Well, if it isn't Mr. Walnut Sauce
Did Obama Personally Write & Made Deals With Qassem Soleimani, While Soleimani Was Listed As A Terrorist?
Obama Strikes a Deal–With Qassem Suleimani-2015
The deal is with the hard men of the regime, the extremists—the deal is with Qassem Suleimani.
It’s not the moderates who control the nuclear file, but the IRGC. Accordingly, insofar as the United States and other world powers will have an interest in ensuring that the nuclear weapons program is not subject to turmoil should internal divisions in the regime turn dangerously nasty, the administration and other signatories to the deal now have a stake in ensuring the stability of the hardliners.
The White House is hardly shy about signaling the nature of its relationship with the regime, even if it’s lost on some regional actors. “If sanctions are lifted,” a Saudi diplomat said, “Iran will try even harder to redesign the region. Iran may see this as acceptance from America to play a bigger role.” The point of course is that Obama is counting on Iran to play bigger role in the Middle East, which is why the White House also agreed to drop the U.N. arms embargo.
The administration argues that Tehran will spend most of the money from sanctions relief on rescuing the economy, or fixing street lamps and potholes, and not so much on terrorism and other foreign adventures. But there can be no similar argument about buying and selling and smuggling arms since ending the embargo can only help the hardliners. Combining the two—tens of billions of dollars in immediate sanctions relief and an end to the embargo—is like loading a gun and handing it over to Qassem Suleimani. And that’s precisely what Obama intended: The way he sees it, he’s arming an American ally.
According to the terms of the Iran deal announced in Vienna on Tuesday, U.N. Security Council sanctions regarding nuclear-related issues will be lifted on a number of entities and individuals—from Iranian banks to Lebanese assassins, like Anis Nacacche. The name that most sticks out is IRGC-Quds Force commander Qassem Suleimani. Administration officials counsel calm, and explain that Suleimani is still on the U.S. terror list and will remain on the terror list. But that’s irrelevant. The reality is that Suleimani is the key to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
The deal is with the hard men of the regime, the extremists—the deal is with Qassem Suleimani.
It’s not the moderates who control the nuclear file, but the IRGC. Accordingly, insofar as the United States and other world powers will have an interest in ensuring that the nuclear weapons program is not subject to turmoil should internal divisions in the regime turn dangerously nasty, the administration and other signatories to the deal now have a stake in ensuring the stability of the hardliners.
The White House is hardly shy about signaling the nature of its relationship with the regime, even if it’s lost on some regional actors. “If sanctions are lifted,” a Saudi diplomat said, “Iran will try even harder to redesign the region. Iran may see this as acceptance from America to play a bigger role.” The point of course is that Obama is counting on Iran to play bigger role in the Middle East, which is why the White House also agreed to drop the U.N. arms embargo.
The administration argues that Tehran will spend most of the money from sanctions relief on rescuing the economy, or fixing street lamps and potholes, and not so much on terrorism and other foreign adventures. But there can be no similar argument about buying and selling and smuggling arms since ending the embargo can only help the hardliners. Combining the two—tens of billions of dollars in immediate sanctions relief and an end to the embargo—is like loading a gun and handing it over to Qassem Suleimani. And that’s precisely what Obama intended: The way he sees it, he’s arming an American ally.
The way he sees it, he’s arming an American ally….
https://www.hudson.org/research/11436-obama-strikes-a-deal-with-qassem-suleimani?fbclid=IwAR1nyR-PzikicPrJHQU9gMvD7eL27lDM0E6T4ghWwrSgm2QiFF5M4mKjDsc
It most definitely is too kind, it is more like the worse infestation of sick demented parasites and the black plague.
The NYT is a bunch of pedos, pedo sympathizers, pedo protectors, terrorist sympathizers,terrorist tipsters & protectors. Rukmini Callimachi, Farnaz Fassihi, Paul Krugman "Well, I’m on the phone with my computer security service, and as I understand it someone compromised my IP address and is using it to download child pornography. I might just be a random target….
Analysis of The New York Times
NY Times Wrote an Entire Fake Article About Ukraine 'Scandal'. The New York Times alleged in a false news article that "Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze by August, Undermining Trump Defense." The Trump-Zelensky phone call was made the end of July. There goes another NYT lie. The August info didn't undermine anything. It backed up the President. The NYT wrote, "In fact, word of the aid freeze had gotten to high-level Ukrainian officials by the first week in August, according to interviews and documents obtained by The New York Times." That is irrelevant since the call took place on July 29.
How to Lie With Statistics: With apologies to Darrel Huff and his famous book of the same title, today's papers provide a wonderful demonstration of how the mainstream press — in this case, The New York Times, can use real statistics to justify politically spun conclusions.
The New York Times and Iran: The New York Times has been criticized for helping terrorists in the past by disclosing investigatory methods and rendition policies and practices, supporting them in its editorial pages and allowing terror suspects to spin their stories in the news section, disclosing methods our nation has used to prevent funds from reaching terrorists, condemned the existence of prisons holding terrorists, criticizing the laws brought to bear to prevent terrorism, and whitewashing or apologizing for terror when it occurs.
The Worst of (the) Times. It has become more and more transparent that the New York Times leans not only left, but far enough away from mainstream America so as to reach out to our enemies in the War on Terror.
The terrorist-tipping Times: The New York Times (proudly publishing all the secrets unfit to spill since 9/11) and their reckless anonymous sources (come out, come out, you cowards) tipped off terrorists to America's efforts to track their financial activities. Guess what? It isn't the first time blabbermouth journalists have jeopardized terror-financing investigations since Sept. 11, according to the government
The Al-Qaeda Times: You could call it "Treason Central," or "al Qaeda West," but no matter what you call it, the building housing the once-august New York Times at 229 West 43rd St. in New York City is a beehive of anti-American hostility, where selling out the nation's secrets has become the newspaper's stock in trade.
The New York Times is a national security threat. So drunk is it on its own power and so antagonistic to the Bush administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives.
Prosecute the New York Times. Gabriel Schoenfeld … explains, "By means of that disclosure, the New York Times has tipped off al Qaeda, our declared mortal enemy, that we have been listening to every one of its communications that we have been able to locate, and have succeeded in doing so even as its operatives switch from line to line or location to location."
Is Al-Jazeera Less Biased Than The New York Times? Sadly, this once again demonstrated how America's media are fighting a different battle than its soldiers. After all, for publications that have been voicing loud and almost constant opposition to this war for several years, any positive development that leads to their expressly desired troop withdrawal should be heralded from the rooftops. On their part, any behavior to the contrary indicates media that want the troops to leave, but only if they do so in loss and shame.
Has the New York Times Violated the Espionage Act? What the New York Times has done is nothing less than to compromise the centerpiece of our defensive efforts in the war on terrorism. If information about the NSA program had been quietly conveyed to an al-Qaeda operative on a microdot, or on paper with invisible ink, there can be no doubt that the episode would have been treated by the government as a cut-and-dried case of espionage. Publishing it for the world to read, the Times has accomplished the same end while at the same time congratulating itself for bravely defending the First Amendment and thereby protecting us — from, presumably, ourselves.
http://www.akdart.com/nyt.html
twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1214991222009409536
The New York Times aka The Al-Qaeda Times, The Al-Qaeda Times:
Great article on the history of the Al-Qaeda Times, The Terrorist Tipping Times…etc.
Analysis of The New York Times
NY Times Wrote an Entire Fake Article About Ukraine 'Scandal'. The New York Times alleged in a false news article that "Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze by August, Undermining Trump Defense." The Trump-Zelensky phone call was made the end of July. There goes another NYT lie. The August info didn't undermine anything. It backed up the President. The NYT wrote, "In fact, word of the aid freeze had gotten to high-level Ukrainian officials by the first week in August, according to interviews and documents obtained by The New York Times." That is irrelevant since the call took place on July 29.
How to Lie With Statistics: With apologies to Darrel Huff and his famous book of the same title, today's papers provide a wonderful demonstration of how the mainstream press — in this case, The New York Times, can use real statistics to justify politically spun conclusions.
The New York Times and Iran: The New York Times has been criticized for helping terrorists in the past by disclosing investigatory methods and rendition policies and practices, supporting them in its editorial pages and allowing terror suspects to spin their stories in the news section, disclosing methods our nation has used to prevent funds from reaching terrorists, condemned the existence of prisons holding terrorists, criticizing the laws brought to bear to prevent terrorism, and whitewashing or apologizing for terror when it occurs.
The Worst of (the) Times. It has become more and more transparent that the New York Times leans not only left, but far enough away from mainstream America so as to reach out to our enemies in the War on Terror.
The terrorist-tipping Times: The New York Times (proudly publishing all the secrets unfit to spill since 9/11) and their reckless anonymous sources (come out, come out, you cowards) tipped off terrorists to America's efforts to track their financial activities. Guess what? It isn't the first time blabbermouth journalists have jeopardized terror-financing investigations since Sept. 11, according to the government
The Al-Qaeda Times: You could call it "Treason Central," or "al Qaeda West," but no matter what you call it, the building housing the once-august New York Times at 229 West 43rd St. in New York City is a beehive of anti-American hostility, where selling out the nation's secrets has become the newspaper's stock in trade.
The New York Times is a national security threat. So drunk is it on its own power and so antagonistic to the Bush administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives.
Prosecute the New York Times. Gabriel Schoenfeld … explains, "By means of that disclosure, the New York Times has tipped off al Qaeda, our declared mortal enemy, that we have been listening to every one of its communications that we have been able to locate, and have succeeded in doing so even as its operatives switch from line to line or location to location."
Is Al-Jazeera Less Biased Than The New York Times? Sadly, this once again demonstrated how America's media are fighting a different battle than its soldiers. After all, for publications that have been voicing loud and almost constant opposition to this war for several years, any positive development that leads to their expressly desired troop withdrawal should be heralded from the rooftops. On their part, any behavior to the contrary indicates media that want the troops to leave, but only if they do so in loss and shame.
Has the New York Times Violated the Espionage Act? What the New York Times has done is nothing less than to compromise the centerpiece of our defensive efforts in the war on terrorism. If information about the NSA program had been quietly conveyed to an al-Qaeda operative on a microdot, or on paper with invisible ink, there can be no doubt that the episode would have been treated by the government as a cut-and-dried case of espionage. Publishing it for the world to read, the Times has accomplished the same end while at the same time congratulating itself for bravely defending the First Amendment and thereby protecting us — from, presumably, ourselves.
http://www.akdart.com/nyt.html
twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1214991222009409536