... and why aren't the same people who were outraged at Netanyahu meddling in American politics (hint, their names begin with laffy and bigguy30) outraged at Obama meddling in British politics?
I for one, applaud the cojones of the reporter who asked Obama why the Brexit issue was any of his business. I was amused at the slick way he sidestepped the question and regaled the audience about the bust of Winston Churchill in his office. Me personally, I could give a shit about it one way or another, the UK will soon be a country overrun by Muslim immigrants and their Sharia-strict Islamic imams and it will be a real joke to see how long the royals last before some MUSLIM terrorist blows up Windsor castle Allah hu Akbar. I never realized how liberating it can be knowing your expiration date.The Obama administration did not object to Benji’s speech bc he was “meddling in politics” but for two specific reasons:
1. There was major concern that Benji would leak details of the on-going Iran negotiation of which he had been informed, and thereby scuttle the negotiation; and
2. Benji offered no alternative – he just said the Iran deal was bad, disputed the break out time made by US experts, and said no deal was better. No deal, of course, meant Iran would have the bomb in three months, if this was their intention. And Benji insisted this was their intention. So his argument made no sense. Fortunately, Congress was not persuaded.
G.B is voting on exiting the Euro zone- there is no sensitive negotiation going on, and President Obama has no information that is not already public knowledge. Sure, Mr. Obama had no business issuing a public statement on this, so it is fair to say he was “meddling.” But the consequences of his meddling are de minimus- not so with Benji’s speech to Congress.
Sure, there are plenty of reasons to criticize the Iran agreement. Jack will tell you there are all kinds of "maybes", "it's possible" , "this might happen in 15 years " etc. But you cannot dispute that, at least for the foreseeable future, it did prevent Iran from getting the bomb. And it prevented an Israelli strike. There are no targets. No bomb, no war. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
And ,at least so far, there has been no measurable uptick in Hamas/Hezbollah terrorism that we can trace to the release of Iran monies. Moreover, Sec Kerry said only 3 billion has actually been released - that 150 billion figure was a media invention. So I don't think they will be spending much of this to harass you know who
on the other hand, OK i see valid argument these are different paradigms.
But you yourself acknowledged there is an aspect of meddling and influence at play here.
As for the "uptick in Hamas/Hezbollah terrorism" - may I direct you to activity going on as we speak in Syria.
I have more but its late and I'm baked.
1. There was major concern that Benji would leak details of the on-going Iran negotiation of which he had been informed, and thereby scuttle the negotiation; and
2. Benji offered no alternative – he just said the Iran deal was bad, disputed the break out time made by US experts, and said no deal was better. No deal, of course, meant Iran would have the bomb in three months, if this was their intention. And Benji insisted this was their intention. So his argument made no sense. Fortunately, Congress was not persuaded.
G.B is voting on exiting the Euro zone- there is no sensitive negotiation going on, and President Obama has no information that is not already public knowledge. Sure, Mr. Obama had no business issuing a public statement on this, so it is fair to say he was “meddling.” But the consequences of his meddling are de minimus- not so with Benji’s speech to Congress.
Sure, there are plenty of reasons to criticize the Iran agreement. Jack will tell you there are all kinds of "maybes", "it's possible" , "this might happen in 15 years " etc. But you cannot dispute that, at least for the foreseeable future, it did prevent Iran from getting the bomb. And it prevented an Israelli strike. There are no targets. No bomb, no war. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
And ,at least so far, there has been no measurable uptick in Hamas/Hezbollah terrorism that we can trace to the release of Iran monies. Moreover, Sec Kerry said only 3 billion has actually been released - that 150 billion figure was a media invention. So I don't think they will be spending much of this to harass you know who.