Go Figure: White House Lied About Details of Iran Deal

by Kit Lange on November 26, 2013

As a nice little in-your-face move, Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesperson made a point of mentioning that the fact sheet Obama’s White House released to explain the debacle of the Iran agreement was…you guessed it…a lie.

“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,”

Before you toss this aside as Iran lying to make the United States look badly, think about this: What exactly makes the US look worse?  Claiming they lied when they didn’t, or exposing them when they did?  I’ll give you a moment to think about that.  To bolster their case, Iran released the actual text of the agreement to the media.  Here’s a part you might want to pay attention to:

This comprehensive solution would enable Iran to fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the NPT in conformity with its obligations therein.

By the way…you’ll notice that the agreement allows Iran to keep right on doing what they’re doing as long as they keep claiming it’s peaceful. Smart move by Iran, when you think about it.  They waited until the US released their “fact sheet,” and then came out to say, “Actually…that’s not really what happened.”  Not that the egg on Obama’s face is even discernable at this point from the blood from dead Americans on his hands.

It gets better.  The White House admitted to the Washington Free Beacon that “the final details of the plan have yet to be worked out.”  What this means is that Iran doesn’t have to stop yet, because they are not bound by anything yet.  To break this down to brass tacks, it means that we are lifting sanctions while holding Iran to absolutely nothing.  No wonder Bibi was flying all over the globe trying to get someone to listen.  God knows Obama didn’t give a rip.  As we learned from the infamous hot mic incident, Obama can’t stand Netanyahu or the country he governs.  If Iran dropped a nuke on Israel tomorrow, Obama would do the same celebratory dance that the Muslim interpreters did in the State Department after 9/11 (see Paul Sperry’s book Infiltration).  He’d make sure to cry in public, though.

“The six month clock should have started early Sunday morning,” said former Ambassador Mark Wallace, the CEO of United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI). “If this is a serious agreement, the P5+1 must ensure that these negotiations do not become a tool for Iran to further increase its enrichment abilities.”

Let’s recap.  The White House entered into a poorly-advised and horrible idea in a terrorist-sponsoring, US hating state that gives them arms they should never, ever have and will probably use to kill Americans, and then turned around and lied to the American people about the whole thing to make it sound like something else.  We’ve read this story before, haven’t we?  Place called Benghazi.  You might have heard of it.

It’s not news to find out that the White House lied about something these days.  The list of things that the administration and even Obama himself have lied about is far too long to even bother with in this article.  The real question is, how many times does the Obama administration have to aid and abet sworn enemies of the United States before people finally admit to themselves that’s what he’s doing?

{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }

Kevin November 27, 2013 at 7:25 am

Kit (aka Victory Girls) … You’ve hit a new low in your hysterical rants about the Obama administration. I would question your patriotism that you would believe Iran over your own government. (Even though you don’t think it’s “YOUR” government, it is; for better or for worse.)

I once had some respect for the viewpoints of Victory Girls but this has me questioning my judgement; which doesn’t happen very often.

Signed … Sadly, an American Travelling Abroad, Kevin

Reply

Jodi November 27, 2013 at 8:09 am

What, precisely, is inaccurate in this post, Kevin?

Reply

Kit November 27, 2013 at 12:15 pm

Seriously, Kevin? I’m curious about a few things. I’m really hoping you can enlighten me.

1. What’s your specific training in deception detection? Do you have both academic and law enforcement training for statement analysis?

2. What does Iran gain if they were to lie about this by putting up an altered agreement that is somehow more advantageous than putting up the actual agreement?

3. Have any of the other countries who signed that agreement come out to say that Iran is lying? How about that the White House is? Why is that?

4. What motive would the White House have for lying? Have they released a statement yet to refute Iran? Why not? Bonus points if you can explain why they won’t submit anything even remotely blunt. They just got called liars by Iran. Why won’t they do anything?

5. Do I need a golden ticket to visit your fantasy world?

Thank God you’re here to school me. I look forward to your answers.

