Right now the biggest threat to Obama is the possibility that enough Democrats will join Republicans in shutting the deal down. If that happens, one of Obama’s sunset policy agendas will die. Coming off a defeat on Iran will leave him in poor shape for a fight over gun control. It will hand him a major defeat and finish off his unilateral foreign policy of signing treaties and starting wars without Congress.
Obama will do anything to protect his legacy. And the fight has only begun.
Daniel Greenfield
Obama has decided that two wildly unpopular policies, one foreign and one domestic, will be the final legacy of his wildly unpopular administration. The domestic policy is gun control. The foreign policy is Iranian nukes. While Americans will be disarmed, Iran will be getting ready for its ballistic missiles.
Ramming through wildly unpopular policies is what this administration does best. More than anything else, this administration will be remembered for the mix of bullying, smears, pop culture distractions, outright lies, bureaucratic sabotage and blatant lawbreaking with which it achieved its policy goals.
Iran is no different.
The sales pitch is going badly. John Kerry has probably managed to dissuade more senators by testifying than he would have if he had taken the fifth. A viral video featuring the Iran lobby’s Thomas Pickering lecturing failed movie star Jack Black on the importance of the deal earned all the wrong kind of laughs.
Too many Democrats are still sitting on the fence. Some have come out against the deal. So the White House is looking for weak points in a potential coalition against the deal.
Its opening move is a classical “Divide and Conquer” strategy that tries to split pro-Israel Democrats from Republicans. The Democrats are being told that a rejection of the deal means war with Iran. If they don’t back the deal, they will be warmongers. Those who oppose the deal with Iran will face the same anti-war coalition that targeted those Democrats who supported Bush’s overthrow of Saddam.
The deal is too unappealing to be sold on its merits, so it is instead being presented as the only alternative to a war. Obama and Kerry love nuance when it comes to finding all the positive sides to making deals with Iran or the Taliban, but quickly abandon it at home in favor of a polarized argument in which opponents of their latest terrorist appeasement are warmongers and traitors.
Jewish Democrats, in particular, are being told that Israel and Jews will be blamed for such a war.
John Kerry has already come out and said that Israel will be blamed. That’s nothing new for the Democratic Party. It wasn’t that long ago when Senator Hollings was claiming that Bush had invaded Iraq and passed tax cuts for the “Jewish vote”. To Jon Stewart, Obama referenced the Iraq War and suggested that the people against the deal “are not going to be making sacrifices” if there is a war.
That type of rhetoric sounded better coming from politicians who had served in the military, instead of a career community organizer who refers to a “Corpse-man” and uses Marines as umbrella stands.
Jewish Democrats who oppose the deal will be “Senator Lieberman-ed”, primaried by the left, smeared and added to the list of neo-con warmongers. Non-Jewish Democrats may be allowed a place at the table, like Kerry or Hillary, but only after they serve a penal term of appeasement as Secretary of State.
The Pollard release meanwhile begins the process of splitting Republicans from a pro-Israel coalition. The leverage is once again accusations of treason. Obama’s supporters showed where their argument was bound to end up when they spread the #47Traitors hashtag targeting Senators opposed to the deal.
Israel certainly hadn’t arranged for Pollard’s release. The administration isn’t being accommodating or trying to win over anyone. It’s calculatedly turning a former spy into a talking point during a debate involving Israel to add weight to the treason talking point.
Democrats who oppose the deal will be smeared as warmongers. Republicans who oppose it will be tarred as traitors.
Pollard’s shelf life as a talking point will be limited, but it won’t be hard to manufacture further scandals. An official here or there will be investigated for inappropriate contacts with Israeli officials or pro-Israel groups. The charges will fall apart on any real scrutiny, but the story will have achieved its results.
