After Obama Slobbers All Over the Mullahs, Ayatollah Calls on U.S. Youth to Join Jihad

On Friday, President Barack Obama slobbered all over himself to come to the aide of the Iranian Mullahs–mostly to spite our Israeli allies. But on the very same day Obama gave the Mullahs his undying love, the Ayatollah urged our own kids to join the world wide movement of violent, Islamist jihad.

On Friday, Obama disgorged a “holiday” statement telling the Mullahs that he was celebrating the Muslim holiday of Nowruz (this one a non-religious holiday). During the statement Obama slobbered all over the wonderfulness of the Mullahs and treated them as America’s true friend.

Yeah, these are the same people who kidnapped the American hostages in 1979, the same people famed for their “death to America” rallies, the same people who have exported terrorism all around the world and helped our enemies killing hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq. These are the people Obama says are his friends.

I say his friends, because these Islamist terrorists are not America’s friends. Obama sure may love them, but they don’t love us. And they never, ever will.

Anyway, even as Obama made such a fool of himself on this wunnerful, wunnerful Nowruz day, the very Ayatollah that Obama said is our fast friend issued a statement of his own. In his statement, the Ayatollah called for our children to join violent jihad and kill all of us.

This is Obama’s great friend.

If you can stomach this creep, here is his video statement:

Obama disgorged a series of lies in his Nowruz statement, but no paragraph was more filled with lies than this one:

As I have said many times before, I believe that our countries should be able to resolve this issue peacefully, with diplomacy. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon. Together with the international community, the United States has said that Iran should have access to peaceful nuclear energy, consistent with Iran’s international obligations. So there is a way for Iran–if it is willing to take meaningful, verifiable steps–to assure the world that its nuclear program is, in fact, for peaceful purposes only.

There are several lies, there, of course, but the biggest one is Obama’s claim that the Mullahs issued a “fatwa” against nuclear arms. This is a flat out lie.

No Ayatollah, no Mullah, and no Iranian has ever issued any such fatwa.

As Andrew McCarthy wrote today, the whole claim is a lie.

The invaluable Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) has done extensive research into compilations of Khamenei’s published fatwas. (See here and here, and citations therein.) No such fatwa has ever been published.

In a sharia state, particularly the one in Iran that is actually run by the country’s top sharia jurists, fatwas are important statements of governing law, like statutes are in the U.S. Yet despite repeated requests, Iran has never produced the purported anti-nuclear weapons fatwa from Khamenei.

McCarthy even notes that Islam is not incompatible with nuclear arms. After all Pakistan is one of the most strict sharia states in history and it has had nuclear arms for decades.

Regardless, Iran has no fatwa on nuclear weapons despite Obama’s lies.
Finally, Obama delivered a final outrage in his Nowruz statement by saying that Republicans are exactly like the Iran’s worst Islamist terrorists.

About the desire for diplomacy, Obama said this:

The days and weeks ahead will be critical. Our negotiations have made progress, but gaps remain. And there are people, in both our countries and beyond, who oppose a diplomatic resolution. My message to you–the people of Iran–is that, together, we have to speak up for the future we seek.

So, there are people “in both our countries” don’t want “diplomacy?? Since when do Republicans not want diplomacy? And how are the hardliners in Iran that want to murder all infidels just like the Republicans in our country? If that doesn’t make your blood boil? Obama you are a cretin.

Another Obama 'Dreamer' Commits Murder
[OPEN THREAD] Starbucks: You’re Racist, America! Want Baristas to Harass Customers Over Racism
  • Commander_Chico

    You dolt, our allies in Kurdistan and Azerbaijan also celebrate Nowruz. Not to mention that Iran itself is an unofficial ally in the fight against the real bad guys, ISIS.

    I am disappointed that you have joined the War with Iraq claque, Warner.

    You are now designated an official Chickenhawk.

    • Good thing what you think doesn’t matter, then!

    • jim_m

      Iran is an ally like the USSR was an ally in WWII, but even less so. They are to be tolerated as long as necessary but no further. We should not deter them but in the case of Iran there is no need to aid them in any material way.

      And I would point out that obama is not sucking up to our real allies but pandering to our enemies like Iran and also trying to create bridges with the people who conspired to cause 9/11, the Taliban.

      I find it no insult to be called a chicken hawk by an anti American slime-bag who hates this nation and finds common cause with each and every enemy we have, like you.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Says it all.
    Headline: “Khamenei calls ‘Death to America’ as Kerry hails progress on nuke deal”

    “Iran’s Supreme leader Ali Khamenei called for “Death to America” on Saturday, a day after President Barack Obama appealed to Iran to seize a “historic opportunity” for a nuclear deal and a better future, and as US Secretary of State John Kerry claimed substantial progress toward an accord.”

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/khamenei-calls-death-to-america-as-kerry-hails-progress-on-nuke-deal/

    • Commander_Chico

      More Israeli “let’s you and him fight” propaganda.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Propaganda? Did Khamenei not call for “Death to America”? Was it a day after President Obama urged Iran to seize a “historic opportunity”? And had Kerry claimed “substantial progress” toward Obama’s deal with Iran?

        • Brucehenry

          Actually, the Times of Israel is probably willfully mistranslating the Farsi, as it did when Ahmedinijad allegedly threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.” (Which threat never happened, despite years of wingnut insistence that it had.)

          The LA imes is more accurate:

          “As the Supreme Leader spoke, the crowd chanted ‘Death to America.’ Khamnei said the rhetoric was justified because the US is behind all threats to Iran.”

          So Khmanei is basically expressing understanding of why the crowd feels the way it does, not expressing government policy.

