Iran has advocated getting rid of Israel for 67 years--I guess it's good to be reminded, but this is not shocking news, I would think. Clearly, if they got a bomb and Israel did not have one (and the US was not protecting Israel) Iran would try to leverage that bomb in getting rid of Israel. But using a bomb, directly or indirectly when Israel has many bombs? They're not suicidal. Still I would much rather they did not have one, but I think we got as much out of negotiations as we could without going to war. At some point , if Iran compromised enough we were going to lose support in sanctions. Whether they hit that line is debatable, but I don't think that the rest of the world was going to go along with Iran's nuclear program being dismantled. Bombs were needed to do that, I think. I'm not sure what case those against the deal are trying to make, really. Clearly, Netanyahu wanted dismantling of the nuclear program or use of the military option. Was dismantlement of the program possible through negotiation? I think the answer is no. Was the US willing to start a war with Iran to destroy its nuclear program? Again, the answer is no. Even Bush II said no to Israel using the military option. And if Iran continues to act badly and in ten years or so starts to develop a bomb either Israel or the US can revisit the military option. The reason we got as much as we did was that those sanctions were starting to hurt Iran and the leadership was forced to do something about it. We got about as we could get from negotiations and did not make mistake of trying to double- down and get things that were unachievable. I think this deal and the extensive negotiations that enabled sanctions that pressured Iran into making the deal will go down as Obama's major foreign policy achievement. Having been in many, many negotiations Republicans remind me of people who think when the other side compromises that must mean they are weak, that more can be achieved. That ain't necessarily or likely so. At some point people have a hard line they will not cross. I have not seen any evidence to indicate that Iran would have agreed to getting rid of their program. And sanctions could not have been extended indefinitely, particularly if the US was blamed for no deal.

As I have argued before Netanyahu did not play his hand well--maybe he could have helped to strengthen the deal, I don't know, but he put himself out of the process due to past misbehavior. Although dated, here is an interesting article discussing Netanyahu. http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... an/384849/

Yes, I know these statements won't change anyone's mind. I just wanted to post it because as far as I can tell this book has been ignored in the non-Israeli western media.

I thought this part was most interesting:

Another section of the book boasted past Iran-supported warfare against Israel using examples from Gaza and Lebanon. He writes that he aims to recruit West Bank "fighters" in units modeled after Hezbollah.

“We have intervened in anti-Israel matters, and it brought victory in the 33-day war by Hezbollah against Israel in 2006 and in the 22-day war between Hamas and Israel in the Gaza Strip."

You can say that the Israelis didn't win these 2 wars, but it's hard to imagine that the Arabs or Palestinians won. They didn't gain any territory and they inflicted only a few casualties. Their infrastructure was destroyed, and many of their civilians, including children, died. He confirms that it is Iranian government policy to do the same in the West Bank, which sounds like an act of war to me.

I just marvel that our President wants to boost Iranian hegemony in the Middle East.

Obama is a repulsive man.

He actually said the hardliners in Iran are "making common cause with the Republican caucus" during his speech to SELL the deal today. What a jerk. He can't do anything without being partisan.

David Harsanyi tweeted:

Imagine what would have happened if Bush had said that Democrats were caucusing with Saddam Hussein?

He's unworthy of the office. He should have been impeached long ago.

If X makes common cause with Y, then it is X acting, not Y. So is not tautologous with Y caucusing with X.

Sigh.

danivon wrote:If X makes common cause with Y, then it is X acting, not Y. So is not tautologous with Y caucusing with X.

Sigh.

Nonetheless, Al Gore, it was a political attack during what SHOULD have been an attempt to rally ALL support behind his deal with the Iranians.

He can't help himself. He is a thin-skinned megalomaniac who believes all dissent is treasonous.

danivon wrote:If X makes common cause with Y, then it is X acting, not Y. So is not tautologous with Y caucusing with X.

Sigh.