The last time the left wanted to kneecap pro-Israel opposition to Iran, it manufactured the Rosen-Weissman case targeting two AIPAC officials heavily involved in lobbying for sanctions on Iran. The case fell apart, but not before AIPAC offices had been raided and the media had written up a spy drama. But the real goal had been to link AIPAC to Feith, Wolfowitz and other Republican enemies of the left.
Now that the left controls the White House, it has even more leeway for its political witch hunts.
Reviving the Pollard case sends Republicans the message that national security and pro-Israel policies are a contradiction in terms. It also intimidates Jewish critics of the deal on both sides of the aisle. This is an administration that has used the IRS against its political opponents, including pro-Israel opponents like Z Street, and will not hesitate to use every arm of government against its domestic political enemies.
While the “Israel Lobby” is an incessant topic, the Iran lobby which, until Hagel’s resignation, controlled the offices of the Vice President, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense is a black topic. Just about every critic is passed off as a pawn of an Israeli or Jewish organization, but mentioning that Secretary of State John Kerry has an Iranian son-in-law with reported connections to Iran’s Foreign Minister is off limits.
Obama welcomed in people like Charles W. Freeman, a Chinese state oil company board member and apologists for PRC atrocities from Tiananmen Square to Tibet, and Hamas fan Robert Malley, who wouldn’t have passed a security check to be dogcatchers in a dogless town. But now suddenly everyone else will be held to standards that Obama’s people don’t recognize or abide by for themselves.
The White House and its allies define any opposition as treason. Unwilling to force Iran to abandon its nuclear program, they are instead going nuclear on opponents of the deal. If they can split up the burgeoning coalition in Congress against the deal with accusations of treason, their own treasonous efforts to let Iran go nuclear and force the United States out of the Middle East will succeed.
And even if the tactic alone doesn’t win the day, it’s still an effective distraction.
ObamaCare was even more unpopular than the Iran deal, but Obama and his media allies kept up a barrage of distractions, attacks, smears and publicity stunts. Pollard is another way to swallow up airtime with a counter-topic while keeping opponents off balance. If Obama can’t sell the deal on its merits, he can always keep shifting the conversation to keep opponents on the defensive.
Selling the Iran deal on its merits has failed. It’s now being sold as the only alternative to war. Obama and Kerry had insisted, “No deal is better than a bad deal”, but now argue that their bad deal is better than no deal. And they demand that critics of their deal take responsibility for the alternative.
The entire line of argument is an admission that the deal is indefensible. The only possible defense of it is an attack on critics. Some of these attacks are crude. Others are subtle. Some attack directly, while others induce doubt, apathy and division.
Right now the biggest threat to Obama is the possibility that enough Democrats will join Republicans in shutting the deal down. If that happens, one of Obama’s sunset policy agendas will die. Coming off a defeat on Iran will leave him in poor shape for a fight over gun control. It will hand him a major defeat and finish off his unilateral foreign policy of signing treaties and starting wars without Congress.
Obama will do anything to protect his legacy. And the fight has only begun.
Congressman Juan Vargas, a San Diego Liberal Democrat.
Why I oppose the president’s nuclear deal with Iran
By Juan Vargas | . July 24, 2015
It’s stunning, really. Just four days after large crowds in Tehran and across Iran chanted “Death to America,” as they burned our flag in government-led demonstrations, President Obama announced an agreement with the Islamic Republic. The president is right; this agreement is historic, but for all the wrong reasons.
Earlier this month, I detailed the criteria necessary for any final agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. I strongly believe this deal does not meet that standard. The deal fails to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program. It fails to guarantee intrusive enough inspections to ensure that Iran does not cheat, and it fails to keep Iran from achieving nuclear-threshold status.
This deal is predicated on Iran’s compliance. In exchange for phased and reversible sanctions relief – at approximately $150 billion – the administration promised to cut off Iran’s path to a nuclear bomb. Instead, this agreement gives Iran a rapid payday while legitimizing its path to nuclear-threshold status. Iran has never fully addressed the concerns of international inspectors, and the regime has given us no reason to believe that will change.
By allowing Iran to become a nuclear-threshold state, this deal will spark an arms race in the Middle East, already one of the least stable regions in the world. Saudi Arabia has indicated it may purchase a nuclear weapon from Pakistan. Jordan and Egypt, also historically reliable allies for the United States, have both worked with Russia to build their own nuclear power plants this year. Likewise, this agreement does nothing to halt Iran’s aggressive imperialism in the Middle East. As the deal’s advocates took a victory lap after the announcement, Hezbollah’s leader agreed with them. Hasan Nasrallah said, “Iran will become `richer and wealthier and will also become more influential. This will also reinforce the position of its allies.” Let us not forget that, thanks to Iranian generosity, this terrorist group has 100,000 rockets trained on Israeli cities and towns.
It is a fact that Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. It is a fact that Hezbollah, the Iranian terrorist proxy responsible for more American deaths than anyone except al-Qaeda, has more than 100,000 missiles aimed at civilians in Israel. And it is a fact that Iran has financed, trained and equipped Shiite death squads in Iraq and Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan and rewarded them for killing American troops.
In Syria, Iran continues to provide billions of dollars per year in support of Bashar Assad’s murderous regime, even as it uses chemical weapons to slaughter innocent Syrians. In Iraq, Iran supports Shiite militias, which spent most of the past decade fighting American troops and attacking Sunnis throughout the country. And in Yemen, Iranian backed Houthi rebels have taken control of the capital, Sana’a, and overthrown the government, which had been an important ally in our war on terrorism.
Rather than demand Iran’s bad behavior be corrected, this agreement rewards it. In Iran, they’re calling the coming payday a “nuclear feast.” And we know what the main course at that feast will be – terrorism. Iran has spent decades directing and funding terrorism against the United States and our allies.
Supporters of this agreement believe that relieving sanctions and legitimizing this regime will moderate them. That didn’t work with North Korea, and it won’t work with Iran. This strategy is doomed to fail, and this deal is destined to be remembered as a mistake.
For months the administration has told us that “a bad deal is worse than no deal.” Now the message seems to be that it is better to support than oppose this bad deal because it is the best we could get. I disagree. If this deal is approved, it will lock us into bad results that far outweigh its benefits.
Congress is now faced with a decision of monumental importance. Do we accept an agreement that fails to block Iran’s path to nuclear weapons, or do we stand up and say no. I intend to stand up and vote against this deal. This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of our national security, and the security of our allies and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this deal and press for a better deal that will truly end Iran’s nuclear weapons program and make the world safer.
Vargas, a San Diego Democrat, represents the 51st District of California in Congress
San Diego Union Trubune
Why I oppose the president’s nuclear deal with Iran
By Juan Vargas | . July 24, 2015
It’s stunning, really. Just four days after large crowds in Tehran and across Iran chanted “Death to America,” as they burned our flag in government-led demonstrations, President Obama announced an agreement with the Islamic Republic. The president is right; this agreement is historic, but for all the wrong reasons.
Earlier this month, I detailed the criteria necessary for any final agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. I strongly believe this deal does not meet that standard. The deal fails to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program. It fails to guarantee intrusive enough inspections to ensure that Iran does not cheat, and it fails to keep Iran from achieving nuclear-threshold status.
This deal is predicated on Iran’s compliance. In exchange for phased and reversible sanctions relief – at approximately $150 billion – the administration promised to cut off Iran’s path to a nuclear bomb. Instead, this agreement gives Iran a rapid payday while legitimizing its path to nuclear-threshold status. Iran has never fully addressed the concerns of international inspectors, and the regime has given us no reason to believe that will change.