          Once again the rabble expresses its willingness to be roused, just as much here as in Iran. The Wizbang comment section for example.

          • jim_m

            Riiight. The same LA Times that still refuses to release the Khalidi tape? We should believe them because they have never hidden the truth or misrepresented anything n this area? Drop dead.

          • Brucehenry

            Khalidi tape!!! ACORN!!! Frank Marshall Davis!!! Benghazi!!! Coming for our guns!!! FEMA camps!!!

          • jim_m

            The Khalidi tape is relevant here because the Times has concealed it. We don’t know what it contains and they won’t tell us. To accept as gospel on anything related to this area of policy from people who have concealed the truth from us is not rational.

            And ACORN has been convicted of vote fraud so I take it that complaining about proven criminal activity is irrational?

            Benghazi was a disaster, so you are claiming that we should not expect better from our government? You are claiming that the video was responsible as some in the obama admin still claim?

            I suppose the recent ATF attempt to ban ammunition was not a way to back door gun control?

            I have never said anything about FEMA camps because that’s crazy black helicopter crap.

          • Brucehenry

            The tape may have nothing on it but you assume it has a smoking gun. Why is that?

            Yes ACORN was found guilty of voter registration fraud (not “vote fraud” afaik) but your average wingnut found them responsible for everything from commies in the schools to the 2008 financial crisis for a while there.

            Take a look at the Senate’s GOP-led Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi. The one that found that Rice didn’t lie, there was no stand-down order, and that there was no cover-up, and get back to me.

            Please tell me more about this attempt to “ban ammunition.” Was that a blanket ban on ALL ammunition?

            FEMA camps notwithstanding you’ve had plenty to say about Obama’s alleged “tyranny” and yada yada over the years, yet here you are still commenting on Wizbang — the jackbooted thugs haven’t whisked you away yet, nor has the IRS confiscated your assets.

          • jim_m

            I assume that if it had nothing then there would be no reason to conceal it. I assume that it is not relevant what the tape has because as long as the LA TImes is unwilling to disclose it they cannot be treated as an impartial reporter of fact on the middle east or on obama policy.

            It is not about what the tapes hold. It is about the credibility of what the LAT says. As long as they run interference for obama they cannot be trusted.

          • Wild_Willie

            Let’s read some emails from Hillary. Oh! That’s right. She hid them and her server. Nothing wrong with that in Brucies world. Benghazi did happen. It still needs to be looked into.

            A Federal Judge stopped Obama’s overreach of authority. That is tyrannical.

            Acorn was found guilty and your excuse equals Clinton’s ‘it depends on what is, is’.

            You liberals are a pathetic bunch. WW

          • Brucehenry

            A day late and a dollar short, Wet Willie pipes up with some irrelevancies and a couple of tangential gripes. And calls others pathetic lol.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Even by your cite, Khamenei “said the rhetoric was justified”….not that he understood it, but that the chant “Death to America” was “justified.” And we’re supposed to believe that these people will keep any deal we make with them. Peace in our time, Bruce, Peace in our time.

          • jim_m

            Bruce is still offended that they released the hostages after Carter lost.

            Not a clearer example of left vs right policy could have been made. The left will do nothing while our people are held hostage, or like with obama beheaded, and when the right gets something done to protect our people and the nation, Bruce is filled with loathing and contempt.

      • jim_m

        SO telling the truth that Iran wants us all dead is “Propaganda”? WTF chico? How many millions of Americans must die in a nuclear attack in order to satisfy your hatred of our country?

        • Brucehenry

          Keep your shirt on. The only people who have ever died as a result of a nuclear attack were at the hands of America and not Americans.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Yeah, Jim. Shut up until we’re actually nuked – ’cause we’re the only ones who ever used nukes….or something.

          • Brucehenry

            Jim asks “how many must die?” as if some already had. He needs to calm down.

          • jim_m

            The statement does not in any way demand, suggest or imply that anyone has died yet. But according to you people must die before we do anything because “The only people who have ever died as a result of a nuclear attack were at the hands of America”.

            So I ask you, since we must wait to be attacked (presumably because you believe we deserve to be attacked for having used nukes previously), how many people must die before you believe our guilt is paid for and you are willing to stand up for our lives and stop it?

            I’m saying we should prevent it in the first place but you seem to think that Americans deserve to be slaughtered.

          • Brucehenry

            I think we should prevent it in the first place too, only I think the way to do so is to negotiate a good agreement. You seem to think the way to do it is to swagger around being as bellicose as possible and to look at things without addressing the concerns of the other side. You seem to think that force should be a first resort, or that the mere threat of force should suffice to cow every other nation into submission.

            It ain’t, and it hasn’t been that way since the 1950s.

          • jim_m

            Wrong. I say that the best way to do it is to secure a good agreement. I believe that the best way to secure a good agreement is to appear strong. obama and you want the US to come as beggars to the table pleading for mercy. Instead Iran is coming with bellicose rhetoric and bargaining form a position of strength.

            You are a fool and you are supporting the man who will bring about another world war. You know it and you are just too proud to accept the truth.

          • Brucehenry

            This from a man who supports the Cotton Iran letter. You want the US to “appear strong” yet you are pleased that 47 Republican senators choose to undermine negotiations by telling the Iranians that the President doesn’t speak for America.

            Tell me what you would call 47 Democratic senators who wrote a letter to North Korea in 2007 telling them that any agreements made with Bush were likely to be changed in the next administration.

          • jim_m

            Please explain how a clear statement of US law is undermining the negotiations? That’s all that the letter was. Unless following the law would undermine those negotiations the letter did nothing.

