CNN: Obama: Leaving Iran deal 'misguided'
Washington (CNN)Former President Barack Obama on Tuesday criticized President Donald Trump's decision to exit the Iran deal, a pillar of Obama's legacy on foreign policy.
"Indeed, at a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away from the JCPOA risks losing a deal that accomplishes -- with Iran -- the very outcome that we are pursuing with the North Koreans," Obama said in a statement. "That is why today's announcement is so misguided."
Trump announced on Tuesday afternoon that he was withdrawing the US from the nuclear agreement with Iran and said he would impose new sanctions.
Read more ....
Update: Dems hammer Trump over withdrawal from Iran deal (The Hill)
WNU editor: I am sure that former President Obama is going to criticize this decision again in the near future.
21 comments:
As Sen. Cotton pointed out in 2015, the way Obama choose to enable this agreement for the USA was via executive order. He didn't send it to the Senate for approval via treaty. Why? because too many Democrats would vote against it and it would never get 67 votes. As an executive order it could be withdrawn by the next President without the advise nor consent of the Congress. Obama knew what he was doing, so did the Sen Dems back in 2015.
Dems being Cassandra's is hypocrisy on the level of Schneiderman. Spitzer and Weiner.
Good No deals with terrible mind of iran
Now you put all your feet up there corn hole
Obama used executive order to get the treaty; Trump used it to dump it
How many Dems would have opposed it? You simply do not know...but you assert as though you know.
Dems are hypocrites and you cite 3 cases of sexual misdeeds? oK : Trump has more in his own past than those three you mention...your gossipy conculsion a nice indication of the sort of person you are
Wow Fred, make it personal because the anon stated the fact that many dems didn't even support the Iran deal.
How about take 5 seconds to Google this before acting like a child and attacking the anon? If you would have done minimal research, you would have seen many articles similar to the link below that state 4 dem senators and 25 dem reps opposed the deal.
Very nice indication of the sort of person you are. Lazy.
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2015/9/11/1420440/-Which-25-War-Mongering-House-Democrats-Just-Voted-against-the-Iran-Deal
And the GOP? fully against it then and now
I attacked because jumped on Dems but left out a heck of a lot of non Dems, ie GOP.
Fact: Trump has used exec orders non stop...it is legal. My complaint about this: a Dem comes in and undoes what got done. Then a GOP person comes in and undoes all done by Dem president. THIS IS NO WAY TO RUN AN ORDERLY NATION
Then you should blame Obama for cutting corners and not doing things the right way. If Obama cared, he would have worked with dems and repubs in the Senate to create an Iran deal that would have been acceptable to both parties. Instead, he cut corners for political reasons. Today is a result of Obama cutting corners. Had he worked with the Senate, the Iran deal would have had more support and have been less likely to be scrapped.
I agree with you that governing by exec order isn't good. I'd rather both parties sit down and work things out the right way. Our system was designed to make the majority party work with the minority. Unfortunately, there's much polarization...to much. And it won't get any better when sides use personal attacks and demonize their opponents as Nazis or racists.
Obama used because gop went on record to say they woul oppose any and all things and that began with newt closing down the govt
Does anyone think Pres. Trump could point to Iran on a map?
Fred, I regret you don’t have command of the facts swirling around the agreement back in 2015. Obama was duplicitous in negotiating this agreement. Had he been square with the American people, he would have had support for an up or down treaty vote. He figured Hillary would win, no reason to come clean.
Strategically that's a good decision. Iran will go down because he has too much on its plate, even with all the money it brings with the stop of the sanctions. Either Iran will go to war with Israel, Saudi Arabia, USA and so on...or it will have an insurgency of its own people. The Ayatollah Regime is going to finish and the nuclear problem with it.
The treaty remains a better option then no treaty
Israel some time ago announced they would not let iran get nukes
Are we to go to war to support that stance?
'America will not be held hostage to nuclear blackmail,'
But America want the freedom to nuclear blackmail and economic blackmail the rest of the world.
And of course, for that betray any pact made before.
Those double standards are what make more than half of the world tired of USA.
So we get to fight and lose another war in Asia? Great!
What has not yet been noted in comments about this treaty:
Saudi Arabia had said some time ago that if Iran gets nukes, then they too would get their own...Turkey (I believe) also said something similar
Fred.allegedly.
And trump is a billionaire. Do you know how hard it is to fight off pu$$y and gold diggers at this level of money? I've never been rich, but wealthy enough to know. And the extortion that comes with fame. Be honest,Fred. You're losing all points by being a political hack lately.separate your disgust and hate of trump the man from the actual presidency and facts
Also, Fred... IT should be clear by now that there is no Russia collusion. Something CNN has been pushing on you for nearly 2 years now. When will you while up? I ask you. When?
Oh that's right. You believe a whore that su*ks d**k for a living (her kids must be so proud ) and a lawyer that CNN had on more than 50 (!!!) Times. They pay him to come on. It's weeks worth of hotel stays and hundreds of thousands of lawyer costs. Stormy isn't paying. CNN is paying.
When will you wake up, Fred?I keep asking you. You believe a wh*re who's out for more money than she already extorted. That you cannot see this.
Meanwhile star Democrat violently beats women tells them he'd kill them and CNN homepage doesn't even have a link on its starting page.
Fred.
Wake up.
Fred. This is not true. Obama pushed the deal and much of it remained redacted. Billions and billions and redactions. Funny whenever Democrats do it this is normal. And you have networks on (cnn mostly) that for 2 years (!!!!!!) bring the nation to chaos and push a narrative of treasonous behaviour by trump on you. Nothing to show for after 2 years. Except massive abuses and withholding of info on the democratic side.
Wake up Fred oh wake up.
A bad treaty is not better. You airways think of treaty =good. This is so stupid. A treaty that is clearly one sided,unverifiable and had been violated IS not good! ! Finally get this point omg
Fred.we know this. It might be news to you,but we know this.
The reason why this deal was so bad is because they got money and get to keep their program and NO Oversight. Of course north Korea and others would like that kind of deal too. You cannot have a deal like this it'll lead to uncontrollable nuclear arms race. Bolton said it best: is not about having a flawed deal and keeping it if one side violates it. It's about stopping them from having nukes..that's where the focus should be. Verifiable compliance is crucial and the deal didn't deliver on this. A new deal can be made. Don't overhype.stop watching cnn. I honestly recommend it
"How many Dems would have opposed it? You simply do not know...but you assert as though you know" - Fred
1) Start with 67
2) Subtract all the Republicans or all but 5.
3) Subtract the number from step 2 from step 1. This is the minimum # of Democrats that would have voted against it. The low estimate is 15. So about a 3rd of Democrats would have voted against Obama.
Everyone knows that before a vote, vote tallies a preliminary counted based on queries by whips (#2 guy or gal for that house of congress for that party).
Post a Comment