Reply

Kevin November 28, 2013 at 9:53 am

“Seriously, Kevin? I’m curious about a few things. I’m really hoping you can enlighten me.”

1. What’s your specific training in deception detection? Do you have both academic and law enforcement training for statement analysis?” No, I don’t. I’m hoping you are going to reply with, “Well, I have a Master’s Degree in Intelligence.” (Which, when you think about it, isn’t it rather oxymoronic?) Here’s what the White House did that was beneficial to all parties involved …They described, from the text of the draft agreement, their interpretation of the treaty which was paraphrased from the draft. (Paraphrased, if you don’t know, means they used different words and sentences to describe in their own words what the draft language means. Helpful?) I’ve never sat in a room with the Secretary of State when he/she was negotiating a unilateral arms agreement (I’m guessing you’re in the same boat), but I have been in hundreds of meetings between union and management (I represented management), government and neighborhood associations (represented the neighbors), and spouses/families in dispute (I was the mediator). Every scenario is the same … the parties think they have some common ground or agreement, they walk away, discuss the agreement, paraphrase it into their own words (especially if different language is involved) and the other parties object to the placement of a comma, the use of a specific word, the translation of the phrase, or the placement of the different points of the agreement. It’s always the same. Always.

My other hope is that you do not come back with … “Well, in my Master Degree program I have had 15 credits of deception detection and statement analysis.” You know what they say about those that teach? If you can, you do. If you can’t, you teach. I’m also guessing your instructors weren’t sitting in a room with the Secretary of State as an Associate Arms Negotiator. It took a while but I learned after completing seven years of higher education that I didn’t know crap about the work I was trained to do until I got out into the field and did the work. So, after your Masters in Intelligence (If you can’t tell already, I love saying that phrase ), do you have 5 years (10, 15, 20?) working for the State Department (hopefully under George Bush II for your own creditability with the bloggers) negotiating international treaties. Do tell. Share with us your infinite wisdom because clearly I don’t have any.

So, Kit, show the readers some respect and outline your “specific training in deception detection and your academic and law enforcement training for statement analysis?” I will appreciate your expertise in all foreign affairs.
2. “What does Iran gain if they were to lie about this by putting up an altered agreement that is somehow more advantageous than putting up the actual agreement? What Iran is doing is objecting to the Obama Administrations interpretation of the agreement.” This is perfect. It’s best to have these conversations before a treaty is signed versus after the treaty is signed. I don’t see anything wrong with what the Obama Administration did or the Iranians. What I object to is that you’ve taken the side of the Iranians in this “word-smithing” exercise. It’s nice to know that you think so highly of your enemies. (Some people may object the term enemy so interchange it with … opponent, adversary, foe, rival, etc. See how that works? The word “enemy” is used in some draft document and the other party objects and suggests the word(s) opponent, adversary, foe, rival, etc. Kind of like what’s going on with the U.S and Iranians over their dispute about the wording in the agreement. Is that too simple for you?)

3. “Have any of the other countries who signed that agreement come out to say that Iran is lying? How about that the White House is? Why is that?” I haven’t spent much time on the internet or looking at other news stories about this disagreement (as noted in some previous posts I’m traveling outside the U.S. … Even though some Victory Girl bloggers think I’ve gone to the “Mid-West” since I don’t know the difference between a third world country and the heart of America). I would imagine, like all disagreements, before a party jumps in they want to make sure their language is clear (I’m sure things get lost in translation from Farsi (the national language of Iran, if you didn’t know) to French to English), their understanding of the draft is the same, or they’re going to work behind the scenes and not on “Fox News” to correct, amend, or otherwise get a clean draft. (Do you wonder why Iran went public with their disagreement versus picking up the phone and talking to Secretary Kerry and/or his minions? Hmmm, could there be some “deception detection or differences in statement analysis” going on here? I don’t know … You’re the one with a Master’s in Intelligence. You tell us.