            What you really are admitting is that obama is attempting to circumvent our laws and the US Constitution in order to cut an illegal deal with our enemy.

            And you support that. In fact you think that pointing out that fact is wrong. You support our enemies rather than demanding a government that support our interests and one that follows US law.

          • Brucehenry

            “What you are really admitting…” Another strawman. Let me know when you become capable of a discussion that doesn’t employ such dishonesty.

            Iran has been a sovereign nation for hundreds of years, if exploited during the age of colonialism and the Great Game. It doesn’t need an explanation of US law. It has diplomats whose job it is to know these things, as you (and the 47 senators) know full well.

            And you ignore my hypothetical: What about 47 Democrats who “explained things” to North Korea in 2007?

          • jim_m

            You are an ignorant ass. Every position you take (every position anyone takes) has a logical extension based on what that position is. What you are really claiming is that there is no real policy that every thing is utterly arbitrary and there is no plan or consistency to obama’s policies. Every policy must be held in a vacuum and cannot be used to determine other policies and each event must be held in isolation and cannot be used to infer consequences in another situation.

            And no. IRAN didn’t need an explanation. The US public did. obama did. obama was trying to do an end around the US Constitution and the letter outed his illegal activities. He is trying to bind the US to an agreement without consent of the people. He is doing this because he knows that whatever he is planning is bad for the US and is going to piss off the public. If it were otherwise he would be able to force the Senate to go along with him.

          • Brucehenry

            Every position has a logical extension, but not a wild-eyed, paranoid, most-extreme one. Not a twisted one to claim a nonexistent gotcha. You know you’re being dishonest when you do that crap, but even if you don’t, every other reader here does.

            You do know that most agreements reached with foreign states aren’t formal treaties and don’t require Senate approval, don’t you?

            No no don’t answer that, you know nothing as usual.

            http://www.law.asu.edu/library/RossBlakleyLawLibrary/ResearchNow/ResearchGuides/TreatiesandInternationalAgreements.aspx

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_agreement

          • jim_m

            I know that but I also know that obama is seeking to codify any agreement through the UN security counsel in such a way as to try to bind us to it without our consent.

          • Brucehenry

            Bullshit. Wingnut fear mongering, or as you yourself have called this kind of talk, “black helicopter crap.”

          • jim_m

            So then why is obama upset about it?

          • Brucehenry

            Why is the president upset when 47 senators from the opposition party attempt to undermine negotiations conducted by the Secretary of State? Gee, I dunno. Must be hypersensitive or something.

          • jim_m

            How could they be undermining negotiations when they point out the law, which you jsut said is irrelevant?

            Gotcha dumbass. Either obama is trying to circumvent the Constitution and it’s a problem that this has been pointed out, or it is irrelevant and he didn’t need their agreement to go forward in the first place. You have tried to have it both ways here.

          • jim_m

            Oh, and you have already stated that the Iranians are smart enough to know what US law is so if your claim that this is irrelevant to the law then the Iranians won’t be deterred because they know that it isn’t important.

            Otherwise, if obama is trying to circumvent the Constitution they would have known this too and they will then realize that the letter screwed that up and this is only a problem for them and obama.

          • Brucehenry

            Kooky going around your ass to get to your elbow logic again. Don’t ever change, nut.

            ANY president would be upset if ANY senator or group of senators sent a letter to a foreign government in which that administration was engaged in negotiations. That’s because politics is supposed to stop at the water’s edge and the Secretary of State is presumed to be speaking for the US. As I said, I can only imagine the cries of “Treason!” and “Logan Act violation!” from the wingnuts had 47 Democrats sent such a letter to anyone in 2007.

            You know this is true.

          • jim_m

            It was an open letter idiot, not a direct address to a foreign government.

            It was also a direct reading of the law. What do you have against the Constitution? Also, why is it so inappropriate to question obama’s love of this country when he shows ample reason to do so and it is fine to falsely accuse these people of treason?

          • jim_m

            It was also a direct reading of the law. What do you have against the Constitution? Also, why is it so inappropriate to question obama’s love of this country when he shows ample reason to do so and it is fine to falsely accuse these people of treason?

          • Brucehenry

            Never accused these idiots of treason. I said YOU would have had they been Democrats and had this been 2007. And you would have.

          • Brucehenry

            It was a naked attempt to throw sand in the gears of negotiations between the US and a foreign government. It was a naked attempt to undermine the authority of the US president while said president is engaged in important and delicate negotiations. If 47 Democratic senators had sent such an open letter in 2007, reminding a negotiating partner that they intended to renege on any agreement reached after the next election, you and FOX and Red State and every other wingnut would have had a fucking aneurysm and you know it.

          • jim_m

            It was a direct reading of US law. It was a deliberate attempt to force a rogue President who has repeatedly shown contempt for his nation and the rule of law to actually have to be bound by that law.

            If a GOP President were negotiating with our enemy to sell us out I would welcome any number of democrats openly defying his abuse of power.

          • jim_m

            Furthermore, I would oppose any President who sought to abuse his power like obama has, even if in pursuit of a right wing agenda, because unlike dumbasses like you I foresee a time when the illegal expansion of power will be used against me.

            The difference between you and I is that I would seek to roll back obama’s overreach of power (not just the laws but the destruction of the checks and balances) whereas you would seek to use them corruptly.

            That’s the difference between having an agenda and having a moral compass.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes we see how principled you are in your opposition to the PATRIOT Act, and how you opposed the indefinite detention without trial of those imprisoned in Guantanamo — because it could easily be foreseen how those unwise and unConstitutional actions could be used against you. Same with torture, er umm I mean enhanced interrogation.

