« | »

Russia May Change Stance On Iran Nuclear Talks

From an irony proof Associated Press:

Senior Russian Diplomat: Moscow May Change Stance In Iranian Nuke Talks

March 19, 2014

MOSCOW (CBSDC/AP) — A senior Russian diplomat says Moscow may change its stance in the Iranian nuclear talks amid tensions with the West.

Which could be great news, if it means the Russians are finally going to stop building nuclear reactors for the Iranians. And they now going to start helping us enforce the sanctions on Iran. But it probably doesn’t mean that.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov was quoted Wednesday as saying by the Interfax news agency that Russia didn’t want to use the Iranian nuclear talks to “raise stakes,” but may have to do so in response to the actions by the United States and the European Union…

Huh? They would go against their own national interests, just to spite us? — After all, we have been told by the Obama administration that the Russians were helping us with Iran because it was in their national interest, too. Was none of that true? (Rhetorical question.)

Meanwhile, from an unquestioning Washington Post:

Clinton says she is ‘personally skeptical’ of nuclear agreement with Iran

By Philip Rucker | March 19, 2014

NEW YORK – Hillary Rodham Clinton cast doubt on the interim nuclear weapons agreement with Iran, saying in a speech here Wednesday night that she is “personally skeptical” that Iran’s leaders would follow through on a comprehensive agreement to end Iran’s march toward nuclear weapons.

Huh. Did Mrs. Clinton ever think to express her skepticism while she was Secretary Of State when these negotiations with Iran began?

Still, the former secretary of state told a pro-Israel audience that she stands behind the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran and commended the work of her successor, John F. Kerry. Clinton said the United States should “give space for diplomacy to work” and avoid imposing new unilateral sanctions or any other actions that might lead any allies to back out of existing international sanctions against Iran.

“The odds of reaching that comprehensive agreement are not good,” Clinton said. “I am also personally skeptical that the Iranians would follow through and deliver. I have seen their behavior over years. But this is a development that is worth testing.”

So she is both for this and against it. All of her bases are covered if it flops big time. (Which it already has.) Besides, what could be wrong with giving Iran more time to develop their nuclear capabilities?

If the negotiations with Iran fail, Clinton said, the United States should explore “every other option.” “Let’s be clear,” she said, “every other option does remain on the table.”

Oh, our sides. All of ‘the options were on the table’ when Hillary’s husband allowed both Pakistan and North Korea to get ‘the bomb.’ And we all remember what Bill Clinton did. (Nothing.)

In a 30-minute address at an American Jewish Congress gala — where she was honored with a lifetime achievement award by actress Julianna Margulies and serenaded at the dinner table by Israeli singer Liel Kolet — Clinton presented herself as a tough defender of Israel in the Senate and at the State Department…

Hillary Rodham Clinton sure has gotten a lot of ‘lifetime achievement awards’ for someone who has never done anything of significance that anyone can cite. Though she sure has been involved in a lot of screw-ups and scandals.

Such as: Whitewater-gate, Cattle-gate, File-gate, Russian Re-set-gate, ‘Arab Spring’-gate, Benghazi-gate…

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, March 20th, 2014. Comments are currently closed.

2 Responses to “Russia May Change Stance On Iran Nuclear Talks”

  1. Rusty Shackleford says:

    It is rather sublime that the national socialists repeatedly give themselves awards. It has to stem from an incredible inferiority complex and tremendous insecurity because, somehow, deep down inside, they must know they haven’t done a go**am thing.

    I think there used to be movies out there where the main characters were in a survival situation and it always worked out that the rich blowhard didn’t know how to do—well—anything except yammer on about issues that were important to them.

    Life is more than just being able to tie your own shoes and certainly more than how to get enough money to make people do “all the ikky jobs” that the proles do. Those ikky jobs grew out of a necessity and requirement to sustain an infrastructure. Fine, go to the theater but that theater isn’t worth going to if the plumber has done a poor job of setting up the pipes in the restrooms. Or the electrician putting the wiring in your private booth.

    Russia suffered terribly for the lack of good, skilled technicians who were passionate about their jobs; Who really liked the idea that they “moved the steel” that was in a skyscraper. BTW, do you see a lot of skyscrapers in Russia? Other socialist countries? No? How about in socialist countries that do have them? Oh…that’s right, they had to send out to the USA to find people to work on the “high steel” to do it because nobody in those lands had the skills, background or gumption to even attempt it.

    There are all different kinds of people and the technician is most satisfied when they are able to go about their business unfettered by excessive regulation and being allowed to decide the best way to tackle a big job. But when people like Hitlery are involved, one phrase comes to mind:

    “Lady, you can tell me what you want done, or you can tell me how you want it done; But you can’t have both.”

    Hitlery is unfamiliar with this axiom. She believes that she is very bright and therefore should not only tell the cement truck driver where to park but also when to bring the concrete and how to pour it and how it should be leveled and all the rest. After all, “He’s a concrete-guy; How could he possibly know anything about it?”

    In other words, his low IQ and low-brow sense-of-humor indicate to her that he is so unrefined that he couldn’t possibly know anything about his job.

    The Romans often made this mistake and there were stories that the persons who treated their slaves with contempt would find themselves poisoned and/or severely dismembered. But thanks to our “civilized” society, the snobs are free to abuse the people who iron their clothes, cook their food and drive them around, etc.

    In one book I’ve read, the secret service people noted that Hitlery was by far the most abusive, foul-mouthed, ugly (personality) person to the hired help they had ever seen. And, it’s been my own personal experience that people like her who have never so much as mowed their own lawn have no understanding of how anything works. Without a baseline of experience in how to do anything constructive, I am somewhat flummoxed as to how people such as her can attain such high position and actually believe they know what they’re doing.

    The self-delusion is complete due to the constant reinforcement from other snobs who affirm and reaffirm their ignorance.

    But then, using the Titanic as an example, the rich and self-important survived because the hoi-polloi were LOCKED OUT of getting to the upper decks in 102 years ago next month. And we are fast approaching that kind of behavior again. At least, in our government, they are deciding things that will benefit them and them alone while locking out everyone else. And thumbing their noses at us in the process.

  2. canary says:

    Add Saddam Hussien and Osama Bin Laden to the list the Clinton’s did nothing about. After 9/11 FBI and CIA said Bill Clinton avoided meeting with them, probably because the Clinton’s had so much to hide.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »