• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Top French Official Contradicts Kerry on Iran Deal.....

MMC

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
So much for BO peep and Kerry saying no deal means War. This will be good news to those in Congress. Someone besides Israel speaking out about what Kerry has had to say. This French Diplomat is basically saying Kerry is lying. Full of it, yes it and **** too. What say ye?



Secretary of State John Kerry has been painting an apocalyptic picture of what would happen if Congress killed the Iran nuclear deal. Among other things, he has warned that “our friends in this effort will desert us." But the top national security official from one of those nations involved in the negotiations, France, has a totally different view: He told two senior U.S. lawmakers that he thinks a Congressional no vote might actually be helpful.

The French official, Jacques Audibert, is now the senior diplomatic adviser to President Francois Hollande. Before that, as the director general for political affairs in the Foreign Ministry from 2009 to 2014, he led the French diplomatic team in the discussions with Iran and the P5+1 group. Earlier this month, he met with Democrat Loretta Sanchez and Republican Mike Turner, both top members of the House Armed Services Committee, to discuss the Iran deal. The U.S. ambassador to France, Jane Hartley, was also in the room.

According to both lawmakers, Audibert expressed support for the deal overall, but also directly disputed Kerry’s claim that a Congressional rejection of the Iran deal would result in the worst of all worlds, the collapse of sanctions and Iran racing to the bomb without restrictions. “He basically said, if Congress votes this down, there will be some saber-rattling and some chaos for a year or two, but in the end nothing will change and Iran will come back to the table to negotiate again and that would be to our advantage,” Sanchez told me in an interview. “He thought if the Congress voted it down, that we could get a better deal.”.....snip~

Top French Official Contradicts Kerry on Iran Deal - Bloomberg View
 
When the lawmakers returned to Washington, news of their conversation with Audibert spread among their colleagues. Turner confronted Kerry with Audibert’s statements during a July 22 closed-door briefing with Kerry and more than 300 House lawmakers. The briefing was classified, but Turner’s questions to Kerry were not.

“Are you surprised Jacques Audibert believes we could have gotten a better deal?” Turner asked Kerry, according to Turner.

“The secretary appeared surprised and had no good answer as to why the national security adviser of France had a completely different position than what the secretary told us the same day,” Turner told me......snip~ same link.

No word from the WH or Kerry? They will hope for the weekend news to try and bury it.
 
MMC said:
So much for BO peep and Kerry saying no deal means War. This will be good news to those in Congress. Someone besides Israel speaking out about what Kerry has had to say. This French Diplomat is basically saying Kerry is lying. Full of it, yes it and **** too. What say ye?



Secretary of State John Kerry has been painting an apocalyptic picture of what would happen if Congress killed the Iran nuclear deal. Among other things, he has warned that “our friends in this effort will desert us." But the top national security official from one of those nations involved in the negotiations, France, has a totally different view: He told two senior U.S. lawmakers that he thinks a Congressional no vote might actually be helpful.

The French official, Jacques Audibert, is now the senior diplomatic adviser to President Francois Hollande. Before that, as the director general for political affairs in the Foreign Ministry from 2009 to 2014, he led the French diplomatic team in the discussions with Iran and the P5+1 group. Earlier this month, he met with Democrat Loretta Sanchez and Republican Mike Turner, both top members of the House Armed Services Committee, to discuss the Iran deal. The U.S. ambassador to France, Jane Hartley, was also in the room.

According to both lawmakers, Audibert expressed support for the deal overall, but also directly disputed Kerry’s claim that a Congressional rejection of the Iran deal would result in the worst of all worlds, the collapse of sanctions and Iran racing to the bomb without restrictions. “He basically said, if Congress votes this down, there will be some saber-rattling and some chaos for a year or two, but in the end nothing will change and Iran will come back to the table to negotiate again and that would be to our advantage,” Sanchez told me in an interview. “He thought if the Congress voted it down, that we could get a better deal.”.....snip~

Top French Official Contradicts Kerry on Iran Deal - Bloomberg View
Click to expand...

