The secret backstory of how Obama let Hezbollah off the hook

[TSA]

An ambitious U.S. task force targeting Hezbollah's billion-dollar criminal enterprise ran headlong into the White House's desire for a nuclear deal with Iran.
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/

[TSA]

Sarah Palin's son arrested has more replies :rollin

[Pavlov]

Hell, you didn't even comment on the actual story. Why should anyone else, Darrin?

[boutons_deux]

what was the alternative?

Let Iran go nuclear and make war on Hezbollah's drug business? USA knew it couldn't, can't, hasn't won any drug war.

The drug war is unwinnable, but a great good job creator. USA has failed to shutdown opium production in Afghanistan, now at record levels

Figures reveal dire trend in Afghan opium production

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/afghanistan-opium-production-2017-un-poppy-cultivation-jumps/

or

don't wage unwinnable war on Iran protege Hezbollah drug trade, and try to block Iran from going nuclear.

what would you Obama haters choose?

[TSA]

Hell, you didn't even comment on the actual story. Why should anyone else, Darrin?

:lol pretending your shitposting has ever had prerequisites

[Pavlov]

:lol pretending your shitposting has ever had prerequisitesHell, you didn't even comment on the actual story.

Still haven't.

:lol feigned outrage

[TSA]

Obama's Alternative Facts on the Iran Nuclear Deal

When the Obama administration sold its Iran nuclear deal to Congress in 2015, one of its primary arguments was that the agreement was narrow. It lifted only nuclear sanctions. America, President Barack Obama told us, would remain a vigilant foe of Iran's regional predations through sanctions and other means.

Thanks to stunning new reporting from Politico's Josh Meyer, we can now assess these assertions and conclude that they are … well, "alternative facts."

Meyer reports that while the U.S. and other great powers were negotiating a deal to bring transparency to Iran's nuclear program, top officials in Obama's government dismantled a campaign, known as Operation Cassandra, intended to undermine Hezbollah's global drug trafficking and money laundering network.

A few months after the implementation of that bargain in January 2016, Operation Cassandra was ripped apart. Agents were reassigned. Leads and sources dried up. Bad guys got away.

Hezbollah is many things: a Lebanese political party, a militia and a Shiite religious movement. It is also an arm of Iranian foreign policy. Hezbollah shock troops fight alongside Iran's Revolutionary Guard commanders in Syria and Iraq. Iran uses the group's operatives for international terror attacks in Latin America. Hezbollah's advanced arsenal is supplied by the Iranian state. Hezbollah's drug trafficking provides the revenue it needs to spread mayhem. To curb that trafficking is to starve Iran's primary proxy.

The Obama administration believed cracking down on Hezbollah's trafficking would undermine nuclear negotiations. As David Asher, a former Pentagon illicit finance analyst and a key player in Operation Cassandra, told Meyer: “This was a policy decision, it was a systematic decision. They serially ripped apart this entire effort that was very well supported and resourced, and it was done from the top down.”

The details are troubling. One example involves Ali Fayad, whom DEA agents suspected was the Hezbollah operative who reported directly to Russian president Vladimir Putin as a weapons supplier in Iraq and Syria. In 2014 Fayad was arrested by Czech authorities. Meyer reports that even though Fayad was indicted by U.S. courts for planning the murder of U.S. officials, "top Obama administration officials declined to apply serious pressure on the Czech government to extradite him to the United States, even as Putin was lobbying aggressively against it." Fayad eventually found his way back to Lebanon, and is believed today to be back at his old job, supplying Russian heavy weapons to Iranian-backed militants in Syria.

If the Trump administration had let Fayad slip through the net of law enforcement, that would be a five-alarm scandal. And yet for Obama this was part of a pattern. Obama never asked Syria's neighbors to deny fly-over rights to Russian aircraft in 2015, which could have slowed or prevented Putin from establishing air bases in Syria that were used to bomb civilians and aid workers.

Russia established those air bases less than two months after the end of the Iran nuclear negotiations. The chief of Iran's Quds Force, Qassem Suleimani, also saw the close of the nuclear talks as a green light. He was soon on a plane to Moscow to iron out the tactical alliance between Russia and Iran in Syria as Obama went about trying to persuade more than a third of Congress to support the nuclear bargain.

Obama officials reached for comment disputed elements of Meyer's reporting. Kevin Lewis, a spokesman for Obama, pointed to some European arrests of Hezbollah operatives after the implementation of the nuclear deal. But Meyer says officials with Operation Cassandra noted that these suspects were nabbed after the Obama Justice Department shot down efforts to prosecute these operatives in U.S. courts.

A particularly cringe-inducing response came from a senior national security official who suggested, anonymously, to Meyer that agents in a DEA operation might unwittingly botch a CIA or Israeli intelligence operation within Hezbollah.

That's doubtful, at least for the CIA. As the Los Angeles Times reported in 2011 the agency's Beirut station, which tracked Hezbollah, was put out of business after most of its sources were arrested that year. It's highly unlikely the agency would have been able to build up its source network in a few short years. What's more, the CIA director for Obama's second term, John Brennan, had openly discussed his view of trying to separate Hezbollah hardliners from Hezbollah moderates in Washington policy forums. The decision to go soft on Hezbollah looks entirely deliberate.

So was all of this worth it? We know what the West got out of the nuclear deal: a temporary suspension of Iran's nuclear program and increased transparency into its stockpiles, enrichment facilities and laboratories. At the time the Obama administration told us that in exchange, the U.S. had to lift only the crippling nuclear sanctions against Iran. It turns out the price was much higher.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-18/obama-s-alternative-facts-on-the-iran-nuclear-deal?utm_content=buffer40e70&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[Chucho]

Hell, you didn't even comment on the actual story.

Still haven't.

:lol feigned outrage

So, this isn't an issue with you?

[Pavlov]

So, this isn't an issue with you?You're not commenting on the OP either.

[Chucho]

You're not commenting on the OP either.

Neither are you. And you didn't answer the question. Is this an issue to you?

[Pavlov]

Neither are you. And you didn't answer the question. Is this an issue to you?Not a huge one tbh. Despite the headline, the article does a good job fleshing the whole thing out.

Doesn't seem to be an issue to anyone here.

[Pavlov]

So, this isn't an issue with you?So, this isn't an issue with you?

[Chucho]

So, this isn't an issue with you?

A whole lot of bad people weren't indicted that should have been indicted. It's an issue.

