Iran nuke deal: Ben Rhodes admits he duped the public

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html?_r=1


too long to copy/paste

for the tl/dr crowd:

The White House consciously created an "echo chamber" of experts and commentators to shape the public's perception of the Iran deal: "We created an echo chamber," Rhodes told The Times' David Samuels. "They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say ... We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively. So we knew the tactics that worked."
Rhodes' "story" of the Iran deal began in 2013, but it was not the full story: As many foreign-policy experts have noted, Obama began negotiating with Iran at least a year before Hassan Rouhani, Iran's new "moderate" president, defeated Iran's hardliners in a landslide 2013 election. Still, Samuels wrote, "The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Obama administration."
The administration "is not betting on" Iran's moderates being real reformers: "I would prefer that it turns out that Rouhani and [foreign minister] Zarif are real reformers who are going to be steering this country into the direction that I believe it can go in, because their public is educated and, in some respects, pro-American," he told Samuels. "But we are not betting on that."
Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is not sure Obama is still "serious" about preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon: Part of Panetta's job in holding up the nuclear deal was to assure Israel that Obama would not allow Iran to develop an atomic weapon. "Would I make that same assessment now? Probably not," he tells Samuels.
Others provided a glimpse into the administration's perception of political "experts" and the press:


Rhodes hates Washington's foreign-policy establishment — and doesn't care if they hate him back: He refers to the foreign-policy elite, which he said includes Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates, as "the Blob," and he "gives zero [expletive] about what most people in Washington think," said Jon Favreau, the Obama campaign's former lead speechwriter.
The White House relies on "handpicked Beltway insiders" to help the administration spread its message: These apparently include The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg and Al-Monitor's Laura Rozen.
Rhodes thinks most of the reporters the White House has to deal with "literally know nothing": "They call us to explain to them what's happening in Moscow and Cairo," Rhodes told Samuels. "Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That's a sea change. They literally know nothing."

[TheSanityAnnex]

Not a single comment from any of the duped lobs who supported this deal? :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So the piece, posted Thursday and titled “The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru,” is, in straightforward terms, a real talker, a success. Even if it is, as a piece of nonfiction writing, kind of gross.

The grossness emerges on several levels and on multiple occasions.

It is the knowing chumminess of a journalist finishing sentences for a White House official who is mocking other prominent Washington journalists for getting so easily spun – and then quoting himself as he finishes the sentence, even letting us know that he did so with a chuckle. (It takes a special kind of journalist to quote his own chuckle.) It is the blindness of a writer who declares that Rhodes is “not an egotist” while offering countless examples of that subject’s gargantuan self-regard, and not bothering to note the contradiction. It is letting a speechwriter colleague praise Rhodes for giving “zero [expletive] about what most people in Washington think,” when the entire exercise in which the writer, subject and source are engaged – a lengthy and access-heavy profile portraying Rhodes as the “Boy Wonder” of the Obama White House and revealing Rhodes’s contempt for the Washington foreign-policy establishment – proclaims precisely the contrary.

The grossness is also evident in the profile’s literary pretentiousness. Don DeLillo is a frequent reference point, from the first paragraph of the story, in which the horror of 9/11 becomes a convenient inflection point in the arc of Rhodes’s professional aspirations (from wannabe fiction writer to guy who wants to “try to write about international affairs”), to the bizarre exchange later when Samuels and Rhodes wonder who would best write the novel of Rhodes’s experiences. “I don’t know how you feel about Don DeLillo,” Rhodes suggests. “I love Don DeLillo,” Samuels responds.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2016/05/06/why-the-ben-rhodes-profile-in-the-new-york-times-magazine-is-just-gross/

[Winehole23]

TSA swallowed vintage bilgewater and and chides anyone who didn't for their lack of good taste.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Winehole swallowed vintage Rhodes' cock

White House on damage control after aide's magazine profile

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House on Monday worked to contain the damage caused by one of President Barack Obama's closest aides, who, in a seemingly candid, behind-the-curtain magazine story, ripped the Washington press corps, boasted of creating an "echo chamber" of supporters to sell the Iran nuclear deal and appeared to dismiss long-time foreign policy hands, including Hillary Clinton, as the Blob.


Deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes' comments to The New York Times Magazine have sparked a mix of bewilderment and outrage in Washington's political and policy circles. While some marveled at a savvy White House aide's apparent eagerness to discuss what some consider the ugly sausage making of modern governing, other noted he'd kicked up a hornet's nest of a debate over whether the White House oversold the legacy-burnishing deal to curb Iran's nuclear program.


The article revived criticism of the agreement. In a statement issued Monday, Sen. John McCain, a long-time critic of the Iran pact, said the piece "provided a troubling glimpse of the White House spin machine that has put sustaining 'the narrative' above advancing the national interest."


The piece portrays Rhodes, Obama's top foreign policy speechwriter and arguably one of his most influential aides, as singularly in tune with his boss's thinking and narrowly focused on crafting a messaging machine to support it. It quotes Rhodes lamenting the ignorance of Washington reporters. ("They literally know nothing.") And it describes Rhodes, a former aspiring novelist, as focused on crafting a storyline and dismissing facts that don't fit.


Rhodes appears to try to keep secret news that Iran had seized 10 U.S. Navy sailors until after the president's State of the Union speech. The article quotes Rhodes and his aides describing how they used social media, journalists and friendly interest groups to disseminate White House-generated talking points about the Iran deal.

"We created an echo chamber," Rhodes said. "They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say."

Rhodes sought to soften the remarks on the website Medium. A post late Sunday included something of an overture to reporters he's dismissed, saying the Iran deal had been well-covered and debated. He wrote that he didn't try to dupe the press or spin Washington


"It wasn't 'spin,' It's what we believed and continue to believe, and the hallmark of the entire campaign was to push out facts," Rhodes wrote. "These were complicated issues."
Still, some experts involved in the debate said they recognized the hard sell described in the story.


David Albright, a physicist and arms control expert with the Science and International Security in Washington, said he was surprised to see a White House official "opening up this can of worms again." The intensity of the debate over the Iran deal left many in the arms control and policy world bruised, not the least because of the White House's take-no-prisoners approach, said Albright, who was briefed by the administration during the negotiations and remained neutral on the deal.


