Well that certainly clears that up. So which Obama are you siding with?
The one that increased sanctions in 2012 or the one that eased sanctions in 2013?
I wonder if you agree that passing tougher or new sanctions specifically after the interim deal was announced, could have killed the deal and that would be a shame if US Senators went ahead as they announced they intended to do.
But today they had dome sense returned to them after talking to Secretary Kerry.
It is really irrelevant. You have spent the last many days attempting to condemn the authors of a letter written in August on the grounds that it would have been counterproductive had it been written next week. This, all the while ignoring the actual content of the letter.
My point stands.
Got it.
So if the Democratic Senators don’t agree with Obama they’re nutjobs? you make Obama sound like one true Democrat and Kerry one of his disciples sent forth to spread the word.
Well if you didn’t then seek out Kerry’s version because he’s in charge of dome sense.
I support Obama’s actions in both years because a significant change occurred between the two positions. You see Obama was correct to order more sanctions in January 2012 because this game-changing event remained in the distant future:
So you see our President has the capacity to react to a change in environment that allow for easing of sanctions under certain negotiated and agreed upon conditions.
What could be wrong with supporting both?
I think they call that the Kerry Doctrine.
No they are nutjobs because of their failure to respond to overtures in moderation from Iran as most normal and reasonable people would do.
Do you argue that responding to a new found moderate position by the Iranian government with a call for tougher sanctions is not nutty?
I have not ignored the content if the letter nor the date it was written / the content has no bearing on the point I’ve made because the letter acknowledges the moderate new position of Rouhani who became President of Iran a month before the letter was written.
I have also pointed out Magiver’s error in saying there is no issue between Obama’s view and the letter signer’s view on sanctions.
That comes from my actual reading of the content of the letter which is correct. Magiver’s reading is apparently incorrect.
And your assessment of what you think I am condemning the authors of the letter is incorrect. I have denied that prior to this and I deny it again.
If the push for tougher sanctions were continued in the Senate and it passed and the President’s veto were overturned and the interim deal died as the Iranian FM said it would, would that bother you at all?
Could you cite where I wrote that please? Or anything close to that?
Sorry. I am not going to get into one more exchange of posters quoting you and having you respond by denying that you actually said what you were quoted saying and then haring off into with walls of text obfuscating what you “really” meant.
If you can find any posters who agree with your claim, I might be tempted to re-enter the discussion, but you seem to have infinitely more time to play these games than I do.
And when the White House opposed sanctions in 2011 (cite), before they changed their minds and supported tougher sanctions, I’ll bet you say that Obama was right then, too.
This is just getting silly. “NfwB, what’s your position on Iran sanctions?”
“What does Obama think? I’m for that.”
“What about your position on North Korea, what should we do there?”
“Whatever Obama says.”
“How about the playoff system for NCAA football – good or bad thing?”
“Obama’s right on this, too.”
“Do you think that Obama earned the Nobel Peace Prize?”
“What does Obama think about that question? I’m with him.”
“And what of our relations with Freedonia, and it’s insane president, Rufus Firefly?”
“Obama’s got this policy right, too.”
“Gotcha! There is no Freedonia, it’s a made up country!”
“When did I say Freedonia was a real country? Obviously Obama knows it isn’t.”
Not a lot of people know it, but Obama is a terrific dancer!
And - he can paint a whole apartment in one afternoon!
Regards,
Shodan
All I asked for was a cite of my words from which you decided what my point is. No one has quoted me saying that I have been …
“attempting to condemn the authors of a letter written in August on the grounds that it would have been counterproductive had it been written next week.”
That is not my point so I wonder upon what basis you have concluded that it is?
Take your time. I’m in no hurry. I would just like to make the record ckear that I have argued nothing of the sort.
so 76 people are unreasonable and one person isn’t because, well he’s Obama who is right even when he takes both sides of the same argument AND gives his current odds as no better than 50/50.
hard to argue with a President’s assessment.
I’ll let the other readers of this thread leap to support your contention about just what you have or have not argued.
I am in no hurry, either. 
There is no way to cite something I supposedly said when I didn’t say it. That is quite clear now.
Forecasting the odds of success or failure by Obama is not rejecting the understanding that demanding tougher sanctions when the other side is openly making concessions and moderating their position is a nutty idea if one is interested in a peaceful outcome to this matter.
So what is your point?
Well to start with, sanctions were a peaceful outcome to the matter. The odds speak for themselves.