            Spare me your transparent and insincere declarations of your own civic virtue. You’re as blind a partisan as I’ve ever seen.

          • jim_m

            Someone who backed the Iraq war when the dems were for t and then bailed and called our troops war criminals is no one to throw around accusations of partisanship.

          • Brucehenry

            I was never for the 2003 Iraq war, and I don’t care how many Dems were for it. I never was.

            Don’t remember ever calling “our troops” war criminals, either.

          • Brucehenry

            And still no response to my what if.

          • jim_m

            That was a response to your childish, morally relativistic “what if”. Learn to read dumbass.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I see “if a GOP president were negotiating with our enemy to sell us out.” And you have as evidence that Obama is negotiating with our enemy to sell us out blood-curdling hair-raising reports from the right wing Internutosphere.

            What you really object to is negotiating with Iran AT ALL, and that’s because Bibi told you it’s a bad idea.

          • jim_m

            If by “negotiating” you mean selling us out and our allies like obama is trying to do, then yes, I object to that.

          • Brucehenry

            How, specifically, is Obama trying to sell us out? What are the provisions in the proposed agreement that you object to?

            Or are you just assuming it will be a sellout because you hate Obama? Ha ha no need to answer that.

          • jim_m

            He’s negotiating a scheme that will allow Iran to get the bomb. Nothing of what he is asking for will prevent that. If he were to be negotiating a scheme that prevented them from getting the bomb then no one would be objecting and the GOP would not be trying to scuttle his negotiations. obama has stated previously that he believes that the west is wrong for objecting to islamic nations getting the bomb and has stated previously that Iran has a right to get the bomb. The fact is that obama sees no moral difference between the US and its enemies.

          • Brucehenry

            Sez you and sez Bibi and sez lots of other crazed wingnuts. Just as I thought you have no specific objection just parroting Bibi’s paranoid propaganda.

          • jim_m

            Very well. Then please explain why he then plans to not introduce his plan to the Senate for approval? Is your claim that any plan that would prevent Iran from getting a bomb would be unacceptable? That’s bullshit and you know it.

            SO tell us, Mr Dumbass, why exactly obama cannot get a resolution in favor of a deal that prevents Iran from ever getting the bomb?

            The truth is that obama is negotiating the opposite and you know it. You may not even admit it to yourself yet, but you know that this is the truth. Otherwise you would not have to answer the questions above.

          • Brucehenry

            The assertion you make above that “no one would be objecting” to ANYTHING Obama does, no matter how sensible or not, no matter whether they think it’s good for the country or not, is so ludicrous, so completely lacking in an acknowledgement of the reality we have lived in since 2009, that it doesn’t require refutation. You know and I know that the GOP would object to Obama’s position if he came out in favor of curing cancer.

            So perhaps he will not submit an executive agreement for Senate approval because it is not required and he knows the rabid partisans will oppose it no matter HOW good it is for the US and for Israel — simply because he proposes it they will oppose.

          • jim_m

            Non responsive.

            You know very well that the Senate GOP would find it impossible to object to such an agreement. Or are you now claiming that the Senate has refused to confirm any of obama’s appointments or SCOTUS nominees? I could point out the obvious fact that they have not.

            Reasonable actions in pursuit of the safety and proper governance of our nation have never been opposed by the GOP. They same cannot be said of your party. Unless you are going to claim that secession was done for the best interest of the nation.

          • Brucehenry

            If you think the GOP is going to walk back these wild eyed claims and vote for an agreement, no matter WHAT Obama shows them when the agreement is reached, you are more gullible than even I took you for.

          • jim_m

            Idiot. If the agreement actually did prevent Iran from getting the bomb the GOP would declare that their letter was the cause, claim victory and vote to endorse the agreement.

            The fact is that the letter will only make obama want to betray the nation even more than he already does.

          • Brucehenry

            You have no information that the agreement will not prevent Iran from obtaining the bomb except allegations from wingnuts and Likud propagandists. You are setting your hair on fire over allegations from wild eyed partisans who hate Obama, hate Iran, and hate peace.

          • jim_m

            Again, I type slowly for the mentally retarded…

            If obama was negotiating a deal that would prevent Iran from getting the bomb he would not have to attempt to circumvent the Constitution.

            If obama was negotiating a deal that the Senate would accept (like the above deal preventing Iran from getting the bomb) he would not be seeking to get the UN Security Council to bind the US to an international agreement against the will of Congress.

            If obama was negotiating a deal that was consistent with US national interest then he would not be infuriated by 47 Senators saying that if it did not protect our interests and prevent Iran from getting the bomb that another President would not be formally bound to it because it would not be ratified by the Senate.

            If you care to respond to any of that substance you would shock everyone here, since we all know you to be an ignorant, shallow, partisan shill that cannot think of anything original and can only parrot the BS pushed by leftist windbags from MSNBC.

          • Brucehenry

            You and Bibi and several other wingnuts claim Obama is making an “attempt to circumvent the Constitution.” Red State told you that. FOX told you that. You believe it because you wish to believe it.

            Ditto with your black helicopter crap claims about the UN “binding the US” to anything.

            Again, any president would be upset with senators interfering in active negotiations. Again, if 47 Democratic senators had reminded North Korea that the next president was free to renege on any nuke deal negotiated by Bush in 2007 you would be frothing at the mouth about treason logan act yada yada and you and I both know it.

