Actually, no, your confirmation bias is causing you to miss important context and potentially important information to anyone who wants to reach a reasoned, evidence based conclusion that incorporates as much information as possible, to achieve a nuanced conclusion. You admit as much in the next sentence by assuming the article I linked from cnn.com was some bull talking points forwarded email.
Putting your confirmation bias aside, and when you have time of course, take a look at this crazy right wing conspiracy CNN article and let me know your thoughts
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/01/politi...ml?eref=rss_us
(edit)
Eff it.
Read the damn thing. So some minor functionary, tried to keep secret talks, secret?
I do not care.
Probably not the most ideal thing, for transparency's sake, but not unlike what any other administration has ever done to spin stuff they want to do. Doesn't make it right, but doesn't make it unusual either.
On the grand scheme of things, it seems exceedingly minor.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 06-14-2016 at 05:55 PM.
It is important you drop your confirmation bias. How's that?
The only confirmation bias I might have here, is looking for how lazy you are. You aren't helping.
Calling me lazy and you won't ready a few paragraph lol. I'm out Random, closing up the office.
You asked for my time, I was unwilling to give it to you. I regret taking the time now, just like I regret watching 9-11 conspiracy videos, other than the minor mental challenge of identifying the flaws in the logic.
Vast difference between lazy and busy, brain trust.
You've wasted 10x more time whining about not wanting to read the CNN article than it would have taken to just read it. I fail to see the logic in that.
And you've wasted a similar amount of time due to your inability to articulate what the article says. Given your history of poor reading and critical thinking skills the article likely doesn't say what you claim it does anyway. You're like the Darrin account in that regard too.
Meh. I gave up and finally read the thing, rather than wait for your lazy ass to try and articulate why you think it was important to see if I can figure it out myself.
Still waiting by the way.
What do you think it means? why is it important?
Thank you for finally reading it, I'm still waiting on your thoughts and will be happy to answer your questions after you answer mine which was asked first.
The State Department has been under fire in recent weeks for deliberately “editing” out an important exchange about the Iran nuclear deal between Fox News chief Washington correspondent James Rosen and former spokeswoman Jen Psaki. As it should be.
The dictionary definition of censorship is “the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.” Censorship in America should not be tolerated, especially when it comes from the government.
Every exchange between reporters and officials is important — that’s why every State press briefing is put into the archives. But this exchange in particular proved the Obama administration not only misled the American public about the deal, it lied about it. Adding insult to injury, it censored information surrounding it.
First, there was denial when the department was confronted with the missing footage, which was found only after Rosen asked a producer to pull footage for a different story.
“There was a glitch in the State Department video. When Fox flagged it for us, we actually replaced it,” State spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau argued to reporters. “Genuinely, we think it was a glitch.”
Then, after more pushing, there was admission of deliberate action, not a “glitch.”
“This was a deliberate request. This was not a technical glitch, it was a deliberate request to excise video,” State spokesman John Kirby admitted, while doing his best to move the narrative forward without holding the person who made the call to excise the video accountable.
After the admission, Psaki, now White House communications director, finally chimed in, washing her hands of any wrongdoing.
“I had no knowledge of nor would I have approved of any form of editing or cutting my briefing transcript on any subject while [at the State Department],” she tweeted, with a follow-up letter to Rosen berating him for raising the issue.
According to spokesman Mark Toner, the State Department “investigated” the incident and almost immediately hit a dead end as to who made the call.
“We believe we’ve carried out the necessary investigation. We have hit a dead end in terms of finding out more information,” Toner said, while admitting he knew the gender of the person who made the call but refusing to reveal that information.
For Congress, that wasn’t good enough. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason ChaffetzJason ChaffetzHouse committee votes to censure IRS headChaffetz: Obama more 'fired up' to attack GOP than ISISPavlich: State 'edit' is censorshipMORE (R-Utah) sent a letter directly to Secretary of State John Kerry
John KerryJohn Kerry meets Venezuelan counterpart amid rising tensionsPavlich: State 'edit' is censorshipAs VP, Warren could lead the way for DemocratsMORE demanding a full investigation and all “do ents sufficient to identify, by name and job le, the individual or individuals who made and received the request to deliberately delete the video footage,” in addition to “all do ents and communications referring or relating to the deletion of video footage.” Chaffetz also requested information about requests that have been made to strip information from other press briefings and important exchanges with reporters.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee is also involved, and Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) is accusing the State Department of “undermining its mission to communicate timely and accurate information with the goal of furthering U.S. foreign policy,” adding this case is of particular concern because it revolves around the nuclear agreement with Iran. He has asked the inspector general for an investigation.