"It was, 'Are you with us or are you against us?'" Albright said, "The White House was looking for sound bites that beat the opposition, not necessarily sound bites that captured the truth of what was going on. I wish they were just putting out facts. They exaggerated and overstated to sell the deal."


Not all saw the tactics described as anything more than good public relations in the social media age.

Initial reaction to the piece within the White House was good — Rhodes last week retweeted a Twitter follower's compliments, and as the story circulated on Facebook it piled up 'likes' and glowing remarks from former White House aides.


In a sign of Rhodes' popularity and position in the White House, the piece quotes a who's who of White House figures, including chief of staff Denis McDonough, United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power, former Obama adviser David Axelrod and former CIA director and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. National Security Adviser Susan Rice was interviewed for the piece but not quoted.


By Monday the White House was playing defense. White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters he had never heard Rhodes describe the foreign policy establishment, including Clinton, as the Blob, as the magazine describes.


Earnest has said Rhodes' concern about the timing of the disclosure of seizure of the sailors in January was primarily about the sailors' safety — not about concerns that the news would interfere with the president's speech. He said he was certain Rhodes would recast his description of the Washington press corps.


"I assure you that's not how it was intended, and based on that reaction I'm confident he would say it differently if given the chance," he said.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/white-house-on-damage-control-after-aides-magazine-profile/ar-BBsOUWy

[Winehole23]

gaybait, cut and paste, repeat

[Winehole23]

Samuels advocated bombing Iran in 2009. Hardly an impartial reporter.

The fairy tale about a Rasputin-like demagogue who fooled the whole world is just that.

[Winehole23]

https://lobelog.com/overwhelming-expert-consensus-favors-agreement-with-iran/

[TheSanityAnnex]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/05/12/state-department-keeps-saying-that-erased-video-of-tough-question-from-fox-news-reporter-was-a-glitch/

State Department keeps saying that erased video of tough question from Fox News reporter was a ‘glitch’


:lol

[CosmicCowboy]

I tend to believe Rhodes over exaggerated his importance and influence in the deal.

[boutons_deux]

I tend to believe Rhodes over exaggerated his importance and influence in the deal.

He's been thoroughly trashed by several journalists, not politically, not left/right, Dem/Repug, just his personal self-aggrandizement, hubris, bullshit.

[TheSanityAnnex]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/05/12/state-department-keeps-saying-that-erased-video-of-tough-question-from-fox-news-reporter-was-a-glitch/

State Department keeps saying that erased video of tough question from Fox News reporter was a ‘glitch’


:lol
:lmao most transparent administration ever.


State Department admits briefing footage on Iran deal intentionally deleted
The State Department, in a stunning admission, acknowledged Wednesday that an official intentionally deleted several minutes of video footage from a 2013 press briefing, where a top spokeswoman seemed to acknowledge misleading the press over the Iran nuclear deal.

“There was a deliberate request [to delete the footage] – this wasn’t a technical glitch,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said Wednesday, in admitting that an unidentified official had a video editor “excise” the segment.
The State Department had faced questions earlier this year over the block of missing tape from a December 2013 briefing. At that briefing, then-spokeswoman Jen Psaki was asked by Fox News’ James Rosen about an earlier claim that no direct, secret talks were underway between the U.S. and Iran – when, in fact, they were.
Psaki at the time seemed to admit the discrepancy, saying: “There are times where diplomacy needs privacy in order to progress. This is a good example of that.”
However, Fox News later discovered the Psaki exchange was missing from the department’s official website and its YouTube channel. Eight minutes from the briefing, including the comments on the Iran deal, were edited out and replaced with a white-flash effect.
Officials initially suggested a "glitch" occurred

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/01/state-department-admits-briefing-footage-on-iran-deal-intentionally-deleted.html?intcmp=hpbt3

[TheSanityAnnex]

gulliberals

[TheSanityAnnex]

And a bit more to chew on

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7044e805a95a4b7da5533b1b9ab75cd2/group-helped-sell-iran-nuke-deal-also-funded-media
Group that helped sell Iran nuke deal also funded mediaWASHINGTON (AP) — A group the White House recently identified as a key surrogate in selling the Iran nuclear deal gave National Public Radio $100,000 last year to help it report on the pact and related issues, according to the group's annual report. It also funded reporters and partnerships with other news outlets.
The Ploughshares Fund's mission is to "build a safe, secure world by developing and investing in initiatives to reduce and ultimately eliminate the world's nuclear stockpiles," one that dovetails with President Barack Obama's arms control efforts. But its behind-the-scenes role advocating for the Iran agreement got more attention this month after a candid profile of Ben Rhodes, one of the president's top foreign policy aides.
In The New York Times Magazine article, Rhodes explained how the administration worked with nongovernmental organizations, proliferation experts and even friendly reporters to build support for the seven-nation accord that curtailed Iran's nuclear activity and softened international financial penalties on Tehran.

"We created an echo chamber," said Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, adding that "outside groups like Ploughshares" helped carry out the administration's message effectively.