          • jim_m

            Perhaps you should educate yourself as to the limits of obama’s Constitutional powers: Alan Dershowitz has an interesting article explaining the facs for jack booted fascists like you:

            The President is not the Commander-in-Chief of our nation’s foreign policy. When he is involved in “high-stakes international diplomacy,” his involvement is not as Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, but rather as negotiator-in-chief, whose negotiations are subject to the checks and balances of the other branches.

            As President, he cannot even declare war, though he can decide how a war should be fought after Congress declares it. He cannot make a treaty without the approval of 2/3 of the Senate. He cannot appoint Ambassadors without the consent of the Senate. And he cannot terminate sanctions that were imposed by Congress, without Congress changing the law. Were he the “Commander-in-Chief” of our country — as Putin is of Russia or as Ali Khamenei is of Iran — he could simply command that all of these things be done. But our Constitution separates the powers of government — the power to command — into three co-equal branches.

            obama can negotiate a treaty but that would have to be ratified by the Senate. He can negotiate an executive agreement but that expires when he leaves office. Now I know that you hope that he never leaves office, because a dictatorship is exactly what you have wet dreams about. But that is not how our nation is supposed to work.

          • Brucehenry

            Executive agreements don’t “expire when he leaves office,” dumbass. They can indeed be changed by the next president but they usually aren’t. God you’re an ignoramus.

          • jim_m

            Obama’s will

          • A successful agreement requires both parties to be negotiating in good faith.

            How confident can we actually be that Iran will be negotiating in good faith? Or are they just drawing things out until they can present their all-new 2015 Mark 1 nuke?

          • Brucehenry

            Funny you should mention that, since it goes back to the hypothetical scenario Jim keeps pretending I didn’t ask.

            Is North Korea a trustworthy negotiating partner? Do they have a history of good faith bargaining? No, of course they don’t. Yet the Bush administration kept them engaged in negotiations throughout 2001-2009.

            Now, just suppose 47 Democratic Senators had sent an “open letter” to Kim in 2007, reminding him ever so patronizingly that Bush would be out of office soon, the opposition party was in charge of Congress, and anything that Kim agreed to with Bush was likely to be swept away in a year or two.

            Do you suppose the Bush administration would just quietly accept this kind of crap? Do you suppose FOX and the wingnut blogosphere would accept the lame explanations that Jim has proffered here? Do you think that the Republicans would not immediately begin howling about “treason” and “”violation of the Logan Act”?

          • jim_m

            Yes and you are saying that giving the go ahead to build nukes to a country whose current leaders have stated that using a nuke on the US is a clear goal and should be done as soon as feasible is nothing to worry about.

            I suppose that in 1945 you would have told the Japanese, “Don’t worry. No one has ever built a nuclear weapon so the US certainly can never drop one on one city, much less 2 or more.”

            Pretending that what has not happened can never happen when there are people wanting and working toward that end is idiotic. When Iran’s leaders suggest that someone should make an EMP attack on the US and are soon to have both the weapon and the delivery systems to enable such an attack on our nation, we should take the threat seriously. Instead your lord and savior wants to help them achieve those ends and you are running cover for him.

          • Brucehenry

            I zone out when you begin with “you are saying…” and zone out even further when you continue with “I suppose that in 1945 you would have…”

            Everyone knows what a strawman argument is, Jim, and everyone knows you attempt them all the time.

            Do you have a cite for your allegation about the EMP attack?

          • jim_m

            Try starting here

            “Iranian military documents describe such a scenario — including a recently translated Iranian military textbook that endorses nuclear EMP attack against the United States,” he wrote.

            A knowledgable source said that the textbook discusses an EMP attack on America in 20 different places.

            Arizona Republican Rep. Trent Franks, who is leading an effort to protect the U.S. electric grid from an EMP attack, has recently made similar claims based on the document translated by military authorities.

            Once sneered at by critics, recent moves by Iran and North Korea have given credibility to the potential EMP threat from an atmospheric nuclear explosion over the U.S.

            This is not new and has been discussed before.

          • Brucehenry

            And do you not think the US military has contingency plans to conduct an EMP attack on any number of adversaries? If it doesn’t, it SHOULD.

          • jim_m

            Of course they do but who cares? Iran is planning an attack on the US. Would you rather they plan it without the weapons to carry it out or with the weapons to carry it out? Apparently you want them to have those weapons because that is exactly what obama is negotiating with them.

          • Brucehenry

            Sez you. If the agreement was that all Iranians must disarm and immediately accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior you’d still claim that Obama was selling us and Israel out.

          • jim_m

            LOL. As if he would ever do anything to support any religion other than the one he grew up with.

            I believe obama is effectively an atheist, but I believe that his cultural upbringing makes him sympathetic to islam and islamism. He is also an obvious anti-Semite. He sure as hell spent more money and effort tying to get rid of Bibi than he did supporting the uprising in Iran several years ago. He attacks our allies and supports our enemies and you do the same.

          • Brucehenry

            Ha ha how much money did Obama spend “trying to get rid of Bibi”?

          • jim_m

            Apparently, up to $350 million laundered through NGO’s lead by former obama campaign officials.

            Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., sent a letter Jan.
            29 to Secretary of State John Kerry asking whether the group ­– as a
            recipient of almost $350,000 in recent grants from the Obama
            administration’s State Department – had violated its tax-exempt status
            when it began backing the virulently anti-Netanyahu Victory 15 campaign
            in Israel earlier that month.</blockquote

          • Brucehenry

            Well if Ted Cruz has sent a letter that’s as good as a conviction in Jim’s book!

          • jim_m

            Fuck you. defend the content. It is not secret that these groups participated in the Israeli election. Their funding is not secret. Their leadership is not secret.

            Address the substance you gutless douchebag.