[DMC]

:lol pretending your shitposting has ever had prerequisites

:lmao

[TSA]

Congress to Investigate Obama Scheme to Nix Investigation into Hezbollah Terrorists
Investigation to focus on Rhodes, senior Obama officials



Lawmakers are launching an investigation into Obama-era efforts to thwart a longstanding U.S. investigation into the Iranian-backed terror group Hezbollah, according to multiple congressional officials and insiders who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon.

The Obama administration worked behind the scenes to thwart a decade-long Drug Enforcement Agency investigation into Hezbollah and its highly lucrative drug trade in Latin America, according to a report in Politico. These officials are believed to have run interference on the investigation in order to avoid upsetting Iran and jeopardizing the landmark nuclear accord.

Senior Obama officials in the Treasury and Justice Departments are said to have undermined the DEA's investigation at multiple junctures in order to avoid angering Hezbollah's patron Iran, which could have jeopardized the landmark nuclear agreement.

Congress is now taking steps to formally investigate the reports, which multiple sources described to the Free Beacon as part of a larger Obama administration effort to overlook Iran's global terror operations in order to cement the nuclear deal.

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R., Fla.), a member of the House Oversight Committee and chair of its National Security Subcommittee, told the Washington Free Beacon on Wednesday that he and other top lawmakers are examining evidence that could implicate top former Obama officials, including National Security Council official Ben Rhodes, the architect of the former administration's self-described pro-Iran "echo chamber."

"I've long believed that the Obama administration could not have done any more to bend over backwards to appease the Iranian regime, yet news that the Obama administration killed the investigation into a billion dollar drug ring that lined the terrorist group Hezbollah's pockets in order to save its coveted Iran deal may very well take the cake," DeSantis said.

"Hezbollah is a brutal terrorist group with American blood on its hands and it would be unconscionable for American policy to deliberately empower such a nefarious group," he said.

Lawmakers will be paying particular attention to whether Rhodes or other senior officials accused of misleading Congress and the American public about the Iran deal played a role in thwarting the Hezbollah investigation.

"Congress will be investigating this thoroughly and my National Security subcommittee will be particularly interested in how such a decision came about and whether it was driven by key Iran deal architects such as Ben Rhodes," DeSantis said.

Congressional investigators are already preparing letters to various U.S. government agencies in order to obtain greater information about the alleged interference, according to those with knowledge of the matter.

Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill.), a chief national security voice in the House who fought against the nuclear accord, told the Washington Free Beacon that Congress must investigate the Obama administration's actions and work to increase pressure on Hezbollah.

"The report alleging the Obama Administration turned a blind eye and allowed Hezbollah to pump drugs into the United States to fund its terror campaigns in the Middle East is not surprising," Roskam said. "Hampering the DEA's investigation of Hezbollah would be emblematic of the previous administration's fixation to strike a nuclear accord with Iran at any costs."

"This blind eye imperiled our efforts to combat Iran and its proxies' malign behavior and left us with a cash-flush Iran on the warpath across the Middle East with a nuclear program legitimized by the JCPOA," Roskam said, using the acronym for the nuclear deal's official name, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. "Congress needs to investigate this report and do what the Obama Administration refused to do, severely increase pressure on Hezbollah and hold the terrorist group, and its benefactor Iran, accountable for their crimes."

U.S. drug enforcement agents who spoke to Politico about the matter accused the Obama administration of intentionally derailing an investigation into Hezbollah's drug trafficking and money laundering efforts that began in 2008 under the Bush administration.

The investigation centered on Hezbollah and Iranian-backed militants who allegedly participated in the illicit drug network, which was subject to U.S. wiretaps and undercover operations.

Hezbollah is believed to have been laundering at least $200 million a month just in the United States, according to the report.

When U.S. authorities were ready to make the case against Hezbollah's most senior leadership, Obama administration officials allegedly "threw an increasingly insurmountable series of roadblocks in its way," according inside sources who spoke to Politico about the situation.

The Obama-led effort to block the investigation was "a policy decision, it was a systematic decision," one source said. "They serially ripped apart this entire effort that was very well supported and resourced, and it was done from the top down."

One senior congressional source apprised of the matter told the Free Beacon that while lawmakers have long known about the former Obama administration's efforts to steamroll over Congress and ink the nuclear deal, the interference in the Hezbollah investigation could be a matter for law enforcement.

"Add this to the long list of concessions the Obama administration made in pursuit of the nuclear agreement with Iran," said the source, who was not authorized to speak on the record about the matter. "The difference here is that this wasn't just bad policy—it was potentially criminal. Congress absolutely has a responsibility to get to the bottom of this."

Other sources described a long list of efforts by the Obama administration to downplay Iran's terror efforts and turn a blind eye to its illicit efforts to skirt U.S. sanctions.

"The Obama administration started sucking up to Iran from Day 1, because they thought if they showed good faith the [Iranian] Supreme Leader would let Iranian diplomats negotiate with them," according to a longtime congressional adviser who works on Middle East issues, including Iran.

The former administration "looked the other way at sanctions busting, fought Congress against new pressure, and did everything possible to slow roll enforcement," the source said. "Meanwhile the Ben Rhodes echo chamber went into overdrive to sell that they were aggressively—that was the word they shopped around, ‘aggressively'—dealing with Iran. Now we know they were tearing down whatever parts of the federal government where still trying to stop Iran and its terrorists."

Meanwhile, a delegation of lawmakers on the House's Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere sent a letter to President Trump Wednesday urging greater action on Hezbollah in light of the Obama administration's behavior.

The letter pushes the Trump administration to formally designate Hezbollah as a Transnational Criminal Organization (TCO) and as a Specially Designated Narcotics Trafficking Kingpin (SDNTK). It also demands an investigation into Hezbollah’s criminal enterprises under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R., Fla.), chair of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa and a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said that Hezbollah's illicit operations in Latin America are growing and threaten the U.S homeland.

"It's no secret that, in its pursuit of the weak and dangerous nuclear deal, the Obama administration ignored Iran's illicit activity and the threat the state sponsor of terror-regime posed to our national security and the security and stability of our allies," Ros-Lehtinen said. "If recent reports of the size and scope of Hezbollah's operations in Latin America are true, we should all be alarmed as it puts the terror group right in our own hemisphere."

http://freebeacon.com/issues/congress-to-investigate-obama-scheme-to-nix-investigation-into-hezbollah-terrorists/

[Chucho]

Seems like Obama was more in bed with Russia to commit crimes than Trump was...

Dat Magic D tho...