As that was about my take, I might as well agree with the Frenchman.
 
I will wait until we get a reporter who is able to obtain a direct quote on the subject rather than a summarized hearsay version of his opinion.

Could we wait two years and get a better deal? Possibly.

Is it worth the risk that Iran might turn their current stockpile into a nuclear weapon within that same time period because we MIGHT get a better deal in two years? No.
 
MrT said:
I will wait until we get a reporter who is able to obtain a direct quote on the subject rather than a summarized hearsay version of his opinion.

Could we wait two years and get a better deal? Possibly.

Is it worth the risk that Iran might turn their current stockpile into a nuclear weapon within that same time period because we MIGHT get a better deal in two years? No.
Click to expand...

Gosh. If only there was some means of keeping that from happening....
 
MMC said:
So much for BO peep and Kerry saying no deal means War. This will be good news to those in Congress. Someone besides Israel speaking out about what Kerry has had to say. This French Diplomat is basically saying Kerry is lying. Full of it, yes it and **** too. What say ye?

Secretary of State John Kerry has been painting an apocalyptic picture of what would happen if Congress killed the Iran nuclear deal. Among other things, he has warned that “our friends in this effort will desert us." But the top national security official from one of those nations involved in the negotiations, France, has a totally different view: He told two senior U.S. lawmakers that he thinks a Congressional no vote might actually be helpful.

The French official, Jacques Audibert, is now the senior diplomatic adviser to President Francois Hollande. Before that, as the director general for political affairs in the Foreign Ministry from 2009 to 2014, he led the French diplomatic team in the discussions with Iran and the P5+1 group. Earlier this month, he met with Democrat Loretta Sanchez and Republican Mike Turner, both top members of the House Armed Services Committee, to discuss the Iran deal. The U.S. ambassador to France, Jane Hartley, was also in the room.

According to both lawmakers, Audibert expressed support for the deal overall, but also directly disputed Kerry’s claim that a Congressional rejection of the Iran deal would result in the worst of all worlds, the collapse of sanctions and Iran racing to the bomb without restrictions. “He basically said, if Congress votes this down, there will be some saber-rattling and some chaos for a year or two, but in the end nothing will change and Iran will come back to the table to negotiate again and that would be to our advantage,” Sanchez told me in an interview. “He thought if the Congress voted it down, that we could get a better deal.”.....snip~

Top French Official Contradicts Kerry on Iran Deal - Bloomberg View
Click to expand...

It's come to this. Under this administration America is now so weak-willed in our foreign policy that the French are telling us to man up and try to actually pursue our interests.
 
cpwill said:
It's come to this. Under this administration America is now so weak-willed in our foreign policy that the French are telling us to man up and try to actually pursue our interests.
Click to expand...

The French telling us to man-up, and the Saud straight out telling BO peep give us 600 Patriot missiles. No please, even attached to it. Plus they will have their own nuke deal.




Saudi Arabia Responds to Iran Deal: Give Us 600 Patriot Missiles

The $5 billion-plus purchase is likely just the first of many more as America’s Middle Eastern allies arm themselves in response to the nuclear deal, which would lift Iran’s conventional-arms embargo sanctions in five years and sanctions on long-range missile projects in eight.

“We saw this coming,” said Thomas Karako, a missile defense expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “This is the consequence of leaving the Iranian missile program intact and in fact signaling sanctions will go down on it.”

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council allies have been upping their missile defenses in recent years. In April, Riyadh bought $2 billion worth of Patriots, and just last week, the Pentagon bought $1.5 billion worth of Patriots for Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Taiwan, South Korea — and Saudi Arabia again......snip~

Saudi Arabia Responds to Iran Deal: Give Us 600 Patriot Missiles - Defense One


patriotmap2.png
 
MrT said:
And your suggestion?
Click to expand...

