Trump is now claiming that he has unlimited power and insisted the deal reached with Iran amounts to “unconditional surrender.” Trump has lost what few marbles he had.
I read the MOU, and it is indeed broad in its scope. But the MOU is just that - a Memorandum of Understanding - not a "deal", but the framework for a final agreement (essentially, a term sheet). Am I wrong about that? Isn't that what the 60 days is all about? Criticizing the MOU might be pre-mature as the final deal has yet to be negotiated and inked.
Oh, it's a definitely a deal — a signed one describing what both sides have already agreed upon. One can certainly think of it as a 'framework' until a comprehensive final treaty has been completed that crosses all the t's and dot all the i's, but what it effectively is, is a concession list. And what the administration has conceded to the Iranians, at this starting point, is pretty much everything the beaten and bruised regime had been asking for. And some of it is effective immediately.
So no, I don't think it's premature at all to criticize it. Is it possible something will blow up the MOU, like Congress finding a way to derail it, or maybe Israel not agreeing to the conditions the Trump administration shadily accepted on their behalf? Yes, but there's no reason to think that the administration itself will leverage something much stronger after already giving up the store.
Well said, BIll B. It's premature and another source for armchair journalists to grasp on to fill a few paragraphs worth of 'maybe that's true or maybe it's not true' filler material.
I'm surprised with your evaluation of the issue. You know how a Salesman handles a challenge. President Trump is not a Politician. MOU is a deal, a proposal that will lead them into understanding they are wasting time in receiving anything but an end to the quagmire they are in. The negation you pontificated on is garbage. I thought you were above the propaganda of the Left.
You think it's a brilliant sales-negotiation maneuver to agree to giving a terrorist regime everything they're asking for right out of the gate? And if someone doesn't buy that nonsense narrative, they're spreading leftist propaganda?
Give me a break, man.
I supported this war from the beginning. I supported much of what Trump said he wanted to achieve with the war. What we're seeing now is a total capitulation to the Iranians, and it's already underway, including the unlocking of billions of dollars for the regime.
A problem with the salesman analogy is that typical business transactions (even very large ones) impact a relatively narrow range of directly or peripherally connected parties. Additionally these participants choose the risk versus reward calculations. This is nothing when compared to international issues where war, global economies and hundreds of millions of lives (of people who have no choice or say in what happens) hang in the balance.
Trump has come close to classic blunder #1 (Getting involved in a land war in Asia). Still, this may well be worth a dishonorable mention with The Vizzini Institute for Strategic Miscalculation!
Given how President Trump boxed himself in, the MOU might have been the best he could've done.
Iran's dictators don't seem to care much if a global economic crises arises out of their shenanigans with the SOH. They don't seem to care much if there's more bombing. I don't know how close they were to succumbing to a popular uprising, but I doubt it's a real threat at this point.
Possibly a substantially less worse deal could have been made if the Trump A. had stiffened their bargaining posture and taken another month or so. Maybe. Or maybe the result would have been worse. More inside info is needed.
But it seems that the Iran dictators were in no hurry to reach a deal.
And maybe they're just superior horse traders. Quen sabe?
I was wondering what the die hard maga reaction to the MOU would be - now we know: "It's too early to criticize it, let's see what happens in 60 days." That gives Fox News' prime time lineup 60 days to come up with a new set of excuses.
Interesting assessmets, the kind that come from making inaccurate assumptions. Here's where you credibility went south with me John. 1) You acuse Trump of destroying democracy. Ok. I sent Webster's criteria defining democracy and asked you to give me an example of what might go away via Trump.
You picked none.
2) You claimed Obama paying Iran $ 1.7 T was the same as Trump's $380 offer to rebuild.
That was so off base it wasn't an apple and orange comparison, it was closer to a continents and camp-site comparison.
And now with a process clearly articulated with requirements, consequences and benefits your assessment concludes Trump's team failed to get a meaningful result.
VDH does not agree. Ignoring his assessments is foolish.
Hello SirJohn—- Here’s a thought: let us conservative Republicans give the Democrats what they’ve been clamoring for—-WE should IMPEACH Trump and beat them to the punch!
That would send a clear message to Vance and any other Republican that would even consider such a dumb A $$ agreement such as this!
Only ten Republicans voted to impeach him when he tried to overturn U.S. democracy, and caused an insurrection at the Capitol, Emperor. And that was at a time when the party was far less obedient to him than it is now.
Trump is now claiming that he has unlimited power and insisted the deal reached with Iran amounts to “unconditional surrender.” Trump has lost what few marbles he had.
I read the MOU, and it is indeed broad in its scope. But the MOU is just that - a Memorandum of Understanding - not a "deal", but the framework for a final agreement (essentially, a term sheet). Am I wrong about that? Isn't that what the 60 days is all about? Criticizing the MOU might be pre-mature as the final deal has yet to be negotiated and inked.