By allowing Iran to become a nuclear-threshold state, this deal will spark an arms race in the Middle East, already one of the least stable regions in the world. Saudi Arabia has indicated it may purchase a nuclear weapon from Pakistan. Jordan and Egypt, also historically reliable allies for the United States, have both worked with Russia to build their own nuclear power plants this year. Likewise, this agreement does nothing to halt Iran’s aggressive imperialism in the Middle East. As the deal’s advocates took a victory lap after the announcement, Hezbollah’s leader agreed with them. Hasan Nasrallah said, “Iran will become `richer and wealthier and will also become more influential. This will also reinforce the position of its allies.” Let us not forget that, thanks to Iranian generosity, this terrorist group has 100,000 rockets trained on Israeli cities and towns.
It is a fact that Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. It is a fact that Hezbollah, the Iranian terrorist proxy responsible for more American deaths than anyone except al-Qaeda, has more than 100,000 missiles aimed at civilians in Israel. And it is a fact that Iran has financed, trained and equipped Shiite death squads in Iraq and Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan and rewarded them for killing American troops.
In Syria, Iran continues to provide billions of dollars per year in support of Bashar Assad’s murderous regime, even as it uses chemical weapons to slaughter innocent Syrians. In Iraq, Iran supports Shiite militias, which spent most of the past decade fighting American troops and attacking Sunnis throughout the country. And in Yemen, Iranian backed Houthi rebels have taken control of the capital, Sana’a, and overthrown the government, which had been an important ally in our war on terrorism.
Rather than demand Iran’s bad behavior be corrected, this agreement rewards it. In Iran, they’re calling the coming payday a “nuclear feast.” And we know what the main course at that feast will be – terrorism. Iran has spent decades directing and funding terrorism against the United States and our allies.
Supporters of this agreement believe that relieving sanctions and legitimizing this regime will moderate them. That didn’t work with North Korea, and it won’t work with Iran. This strategy is doomed to fail, and this deal is destined to be remembered as a mistake.
For months the administration has told us that “a bad deal is worse than no deal.” Now the message seems to be that it is better to support than oppose this bad deal because it is the best we could get. I disagree. If this deal is approved, it will lock us into bad results that far outweigh its benefits.
Congress is now faced with a decision of monumental importance. Do we accept an agreement that fails to block Iran’s path to nuclear weapons, or do we stand up and say no. I intend to stand up and vote against this deal. This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of our national security, and the security of our allies and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this deal and press for a better deal that will truly end Iran’s nuclear weapons program and make the world safer.
Vargas, a San Diego Democrat, represents the 51st District of California in Congress
San Diego Union Trubune
| American voters oppose 57 - 28 percent, with only lukewarm support from Democrats and overwhelming opposition for Republicans and independent voters, the nuclear pact negotiated with Iran, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. |
| Voters say 58 - 30 percent the nuclear pact will make the world less safe, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds. |
| Opposing the Iran deal are Republicans 86 - 3 percent and independent voters 55 - 29 percent, while Democrats support it 52 - 32 percent. There is little gender gap as men oppose the deal 59 - 30 percent and women oppose it 56 - 27 percent. |
spammy's Senator may oppose
[h=1]Growing signs Schumer will oppose Iran deal[/h]
Chuck Schumer is getting an earful from opponents of the Iran nuclear deal.
More than 10,000 phone calls have flooded his office line the past two weeks, organized by a group looking to kill the deal. Another group has dropped seven figures on TV in New York City to pressure Schumer and other lawmakers to vote against the plan. The powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee has put its muscle behind an effort to lobby the New Yorker against it.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...l-new-york-democrat-120912.html#ixzz3hlCGqcF2
[h=1]Growing signs Schumer will oppose Iran deal[/h]
Chuck Schumer is getting an earful from opponents of the Iran nuclear deal.
More than 10,000 phone calls have flooded his office line the past two weeks, organized by a group looking to kill the deal. Another group has dropped seven figures on TV in New York City to pressure Schumer and other lawmakers to vote against the plan. The powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee has put its muscle behind an effort to lobby the New Yorker against it.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...l-new-york-democrat-120912.html#ixzz3hlCGqcF2
k:
