(08-20-2015 09:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We don't have an economy any more that has the kind of leverage we used to be able to exert.

There are lots of places that would probably just tell us to kiss off if we started trying to throw our weight around.

Sanctions don't work, never have, never will. So a treaty that depends on sanctions as its enforcement mechanism is extremely unlikely to work either.

I don't think we had much to work with here. My only problem is acting like this treaty actually accomplishes anything. It doesn't. So don't pretend that it does. It gives Obama a piece of paper, and that's about it.

This is the Only Paper Obama Needs !

(08-20-2015 06:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 05:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 05:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 04:18 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 04:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Sorry sir, we are going to need you to provide better proof for our Chief Leftist Water Carrier and his minions around here than the AP. Until you can post some unbiased links from sources like MSNBCLOL, The Daily Kos, or the Daily Beast this is just right wing propaganda.

You mean like facts...like the AP is basically full of ****? Nah...just ignore those.

The AP's controversial and badly flawed Iran inspections story, explained

Quote:A key point here: The Parchin inspection is not part of the Iran nuclear deal that was negotiated by the US and other world powers with Iran. Rather, this is something the IAEA negotiates directly with the country it's inspecting, in this case Iran.

It is still related to the larger nuclear deal. The IAEA has to give the official thumbs-up on the PMD issue — the deadline is this fall — in order for the nuclear deal to go forward. But neither the US nor Obama are involved in this part — that's just not how these negotiations works.

...

This time, though, it was in the Associated Press. This is certainly not the first time that someone has placed a strategic leak in order to achieve a political objective. But it is disturbing that the AP allowed itself to be used in this way, that it exaggerated the story in a way that have likely misled large numbers of people, and that, having now scrubbed many of the details, it has appended no note or correction explaining the changes. It is not a proud moment for journalism.

Did someone mention The Onion?

It doesn't matter how many times you link it the fact is it's an article from the leftist propaganda rag Vox bashing the neutral AP.


Tote that water!

What was wrong in the article I posted? Be specific.

Deflect from the truth!

Quote:Eminent Iran and security expert Gary Sick pointed out in an email late Wednesday that the Associated Press just ran a shamefully inaccurate story alleging that under the UN Security Council deal with Iran, Iran would carry out some of the inspections of their own “sensitive sites.”

The accord actually provides for the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency always to be present at such inspections. The reason for the presence of Iranian experts is that there is a long history of outside nuclear teams being sent in by the Great Powers for espionage. I.e., the Iranian inspectors are there to keep an eye on the UN inspectors, not to cover up Iranian activities (to which the IAEA will have full access). The 1990s UN inspections of Iraq were infiltrated, for instance, by US intelligence.

http://www.juancole.com/2015/08/inspect-...ities.html

Quote:A senior State Department official said that the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, would have "total oversight" of sampling and inspections of Parchin under the agreement between the agency and Iran over access to the site.

"Iran is not self-inspecting," the official said, though this official would not deny that Iranian inspectors will "play a role."

It seems likely that IAEA staff would either be present or watching via video camera when the Iranians take samples from the site, a practice that the international nuclear agency has used in previous inspections agreements.

A senior administration official, meanwhile, said that while Iranians may be taking the samples at Parchin, individuals from other countries will be a part of their analysis. The official noted that the arrangement satisfies the demands of the IAEA.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/19/politics/i...s-parchin/

But by all means...keep your head buried to reality. It would probably upset me more to have you actually own up for a change.

The AP says it has seen documents stating what they claim. Your CNN link (not reading anything from the leftist/globalist Juan Cole, sorry) is based solely on the denial by Obama's State Department.

Who am I going to trust? The unbiased AP or the very State Department who "negotiated" this abortion of a treaty? Hmmmmm.

And EL OH EL @ you for talking about someone else burying their head to reality, Mr. "I don't click on any link that doesn't go to a leftist propaganda site". Hypocrisy is evidently a bedrock principal of you leftists.

Did you miss this from the vox article???

Quote:Oddly, the AP then quietly deleted the most damning details from the story

Then things got weird: A couple of hours after first publishing, the AP added in a bunch of quotes from Republicans furiously condemning the revelations, but at the same time, the AP removed most of the actual revelations. The information in the article was substantially altered, with some of the most damning details scrubbed entirely. No explanation for this was given.

