Word is, Obama has already fled to another nation for a month, leaving his family behind!

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/324411-obama-vacationing-in-french-polynesia-report

And apparently tons of cocaine has been found aboard the Lady Obama!

Was that anything like the gun running operation under AG Eric Holder often referred to as "Fast and Furious"?

What ever happened to Eric Holder? Oh that's right... He got $hit canned.

Now PowerStroker, you know that is bull$hit... But you're going to say that because you want to take the focus off the Democrats since you know damn well that the problems with Fast and Furious did not even start to happen until the Democrats got in office under Eric Holder... And you know damn well that Obama fired Holder over the issue, where Eric Holder cried like a baby at the podium, knowing darn well he screwed up.

If you read up on Fast and Furious you will also notice all the scandals happened under the Obama administration and NOT under Republicans!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

If you read up on the scandal there is absolutely no mention of any Scandal until after 2008! In fact it wasn't even called operation Fast and Furious under the Bush Administration! It was called operation "Wide receiver"! Clearly the scandal occurred when the Obama Administration took over, as operation Fast and Furious...

I just find it in very poor taste that you would say what you said, knowing full well you're full of $hit.. This is everything that people have come to despise about Democrats. I can only imagine what Democrats are going to say about the American Health Care Act in the next few years when the $hit hits the fan with Obamacare... It should be pretty entertaining to say the least... 

SELLC wrote:

---

If you read up on the scandal there is absolutely no mention of any Scandal until after 2008!

That's because until 2008 it hadn't yet killed any federal agents.

In fact it wasn't even called operation Fast and Furious under the Bush Administration! It was called operation "Wide receiver"! Clearly the scandal occurred when the Obama Administration took over, as operation Fast and Furious...

So you admit it did start under the Bush administration, and by simply changing its name you think Obama should take the blame for it? That's hillarious

I just find it in very poor taste that you would say what you said, knowing full well you're full of $hit.. This is everything that people have come to despise about Democrats. I can only imagine what Democrats are going to say about the American Health Care Act in the next few years when the $hit hits the fan with Obamacare... It should be pretty entertaining to say the least... 

Well, one of the problems with it was put in by Marco Rubio as a poison pill to cut off the subsidizing of healthcare in order to intentionally make it fail so he can use it as a demonstration of why it doesn't work and why you should elect him to repeal it. Kind of a cynical way to govern if you ask me.

---

Some are saying that the legacy of John Kerry is unwinding faster than a mummy on a playground spinning wheel!

Trump has withdrawn from the nuclear deal and already there has been an attack on Syria!

Obama is even on Twitter throwing a fit.. 

I am pretty sure the money is already gone PowerStroker, at least the cash anyway... With the sanctions that are surly fast on their way I am sure they have been bleeding all the money they can out of 

accounts at institutions that could be appropriated. 

They were very cocky during the entire negotiation process, so much in fact you almost had to scratch your head as to why we were even making a deal with Iran! 

I don't know what Obama was thinking when he agreed to this BS, but he sure as heck wasn't thinking of America.

When Democrats sent a plane with $1.5 billion in cash to Iran without ANY congressional oversight I couldn't believe my flipping ears!

What did these other nations pay?

Did they also send $1.5 billion dollars in cash without their nations congressional approval? Just curious...

That's just the problem PowerStroker! WHO SAID "WE OWED IT ANYWAY"?

OBAMA AND KERRY!?

Iran put in place a peaceful and democratic government to be able to buy weapons... soon and they bought them they switched to a hostile government thinking they could

circumvent long standing US policy NOT to sell weapons to hostile and radical nations. 

The bottom line is neither Kerry, nor Obama had the right to make that determination all on their own! That should have been left up to congress who would have almost 

certainly elected to keep fighting it in court. We had the moral high ground, and in essence Obama and Kerry paid for the peace agreement that was $hit anyway!

If you ask me this may very well come to be the biggest scam in the history of the United States!

$1.5 billion cash... Pffft... For fu@ks sake PowerStroker! At least acknowledge it!

PowerStroker wrote:

---

Stellar007 wrote:

---

That's just the problem PowerStroker! WHO SAID "WE OWED IT ANYWAY"?

OBAMA AND KERRY!?

Iran put in place a peaceful and democratic government to be able to buy weapons... soon and they bought them they switched to a hostile government thinking they could

circumvent long standing US policy NOT to sell weapons to hostile and radical nations. 

 

The bottom line is neither Kerry, nor Obama had the right to make that determination all on their own! That should have been left up to congress who would have almost 

certainly elected to keep fighting it in court. We had the moral high ground, and in essence Obama and Kerry paid for the peace agreement that was $hit anyway!

If you ask me this may very well come to be the biggest scam in the history of the United States!

$1.5 billion cash... Pffft... For fu@ks sake PowerStroker! At least acknowledge it!

---

 Actually you can thank Reagan.