            I swear to God, if Ted Cruz said the sun rose in the East you would deny it for purely partisan reasons.

          • Brucehenry

            Refute the content of a block quote from an unnamed wingnut source cite that claims a letter by Cruz asking questions is evidence of “money laundering”? Nut.

          • jim_m

            Fox news

            Red State

            USA Today which says

            The organization, Victory 2015 or V15 for short, has partnered with
            OneVoice, a liberal, non-profit group that has hired several U.S.
            political consultants. The most notable is Jeremy Bird, who served as
            national field director for Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign.

            It also points out that OneVoice got #350 million in Government grants and that it might have violated its not for profit status by funding Israeli election campaigns.

            Or how about Haaretz

            The Obama campaign strategist who could break the Israeli elections wide open

            Maybe if you bothered to inform yourself you wouldn’t make yourself look like a dumbass daily.

          • Brucehenry

            Well now you’ve named the wingnut source. Doesn’t make the allegation any less tenuous.

          • jim_m

            Fuck you. I’ve named several sources, all of which demonstrate obama links to meddling in the Israeli elections, potentially diverting federal money into NGO’s with the express purpose of getting rid of a foreign leader he hates.

          • Brucehenry

            “Potentially” meaning “unsupported allegations by partisans.” And hahahaha if you think one “informs oneself” by reading RedState you’re fucking hopeless.

          • jim_m

            I posted 4 separate stories from Fox, Red State, USA Today and Haaretz. WTF do you want?

            Again we see you being an ignorant partisan disagreeing with anything simply because of the source and refusing to address the substance of any objection.

          • Brucehenry

            Read your USAToday link and your Haaretz links again, dumbass. “Both sides do it” is the point of the story in USAToday. The Haaretz story is behind a paywall but I’ll bet it mentions that little factoid too.

          • jim_m

            So you are OK with the violation of the law as long as it advances your agenda. Screw you, you fascist.

          • Commander_Chico

            I hope the CIA was trying to unseat him. Not hard enough, unfortunately.

          • jim_m

            If that were the case then we now know why he won.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            As stated on many of the news discussion shows this morning (including Fox), the clock is ticking because many countries want to quickly abandon sanctions, including Europe, Russia and China, mainly for business and energy cost reasons. U.S sanctions alone are not sufficient.

            Additionally, anything that pushes the timetable forward is a positive as the younger generation in Iran is far more moderate and attitudes in that country are evolving. Young Iranians are far more like us than those in many countries that we consider allies.

            While many on the right fantasize about enforcing crippling sanctions until Iran completely abandons their nuclear program, they are just that, fantasies.

          • jim_m

            Get rid of the ban on exporting US crude and that desire to loosen sanctions on Iran goes away (at least for the EU). I don’t fantasize about sanctions having any effect.

            I believe that engagement through a position of strength is what we need. obama doesn’t know how to do that. He began his office by touring the globe saying how wrong the US was and how sorry we were and how evil our policies had been. Since then he has made our foreign policy a laughingstock with error after error.

            What I do fantasize is about a real President who believes in our nation and believes in doing what is right for the US rather than kissing the ass of our enemies hoping that they will like us. That is obama’s policy. It isn’t working.

          • Commander_Chico

            Just like the Niger uranium documents and Curveball.

          • jim_m

            If you are going to claim that every item of intel that you don’t like is fake then we should just shut down the CIA. Remember that everything that Bush had Clinton (both of them actually) agreed with and so did Kerry.

          • Commander_Chico

            You guys are cowering in fear.

          • jim_m

            Um.. No. We are advocating against that, The foreign policy you have supported for 6 years is one of a position of fear and weakness. obama is afraid of America winning, wants our power diminished and has always negotiated from a position of weakness. You are the one that wants us to live if fear and shame.

          • Jwb10001

            Yep those damnable democrat presidents, nuking Japan, killing all those VM, starting up that crap in Korea.

        • Commander_Chico

          “We can’t let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud,” right?

          I’ve heard that before.

          • jim_m

            And your answer is that, “Yes we can”.

          • Jwb10001

            Of course it is because the first mushroom cloud will be over Israel, Chico’s cool with that, of course he’ll come unglued when Tehran is a radioactive hole the ground 5 minutes later.

      • jim_m
      • Brett Buck

        Propaganda, eh? They don’t really mean it? And the Israelis are somehow making him say it? Some sort of subtle triangulation that only the first-rank geniuses like Obama, Kerry, and Chico can see through? I take it that the public rhetoric is just to keep the “street” happy while they are actually telling the truth in private.

        And ultimately, it’s a great and highly stabilizing outcome to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons (which is price of all this diddling), while we stand by waiting for them to finish?

        Brilliant, thanks for sharing these deep thoughts!

    • There is no enemy of Western civilization that chica (and the hemorrhoid depending therefrom) will not embrace, as you well know.

  • jim_m

    Remember when obama was declaring that Yemen was a great success story for his policy?

    Yeah, not so much…

    The last US special forces have been withdrawn from Yemen without exciting much notice from the US press. Max Boot tweets: “All US SOF evacuating Yemen. Huge win for AQAP, huge defeat for US. How many foreign policy disasters can we handle?” Reuters reports, “the United States has evacuated its remaining personnel, including about 100 special operations forces, from Yemen because of the deteriorating security situation there, U.S. officials said on Saturday.” This means that the last vestiges of what the Obama administration only recently touted as their model counter-insurgency operation are gone. The collapse has flown largely under the media radar.

    Last week Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post reported that $500 million dollars in American supplied weapons are now in the hands of “Iranian-backed rebels or al-Qaeda”. The Islamist blitzkrieg is living off huge quantities of captured US materiel.