Would it be offensive to say that the war criminal Assad and the terrorist organization Hezbollah are making common cause with Obama?

You guys have a point but who started the over-blown rhetoric--Obama or the Republicans? When Republicans are talking about ovens, the US being the biggest funder of Islamic terrorism, and millions of Israelis and Americans risk being killed because off the deal...can you really complain that much when Obama fires back a little? Certainly it is fair to argue that Republicans are playing into the hands of hard-liners in Iran who oppose the deal. The rhetoric is a little over-blown but the Republicans have no right to complain given their prior statements.

Freeman:

You guys have a point but who started the over-blown rhetoric-

Jefferson.

freeman3 wrote:You guys have a point but who started the over-blown rhetoric--Obama or the Republicans?

He's the bloody President! He has to act like one!

When Republicans are talking about ovens, the US being the biggest funder of Islamic terrorism, and millions of Israelis and Americans risk being killed because off the deal...can you really complain that much when Obama fires back a little?

Yes, I can.

Harry Reid, who was the Majority Leader at the time, said Bush was a loser. He also said the Iraq war was "lost, everybody knows that."

Did Bush go ballistic (and partisan) in a speech designed to explain the Surge?

No.

Presidents are pinatas. If you can't take it, resign. Cheap shots in a speech like that are unacceptable.

Certainly it is fair to argue that Republicans are playing into the hands of hard-liners in Iran who oppose the deal. The rhetoric is a little over-blown but the Republicans have no right to complain given their prior statements.

A little over-blown?

As RJ said, the number of ways the same sort of "logic" could be used against the President are many. The difference is none of those things will be said with the same audience the President had.

Ray Jay wrote:

danivon wrote:If X makes common cause with Y, then it is X acting, not Y. So is not tautologous with Y caucusing with X.

Sigh.

Would it be offensive to say that the war criminal Assad and the terrorist organization Hezbollah are making common cause with Obama?

Not necessarily. They are, as regards ISIS, are they not?

Tempests and teacups.

meanwhile

29 U.S. Scientists Praise Iran Nuclear Deal in Letter to Obama

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/world ... .html?_r=0

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... srael.html

rickyp wrote:meanwhile

29 U.S. Scientists Praise Iran Nuclear Deal in Letter to Obama

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/world ... .html?_r=0

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... srael.html

So what?

Meanwhile, Schumer, perhaps the most influential Democrat in the Senate, comes out against the deal. Is he making common cause with the mullahs?

fate

Meanwhile, Schumer, perhaps the most influential Democrat in the Senate, comes out against the deal

And what are his reasons?
All fallacies.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/09/up ... -argument/

for instance:

Schumer starts by repeating the claim that “inspections are not ‘anywhere, anytime’; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling.” This would be very troubling if it were true. It isn’t. The claim that inspections occur with a 24-day delay is the equivalent of Obamacare “death panels.” Remember those? A minor detail has been twisted into a bizarre caricature and repeated over and over until it becomes “true

As Twain said, "a lie travels 50 miles before the truth has put its boots on". (Mark, not Shania)

rickyp wrote:fate

Meanwhile, Schumer, perhaps the most influential Democrat in the Senate, comes out against the deal

And what are his reasons?
All fallacies.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/09/up ... -argument/

for instance:

Schumer starts by repeating the claim that “inspections are not ‘anywhere, anytime’; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling.” This would be very troubling if it were true. It isn’t. The claim that inspections occur with a 24-day delay is the equivalent of Obamacare “death panels.” Remember those? A minor detail has been twisted into a bizarre caricature and repeated over and over until it becomes “true

As Twain said, "a lie travels 50 miles before the truth has put its boots on". (Mark, not Shania)

The only one lying is Lewis, who is a liberal's liberal. For example: http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/26/wha ... democrats/

Schumer is right. The deal is bad. The deal is going to lead to disaster.

Oh, and something is not a "lie" just because a partisan hack says so.