The magazine piece revived Republican criticism of the Iran agreement as they suggested it was evidence of a White House spin machine misleading the American people. The administration accused opponents of trying to re-litigate the deal after failing to defeat it in congressional votes last year.
Outside groups of all stripes are increasingly giving money to news organizations for special projects or general news coverage. Most news organizations, including The Associated Press, have strict rules governing whom they can accept money from and how to protect journalistic independence.
Ploughshares' backing is more unusual, given its prominent role in the rancorous, partisan debate over the Iran deal.
The Ploughshares grant to NPR supported "national security reporting that emphasizes the themes of U.S. nuclear weapons policy and budgets, Iran's nuclear program, international nuclear security topics and U.S. policy toward nuclear security," according to Ploughshares' 2015 annual report, recently published online.
"It is common practice for foundations to fund media coverage of underreported stories," Ploughshares spokeswoman Jennifer Abrahamson said. Funding "does not influence the editorial content of their coverage in any way, nor would we want it to."
Ploughshares has funded NPR's coverage of national security since 2005, the radio network said. Ploughshares reports show at least $700,000 in funding over that time. All grant descriptions since 2010 specifically mention Iran.
"It's a valued partnership, without any conditions from Ploughshares on our specific reporting, beyond the broad issues of national and nuclear security, nuclear policy, and nonproliferation," NPR said in an emailed statement. "As with all support received, we have a rigorous editorial firewall process in place to ensure our coverage is independent and is not influenced by funders or special interests."
Republican lawmakers will have concerns nonetheless, especially as Congress supplies NPR with a small portion of its funding. Just this week, the GOP-controlled House Oversight Committee tried to summon Rhodes to a hearing entitled "White House Narratives on the Iran Nuclear Deal," but he refused.
Ploughshares' links to media are "tremendously troubling," said Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas, an Iran-deal critic.
Pompeo told the AP he repeatedly asked NPR to be interviewed last year as a counterweight to a Democratic supporter of the agreement, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, who he said regularly appeared on the station. But NPR refused to put Pompeo on the air, he said. The station said it had no record of Pompeo's requests, and listed several prominent Republicans who were featured speaking about the deal or economic sanctions on Iran.
Another who appeared on NPR is Joseph Cirincione, Ploughshares' president. He spoke about the negotiations on air at least twice last year. The station identified Ploughshares as an NPR funder one of those times; the other time, it didn't.
Ploughshares boasts of helping to secure the deal. While success was "driven by the fearless leadership of the Obama administration and supporters in Congress," board chairwoman Mary Lloyd Estrin wrote in the annual report, "less known is the absolutely critical role that civil society played in tipping the scales towards this extraordinary policy victory."
The 33-page document lists the groups that Ploughshares funded last year to advance its nonproliferation agenda.
The Arms Control Association got $282,500; the Brookings Institution, $225,000; and the Atlantic Council, $182,500. They received money for Iran-related analysis, briefings and media outreach, and non-Iran nuclear work.
Other groups, less directly defined by their independent nuclear expertise, also secured grants.
J-Street, the liberal Jewish political action group, received $576,500 to advocate for the deal. More than $281,000 went to the National Iranian American Council.
Princeton University got $70,000 to support former Iranian ambassador and nuclear spokesman Seyed Hossein Mousavian's "analysis, publications and policymaker engagement on the range of elements involved with the negotiated settlement of Iran's nuclear program."
Ploughshares has set its sights on other media organizations, too.
In a "Cultural Strategy Report" on its website, the group outlined a broader objective of "ensuring regular and accurate coverage of nuclear issues in reputable and strategic media outlets" such as The Guardian, Salon, the Huffington Post or Pro Publica.
Previous efforts failed to generate enough coverage, it noted. These included "funding of reporters at The Nation and Mother Jones and a partnership with The Center for Public Integrity to create a national security desk." It suggested using "web videos, podcasts, photo-based stories" and other "attention-grabbing formats" for "creatively reframing the issue."
The Center for Public Integrity's CEO, Peter Bale, confirmed the grant.
"None of the funding received by Ploughshares was for coverage of the Iran deal," said Bale, whose company received $70,000. "In general, we avoided that subject because the topic did not lend itself to the type of investigative reporting the Center does."
Caitlin Graf, a spokeswoman at The Nation, said her outlet had no partnership with Ploughshares. She referred queries to The Nation Institute, a nonprofit associated with the magazine that seeks to strengthen the independent press and advance social justice. Taya Kitman, the institute's director, said Ploughshares' one-year grant supported reporting on U.S.-Iran policy, but strict editorial control was maintained.
Mother Jones' media department didn't respond to several messages seeking comment.
The AP has taken grants from nonpolitical groups and journalism foundations such as the Knight Foundation. As with all grants, "AP retains complete editorial control of the final news product, which must fully meet AP standards for independence and integrity," Standards Editor Thomas Kent said.

[boutons_deux]

Repugs and Dems are identical? :lol

Repugs, dozens of them, LIE to go to war for oil.

Dems LIE (only one guy, AFAICS) to achieve peace without nukes.

Identical? :lol

I will push Iraq war for oil, Afghanistan botched, and the entire Middle East shit you assholes' noses FOREVER.

[TeyshaBlue]

Only one guy.:lmao

[boutons_deux]

Only one guy.:lmao

name other names.

[TeyshaBlue]

Your party, like the GOP, is led by them.

[TheSanityAnnex]

State Department doctored video to hide Iran deal

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/01/politics/state-department-edited-iran-video/index.html?eref=rss_us

(CNN)Part of a video of a State Department press briefing addressing secret talks between the U.S. and Iran was deliberately deleted before it was posted online, an investigation by the department's legal adviser found Wednesday.State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters Wednesday that an unknown U.S. official made a request over the phone to delete several minutes of a December 2013 video of the exchange between reporters and a State Department spokeswoman. The State Department routinely posts on its site the briefing that it holds nearly every day with the diplomatic press corps.
Kirby said the department technician who made the edit could not recall who requested it.





The deleted portion of the video involves questions about a previous press briefing in 2012 in which then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland denied secret talks between the U.S. and Iran about a potential nuclear deal were taking place.
After it was revealed in December 2013 that secret talks between the U.S. and Iran actually had taken place, then-spokeswoman Jen Psaki admitted the administration lied in order to protect the secret negotiations.