    So when in six months or a year from now (or whenever the inevitable happens because obama gives them a free pass on nukes) Iran or Iranian backed terrorists incinerate NYC or as they have suggested, they detonated an atmospheric nuke as an EMP attack destroying our infrastructure for years, what will obama say? My guess is that he would like nothing better than to offer surrender to a foreign power. My guess is that Chico would like nothing better either.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      Was this the result of “Smart Diplomacy” or “Leading From Behind”?

      • jim_m

        I think it is primarily a result of wanting our enemies to win.

    • Walter_Cronanty
    • Walter_Cronanty

      And here’s what one D from California says about President Putz’s great Yemen success story:

      “Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Sunday said he would have trouble creating a bleaker scenario in Yemen than the current situation there.

      “It is difficult to imagine a more dangerous downward spiral than we have seen in Yemen the last six months,” he said in a statement.

      “The sectarian divide is widening; a geographic chasm has opened between North and South; the proxy battleground there between Iran and Saudi Arabia has intensified; and Al Qaeda and ISIS have a new opportunity to grow in this vast ungovernable space,” he added.”

      http://thehill.com/policy/international/236563-schiff-difficult-to-imagine-worse-outcome-in-yemen

      • jim_m

        VS Naipal has a great article in the Daily Mail. Unfortunately, most of the left is unwilling to see ISIS for what it is. obama still is seeking to blunt them so he can negotiate a settlement with them.

        6 years of obama appeasement of islamic fascism has lead us to this point. He and the US left are to blame for the millions of lives that will be lost in defeating ISIS. Had Bush’s plan been followed and the fledgling democrcy in Iraq supported we would not have reached this pass,

        • Commander_Chico

          Iran is fighting ISIS more than anyone else is, but you want to attack them in behalf of Israel.

          • jim_m

            I have never said to attack them. I have said we need to stop their nuclear weapons program. You are the dimwitted moron that thinks that it can only be stopped by bombing.

    • jim_m

      I will simply note that not a single lefty has come to this post to defend the indefensible from their lord and savior. It seems that they just have to ignore reality so they can keep believing in the unicorns and rainbows that obama promises them.

  • jim_m

    Good news, the Vatican is clearing the Knights Templar, just in time to launch a new crusade to fight the war obama wants to lose.

    The islamists wanted a holy war. They’re going to get one.

    • Commander_Chico

      Ooooh, internet tough guy. Are you getting on the plane to Erbil? The Iraqi Christian militias are taking volunteers.

      • jim_m

        Some of that was sarcasm dumbass

  • Wild_Willie

    The biggest problem with liberals have been clearly demonstrated by the ‘musings’ of Brucy on this thread. He forgets Pelosi, the leader of the house going to Syria to visit with the leader against the orders of the Bush WH. He forgets the democratic senate writing a letter to Ortega. The world of the liberals is based on a lie for a premise which is: They think they are the smartest people in the ‘room’. When mainstream American’s see through it and recognizes them for the asses they are. ww

    • The problem is with the LIV who believe that just because someone tells them they’re the ‘smartest people in the room’, and pretend they’ve got all the answers, that they ARE actually smart and have all the answers.

      It takes the ‘smart’ people failing badly and the answers producing catastrophically bad results to get the LIV to start to question the premise, and even then a lot of them are never going to believe that their trusted ones are anything but capable, competent, and wonderfully smart…

      • Brucehenry

        Sneering, misplaced, unearned elitism. The “LIV” indeed. I think rubes who believe the crap they hear on FOX and read on Red State have some nerve calling anyone else “low information voters.” It is to laugh.

        • If you get all your news from a comedian, you might be a LIV.

          If you believe SNL skits are actually press conferences for the candidates, no matter their orientation, you might be a LIV.

          If you believe you’re informed because you get all your news from Jon Stewart and never bother to look at any other sources, you might be a LIV.

          If you think you’re elite because you never sully yourself to actually look at the issues, but instead let your news come from friends who are just as uninformed as you are, you might be a LIV.

          • Brucehenry

            Actually…

            http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/22/374434/fox-news-viewers-misinformed-study-jon-stewart/

            Plus I doubt if most people here, or even you personally, limit your definition of “LIV” to the criteria you list above. I think that most of YOU think that anyone who doesn’t vote as you do is an “LIV.”

          • Oh, Bruce – you’re hilarious. Thinkprogress as a source? Seriously? Why don’t you just quote SNL? They’ve got the same grip on reality as the SNL writers.

          • Definately a LIV.

          • Brucehenry

            Whatever. That was just one of many links to studies showing that FOX viewers are less informed and often MISinformed about world events.

            The Business Insider is often cited here by conservative commenters. Do you dismiss that one too?

          • No, I’m just laughing at you for using ThinkProgress as a justification for your dislike of people who don’t believe you’re as smart as you think you are.

          • Brucehenry

            Maybe I’m not as smart as I like to think I am. Few of us are, and most of us get reminded occasionally of that fact. The ones who don’t, or who like ol’ Jim refuse to BE reminded, are not happy people.

            Anyway I still think any conservative who pretends the Republicans lost the last two presidential elections because of “low information voters” has a lot of nerve. I know some Democrats who are dumbasses, but the stupidest, boneheadedest, ignerntest dumbasses in the land are Republicans. Sorry.

            http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/nc-goper-fired-for-making-racist-comments-on-daily-show-video

          • jim_m

            LOL. Bruce. I am exactly as smart as I think I am. You simply aren’t smart enough to see that.

