Half Moon Bay Review
TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

Ten Questions About The Iran Deal

Robert Satloff asks 10 questions about ObamaDeal, and, as a supporter of ObabaDeal, Jeffery Goldberg takes them on. Or promises to take them on. Scroll to the bottom:

Web Link

I'm especially eager to hear His answer to question #10:

10. In your final debate with Mitt Romney in October 2012, just before you came before American voters for the final time, moderator Bob Schieffer asked you specifically what sort of Iran deal you would accept. Your response was: “The deal we’ll accept is that they end their nuclear program.” Notwithstanding the significant achievements of the Iran agreement, it clearly falls short of “ending their nuclear program.” Moreover, you and your spokespeople regularly disparage as warmongers those who advocate what you once called for. Why did your own position in 2012 become warmongering by 2015?


As Goldberg points out, the GOP - in their support for Bibi's pissy little enfant terrible routine - have made any potential strengthening - if such a thing be possible - moot.

Great article. Thanks.

Whether one views Netanyahu as friend or foe, Goldberg has yet to obtain answers to any of Satloff's questions.

>>"Goldberg has yet to obtain answers to any of Satloff's questions."<<


Goldberg has yet to obtain and post answers to ALL of Satloff's questions, which is what he promised... a single post with answers.

Quote from Goldberg:

"I’ll follow up this post with another one in which I try to elicit answers to his questions, if not from administration officials, then from people who are more ardently pro-deal than myself."

Since the questions were posted just yesterday, it's a little irrational to expect full replies to all ten today.

Goldberg has yet to obtain answers to any of Satloff's questions.

My local auto service center has yet to respond to my request to schedule a 50K oil change.

I suspect something nefarious and controversial.

^^^ Since the questions were posted just yesterday, it's a little irrational to expect full replies to all ten today. ^^^

Bamby and Horseface have been working on the deal for several months. If it were truly a good deal for the US, they could easily have answered those questions. In fact, were they more forthright to the American people, those questions wouldn't have had to be asked in the first place.

Question #10 really points out the treachery of Obama and His administration. The clown frequently lies to the American people with ease not seen since the Clinton years, yet he still has an ample supply of well-0conditioned clapping seals to support His every nefarious deed.

Well, America loves a winner.

Obama has crushed the conservatives on just about every major issue throughout his presidency. They haven't really beaten him once. Not in elections, not on Obamacare, not on his appointees, nothing.

The Iran deal is just about their last chance... and they're going to fail. Again. Web Link

That Kenyan Muslim Socialist "clown" is going to retire undefeated.

Can't stand it, can you?

Lot's of locker room style bloviating, but still no answers to some important and straightforward questions.

waste time argue deal. $$$ change hand alread.

I wonder what this means: "A Special Letter to the President From Members of the Democratic National Committee", Web Link ?

And this: "Vote tally for Iran nuclear deal rises to 31 in Senate", Web Link

And this: Web Link

^^^ I wonder what this means: "A Special Letter to the President From Members of the Democratic National Committee" ^^^

It means that Democrats, which few exceptions, are choosing their party over America.

Yet, still no answers to Satloff's 10 questions.

>> Waste time argue deal. $$$ change hand alread.<<

$$$ change early. Suppose happen 2016.

^^^ $$$ change early. Suppose happen 2016. ^^^

Senate Democrats may filibuster a vote on ObamaDeal.

They're clearly a party-over-country bunch that is willing to kick the grenade down the road for a rather trivial "win."

Shame on Corker and McConnell for their contrived legislation that turned the "Advice and Consent" provision of our US Constitution on its head.

And shame on President Obama for failing to keep a campaign promise and allowing the Iranians to obtain nukes.

"Yet, still no answers to Satloff's 10 questions." Is this a quiz? or just another cheap trick?

Maybe you missed the post just prior to your quoted response. In addition to reading what I wrote, it may be of benefit to open the links, read them, then comment. That way, you have a chance at appearing smart and understanding what it is that others are discussing.

There are three links, all chalk full of information. Open them up; check them out. You just might learn something new!

