COTTON: KERRY ‘ACTED LIKE PONTIUS PILATE,’ WASHED HIS HANDS ON IRAN ‘SECRET’ SIDE DEALS

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Breitbart:

Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) who first discovered the side deals between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency said Secretary of State John Kerry acted like Pontius Pilate washing his hands of it instead of pushing or walking away when Iran refused to reveal the past military work they’ve done the nuclear program.

 

Cotton said, “I traveled to Vienna last week to meet the IAEA, specifically to discuss this issue of side deals. They were frank and helpful in saying they reached two secret agreements with Iran about the Parching military complex while Iran is testing nuclear detonators and how they’re going to verify the past military work that Iran has done in the nuclear program. So the State Department confirmed now finally that those agreements, in fact, do exist. But they have not told us the contents of the agreements. So unless Congress gets the contents of these agreements and knows, for example, how the IAEA plans to inspect the Parching military site, I don’t know how they could vote for this deal because it’s based on verification and inspection. And without that information, I don’t see how we can trust the government of Iran.”

 

He added, “These are two of the most important questions in these negotiations. Iran had almost four years to reveal the past military work they’ve done the nuclear program. Again, the Parching military site is where they tested detonators for nuclear weapons. This may have been a firm line that Iran would not draw and the United States negotiating team simply was unwilling to draw their own line or walk away from the deal. So John Kerry acted like Pontius Pilate. He washed his hands, kicked it to the IAEA knowing Congress wouldn’t get this information unless someone went out to find it.”

________

 

Unclean hands.

[Valin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x2mej7LZf8

This week the Fox News Sunday Panel comprised of Brit Hume, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, George Will, and Juan Williams, discuss if congress will approve of the Iran Nuclear deal, and the potential release of Israel spy, Jonathan Pollard.

[Valin]

 

[nickydog]

John Kerry, who by the way served in Vietnam and has a new chin, has amazing hair.

[Valin]

Kerry refuses to commit to following U.S. law on sanctions
Paul Mirengoff
July 28, 2015

(Snip)


Here, slightly edited, is Sherman’s exchange with Kerry:

Sherman: You strongly do not want [Congress] to override a presidential veto, but if we do, that triggers certain American laws. . .You don’t want us to do it. You think its terrible policy. You think the rest of the world would be against us.

But let’s say Congress doesn’t take your advice — we override a veto — and the law that’s triggered then imposes certain sanctions. Will you follow the law even though you think it violates this agreement, and even if you think its absolutely terrible policy?

Kerry: I can’t begin to answer that at this point without consulting with the President and determining what the circumstances are.

Sherman: So you’re not committed to following the law?

Kerry: I’m not going to deal with a hypothetical, that’s all.

 

(Snip)

[Valin]

Jewish Democrats give John Kerry earful on Iran deal

Marisa Schultz

July 29, 2015

 

WASHINGTON — Jewish Democrats in the House gave Secretary of State John Kerry an earful Tuesday, pointedly questioning the nuclear deal with Iran.

 

Bronx Rep. Eliot Engel, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told Kerry inspection and sunset provisions in the pact were “troublesome.”

 

“I have a fundamental concern that 15 years from now, Iran will essentially be off the hook,” Engel said at a four-hour hearing that illustrated the bipartisan resistance to the international agreement.

 

California Rep. Brad Sherman raised concerns about Iran’s backing of terrorism, naming “Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthi, and those are just organizations that began with the letter H.”

 

(Snip)

 

 

______________________________________________________________________________

 

The question is would they vote to over ride Barry's veto?

[Valin]

General Dempsey Undermines Obama’s Case for Iran Deal
Joel Gehrke

July 29, 2015

 

President Obama’s claim that Congress must either back his deal with Iran or plan for war does not square with the advice he has received from his top general, Senate lawmakers learned on Wednesday.

 

Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, never presented Obama with such a binary choice. “At no time did that come up in our conversation nor did I make that comment,” Dempsey told Senator Joni Ernst (R., Iowa) during a Senate hearing on the Iran deal. “I can tell you that we have a range of options and I always present them.”

 

Secretary of State John Kerry insisted that Obama was not misrepresenting the situation. “It’s not a choice the president wants to make, but it’s the inevitable consequence of them moving to assert what they believe is their right in the furtherance of their program,” he said.

 

Dempsey also acknowledged that he advised the president not to agree to the lifting of sanctions pertaining to Iran’s ballistic missile program and other arms. “Yes, and I used the phrase ‘as long as possible’ and then that was the point at which the negotiation continued — but yes, that was my military advice,” he told Senator Kelly Ayotte (R., N.H.). In the event the new deal goes into effect, the arms embargoes will expire over the next several years.

 

(Snip)

 

[Valin]

Bill Kristol ‏@BillKristol

 

Wow. Rep. Grace Meng (D., NY) comes out against the Iran deal. http://meng.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/meng-opposes-nuclear-deal-with-iran …

 

12:11 PM - 29 Jul 2015

[Valin]

 

 

Kerry: We Can't Reveal Contents of Secret Side Deals to American People

[Valin]

Iran is not Iowa

Michael J Totten

July 27 2015

 

Leon Wieseltier, unhappy with the Iranian nuclear deal for most of the usual reasons, zeroes in on the Obama administration’s failure to appreciate the chasm that separates the regime from its people.

 

 

 

It is true that in the years prior to the Khomeini revolution the United States tolerated vicious abuses of human rights in Iran; but then our enmity toward the ayatollahs’ autocracy may be regarded as a moral correction. (A correction is an admirable kind of hypocrisy.) The adversarial relationship between America and the regime in Tehran has been based on the fact that we are proper adversaries. We should be adversaries. What democrat, what pluralist, what liberal, what conservative, what believer, what non-believer, would want this Iran for a friend?

 

When one speaks about an unfree country, one may refer either to its people or to its regime. One cannot refer at once to both, because they are not on the same side. Obama likes to think, when he speaks of Iran, that he speaks of its people, but in practice he has extended his hand to its regime. With his talk about reintegrating Iran into the international community, about the Islamic Republic becoming “a very successful regional power” and so on, he has legitimated a regime that was more and more lacking in legitimacy. (There was something grotesque about the chumminess, the jolly camaraderie, of the American negotiators and the Iranian negotiators. Why is Mohammad Javad Zarif laughing?) The text of the agreement states that the signatories will submit a resolution to the UN Security Council “expressing its desire to build a new relationship with Iran.” Not a relationship with a new Iran, but a new relationship with this Iran, as it is presently—that is to say, theocratically, oppressively, xenophobically, aggressively, anti-Semitically, misogynistically, homophobically—constituted. When the president speaks about the people of Iran, he reveals a bizarre refusal to recognize the character of life in a dictatorship. In his recent Nowruz message, for example, he exhorted the “people of Iran … to speak up for the future [they] seek.” To speak up! Does he think Iran is Iowa? The last time the people of Iran spoke up to their government, they left their blood on the streets.