[Pavlov]

A whole lot of bad people weren't indicted that should have been indicted. It's an issue.Congratulations for expressing a political opinion for the first time. :clap

[Chucho]

Congratulations for expressing a political opinion for the first time. :clap


LOL, you're mad because TSA rattled you.

[Pavlov]

LOL, you're mad because TSA rattled you.LOL, you're mad because you expressed a political opinion for the first time.

[Chucho]

LOL, you're mad because you expressed a political opinion for the first time.

Sure, sure.

So, you're ok with Presidential Obstruction and it isn't an issue with you?

[Pavlov]

Sure, sure.

So, you're ok with Presidential Obstruction and it isn't an issue with you?The article explains all the factors quite well. You should read it.

[Chucho]

The article explains all the factors quite well. You should read it.

That's not what I'm asking. You said it doesn't seem to be an issue with anyone here, but potential Russia collusion and Presidential obstruction seems to be an issue there, so why not here? Dat Magic "D"?

[Pavlov]

That's not what I'm asking. You said it doesn't seem to be an issue with anyone here, but potential Russia collusion and Presidential obstruction seems to be an issue there, so why not here? Dat Magic "D"?Collusion for what purpose?

Obstruction for what purpose?

Explain it to me.

[Chucho]

Collusion for what purpose?

Obstruction for what purpose?

Explain it to me.

So, you didn't read the article. Great, so you lie. Like Avante.

[Pavlov]

So, you didn't read the article. Great, so you lie. Like Avante.I did.

I'm seeing if you did.

Collusion for what purpose?

Obstruction for what purpose?

Maybe you could just answer the questions. Seems like you're stalling tbh.

[Chucho]

I did.

I'm seeing if you did.

Collusion for what purpose?

Obstruction for what purpose?

Maybe you could just answer the questions.

So, a comprehension issue. Got it.

[Pavlov]

So, a comprehension issue. Got it.You're still stalling.

Collusion for what purpose?

Obstruction for what purpose?

Maybe you could just answer the questions.

[Chucho]

You're still stalling.

Collusion for what purpose?

Obstruction for what purpose?

Maybe you could just answer the questions.

You think you're the organ grinder, I'm not the monkey. You don't answer a question with a question and expect me to answer yours. You can keep with the stalling all you like, but you've a question to answer first.

[Pavlov]

You think you're the organ grinder, I'm not the monkey. You don't answer a question with a question and expect me to answer yours. You can keep with the stalling all you like, but you've a question to answer first.Great.

My answer is if we're going to use your loaded characterizations, it depends on what purpose the collusion and obstruction is for.

What was the purpose of this collusion and obstruction, Chucho?

[Chucho]

Great.

My answer is if we're going to use your loaded characterizations, it depends on what purpose the collusion and obstruction is for.

What was the purpose of this collusion and obstruction, Chucho?


Not prosecuting a Hezbollah drug cartel doing loads of business here and abroad to make the Iran nuke deal, Pavlov.

[Chucho]

While making pals with Syria, Russia and Iran.

[Pavlov]

to make the Iran nuke dealThanks, you were halfway honest there. :tu

[Chucho]

Thanks, you were halfway honest there. :tu

Explain.

[Pavlov]

Explain.I suppose I can be accused of not wording my question carefully enough.

The overall goal was the nuclear deal. When eight governments are involved there are going to be compromises.

Were the goal unduly influencing the US elections, I'd probably feel differently.

[Chris]

Obama Administration Will Be Formally Investigated for 'Potentially Criminal' Act Involving Hezbollah, Iran


Lawmakers are reportedly launching an investigation into former President Barack Obama’s alleged protection of Hezbollah in order to safeguard his controversial Iran deal.

Multiple congressional insiders told the Washington Free Beacon on Wednesday that lawmakers will investigate the undermining of a decade-long Drug Enforcement Administration initiative — “Project Cassandra” — that tracked the Iran-backed terror group’s trafficking of drugs and weapons, money laundering, and other criminal activities.

The potential investigation comes just one day after Rep. Robert Pittenger (R-NC) called for a probe into the matter.

The report, originally published by Politico, suggested the Obama White House put a series of roadblocks in front of the DEA’s efforts, hoping to avoid any conflict with Iran, which could have jeopardized the nuclear deal.

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) said he and other top politicians are looking into evidence that could implicate high-ranking former Obama staffers, including National Security Council official Ben Rhodes, who helmed much of the negotiation over the Iran deal:

“I’ve long believed that the Obama administration could not have done any more to bend over backwards to appease the Iranian regime, yet news that the Obama administration killed the investigation into a billion dollar drug ring that lined the terrorist group Hezbollah’s pockets in order to save its coveted Iran deal may very well take the cake.

Hezbollah is a brutal terrorist group with American blood on its hands and it would be unconscionable for American policy to deliberately empower such a nefarious group.”

And Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) told the Beacon he is not surprised by the report “alleging the Obama administration turned a blind eye and allowed Hezbollah to pump drugs into the United States to fund its terror campaigns in the Middle East.”

“Congress needs to investigate this report and do what the Obama administration refused to do — severely increase pressure on Hezbollah and hold the terrorist group, and its benefactor Iran, accountable for their crimes,” he added.

David Asher, a former illicit finance analyst for the Department of Defense, said the Obama administration “serially ripped apart this entire effort that was very well supported and resourced, and it was done from the top down.”

In the immediate aftermath of the stunning report — which received hardly any mainstream media coverage — Israeli politician Yair Lapid called on the former president to return his Nobel Peace Prize.

https://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/12/1038009-obama-administration-will-formally-investigated-potentially-criminal-act-involving-hezbollah-iran/

[Spurtacular]

Hell, you didn't even comment on the actual story. Why should anyone else, Darrin?

:lmao Today's sperm shielder.

[Pavlov]

:lmao Today's sperm shielder.You didn't comment on the actual story either.

Proves my point.

[Spurtacular]

You didn't comment on the actual story either.

Proves my point.

And what is your point? (Besides the implicit sperm shielding.)

[Pavlov]

And what is your point? (Besides the implicit sperm shielding).That is the point, dumbass. Nothing implicit about it.

Still no comment on the actual story....

[Trainwreck2100]

An ambitious U.S. task force targeting Hezbollah's billion-dollar criminal enterprise ran headlong into the White House's desire for a nuclear deal with Iran.
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/

why would somebody click your shitty link, if you ain't gonna bother to simply copy and paste why should anybody else care

[Pavlov]

why would somebody click your shitty link, if you ain't gonna bother to simply copy and paste why should anybody else careMight be took long for one post tbh. I actually prefer to click the link to give the reputable sites traffic.

