Obama foreign policy, Iran Deal vs. National Security

Truth Zone—

Obama foreign policy, Iran Deal vs. National Security

keySo name for me a foreign policy success, a success that Obama has achieved that would indicate his promises of Iran’s future behavior will pan out.  After all, the president has assured us that with this deal Iran is now gonna be a bunch of nice guys, that we can essentially trust them. Name an enemy of the United States in foreign policy that Obama has dealt with effectively.  The Democrat Party and their foreign policy gave us ISIS. 

Why, then, are we giving them $140 billion and why is he admitting that he knows they’re gonna use this money to expand their terror networks?

~Rush Limbaugh

Why Obama is wrong about Iran’s “good intentions”—they don’t think like we do, and never will

Related: Shocking facts

Treasonous Plan in Benghazi revealed: Kidnap Stevens and exchange him for the blind sheik

Rush Limbaugh radio

obama-iran-bowThe president’s telling us, and John Kerry told us, in case you have forgotten, do you remember what John Kerry said yesterday about why we did this deal?  John Kerry said that one of the reasons why, one of the main reasons why we did this deal was to show the rest of the world the peaceful nature of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

So name for me a foreign policy success, a success that Obama has achieved that would indicate his promises of Iran’s future behavior will pan out.  After all, the president has assured us that with this deal Iran is now gonna be a bunch of nice guys, that we can essentially trust them.  Well, let’s look.

This is my point But let’s go.  What about Libya?  Libya is an absolute mess.  Libya is an absolute joke compared to what it was.  Obama backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  He destroyed Iraq and he destroyed Syria when he bugged out of Iraq and thus created ISIS.  And that is so true that Obama and the Democrats are trying to blame Bush for ISIS, yeah, Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib and all these other violations of dignity that our torture program involved, gave us ISIS.  No.  Obama gave us ISIS.  The Democrat Party and their foreign policy gave us ISIS. 

He’s done nothing to slow the aggressive behavior of the ChiComs or the Russians.  He traded five high-value terrorists, gave away five high-value terrorists for a traitor and deserter, Bowe Bergdahl.  You talk about the Cuban deal, he has legitimized the Castros.  Think of that.  The Castros, Raul and Fidel now have been essentially validated and legitimized.  The only person on the world stage that Barack Obama has successfully undermined — let’s look at it that way.  Name for me one enemy of the United States that has been undermined.

netanyahuName an enemy of the United States in foreign policy that Obama has dealt with effectively.  You can’t.  And yet there is an answer to the question.  There is someone on the world stage Obama has undermined.  Who is it?  It’s Benjamin Netanyahu and our ally, Israel.  Obama has undermined Israel.  Obama has undermined Netanyahu.  The prime minister of America’s great ally in the Middle East. 

obama-hates-israelNow, we’re supposed to trust that Barack Obama has now tamed Iran and the Ayatollah Khamenei and his buddy of mullahs with this piece of paper granting them the right in a certain number of years to develop a nuclear weapon is going to be make them nice guys and it’s gonna show them we don’t intend them any ill or harm.  (interruption)  What’s what?  (interruption)  Well, I know, his response (imitating Obama), “Well, what’s the alternative, what would you do?  I mean, what would you do with Iran?  Would you go to war?  Would you put boots on the ground?”

media-sycophantsAt his Victory Dance with the Media …

No, if you’re gonna enter into negotiations with them, and if what they desperately want is a nuclear weapon, then they’re gonna have to pay for that an incredible price, and one of the incredible prices they’re gonna have to pay is ongoing, never ending monitoring.  If they claim they don’t want a nuclear weapon, we’re gonna be on site 24/7 to prove to ourselves that all they’re doing is developing nuclear power.  If that’s what they really want, they’re gonna let us watch every step of the way.  And if they don’t let us watch every step of the way, then we do not help them move forward. It’s that simple. We keep the sanctions on and maybe even clamp them down.  That’s my alternative.

