Obama Admits Taking Out Iran Nukes Won't Lead to War

So much for "Deal or War"

The Pro-Iran Nuke side has been running its pro-deal campaign by claiming that it was the only alternative to war.

Obama kept blowing the Iraq War dog whistle insisting that the same people who got us into Iraq (like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry?) were trying to start a war with Iran by rejecting the deal that will let the Islamic terrorist state go nuclear and even protect its program.

The overriding message was it's either a deal or a war... and that opponents were warmongers.

But in a meeting with "Jewish" leaders, Obama admitted that was nonsense, not only backing off the "Deal or War" slogan, but admitting that even taking out Iran's nuclear program would not mean a war.

"He said military action by the United States against Iran's nuclear facilities is not going to result in Iran deciding to have a full-fledged war with the United States," Rosenbaum, of the National Jewish Democratic Council, quoted Obama as telling the forum.

Obviously that's true, but then why push the "Deal or War" slogan?

Obama belatedly admitted that even taking out Iran's nukes won't lead to a war. So why would more sanctions lead to a war? Even the French have said it would lead to a better deal.

"'You'll see more support for terrorism. You'll see Hezbollah rockets falling on Tel Aviv.' This is what he said would happen if the US had a military strike on Iran," Rosenbaum said, referring to the Iranian-backed Lebanese guerrilla group and its long-range missile arsenal.

Pretty sure we're going to see that anyway. And at least they won't carry nuclear warheads.

And funnelling 55-150 billion dollars into Iran will mean a whole lot more support for terrorism. Is Obama really trying to argue that Iran will support terrorism based on how nicely the US treats its regime? Has he learned absolutely nothing from the past few decades of history or listened to the rhetoric coming from the Supreme Leader?

What does he think "Death to America" means?

Share