[pgardn]

Now we know more about the Trump adm. pulling closer to Israel than Obama. Hezbollah is an absolute pain to Israel. No shortage of cash for rockets from Gaza into Israel I guess. It's not smart losing conduits of intell into these groups.

It is interesting to note however, that Trump declaration on Jerusalem has now got both Sunnis and Shiites pissed off at us. This was not the proper response to anything. Everytime you think the situation in the ME is a huge mess you get humbled and shown its an enormous mess with few easy solutions.

We will never know for sure how hard Obama could have pushed Iran on the deal to quit funding Hezbollah. The fact that they were getting cash thru drugs as well is interesting, but makes sense.

[Spurtacular]

That is the point, dumbass. Nothing implicit about it.

Still no comment on the actual story....

So, that triggers you. (And yea, your sperm shielding was implicit. There was nothing stopping you from regarding the content of the article / the subject; but you don't want to face it.)

[Pavlov]

So, that triggers you. (And yea, your sperm shielding was implicit. There was nothing stopping you from regarding the content of the article / the subject; but you don't want to face it.):lmao You idiot. You didn't read the article.

You're only here for me.

[pgardn]

why would somebody click your shitty link, if you ain't gonna bother to simply copy and paste why should anybody else care

Actually I had already read it. It is an interesting from muddying the waters even more with the ME and Iran's intentions. People keep screaming about Russia in Syria when Iran has more human material on the ground. Iran and Russia may run into some disagreement about dealing with Assad ( who's puppet?) and Syria. Huge mess.

[Spurtacular]

You did read the article, and this the best you could put forth.


Hell, you didn't even comment on the actual story. Why should anyone else, Darrin?


You're not commenting on the OP either.


Hell, you didn't even comment on the actual story.

Still haven't.

:lol feigned outrage


You're not commenting on the OP either.


Not a huge one tbh. Despite the headline, the article does a good job fleshing the whole thing out.

Doesn't seem to be an issue to anyone here.


So, this isn't an issue with you?

Congratulations for expressing a political opinion for the first time. :clap


LOL, you're mad because you expressed a political opinion for the first time.


The article explains all the factors quite well. You should read it.



Collusion for what purpose?

Obstruction for what purpose?

Explain it to me.



I did.

I'm seeing if you did.

Collusion for what purpose?

Obstruction for what purpose?

Maybe you could just answer the questions. Seems like you're stalling tbh.


You're still stalling.

Collusion for what purpose?

Obstruction for what purpose?

Maybe you could just answer the questions.



Great.

My answer is if we're going to use your loaded characterizations, it depends on what purpose the collusion and obstruction is for.

What was the purpose of this collusion and obstruction, Chucho?


Thanks, you were halfway honest there. :tu


I suppose I can be accused of not wording my question carefully enough.

The overall goal was the nuclear deal. When eight governments are involved there are going to be compromises.

Were the goal unduly influencing the US elections, I'd probably feel differently.


That is the point, dumbass. Nothing implicit about it.

Still no comment on the actual story....


:lmao You idiot. You didn't read the article.

You're only here for me.

[Pavlov]

You did read the article, and this the best you could put forth.More than you did, since you didn't read the article at all and are only here for me.

You should repost all your posts from this thread -- that'll show me!

[Spurtacular]

:cry Don't call out mah spamming / sperm shielding :cry

[Spurtacular]

Pavlov (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=7343)

Why was it so important that Obama make a nuclear deal with Iran in the first place? Thoughts? Seems to me there was no compelling need to sanction their activities.

[Pavlov]

See? You haven't posted one thing about the article you didn't read.

And the only reason you ever would is because I just shamed you.

lol

[Pavlov]

Pavlov (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=7343)

Why was it so important that Obama make a nuclear deal with Iran in the first place? Thoughts? Seems to me there was no compelling need to sanction their activities.So you want Iran to have nuclear weapons.

OK.

[DMC]

:lmao You idiot. You didn't read the article.

You're only here for me.

:lmao like you're hard to find in the threads.

[Pavlov]

:lmao like you're hard to find in the threads.As hard as it is to make you angry.

[Spurtacular]

So you want Iran to have nuclear weapons.

OK.

I don't want a crime-ridden third world country to have any nuclear capabilities. Why do you think that's a good idea?

[Pavlov]

I don't want a crime-ridden third world country to have any nuclear capabilities.Then you answered your own question, though your characterization of Iran may be a bit off.

Happy to help you decide what you believe. :tu

[Spurtacular]

Then you answered your own question, though your characterization of Iran may be a bit off.

Happy to help you decide what you believe. :tu

That's a terrible dodge (and I'm being generous to even call it a dodge). Why are you okay with Iran having nuclear capabilities?

[Pavlov]

That's a terrible dodge (and I'm being generous to even call it a dodge). Why are you okay with Iran having nuclear capabilities?I'm not, you idiot.

Do you even know what the agreement is?

List the basics.

[Spurtacular]

I'm not, you idiot.

Do you even know what the agreement is?

List the basics.

Don't patronize me, bitch. Why are you okay with Iran having nuclear capabilities?

[Pavlov]

Don't patronize me, bitch. Why are you okay with Iran having nuclear capabilities?:lol You have no idea what you're talking about.

Again.

Read something.

[Spurtacular]

:lol You have no idea what you're talking about.

Again.

Read something.

Don't want to answer the question / sperm shielding. Check.

Next: If Hezbollah is a huge world crime syndicate (rooted in islamo-terrorist dogma), then why would Obama want to strike an accord with "moderate elements" in Hezbollah?

[Pavlov]

Don't want to answer the question / sperm shielding. Check.

Next: If Hezbollah is a huge world crime syndicate (rooted in islamo-terrorist dogma), then why would Obama want to strike an accord with "moderate elements" in Hezbollah?
Nope, first you have to explain why my support of the current agreement to prevent the development of Iranian nuclear weapons means I am for Iran's having nuclear weapons.

I await your explanation.

Thanks in advance.

[Spurtacular]

Below...

[Spurtacular]

Nope, first you have to explain why my support of the current agreement to prevent the development of Iranian nuclear weapons means I am for Iran's having nuclear weapons.

I await your explanation.

Thanks in advance.

I said nuclear capabilities, not nuclear weapons.

Now that that "first" is taken care of, tell me why Obama would want to come to terms with "moderate" elements in Hezbolla.