Maybe I can be of some assistance. The second of the three links I posted above is this one; "Vote tally for Iran nuclear deal rises to 31 in Senate", Web Link

Here's how it starts out: "WASHINGTON (AP) — Oregon's Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley on Sunday became the 31st senator to announce support for the Iran nuclear deal, as momentum builds behind the agreement the Obama administration and other world powers negotiated with Tehran."

"Merkley's backing puts supporters within reach of the 34 votes required to uphold a presidential veto of a congressional resolution disapproving the agreement, which curbs Iran's nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in sanctions relief."

Now you'll have to excuse me, but I forgot ... how many members does the Senate hold? And, how many would be required to support or over-ride a Presidential veto?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Next issue, please.

^^^ In addition to reading what I wrote ^^^

No answers. Just the typical George-a-palooza. That's how George starts. That's how George ends, and that's how George fills everything in between.

Try answering #10 in 100 words or less. I can do it in five: "Because I (Obama) lied in 2012."

Incivility and the Iran Deal: Web Link

An environment of hostility exists where the intensity with which Obama and his supporters are fighting for the agreement is proportional to both its flaws and the corrupt political culture that Obama brought to Washington.

If the agreement were so beneficial to America's national interest, it would have been compelling on its own merits. It would have not engendered the ensuing controversy or the accompanying intense hostility against its detractors that has been laced with anti-Semitic innuendo and accusations of preferring war to peace.

Conservatives are down to complaining about "incivility"??? That's a beauty.

"The Iran nuclear deal is marching Israelis to the door of the oven." -- Mike Huckabee

"John Kerry acted like Pontius Pilate." -- Sen. Tommy Cotton

“You have created a possible death sentence for Israel.” -- Lindsey Graham

“If this deal goes through, the Obama administration, President Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, will become the leading global financiers of radical Islamic terrorism.” -- Ted Cruz

“The Obama Administration’s negotiating strategy with Iran is called appeasement." -- Jeb Bush

“This is the most dangerous, irresponsible step I have ever seen in the history of watching the Mideast." -- Lindsey Graham

And these are the people with the thumbs in their mouths, whimpering about Obama being insufficiently polite.

That's just too precious.

Try focusing on the point of the article, Mike, instead of your gamesmanship.

There is so much wrong with both the idea of sanctifying Iran's dangerous nuclear track and the insane way the deal was implemented, that Obama has had to intensify his efforts in attacking the opposition.

All for a phony Barack Hussein Obama "legacy".

Ah, yeah, the old middle name thing. Because that's always worked so well, right?

So much for "focusing on the point."

Would you rather BO? Hussein is no better or worse than the rest of his name.

Guess you wanted to change the subject though.

Barack Hussein Obama hasn't answered any questions, either.

He's having more fun being anti-Semetic, lying to Americans and accusing those of holding the same views he had 3 years ago of being "war-mongers" or "terrorists."

"Try answering #10 in 100 words or less." Play with yourself. I'm not interested nor should anyone be in your pointless cancerous drivel and ridiculous hypothetical Q&A.

The deal is done. You have not, nor has anyone in Congress, nor anyone else provided any other alternative (save another conflict). The evidence of support is clear and overwhelming.

The deal will be upheld by the US, whether liked by all or not. The reason? It is the best path to a non-nuclear Iran for the foreseeable future. That was the goal going in and that was what was accomplished.

So bray on, dude; look the fool. Life will just continue to pass you and yours by.

Have a nice day.

* Are we going to have to read more of your pure crap for another (at least) four years when the republicans lose the 2016 election just like they lost the 2012 and 2008 elections?

^^^ The deal is done. ^^^

No surprise that a fool would gloat over Obama successfully defrauding the country and Congress:

Web Link

Read the whole thing, but note this money line:

As such, the side deals violate the requirements of the Corker-Cardin bill (the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act), which requires that the administration provide to Congress all documents associated with the Iran nuclear agreement — including all side agreements.

The secret side deals amount to national security fraud by the Obama administration. There are many reasons for members of Congress to vote against the Iran deal, but it's hard to see how anyone in Congress can vote for it in light of this deliberate attempt by the Obama administration to conceal from Congress its effort to drop a crucial benchmark needed to verify Iran's compliance with the agreement.

