Aren't the sanctions exactly what we have to trade here? Aren't the sanctions in place because of their nuclear program? Why would you think they'd make a deal that didn't include some relief from sanctions - and what else are we going be willing to give them? barfo
We could surrender. Wouldn't be the first time it happened during this presidency. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...s-do-about-the-framework-agreement-with-iran/ Under President Obama’s leadership, we had the “reset” with Russia, we had the “pivot” to Asia, we had the “red line” in Syria, we declared Iraq to be “sovereign, stable and self-reliant,” we had Yemen as a “success story” — and now we have the “framework agreement” with Iran. What could possibly go wrong? Why would anyone withhold support for the president? But seriously, now that the president has announced this framework agreement with Iran, calling it “a good deal, a deal that meets our core objectives,” what should Republican leaders do?
They should commit suicide. Same thing they should have done before the agreement. Since you asked, and since you clearly are interested in a serious discussion. barfo
Trade implies we received. Can you tell us what exactly we received? Obama doesn't seem to be able to tell us.
Nope. I'm not sure why the negotiations weren't nationally televised like every previous treaty negotiation. They must be hiding something! barfo
I didn't know previous treaties had that kind of exposure. I only thought they needed full disclosure to and consent of the Senate. If you don't know what we received, I suppose that is understandable. Does your Senator know? Mine doesn't seem to know.
Ah! And you, me and neither or our Senators know what Obama has done. You know, it is not suppose to work this way.
All this deal has done is insure Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Egypt buy/develop their own nuclear weapons. I suspect the Iranians look at this deal the same way the Nazis looked at the Molotov-Von Ribbentrop Pact: Something to buy them time and something to break at a time of their convenience.
Concise talking points, designed for message boards. Where do you subscribe? ALEC? I'd expect the bottom of your glossy talking points poster to quote a domestic leader like a Republican. Instead, it quotes Netanyahoo, the GOP's god. That's because the Party has no electable leaders, and they know it. Why not just nominate Netanyahoo in 2016? You guys keep putting him forward as if he's the best you have, and you're right.
Why make an enemy out of one of our strongest allies in favor of a peace overture that doesn't accomplish our goals to a sworn enemy? You're too smart for this.
Actually, it is supposed to work this way, and it has always worked this way. The President has the authority to negotiate agreements with other countries without keeping Congress in the loop. barfo
