Sure Sign the Iran Whatever It Is “Ain’t Good”

 

From BizPac comes the solid stamp of Pelosi approval.  Gag!!

Pelosi’s rolling out her Obamacare argument for Obama’s Iran deal? ‘We haven’t forgotten’

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sided with the administration on the Iranian nuclear arms deal Wednesday, by announcing her opposition to Congressional approval of its terms.

The California Democrat is asking fellow lawmakers to reject Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker’s proposal calling for Congressional review of any deal that has been struck.

Diplomacy has taken us to a framework agreement founded on vigilance and enforcement, and these negotiations must be allowed to proceed unencumbered,” Pelosi said in a statement, according to The Hill.

“Tennessee Republican Senator Corker’s legislation undermines these international negotiations and represents an unnecessary hurdle to achieving a strong, final agreement.”

What’s troubling is that no one seems to know the terms of the framework agreement. Iran accused the Obama administration of lying after it touted its terms as a step toward halting Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

It’s all reminiscent of Pelosi’s 2010 statement regarding the Affordable Care Act:

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy,” she said of the legislation.

Pelosi’s statement continued:

“In the weeks ahead, we must give this diplomatic framework room to succeed so that we can judge a June 30th agreement on its merits,” she said.

One thing we do know that wasn’t a part of the deal was Iran’s ballistic missiles. Discussion of a nuclear delivery system was off the table, according to CNS News.

And assuming a final deal is hammered out when June 30 arrives, what then? Continuing with the Obamacare analogy, will we hear the president tell Iran, “If you like your nukes, you can keep your nukes? And will he mean it this time?

Read more here.

–0–

Lord, this is all ‘it’ needs – Pelosi’s assurance and strong arm tactics.   Get this person (she doesn’t deserve title lady or congresswoman) out of power.   Her very presence in this assures me Congress better take a damn close look and veto the Iran thing! Can’t term it as an accord, as no one accepts that, nor as contractual or treaty.  Aljazeera and others in Iran, as I posted the other day, see this as total capitulation to their program.   BS meter just blew up like the smart water meters in California.

–00–

–Uriel–

About Uriel

Retired educator and constitutionalist
Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Sure Sign the Iran Whatever It Is “Ain’t Good”

  1. Hardnox says:

    Good post. The Iranians demanded yesterday that the sanctions must be lifted on day one if any deal is to be had. As usual they keep moving the goal posts and Putt and Boltneck are left flat-footed… but “it’s a good deal anyway”. Morons.

    It’s a shame that anyone bothers to listen to Pelosi or that she thinks that she is still relevant in any way shape or form considering her track record.

  2. I.R. Wayright says:

    One question. How can you negotiate and reach an agreement with religious zealots whose religion teaches that it is okay to lie to further the religion?
    Answer; you can not, it is a waste of time. So far, a twelve year waste of time.

  3. Kathy says:

    Her push might not be as effective this time as it was with the o’care suppository we got.

    If the reports are accurate, then we have a near veto-proof majority in Congress. Some of the dems are lining up with the Rs to try and put a stop to O going around them with this deal. Naturally, Nancy is pushing the other way, so we’ll see which side wins this time.

    According to this story, O is losing some of his long-time dem allies.

    http://news.yahoo.com/why-congress-cant-silenced-iran-

  4. Bullright says:

    Great Scott, she’s done it again.
    …”these negotiations must be allowed to proceed unencumbered,” Pelosi said.
    Wait, is she talking about negotiations or their nuclear program?

  5. Grouchy says:

    The Constitution was structured with three separate branches, to have a system of checks and balances. The fact that the obomination structured the Iran talks as an “executive agreement” is definitely a sign of a monarchial attitude that does not bode well for a Republican form of government, but is more indicative of a stalinist, tyrannical form of governance.
    This (expletive deleted) has got to be reined in, and subdued.

  6. Garnet92 says:

    OMG, Nancy is in her “you’ve got to pass it to find out what’s in it” mode and not even Opigfart or Kerry will know what they’ve signed until the Iranians tell them what they’ve agreed to.