Still no answers to any of the 10 questions.

But here's a vet that opposes the Iran deal: Web Link

Maybe George can call him a traitor or warmonger, too. Anything but answer straightforward questions about the deal.


Laydeeez and gentlemeeeennnn...

We have a decision!

The winnahhh......

And still undefeated champion....


Web Link

"Still no answers to any of the 10 questions"

You are not looking hard enough Francis. From Jeffrey Goldberg's column

Web Link

Now we get to see radical left-wingers dance in the street like Palestinians after the 9/11 attacks.

But as Mike Gaynes notes, it's all about Obama. America doesn't even figure into their thinking.

^^^ You are not looking hard enough Francis. From Jeffrey Goldberg's column ^^^

The answer to #10 really isn't an answer at all. It's just excuses put forth by another radical left-winger that is more enamored with The One than America.

The vital (per Francis) 10th question: Here is the response

"A: It’s good that you brought up that debate, because there was some unusual unanimity on America’s objective when it came to Iran. Governor Romney himself didn’t draw the line you accuse the president of drawing; no, Romney said his own strategy as president would be “to dissuade Iran from having a nuclear weapon through peaceful and diplomatic means.” President Obama—if you look at what he actually said instead of cherry-picking phrases—argued that “there is a deal to be had, and that is that they [Iran] abide by the rules that have already been established. They convince the international community they are not pursuing a nuclear program. There are inspections that are very intrusive.”

Flash forward almost three years and the president has brought us precisely to that place he wanted to go: a deal that forces Iran to play by the rules that have been established for nuclear development in the international community, with an inspections regime that nonproliferation experts have said is remarkable, with a “snapback” provision that tightens the noose around Tehran if they cheat, restoring crippling sanctions in a way that can’t even be blocked by Russia or China. Actually, we could go one step further—the United States and our European allies and the other big powers got Iran to agree to abide not only by the rules that apply to all other countries, but to live by a series of additional obligations that restrict that program in some cases for 10-25 years and in some cases permanently.

President Obama’s clear commitment from day one—and restated in that debate—was very simple: that Iran would not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, period. Now we have an agreement in front of us—at last—that can achieve exactly what President Obama and Governor Romney agreed had to happen. We should embrace it instead of throwing it away and isolating the United States."

That is the answer. You have been whining for days to get the answer. Now you don't like the answer. You want a different answer.

It's a done deal. Move on to the next crisis. Obama will not be running again even though WND and Rush thinks he will.

Yeah, right. Maybe you didn't take note that the "radical left-winger" answering the Sartlaff questions is an Israel lobbyist? Ben-Ami is the son and grandson of Zionist pioneers, and he (like me) has most of his family in Israel. J Street speaks for millions of American Jews who see Netanyahu for what he really is... and his Republican supporters for their true colors.

As for celebrating Obama, you bet I am. True American leadership is always to be celebrated, and Obama has led a unified international effort on this issue.

And since defeating conservate obstructionism is always what's best for America, the continuation of the unbroken string of defeats for the Right is the purest form of patriotism.

I apologize in advance, but is the looong awaited, anticipated answer to this OP's Q 10 out?

I'm picking up the conversation from Mr Bill's post above and it looks like an answer to me, but is it THE Answer that might finally release us from the absurd extreme position we see from Gualala's best?

If I had to guess, I'd have to think it is, judging from the response francis has provided; but I'd like to be sure.

After all, none of us has had a moment's sleep since the question was asked - waiting with baited breath for this oh so critically important answer.

^^^ It's a done deal. Move on to the next crisis. Obama will not be running again even though WND and Rush thinks he will. ^^^

What a stupid comment.

And where's the answer to this part of Zatlof's Q#10: Why did your own position in 2012 become warmongering by 2015?

I fear that Americans are going to learn the hard way that they were deceived once again by Obama and his clapping seals. This deal does nothing to prevent Iran's nuclear breakout. Why don't you just admit that you don't care if they get nuclear warheads for their ICBMs?

"And where's the answer to this part of Zatlof's Q#10: Why did your own position in 2012 become warmongering by 2015?"