[Pavlov]

I said nuclear capabilities, not nuclear weapons.They already had nuclear capabilities.

Damn, you really don't know anything.

[Spurtacular]

They already had nuclear capabilities.

Damn, you really don't know anything.

Did I ever say they didn't have nuclear capabilities? You keep talking like a backpedaling ignorant ass. So, why would Obama be okay with Iran having nuclear capabilities?

[Pavlov]

Did I ever say they didn't have nuclear capabilities?You're acting like taking away all Iran's nuclear capabilities without going to war with them was/is an option.

That's funny.

[Spurtacular]

You're acting like taking away all Iran's nuclear capabilities without going to war with them was/is an option.

That's funny.

I never "acted" any such way. I ask, why is Obama okay with Iran having nuclear capabilities? Answer the question instead of putting forth contrived narratives.

[Pavlov]

I never "acted" any such way. I ask, why is Obama okay with Iran having nuclear capabilities? Answer the question instead of putting forth contrived narratives.Nothing short of war would lead to an Iran with no nuclear capabilities at all.

[Spurtacular]

Nothing short of war would lead to an Iran with no nuclear capabilities at all.

So, your position is that kowtowing to a hostile, homicidal actor and allow for them to have nuclear capabilities was a wise idea?

[Pavlov]

So, your position is that kowtowing to a hostile, homicidal actor and allow for them to have nuclear capabilities was a wise idea?They already had nuclear capabilities. What are you saying he should have done to completely eliminate them?

[Spurtacular]

They already had nuclear capabilities.

This was not in dispute. What was the wisdom of sanctioning their nuclear capabilities?

[Pavlov]

This was not in dispute. What was the wisdom of sanctioning their nuclear capabilities?What are you saying he should have done to completely eliminate them?

[Spurtacular]

What are you saying he should have done to completely eliminate them?

I did not speak one way or another on completely eliminating them. What is the wisdom in sanctioning Iran's nuclear capabilities?

[Pavlov]

I did not speak one way or another on completely eliminating them. What is the wisdom in sanctioning Iran's nuclear capabilities?What are you saying Obama should have done?

Spit it out.

[Spurtacular]

What are you saying Obama should have done?

Spit it out.

I am saying Obama should not have sanctioned Iran's nuclear capabilities. What is your wisdom for saying he should have done so?

[Pavlov]

I am saying Obama should not have sanctioned Iran's nuclear capabilities. What is your wisdom for saying he should have done so?That's not saying what you think he should not have done.

What are you saying Obama should have done?

The goal is to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

[Spurtacular]

That's not saying what you think he should not have done.

What are you saying Obama should have done?

The goal is to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

No, it is not. Why can you not give me any outright reason for sanctioning Iran's nuclear capabilities? You think it's a good idea to sanction a crime-ridden actor's nuclear capabilities? What do you think we attained by doing so?

[Pavlov]

No, it is not. Why can you not give me any outright reason for sanctioning Iran's nuclear capabilities? You think it's a good idea to sanction a crime-ridden actor's nuclear capabilities? What do you think we attained by doing so?We attained a eight-country+EU agreement that keeps Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Duh.

Now, what are you saying Obama should have done about it instead?

[DMC]

We attained a eight-country+EU agreement that keeps Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Duh.

Now, what are you saying Obama should have done about it instead?

https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/PHOTO/LARGE/northern_mockingbird_1.jpg

[Pavlov]

Aw, DMC's only talking about me.


Again.

[dabom]

:lol

[dabom]

Unless someone can prove Obama was acting in bad faith to the American people, nothing probably is gonna happen to him. :lol

[Spurtacular]

We attained a eight-country+EU agreement that keeps Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Duh.

Now, what are you saying Obama should have done about it instead?

Well, since you want to speak of the agreement as a blazing success, let's look at it:

* Did you know that before negotiations, the Obama administration insisted that Iran stop all uranium enrichment? What changed?
* In the agreement, there is no mechanism for reducing Iran's stockpiles of "peaceful energy" nuclear rods.
* Instead of cutting back centrifuges from 1,500 to 500, Iran is now at 6,104.
* Iran was allowed to keep the Anrak facility, which is non-pivotal to their "peaceful" nuclear energy program. The facility can produce enough plutonium to create two bombs a year.
* Little is known of the Fordow facility and their potential capabilities. Their ability to create a bomb is unknown and could already exist or otherwise soon exist. Also, the facility's mountainous enclosure makes it defensible against aerial assaults.
* Iran was required not to stop or curb their intercontinental ballistic missile development.
* The (quick) expiration of the deal ultimately enables Iran to become nuclear military power, according to Henry Kissinger.
* Nuclear inspections are not anytime, anywhere, meaning it will be quite easy for Iran to mask their nuclear weapon development efforts.
* Iran relieved of sanctions while making little to no significant concessions.
* Iran's propaganda of America being 'The Great Satan' continues unimpeded. Meanwhile, their own criminal activities abound.
* https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2015/04/27/10-ways-obamas-iran-nuclear-agreement-fails

[Pavlov]

[lol plagiarism]You didn't answer the question.


Now, what are you saying Obama should have done about it instead?

[Spurtacular]

You didn't answer the question.


Now, what are you saying Obama should have done about it instead?

Link is listed, dink.

Now, tell me what you think was so great about Obama sanctioning and even enabling Iran's nuclear capabilities. Could it be that you don't have a good answer?

[Pavlov]

Link is listed, dink.Still plagiarism according to you.


Now, tell me what you think was so great about Obama sanctioning and even enabling Iran's nuclear capabilities. Could it be that you don't have a good answer?Already answered.

You never answered mine:

Now, what are you saying Obama should have done about it instead?

[Spurtacular]

Still plagiarism according to you.

Already answered.

You never answered mine:

Now, what are you saying Obama should have done about it instead?

I said posting something in it's entirety is plagiarism / copyright infringement. But I summarized the points and gave the source for you.

Certainly Obama shouldn't have signed that agreement "instead". He created pretty much the worst possible outcome, honestly.

Now tell me what you think is good about that deal; why should we have agreed to it? Clearly, I listed many downfalls from just the one source. I imagine there are yet many others, too.

[Pavlov]

I said posting something in it's entirety is plagiarism / copyright infringement. But I summarized the points and gave the source for you. Plagiarism, according to you.


Certainly Obama shouldn't have signed that agreement "instead". He created pretty much the worst possible outcome, honestly.I didn't ask you what you think he shouldn't have done.

Now, what are you saying Obama should have done about it instead?

[Spurtacular]

Plagiarism, according to you.