The new version of the story said nothing about environmental sampling. It said that Iran will provide photos and videos of the site, as well as mechanisms by which the IAEA can verify that these are authentic. But information about how the IAEA would verify this, which was in the original story, had also been removed.

"The original version of the story, before they edited out all of the interesting details, seemed to modestly advance a story that [AP reporter George Jahn] had published a few weeks ago," Lewis said. "But now we're so far down into the weeds of safeguards, it's really hard to know. The version that was originally published seemed to indicate that the level of access was lower than I would have thought, lower than I would have expected the IAEA to accept. But then those paragraphs disappeared."

The new version of the AP story was vague and confusingly worded. The actual information on inspections was buried under 700 words of Republicans condemning the deal (based, presumably, on information from the first draft of the story that has since been scrubbed).

On Thursday morning, shortly before this article went up, the AP reinstated most of the cut sections. (Lewis's quotes here reflect the scrubbed version of the story, though he had seen the original and so was aware of the information in it.)

The AP then published another story that reiterated much of the information but also added a strange new detail that seemed to water down its original claims even further: "IAEA staff will monitor Iranian personnel as they inspect the Parchin nuclear site." It's not clear what they mean by "monitor."

Paul Colford, AP's vice president for media relations, told me via email that the details had been cut to make room for reaction quotes. "As with many AP stories, indeed with wire stories generally, some details are later trimmed to make room for fresh info so that multiple so-called 'writethrus' of a story will move on the AP wire as the hours pass," he wrote.

When I asked Colford if the AP regretted cutting the news out of its own story, he responded, "It was unfortunate that some assumed (incorrectly) that AP was backing off." I pressed him on whether the cuts had been a mistake. He wrote: "As a former longtime New York newspaperman who's been AP's chief spokesman for eight years now, I would say there's always something to learn from such episodes."

And the vox article also links to this story from an Israeli publication which states:

Quote:Revised AP report on agreement between Iran and IAEA overwrites some of the more troubling aspects regarding who will inspect Parchin and how many samples will be taken from suspected nuclear areas.

The International Atomic Energy Association said Thursday that it was satisfied by the access its inspectors would receive to the Parchin military site, where the Iranians are suspected of experimenting with components to create a nuclear bomb.

The IAEA's statement to this regard comes a day after the Associated Press released details of a draft agreement between the IAEA and Iran, which enables the Iranians to inspect the Parchin site without the presence of UN inspectors. The IAEA said that it was committed to keeping the contents of the agreement secret, but that the understandings reached by the two sides adequately satisfy UN requirements and simultaneously meet Iran's demands.

"The separate arrangements of the roadmap are consistent with the IAEA verification practice and they meet the IAEA requirements," the IAEA said.

UN Watchdog Says Access to Suspected Iran Nuclear Site Meets Demands

These aren't partisan leftists spouting off dude...they're people who know what the **** they're talking about!

Understand that for every AP article, the AP sends maybe 20 versions of it ... edited for space, clarity, or otherwise. That doesn't mean it was a retraction. I can attest to this because I've seen my father work on several different versions of AP articles to assemble one that he had published in the paper... that was his job. I have also at various times followed the AP feed on the internet through various formats.

AP Was Right, Critics Were Wrong, About IAEA Side Deal | The Weekly Standard

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ap-w...ontent=TWS Wrote:After Wednesday's article was published someone—presumably an overeager AP editor—tried to save some space by cutting several somewhat redundant paragraphs from the original draft. That triggered a flood of conspiracy theories about the AP retracting the story, and this morning there were a flood of snarky attacks on the outlet: "The AP's controversial and badly flawed Iran inspections story, explained" (Vox); "BREAKING: Nuclear Stuff Really Complicated" (TPM); "Revised AP report... overwrites some of the more troubling aspects" (Haaretz); "Potentially Deal-Shattering Report About Iran Inspections Has Some Issues" (HuffPo), etc.

What the AP did in fact do is publish the text of the IAEA agreement.

