Wednesday, August 5, 2015

Obama lies again about Iraq to defend deal with Iran.

When you  lie repeatedly about a policy you have no policy and president Obama, who has provably lied more about his own policies than any president in history, even more than Bush or Nixon in terms of quantity,  is resorting to lying again to defend his nuclear deal with Iran. This time he's using lies about Iraq to do it. And hoping there are enough ignorant people out there to believe him. 
From the president who said " I never campaigned for the public option", "Isis is the junior varsity", called Yemen one of his great foreign policy success and said of his threat to use a punitive missile strike against Assad if he used chemical weapons, "everybody knows I don't bluff", the intellectually bankrupt argument Obama is  now trying to make is to lie about Iraq  and bring up the spectre of Iraq as a way to defend the nuclear deal with Iran in the hopes of intimidating enough Democrats to sustain a veto of a deal that will certainly be disapproved by congress.
The great irony is that Obama is doing exactly what George W. Bush did to drum up votes for the Iraq War Authorization - lie. And then hope he can fear monger enough to get away with it. 

If you have to lie it is virtually a tacit admission that the deal is  not what it should be or as represented. And that you failed. As evidenced by his recent claim that "99% of everybody supports this deal".
 It is almost comical and even sad to see that Obama is so used to lying and getting away with it in front of a news media too intimidated to point it  out, or Tea Party Left groups too ignorant or partisan to care, that he has to resort to that kind of easily provable lie which is an act of desperation. For the record a recent poll showed 52% of Americans want congress to kill the deal.
But his most recent lie which he intends on repeating, focuses on Iraq and his dishonest and desperate attempt to claim that anyone who opposes his deal is a war monger who will get us into an Iraq like war.  The choice is his deal or war.
To make that point he says the people who oppose the Iran  deal " are the same columnists and former administration officials who got us into the war in Iraq."
Unfortunately for him it's many of the Democrats who who got us into the war in Iraq who support his Iran deal and two  of them are the two most  prominent members of his administration and most ardent supporters of his Iran deal. 
Secretary of State, John Kerry and vice president Joe Biden  who ardently support the Iran deal were among those whose lousy judgement got us into the war in Iraq since both voted for it.  Which shows just how hollow  Obama's defense of his deal really is.  And should remind him once again of the Woody  Allen rule that when you tell the truth all the time you never have to remember anything.

It's nothing less than embarrassing to claim that those opposing his deal are those who got us into the war with Iraq when the two most prominent people in his administration and one of the deal's negotiators are among those people. 

In his most recent speech Obama claimed that opponents of his deal are "selling a fantasy". This is what clinical psychologists call projection, when an individual refuses to admit a personal flaw or issue and projects it onto other people. It is Obama who is living in a fantasy world if he thinks he can point to a single decision he's made on anything that  turned out well from healthcare reform to Yemen.  

Not to put too fine a point on it, Lyndon Johnson managed to get southern white racist senators to vote for the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and Obama couldn't get a single piece of gun safety legislation passed after 26 children and teachers were killed with an assault rifle at Sandyhook.  This  is who is claims opponents of his deal are selling a fantasy and that his deal was the best anyone could get. It might be the best deal he could get but that has more to do with his own inadequacies than what was really possible. 

It was a negotiation where Iran was calling all the shots, where it was Obama and Kerry who were always afraid it would be Iran who would walk away instead of the other way around and Iran  gave up virtually nothing (remember Iran all along claimed they were never trying to get a nuclear weapon) while getting everything they wanted including their demand for lifting the ban on having ICBMs  whose sole purpose is to deliver a nuclear warhead and an insistence on the end to the arms embargo to go with sanctions being lifted. 