I didn't ask you what you think he shouldn't have done.

Now, what are you saying Obama should have done about it instead?

I just told you, numb nuts that Obama should not have signed the agreement. Now, tell me why you think the agreement was good. This is a handful of times that you have chosen to not answer that. I don't believe you have a good answer for that, unless you somehow count that other nations capitulated as a good answer.

[Pavlov]

I just told you, numb nuts that Obama should not have signed the agreement. .I didn't ask you what you think he shouldn't have done.

Now, what are you saying Obama should have done about it instead?

[dabom]

I just told you, numb nuts that Obama should not have signed the agreement. Now, tell me why you think the agreement was good. This is a handful of times that you have chosen to not answer that. I don't believe you have a good answer for that, unless you somehow count that other nations capitulated as a good answer.

Do you understand what he is asking you? Should I explain it? Do you know what English is?

[Spurtacular]

I didn't ask you what you think he shouldn't have done.

Now, what are you saying Obama should have done about it instead?

Okay, I'll tell you, after you tell me what you think we got out of the deal. Can you even do that, panty waste?

[Pavlov]

Okay, I'll tell you, after you tell me what you think we got out of the deal. Can you even do that, panty waste?Nope, you're behind on the question count. No new questions til you answer this one I have already asked you several times.

Now, what are you saying Obama should have done about it instead?

Can you even answer that?

[Spurtacular]

Nope, you're behind on the question count.

Now, what are you saying Obama should have done about it instead?

Can you even answer that?

You want to have an existential distraction rather than actually make a tangible case for why the Iranian nuclear agreement was worthwhile. This illustrates that you know the deal was shit. Congratulations, sperm shielder.

[Pavlov]

You want to have an existential distraction rather than actually make a tangible case for why the Iranian nuclear agreement was worthwhile. This illustrates that you know the deal was shit. Congratulations, sperm shielder.Nope, I want you to answer this one (1) question:

Now, what are you saying Obama should have done about it instead?

[Spurtacular]

Nope, I want you to answer this one (1) question:

Now, what are you saying Obama should have done about it instead?

Will you be making a case for the nuclear agreement if I answer that question?

[Pavlov]

Will you be making a case for the nuclear agreement if I answer that question?Sure.

Now, what are you saying Obama should have done about it instead?

[dabom]

Will you be making a case for the nuclear agreement if I answer that question?

It always seems to me like spurtacular never has any takes on anything. :lmao

[dabom]

Either you fucking man up, or stop bitching. :lmao

[Pavlov]

It always seems to me like spurtacular never has any takes on anything. :lmaoHe's furiously trying to find something to plagiarize.

[Chris]

Obama dindunuffin'!

[dabom]

Look guys, debates are about positions.

If you say what Obama should have done, well what are the repercussions of that?

If you can't explain those both things, STFU. :lol

[Spurtacular]

Sure.

Now, what are you saying Obama should have done about it instead?

We shouldn't have signed the agreement. We should have pursued Hezbollah as a criminal entity as is shown by Project Cassandra. As such, we should not have also paid a secrent $1.7 million American dollar cash drop to them. We should have thusly continued the sanctions. We should have continued to explore all military options as we monitored Iran's nuclear capabilities. And we probably should have worked with the international community to create a red line wherein they would face war if they choose to enrich uranium and explore nuclear weapons capabilities.

Now, you tell me why the agreement was good. I don't think you have a good answer for it.

[dabom]

:lmao

[dabom]

So war, huh? :lmao

[Pavlov]

We shouldn't have signed the agreement. We should have pursued Hezbollah as a criminal entity as is shown by Project Cassandra. As such, we should not have also paid a secrent $1.7 million American dollar cash drop to them. We should have thusly continued the sanctions. We should have continued to explore all military options as we monitored Iran's nuclear capabilities. And we probably should have worked with the international community to create a red line wherein they would face war if they choose to enrich uranium and explore nuclear weapons capabilities.That did absolutely nothing about their nuclear capabilities. Not even the pre-existing ones you were bitching about. And the war you threatened would probably be a unilateral decision. You want to enlist to fight that war?


Now, you tell me why the agreement was good. I don't think you have a good answer for it.It's an eight country+EU agreement to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons for several years.

[Spurtacular]

That did absolutely nothing about their nuclear capabilities. Not even the pre-existing ones you were bitching about. And the war you threatened would probably be a unilateral decision. You want to enlist to fight that war?

It's an eight country+EU agreement to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons for several years.

It prohibits them. It doesn't prevent them; and in fact it actually enables them given that the sanctions are lifted as well as other factors. Wow, you really failed to deliver, as expected.

[Pavlov]

It prohibits them. It doesn't prevent them; and in fact it actually enables them given that the sanctions are lifted as well as other factors. Wow, you really failed to deliver, as expected.Have they broken the agreement?

[Spurtacular]

Iran pinky-sweared not to build nuclear weapons.

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[Pavlov]

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmaolol red line.

[Spurtacular]

lol red line.

Why would that be funny?


Have they broken the agreement?

Would you bet a thousand dollars that they haven't?

[Pavlov]

Why would that be funny?What would your military action against Iran look like?


Would you bet a thousand dollars that they haven't?Trump keeps certifying it. Take it up with him.

[Spurtacular]

Trump keeps certifying it. Take it up with him.

I didn't ask to hear about your daddy issues. Would you bet a thousand dollars that Iran hasn't broken the agreement?

[Spurtacular]

What would your military action against Iran look like?


This is the existential distraction I spoke of. It has no bearing on the fact that we actually gave Iran concessions and material support to further their nuclear weapons advancement. This is why Hillary never had a counter every time Trump called it a "disaster." It's fundamental reality.

[Pavlov]

I didn't ask to hear about your daddy issues. Would you bet a thousand dollars that Iran hasn't broken the agreement?Depends on your definition. TSA and I already discussed it long ago. As long as Trump certifies the agreement, that's good enough for me.


This is the existential distraction I spoke of. It has no bearing on the fact that we actually gave Iran concessions and material support to further their nuclear weapons advancement. This is why Hillary never had a counter every time Trump called it a "disaster." It's fundamental reality.And he keeps certifying the agreement. That's fundamental reality.

Let me know when Trump comes up with something else to replace it.

[boutons_deux]

Let me know when Trump comes up with something else to replace it.

Trash/MIC want to kill the Iran deal, and then bomb Iran for oil

[Pavlov]

Trash/MIC want to kill the Iran deal, and then bomb Iran for oilProbably another plus for the existing agreement then.