4. “What motive would the White House have for lying? Have they released a statement yet to refute Iran? Why not? Bonus points if you can explain why they won’t submit anything even remotely blunt. They just got called liars by Iran. Why won’t they do anything?” The most effective negotiations go on behind the scenes and not in public view. Generally, the public gets involved when one side feels they don’t have upper hand in the process and need public perception to alter the goal line. (Again, you have the Masters in Intelligence … gotta love that phrase … so I’m assuming your instructors have opened the door ever so slightly to the overwhelming concept of effective negotiations.) Silence is a powerful tool. If you quickly respond to your enemy (again, insert whatever word you want to describe Iran here) every time they spew garbage in public, you’re no better than them. You don’t have to respond minute by minute or point by point to their objections and I’m sure “their people are talking to our people” outside of the media which is how these things are handled.

5. “Do I need a golden ticket to visit your fantasy world? I would never offer you a golden ticket to my world.” I enjoy it too much to have someone like you mess it up.

Thank God you’re here to school me. I look forward to your answers. “There. You have been enlightened.” Happy Thanksgiving!

Reply

Kit November 28, 2013 at 9:10 pm

Kevin,

It’s Thanksgiving night and some of us have better things to do than write War and Peace to contradict someone, but I’m guessing you might be lonely so here you go. I’m fresh out of inkwells here for you to dip my pigtails in, though.

My “Master’s Degree in Intelligence” really has nothing to do with any of this. My professors, by the way, are actually not academic losers who can’t do the job they teach—most of them, in fact, are only part time because they’re still doing the job they’re teaching, in the three letter agencies. But never mind that. I only mention it because, as usual, your facts are wrong. Anything else dealing with my education or perceived lack thereof is just ad hominem crap that I’m not going to dignify with an answer because, quite frankly, it’s lazy debating and it’s not worth my time. If you want to know the particulars of my courseload so bad, you can download the school’s brochure.

While I’m certain your extensive experience in labor disputes lets you feel comfortable in describing the “accidental” disconnect between the White House and Iran, I think it’s safe to say that again, you’re factually incorrect. By the way, my original premise—that the White House lied—has been borne out by several news reports. You did see that it’s come out that Iran doesn’t have to stop anything until at least next year right? You did see that the White House has admitted that they agreement isn’t even really finalized yet….even though everyone signed? Is that something you’re familiar with in all your experience with agreements? Do you make a practice of signing open-ended agreements to be decided on later?

As for your long diatribe about differences in Farsi/French/English…really? That’s it? That’s what you’ve got? If you have so much experience as an “associate arms negotiator,” then one would hope you know enough to know how to ensure that all parties understand the agreement being made.

I’d go through the rest of it, but it’s really, really tedious, and you’ve reached a level of nastiness that makes interacting with you unpleasant because you no longer simply disagree. You’re rude, you’re demeaning, and you’re not interested in intelligent debate, only being a jerk. When you want to act like an adult, I’ll debate you on the issues, with facts and sources, all day. If all you want to do is insult me, I’ve got better things to do. By the way…you didn’t have a single source or fact in your entire rambling mess. It’s not a debate position. It’s a nasty personal attack. Grow up.

Reply

Kevin November 29, 2013 at 3:56 pm

This response is rather long but most of it is copying material “quoted” from Kit’s response so my responses are put in context with the discussion.

“It’s Thanksgiving night and some of us have better things to do than write War and Peace to contradict someone, but I’m guessing you might be lonely so here you go. I’m fresh out of inkwells here for you to dip my pigtails in, though.” None of this made any sense. You have to do better with an opening remark. If you had something better to do, then why did you respond? Are you going back to the old days when boys picked on girls and dunked their braids in inkwells? Are you trying to say boys are mean? Again, it makes no sense.