The Democrats when they say, “Well, what’s your alternative?” They always think, “What are you gonna do, just gonna turn loose the Israelis to bomb Iran? Are we gonna bomb?”  No, no.  We don’t have to do that.  They really want this.  The Iranians really want it.  Why do they want a nuclear weapon?  Who threatens them?  Who do they threaten?  Why in the world do they want one?  Doesn’t matter, they do.  They really want one.  Well, then exact a huge price for it.

KerrybloodyhandsBut that’s not what we have done here in any stretch of the imagination.  We’re supposed to trust instead that Obama has tamed Iran with this deal.  And John Kerry has told us, oh yeah, the Iranians, the purpose of this deal was to show what a trustworthy partner they are.  But all I’m asking is for some evidence that Obama can deliver on any promise he makes in the area of foreign policy, and what evidence exists that Obama’s even playing this straight.  Based on past performance, if Obama says Iran will not get the bomb, they will.  You can take that bet to Las Vegas right now, if they would even give you odds.

If Obama and John Kerry are right about the peaceful nature of Iran, then why would rejecting the deal automatically mean war?  Did you hear what Obama said about this?  Obama has, and Kerry, too, they’ve made it clear that if we don’t do this, that the Iranians are gonna get so mad that who knows what they might do.

What do you mean?  We’re told on the other side of their mouth that Iran is peaceful, that Iran is well-intentioned, that Iran just wants to join the community of nations, that Iran just wants to be in the big clique, that Iran just wants to be respected.  Well, then, why would they be a clear and present danger to the world, should this deal be voted down?  Have you heard the intensity with which Obama’s threatening Congress?  Why?

I mean, if Iran is harmless, and if Iran is just well-intentioned and all that, and we can do a deal here to illustrate the good nature of the Iranian government, why threaten people with what Iran might do if this doesn’t happen?  I mean, how do the two go together?  How could Iran be this wonderfully peaceful — and, by the way, that is a new one on me.  That is a great insult to everybody’s intelligence anyway.  Everything’s upside down.

But still, the question remains: If they are this wonderful set of characteristics Obama and Kerry tell us about, then why are they gonna go bat nuts if they don’t get their deal?  The two just don’t go together.  And, by the way, as you’ll hear in the sound bites coming up here in a moment: If Iran would not sign this deal if we had included that they release American hostages, well, how can you trust these people?  If that’s a deal-breaker?

treasonaidabetenemyWhy, then, are we giving them $140 billion and why is he admitting that he knows they’re gonna use this money to expand their terror networks?

Not to mention the leftovers will be spent widening and deepening their path to nuclear weapons.  So Iran’s dangerous. They told us that: Iran’s dangerous.  These things don’t go together, folks.  On the one hand Obama tells us that Iran’s dangerous and he knows they’re gonna take some of this money they get from the sanctions being lifted and sue it to fund their terrorist networks. And on the same hand, Obama told ’em, “We can’t demand the release of those four Americans ’cause then they would demand other concessions, and we can’t provoke them in that way.”

I mean, the world has gotten angrier with his presidency and his arrival. It has gotten more dangerous. It has become more deadly.  And you know it’s insane when a reporter asks a question about American hostages and why they weren’t released in “a landmark deal,” and the reporter is seen as the primary threat, not the Iranians! Major Garrett is a primary threat to Obama.  Major Garrett’s a primary threat to whatever. 

Major Garrett’s the problem! A reporter for CBS News is the problem, not Iranians.  They’re holding the four hostages, but Major Garrett’s the problem.  He had the audacity to bring that up. The audacity! Here everybody’s basking in the glow of this wonderful, great deal. “Oh, my God, no president could have ever, ever done this kind of deal,” and Major Garrett stands and says what about the four hostages: Why don’t you release them?

Well, there went the glow of the day.

That just blew up this entire manufactured good vibe of a press conference, and so Major Garrett had to be taken out.

Advertisements

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s