Read More


Earlier this month Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes acknowledged to The New York Times that the administration was deceptive about the talks, creating a "narrative" that they did not take place.
When James Rosen of Fox News -- who asked the original questions of Psaki -- tried to refer back to the video last month, he found the exchange had been deleted.
Kirby, who originally called the deletion a "glitch," said Wednesday that he asked State Department lawyers to look into the matter after being notified about the omission.
"They learned that a specific request was made to excise that portion of the briefing. We do not know who made the request to edit the video or why it was made," Kirby said.
Another senior State Department official said the technician found the request "unusual" and consulted her supervisor before making the edit. The supervisor, who also could not remember the name of the person who called, approved the request because it came from someone "from a certain level and credibility" in the Department of Public Affairs.
"Although this person did not remember the person who called her, or the person they were calling on behalf of, she remembers it was not (Jen) Psaki," this official said. "Jen did not request it, did not know about it and had nothing to do with it."
Psaki, who now is the White House communications director, tweeted Wednesday that she was unaware of the episode: "I had no knowledge of nor would I have approved of any form of editing or cutting my briefing transcript on any subject while STATeDept."
Kirby noted that the full briefing transcript, including the exchange on Iran, had always been available on the State Department website and that the omitted video has since been replaced with a complete version that had been archived with the Defense Department.
He said that was the only instance he was aware of in which briefing videos were edited, though he couldn't be sure there weren't others. He announced a new policy Wednesday in which every video would be posted immediately with all edits disclosed.
"To my surprise, the Bureau of Public Affairs did not have in place any rules governing this type of action," he said. "Therefore, we are taking immediate steps to craft appropriate protocols on this issue, as we believe that deliberately removing a portion of the video was not and is not in keeping with the State Department's commitment to transparency and public accountability."
Because such rules weren't previously in place, Kirby said he found "no reason" to press forward with a more formal investigation.

[TheSanityAnnex]

The duped lobs go silent again.

[Winehole23]

a flawed deal, but maybe the best possible under the circumstances. not doing the deal would've left us with less leverage, and Iran with far less accountability and more incentive to pursue nukes.

[Winehole23]

no doubt Obama spun it and sold it. nature of the game, particularly with a country as irrationally disliked and feared as Iran.

[TheSanityAnnex]

no doubt Obama spun it and sold it. nature of the game, particularly with a country as irrationally disliked and feared as Iran.
Your thoughts on the state department deleting the video?

[boutons_deux]

Dems tried to do something good.

Repugs do nothing but bad.

[TeyshaBlue]

:lma

:lmao

[boutons_deux]

:lma

:lmao

I stand humbly refuted by cogent counter-arguments from TB :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

I stand humbly refuted by cogent counter-arguments from TB :lol
It doesnt take much

[boutons_deux]

It doesnt take much

dickless TB :lol shooting blanks

[TeyshaBlue]

Facile Coward.:lol

[boutons_deux]

Facile Coward.:lol

dickless, bitch-slapped, butt-hurt stalker TB :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

delusional, bitchslapped boutons.

Go see what Maddow tells you to think. :lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

(http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2015/257520.htm)

Iran tops list of State sponsors of terrorism

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2015/257520.htm

IRAN
Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its terrorist-related activity in 2015, including support for Hizballah, Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and various groups in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. In 2015, Iran increased its assistance to Iraqi Shia terrorist groups, including Kata’ib Hizballah (KH), which is a U.S. designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, as part of an effort to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Iraq and bolster the Asad regime in Syria. Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and create instability in the Middle East. The IRGC-QF is Iran’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad.
Iran views the Asad regime in Syria as a crucial ally, a pillar in its “resistance” front together with sub-national groups aligned with Iran, and a key link to Hizballah, Iran’s primary beneficiary and terrorist partner. In addition to its ongoing support for Hizballah in Syria, Iran continued to provide arms, financing, training, and the facilitation of primarily Iraqi, Afghan, and Pakistani Shia fighters to support the Asad regime’s brutal crackdown that has resulted in the deaths of more than 250,000 people in Syria. Iran more openly acknowledged the deaths of Iranian personnel in Syria in 2015, including several senior commanders, and increased Iranian troop levels, while continuing to claim publicly that Iranian forces had only deployed in an advisory role.
In Iraq, Iranian combat forces employed rockets, artillery, and drones against ISIL. Iran also increased its arming and funding of Iraqi Shia terrorist groups in an effort to reverse ISIL gains in Iraq. Many of these groups, such as KH, have exacerbated sectarian tensions in Iraq and have committed serious human rights abuses against primarily Sunni civilians. The IRGC-QF, in concert with Hizballah, provided training outside of Iraq, as well as advisors inside Iraq for Shia militants in the construction and use of advanced weaponry. Similar to Hizballah fighters, many of these trained Shia militants have used these skills to fight for the Asad regime in Syria or against ISIL in Iraq.
Iran has also provided weapons, funding, and training to Shia militants in Bahrain. In 2015, the Government of Bahrain raided, interdicted, and rounded up numerous Iran-sponsored weapons caches, arms transfers, and militants. This includes the Bahraini government’s discovery of a bomb-making facility with 1.5 tons of high-grade explosives in September.
Iran has historically provided weapons, training, and funding to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups, including Palestine Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command. These Palestinian terrorist groups have been behind a number of deaths from attacks originating in Gaza and the West Bank. Although Hamas’s ties to Tehran have been strained due to the Syrian civil war, both sides took steps in 2015 to repair relations. Iran continued to declare its vocal support for Palestinian terrorist groups and its hostility to Israel in 2015. Supreme National Security Council Secretary Admiral Ali Shamkhani sought to frame a series of individual Palestinian attacks on Israeli security forces in the West Bank as a new “Intifada” in a speech on November 25.
Since the end of the 2006 Israeli-Hizballah conflict in 2006, Iran has also assisted in rearming Hizballah, in direct violation of UNSCR 1701. Iran has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in support of Hizballah in Lebanon and has trained thousands of its fighters at camps in Iran. These trained fighters have used these skills in direct support of the Asad regime in Syria and, to a lesser extent, in support of operations against ISIL in Iraq. They have also carried out isolated attacks along the Lebanese border with Israel.
Iran remained unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qa’ida (AQ) members it continued to detain and refused to publicly identify the members in its custody. Iran previously allowed AQ facilitators to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iran since at least 2009, enabling AQ to move funds and fighters to South Asia and Syria.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html?_r=1


too long to copy/paste

for the tl/dr crowd:

The White House consciously created an "echo chamber" of experts and commentators to shape the public's perception of the Iran deal: "We created an echo chamber," Rhodes told The Times' David Samuels. "They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say ... We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively. So we knew the tactics that worked."
Rhodes' "story" of the Iran deal began in 2013, but it was not the full story: As many foreign-policy experts have noted, Obama began negotiating with Iran at least a year before Hassan Rouhani, Iran's new "moderate" president, defeated Iran's hardliners in a landslide 2013 election. Still, Samuels wrote, "The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Obama administration."
The administration "is not betting on" Iran's moderates being real reformers: "I would prefer that it turns out that Rouhani and [foreign minister] Zarif are real reformers who are going to be steering this country into the direction that I believe it can go in, because their public is educated and, in some respects, pro-American," he told Samuels. "But we are not betting on that."
Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is not sure Obama is still "serious" about preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon: Part of Panetta's job in holding up the nuclear deal was to assure Israel that Obama would not allow Iran to develop an atomic weapon. "Would I make that same assessment now? Probably not," he tells Samuels.
Others provided a glimpse into the administration's perception of political "experts" and the press:


Rhodes hates Washington's foreign-policy establishment — and doesn't care if they hate him back: He refers to the foreign-policy elite, which he said includes Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates, as "the Blob," and he "gives zero [expletive] about what most people in Washington think," said Jon Favreau, the Obama campaign's former lead speechwriter.
The White House relies on "handpicked Beltway insiders" to help the administration spread its message: These apparently include The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg and Al-Monitor's Laura Rozen.
Rhodes thinks most of the reporters the White House has to deal with "literally know nothing": "They call us to explain to them what's happening in Moscow and Cairo," Rhodes told Samuels. "Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That's a sea change. They literally know nothing."


Soooooo an administration managed public perception?

I'm shocked, shocked I say.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Soooooo an administration managed public perception?

I'm shocked, shocked I say.

Deleting video and lying about said video is simply "managing public perception"?

[boutons_deux]

Deleting video and lying about said video is simply "managing public perception"?

Repugs LYING their way into Iraq for BigOil. Where were your protests in March 2003?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Repugs LYING their way into Iraq for BigOil. Where were your protests in March 2003?

I'm going to get a list of use out of this one aren't I?

The Irony


False equivalence, typical rightwingnut bullshit of "can't defend our right wing assholes, so let's pull down the non-rightwingers"

[boutons_deux]

I'm going to get a list of use out of this one aren't I?

The Irony



Repugs LYING their way into Iraq for BigOil. Where were your innumerable protests in March 2003?

[RandomGuy]

Deleting video and lying about said video is simply "managing public perception"?

No idea what you are referring to. I didn't bother reading the whole thing, and relied on your copy there in the OP.

Link/excerpt?

Who lied about what?

[RandomGuy]

(http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2015/257520.htm)

Iran tops list of State sponsors of terrorism

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2015/257520.htm

IRAN
Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its terrorist-related activity in 2015, including support for Hizballah, Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and various groups in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. In 2015, Iran increased its assistance to Iraqi Shia terrorist groups, including Kata’ib Hizballah (KH), which is a U.S. designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, as part of an effort to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Iraq and bolster the Asad regime in Syria. Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and create instability in the Middle East. The IRGC-QF is Iran’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad.
Iran views the Asad regime in Syria as a crucial ally, a pillar in its “resistance” front together with sub-national groups aligned with Iran, and a key link to Hizballah, Iran’s primary beneficiary and terrorist partner. In addition to its ongoing support for Hizballah in Syria, Iran continued to provide arms, financing, training, and the facilitation of primarily Iraqi, Afghan, and Pakistani Shia fighters to support the Asad regime’s brutal crackdown that has resulted in the deaths of more than 250,000 people in Syria. Iran more openly acknowledged the deaths of Iranian personnel in Syria in 2015, including several senior commanders, and increased Iranian troop levels, while continuing to claim publicly that Iranian forces had only deployed in an advisory role.
In Iraq, Iranian combat forces employed rockets, artillery, and drones against ISIL. Iran also increased its arming and funding of Iraqi Shia terrorist groups in an effort to reverse ISIL gains in Iraq. Many of these groups, such as KH, have exacerbated sectarian tensions in Iraq and have committed serious human rights abuses against primarily Sunni civilians. The IRGC-QF, in concert with Hizballah, provided training outside of Iraq, as well as advisors inside Iraq for Shia militants in the construction and use of advanced weaponry. Similar to Hizballah fighters, many of these trained Shia militants have used these skills to fight for the Asad regime in Syria or against ISIL in Iraq.
Iran has also provided weapons, funding, and training to Shia militants in Bahrain. In 2015, the Government of Bahrain raided, interdicted, and rounded up numerous Iran-sponsored weapons caches, arms transfers, and militants. This includes the Bahraini government’s discovery of a bomb-making facility with 1.5 tons of high-grade explosives in September.
Iran has historically provided weapons, training, and funding to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups, including Palestine Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command. These Palestinian terrorist groups have been behind a number of deaths from attacks originating in Gaza and the West Bank. Although Hamas’s ties to Tehran have been strained due to the Syrian civil war, both sides took steps in 2015 to repair relations. Iran continued to declare its vocal support for Palestinian terrorist groups and its hostility to Israel in 2015. Supreme National Security Council Secretary Admiral Ali Shamkhani sought to frame a series of individual Palestinian attacks on Israeli security forces in the West Bank as a new “Intifada” in a speech on November 25.
Since the end of the 2006 Israeli-Hizballah conflict in 2006, Iran has also assisted in rearming Hizballah, in direct violation of UNSCR 1701. Iran has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in support of Hizballah in Lebanon and has trained thousands of its fighters at camps in Iran. These trained fighters have used these skills in direct support of the Asad regime in Syria and, to a lesser extent, in support of operations against ISIL in Iraq. They have also carried out isolated attacks along the Lebanese border with Israel.
Iran remained unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qa’ida (AQ) members it continued to detain and refused to publicly identify the members in its custody. Iran previously allowed AQ facilitators to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iran since at least 2009, enabling AQ to move funds and fighters to South Asia and Syria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair

At least we aren't selling guns to Iran/Hezbollah. That would be horrible.

[TheSanityAnnex]

No idea what you are referring to. I didn't bother reading the whole thing, and relied on your copy there in the OP.

Link/excerpt?

Who lied about what?


http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/01/politics/state-department-edited-iran-video/index.html?eref=rss_us

[TheSanityAnnex]

No idea what you are referring to. I didn't bother reading the whole thing, and relied on your copy there in the OP.

Link/excerpt?

Who lied about what?

Thoughts on the provided link?

[RandomGuy]

Thoughts on the provided link?

Sooooo, someone wanted to keep secret talks secret?

That about sum it up?

I should care because...?

Fill in the blanks here, don't make me do your work. I'm a very busy guy.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Sooooo, someone wanted to keep secret talks secret?

That about sum it up?

I should care because...?

Fill in the blanks here, don't make me do your work. I'm a very busy guy.

If you find nothing wrong with that there is no point in discussing further.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sooooo, someone wanted to keep secret talks secret?

That about sum it up?

I should care because...?

Fill in the blanks here, don't make me do your work. I'm a very busy guy.

:lol Asking them to articulate on their own is always good stuff.

[Ghazi]

just wanna say MARG BAR ISRAEL!

[spurraider21]

MARG BAR GHAZI

[RandomGuy]

If you find nothing wrong with that there is no point in discussing further.

I didn't say I found nothing wrong with it.

I asked you why I should care. Be specific.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I didn't say I found nothing wrong with it.

I asked you why I should care. Be specific.

I didn't say you should care, I specifically asked for your thoughts.

[RandomGuy]

I didn't say you should care, I specifically asked for your thoughts.

So you aren't going to actually spell it out.

My thoughts:

I think you have a partisan axe to grind, and are most likely making a mountain out of a moehill.

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.

I say this without having read your full article, because I am unwilling, on the basis of my above analysis, to spend a lot of time on what is likely to be little more than another one of your bullshit talking points from some fowarded email.

Generally I find right-wingers to be lazy thinkers, and sadly lacking in critical thinking skills. For this reason, when I don't really have much interest in something, I will ask someone I know to be lazy, such as yourself, to expand on the bullshit they read, and use some critical thinking to synthesize and analyse it.

Because I know they won't.

Just like you failed to do.

It is a double win for me, because I don't have to spend time reading bullshit and doing someone else's thinking for them on something I'm not interested in, and get another instance to point to of right-wing lazy, flawed thinking.

This particular foible is shared, oddly enough, by conspiracy buffs who talk about 9-11, and faked moon landings. They can't be bothered to flesh out their bullshit either.

[RandomGuy]

:lol Asking them to articulate on their own is always good stuff.

Quid pro quo.

"here spend your time reading this long article, but don't ask me to sum it up coherently".

sheesh.

[TheSanityAnnex]

So you aren't going to actually spell it out.

My thoughts:

I think you have a partisan axe to grind, and are most likely making a mountain out of a moehill.

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.

I say this without having read your full article, because I am unwilling, on the basis of my above analysis, to spend a lot of time on what is likely to be little more than another one of your bullshit talking points from some fowarded email.

Generally I find right-wingers to be lazy thinkers, and sadly lacking in critical thinking skills. For this reason, when I don't really have much interest in something, I will ask someone I know to be lazy, such as yourself, to expand on the bullshit they read, and use some critical thinking to synthesize and analyse it.

Because I know they won't.

Just like you failed to do.

It is a double win for me, because I don't have to spend time reading bullshit and doing someone else's thinking for them on something I'm not interested in, and get another instance to point to of right-wing lazy, flawed thinking.

This particular foible is shared, oddly enough, by conspiracy buffs who talk about 9-11, and faked moon landings. They can't be bothered to flesh out their bullshit either.

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 bullshit 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 (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/01/politics/state-department-edited-iran-video/index.html?eref=rss_us)

[RandomGuy]

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 bullshit 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 (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/01/politics/state-department-edited-iran-video/index.html?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.

[TheSanityAnnex]

No, Cosmored, I'm not going to watch your link.

Tell me why it's important in your own words first.

(edit)

I am pretty busy. I duck in here in between tasks for a minute or two generally, and really don't have the time to spend on it. Convince me I should.

It is important you drop your confirmation bias. How's that?

[RandomGuy]

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.

[TheSanityAnnex]

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.

[RandomGuy]

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.

[TheSanityAnnex]

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.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

[RandomGuy]

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.

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?

[TheSanityAnnex]

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.

[TheSanityAnnex]

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 Chaffetz (http://thehill.com/people/jason-chaffetz)http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_100/public/jason_chaffetz.jpg?itok=EuCbp7C-Jason Chaffetz (http://thehill.com/people/jason-chaffetz)House committee votes to censure IRS head (http://thehill.com/policy/finance/283576-house-committee-votes-to-censure-irs-head)Chaffetz: Obama more 'fired up' to attack GOP than ISIS (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/283547-gop-rep-obama-more-fired-up-about-attacking-trump-than)Pavlich: State 'edit' is censorship (http://thehill.com/opinion/katie-pavlich/283504-pavlich-state-edit-is-censorship)MORE (http://thehill.com/people/jason-chaffetz) (R-Utah) sent a letter directly to Secretary of State John Kerry (http://thehill.com/people/john-kerry)http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_100/public/john_kerry_0.jpg?itok=XBSVqMqPJohn Kerry (http://thehill.com/people/john-kerry)John Kerry meets Venezuelan counterpart amid rising tensions (http://thehill.com/latino/283521-john-kerry-meets-venezuelan-counterpart)Pavlich: State 'edit' is censorship (http://thehill.com/opinion/katie-pavlich/283504-pavlich-state-edit-is-censorship)As VP, Warren could lead the way for Democrats (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/283371-as-vp-warren-could-lead-the-way-for-democrats)MORE (http://thehill.com/people/john-kerry) demanding a full investigation and all “documents sufficient to identify, by name and job title, the individual or individuals who made and received the request to deliberately delete the video footage,” in addition to “all documents 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-pavlich/283504-pavlich-state-edit-is-censorship

[RandomGuy]

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.


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.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I'm actually kind of shocked you are so "whatever" about your administrations actions in a deal as big as the Iranian nuke program.