            Also, claiming that people who voted for Dear Leader are not LIV’s despite the fact that in many if not most cases exclusively because.he is black, is ridiculous on its face. The media did not vet obama at all. None of the scrutiny that is traditionally applied to a candidate (even the minor scrutiny that a dem gets) was applied to obama. People who voted for him were without any meaningful information about him other than he is black and a dem.

            obama voters are by definition LIV’s because they lacked ANY information about who he was. Those who can factually claim they know more about him and still voted for him are by definition communists and people who hate America and want to see its destruction.

          • Brucehenry

            “I am exactly as smart as I think I am.”

            I beg to differ. Between you and me (and you do 90% of the work) we demonstrate here on Wizbang on a semi-regular basis that you are just about exactly half as smart as you think you are.

          • jim_m

            It would appear that way to an LIV moron.

          • As far as the LIV definition goes – if you don’t bother to actually look at the candidates or issues, or pay attention to what’s actually going on, if you believe that ‘good intentions’ are far more important than workable results and NEVER hold the politician or organization responsible for the failures that occur when the proposals are implemented, that’s a LIV’s point of view.

            As is insisting that no matter what, any plan MUST be followed, and the politician isn’t allowed to change the plan when the situation changes, or even scrap the plan entirely. I’d have a lot more respect for Obama at this point if he’d been willing to rework a lot of the ACA when it was becoming glaringly apparent that it wasn’t ready for prime time, and had one hell of a lot of ‘unanticipated consequences’ baked into it.

            “I think that most of YOU think that anyone who doesn’t vote as you do is an “LIV.” ” That’s more ‘projection’ than anything else, I think. You do seem to hold a pretty low opinion of pretty much everyone who doesn’t think like you do.

    • Brucehenry

      And the Republicans went apeshit about Pelosi’s visit, including may of the commenters here. Maybe even you.

      The Kerry visit was a little different. For one thing it involved two Senators, not 47, and also we weren’t engaged in negotiations with Ortega.

      • jim_m

        Kerry met with the Viet Cong in 1970, in direct violation of US law. But then he was meeting with our enemies so you think that is OK.

        • Brucehenry

          It’s against the law for a private citizen to “negotiate a treaty” with a foreign government. It’s NOT against the law to meet with one, as long as you don’t pretend to represent the US government.

          Idiot.

          • jim_m

            OH.. So it’s OK for left wing traitors to meet with our enemies but it is wrong for congressional leaders to point out what the constitution says to our fascist President? Screw you bruce.

          • Brucehenry

            See what I mean? A lefty private citizen who inserts himself into negotiations with a foreign power is a “traitor,” but a GOP senator or 47 who does is not. According to wingnuts like you.

            The funny thing is you probably still don’t see that this is what I’ve been saying all along

          • jim_m

            Kerry held illegal talks with the enemy. There was statutory law which prohibited his meeting with the enemy. Treating with the enemy is not constitutionally protected free speech.

            The 47 Congressmen were pointing out to the President that his actions had no constitutional basis and that if Iran were to strike a deal with him outside of those guidelines that it would have little or no meaning when he left office. This was true, remains true and is a constitutionally protected use of free speech.

          • Brucehenry

            Bullshit. If the 47 senators wanted to point this stuff out “to the President” McConnell could have picked up a phone. Even YOU are not that stupid. The “open letter TO Iran” was a deliberate attempt to throw sand into the gears of negotiations at a critical stage, at the behest of Bibi, who doesn’t have America’s best interests at heart.

            BTW funny how Richard Nixon and John Mitchell, who hated VVAW and hated Kerry personally, could not or would not prosecute him for what you say was a crime. Maybe that’s because there was no crime?

          • jim_m

            SO it wasn’t the actual content of what they said it was the way they said it? LOL. How dare they show up Bruce’s god.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Eli Lake has an interesting column on Obama’s speech. As Lake notes, there was no reason for Obama to speak to the Iranian people, as they have no say in whether the Ayatollah accepts the deal he is forcing Obama to write. Lake opines that Obama is giving the Ayatollah legitimacy from the outside that he could never get from inside of Iran. Indeed, in 2009, Obama treated the protesters in Iran as he would babies born live after botched abortions – he ignored them and let them die: “Like almost all dictators, Iran’s supreme leader has a legitimacy problem. Most Iranians today are too fearful to take to the streets and demand a government that represents them. (They tried in 2009 and 1999, and paid in blood.) But deep down, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei must suspect that millions of his own people quietly loathe him….

    With that in mind, imagine how delighted Khamenei must have been with U.S. President Barack Obama’s message last week on Persian New Year, or Nowruz. Obama urged the Iranian people to press their leaders to accept a nuclear deal he said would help end Iran’s international isolation. “Now it’s up to all of us, Iranians and Americans, to seize this moment and the possibilities that can bloom in this new season,” Obama said. He concluded by saying: “My message to you, the people of Iran, is that together we have to speak up for the future that we seek.”

    It’s as if Iran is just like France or Brazil. In those countries, leaders have to care about popular opinion because they have to run for election. But in Iran, only Khamenei decides whether or not to take Obama’s offer. Iran’s people have nothing to do with it.”

    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-22/obama-s-empty-message-to-iran

    • jim_m

      That’s the problem. obama is so morally bankrupt that he can see no difference between Iraq, France and Brazil. Which is why he cannot justify taking any action against our enemies, because he cannot find any reason why US national interest is more important than their national interest. What’s worse is that he is too dimwitted to see that he legitimizes our enemies and betrays our allies. I suppose the good news is that we have few allies to betray anymore. There is virtually no nation on Earth that will follow the US into a military conflict.