Obama’s “Arrangement” with Iran
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | August 5, 2015 | Rush Limbaugh
Posted on 8/5/2015, 3:01:53 PM by Kaslin
Now Obama. He’s still speaking. He is still giving this speech about his Iranian nuke deal. But he characterized this in a very interesting way. He said, “We have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
Now, forget the misdirection here about “permanently prohibiting Iran from obtaining,” ’cause we haven’t. The deal doesn’t even do that, but, hell, who’s gonna call him on it? He can lie. He can make up everything he wants.
He can say this deal is whatever it is, and who’s gonna call him on it, other than us? “We have achieved a detailed arrangement…” Now, I’m a words guy. You know I’m the mayor the Realville, and words mean things. That’s why my opposition to gay marriage is what it is, because is marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman. It’s not two people of the same sex. I have devotion to words and their meanings. I think it’s one of the ways in which, by the way, our culture is being debased.
And one of the ways in which the left is debasing the culture to advance their cause is by obliterating words, the language, and how they’re used and interpreted. But point here is, he didn’t say, “We’ve achieved a detailed agreement.” He said, “We have achieved a detailed arrangement.” To me, an arrangement is not an agreement. Two people don’t go to the church and get arranged. And we don’t have Senate ratification of treaties for “arrangements.”
And the arrangement is that Iran… This is what we’ve arranged. Iran is going to be the dominant player in the Middle East now. Iran will remain the leading exporter of terrorism. Iran will be flush with cash because we’re dropping the sanctions, and they will be given a clear path to a nuclear arsenal to go along with their standard, ordinary, everyday weapons, because we have an “arrangement.” I’m telling you, it matters.
He did not say “agreement.” He said, “We have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from…” But it doesn’t do that. I know he’s lying about the permanence, the prohibition of a nuke. It’s unforgivable but it is what it is. It’s who Obama is. But here’s the thing. He then said, “The sanctions would unravel if we walk away from our arrangement.” Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! Just a second, now.
The sanctions are lifted as part of the arrangement. What is this “sanctions would unravel if we walk away”? The sanctions are going away with the arrangement! So if we walk away, and there is no arrangement, are we also gonna take the sanctions with us? Why would the sanctions automatically unravel if there’s no arrangement? Why wouldn’t they stay on? But then there’s another question about the sanctions that popped into my head as well.
‘Cause Obama’s out there — and this is not the first day that he said this. You know, a lot of people are zeroing in on the sanctions being lifted because that gives Iran anywhere from a hundred to $130 billion of cash that they can spend however they want. John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) has admitted that they could kill Americans with it. They will continue to fund their operations and policies in the Middle East.
That’s Hezbollah, Hamas, whatever they’re in bed with. We’ve acknowledged that’s gonna happen. But Obama is saying that sanctions will not stop Iran from building its nuclear program. Not just today, either. I mean, this has been part of the argument from the beginning of this arrangement to drop the sanctions because the sanctions, they’re not gonna stop ’em from doing anything anyway.
Well, okay, then, isn’t it a rather obvious question? If you’re going to claim that sanctions, economic sanctions would not prevent the Iranians from going all-nuke, then why would the threat of them unraveling prevent the Iranians from cheating? Obama’s out trying to make the claim that we can prevent Iran from cheating with this deal and so forth, but the sanctions are the key to it.
But at the same time, he says that sanctions are not gonna stop the Iranian nuclear program, and that’s his excuse for getting rid of them, because they’re not gonna stop anything. So why would the threat of re-imposing them bother the Iranians? If the existence of sanctions is no big deal, then why would “snapping” them back on be a big deal? And yet that’s what he’s out there saying would happen here. If they cheat.
(impression) “That’s right. We catch the Iranians cheating, we could put those sanctions right back on.”
But wait a minute! You just said the sanctions are not gonna stop ’em.
“Well, that’s right. You’re asking a question you’re not supposed to ask. You’re just supposed to let me say it and applaud.”
Oh. Well, I’m sorry, ’cause it doesn’t make any sense. You can’t sit there and tell us that sanctions are not gonna stop them from going all-nuke, and………..MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!