[Winehole23]

Your thoughts on the state department deleting the video?more spin. unsurprised.

selective disclosure isn't peculiar to Obama.

[Winehole23]

Iran 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.http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKCN1213DX

[TheSanityAnnex]

U.S. Signed Secret Document 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 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-releases-four-unnamed-american-prisoners-state-tv-says-1452955793), 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 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-world-powers-reach-nuclear-deal-1436861667) that went into effect on Jan. 16 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-completes-steps-to-implement-nuclear-accord-1452978143).
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 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-held-cash-until-iran-freed-prisoners-1471469256)—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-signed-secret-document-to-lift-u-n-sanctions-on-iranian-banks-1475193723

[Winehole23]

normalization with Iran will include a lot of details like that

[TheSanityAnnex]

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 repetition. 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

[Splits]

Grab them by the pussy

[rmt]

Obama's hidden Iran deal hideaway
by no less than Politico:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-prisoner-release-236966

[TSA]

Obama's hidden Iran deal hideaway
by no less than Politico:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-prisoner-release-236966

:lol RandomGuy

[boutons_deux]

Trash gonna keep the "very bad" Iran deal, yet another never-mind-my-campaign-bullshit

[pgardn]

Obama's hidden Iran deal hideaway
by no less than Politico:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-prisoner-release-236966


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.

[RandomGuy]

:lol RandomGuy


Okaaay...

We had to give up some difficult shit 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?

[TSA]

The Historic Deal that Will Prevent Iran from Acquiring a Nuclear Weapon

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/node/328996

lol

[Pavlov]

The Historic Deal that Will Prevent Iran from Acquiring a Nuclear Weapon

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/node/328996

lolDid they acquire a nuclear weapon, TSA?

Yes or no.

[boutons_deux]

have outside inspectors confirmed that Iran is complying?

You Obama-haters seem to think USA can dictate terms, give up nothing, and have Iran bow down.

You Obama-haters want to destroy everything nihilistically, like ACA and Iran deal, with, just like ACA, nothing to replace it.

And who says a country cannot have nuclear weapons? Did USA stop Israel?

[Chris]

992530897638383616

Birds of a feather.

[TSA]

992530897638383616

Birds of a feather.

Too bad Sally Yates isn’t around to try and charge him with a Logan Act violation.

[spurraider21]

Too bad Sally Yates isn’t around to try and charge him with a Logan Act violation.
:lol

[Pavlov]

Too bad Sally Yates isn’t around to try and charge him with a Logan Act violation.Since the agreement is still in effect, I'm not sure what the violation would be.

[Chris]

gotheem!


992536678958010368

[boutons_deux]

Nunes :lol is asking for Kerry to be charged under the Logan Act.

Nunes' and others' stupidity :lol

The Logan Act (1 Stat. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large) 613 (http://legislink.org/us/stat-1-613), 18 U.S.C. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_18_of_the_United_States_Code) § 953 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/953), enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_law)that criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized persons with

foreign governments having a DISPUTE with the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act)

The Iran Nuclear Pact is about an AGREEMENT with USA, etc, not a dispute.

goddamn, rightwing is fucking stupid.

The Repugs were Logan Act criminals for secretly scuttling the '68 Paris Peace talks with an ENEMY, and

for secretly blocking Carter for trying to releasing the Embassy hostages with an ENEMY.

[Pavlov]

:rollin
992861287905419264

[Chris]

lol "black ops"

lol citing the Mueller investigation for credibility

lol theguardian uk news :lol

[Pavlov]

lol "black ops"

lol citing the Mueller investigation for credibility

lol theguardian uk news :lolIt's no anonymous truepundit.com blog, that's for sure.

[Pavlov]

If the right continues to insist on conflating Fusion GPS clients....
993322507548680192

[djohn2oo8]

If the right continues to insist on conflating Fusion GPS clients....
993322507548680192
TSA Chris

[boutons_deux]

the bogus claims against Dems/Fusion GPS oppo research are moot after Trash/Black Cube oppo research

Steele took his finding to the govt, while Black Cube worked for Trash/Repugs.

As always, rightwingnutjobs are nutjobs, easily bitch slapped.

[TSA]

:rollin
992861287905419264

993507144954712064

993539326331023360

:rollin this looks like it is heading the same direction as the McClatchy Cohen/Prague story you tried to push

[Chris]

Chris

What?

[Pavlov]

993507144954712064

993539326331023360

:rollin this looks like it is heading the same direction as the McClatchy Cohen/Prague story you tried to pushRead the New Yorker piece.

It's not Clinton eating babies, but it explains how you got duped again.

[Winehole23]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-usa-thornberry/republican-house-armed-service-chair-warns-trump-against-leaving-iran-deal-idUSKBN1I70Q3

[Chris]

Well if Mac Thornberry said it...

[Winehole23]

where do you fall on the Iran deal, Chris?

[Chris]

I don't like it.

[Chris]

993625347676622848

[Winehole23]

I don't like it.why not?

[TSA]

Read the New Yorker piece.

It's not Clinton eating babies, but it explains how you got duped again.

On a scale of 1-10, what’s your confidence level of the New Yorker source compared to the McClatchy source?

[Pavlov]

On a scale of 1-10, what’s your confidence level of the New Yorker source compared to the McClatchy source?What are you saying is wrong with either, TSA?

Be specific.

[Chris]

On a scale of 1-10, what’s your confidence level of the New Yorker source compared to the McClatchy source?

Great question. Doubt you get an answer.

[Pavlov]

Great question. Doubt you get an answer.You don't even know what he's talking about.

[TSA]

What are you saying is wrong with either, TSA?

Be specific.

Obviously I think the McClatchy source you pushed was shit. On a scale of 1-10, what’s your confidence level of the New Yorker source compared to the McClatchy source?

[Chris]

You don't even know what he's talking about.

What's he talking about and why won't you answer the question?

[Pavlov]

Obviously I think the McClatchy source you pushed was shit. On a scale of 1-10, what’s your confidence level of the New Yorker source compared to the McClatchy source?I hold them in pretty much the same regard.

What were your sources for Clinton's baby eating?