If you had read and comprehended the reply to Number 10, you would understand that your question is moot. He had the same position in 2012 (the same as Romney) as he does now.

>>"Why don't you just admit that you don't care if they get nuclear warheads for their ICBMS?"<<

Yeah, right.

Why don't you just admit that your side lost on the merits of the deal?

Why don't you just admit that your side lost because the opposition, rather than the support, was largely based on it being Obama's initiative (most Republicans ripped the deal before reading it)?

Why don't you just admit that your side lost because it WASN'T just Obama's initiative, it was Mutti's and Cameron's and Russia's and China's as well?

Why don't you just admit that your side lost in the court of world opinion, where over 100 nations besides the P5+1 signatories backed the deal -- including the UN Security Council (unanimously), the EU, NATO, the Arab League, the Persian Gulf States and ASEAN... and only Israel opposed it?

Aw, to heck with all that. Why don't you just admit that your side lost?


"This deal does nothing to prevent Iran's nuclear breakout." Complete hogwash and you know it. The difficult part for you, seems to be comprehension of what is and the facts that create what is.

And to tie it altogether, here's another quote, from the same poster on the same post, that fits like a hand in glove with the quoted comment I just posted; "What a stupid comment."

Like stripes to a zebra, sugar to coffee and hand to glove - what an appropriate fit.

Here's another perspective on topic: "Valerie Plame Calls Out Republican Hypocrisy Over Response To Iran Deal", Web Link

We remember Valerie Plame, don't we?

And, not that those in opposition will agree or even care (because it is factual), here's another person's view on this matter: "Bomb Iran? Maybe Not a Good Idea", Web Link

Here's the lead-in: "As the critical vote on the Iranian nuclear deal nears, politicians of all ilk keep calling for military action against Iran as the alternative. The necessity appears to be more driven by the need to curry favor with Israel, than any other reason. John McCain thought it was cute when he publicly used a parody of a 1965 Beach Boys release of Barbara Ann and sang "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran.""

Those dancing the streets with other anti-American zealots over the Iran deal have a strange concept of "winning."

Support from the American people is needed for a "win," yet most oppose ObamaDeal by a nearly 2:1 margin.

Approval of 67 Senators is needed for a "win," yet of 46 Democrats, only 34 have indicated support for the deal. Instead, the moronic Republican leadership allowed Obama to turn the US Constitution on its head once again. Given the goose-stepping nature of today's Democratic Party, tat virtually assured the deal would not be stopped.

A "win" would be a deal that makes the world a safer place. This deal makes the world much less safe, and will start a nuclear arms race in the mideast.

And a "win" would require a deal that benefits America, one that would stop Iran's nuclear weapons program. This deal will not achieve that goal.

This was a "win" for Obama and his sycophants. It's a significant loss for everyone else. The next president can tell declare the deal null and void, but Iran will still have that $150 Obama and the Democrats just gave them to fund more terror against America and its allies.

The Democrats still have an opportunity to "win," at least in the Senate. Unfortunately, they will likely filibuster any attempt to bring the measure to a vote.

As far as they're concerned, they don't need the consent of the governed to actually govern. They're quite happy being tyrants and shoving everything down everyone's throat.

Looks like somebody could use a timeout.

Anger, denial and hate are such ugly colognes.

>>"...oppose ObamaDeal by a 2:1 margin."<<


"Poll shows majority wants Congress to approve Iran deal" Web Link

It is truly Un-American for the Democrats to filibuster in the Senate. They don't want the consent of the governed. Thus spake Francis.

The Republican controlled Senate has the opportunity to close the filibuster rule and have chosen not to. Perhaps because they found reason in the first six years of the Obama presidency to filibuster or "hold" bills or Presidential appointments hundreds of times.

It is obvious that Francis and his Republican cronies are in need of a war fix. Since the departure of the neocons we are not bombing and killing enough to satisfy their needs. If peace breaks out all over what will they do. They are thankful for ISIS, but that isn't something that the neocons can rely upon. If we start making peace with the likes of the Iranians who knows where it all could lead.

Mike, haven't you learned anything here?

