…Clinton declared “This is a good deal for the United States, North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. International inspectors will carefully monitor North Korea to make sure it keeps its commitments…”
(Obama used many of the same words to announce the nuclear deal with Iran that Clinton had used to announce the nuclear deal with North Korea while knowing Clinton’s deal had not prevented the North Korean nuclear bomb. See the video of Clinton’s announcement in the link below…)
Obama Echoes Bill Clinton’s North Korea Nuclear Deal Announcement [VIDEO]
Are the nuclear deals with N.Korea and Iran the worst cases of FRAUD in US history?
by Ezequiel Doiny
On October 21, 1994 when he signed the nuclear deal with North Korea Bill Clinton declared “This is a good deal for the United States, North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. International inspectors will carefully monitor North Korea to make sure it keeps its commitments…”
On January 6, 2016 CNBC reported that “North Korea claimed it detonated a hydrogen bomb in a test Wednesday, a move that was condemned by the U.S., Britain, Japan and even China. It was the politically isolated country’s first nuclear weapons test explosion in three years…
According to KCNA, North Korea tested a miniaturized hydrogen nuclear bomb “in the most perfect manner,” putting it in possession of hydrogen bomb capability, which it described as “the most powerful nuclear deterrent.”
North Korea wanted what it called “the H-bomb of justice” as protection from the “ever-growing nuclear threat and blackmail by the U.S.-led hostile forces,” according to KCNA.
It would use the weapons only if its sovereignty were encroached upon, the statement on KCNA said, but would not roll back its nuclear development until the U.S. had dropped its “vicious, hostile” policy toward the isolated Communist state.
“The U.S. is a gang of cruel robbers which has worked hard to bring even a nuclear disaster to the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korean], not content with having imposed the thrice-cursed and unheard-of political isolation, economic blockade and military pressure on it for the mere reason that it has differing ideology and social system,” according to the statement.
“The present-day grim reality clearly proves once again the immutable truth that one’s destiny should be defended by one’s own efforts,” the statement went on. “Nothing is more foolish than dropping a hunting gun before herds of ferocious wolves.”
It was North Korea’s first nuclear test since February 2013 and the fourth overall…
Britain’s Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond said that such a test would be a “grave breach” of U.N. resolutions; North Korea is already under U.N. sanctions for having conducted previous nuclear tests, the first as early as 2006.
Reuters reported that the U.N. Security Council would hold an emergency meeting at 11 a.m. ET (4 p.m. GMT) to discuss the test, at the request of the U.S. and Japan. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon condemned the apparent test, calling it “deeply troubling” and “profoundly destabilizing for regional security.
The apparent test shows that North Korea “is more than prepared to pay the price of getting its wrist slapped” by additional U.N. sanctions or resolutions, said Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations. North Korea may not scale back its nuclear ambitions until it faces significant retribution from China, he told CNBC.
“Only China, I think has the latent leverage to get the North Koreans to change their behavior. And China, at least up to now, hasn’t been willing to do that because they’re worried, among other things, about causing instability on the peninsula,” Haass told CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street.”
Former U.S. ambassador to South Korea Thomas Hubbard told CNBC he would “assume the Security Council will choose to impose some additional sanctions.”
“I do think it’s crucial that the Chinese will fulfill them,” he said on CNBC’s “Squawk Alley.”
Word of the nuclear test emerged shortly after 9 a.m. SIN/HK, when the U.S. Geological Survey said it had detected a magnitude 5.1 earthquake about 49 kilometers (30 miles) a known North Korean nuclear test site, according to its coordinates. The USGS said that the earthquake, near the site called Punggye-ri, was about 10 km below the Earth’s surface.
The magnitude of the North Korean seismic event appears to have been slightly less than a similar one in 2013, the head of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization said.
The Korean Meteorological Administration said that it detected the epicenter of the quake at a depth of “0 kilometers.” It put the magnitude at 4.2.”