:shrug: there's a wide range of available options, from clandestine, to covert, to open and kinetic.
 
MMC said:
So much for BO peep and Kerry saying no deal means War. This will be good news to those in Congress. Someone besides Israel speaking out about what Kerry has had to say. This French Diplomat is basically saying Kerry is lying. Full of it, yes it and **** too. What say ye?



Secretary of State John Kerry has been painting an apocalyptic picture of what would happen if Congress killed the Iran nuclear deal. Among other things, he has warned that “our friends in this effort will desert us." But the top national security official from one of those nations involved in the negotiations, France, has a totally different view: He told two senior U.S. lawmakers that he thinks a Congressional no vote might actually be helpful.

The French official, Jacques Audibert, is now the senior diplomatic adviser to President Francois Hollande. Before that, as the director general for political affairs in the Foreign Ministry from 2009 to 2014, he led the French diplomatic team in the discussions with Iran and the P5+1 group. Earlier this month, he met with Democrat Loretta Sanchez and Republican Mike Turner, both top members of the House Armed Services Committee, to discuss the Iran deal. The U.S. ambassador to France, Jane Hartley, was also in the room.

According to both lawmakers, Audibert expressed support for the deal overall, but also directly disputed Kerry’s claim that a Congressional rejection of the Iran deal would result in the worst of all worlds, the collapse of sanctions and Iran racing to the bomb without restrictions. “He basically said, if Congress votes this down, there will be some saber-rattling and some chaos for a year or two, but in the end nothing will change and Iran will come back to the table to negotiate again and that would be to our advantage,” Sanchez told me in an interview. “He thought if the Congress voted it down, that we could get a better deal.”.....snip~

Top French Official Contradicts Kerry on Iran Deal - Bloomberg View
Click to expand...

I suspect that this deal is being pushed because Obama wants something more to point to as what he sees as a success for his presidential legacy.
 
Excon said:
I suspect that this deal is being pushed because Obama wants something more to point to as what he sees as a success for his presidential legacy.
Click to expand...

Well, pretty much out of anything else in Foreign Policy this would be his self alleged victory. Other than the Cuba issue. Anything else, he proved he wasn't up to the task, while placing more Americans and American Interests at a greater Risk of harm.
 
MMC said:
So much for BO peep and Kerry saying no deal means War. This will be good news to those in Congress. Someone besides Israel speaking out about what Kerry has had to say. This French Diplomat is basically saying Kerry is lying. Full of it, yes it and **** too. What say ye?



Secretary of State John Kerry has been painting an apocalyptic picture of what would happen if Congress killed the Iran nuclear deal. Among other things, he has warned that “our friends in this effort will desert us." But the top national security official from one of those nations involved in the negotiations, France, has a totally different view: He told two senior U.S. lawmakers that he thinks a Congressional no vote might actually be helpful.

The French official, Jacques Audibert, is now the senior diplomatic adviser to President Francois Hollande. Before that, as the director general for political affairs in the Foreign Ministry from 2009 to 2014, he led the French diplomatic team in the discussions with Iran and the P5+1 group. Earlier this month, he met with Democrat Loretta Sanchez and Republican Mike Turner, both top members of the House Armed Services Committee, to discuss the Iran deal. The U.S. ambassador to France, Jane Hartley, was also in the room.

According to both lawmakers, Audibert expressed support for the deal overall, but also directly disputed Kerry’s claim that a Congressional rejection of the Iran deal would result in the worst of all worlds, the collapse of sanctions and Iran racing to the bomb without restrictions. “He basically said, if Congress votes this down, there will be some saber-rattling and some chaos for a year or two, but in the end nothing will change and Iran will come back to the table to negotiate again and that would be to our advantage,” Sanchez told me in an interview. “He thought if the Congress voted it down, that we could get a better deal.”.....snip~

Top French Official Contradicts Kerry on Iran Deal - Bloomberg View
Click to expand...