Finally, after accusations of a cover-up, claims of “hitting a dead end” and demands from Congress to investigate who made the phone call to a video editor to cut the tape from the public, YouTube version of the exchange, Kerry has called for an investigation.
“I would like to find out exactly what happened and why,” the secretary told reporters earlier this month, adding that the censorship, which he called an edit, was “stupid and clumsy and inappropriate.”
Psaki argues the situation is being blown out of proportion because the “only” section of video that was edited was on the public, State Department YouTube page. She claims that because nothing ever changed on the official State Department website, everyone should calm down and move on.
YouTube is the most popular video service in the world. It’s how Americans, and the rest of the world, overwhelmingly search for videos. Regular people looking for information don’t spend endless hours on the State Department website. Whoever made the phone call and demanded the eight-minute exchange be stripped from the record knew exactly what they were doing when they took it from YouTube, rather than the version buried on the department website. If people were going to see the video, YouTube was where it would be, and whoever made the call knew it.
What happened at the State Department wasn’t an edit; it was government censorship and a likely violation of the Federal Records Act. Spokesmen and other officials inside the department know who made the call, and they owe it to the American people to not only reveal who that person is but to hold them accountable for their actions.
http://thehill.com/opinion/katie-pav...-is-censorship
I'm actually kind of shocked you are so "whatever" about your administrations actions in a deal as big as the Iranian nuke program.
more spin. unsurprised.
selective disclosure isn't peculiar to Obama.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ir...-idUSKCN1213DXIran has kept to a nuclear deal it agreed with six world powers last year limiting its stockpiles of substances that could be used to make atomic weapons, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) told French daily Le Monde.
Confirming the findings of a confidential report by the U.N. agency seen by Reuters last month, IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano said Tehran had observed the deal which was opposed by hardliners inside Iran and by skeptics in the West.
"The deal is being implemented since January without any particular problem," he told Le Monde in an interview published on Saturday.
"There was a small incident in February: the stock of heavy water very slightly exceeded the limit set - 130 tonnes. But we immediately signaled that to Iran which took all the necessary measures," he said.
Under its July deal with the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany, Iran is allowed to have 130 tonnes of heavy water, a moderator in reactors like the one it has disabled at Arak and a chemical it produces itself.
The stock briefly reached 130.9 tonnes, the agency reported in February.
U.S. Signed Secret Do ent to Lift U.N. Sanctions on Iranian Banks
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration agreed to back the lifting of United Nations sanctions on two Iranian state banks blacklisted for financing Iran’s ballistic-missile program on the same day in January that Tehran released four American citizens from prison, according to U.S. officials and congressional staff briefed on the deliberations.
The U.N. sanctions on the two banks weren’t initially to be lifted until 2023, under a landmark nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers that went into effect on Jan. 16.
The U.N. Security Council’s delisting of the two banks, Bank Sepah and Bank Sepah International, was part of a package of tightly scripted agreements—the others were a controversial prisoner swap and transfer of $1.7 billion in cash to Iran—that were finalized between the U.S. and Iran on Jan. 17, the day the Americans were freed
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sign...nks-1475193723
normalization with Iran will include a lot of details like that
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/32
Iran Nuclear Deal
From:[email protected] To: [email protected]
Date: 2015-06-22 04:23
Subject: Iran Nuclear Deal
Dear Jake, I have sent several detailed notes on the Iran nuclear deal, and will avoid repe ion. But with the June 30 deadline fast approaching (although it may be extended), and with Hillary certain to be pressed on whether she supports the deal and will urge Congress not to disapprove it, I wanted to share a few thoughts.
1. This could well be a voting issue for many moderates in the Jewish community. The mainstream organized leadership will almost certainly oppose the deal, along with Israel and all the Republican candidates, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, and perhaps Egypt.