[Spurtacular]

Depends on your definition. TSA and I already discussed it long ago. As long as Trump certifies the agreement, that's good enough for me.



Hardly lock-stock logic given that Trump has stated that Iran is not following the agreement.

[Pavlov]

Hardly lock-stock logic given that Trump has stated that Iran is not following the agreement.He keeps certifying it and hasn't come up with anything else. We can talk about it when he decertifies it and comes up with something else.

[Spurtacular]

:cry Please give me an out. :cry

So, what is your measure for success for the agreement? If in some odd months or years Iran has nuclear weapons, will the agreement be a failure?

[Pavlov]

So, what is your measure for success of the agreement? If in some odd months or years Iran has nuclear weapons, will the agreement be a failure?If they have nuclear weapons before the end of the agreement term, it will be a failure -- but the consequences for Iran in that case are pretty bad. That's an advantage to the multilateral agreement.

The important thing is for the US to live up to everything they agreed to. Can't half-ass it like we did with the DPRK.

[Spurtacular]

If they have nuclear weapons before the end of the agreement term, it will be a failure -- but the consequences for Iran in that case are pretty bad. That's an advantage to the multilateral agreement.

The important thing is for the US to live up to everything they agreed to. Can't half-ass it like we did with the DPRK.

And what will those "pretty bad" consequences be?

[TSA]

943888201457926149

[spurraider21]

so is nick short your kyle griffin?

[Chucho]

so is nick short your kyle griffin?

Oh Lordy.

[Chris]

Congress Launching Investigation Into Obama Admin After Hezbollah Report


Congressional leaders are launching an investigation into the Obama administration’s efforts to kill a massive investigation into the Iranian-backed terrorist organization Hezbollah following a stunning report published by Politico on Sunday.

The report alleges that the Obama administration sabotaged a federal investigation into Hezbollah – dubbed “Project Cassandra” – so that President Obama could get his Iran deal to pass, fearing that any action against the terrorist group would stop Iran from agreeing to the deal.

Because of the report, multiple congressional officials and insiders confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon that an investigation is taking place that will look into multiple aspects of the alleged interference.

"Lawmakers will be paying particular attention to whether [National Security Council official Ben Rhodes] or other senior officials accused of misleading Congress and the American public about the Iran deal played a role in thwarting the Hezbollah investigation," the Free Beacon reports. Citing sources with knowledge of the matter, the Free Beacon reports that congressional investigators "are already preparing letters to various U.S. government agencies in order to obtain greater information about the alleged interference."

House Oversight Committee member and chairman of its National Security Subcommittee, Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), told WFB that lawmakers are examining evidence that could implicate top Obama administration officials:

I've long believed that the Obama administration could not have done any more to bend over backwards to appease the Iranian regime, yet news that the Obama administration killed the investigation into a billion-dollar drug ring that lined the terrorist group Hezbollah's pockets in order to save its coveted Iran deal may very well take the cake. Hezbollah is a brutal terrorist group with American blood on its hands and it would be unconscionable for American policy to deliberately empower such a nefarious group. Congress will be investigating this thoroughly and my National Security subcommittee will be particularly interested in how such a decision came about and whether it was driven by key Iran deal architects such as Ben Rhodes.

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) told WFB that he was not surprised by the alleged actions by the Obama administration and that an investigation is needed to determine the extent of what happened:

The report alleging the Obama Administration turned a blind eye and allowed Hezbollah to pump drugs into the United States to fund its terror campaigns in the Middle East is not surprising. Hampering the DEA's investigation of Hezbollah would be emblematic of the previous administration's fixation to strike a nuclear accord with Iran at any costs. This blind eye imperiled our efforts to combat Iran and its proxies' malign behavior and left us with a cash-flush Iran on the warpath across the Middle East with a nuclear program legitimized by the [Iran deal]. Congress needs to investigate this report and do what the Obama Administration refused to do, severely increase pressure on Hezbollah and hold the terrorist group, and its benefactor Iran, accountable for their crimes.

In a statement, Dr. Peter Vincent Pry told The Daily Wire that Obama’s Iran deal is one of the greatest threats to U.S. national security and that the Obama administration put America’s safety at risk with their policy decisions:

“Project Cassandra” wittingly or not, in ancient Greek is named for “an unheeded prophet of disaster”—an apt description of the anti-drug program against Hezbollah sabotaged by the Obama Administration to protect their Iran nuclear deal, and an even more apt description of the Iran nuclear deal itself. The extraordinary sacrifices made by the Obama Administration for the Iran nuclear deal endangered U.S. homeland security by facilitating Hezbollah’s criminal and terrorist activities against the American people and against U.S. allies. For the Iran nuclear deal, the Obama Administration sacrificed U.S. national security interests by alienating our closest Middle Eastern allies, including Israel and the moderate Middle Eastern states. The Iran nuclear deal itself is among the greatest threats to U.S. national security, promoting the fiction that Iran’s advance toward nuclear weapons has been halted, albeit temporarily. In fact, we know nothing of the kind. The inspection regime for the Iran nuclear deal leaves uninspected Iranian military bases and suspected clandestine facilities—where Iran almost certainly continues building nuclear weapons. Indeed, there is substantial and compelling evidence Iran achieved nuclear weapons capability years before the Iran nuclear deal. Was the Iran nuclear deal really appeasement, a surrender to Iran’s geostrategic and economic interests, so Iran would not disclose the politically humiliating and terrifying fact that, on Obama’s watch, Iran built their Islamic Bomb?

Dr. Pry is the executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and director of the U.S. Nuclear Strategy Forum and served as the chief of staff on the Congressional EMP Commission, the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, the House Armed Services Committee, and the CIA.

www.dailywire.com/news/24982/congress-launching-investigation-obama-admin-after-ryan-saavedra

[Chris]

Obama Echo Chamber Manufactures Media Narrative Ahead Of Investigations Into Hezbollah Scandal


he former Obama officials who manufactured a media “echo chamber” to sell the Iran deal are now working to undermine a bombshell report that revealed how former President Barack Obama’s administration derailed its own Drug Enforcement Agency’s efforts to stop Islamist terrorist group Hezbollah from developing a global narcotics syndicate.

The Obama administration gave Hezbollah a pass, according to a bombshell Politico piece, in order to protect the Iran deal — one of the few remaining pillars of Barack Obama’s legacy.

Two Republicans on the House oversight committee, Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis and Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan announced a congressional investigation into the scandal on Thursday, calling on the Department of Justice to release all documents on the subject.