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/05/big-earthquake-detected-near-north-korean-nuclear-site-reports.html
On August 24, 2016 CNN reported that “North Korea test fired a submarine-based ballistic missile from its east coast on Wednesday, South Korean authorities said…The launch comes amid the annual joint military exercise between the United States and South Korea, which kicked off on Monday…North Korea has made threats of nuclear retaliation if the two-week drills “show the slightest sign of aggression,” a spokesman for North Korea’s military was quoted as saying by the country’s state media…”
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/23/world/north-korea-missile-launch/index.html
If it wasn’t for Bill Clinton’s innefective nuclear deal, North Korea would not have Nuclear Weapons today and the world would be much safer. When he signed the nuclear deal with North Korea Bill Clinton declared “This is a good deal for the United States, North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. International inspectors will carefully monitor North Korea to make sure it keeps its commitments…” Bill Clinton is responsible for the North Korean bomb the same way Obama will be responsible for the Iranian bomb.
________________________________
Should Obama be impeached for “intentional deception” on the nuclear deal with Iran?
by Ezequiel Doiny
Abstract
140,000 expected victims in a Nuclear war, Obama could have prevented this . The quantity of casualties killed in a limited strike today would be insignificant compared to that. Obama could have bombed the Iranian Nuclear facilities to stop their nuclear program, his deal makes nuclear war more likely. An incremental application of force today to stop Iran’s nuclear program is far preferable than a nuclear holocaust in 15 years. A limited war today would be preferable to a full scale nuclear war in 15 years. Obama’s agreement with Iran will not prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon in 15 years or less…
On April 5, 2016 Lea Spyer wrote in the Algemeiner “US lawmakers are questioning the Obama administration’s commitments to Congress over the Iran nuclear deal and its numerous guarantees that the Islamic Republic would not be granted extra concessions for signing it, the Washington Free Beacon reported.
Over the course of the last year, administration officials confirmed in Congressional testimony that the Iranian regime would not gain access to the US financial system and missile technology under the terms of the nuclear agreement. In one such instance, Acting Under Secretary of the Treasury Adam Szubin assured lawmakers in September that Iran would not be given the opportunity “to execute a dollarized transaction where a split second’s worth of business is done in a New York clearing bank.”
In March, however, the Associated Press reported that the Obama administration was contemplating “easing financial restrictions that prohibit US dollars from being used in transactions with Iran,” which is currently outlawed. This change in policy would result in a significant boost to Iran’s hard-hit economy.
US lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressed their outrage over the president’s alleged policy backtrack, the report said, adding that Obama “promised to maintain a strict ban on dollars along with other non-nuclear penalties on Iran.” Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) wrote in a letter to the president that allowing Iran access to the dollar “is clearly not required” by the terms set forth in the nuclear agreement. In a statement, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WA) called the reports “deeply concerning,” and said, “The president should abandon this idea.”
In a second policy shift, Reuters reported, Washington has ceased referring to Iran’s ballistic-missile launches as a “violation” of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which codifies the nuclear deal. In March, Iran test-fired a missile capable of carrying a nuclear payload, the report said, and US, British, French and German officials called this “inconsistent with” and “in defiance” of the resolution.
According to the report, “The four powers’ carefully worded letter stopped short of calling the Iranian launches a ‘violation’ of the resolution, which ‘calls upon’ Iran to refrain for up to eight years from activity, including launches, related to ballistic missiles designed with the capability of delivering nuclear weapons.”
The reversal in policy, the report stated, contradicts testimony given by Lead Coordinator for Iran Nuclear Implementation Ambassador Stephen Mull in December. When asked whether the test-launch of ballistic missiles by Iran is a violation of the nuclear agreement, Mull responded: “It is not in violation of the JCPOA. It is a violation of Security Council resolutions.”