Haven't you learned that polls don't matter and are completely fixed (by those darn democrats)?

From the linked poll Mike provides us above: "A new survey shows a majority of Americans wants Congress to uphold the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran."

"According to the survey from the University of Maryland, 55 percent of respondents said Congress should get behind the agreement, despite some concerns."

"Twenty-three percent, meanwhile, said lawmakers should instead ratchet up sanctions, and 14 percent wanted U.S. officials to go back to the negotiating table."

"In a key stat for Democratic backers of the agreement, 61 percent of independents recommended that Congress approve the deal, along with 72 percent of Democrats."

"Just 33 percent of Republicans expressed support, highlighting the partisan divide that has formed over the agreement, which sets limits on Iran’s nuclear ability in exchange for the lifting of sanctions."

But with just about every poll being BS, a conspiratorial fix by media and those darn left wingers, we can be certain that just the opposite is true ... (unless, of course, the results are what one wants).

And we await the further denial ... from "Another Coastside community".

The poll cited by Mike Gaynes seems to use a common slight of hand. A more complete picture is provided by the Rasmussen poll:

Web Link

Most say "no deal" unless Congress agrees.

But that is only one part of my argument. And there's no way that Democrats will allow a vote to proceed in the Senate. They don't really care what Americans think about the deal. To them, it's all about Obama.

Lett the sellouts keep dancing in the streets with the Palestinians and other anit-Americans!

Many are similar to Francis in that they do not accept the legitimacy of any poll which does not conform to their pre held beliefs. Thus there is never any need to change their opinion.

Well, we have seen link after link demonstrating the fact that facts in opposition to one's strongly held beliefs are not only ignored, but cause the individual to dig in deeper in defiance.

What I find amusing within that defiant post, however, is this: "They don't really care what Americans think about the deal. To them, it's all about Obama." We're talking about a lame duck President whose ratings have seen better days and who nobody owes any allegiance whatsoever.

So what world, prey tell, does our Gualala live in? Further, how much hate, anger and denial can one man hold?

The Rasmussen poll cited by FD is seven weeks old (the one I cited came out today)... and despite Rasmussen's conservative slant, its own figures back then found a roughly even split and 18% undecided.

And since then, lots of undecideds have apparently made up their minds to support the deal as they learned more about it.

Of course, FD's version is that 55% of Americans hate their own country and want Iran to have nukes and destroy us. But he also seems to be having strange visions of street dancing, so....

correction; in my post just above, I wrote; "So what world, prey tell, does our Gualala live in?"

It has come to my attention that I have inadvertently (and embarrassingly) painted an entire community with one stroke in a very damning manner.

I would like to offer my apologies to all residents, businesses and property owners of the fair City of Gualala - save one; the one that posts his 'stuff' here on TA.

God forbid an entire community be damned because of one drama queen. I sincerely apologize to all the others in Gualala, both for my mistake and your suffering.

^^^ It is obvious that Francis and his Republican cronies are in need of a war fix. ^^^

You know that is a lie, yet you wrote it anyway. That makes you a liar. Just like Kerry and Obama.

That Obama's mob can't argue the merits of ObamaDeal without accusing opponents of being warmongers for holding the same views Obama held in October 2012 (as well as every President since 1979, both Republican and Democrat) highlights the weakness of the deal.

That they have to turn the clear provisions of the US Constitution on its head to get the result they want highligths the weakness of the deal as well as their contempt for the US Constitution.

That they now have to work overtime to prevent the deal from coming to a vote in the Senate highlights their contempt for Congres and the People.

Their needlessly gutter politics ensured a "win" for Obama and His cronies, but others will have to pay a very high price for that win.

Now wrap a checkered tablecloth around your head and go dance in the street with the other anti-Americn thugs.

"Checkered tablecloth"???

Dang, the hallucinations are getting more specific.

Now it's not just street dancing... it's street dancing in front of an Italian restaurant.

Mendocino County's favorite cash crop must be especially potent this year.

Methinks this is the "checkered tablecloth " Francis refers to. Here he is hanging with his buddy Newt

Web Link

Add a comment

Please login to comment on this topic.

Login Here

Create a Login

Powered by Podium