Former deputy national security Ben Rhodes has spearheaded an effort to discredit the Politico report, attacking it as a made up right-wing conspiracy, even though Politico is a left-leaning news organization.

Other Obama officials, including former National Security Council officials Tommy Vietor and Ned Price, have mobilized to spin an exculpatory media narrative ahead of coming investigations into the scandal.

Organizations funded by the Ploughshares Fund, a left-wing donor group that helped the Obama administration manufacture positive Iran deal coverage, have pushed that same narrative smearing the Politico story.

943274278098583552

Rhodes, Vietor and Price have been “blatantly lying” about the story since it broke, Politico reporter Josh Meyer stated Wednesday night.

“You’ve either not read it or are willfully disregarding the many other people quoted, the documents people can link to and the obvious facts,” Meyer said in a series of tweets addressed to the trio.

“I’m compiling a list of [questions] to post for you guys, and for the congressional hearings,” Meyer said. (RELATED: Israeli Politicians Demand Obama Forfeit Nobel Peace Prize After Hezbollah Report)

Rhodes bragged to the New York Times last year that he duped reporters who “literally know nothing” into helping him create an “echo chamber” around the Iran deal.

The Obama administration also used outside groups including Ploughshares to help create their echo chamber.

Ploughshares, it was revealed after the Iran deal was struck, funded media organizations and reporters as part of their efforts to manufacture a favorable media narrative. National Public Radio was among the complicit outlets and accepted $100,000 from Ploughshares.

Rhodes, Prince and Vietor have all remained in the public forum, attacking Trump and pushing pro-Iran deal talking points since leaving the White House. Rhodes’ attacks on Trump are often quoted in the media, while Prince is now an NBC contributor and Vietor co-hosts popular left-wing podcast Pod Save America.

Ploughshares, meanwhile, is still churning out narratives in favor of the Iran Deal.

Immediately after the Politico story broke, Ploughshares president Joe Cirincione, an MSNBC contributor, attacked it as a “shabby neocon hit piece.”

Ploughshares-funded members of the echo chamber have been pushing out the same talking points as the Obama officials in response to the Hezbollah scandal.

Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian-American council, wrote an opinion piece for HuffPost defending the Obama administration against the Politico report. Parsi insisted that Obama’s treatment of Hezbollah had nothing to do with the Iran deal and dismissed the Politico report as “based on a conspiracy theory.”

What Parsi’s column did not disclose is that Ploughshares has given his organization $263,000 in grants between 2013 and 2017 for work in support of the Iran deal, according to a Daily Caller review of Plougshares’ annual reports over that time.

Ilan Goldenberg, Middle East director at the Ploughshares-funded Center for New American Studies, similarly trashed the Politico report as as a “conspiracy theory.”

Meyer said Thursday that he is the target of “an orchestrated smear campaign which STILL hasn’t contested a single fact” in his story.

943922153501659137

Ploughshares declined to comment on whether they have coordinated their response to the Hezbollah scandal with other groups.

Florida Republican Rep. Ron Desantis told the Washington Free Beacon that the Obama administration’s actions toward Hezbollah may be the biggest Obama-Iran scandal yet. (RELATED: Here’s How $37 Million Of Obama’s Iran Ransom Could Go Straight To Funding Terrorism)

“I’ve long believed that the Obama administration could not have done any more to bend over backwards to appease the Iranian regime,” DeSantise said, “yet news that the Obama administration killed the investigation into a billion dollar drug ring that lined the terrorist group Hezbollah’s pockets in order to save its coveted Iran deal may very well take the cake.”

DeSantis said it would be “unconscionable for American policy to deliberately empower” Hezbollah, which he described as “a brutal terrorist group with American blood on its hands.”

Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse is also demanding an official investigation following the Politico report.

“If the Obama administration failed to use the authorities that Congress has authorized to stop Hezbollah terrorists and their associates from pouring cocaine onto our streets to fund terrorism and acquire weapons of mass destruction, it was a colossal mistake,” Sasse said in a letter to the Justice, Treasury, and State Departments.

“If the administration did so in order to shore up its foolish nuclear deal with Iran, it was a mistake of historical proportions, a mistake the consequences of which reach from the battlefields of Syria to the streets of Omaha and Scottsbluff,” Sasse said.

But even as congressmen demand an investigation into whether the Obama administration deliberately gave a pass to a global terrorist organization, the Obama echo chamber appear to be succeeding.

By the time this article was published Thursday evening — four days after the Politico report — The Washington Post, The New York Times and CNN and have combined for zero articles about the scandal.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/21/obama-echo-chamber-manufactures-media-narrative-ahead-of-investigations-into-hezbollah-scandal/

[Chris]

944550147463303169

[boutons_deux]

FBI/CIA people say this is pure bullshit fabricated to deflect from Mueller's tighten noose around Trash's fat neck

[Spurtacular]

If they have nuclear weapons before the end of the agreement term, it will be a failure -- but the consequences for Iran in that case are pretty bad. That's an advantage to the multilateral agreement.

The important thing is for the US to live up to everything they agreed to. Can't half-ass it like we did with the DPRK.


And what will those "pretty bad" consequences be?

[spurraider21]

He keeps certifying it and hasn't come up with anything else. We can talk about it when he decertifies it and comes up with something else.
i thought he didn't certify it as of october

[Spurtacular]

944550147463303169

I'm surprised Politico even published it, tbh.

[Chris]

I'm surprised Politico even published it, tbh.

They have been surprisingly non-bias lately imo tbh

[Spurtacular]

They have been surprisingly non-bias lately imo tbh

I wouldn't go that far. At the end of the day a news enterprise has to produce something worthwhile or failure sets in. They are far from non-biased.

[Chris]

I wouldn't go that far. At the end of the day a news enterprise has to produce something worthwhile or failure sets in. They are far from non-biased.

I wanted to say that they pretty much publish anything that might catch a click, but before and shortly after the election they were 100% anti-Trump.

[boutons_deux]

Have you Muslim/Obama haters seen where Sessions let BigPharma get away with killing 1000s of Americans? BigPharma and killer cops kill more Americans than terrorists.

[rmt]

FBI/CIA people say this is pure bullshit fabricated to deflect from Mueller's tighten noose around Trash's fat neck

Wasn't it Politico that published the article? They are not right-leaning nor any fan of Trump's.

[clambake]

the suffering

[boutons_deux]

yet another Repug/Fox fabricated fake controversy to deflect from their boy Trash and mafiya going down