US lawmakers are now left wondering whether the Obama administration deliberately deceived them in order to gain support in passing the nuclear deal. According to the Washington Free Beacon, Congress has launched an investigation into whether the president “misled lawmakers last summer about the extent of concessions granted to Iran under the nuclear deal, as well as if administration officials have been quietly rewriting the deal’s terms in the aftermath of the agreement.”
Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) explained to the Washington Free Beacon the motives behind the Congressional investigation: “When multiple officials — including Secretary Kerry, Secretary Lew, and Ambassador Mull — testify in front of Members of Congress, we are inclined to believe them. However, the gap between their promises on the Iran nuclear deal and today’s scary reality continues to widen. We are now trying to determine whether this was intentional deception on the part of the administration or new levels of disturbing acquiescence to the Iranians.”
Congress Investigating Obama Administration for ‘Intentional Deception’ on Concessions to Iran
On April 2, 2015 CNN reported Obama’s speech announcing the Nuclear deal with Iran from the White House Rose Garden “It is a good deal, a deal that meets our core objectives…This framework would cut off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon.”
The deal would include strict verification measures to make sure Iran complies, he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/02/world/iran-nuclear-talks/index.html
According to Obama’s speech the deal would include strict verification measures to make sure Iran complies, and that if Iran cheats the world will know it.
The Iran nuclear deal depends on robust verification and transparency, making detailed reporting on Iran’s implementation of its commitments all the more important. However the International Atomic Energy Agency’s most recent report on Iran’s nuclear activities provides insufficient details on important verification and monitoring issues.
On March 4th 2016 Dr. Olli Heinonen, the former deputy director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) wrote “The International Atomic Energy Agency’s most recent report on Iran’s nuclear activities provides insufficient details on important verification and monitoring issues. The report does not list inventories of nuclear materials and equipment or the status of key sites and facilities. Without detailed reporting, the international community cannot be sure that Iran is upholding its commitments under the nuclear deal. Over the longer term, this will hamper efforts to reach a “broader conclusion” that all nuclear material and activities are accounted for and for peaceful use.”
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/olli-heinonen-the-iaeas-latest-report-falls-short1/
Obama lied and as a consequence of his lie Iran can now build a nuclear weapon. 140,000 people are expected to be killed in a Nuclear war, Obama could have prevented this . The quantity of casualties killed in a limited strike today would be insignificant compared to that. Obama could have bombed the Iranian Nuclear facilities to stop their nuclear program, his deal makes nuclear war more likely. An incremental application of force today to stop Iran’s nuclear program is far preferable than a nuclear holocaust in 15 years. A limited war today would be preferable to a full scale nuclear war in 15 years. Obama’s agreement with Iran will not prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon in 15 years or less.”
Obama could have bombed the Iranian Nuclear facilities to stop their nuclear program. His Nuclear deal that makes a nuclear war more likely.
The Congress should pass a law of “nuclear responsibility” by which any future US president will have the obligation to protect US citizens against the threat of nuclear weapons by preventing rogue regimes (like Iran and N.Korea) from developing nuclear weapons by all means. If those countries already have nuclear weapons the President must prevent them from building more weapons and obtaining parts and materials necessary for upgrading or maintaining their current arsenal. If the President fails to comply he should be immediately impeached and go to jail.
On January 6, 2016 CNN reported that “…North Korea restarted plutonium reactors frozen under a 1994 deal with the Clinton administration, while the administration accused it of building a separate uranium program. Pyongyang ultimately conducted a nuclear test in 2006…”
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/politics/north-korea-nuclear-test-clinton-trump/index.html
Bombing the Iranian Nuclear Facilities today would have a higher chance of preventing Iran from building a Nuclear Weapon than Obama’s agreement.
Iranian leaders repeatedly called for Israel’s destruction.
By opting for signing an agreement with Iran rather than bombing their Nuclear Facilities, the chances that Iran would obtain a Nuclear weapon are higher, the chances that Iran would attack Israel are higher. Obama’s Nuclear deal make the chances of a full scale nuclear war higher.
Why did Obama choose to sign the Nuclear Deal rather than to bomb the Iranian Nuclear Facilities considering that this deal make the chances of a full scale nuclear war more likely?
Iranian leaders refer to Israel as a ONE BOMB STATE because it can be destroyed with only one bomb.
On August 11, Newsmax reported about Khamenei’s Mein Kampf: “Supreme ruler Ayatollah Khamenei of Iran has published a book on how to destroy Israel, arguing that his position is based on “well-established Islamic principles.”
The 416-page book is entitled “Palestine,” The New York Post reports. An item on the books’ back cover describes Khamenei as “The flagbearer of Jihad to liberate Jerusalem.” …
…From the outset, Khamenei makes clear that Israel does not have a right to exist as a state.
He crystalizes his argument with three key words throughout the book, according to the Post.
They are “nabudi,” which means “annihilation”; “imha,” meaning “fading out”; and “zaval,” which means “effacement.”
The ayatollah also described Israel as “adou” and “doshman” — or “enemy” and “foe,” the Post reports.
Khamenei called anti-Semitism as a European notion, according to the Post, and claimed that his perspective is based on “well-established Islamic principles.”
These include the idea that land that falls under Muslim rule, even briefly, can never again be ceded to non-Muslims, the Post reports.
“What matters in Islam is ownership of a land’s government, even if the majority of inhabitants are non-Muslims,” according to the report.
Khamenei also argues that Israel is a special case because the nation is a loyal “ally of the American Great Satan,” meaning the United States; because it has warred against Muslims on many occasions; and because Israel occupies Jerusalem, which Khamenei describes as “Islam’s third Holy City.”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Iran-book-destroy-israel/2015/08/01/id/664999/
The inspections established by the Nuclear Agreement will not be able to detect if Iran tries to create a Nuclear Weapon.
Michael R. Gordon writes in The New York Times that “the Obama administration’s claim that the Iran nuclear accord provides for airtight verification procedures is coming under challenge from nuclear experts with long experience in monitoring Tehran’s program. David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security and a former weapons inspector in Iraq, said that three weeks might be ample time for the Iranians to dispose of any evidence of prohibited nuclear work. Among the possibilities, he said, were experiments with high explosives that could be used to trigger a nuclear weapon, or the construction of a small plant to make centrifuges. “If it is on a small scale, they may be able to clear it out in 24 days….They are practiced at cheating. You can’t count on them to make a mistake.”
Olli Heinonen, a former deputy director of the IAEA, said there had been cases in which Iran had successfully hidden evidence of illicit nuclear work even when nuclear enrichment was involved. When the atomic energy agency sought to inspect the Kalaye Electric Company site in Iran in 2003, the Iranians kept inspectors at bay while they spent weeks removing the equipment and renovating the building where it had been kept. Heinonen noted that the Iranians would be better prepared to remove the evidence of illicit work if they decided to cheat on the accord. “There will likely be plans to be executed promptly to avoid getting caught,” he said.”
The Nuclear Agreement also allows Iran to provide soil samples to the IAEA. On July 28 Foxnews reported that “Iran reportedly is insisting that its own officials be able to take soil samples at a suspected nuclear site and may get its way…Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA, and particularly the Parchin site, has been an area of concern for lawmakers in the weeks since the agreement was announced.
According to The Washington Free Beacon, Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, earlier chided Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz about the site: “Let me tell you the worst thing about Parchin. What you guys agreed to was, we can’t even take samples there. IAEA can’t take samples there. They’re going to be able to test by themselves. Even the NFL wouldn’t go along with this.” ”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/28/iran-soil-tests/
Inaction has its price. Bruce Thornton wrote in Frontpage Magazine that “The point is not, contrary to Obama, that full-scale war is the only alternative to stopping Iran. An incremental application of force in response to Iranian intransigence and stonewalling during negotiations––destroying the Arak nuclear reactor, for example––would have convinced Iran that there was a serious price to pay for their obstructionism, lying, and cheating on their obligations. Those who preach “force solves nothing” should remember the 1988 Tanker War, sparked by Iran’s threats to disrupt oil shipments transiting the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war. Iran backed off when Ronald Reagan retaliated for a missile attack on an American warship by eventually destroying two Iranian oil platforms, two Iranian ships, and six Iranian gunboats. But once
Obama made clear in word and deed that even a limited military option was off the table, the mullahs were confident that they could ratchet up their demands, pocket the sanctions-relief payola, and achieve their aim a little later rather than sooner.
Of course, there would be consequences to such military actions, and no doubt the “world community” Obama prefers answering to instead of Congress would complain––a contingency that doesn’t seem to inhibit Russia and China from brutally pursuing their national interests. But inaction has its consequences as well. In the coming years we will find out just what the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran will be.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259523/more-sanctions-wouldnt-have-stopped-iran-bruce-thornton
An incremental application of force today to stop Iran’s nuclear program is far preferable than a nuclear holocaust in 15 years. What would be the consequences of inaction today? There are horrific casualties predicted if Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons. Nick Turse, an award-winning journalist managing editor of TomDispatch.com and a fellow at the Nation Institute, wrote in realclearworld.com that “The first nuclear attack on a civilian population center, the U.S. strike on Hiroshima, left that city “uniformly and extensively devastated,” according to a study carried out in the wake of the attacks by the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey. “Practically the entire densely or moderately built-up portion of the city was leveled by blast and swept by fire… The surprise, the collapse of many buildings, and the conflagration contributed to an unprecedented casualty rate.” At the time, local health authorities reported that 60% of immediate deaths were due to flash or flame burns and medical investigators estimated that 15%-20% of the deaths were caused by radiation.
Witnesses “stated that people who were in the open directly under the explosion of the bomb were so severely burned that the skin was charred dark brown or black and that they died within a few minutes or hours,” according to the 1946 report… One survivor recalled seeing victims “with both arms so severely burned that all the skin was hanging from their arms down to their nails, and others having faces swollen like bread, losing their eyesight. It was like ghosts walking in procession… Some jumped into a river because of their serious burns. The river was filled with the wounded and blood.”
The number of fatalities at Hiroshima has been estimated at 140,000. A nuclear attack on Nagasaki three days later is thought to have killed 70,000. Today, according to Dallas, 15-kiloton nuclear weapons of the type used on Japan are referred to by experts as “firecracker nukes” due to their relative weakness…”
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2013/05/13/what_a_nuclear_war_between_israel_and_iran_would_look_like_105158.html
The quantity of casualties killed in a limited strike today would be insignificant compared to that. Obama could have bombed the Iranian Nuclear facilities to stop their nuclear program, his deal makes nuclear war more likely. An incremental application of force today to stop Iran’s nuclear program is far preferable than a nuclear holocaust in 15 years. A limited war today would be preferable to a full scale nuclear war in 15 years. Obama’s agreement with Iran will not prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon in 15 years or less.
Hitler wears a turban and he sits in Tehran. As Khamenei wrote in his Mein Kampf, Iran has intention of destroying Israel. Israel is the size of New Jersey. Iranian leaders refer to Israel as a ONE BOMB STATE because it can be destroyed with only one bomb.
The day the Iran deal was signed Obama and Kerry celebrated “US President Obama made a brief swing through the State Department Thursday evening for a private victory reception on the Iran deal held by Secretary of State John Kerry for all the agency staff involved in the intense, months-long negotiations, Washingtonexaminer reports.”
Obama and Kerry’s celebration is reproachable considering the likely tragic consequences of this deal. The choice has never been between war and peace. The choice is between a limited military strike now or a full scale Nuclear War in 15 years. Obama’s choice will lead a Nuclear Holocaust.
