Wallace to Cheney: Iran's Centrifuges 'Went From 0 To 5,000' While You Were VP

[GMDino]

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/09/chris-wallace-dazes-cheney-irans

Quote:Fox News host Chris Wallace forced former Vice President Dick Cheney to admit that Iran's centrifuges went from zero to 5,000 under his watch, not President Barack Obama's.

During an interview on Fox News, Cheney refused to back down from his assertion that Obama's nuclear deal with Iran was like Neville Chamberlain appeasing Hitler.

"If you look at what happened with respect to [Obama's] Iranian deal, the only winners are Iranians," he argued. "The losers are the United States, are the friends and allies of the United States in the region, the Israelis the Saudis and others."

"I think it's a big deal, a major, major defeat -- in my mind -- in terms of our position in the region."

Wallace pointed out that Cheney had eight years to deal with Iran's nuclear program and failed to do it.

"You and President Bush, the Bush-Cheney administration, dealt with Iran for eight years, and I think it was fair to say that there was never any real, serious military threat," Wallace noted. "Iran went from zero known centrifuges in operation to more than 5,000."

"So in fairness, didn't you leave -- the Bush-Cheney administration -- leave President Obama with a mess?" the Fox News host asked.

"I don't think of it that way," Cheney replied. "There was military action that had an impact on the Iranians, it was when we took down Saddam Hussein. There was a period of time when they stopped their program because they were scared that what we did to Saddam, we were going to do to them next."

"But the centrifuges went from zero to 5,000," Wallace pressed.

"Well, they may have well have gone but that happened on Obama's watch, not on our watch," Cheney wrongly insisted.

"No, no, no," Wallace fired back. "By 2009, they were at 5,000."

"Right," Cheney grumbled. "But I think we did a lot to deal with the arms control problem in the Middle East."

"What we did not do is what Obama did," he added. "He never had a military option on the table. He talked about it repeatedly but nobody believed him, especially after he waffled on the Syrian deal. There never was a military option that the Iranians had to worry about."

"He always dealt from a position of weakness, which I don't think we would have done."

The Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran would reduce Iran's centrifuges from 20,000 to about 5,000 first-generation IR-1 models.

[Rotobeast]

(09-06-2015, 02:53 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://crooksandliars.com/2015/09/chris-wallace-dazes-cheney-irans

It is always interesting to hear these stories, but far too many people fixate on them to sit and play the blame game.
It's not accomplishing much to point fingers.
We know the damn problem, let's talk about fixing it.
It's what I loathe about politics.
:angry:

[jakefromstatefarm]

Article came from Faux News.

Can't be legitimate.

[GMDino]

(09-06-2015, 03:37 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: It is always interesting to hear these stories,  but far too many people fixate on them to sit and play the blame game.
It's not accomplishing much to point fingers.
We know the damn problem, let's talk about fixing it.
It's what I loathe about politics.  
:angry:

And I think that is what Obama is trying (and has been trying ) to do.  

People like Cheney and his ilk want to undermine that at every turn.  And when they are called out they turn in to the President blaming them. 

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-06-2015, 08:18 PM)GMDino Wrote: And I think that is what Obama is trying (and has been trying ) to do.  

People like Cheney and his ilk want to undermine that at every turn.  And when they are called out they turn in to the President blaming them. 

Cheney just isn't happy unless he's portraying some country as the next major threat to America that we have to go to war with. 

Obama isn't trying to do anything, other than hoping to avoid a major international situation in which he might be forced to make a serious decision.

I don't personally see Obama as the anti-Christ that a lot of liberal haters think he is.  I personally think he's just lazy.  I think he enjoys the office but doesn't really enjoy the job, if you catch my drift. 

[GMDino]

(09-06-2015, 08:29 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Cheney just isn't happy unless he's portraying some country as the next major threat to America that we have to go to war with. 

Obama isn't trying to do anything, other than hoping to avoid a major international situation in which he might be forced to make a serious decision.