[Pavlov]

What's he talking about and why won't you answer the question?

:lmao see? You have no idea.

[Chris]

:lmao see? You have no idea.

I see you have no idea how to answer a question.

[Pavlov]

I see you have no idea how to answer a question.

Keep fishing. Maybe TSA will tell you.

You still have no idea.

[TSA]

I hold them in pretty much the same regard.


And what regard would that be, on a scale of 1-10?

[Pavlov]

And what regard would that be, on a scale of 1-10?More than I believe your Clinton baby eating source.

lol

Keep trying to make muh bet, TSA!

Good luck!

[TSA]

More than I believe your Clinton baby eating source.

lol

Keep trying to make muh bet, TSA!

Good luck!

You weren’t asked for “more” or “less”, nor were you asked to compare anything to a Clinton story. You were asked to quantify your regard on a scale of 1-10, amongst two stories you posted.

You claim to hold the reliability of the sources for the stories in the same regard, on a scale of 1-10, what’s your confidence level of the New Yorker source compared to the McClatchy source?

[spurraider21]

why does this 1-10 shit matter at all, tbh?

[clambake]

why does this 1-10 shit matter at all, tbh?

"how much did i shook you on a 1-10 scale"

[Chris]

why does this 1-10 shit matter at all, tbh?

It's the only way to squeeze an honest answer out of Pavlov or make him give up. It's a great question.

[spurraider21]

It's the only way to squeeze an honest answer out of Pavlov or make him give up. It's a great question.
what relevance does pavlov's personal confidence level have on anything, though

[Chris]

what relevance does pavlov's personal confidence level have on anything, though

Why isn't it relevant? Show me the rule book.

[Pavlov]

You weren’t asked for “more” or “less”, nor were you asked to compare anything to a Clinton story. You were asked to quantify your regard on a scale of 1-10, amongst two stories you posted.

You claim to hold the reliability of the sources for the stories in the same regard, on a scale of 1-10, what’s your confidence level of the New Yorker source compared to the McClatchy source?:lol your games are super important to you. I hold both in high regard. If you have anything to discredit either story, go ahead and post it.

[Pavlov]

why does this 1-10 shit matter at all, tbh?

Good question. It's fun to see him demand it in every thread now.

[Chris]

993672210123341824

Porton :lol

[Winehole23]

apparently Europe stepped up:


“If we can get what we want from a deal without America, then Iran will continue to remain committed to the deal. What Iran wants is our interests to be guaranteed by its non-American signatories ... In that case, getting rid of America’s mischievous presence will be fine for Iran.”https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/07/iran-president-nuclear-deal-trump-571567

[Winehole23]

so the US loses leverage and influence with Iran if we step away from the deal. probably also tangible economic benefits.

what do we gain by stepping away?

[boutons_deux]

so the US loses leverage and influence with Iran, if we step away from the deal. probably also a tangible economic benefit.

what do we gain by stepping away?

Trash/Pompeo/Bolton will continue to attack Iran, probably with oil embargo (supported by BigOil and esp Iran-hating Saudi Arabia), more sanctions (breaking USA's deal with Iran), etc, etc.

USA's "word" will lose all credibility with other countries, just as the planet is ignoring Trash's nasty, vindictive, unPresidential, conflicting tweets

[ducks]

The People's Cube
��
‏


@ThePeoplesCube
14m
14 minutes ago


More
BREAKING: John Kerry held secret negotiations with America's enemy's.
But reports say he was unable to get House and Senate Democrats to budge.
#IranDeal
#IranNuclearDeal

[Pavlov]

The People's Cube
��
‏


@ThePeoplesCube
14m
14 minutes ago


More
BREAKING: John Kerry held secret negotiations with America's enemy's.
But reports say he was unable to get House and Senate Democrats to budge.
#IranDeal
#IranNuclearDealJohn Kerry talks to a country about the agreement they have with the American government!

[hater]

Its official

Trump reneged on Iran deal


Enjoy your last few weeks on this planet folks

[boutons_deux]

so the US loses leverage and influence with Iran if we step away from the deal. probably also tangible economic benefits.

what do we gain by stepping away?

"we" all of USA? nothing.

MIC and BigOil (price now $70+) will pocket $Bs, while "we" pay more for gas.

[Winehole23]

Its official

Trump reneged on Iran deal


Enjoy your last few weeks on this planet folkshater calls the beginning of WWVIII

[ducks]

John Kerry talks to a country about the agreement they have with the American government!

agreement lolk
giving them billions in cash LOL

[Winehole23]

what does the US stand to gain by withdrawing, anybody?

[ducks]

Ben Rhodes just admitted Trump has no support from Russia! Wow!

[ducks]

we have plenty of air

drill baby drill

[Winehole23]

you think withdrawing from the Iran nuke deal will get the US more oil, how?

[ducks]

lots of oil in usa!

[spurraider21]

lots of oil in usa!
how did iran deal prevent us from drilling here?

[Pavlov]

lots of oil in usa!So this is just a ploy to raise oil prices for US producers?

I didn't expect you to just come out and say it, but OK

[ducks]

Shortly after Trump's announcement the US was withdrawing from the deal, the Iranian currency plunged to a record low.

[Winehole23]

which benefits the US how?

[spurraider21]

which benefits the US how?
TRUMP

[ducks]

“The so-called Iran deal was supposed to protect the United States and our allies from the lunacy of an Iranian nuclear bomb, a weapon that will only endanger the survival of the Iranian regime. In fact, the deal allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium and over time reach the brink of a nuclear blackout.”

“Today, we have definitive proof that this Iranian promise was a lie,” Trump said.

Note: The Director of National Intelligence, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense have all said in last two months they are complying with the deal.

[boutons_deux]

“Today, we have definitive proof that this Iranian promise was a lie,” Trump said.

Trash LIES.

Where is the "definitive proof" that Iran is NOT complying?

(Israel doesn't count, Bibi, etc are not a neutral source of "facts" )

[ducks]

Better Deal to Prevent Nuclear Iran

[ducks]

??How long before a judge in Hawaii declares Iran must have nuclear weapons?