Bolton Calls Iran Deal ‘Unprecedented’ Surrender

7

boltonFormer United Nations Ambassador John Bolton said yesterday that President Obama is negotiating “an unprecedented act of surrender” with Iran in discussions over its nuclear weapons program.

“This deal is fundamentally flawed,” Bolton said at the South Carolina National Security Action Summit in West Columbia, S.C. “There really is no deal I’d trust Iran with. It is a regime determined to have nuclear weapons and this deal will give it to them.”

The Obama administration is hoping Iran will slow or stop its nuclear armaments research in exchange for removing economic sanctions. Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia are aiding U.S. efforts to bargain with Iran. The two sides will resume talks in Lausanne, Switzerland, next week.

Controversy erupted over an open letter Republicans sent Iran’s leadership Monday. It vowed Congress can void any deal it finds unsatisfying and was signed by 47 GOP senators.

President Obama said Friday he was “embarrassed” for the message’s signers. The move has drawn swift criticism from social media, with the hashtag #47Traitors a recurring trend online last week.

Bolton rebuked the president’s response as unjustified Saturday. He said the Senators were not traitors, but rather lawmakers who “stood up for the Constitution.”

“The president coddles the Iranian ayatollah and attacks his own countrymen and our closest allies over this deal,” Bolton said Saturday. “The danger we hope to avoid is now imminent. This is just one example of how the President doesn’t care about America’s national security.”

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, blasted the letter’s “backstabbing” on Thursday. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), the letter’s driving force, criticized the Ayatollah’s regime Tuesday.

“They’ve been killing Americans for 35 years, they’ve killed hundreds of troops in Iran, now they control five capitols in the Middle East,” Cotton said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “They are nothing but hard-liners in Iran, and if they do all of those things without a nuclear weapon, imagine what they would do with one.”

Bolton said yesterday that Obama’s eagerness for a deal would give Tehran a “free pass” for nuclear arms. He said American voters should thus make national security the central issue of 2016’s presidential elections.

“The gravest threat to our national security sits in the Oval Office,” Bolton said. “The next two years can’t pass swiftly enough. For God’s sake, let’s not make the same mistake in 2016.”

THE HILL

{Matzav.com Newscenter}

7 COMMENTS

  1. “stood up for the Constitution”

    Bolton really is a fool. First he doubles down on the nonexistent “no-go” zones in France even after Fox News admits that they don’t exist. Then he claims that the 47 Republican fools whose letter purporting to claim to explain the Constitution contained a fundamental error about the Constitution are standing up for it?

    Why does matzav waste internet bandwidth with this guy? Can’t you come up with someone more credible to attack Obama? You are damaging your own cause!

  2. While it’s undoubtedly frustrating for Obamalovers to read John Bolton’s critiques of the President, attacking the messenger with untruths is a sleazy tactic.
    John Bolton isn’t the one who “Doubled down” the “no-go zones” claim in Europe, rather it was Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Furthermore, Bolton himself clarified that “no-go zones” are NOT areas ceded by the governments, but “These are just residential areas that prudent people don’t go in at certain hours of the day. Nor do the police – not because of official policy but because they are worried.”

    The error on the Republican’s “Open letter”, per Law Professor Jack Goldsmith (who caught the error) is “…a technical point that does not detract from the letter’s message that any administration deal with Iran might not last beyond this presidency.” Somehow, this point that the error (although embarrassing) was inconsequential got omitted.

    Too bad Matzav doesn’t have the time to verify false, distorting and misleading posts from knowledgeable posters who have an agenda and are unfettered by pesky ethics.

  3. “John Bolton isn’t the one who “Doubled down” the “no-go zones” claim in Europe, rather it was Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. ”

    While Jindal did indeed double down, one day after Fox News retracted its claim, the web site of Bolton’s organization posted an article that doubled down in exactly the terms that Jindal used. So you while you are right about Jindal you are wrong about Bolton.

    “a technical point that does not detract from the letter’s message ”

    It is not a “technical point”. The President can delay ratification or even decline to ratify a treaty even after the Senate has given its 2/3 approval. This first happened way back in 1795 when George Washington delayed ratification of Jay’s Treaty with the UK because he knew how unpopular it would be. The Republicans would get an F in a high school civics class, yet they purport to want to lecture a foreign government as to the meaning of the Constitution.

    Besides, the deal won’t be with the US, it will be with the G5+1. The Republicans don’t even seem to know who is doing the negotiating!

    “doesn’t have the time to verify false, distorting and misleading posts from knowledgeable posters”

    Nothing false in my comment here, but I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to show even more examples where the Republicans don’t know what they are talking about. And I note that I post under my real name, unlike almost everyone else here.

  4. #1 Charlie hall you’re s fool after 6 plus years you still support Obama the worse president in world history.
    And now he making deals and giving Iran the nukes.
    Wake up.

  5. Omitting key facts to give a distorted picture of what someone said or did is dishonest. Even frustrated Obamalovers should make their points without crossing the line into dishonesty.

    Here are the points made and why they are dishonest:

    1) John Bolton “Doubled down” his claim of “No-go zones”.
    Ah, so now the claim changes. Instead of “**HE** doubles down” from the original post, now the “web site of Bolton’s organization posted an article that doubled down”. Just a slight difference between the two statements. In other words, anything posted in any article on that website can be attributed as a direct quote to John Bolton. (That’s even accepting that such a quote was published, which I won’t accept without proof.) Furthermore, the actual verbatim quote from Bolton, “These are just residential areas that prudent people don’t go in at certain hours of the day” was conveniently ignored. That’s (not to sugarcoat things) dishonesty by omission.

    2) Re: The Republican Senators’ “Open Letter” to Iran.
    It is not a “technical point”.
    The “Technical point” statement is a direct quote from the Law Professor who pointed out the error. It is only a technical point because the senators’ main point, that the treaty could be cancelled once Obama leaves office, is 100% correct. Stating that Obama still has the option of not ratifying the treaty after Senate approval is true, but has nothing, repeat NOTHING, to do with the treaty being cancelled after he leaves office.

    “Besides, the deal won’t be with the US, it will be with the G5+1. The Republicans don’t even seem to know who is doing the negotiating!”
    How to even address this? Is the U.S. a member of the G5+1? DO even Daily Kos readers think Senators aren’t aware of this?

    “Nothing false in my comment here, but I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to show even more examples where the Republicans don’t know what they are talking about.”
    The falsehoods have been pointed out. Not outright lies, but falsehoods by distortion and deliberate omission.

    “And I note that I post under my real name, unlike almost everyone else here.”
    …and that conveys clear moral superiority.

  6. In a nutshell, poster #1 calls Bolton a “Fool” for saying something he never said while totally ignoring Bolton’s actual statement on the same subject.

    This is honest?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here