BloggeRhythms

Still unable to reach an acceptable deal to all parties, talks with Iran regarding its nuclear program have now been extended until Saturday, July 11.    

 

What’s been most obvious since the “negotiation” began, is that Iran understands full well that the U.S. will acquiesce to almost anything demanded to achieve closure of an agreement. That’s because the POTUS is far more focused on what he deems his “legacy,” than the details of a deal in a region he cares little, if anything, about at all.  

 

Iran, in fact, is so sure that it holds the upper hand that, according to FoxNews.com, “Iran threw another wrinkle into the mix on Monday by pushing for an end to the U.N. arms embargo on the country -- a parallel deal that the United States opposes as it seeks to limit Tehran's Mideast power and influence. 

“Lifting the arms embargo would be separate from a long-term accord that foresees limits on Iran's nuclear programs in exchange for relief from crippling economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic. But Iran also sees existing U.N. resolutions affecting Iran's nuclear program and the accompanying sanctions as unjust and illegal. It has insisted that those resolutions be lifted since the start of international negotiations nearly a decade ago to limit its nuclear-arms making capability.”

Beyond the story itself, reader’s comments added some interesting byplay into just how much the general public actually understands about Iran’s historic aggression, which turns out to be lacking for many. 

 

Attempting to appear on top of the subject, and to exhibit smug cerebral superiority, Intellectulliberal, obviously tried to blame current Conservatives by posting:

“REPUBLICAN TEST 

What Year did our problems start with Iran... and why did they start?”

freethinker0101 replied,

“1979”

Then radmorick provided the details. 

“The problems started in the late 1970's and they started because President Carter thought the Ayatollah Khomeini was a "god-like" individual.  Typical liberal fail, another one of which is in progress right now.”

So, it looks like Intellectualliberal opened the wrong can of worms for himself.

 

In another article on the same subject, staff reporters at Jerusalem Post on-line wrote that, "The US might arrive at some agreements with us within the framework of the Group 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France plus Germany), but we should never hold a positive view over the enemy,"  Iran's Fars News Agency quoted Ground Force Commander Brigadier General Ahmad Reza Pourdastan as saying. 

 

"Our enmity with them is over the principles and is rooted because we are after the truth and nations' freedom, but they seek exploiting nations and putting them in chains," he explained further.”

 

Nonetheless, despite Iran’s ingrained hostility toward the US, and the fact that a deal with that nation has little likelihood of being any real deterrent to their nuclear program, the POTUS is obviously confident enough to take another obscenely expensive vacation.

 

According to dailymail.co.uk, he’s renting an 8,100-square-foot home featuring seven bedrooms, nine bathrooms, a basketball/tennis court, hot tub, infinity pool and views of the Elizabeth Islands. 

It’s the same $12million 'cottage' in Chilmark, on Martha's Vineyard he rented last year. 

The home is owned by wealthy widow Joanna Hubschman, whose husband was a General Electric executive “who contributed $6,900 - the maximum donation then allowed - to Hillary Clinton's 2008 bid for president, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.  However, it was Barack Obama who took the party's ticket and went on to win the White House."

 

Two weeks before the general election, Mr Hubschman contributed $2,300 to Obama's campaign.” 

Which brings us to Today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. This one by Amy Chozick and Patrick Healy @nytimes.com.

The authors write: “In May, Mrs. Clinton led with 60 percent support to Mr. Sanders’s 15 percent in a Quinnipiac poll. Last week the same poll showed Mrs. Clinton at 52 percent to Mr. Sanders’s 33 percent.” Then they add: “Those who see Mrs. Clinton as being at risk in Iowa say she is still far better positioned to win the nomination than Mr. Sanders, who lags by double digits in Iowa polling.”

And now, here’s the paragraph that even coming from the most zealous supporters of Bill’s wife, sounds absolutely preposterous: ”Sanders is an untested national candidate who has far less money than she does, and his self-announced “democratic socialist” leanings are anathema to many Americans. Mrs. Clinton’s advisers, meanwhile, have deep experience pulling off upsets and comeback political victories, and Mrs. Clinton often performs best when she is under pressure from rivals.”

Now, to all those actually believing that Bill’s wife has “deep experience pulling off upsets and comeback political victories," and that, "Mrs. Clinton often performs best when she is under pressure from rivals,” has any of them ever heard of Barack Hussein Obama?

Mayor Bloomberg and Joe Biden, are either of you reading this?

That's it for today folks.

Adios