Part of Obama's argument is that this deal avoids and prevents war when the facts and logic say just the opposite. The deal makes war more likely. Only it will be 10-15 years from now when Iran will, according to the deal, have the right to enrich uranium to levels needed to make a nuclear bomb. And since Obama buckled and agreed to Iran's last minute demand that the ban on their having ICBMs be lifted (which have only one purpose -- to deliver a nuclear warhead) and his concession to lift the arms embargo against Iran which will allow Iran to increase its arming of terrorists , it is a certainty that Obama's deal will  cost lives and take everyone closer to war, just not in the short term. But the short term is all Obama cared about. 
According to Obama, speaking again of fantasy, it is the " Republican and conservative columnists"  who were responsible for getting us into the Iraq war who now oppose his deal. Like who? The New York Times?  
It was The  New York Times who was the single most prominent news outlet responsible for getting us into the war in Iraq and supporting the Bush assertions about WMD.  It was the bogus front page stories in the Times based on information spoon fed to Times reporter Judith Miller by Dick Cheney and never vetted or corroborated or even questioned by Times editors, that had more impact on getting us into war in Iraq than any conservative or Republican columnist. The Times stories were even quoted by Dick Cheney as evidence that administration claims were being substantiated "independently" by the Times.
Obama's empty argument for an empty deal continues to fall apart because those questioning the Iran deal have not been columnists or former Bush officials.  They haven't even been solely Republicans.
Though you wouldn't know if by Obama's latest lie that Republicans opposing his deal are like the hardliners in Iran, a desperate and typically dishonest attempt by Obama to shore up Democratic support.

Democrats like Eliot Engel, Robert Menendez  and Ben Cardin and many more are openly questioning the deal. And House Democrats Steve Israel, Nita Lowery and Ted Deutsch have already  said they will vote against it. And the number 3 Democrat in the senate, Chuck Schumer has just announced he will vote against the deal. 
Finally, it needs to be pointed out that Obama badly distorts and misrepresents the truth about his own original position on Iraq , (what else is new?) the one he likes to boast about to use as evidence of his good judgement.  But his actual original position on going to war in Iraq was an example of just how truly bad his judgement can be and completely undermines all his arguments.
When Barrack Obama was in the Illinois state senate and thus didn't have a vote (nor did he have any intelligence briefings)  he did come out against going to war in Iraq. The problem is, and what Obama wants everyone to forget, and doesn't want mentioned, is that he was against going to war in Iraq for all the wrong reasons. And was the result not of good judgment but the worst judgement possible. 
Obama has tried to get a lot of  political mileage out of his claim that back in 2002 he came out against going to war in Iraq. And he has used it ever since as proof of his good judgement. It is actually proof of his lousy judgement, the same judgement we have seen in other domestic and foreign policy decisions from Isis as the "junior varsity", to his losing Crimea to Russia by telling the interim government not to resist, being bullied by Putin in Ukraine and his touted foreign policy success in Yemen which has degenerated into chaos and disaster.
There were many Democrats who voted against the Iraq War Resolution. And they deserve credit for having voted against it. And they voted against it for one very good reason --  they didn't believe or accept  Bush administration claims there was any absolute proof that Sadaam had WMD, the sole rationale used by Bush, Cheney and Rice to go to war and the only legitimate reason to invade Iraq. Remember Condoleeza Rice's statement that we had to invade Iraq "before the smoking gun turned into a mushroom cloud"? 
There were a lot of good reasons to doubt that Sadaam had WMD. Two reporters for Knight Ridder newspapers wrote excellent well sourced stories debunking the idea that Saddam had WMD which contradicted all the bogus Times front page stories. But it was the Times who had the influence. 
But there were  Democrats who weren't satisfied with  Bush adminstration claims, just as there are those in congress now including Democrats not satisfied with Obama's claims, who felt there wasn't  enough evidence that Sadaam had WMD to justify going to war. In the end it was those who weren't satisfied with Bush administration claims about WMD who had their judgement vindicated and were eventually proved right.  Obama was not one of them.
Obama actually accepted and believed the false Bush administration claims that Sadaam had WMD. And even then he was still against going to war in Iraq.  Had Sadaam actually had WMD Obama's judgement  would have  been a complete disaster for the world. 

The only basis that convinced the world to back the invasion of Iraq was the presentation and assertions that Sadaam had biological, chemical and nuclear WMD and the capacity to deliver it. Obama, in spite of his believing Saddam had those WMD was still opposed going to war in Iraq and stopping Sadaam from using them.  That is the judgement that forged the deal with Iran.
Far from Obama's stance on Iraq in 2002 proving he had good judgment, it was and is another clear indication of just how bad Obama's judgement can  be and what a disaster for the world it can be. As we have seen with Isis, Ukraine, Yemen and Syria, where Isis could have been stopped had Obama listened to advice and armed the moderate rebels.Syria is still in chaos and over 100,000  have been killed. And Assad continues to illegally drop chlorine barrel bombs on civilian populations. 
Iran could be worse since Obama's nuclear deal if implemented, will allow Iran to have ICBMs and also lift the arms embargo which Iran will use to arm terrorists, while giving Iran the resources to build a nuclear warhead in 10 to  15 years. And if that seems like a long way away, keep in mind any child born today will be in the 5th grade when Iran could have or be on the road to having a nuclear weapon. And thanks to Obama's concessions,  Iran will already have had the ICBM's to deliver it. Or use it to resort to nuclear blackmail. And then what? According to John Kerry's testimony, "well, we'll see what happens".  Most people do not want to  wait and see what happens. (Iran's top military chief just came out in ardent support of the deal.  So who has "common cause" with Iran's hardliners?) 
There is something else Obama wants to bury about Iraq and why his analogy makes the case against him not for him.  As president Obama rejected the advice of two Secretaries of Defense (who resigned) a Director of the CIA and a Secretary of State, not to mention many in congress with far more military and foreign policy experience, who advised Obama to leave a residual force of about 10,000 American troops in Iraq. Obama refused and there is unanimity that Obama's refusal to keep an American force in Iraq, both to train and to be a safety net for Iraq security forces is why Iraq is now in chaos and Isis has made the huge advances and gains in territory that it has.
Just as there were good reasons to have rejected the Bush argument for war in Iraq, there are even more good reasons to reject Obama's deal with Iran. And the responses by Democrats who support the deal,  like Jan Schakowsky of Illinois ( Obama's home state) who have blindly bought Obama's argument that its either his deal or war  shows a lack of knowledge of history and some of the same lousy partisan judgment as those who supported the war in Iraq. Sen. Barbara Boxer whose comment unintentionally revealed the truth about many Democrats who will vote to approve the deal, said "like the Iraq war its a vote of conscience. "
It is not. It has nothing to do with conscience but with facts and truth and common sense. The only matter of conscience is whether to cast a vote based on blind partisanship or facts. That is a matter of conscience.
Boxer revealed her own partisanship when she took great umbrage to two Republican senators referring to the Iran deal as the product of having been "bamboozled" by Iran .She called it insulting to Kerry and Obama's intelligence. But she had no problem with Kerry referring to anyone who thought there could ever be a better deal as someone "living in a unicorn fantasy world". That, according to Boxer was not an insult to anyone's intelligence.
Boxer also inadvertently helped make the case for rejecting the deal and against the arguments of those supporting it when she said in reference to Obama and Kerry have being "bamboozled" by Iran,  " the idea that the UK, France, and Russia and other countries were also bamboozled is preposterous".
Maybe someone should show Boxer newsreel footage of Neville Chamberlin getting off the plane waving the peace agreement Great Britain, France and other countries signed with Hitler in Munich when Chamberlin said the agreement represented " peace in our time" and avoided war. Not to mention the separate peace deal Stalin made with Hitler at the same time. Shortly before Hitler invaded Poland. And then Russia. That all those countries could be " bamboozled" was preposterous too, right Barbara?
It is Obama, Kerry and many Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and those Democrats who support the deal who are living in a fantasy world. A fantasy world about making comparisons between rejecting his deal and going to war in Iraq. A fantasy world in thinking this exercise in capitulation was the best deal anyone could get. And a fantasy world if Obama thinks his own past judgement on Iraq proved right when it was  actually proved wrong, not once but twice. 

The real comparison with Iraq is that voting for Obama's Iran deal will be the same as voting for war in Iraq since the analogy is in casting a vote for something without proof that its what we need to do to solve the problem or that it will solve the problem when, like Iraq, the opposite is true and will make things worse.

All indications are that Obama's deal will not prevent war but it could lead to war. Not now, but within the next decade. Which makes Tea Party Left Obama doormat groups like MoveOn,DFA and ThinkProgress look as ignorant and dishonest as any Tea Party right climate change denier .

And last but not least, the final analogy with Iraq that undermines Obama's  argument is that, like the Bush adminstration, Obama and members of his administration are resorting to lying through their teeth to get votes.
99% of everybody supports the deal.

Its this deal or war.

There is no alternative

Anyone who thinks there was a better deal is living in a fantasy world

The vote shouldn't even be close

 (indicating that anyone who thinks  that at the last minute giving in to Iran's demand to allow them to have ICBMs or lifting the arms embargo when his own Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said neither should ever happen, or letting them enrich uranium to weapons levels in 10 years  is an idiot).

Voting against this deal is like voting for the Iraq war.

The same people who got us into the war in Iraq are the ones who oppose the deal.

Republicans who oppose the deal are like the hardliners in Iran ( without mentioning the manyDemocrats  opposed) 

When you have to lie you're desperate. When you're desperate it means your desperate to close a bad deal before anyone can see just how bad a deal it is. The deal should speak for itself.  If  it was so good people would see it and know it.  Obama and Kerry wouldn't be trying so hard to convince people like a couple of used car salesmen trying to close a deal on a lemon. 

What the deal speaks of on it's face is a preposterous capitulation to a dangerous enemy who is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world and who demanded at the last minute as part of the deal,  the right to have ICBM's which are only used to launch a nuclear warhead. And the Obama administration says the vote shouldn't even be close. If sanity prevails it wont be close. In voting against the deal.

And when Kerry was criticized for not making Iran's sponsorship of terrorism part of the deal along with a release of American held hostages, Kerry said they didn't insist on those things because the  deal was "only about Iran's nuclear capability" and he didn't want to muddy the waters with unrelated issues. Fair enough. But when  it came to Iran insisting  on outside unrelated  issues like an end to the ban on ICBMs and an end to the arms embargo, Obama and Kerry capitulated.   So making demands on outside unrelated issues for Iran was fine. But not for the U.S.
Anyone who thinks conscience has anything to do with the vote on the Iran deal is revealing themselves to be blind partisans, struggling with their conscience over whether to vote based on their partisanship or the facts and the truth. So whether or not this deal goes through, the deal  and its consequences is going to belong to the Democrats who vote for it. 

Obama's most corrosive lie is framing the deal as its his deal or  nothing or his deal or war and there are many non-thinkers who swallow it. Those clearly aren't the choices . This is Obama not wanting to admit that someone else could have negotiated a better deal. Which is exactly what's needed, someone else who can negotiate a better deal. Anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton would not have negotiated a stronger  deal and never would have accepted this deal as president is also living in a fantasy world. And her lukewarm public political support of the deal is no indication of real acceptance especially  when she knows rejecting it would have sent shockwaves through the congress and might have been seen as both self serving and interfering with the president's policies .

One further note on Obama's duplicity and hypocrisy. When he was first elected president Rep. John Conyers wanted to hold congressional hearings on how we got into the war in Iraq, about as useful a congressional investigation as could have been undertaken and not the partisan political witch hunt being conducted by Republicans with their 7th hearing on Benghazi. Obama's response to Conyers was " I do not think it useful to litigate how we got into that war". Now its all he wants to talk about. And lie about. For his own purposes.
On foreign policy Colin Powell once said, " if you break it you own it". For Democrats, on the deal with Iran, it's going to be "if you don't break it you own it."


Anonymous said...


>It is not. It has nothing to do with conscience but with facts and truth and common sense.

Which, amazingly, exactly match what you (and Bibi) believe? But (in fact), facts and truth (as opposed to untrue facts?) and common sense lead many of us (including all the Dem candidates) to very different conclusions. Is the current deal ideal? No. Is it realistically better than no deal? Yes. The choice isn't this deal or war, but it is this deal or Iran is free of any restraint in pursuing a bomb. The Iranian surrender you and Bibi think we could compel with sanctions is not a fact, or common sense, but a dubious speculation.

But we all have subjects where we go off the rails, and I'll just have to consider your views on the Iran deal in that light.

Marc Rubin said...

"...common sense lead many of us (including all the Dem candidates) to very different conclusions."

Speaking of facts and common sense, and "many of us", your ideas of facts and common sense and "many of us" obviously doesn't apply to Democratic senator Chuck Schumer the number 3 Democrat in the senate who said he is voting against the deal. Or the Democrats in the House who have already said they will vote against the deal. So I have no idea who "us" is other than those who support the deal and you are in the minority.

And speaking of facts, when you have to make things up and invent straw men like Obama and invent out of whole cloth things people say that they didnt say, ( like "the Iranian surrender you think you could compel with sanctions" where you cannot find one sentence in the entire piece that makes that claim or even suggests it or mentions " sanctions compelling an Iranian surrender") it shows how empty the arguments of those supporting Obama's deal really are.

Stick with facts and truth. Anyone voting for or supporting the deal based on their "conscience" is not using facts or truth. The struggle with one's conscience would be whether to support the deal in spite of the facts not because of them.If someone thought the facts supported the deal there would be no need to vote their conscience. That alone shows how weak the deal is even among those who think they have to support it. That is when someone has to struggle with their conscience.