Oh, it's a definitely a deal — a signed one describing what both sides have already agreed upon. One can certainly think of it as a 'framework' until a comprehensive final treaty has been completed that crosses all the t's and dot all the i's, but what it effectively is, is a concession list. And what the administration has conceded to the Iranians, at this starting point, is pretty much everything the beaten and bruised regime had been asking for. And some of it is effective immediately.
So no, I don't think it's premature at all to criticize it. Is it possible something will blow up the MOU, like Congress finding a way to derail it, or maybe Israel not agreeing to the conditions the Trump administration shadily accepted on their behalf? Yes, but there's no reason to think that the administration itself will leverage something much stronger after already giving up the store.
Well said, BIll B. It's premature and another source for armchair journalists to grasp on to fill a few paragraphs worth of 'maybe that's true or maybe it's not true' filler material.
I'll wait and make my own decisions.
I'm surprised with your evaluation of the issue. You know how a Salesman handles a challenge. President Trump is not a Politician. MOU is a deal, a proposal that will lead them into understanding they are wasting time in receiving anything but an end to the quagmire they are in. The negation you pontificated on is garbage. I thought you were above the propaganda of the Left.
You think it's a brilliant sales-negotiation maneuver to agree to giving a terrorist regime everything they're asking for right out of the gate? And if someone doesn't buy that nonsense narrative, they're spreading leftist propaganda?
Give me a break, man.
I supported this war from the beginning. I supported much of what Trump said he wanted to achieve with the war. What we're seeing now is a total capitulation to the Iranians, and it's already underway, including the unlocking of billions of dollars for the regime.
You can pretend it's not happening, but it is.
A problem with the salesman analogy is that typical business transactions (even very large ones) impact a relatively narrow range of directly or peripherally connected parties. Additionally these participants choose the risk versus reward calculations. This is nothing when compared to international issues where war, global economies and hundreds of millions of lives (of people who have no choice or say in what happens) hang in the balance.
It sounds like you've received "talking Points" from Hakeem Jeffries
It sounds like you believe whatever Jesse Watters tells you.
Do you think Trey Gowdy gets his talking points from Hakeem Jeffries? How about Gen. Jack Keane?
Try actually reading the MOU, then get back to me.
Trump has come close to classic blunder #1 (Getting involved in a land war in Asia). Still, this may well be worth a dishonorable mention with The Vizzini Institute for Strategic Miscalculation!
Given how President Trump boxed himself in, the MOU might have been the best he could've done.
Iran's dictators don't seem to care much if a global economic crises arises out of their shenanigans with the SOH. They don't seem to care much if there's more bombing. I don't know how close they were to succumbing to a popular uprising, but I doubt it's a real threat at this point.
Possibly a substantially less worse deal could have been made if the Trump A. had stiffened their bargaining posture and taken another month or so. Maybe. Or maybe the result would have been worse. More inside info is needed.
But it seems that the Iran dictators were in no hurry to reach a deal.
And maybe they're just superior horse traders. Quen sabe?
Nothing is too early for you to criticise John.
If the Biden administration did the exact same thing, on the same timeline, you'd be shouting AMEN at my same analysis.
Burying your head in the sand is a choice you make for Trump and Trump alone.
I was wondering what the die hard maga reaction to the MOU would be - now we know: "It's too early to criticize it, let's see what happens in 60 days." That gives Fox News' prime time lineup 60 days to come up with a new set of excuses.
Al's preference is that I don't criticize Trump until after he's left office.
He doesn't want you to EVER criticize the Dear Leader.
True.
Interesting assessmets, the kind that come from making inaccurate assumptions. Here's where you credibility went south with me John. 1) You acuse Trump of destroying democracy. Ok. I sent Webster's criteria defining democracy and asked you to give me an example of what might go away via Trump.
You picked none.
2) You claimed Obama paying Iran $ 1.7 T was the same as Trump's $380 offer to rebuild.
That was so off base it wasn't an apple and orange comparison, it was closer to a continents and camp-site comparison.
And now with a process clearly articulated with requirements, consequences and benefits your assessment concludes Trump's team failed to get a meaningful result.
VDH does not agree. Ignoring his assessments is foolish.
Hello SirJohn—- Here’s a thought: let us conservative Republicans give the Democrats what they’ve been clamoring for—-WE should IMPEACH Trump and beat them to the punch!
That would send a clear message to Vance and any other Republican that would even consider such a dumb A $$ agreement such as this!
Only ten Republicans voted to impeach him when he tried to overturn U.S. democracy, and caused an insurrection at the Capitol, Emperor. And that was at a time when the party was far less obedient to him than it is now.
It would never happen.