hard to link to an iHeartRadio podcast however in the future maybe Google is your friend
:shrug: there is nothing wrong with using Right Wing sites, any more than there is with citing left wing sites or think tanks.
Did you bother reading the article or the initial article it was cited from or the White House comments?
“What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action (the title of the Iran-powers deal), and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham said on Tuesday.
hard to link to an iHeartRadio podcast
however in the future maybe Google is your friend
:shrug: there is nothing wrong with using Right Wing sites, any more than there is with citing left wing sites or think tanks.
Both Presidents, Bush father and Bush son, made similar mistakes. Bush father stopped our troops in Kuwait, although there was a great opportunity, even then destroy Saddam regime. Bush's son did not go further in Iran, which at the time was very convenient between the two our major forces in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
The Free Beacon is merely citing the comments made by Iranian government representatives posted in an Iranian newspaper.
Farsnews
Reuters is reporting (some other outlets as well) that some Iranian officials, including Zarif the foreign minister, have been making comments that look like hedging on portions of the deal like ceasing work on the Arak Lightwater Reactor. They have apparently been saying that construction will continue but that no more nuclear fuel will be introduced and no new installations constructed. This has sparked considerable confusion.
Iran says to continue building at Arak nuclear site despite deal | Reuters
However, nuclear expert Mark Hibbs of the Carnegie Endowment think-tank said Zarif's statement seemed to be an attempt to reassure anti-Western hardliners in Iran that the Arak project will survive diplomacy with the powers.
"It doesn't matter whether Iran is doing excavation work or civil construction work around the reactor," Hibbs said.
"What matters for now is that there is no fuel production and testing, that there is no installation at the reactor. Freezing much more than that might be seen by hardliners as total suspension of the project and therefore unacceptable."
There are more than a few concerned nations that arent exactly sold on the 'deal'. And its rather comical that you insist that the Iranians cant be trusted in what they say and yet you celebrate an agreement based on what they say.Iranian newspapers are read by the Iranian people. These statements were made for their benefit only. Saving face is an important part of Iran's propaganda ministers. The fact that the right is falling for it too only demonstrates their radical partisanship. It is a disgrace.
Did you bother reading the article or the initial article it was cited from or the White House comments?
“What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action (the title of the Iran-powers deal), and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham said on Tuesday.
There are more than a few concerned nations that arent exactly sold on the 'deal'. And its rather comical that you insist that the Iranians cant be trusted in what they say and yet you celebrate an agreement based on what they say.
How many years now have they been playing this cat and mouse game while even the current administration is convinced they are deceptive in their intent at the development of nuclear weapons?
The problem is you don't know what's official and what isn't. Somewhere in Iran there is an Iran Debate Politics with an Iranian Vancemack and and Iranian CPWill (etc.) and they're furiously typing away, "Ha! Michelle Bachman say deal is off! American imperialist liars, deal is fake!" *
*When making a racist impersonation of another language, it's easiest to just omit "the."
Actually...the problem is both parties have been proven to be liars and we dont know WHO to trust. However, if you scoot over to the article cited in the London media, suddenly you see the White House officials stating that yes, in fact there WILL be SOME enrichment...but it will be closely monitored...The problem is you don't know what's official and what isn't. Somewhere in Iran there is an Iran Debate Politics with an Iranian Vancemack and and Iranian CPWill (etc.) and they're furiously typing away, "Ha! Michelle Bachman say deal is off! American imperialist liars, deal is fake!" *
*When making a racist impersonation of another language, it's easiest to just omit "the."
Iranians aren't stupid enough to speak out too openly in IDP.
Actually...the problem is both parties have been proven to be liars and we dont know WHO to trust. However, if you scoot over to the article cited in the London media, suddenly you see the White House officials stating that yes, in fact there WILL be SOME enrichment...but it will be closely monitored...
honest!
Start with the enrichment of uranium. The part where the US talking point said no enrichment, the Iranian statement was that there would be no impeding enrichment and it would in fact increase, and finish off with the White House rep stating...well...a bit...a bit...Yes, I read the article where it originated. It shows the the Iranian version. Wheres the contradiction?
Iran says Obama administration lied about details of nuclear deal, but the White House insists 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' | Mail OnlineLink?
Iran says Obama administration lied about details of nuclear deal, but the White House insists 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' | Mail Online
Asked to react to Iran's claim that the White House changed key elements of the agreement for public consumption, she said 'I don’t have any particular response to these reports.'
But she acknowledged that 'domestic enrichment' would likely be part of 'a limited, tightly constrained and intensively monitored civilian nuclear program' that the West would negotiate with Iran over the next six months.
Again...do you TRUST either parties to be honest?
Cuz if you do...Ive got some healthcare plans I can sell you...and you can keep them no matter what...honest...
there are three different news sites listed, 2 of which site WH representative (and I have offered the quote) which concedes that...well...gosh...you know...maybe there really ISNT a prohibition on enrichment and all... Your rebuttal is 'nuh UH!!!'Aaaaand it links back to that same Fars site.
Got anything else? Something that doesn't just link back to the same Fars News article?
Actually...the problem is both parties have been proven to be liars and we dont know WHO to trust. However, if you scoot over to the article cited in the London media, suddenly you see the White House officials stating that yes, in fact there WILL be SOME enrichment...but it will be closely monitored...
honest!
there are three different news sites listed, 2 of which site WH representative (and I have offered the quote) which concedes that...well...gosh...you know...maybe there really ISNT a prohibition on enrichment and all... Your rebuttal is 'nuh UH!!!'
First off, Daily Mail. Bad apdst.
Second, all it links back to is Farsnews again.
there are three different news sites listed, 2 of which site WH representative (and I have offered the quote) which concedes that...well...gosh...you know...maybe there really ISNT a prohibition on enrichment and all... Your rebuttal is 'nuh UH!!!'
I ask again...dont dance...just be direct. DO YOU TRUST EITHER PARTY TO BE HONEST?
"Nuh-uhhhhhh" with snot and tears flying everywhere.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?