obama netanyahu

Because how could ‘the smartest man in the room’ ever be wrong?

….Barack Obama on Wednesday said Israel was the only country to object to the Iran nuclear deal, opposition he said was “sincere” but “wrong.”

In an address to the American University in Washington, Obama said the Iran deal was “the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated. And because it’s such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support.”

….“I’ve had to make a lot of tough calls as president. But whether or not this deal is good for American security, this isn’t a hard one, it isn’t even close,” he said.

Lashing out at unnamed critics of the deal, Obama said those who opposed the interim deal “were wrong,” and were now using the success of the interim deal to buttress its opposition to the nuclear deal…..

As “president of the United States, it would be an abrogation of my constitutional duty” to fail to pursue a policy good for America “simply because it causes friction with a friend and ally,” Obama said.

Obama said the US had “no illusions” about Iran’s support for terror groups such as Hezbollah. “But they engaged in these activities for decades. Before sanctions, and while sanctions were in place. They even engaged in them during the Iran-Iraq War, which cost them a million lives. The truth is Iran has always found a way to fund these efforts.”

“Just because hardliners chant ‘death to America’ doesn’t mean that’s what all Iranians believe. Those hardliners have been opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus,” said Obama….

Via Real Clear Politics:

Related:

National Review Online: Is This Seriously a Line from a Speech by the President of the United States?

Times of Israel: Obama: If Congress kills Iran deal, rockets will fall on Tel Aviv

USA Today: Pelosi says Iran deal ‘a diplomatic masterpiece’

Free Beacon: Netanyahu: Iran Nuke Deal ‘Will Bring War’

NY Post: Kerry got ‘bamboozled’ on Iran nuke deal: GOP senators

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
9 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. Alain41 says:

    Shorter Obama, you can believe and trust me because; Heads I win, Tails you lose.

  2. Kitten says:

    He’s unbelievable, and his fantasy rhetoric gets worse and worse by the day. I think he comes up with the most outlandish, crazy thing he think of and just blurts it out. He IS the original honey-badger. He doesn’t care, and if he can poke the eyes of the low-t GOP while he threatens Israel, even better!

  3. Maynard says:

    Peggy Noonan cut to the heart of the problem in a previous essay:

    There is an odd, magical-thinking element in the psychology of recent White Houses. It is now common for those within them to assume that history will declare their greatness down the road. They proceed as if this is automatic, guaranteed: They will leave someday, history will ponder their accomplishments and announce their genius.

    The assumption of history’s inevitable vindication is sharper in the current White House, due to general conceit—they really do think they possess a higher wisdom and play a deeper game—and the expectation that liberal historians will write the history.

    The illusion becomes a form of license. We don’t have to listen to critics, adversaries, worriers and warn-ers, we just have to force through our higher vision and let history say down the road we got it right.

    They make this assumption because they don’t know much about history—they really are people who saw the movie but didn’t read the book—and because historical vindication is what happened so spectacularly in the case of Ronald Reagan. So it will happen to them, too.

    Today Taranto writes about Kerry’s floundering defense of the deal. He makes a point:

    It’s worth noting the contrast between the way in which Obama administration supporters treat domestic and foreign adversaries. When Tea Party protesters said “Take back our country”—a commonplace political trope—they imagined it had invidious racial implications and argued that it discredited opposition to Obama’s domestic initiatives. “Death to America” is invidious on its face, but the administration and its apologists are anxious to explain it away.

    This expresses the fundamental attitude of Obama and his people: That foreigners are basically good and peaceful, and the threat to peace and the planet come from the American heartland.

    I suppose the fact that we put insane people like this in charge is a manifestation of some terrible national death wish.

  4. pamelarice says:

    Shorter Obama: So, nanny nanny boo boo :^P We won get over it…

  5. Dave says:

    This man is pursuing WWIII.

  6. rickh says:

    “Just because my homeboys shout Death to America doesn’t mean they want to kill me…uh…you… and the Joooos.”

  7. Alain41 says:

    BBC affirms how pathetic it is. Has a story with the headline; “Tough negotiators, The women who made the Iran deal happen”. So if you’re against the deal you’re, Sexist!!! (Also has another headline; “How Jon Stewart changed the world”. Cocoa puffs land sighting.)

  8. Alain41 says:

    Regarding Obama’s speech at American University where he said that Republicans are like Iranian hardliners; Jed Babbin in his Wash. Times OpEd today, informs that AU was selected for Obama speech because JFK gave a speech there in 1963 (commencement address) where he talked about diplomacy over war with the Soviet Union (speech title was, A Strategy of Peace). The AU students surely knew that and you can’t boo JFK, so I think that greatly contributed to student reaction. Of course JFK just had Cuban Missile Crisis and had to convince people that he wasn’t a nuclear warmonger whereas Obama retreats whenever possible and doesn’t need to do that. I’d love if an old Republican came forward and said, I knew JFK and Mr. President, you are no JFK. Course that takes some thought and courage. Hmmm, I think I see a flaw in the plan.

  9. Alain41 says:

    Regarding Obama saying that Israel has been interfering in U.S. political matters in an unprecedented way. So says the President that sent campaign staff to Israel to work for the election of Bibi’s opponent. Projection much.

You must be logged in to post a comment.