Congress Investigates Iran deal deceptions

[TGHusker]

I wonder how the Iran deal will bite us down the road. It is off to a very shaky start.

 

 

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/congress-investigating-obama-admin-deception-iran-nuke-deal/

[zoogs]

It seems like this should be getting bigger play: http://www.vox.com/world/2017/4/24/15407078/obama-iran-prison-swap

 

At first blush, it's not real positive.

[JJ Husker]

An excerpt in reference to one of the prisoners the Obama administration released-

 

"Just so we’re clear: The Obama administration described a person who had allegedly helped procure components for IEDs that would be used to kill Americans in Iraq as a "businessman." That’s like describing Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar as an “entrepreneur”: It’s technically accurate, but it's also a striking omission of critically important details."

 

If I recall correctly, numerous posters told us loudly and often how good of a deal this was for the US and for keeping a lid on the Iran nuclear program. Hmmmm.

[zoogs]

The Iran nuclear agreement is important. That doesn't make all actions taken to preserve it unworthy of criticism. And whether or not the U.S. surrendered unsavory characters, I think it's still rather clear that the cost relative to the deal wasn't that high -- Iran's supply of shady businessmen and its engagement in bad but non-nuclear program activities wasn't going to change much with the exchange. Just as US activities counter to Iranian interests haven't undergone an overall reversal.

 

Let's see how this Politico report and the feedback to it develops. I'm curious how firmly this "run with it" thesis Vox is putting out there is going to be supported.

[knapplc]

So, on one hand we have people upset because Obama didn't settle the North Korea issue peacefully.

 

On the other, we have people upset because he tried to settle the Iran issue peacefully.

 

 

 

In both instances, the people upset are conservatives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's almost like the people who foisted the Birther and "Obama is Muslim" crap on us just plain don't like anything he did.

 

 

 

 

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[JJ Husker]

So, on one hand we have people upset because Obama didn't settle the North Korea issue peacefully.On the other, we have people upset because he tried to settle the Iran issue peacefully.In both instances, the people upset are conservatives.It's almost like the people who foisted the Birther and "Obama is Muslim" crap on us just plain don't like anything he did.¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think it has a lot more to do with not trusting Iran and their track record of earning that distrust than anything to do with being conservative or disliking anything Obama did. But whaddya know, it looks the people decrying this Iran nuclear deal at the time it happened, primarily for two reasons, the shady characters we released and the doubts that the administration was making a good deal or would/could enforce it, are being proven right. They basically lied about the type of people they were releasing and then acquiesced on holding Iran accountable. In a nutshell, they got bent over and backdoored by Iran without the benefit of any Vaseline. It seems to me the people still thinking it was a good deal and supporting Obama on it are the same ones who have trouble accepting that he could possibly do anything wrong. I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would be trying to turn this into a conservative/liberal thing. This should be troubling to everyone. If you don't find it upsetting, you're doing it wrong. But it's water under the bridge now. We've got a new administration and new problems to be concerned about, and still also this pre-existing continuing Iran problem.

[zoogs]

In a nutshell, they got bent over and backdoored by Iran without the benefit of any Vaseline.

Is this accurate? I'm curious how you would support it.

[JJ Husker]

 

In a nutshell, they got bent over and backdoored by Iran without the benefit of any Vaseline.

Is this accurate? I'm curious how you would support it.

That is the impression I got from reading the two linked articles above. I don't feel like I need to support it and I'm not sure how anyone can think it was a good deal at this point. It may have been a little bit of a hyperbolic analogy but dang, you read the same articles.

 

I don't want to throw a hissy over it because we have more pressing problems but yeah, It's worth mentioning. I would've preferred it got handled better back then cuz I'm not sure the current administration won't make it into a bigger problem. It would be nice if we had/have people in place that would/ could deal with it somewhere between the two extremes. Trumps solution is likely a lot more destabilizing. Where's the happy medium?

[zoogs]

I would argue for the exchange to be a good deal.

 

- Iran is not significantly changed in its pool of bad actors working against US interests, as well as their desire to do so.

- The nuclear deal is still intact and, so long as the new administration doesn't tear it up in search of a war, on track to continue.

 

Looks like a peaceful win to me. There's criticisms that the story reveals but "Iran deal shown to be scandalously bad" doesn't seem to be one of them.

 

The chief implication being made I think is that it wasn't necessary for the administration to give up even this much. If that's the case, then absolutely the Obama admin. should be criticized for freely giving more than necessary. It's not clear to me that this is an accurate suggestion, however.

[knapplc]

Saudi Arabia is more dangerous to America than Iran.