A Junior High debate team captain could have gotten a better deal than Kerry. Well, that's hyperbolic, but you get the point.

Kerry has never been on the right side of any foreign policy issue the US was involved with. His view of the world and the US's role in that world is so antithetical to everything we stand for, that I was amazed that the Senate confirmed him. I get that the "Old Boys Club" (the Senate) will confirm any of their previous club members to be an executive branch official, but damn... Kerry??? As Secretary of State???

Obama promised to talk directly to Iran in his first campaign, regardless of the cost to the US and how much it harmed our safety and the safety of our allies. He has kept that promise, and we are not safer but in fact the opposite.

Russia is annexing western Europe, China is annexing millions of square miles of the Pacific Ocean by creating islands, and ISIS is gaining ground and recruiting thousands from around the world, just to list three. Turkey is requesting NATO Article 4 be activated and supported by NATO countries, and I seriously doubt that Obama will support it, although he used the same to attack Libya.

Obama has put the world in the most dangerous position it has been in since WWII.
 
cpwill said:
It's come to this. Under this administration America is now so weak-willed in our foreign policy that the French are telling us to man up and try to actually pursue our interests.
Click to expand...

Amazing isn't it?

There's an old story about why the British wore red coats - to hide the blood so the other troops wouldn't become frightened. Basically, that's the same reason the French wear brown pants.

And now, they're telling us to grow a pair. Sad.
 
Jacques Audibert said that Kerry is a brainless lunatic, and asked to use the French white flag to immediately surrender to the first mullah he saw. :lol:
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: there's a wide range of available options, from clandestine, to covert, to open and kinetic.
Click to expand...

Military strikes? AKA war? Got it.

We tried sending a small military force in the middle east. It didn't work. We tried sending a massive military force in the middle east. It didn't work. We tried bombing into submission. It didn't work.

I'd like to try diplomacy.
 
Beaudreaux said:
A Junior High debate team captain could have gotten a better deal than Kerry. Well, that's hyperbolic, but you get the point.

Kerry has never been on the right side of any foreign policy issue the US was involved with. His view of the world and the US's role in that world is so antithetical to everything we stand for, that I was amazed that the Senate confirmed him. I get that the "Old Boys Club" (the Senate) will confirm any of their previous club members to be an executive branch official, but damn... Kerry??? As Secretary of State???

Obama promised to talk directly to Iran in his first campaign, regardless of the cost to the US and how much it harmed our safety and the safety of our allies. He has kept that promise, and we are not safer but in fact the opposite.

Russia is annexing western Europe, China is annexing millions of square miles of the Pacific Ocean by creating islands, and ISIS is gaining ground and recruiting thousands from around the world, just to list three. Turkey is requesting NATO Article 4 be activated and supported by NATO countries, and I seriously doubt that Obama will support it, although he used the same to attack Libya.

Obama has put the world in the most dangerous position it has been in since WWII.
Click to expand...


Heya Beaudreaux :2wave: Not to mention Turkey has taken advantage of attacking the Kurds who were taking it to Daesh. We really should arm them and back then for Statehood. While telling Turkey they pull that stunt again. We will deliver the Kurds Anti air that will not miss shooting them out of the Sky.

Already, I have heard about 4 Demos caving to protect BO, rather than Country. Clearly they don't care what their own people think. Nor that Oath they took. Which they should be reminded and humiliated over that.
 
MrT said:
Military strikes? AKA war? Got it.

We tried sending a small military force in the middle east. It didn't work. We tried sending a massive military force in the middle east. It didn't work. We tried bombing into submission. It didn't work.

I'd like to try diplomacy.
Click to expand...


Seems that was what the French Diplomat way saying to.....he mentioned some sabre rattling. But that the sanctions would force the Iranians back to the table. He even was in on the Negotiations. Now why do you think, he is talking about that there is no ultimatum of war.


