This could be a bigger deal that what originally appears on the surface. It’s one of those things that make other things make sense.

For several years people have wondered what would be the specific benefit to foreign entities sending millions of dollars to the Clinton Family Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State.

Obviously most of the outside interest is directed toward inquiry and concern of a quid-pro-quo relationship between the State Dept and the donor itself.
However, HotAir shares a specific example that might actually make more sense when considering the contributions on a larger context.
The U.S. State Dept is responsible for oversight of sanctions imposed against nation states like Iran and Cuba. If an entity, individual or nation state, wanted to engage in a business deal in direct violation of those sanctions, and do business with Iran or Cuba, a direct donation to the head of the body who would be in charge of the oversight might help your efforts. (more…)

This won’t end well…. Iran resupplying the rebels in Yemen and Obama holding steadfast wanting to negotiate a nuclear deal with them.

(Via The Hill) U.S. military officials are concerned that Iran’s support for Houthi rebels in Yemen could spark a confrontation with Saudi Arabia and plunge the region into sectarian war.

Iran is sending an armada of seven to nine ships — some with weapons — toward Yemen in a potential attempt to resupply the Shia Houthi rebels, according to two U.S. defense officials.

Officials fear the move could lead to a showdown with the U.S. or other members of a Saudi-led coalition, which is enforcing a naval blockade of Yemen and is conducting its fourth week of airstrikes against the Houthis. (more…)

The deal is what we say it is, until it isn’t what it’s not; and then it becomes something the Iranians say it is.

Gotcha.

For more great content:

https://www.pjtv.com/

Home-billwhittle2

To push their ridiculous Iran narrative, the White House puts this graphic out via Twitter.

Worth sharing: Here's how the #IranDeal would shut down Iran's pathway to a nuclear weapon → http://t.co/BWuabs0TNz pic.twitter.com/8aYQi2KEgq

— White House Archived (@ObamaWhiteHouse) April 8, 2015

A not so subtle and snarky swipe at Benjamin Netanyahu who spoke before the U.N. with this image: (more…)

(USA TODAY) The first thing one needs to know about the nuclear deal with Iran is that it is not, in fact, a deal. You might be confused about this point, given that so many news outlets refers to a “deal” that doesn’t exist.

In fairness, many do so simply for expediency’s sake. The various parties to the talks did come away with an agreement, but it was an agreement to haggle more about what a deal might look like. We don’t have a good word for such things, so people use “deal” as a placeholder.

But in any other realm of life, if you left a negotiation where things stand in Lausanne, Switzerland, you wouldn’t think you had a deal. The known disagreements are profound and the room for further disagreements vast. (more…)

Over the weekend, as part of the administration’s full court press to support the construct of a deal with Iran, President Obama gave an interview to NPR. In the interview President Obama was asked about the deals’ critics and specifically Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin who shared that any agreement with Iran should be reversed by the next president.

President Obama responded by ridiculing Walker, and saying he should “bone up on foreign policy”:

(Via CBS) […]  “The president was asked in an NPR News interview about Walker’s recent comments promising to reject any Iran deal Mr. Obama reaches on his first day as president.

(more…)

….”It’s a forever agreement“, he says.

Of course it is. Something that doesn’t factually exist can be just about anything you determine it to be. If an elephant walks through your front yard, how many pancakes does it take to fill a canoe?

Only the Secretary of Cocker Spaniel Hair Care knows the answer !

(Via The Hill) The nuclear deal negotiated with Iran is a “forever agreement” that will last well beyond the next decade, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said Monday from the White House briefing room.

Moniz, who played a key role in negotiating the nuclear pact in Switzerland, said the framework agreement provides for intrusive inspections that would ensure Iran is not racing to build a nuclear weapon. (more…)

The Obama/Kerry “deal with Iran” is a ruse, a fraud, a total gimmick. There is “no deal”; nor can any administration official point to an outline of a deal that holds the agreed upon parameters of both the coalition and Iran.

It is annoying in the extreme to see media pundits talk about “the deal” as if it actually exists. The only visible points Obama has for a deal was a written release from the White House containing discussion points that Iran has since dismissed as total lies and make believe.

No deal exists; no agreement exists; it’s all theoretical nonsense created for political consumption. With that in mind, Canada says it will not participate in the removal of sanctions: Canadian officials say they will only ease sanctions if Iran demilitarizes its nuclear program, noting Iran’s record isn’t trustworthy.

(more…)

When President Obama, or more aptly Team President Obama, feel they are losing the media edge they turn toward a familiar strategy. Call in Thomas Friedman, give him an interview, and the New York Times will publish the transcript as a commentary.

Interviewed Sat. by columnist @tomfriedman, Pres Obama says he understands PM Netanyahu's "deep-rooted concerns" about the Iran framework.

— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) April 5, 2015

In August of 2014 the rise of ISIS visibly beheading Americans was the political embarrassment the White House needed Friedman’s assistance to control.  In April of 2015 it’s the general embarrassment of a non-existent Iran Nuclear deal. A deal in name only.

Within the article President Obama expresses that if Iran were to fulfill its pledge to “wipe Israel off the face of the earth” he’d be unhappy with Iran.

[…] I’m willing to do is to make the kinds of commitments that would give everybody in the neighborhood, including Iran, a clarity that if Israel were to be attacked by any state, that we would stand by them.

Of course, in actuality, when the considerations involve Nuclear weapons, there wouldn’t be a “them” to stand next to any longer – But Thomas Friedman skips right over that little uncomfortable truth. (more…)