I don't personally see Obama as the anti-Christ that a lot of liberal haters think he is.  I personally think he's just lazy.  I think he enjoys the office but doesn't really enjoy the job, if you catch my drift. 

That's called diplomacy.

Something we had bee seriously lacking in the previous administration.


As to being "lazy" it seems he's done more to work towards solving or easing these problems that those hard workers from the Bush admin.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-06-2015, 08:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: That's called diplomacy.

Something we had bee seriously lacking in the previous administration.


As to being "lazy" it seems he's done more to work towards solving or easing these problems that those hard workers from the Bush admin.

I'm not sure I'd agree that it's diplomacy.  Laziness isn't much of a foreign policy, but whatever.

Exactly what problems internationally have gotten better under his watch?  

[GMDino]

(09-06-2015, 08:37 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I'm not sure I'd agree that it's diplomacy.  Laziness isn't much of a foreign policy, but whatever.

Exactly what problems internationally have gotten better under his watch?  

What DO you call diplomacy if its not meeting with the other side and reaching an agreement without going to war?

How is he "lazy" by NOT starting other wars?

Well, so far Bin Laden is dead and they have a deal with Iran.  That's more than the last admin.  And NO ONE will ever have peace in the middle east during their time.

The great Russian scare passed after the right insisted Putin was going to tear into our pacifist CAC.

Anything else?

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-06-2015, 08:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: What DO you call diplomacy if its not meeting with the other side and reaching an agreement without going to war?

How is he "lazy" by NOT starting other wars?

Well, so far Bin Laden is dead and they have a deal with Iran.  That's more than the last admin.  And NO ONE will ever have peace in the middle east during their time.

Drawing red lines in the sand and backing down isn't diplomacy.  It's stupid. 

Bin Laden is dead due to interrogation techniques that Obama and many liberals cried about. 

They have a garbage deal with Iran, that many in your party don't even like.  That's like having a guy friend with a fat psycho girlfriend saying "at least I have a girl."  

[GMDino]

(09-06-2015, 08:46 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Drawing red lines in the sand and backing down isn't diplomacy.  It's stupid. 

Bin Laden is dead due to interrogation techniques that Obama and many liberals cried about. 

They have a garbage deal with Iran, that many in your party don't even like.  That's like having a guy friend with a fat psycho girlfriend saying "at least I have a girl."  

1) Who backed down?

2) https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/harsh-interrogation-techniques-detailed-in-report/2014/12/09/dd3173c4-7fd0-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html

Quote:The killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011 was hailed by current and former CIA officials as the crowning justification for the use of harsh interrogation tactics. High-value detainees, when subjected to those methods, provided intelligence that the officials said helped lead the spy agency to a mysterious courier and, ultimately, to the terrorist leader himself.

The Senate Intelligence Committee report released Tuesday upends that version of history, providing an alternate case study that revives questions about the agency’s account. The report asserts that the role of harsh interrogation techniques was greatly exaggerated.

[Read: Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on the CIA program]

“A review of CIA records found that the initial intelligence obtained, as well as the information the CIA identified as the most critical — or the most valuable — on Abu Ahmad al-Kuwaiti, was not related to the use of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques,” investigators concluded.

 3) They have a deal.  One that will help.  Its a far better deal than going to war...again.
So, again, its called diplomacy.  And has the story in the first post says its going help clean up another mess left to this admin.

[Rotobeast]

(09-06-2015, 08:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: What DO you call diplomacy if its not meeting with the other side and reaching an agreement without going to war?

How is he "lazy" by NOT starting other wars?

Well, so far Bin Laden is dead and they have a deal with Iran.  That's more than the last admin.  And NO ONE will ever have peace in the middle east during their time.

The great Russian scare passed after the right insisted Putin was going to tear into our pacifist CAC.

Anything else?