Text of draft agreement between IAEA, Iran

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bedd428e2...-iaea-iran Wrote:VIENNA (AP) — Following is a transcript of the original draft agreement between the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran covering inspections at the Parchin military site, where Iran has been accused of pursuing nuclear weapons development a decade ago. This agreement is separate from the much broader Iran nuclear deal signed by Iran, the U.S. and five other world powers in July. Two officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed to The Associated Press that this draft does not differ from the final, confidential agreement between the IAEA and Iran. The AP was not allowed to have a copy of the draft but was allowed to transcribe the entire text, and it appears here:

___

Separate arrangement II agreed by the Islamic State of Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency on 11 July 2015, regarding the Road-map, Paragraph 5

Iran and the Agency agreed on the following sequential arrangement with regard to the Parchin issue:

1. Iran will provide to the Agency photos of the locations, including those identified in paragraph 3 below, which would be mutually agreed between Iran and the Agency, taking into account military concerns.

2. Iran will provide to the Agency videos of the locations, including those identified in paragraph 3 below, which would be mutually agreed between Iran and the Agency, taking into account military concerns.

3. Iran will provide to the Agency 7 environmental samples taken from points inside one building already identified by the Agency and agreed by Iran, and 2 points outside of the Parchin complex which would be agreed between Iran and the Agency.

4. The Agency will ensure the technical authenticity of the activities referred to in paragraphs 1-3 above. Activities will be carried out using Iran's authenticated equipment, consistent with technical specifications provided by the Agency, and the Agency's containers and seals.

5. The above mentioned measures would be followed, as a courtesy by Iran, by a public visit of the Director General, as a dignitary guest of the Government of Iran, accompanied by his deputy for safeguards.

6. Iran and the Agency will organize a one-day technical roundtable on issues relevant to Parchin.

For the International Atomic Energy Agency: Tero Varjoranta, Deputy Director General for Safeguards

For the Islamic Republic of Iran: Ali Hoseini Tash, Deputy Secretary of Supreme National Security Council for Strategic Affairs

The Weekly Standard further reports ...

AP Was Right, Critics Were Wrong, About IAEA Side Deal | The Weekly Standard

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ap-w...ontent=TWS Wrote:White House officials and validators continued to declare that in no way would the IAEA ever agree to that kind of arrangement, since it would preclude the agency from securing a chain of custody over the evidence. But the administration refused to transmit the side deal to Congress—which would have resolved the debate—and instead claimed that the U.S. couldn't get the text because it was a confidential Iran-IAEA bilateral agreement. Business Insider confirmed that in fact U.S. diplomats can call for the agreement at any time because Washington sits on the IAEA's Board of Governors. Nonetheless Kerry told Congress that not only did the U.S. not have the text, but that he hadn't even seen the final wording, though he added that maybe "Wendy Sherman may have" (she subsequently clarified she hadn't either).

I was the one to allude to The Onion earlier. It is clear that something here is a farce. At a minimum, it is the conduct of the Obama Administration. Time may tell on the AP, but the ship has long since sailed on John Kerry, Barack Obama, and this administration. They can be counted on to be ignorant of things that they find it inconvenient to have knowledge of, but their arrogance is that they believe they are knowledgeable on important matters. That is a misguided conceit.

(08-21-2015 09:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 06:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 05:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 05:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 04:18 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  You mean like facts...like the AP is basically full of ****? Nah...just ignore those.

The AP's controversial and badly flawed Iran inspections story, explained


Did someone mention The Onion?

It doesn't matter how many times you link it the fact is it's an article from the leftist propaganda rag Vox bashing the neutral AP.


Tote that water!

What was wrong in the article I posted? Be specific.

Deflect from the truth!

Quote:Eminent Iran and security expert Gary Sick pointed out in an email late Wednesday that the Associated Press just ran a shamefully inaccurate story alleging that under the UN Security Council deal with Iran, Iran would carry out some of the inspections of their own “sensitive sites.”

The accord actually provides for the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency always to be present at such inspections. The reason for the presence of Iranian experts is that there is a long history of outside nuclear teams being sent in by the Great Powers for espionage. I.e., the Iranian inspectors are there to keep an eye on the UN inspectors, not to cover up Iranian activities (to which the IAEA will have full access). The 1990s UN inspections of Iraq were infiltrated, for instance, by US intelligence.

http://www.juancole.com/2015/08/inspect-...ities.html

Quote:A senior State Department official said that the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, would have "total oversight" of sampling and inspections of Parchin under the agreement between the agency and Iran over access to the site.

"Iran is not self-inspecting," the official said, though this official would not deny that Iranian inspectors will "play a role."

It seems likely that IAEA staff would either be present or watching via video camera when the Iranians take samples from the site, a practice that the international nuclear agency has used in previous inspections agreements.