2. While we cannot be sure until there is a final agreement, it appears that many of the open issues since the preliminary accord, may be resolved in Iran's favor:
(1) Enriched uranium will stay in Iran for dilution, rather than be sent to Russia or France for reprocessing.
(2) Sanctions will not be phased-out commensurate with compliance, as the US Fact Sheet indicated after the last "agreement", but may come off more quickly. This will transfer billions to Iran and enhance its funding for terrorism and its efforts to gain hegemony in the region.
(3) It is not clear what Iran will be required to do on PMD, if anything. This was required of Iraq by the UNSC in September 2002. Iran should be held to the same standard. They have yet to answer 11 of the 12 IAEA questions, yet UN sanctions will be lifted. (4) Russia, China and Iran itself may be able to block "snapback" sanctions if there is a violation of the agreement. US companies will be disadvantaged compared to European companies, since many US non-nuclear sanctions will remain, while all EU sanctions are nuclear-related.
(5) Military sites (Parchin) are likely to be off the table for inspections.
(6) Iran will likely be able to do research on advanced centrifuges, which enrich more uranium more rapidly than the current generation. This would markedly reduce the breakout time in the last years of the accord. Presidenr Obama has conceded this point (e.g. David Sanger article in NYT, April 8, 2015)
(7) Iran will have an industrial size nuclear program, and will be left as a "nuclear capable state".
(8) Iran will be able to keep 1000 centrifuges at Fordo.
(9) Nothing in the agreement will limit its support for terrorism.
3. That said, there are likely to be positive aspects to the agreement.
(1) The Arak plutonium plant will be effectively dismantled.
(2) There will be more intrusive IAEA inspections, since Iran will sign the Additional Protocol of thr NPT.
(3) The number of centrifuges will be cut by 2/3.
(4) Iran will be a year away from breakout. It would still need to develop a nuclear weapon that can fit on a missile.
(5) Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium from 10 tons to 700 pounds.
(6) Ten years is a long time and Iran's conduct may moderate.
4, Hillary cannot oppose the agreement given her position as the President's Secretary of State and should urge its approval by Congress under Corker-Cardin. But she can and should point out concerns with it (as she did, unfortunately from my perspective, on TPP/TPA). More broadly, she should appear more muscular I her approach than the President's. The statement I suggested a few months ago still would be appropriate.
But she should also say the following:
(1) As President, she would never consider Iran a strategic partner in the region. Quite the contrary, she would do all she can to oppose Iranian misconduct.
(2) Our allies in the region must know that we will stand behind them and supply them with the means to defend themselves and avoid the region tilting to Iran, including bunker-busting bombs Bush and Obama refused to provide to Israel.. Defense treaties should be considered so any attack by Iran would be considered an attack against the US.
(3) Bibi should be invited for early talks on how the partnership with Israel can be strengthened to combat Iran and Israel's other avowed enemies.
(4) A common agenda should be forged with Israel and our Arab allies.
(5) If the US itself believes Iran has cheated, as President, she would reimpose US sanctions, even if Russia-China-Iran say there was no violation. She would work to get the EU to also reimpose their sanctions.
(6) It is just as unacceptable for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon after the expiration of the agreement, as it is during the agreement, given the nature of the regime. Therefore, while she would not be president, all means should be used to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Best wishes, Stu Eizenstat
Grab them by the pussy
Obama's hidden Iran deal hideaway
by no less than Politico:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...release-236966
Trash gonna keep the "very bad" Iran deal, yet another never-mind-my-campaign-bull
Not good at all.
Just finished the above.
What does by "no less than" mean? Fake news or not...
Because imo this is a really good article into the difficulties of this deal and what the US had to squash or give up on.
Last edited by pgardn; 04-24-2017 at 06:39 PM.
Okaaay...
We had to give up some difficult to get a difficult deal done?
Troubling to some extent, but I wasn't in the room negotiating, any opinion I might have would be based on some fairly incomplete information.
What was the alternative, in your opinion? What would you have done differently?
The Historic Deal that Will Prevent Iran from Acquiring a Nuclear Weapon
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/node/328996
lol
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