Reminds me of an interesting conspiracy theory....
It suggested that Bin Laden was killed a long time ago and Bush never divulged it, as to have an excuse to run operations into other countries.
It concludes Obama jumped at the opportunity to stage the death and garner popularity.

[GMDino]

(09-06-2015, 08:58 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Reminds me of an interesting conspiracy theory....
It suggested that Bin Laden was killed a long time ago and Bush never divulged it, as to have an excuse to run operations into other countries.
It concludes Obama jumped at the opportunity to stage the death and garner popularity.

Ha!  Never heard that one!

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-06-2015, 08:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: 1) Who backed down?

2) https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/harsh-interrogation-techniques-detailed-in-report/2014/12/09/dd3173c4-7fd0-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html




 3) They have a deal.  One that will help.  Its a far better deal than going to war...again.
So, again, its called diplomacy.  And has the story in the first post says its going help clean up another mess left to this admin.

1) Obama drew a red line in the sand.  It was crossed.  He did nothing. 

2) You can believe whatever fairy tales you want. 

3) What is good about the deal, in your opinion?

[fredtoast]

(09-06-2015, 08:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: 2) https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/harsh-interrogation-techniques-detailed-in-report/2014/12/09/dd3173c4-7fd0-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html





“A review of CIA records found that the initial intelligence obtained, as well as the information the CIA identified as the most critical — or the most valuable — on Abu Ahmad al-Kuwaiti, was not related to the use of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques,” investigators concluded.

Clearly this information has not entered the echo chamber yet.

And apparently US forces should be dying in Syria, the Ukraine, and Iran instead of messing with all that lazy "diplomacy" stuff.

[fredtoast]

(09-06-2015, 09:37 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: 2) You can believe whatever fairy tales you want. 

Link the source of your information on how the info was obtained.

You really need to learn that it takes info to win a debate.  Not grade school insults.

[fredtoast]

(09-06-2015, 09:37 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: 3) What is good about the deal, in your opinion?

It prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

What is bad about it in your opinion.  And let me warn you that I know the details of the deal very well.  So I will  not be impressed with something like "It is stupid and does nothing."

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-06-2015, 09:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Link the source of your information on how the info was obtained.

You really need to learn that it takes info to win a debate.  Not grade school insults.

The best I could find was nearly two months of "serious interrogation, often for periods of 48 hours or longer".

I guess that means that they asked "pretty please". 

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-06-2015, 09:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

What is bad about it in your opinion.  And let me warn you that I know the details of the deal very well.  So I will  not be impressed with something like "It is stupid and does nothing."

Oh no....fred knows the details "very well".

1) 24 waiting period on inspections

2) Sanctions gone

3) Kerry told lawmakers that negotiators said there was no better deal available, and since 2003 Iran has not pursued a nuclear bomb.  If that's true, what do we need a deal for in the first place?

4) Anything Iran is "giving up" as a part of this deal is offset by the economic gain they will get because of the removal of sanctions.

5) The White House is "comfortable" that Iran will self-inspect and deliver honest reports.

[GMDino]

(09-06-2015, 09:37 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: 1) Obama drew a red line in the sand.  It was crossed.  He did nothing. 

2) You can believe whatever fairy tales you want. 

3) What is good about the deal, in your opinion?

1) And how did that work out for Putin?

2) Its a report from the CIA...the ones gathering the info.  The link to the report is in the story.  Educate yourself.

3) We didn't bomb another country and go to war but rather negotiate a deal that is better than no deal and also better than just calling them names and pushing to invade.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-06-2015, 10:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: 1) And how did that work out for Putin?

2) Its a report from the CIA...the ones gathering the info.  The link to the report is in the story.  Educate yourself.

3) We didn't bomb another country and go to war but rather negotiate a deal that is better than no deal and also better than just calling them names and pushing to invade.

Of course he'd like a war. Jake may be protective of his income, but he is very generous with other people's sons, husbands and fathers.