“My “Master’s Degree in Intelligence” really has nothing to do with any of this. My professors, by the way, are actually not academic losers who can’t do the job they teach—most of them, in fact, are only part time because they’re still doing the job they’re teaching, in the three letter agencies.” When you ask a question like, “What’s your specific training in deception detection? Do you have both academic and law enforcement training for statement analysis?” one would presume you, Kit, have some level of experience in this field because you were the one that claimed the White House lied. So, when I referred to your “Master’s of Intelligence” my reference wanted to know your experience and/or education (in past blog postings, including this one, I reference my experience with the topic which is usually helpful in the discussion). It appears you have zip, nada, nil, zero education and or experience with the topic. As for “my professors are only part-time”… OMG! Having worked in higher education for 15 years at highly selective educational institutions, the faculty that were “adjunct” (you’ll need to look up the word) were the ones that couldn’t get a tenured (again, you’ll have to look up the word) position. They were disposable depending on the level of interest in the courses they were offering or were brought in to teach the freshman classes because they were so large.

“But never mind that. I only mention it because, as usual, your facts are wrong. Anything else dealing with my education or perceived lack thereof is just ad hominem crap that I’m not going to dignify with an answer because, quite frankly, it’s lazy debating and it’s not worth my time. If you want to know the particulars of my courseload so bad, you can download the school’s brochure.” I’ll check your profile to see if your “on-line university” is listed. If not, you’ll need to send it to me. (You were the one that challenged me to “download the brochure” and I’m more than happy to do so but will need the specific university name.)

“You did see that the White House has admitted that they (sic) agreement isn’t even really finalized yet….even though everyone signed? Do you make a practice of signing open-ended agreements to be decided on later?” Every agreement is different and based on the conditions put forth by the parties. If in the agreement the parties signed it with a clause (or clauses) that outline steps yet to happen, then that’s perfectly acceptable. Again, let me simplify it for you with something you’re probably more familiar with when it comes to agreements … When you signed your earnest money agreement to buy your house (and I’m making an assumption you have purchased a home), you most likely listed conditions that needed to happen (AFTER SIGNING IT) in order for the sale (agreement) to be finalized … a home inspection, the purchase is contingent on the sale of your current home, major repairs that need to be completed prior to closing, etc. There’s no difference. Whatever the two (or more) parties agree to in the agreement, then that’s the agreement. Plain and simple.

“As for your long diatribe about differences in Farsi/French/English…really? That’s it? That’s what you’ve got? If you have so much experience as an “associate arms negotiator,” then one would hope you know enough to know how to ensure that all parties understand the agreement being made.” Your previous reference to “experience as an associate arms negotiator, then one would know …” means Kit, you have experience as an associate arms negotiator. Either put up or shut up when it comes to telling the readers your experience. You can’t make sweeping assumptions like that without the information to back it up. (And, if you’re not an associate arms negotiator … learn how to compose a sentence so you don’t lead the reader on!) Now, on to how disagreements occur. Again, how many times have you walked away from an agreement (with your husband, children, employer, church, friend, pastor, parents, school … the list goes on forever) and what you thought was agreed to was not. It’s human nature. It’s not a conspiracy theory to screw over American citizens.
“I’d go through the rest of it, but it’s really, really tedious, and you’ve reached a level of nastiness that makes interacting with you unpleasant because you no longer simply disagree.” Kit, you actually went through most of it. Let me give you your next response to this posting … “I will not dignify a response.” PERIOD. Stop there! Don’t go through all the points. When you aren’t going to respond, DON’T RESPOND!”

You need to either (Point #1) thicken your skin because some of my responses were far from rude, demeaning, and insulting; (they were more snarky … and condescending … because when you write “the White House lied” as the author you should have the background to substantiate that claim) and (Point #2) when you open your original response to me with … “Seriously, Kevin? I’m curious about a few things. I’m really hoping you can enlighten me?” and you close with “Do I need a golden ticket to visit your fantasy world? “ you set the stage for how we communicated with one another. You need to get off your high horse. I see that a lot on the Victor Girls blog … Oh my, you’ve offended my southern heritage and upbringing as a proper lady. Pass me the smelling salts because I’m light headed from your Yankee foul mouth. Give me a break. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

“You’re rude, you’re demeaning, and you’re not interested in intelligent debate, only being a jerk. When you want to act like an adult, I’ll debate you on the issues, with facts and sources, all day. If all you want to do is insult me, I’ve got better things to do. By the way…you didn’t have a single source or fact in your entire rambling mess. It’s not a debate position. It’s a nasty personal attack. Grow up.” Did I hit a nerve? Your “I’m being personally attacked” response leads me to (Point #3) … Don’t let your enemy know they’ve hit a nerve or offended you. You know what happens in the animal kingdom when something shows weakness? They’re usually the first to be taken down by the pride of lions. When you and the other Victory Girls get together to discuss how to proceed when responding to postings, I suggest you specifically bring up Point #3 … Don’t show fear.