The IranUnited States Claims Tribunal (IUSCT) is an international arbitral tribunal established pursuant to the Algiers Accords of January 19, 1981, an agreement between the United States and Iran mediated by Algeria to resolve the hostage crisis. In exchange for the release of the hostages seized by Iranian students on November 4, 1979, the United States agreed to terminate litigation against Iran in U.S. courts and to release Iranian assets frozen by the Carter Administration. Many of the frozen assets had been attached by U.S. claimants pursuant to Treasury license. The U.S. claims agreement with Iran provided an alternative remedy backed by a billion dollar escrow account for U.S. nationals with contract and expropriation claims against Iran.

President Reagan confirmed the Algiers Accords, and the constitutionality of these arrangements was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dames & Moore v. Regan.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_Claims_Tribunal

---

You know, a lot of people do forget that Iran, just prior to this deal, had captured many American sailors and was in fact holding them hostage against their will.. No one remembers that!

So what you're saying PowerStroker, is that under an agreement made back in 1979, where Iran held hostages in exchange for money; we once again paid them money for holding hostages?

This time AMERICAN SERVICE MEN AND WOMEN!?

I am so glad that pussy Obama is out of there! And nothing was settled until such time as Obama misused the money by just giving it to Iran without congressional approval!? Because if you read the last sentence of that quote you posted it says

for U.S. nationals with contract and expropriation claims against Iran.      SEE THAT? FOR U.S. NATIONALS! 

I been calling this $hit since last year this time PowerStroker...

It was an insane deal! What exactly did you like about it, exactly?

What exactly was working, PowerStroker?

If you say that $1.6 billion dollars bought their silence then yes, I would agree! But in reality, just because Iran wasn't running foul of the mouth about the United States of America, it was still very much doing exactly what it was prior to the big cash payout.

They are in Syria working against us right now, so why do we need some kind of agreement to mutually understand that aggression will be met with aggression? Perhaps they might have to resort to taking hostages again?

Knowing what we know it's clear that Iran, North Korea and even Pah-kee-Sthan won't be the last small nations to try and obtain weapons to defend itself. Yet when Obama did his little Osama raid the United States didn't seem to care that Pah-kee-Sthan was a nuclear armed nation, we just choppered on in there, got our man and got the hell out - nukes be damned... allegedly, because you never know with the big O.

All that being said, the few Iranian people I have ever met in my lifetime seemed to be good people, I have no doubts that the people of Iran are good people. They just need to keep the good ones running the country. Feeding your critics to wild dogs, taking hostages and things like that are usually sure indicators that we are not dealing with good people. Certainly not the kind of people you want to entrust with nukes or contractual obligations that may as well be considered un-checked and on the "honor" system with a sunset clause.

So do we just pay everyone in the world $1.6 billion dollars cash to shut them up? Is little Kim thinking that his bad behavior is going to be rewarded in kind like Iran? You know at one time not too long ago in my lifetime we were giving aid to China too! Bringing them out into the civilized world from the recluse shadows of the world... What do we get in return from all the nations that improve and are thriving now? Shit on? Left with the tab and a mess to clean up? There is a reason US dollars are the reserve currency of the world, because if we're not trying to keep the peace there is going to be war and no-ones money will be worth $hit outside their boarders!

UN Atomic Agency: Iran Complying With Nuclear Accord

https://www.voanews.com/a/un-atomic-agency-says-iran-complying-with-nuclear-accord/4266334.html

The United Nations atomic agency has concluded that Iran is continuing to restrict its nuclear program in compliance with the 2015 international accord aimed at curbing Tehrans nuclear weapons development.

A quarterly International Atomic Energy Agency report Thursday said Iran is honoring key aspects of the deal that the United States, China, Russia, France, Germany, Britain and the European Union reached with Iran in exchange for the lifting of sanctions that hobbled the Islamic Republics economy.

U.S. President Donald Trump has criticized what he says are disastrous flaws in the agreement. He has pushed the countries that agreed to the Iran pact to overhaul it, but they have rebuffed him and have continued to support the agreement. Trump has threatened to pull the U.S. out of the agreement and has a May deadline to again consider whether he will waive reimposition of sanctions against Tehran.

In this Oct. 13, 2017 file photo, President Donald Trump makes a statement on Iran policy in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House in Washington.

Iran Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi contended Thursday in a London speech that Trumps frequent complaints about the deal represent a violation of the terms of the accord and have hurt his countrys ability to secure new foreign investment money. He threatened that Iran could pull out of the deal no matter whether Trump again forgoes new sanctions against Iran.

If the same policy of confusion and uncertainties about the (deal) continues, if companies and banks are not working with Iran, we cannot remain in a deal that has no benefit for us, Araghchi said. Thats a fact.

The report said Iran has not exceeded limits on its stocks of low-enriched uranium and heavy water, and did not enrich uranium beyond a limit of 3.67 percent purity required by the agreement.

The deal, long in the negotiating, was aimed at extending the time Iran would need to build a nuclear bomb, if it wanted to, from a few months to roughly a year.

The U.N. agency said that Iran told it in a letter that it had decided to construct naval nuclear propulsion in (the) future.

In response, the IAEA requested further clarifications and amplifications, adding that if Iran went ahead with its naval nuclear propulsion plans, it would need to supply initial design information. Iran has yet to respond, the report said.