A senior administration official, meanwhile, said that while Iranians may be taking the samples at Parchin, individuals from other countries will be a part of their analysis. The official noted that the arrangement satisfies the demands of the IAEA.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/19/politics/i...s-parchin/

But by all means...keep your head buried to reality. It would probably upset me more to have you actually own up for a change.

The AP says it has seen documents stating what they claim. Your CNN link (not reading anything from the leftist/globalist Juan Cole, sorry) is based solely on the denial by Obama's State Department.

Who am I going to trust? The unbiased AP or the very State Department who "negotiated" this abortion of a treaty? Hmmmmm.

And EL OH EL @ you for talking about someone else burying their head to reality, Mr. "I don't click on any link that doesn't go to a leftist propaganda site". Hypocrisy is evidently a bedrock principal of you leftists.

Did you miss this from the vox article???

Quote:Oddly, the AP then quietly deleted the most damning details from the story

Then things got weird: A couple of hours after first publishing, the AP added in a bunch of quotes from Republicans furiously condemning the revelations, but at the same time, the AP removed most of the actual revelations. The information in the article was substantially altered, with some of the most damning details scrubbed entirely. No explanation for this was given.

The new version of the story said nothing about environmental sampling. It said that Iran will provide photos and videos of the site, as well as mechanisms by which the IAEA can verify that these are authentic. But information about how the IAEA would verify this, which was in the original story, had also been removed.

"The original version of the story, before they edited out all of the interesting details, seemed to modestly advance a story that [AP reporter George Jahn] had published a few weeks ago," Lewis said. "But now we're so far down into the weeds of safeguards, it's really hard to know. The version that was originally published seemed to indicate that the level of access was lower than I would have thought, lower than I would have expected the IAEA to accept. But then those paragraphs disappeared."

The new version of the AP story was vague and confusingly worded. The actual information on inspections was buried under 700 words of Republicans condemning the deal (based, presumably, on information from the first draft of the story that has since been scrubbed).

On Thursday morning, shortly before this article went up, the AP reinstated most of the cut sections. (Lewis's quotes here reflect the scrubbed version of the story, though he had seen the original and so was aware of the information in it.)

The AP then published another story that reiterated much of the information but also added a strange new detail that seemed to water down its original claims even further: "IAEA staff will monitor Iranian personnel as they inspect the Parchin nuclear site." It's not clear what they mean by "monitor."

Paul Colford, AP's vice president for media relations, told me via email that the details had been cut to make room for reaction quotes. "As with many AP stories, indeed with wire stories generally, some details are later trimmed to make room for fresh info so that multiple so-called 'writethrus' of a story will move on the AP wire as the hours pass," he wrote.

When I asked Colford if the AP regretted cutting the news out of its own story, he responded, "It was unfortunate that some assumed (incorrectly) that AP was backing off." I pressed him on whether the cuts had been a mistake. He wrote: "As a former longtime New York newspaperman who's been AP's chief spokesman for eight years now, I would say there's always something to learn from such episodes."

And the vox article also links to this story from an Israeli publication which states:

Quote:Revised AP report on agreement between Iran and IAEA overwrites some of the more troubling aspects regarding who will inspect Parchin and how many samples will be taken from suspected nuclear areas.

The International Atomic Energy Association said Thursday that it was satisfied by the access its inspectors would receive to the Parchin military site, where the Iranians are suspected of experimenting with components to create a nuclear bomb.

The IAEA's statement to this regard comes a day after the Associated Press released details of a draft agreement between the IAEA and Iran, which enables the Iranians to inspect the Parchin site without the presence of UN inspectors. The IAEA said that it was committed to keeping the contents of the agreement secret, but that the understandings reached by the two sides adequately satisfy UN requirements and simultaneously meet Iran's demands.

"The separate arrangements of the roadmap are consistent with the IAEA verification practice and they meet the IAEA requirements," the IAEA said.

UN Watchdog Says Access to Suspected Iran Nuclear Site Meets Demands

These aren't partisan leftists spouting off dude...they're people who know what the **** they're talking about!

http://www.haaretz.com/news/about-haaretz-1.63277

Quote:Haaretz is an independent daily newspaper with a broadly liberal outlook both on domestic issues and on international affairs.
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/news/about-haaretz-1.63277

You were saying?