Again, remember when you respond with “I’m not going to respond to your diatribe” DON’T RESPOND. The first rule of debate, consequences, and agreements is MEAN WHAT YOU SAY. That may be a difficult concept to adhere to but if you want don’t want to be ineffectual, you have to do it. Winning an argument does not mean you have to have the last word.

So, you get the last word because I’m not going to respond any longer. (See how that works? And pay special attention whether or not I respond.) Will you pass the test? I don’t think so but I have been known to be surprised once in a while.

Happy Holidays to all the Victory Girls around the world !

Reply

Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere November 27, 2013 at 9:39 am

Perhaps the lies from this administration have simply moved many people to no longer give them the benefit of any doubt as a default position any longer, Kevin.

But perhaps you can explain why it is that “patriotism” should require anyone to close their eyes to statements made by members of this administration on anything of any import and simply accept it as truth, when so much of what they have said while looking us in the eye has been anything but.

Reply

Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere November 27, 2013 at 9:39 am

Perhaps the lies from this administration have simply moved many people to no longer give them the benefit of any doubt as a default position any longer, Kevin.

But perhaps you can explain why it is that “patriotism” should require anyone to close their eyes to statements made by members of this administration on anything of any import and simply accept it as truth, when so much of what they have said while looking us in the eye has been anything but.

Reply

Brent Glines November 27, 2013 at 11:27 am

Kit, you’ve hit a new low. You’ve reported accurately on yet another administration pack of lies. Report for re-education.

Reply

ALman November 28, 2013 at 3:23 am

To the tune of “I’ve Gotta Be Me”:

Whether I’m right or whether I’m wrong
Whether I find a place in this world or never belong
I gotta rant, I’ve gotta rant
What else can I be but what I am
I want to live, not merely survive
And I won’t give up this dream
Of life that keeps me alive
I gotta rant, I gotta rant!

RANT ON KIT!!!

Reply

Kate November 30, 2013 at 8:44 pm

Kevin

You have been welcomed on this blog as a regular commenter and your contrarian observations have livened things up around here on more than one occasion. None of your comments have ever been censored or removed. You have had complete posting access from the beginning — even though we expect you to vigorously disagree with most everything we ever say. Why? Because we have trusted you as a thinking, mannered liberal — who, though we may vehemently disagree with — recognized to be thoughtful and reasonable. You have also been given a rare and favored status with a “Guest Post” here on our blog, knowing you are a confirmed liberal, and we on VG are all conservatives.

Yet, even with all of this, it appears that you have become… how shall I say it…”fixated” on arguing with Kit alone to the point of utter ridiculousness; personally attacking her, her background, her education, her credentials, etc. Why? What’s the problem? She answered you over and over and over. Yet you’ve become petulant, even pedantic. In one of your comments above, it appears you are even attacking all of us at Victory Girls by saying “I once had some respect for the viewpoints of Victory Girls but this has me questioning my judgement; which doesn’t happen very often.”

Really?

We’re a conservative blog, Kevin. We have CONSERVATIVE viewpoints. We are consistent in that and will not apologize for how we express them here in our own forum. Politics has sharp elbows and today’s environment is toxic at best. So, yes. We at VG can throw a pretty decent punch and take one ourselves. Kit can certainly take care of herself, but it’s my job to take care of the blog.

Please know that you are our guest, as are all our commenters, and will continue to be so, if you choose. You have provided interesting and provocative (although utterly wrong) liberal perspectives to our posts on countless occasions. As I said, we block or censor no one. But I do expect cordiality and respectful debate based on facts here without personal or gratuitous ad hominem attacks. Thanks.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: