January 09, 2018

Propaganda machine gears up to push Trump not to re-apply sanctions to Iran regime

As a deadline for deciding whether to quit the disastrous Obama-negotiated nuclear "non-treaty treaty" with Iran approaches, Democrats, liberals and assorted Trump-haters have begun a cunning campaign to pressure Trump to stay in Obama's oh-so-faaabulous, crucial, peace-assuring "deal."

By now regular readers should know how they do it:  First they form a group of people they can plausibly bill as "experts."  Doesn't matter if the members are experts in a field only vaguely related to the topic at hand, because no big-media journalist will ask.  For example, if you want to show that "scientists support global warming" it's perfectly reasonable to list, say, a guy with a PhD in ancient Egyptian history as a "scientist."  Again, no one will think to question the credentials if you say they're experts.

Also, it doesn't matter if the group was only formed ten minutes ago, for this precise purpose, cuz no liberal journalist will raise that issue.

Next, give this group a totally reassuring and uncontroversial name, like "National Coalition for the Promotion of Peace."  Or as in this case the "National Coalition to Prevent an Iranian Nuclear Weapon."  Hey, how could any good American object to that, eh?

Finally, send propaganda sheets press releases to journalists who know not to ask any tough questions.

Thus we see the following story from Reuters, dated yesterday:

U.S. security experts back Iran nuclear deal, as Trump faces deadlines

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Retired U.S. military officers, members of Congress and former U.S. ambassadors were among 52 U.S. national security experts who signed a letter released on Monday urging President Donald Trump’s administration not to jeopardize the international nuclear deal with Iran.

Trump faces deadlines related to the deal starting late this week, including deciding whether to reimpose oil sanctions lifted under the 2015 agreement. He will make the decision as Iran’s government deals with protests over economic hardships and corruption.

Signers of the letter, organized by the National Coalition to Prevent an Iranian Nuclear Weapon, included Richard Lugar, a former Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Paul O‘Neill, who served as Treasury secretary under Republican President George W. Bush; Michael Hayden, former director of the National Security Agency and Central Intelligence Agency, and Admiral Eric Olson, former commander of Special Forces.

“In responding to developments in Iran, now and in the future, the U.S. should be careful not to take any steps that might undermine the JCPOA (nuclear agreement) which remains vital to U.S. national security,” it said. 
And to keep you from thinking the signers might actually be supporters of the ghastly mullah regime, and to show you that the signers of the letter must have your best interests at heart--by showing how virtuous they are--they add this:
“We support the rights of Iranian citizens to free speech and peaceful protest and we condemn the use of force against peaceful demonstrations.” 
"Wow!  Okay, I'm convinced that you must really believe the bullshit you signed, cuz you stuck up for the population against the mullahs!"

Amusingly--predictably--there is no record that this "National Coalition" of experts existed before the day the letter was released.

Also:  I haven't read the entire text of the Iran nuclear "non-treaty treaty" rammed through by Obama and his minions--and it's likely that only one or two of the signers have, because Team Obama kept the terms secret.  Even members of congress weren't permitted to have a copy.  All they were allowed to do was to read a copy in a secure facility--and weren't permitted to take pics or make notes.  They weren't permitted to record their comments of its contents.

Getting the picture yet?

Is that the sort of restrictions you'd expect if the deal was really honest and reasonable from the American standpoint?  Of course not.

If it was honest and reasonable Team Obama wouldn't have been afraid to submit this treaty to the senate for ratification--which is a constitutional requirement that all treaties must undergo before being considered valid.  Obama went to enormous lengths to avoid calling it a treaty, so to avoid having to submit it to the senate.  Why?

Answer:  It's an outrageously bad agreement for the U.S--one with no provision for meaningful verification that Iran is abiding by its provisions.  It was a total giveaway by Obozo to the mullahs.  He wanted to ram it thru so badly that he ordered hundreds of millions of dollars in CASH flown to the mullahs as a bribe--on top of the $150 Billion in frozen funds he "released" to them.

So why are the 82 signers so desperate to keep this bad deal in force?

Perhaps some reporter will ask each of them exactly, specifically why they supposedly think it's a great deal.

On reading the full letter we can see some hints that the people who drafted the letter--and it almost certainly wasn't anyone who signed it--may be trying to pull a fast one.  For example, the very first sentence letter says "Prevention of an Iranian nuclear weapon is a vital U.S. national security objective."  Hey, who could object to that?

But the very next sentence shows that the "Coalition" itself recognizes that Iran only agreed to postpone developing nuclear weapons for 13 years--assuming it actually honored the agreement.

Yet four paragraphs later the letter proclaims that "U.S. strategy must ensure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon"--implying (though carefully not stating explicitly) that the agreement will achieve that outcome, despite the earlier admission that it's just a postponement.

Although Reuters claims the signers were a bipartisan group, this is grossly misleading:  Over 90 percent of those for whom any party affiliation was shown are Democrats.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home