And that quote is from his supporters regarding Iranian negotiations.
Imagine what his detractors are saying. Like myself and others.
This president is having his house fall all about his shoulders, but few are noticing 
because his water-carriers, the American Media Maggots, are shielding him continuously like the good lap doggies they promised to be at the outset. GOWPs and the AMM, have shielded and protected Obama to the point where their credulity is now mostly lost.
Even Marie Harf, the Department of State Flack, has to “explain” what Obaka really meant. From CNSNews.com:
State Dep’t Clarifies Obama’s ‘Muddled’ Words on Iran Nuclear Breakout Time
by Patrick Goodenough
(CNSNews.com) – President Obama appeared to concede this week that under a final nuclear deal, Iran — after 13 or so years — would be able to build a nuclear bomb quickly if it chooses to do so. But State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf insisted later that the words had been misread.
Of course. The words have been “misread.”
Harf told a daily briefing that Obama’s words “were a little mixed up” and “a little muddled,” saying they had referred to a hypothetical state of affairs in which an agreement had not been reached, rather than the situation as it will be in 13 years’ time under a negotiated agreement.
This is Marie Harf, the most ignorant glassesed bint on a current elevated government pedestal, quoting Barack Hussein Obama as “a little mixed up” and “a little muddled”? And this is support?
Marie Harf did her level best to “walk back” Obama’s statements. Please click the link.
Further, from Algemeiner.com:
“Open confusion” reigned today at the State Department after spokeswoman Marie Harf tried to withdraw a quote from President Barack Obama regarding Iran’s nuclear breakout time, advocacy group The Israel Project said.
In the interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep, the President acknowledged that, after year 13, the current deal being worked out with Iran would not provide the international community with the promised 1-year warning should Iran decide to violate the deal and go for a nuclear weapon.
Details details details. And on whom do these details fall? Who wins, who loses?
Check out this article written by Henry Kissinger and George Shultz at WSJ.com.
NewsMax.com provides the article as an alternate, because the WSJ mandates a subscription and I won’t pay for internet sources. I may provide dead links to you, but never at my own choosing. And if I find dead links, I do my best to provide alternatives. As I do now:
Kissinger, Shultz: Iran Deal Likely to Deepen US Involvement
The recently announced framework agreement on Iran’s nuclear program is more likely to increase American involvement in the Middle East rather than decrease it, former Republican Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George P. Shultz write in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.
In the 2,000-word piece posted on the Journal’s website on Tuesday night, Kissinger and Shultz wrote that “Rather than enabling American disengagement from the Middle East, the nuclear framework is more likely to necessitate deepening involvement there — on complex new terms.”
Meaning: in over six years, there is still no one sitting at the Adult’s Table in the Obama Administration.
Since the number of Iran’s centrifuges have jumped from 100 at the start of talks 12 years ago to almost 20,000 today, “The threat of war now constrains the West more than Iran,” the former secretaries wrote. “While Iran treated the mere fact of its willingness to negotiate as a concession, the West has felt compelled to break every deadlock with a new proposal.”
Now, Iran’s program is within two to three months of building a nuclear weapon.
“In a large country with multiple facilities and ample experience in nuclear concealment, violations will be inherently difficult to detect,” they said. “Devising theoretical models of inspection is one thing. Enforcing compliance, week after week, despite competing international crises and domestic distractions, is another.”
Damn them for daring to speak and write the truth. As Caucasoids, Kissinger and Schultz must be racists, not senior analysts.
Now, Iran’s program is within two to three months of building a nuclear weapon.
“In a large country with multiple facilities and ample experience in nuclear concealment, violations will be inherently difficult to detect,” they said. “Devising theoretical models of inspection is one thing. Enforcing compliance, week after week, despite competing international crises and domestic distractions, is another.”
And Iran has been completely forthcoming with current and past IAEA demands? Allowed inspectors in?
Uh. No. Not even remotely.
Past behavior is the best predictor of future performance or the lack thereof.
A wonderful “out”:
Another wrench thrown into the gears is the means of enforcement, “which provides Iran permanent relief from sanctions in exchange for temporary restraints on Iranian conduct,” Kissinger and Shultz said.
Further:
Kissinger and Shultz also attack the idea of a nuclear umbrella provided to Iran’s Arab neighbors by the United States.
“Are the guarantees extended against the use of nuclear weapons — or against any military attack, conventional or nuclear? Is it the domination by Iran that we oppose or the method for achieving it?” they say. “What if nuclear weapons are employed as psychological blackmail?”
The central argument and paragraph:
“If the world is to be spared even worse turmoil, the U.S. must develop a strategic doctrine for the region,” they argue. “Stability requires an active American role. For Iran to be a valuable member of the international community, the prerequisite is that it accepts restraint on its ability to destabilize the Middle East and challenge the broader international order.”
Let’s be frank: Barack Hussein Obama couldn’t negotiate himself or his loved ones out of a paper bag.
What makes anyone think BHO could make any cogent negotiation?
BZ
CNN hosted the final Republican debate of 2015, Tuesday, December 15th. Once again Hugh Hewitt was one of the questioners, and Wolf Blitzer was the moderator.
First Debate:
