(05-09-2018 10:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 09:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 09:15 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(05-08-2018 10:46 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Evidently Obama has weighed in (“Obama was great”, says Obama), and now social media is full of ninnies repeating his self-serving drivel. How can people be so brainless?

I just read Obama's statement. He did not say "Obama was great" anywhere in there. In a shocking development, however, it does appear that Obama supports Obama administration policies.

I saw a lot factual information and rational argument. People are free to disagree with his conclusions, that doesn't make it 'drivel'.

Now granted, he didn't fit it all in a tweet or two. He also failed to use any Completely Random capitalization (or unnecessary parentheticals!) and if I didn't know better I'd say he may have proofread it for grammar and spelling errors. And where were the clever middle school nicknames? He didn't even call Trump "Cheeto-face!" SAD! So un-presidential.

In all the polemic of your last two posts it is interesting that you dont bother to comment on the contents of the trove of documents sourced from Iran via Israeli intillegence. Not an iota. Eye opening stuff.

I double checked Capitilization and speling so I wont get dinged there.

I wonder if the Logan act applies as much to Kerry as it does to Flynn. My guess is that it doesnt for some odd random reason....

Have any of those documents been shown to be from the time period after the deal was signed?

If not, how can one justify using those documents to indict on the actions of Iran post-signing? Is there evidence similar to those documents that exist post-signing?

Your first question is immaterial. Part of the consideration for the deal was that Iran had to be absolutely forthright in disclosing all of the previous and ongoing programs and locations dealing with their nuclear weapons efforts.

The papers indicate that Iran was fundamentally less than forthcoming in their 'consideration' for the deal. I suggest you look at the actual quid pro quo of the 'not treaty' instead of focusing solely on the dates of the documents.