Audibert's comments as recounted by the lawmakers are a direct rebuttal to Kerry, who in remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations on July 24 said that if Congress voted down the deal, there would no chance to restart negotiations in search of a tougher pact.

This argument is being echoed by a throng of U.S. commentators and former Obama administration officials who support the deal. They all say that if the Congress doesn’t lift U.S. sanctions, the rest of the international regime will collapse and allied countries will rush to do business in Iran. That would make the U.S. sanctions moot and put U.S. businesses at a disadvantage, the argument goes. (Kerry pointed out in his council speech that the French foreign minister, the French commerce minister and German officials were all visiting Iran with delegations this month.)

Audibert disagrees with that analysis, too, according to the two lawmakers. He told them that if U.S. sanctions were kept in place, it would effectively prevent the West from doing extensive business in Iran. “I asked him specifically what the Europeans would do, and his comment was that the way the U.S. sanctions are set in, he didn’t see an entity or a country going against them, that the risk was too high,” Sanchez said......snip~ same link.
 
joG said:
As that was about my take, I might as well agree with the Frenchman.
Click to expand...

Heya Jog. :2wave: Congress should send him an Invitation to come and speak here. Putting John Kerry on display for the dufus he is. Then lets see if Kerry want to sound condescending like.

It don't look like BO will be able to intimidate Sanchez. Didn't work with Menendez either.
 
The French Embassy denies the report – needless to say Mr. Jacques Audibert would be needed to confirm or deny what was or was not said.

"The Lid": French P5+1 Negotiations Leader Says Better Deal IS Possible

Upon hearing the report of Jacques Audibert's comments the French embassy was not pleased.
The Embassy of France formally denies the remarks attributed to Jacques Audibert in this article https://t.co/fY0Tno74uT #Iran
— French Embassy U.S. (@franceintheus) July 30, 2015
Click to expand...
 
stonewall50 said:
Carrier groups, hacking, clandestine strikes, continued destructive economic sanctions...you name it
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't Iran think that to be an act of war?
 
MrT said:
Military strikes? AKA war? Got it.

We tried sending a small military force in the middle east. It didn't work. We tried sending a massive military force in the middle east. It didn't work. We tried bombing into submission. It didn't work.

I'd like to try diplomacy.
Click to expand...

If the report is true as per the French Official’s alleged statements, then a better and longer deal can be made.
That would include the 2 IAEA side deals.
No need to go to war, back to the table.
If no deal then intensify the sanctions.
 
cpwill said:
Gosh. If only there was some means of keeping that from happening....
Click to expand...

You are referring to what? Please don't say we can bomb Iran without reprisals and an ensuing Iranian rush to make a bomb because we can't. Permanently stopping Iran from making bomb will require an invasion and regime change. Which is really what you (and the Israeli's) are suggesting.
 
JANFU said:
The French Embassy denies the report – needless to say Mr. Jacques Audibert would be needed to confirm or deny what was or was not said.

"The Lid": French P5+1 Negotiations Leader Says Better Deal IS Possible
Click to expand...

;)

(Before the publication of this article on Thursday, Jacques Audibert, the Elysee Palace office and the French Embassy in Washington were asked for comment, and did not respond. After its publication, the embassy released a statement saying it "formally denies the content of the remarks" attributed to Audibert by the two members of Congress, and U.S. Ambassador Hartley described them as "inaccurate." Audibert tweeted that he "never said or suggested that a no vote from Congress … might be helpful or lead to a better deal," and has not responded to requests for an interview. On Friday, two more members of Congress who met with Audibert, Republicans Paul Cook of California and Tom Marino of Pennsylvania, issued a statement that they "can confirm that Congresswoman Sanchez’s account of the meeting is accurate. We disagree with recent claims that seek to refute her account.” Representative Turner said that he stands by his description of the meeting.).....snip~

Top French Official Contradicts Kerry on Iran Deal - Bloomberg View

That would be Loretta Sanchez.....the Democrat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom