Former U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) mostly keeps a fairly low-profile these days. But she still has a fundraising arm called MichelePAC, which recently put out an email that (well, yes, it did also ask for money) divulging President Obama’s real intentions in negotiating with Iran.
It turns out, MichelePAC has figured out, that the president’s only goal in negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran was to prevent Iran from having a nuclear bomb for another year and a half so Obama can be out of office when the Tehran gets the bomb.
Here’s the deal, Obama said (on at least one occasion and perhaps others but the one I’m quoting below comes from an April 15 interview Obama gave to New York Times columnist — and native Minnesotan — Thomas Friedman) the following:
“I’ve been very clear that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on my watch, and I think they should understand that we mean it.”
Did you catch it? “Not on my watch.” Obama will leave office in January of 2017 and, according to Bachmann’s MichelePAC email, notwithstanding the agreement’s 15-year duration, all Obama got from Iran and all he ever wanted was to push the date of the Iranian bomb far enough into the future that he can be safely out of office when it happens. And then, obviously, no one will be able to blame Obama. Whatever poor slob takes over the Oval Office will be responsible.
Think I’m exaggerating? I can’t find the whole MichelePAC email on the Web so I can’t link to it, but here’s the key section:
“A nuclear weaponed Iran will soon become the world’s showcase nation for nuclear proliferation. The $150 billion-plus signing bonus Iran will soon see deposited in its bank account will go a long way in paying Russia, China and North Korea for nuclear weapon supplies and intercontinental missile delivery systems. Iran is already violating the interim agreement. Obama’s so-called ‘SnapBack of sanctions’ jargon will prove as powerful as a wet noodle.
“But then, that was obviously the Obama administration’s plan all along, wasn’t it? I think Obama’s real agreement with Iran is a promise that they won’t strike Israel or anyone else until he is no longer in office. His reiterated ‘not on my watch’ rhetoric confirms that. (Emphasis added).
“Well when America’s security is at stake we’re all on watch — and I say the Obama Iran agreement must be rejected! If you agree, please make a generous contribution of $25, $50 or even $75 right now to support the fight to defeat this terrible deal now.”
North Korea anyone?
North Korea made their nuclear warheads on Bachmann’s watch. Funny how she does NOT mention that fact. Send your money elsewhere because Bachmann is just running a fool’s errand.
Such a confusing conundrum…
Yearning for the apocalypse, while decrying those who you feel are bring on the apocalypse, while ignoring the most likely approaching apocalypse.
What’s a small mind to do?
Raise money for my PAC, of course !!!
My coffin will have pockets to stuff full of money.
La Michele
is all about the money.
Oh, I have missed her.
She sees the Donald getting all the attention and it is bothering her, and up she pops. Narcissism is not pretty no matter who it is. I’m sure the GOP is anxious to deal with two narcissistic conservatives at the same time to improve the party image. She’s out of congress, but still in the GOP leaderless circus.
Veep Michele?
Maybe the Donald should consider the Michele for his running-mate?
C’mon…
C’mon MNPost: I am far (far, far?) from a Michelle supporter; but, even her latest zany comments likely deserve better than the picture included. Her right side supporters incessantly whine about media bias and a picture with her mouth that far agape is editorial comment that furthers their whining.
Welcome to Minnpost.
It is actually quite comical, but their work on Jeb Bush is less discreet.
It’s her true self
I find it to pretty expressive of who and what she is.
This is just the break the Romney campaign has been waiting for!
Thanks, Michele!
Bachmann
My goodness. Must you be so snarky? Or is it just the headline writer??
Two-tone Policy?
It is interesting that MinnPost should publish Black’s sarcastic and certainly demeaning piece, but not comments that appropriately follow his sarcasm, but not his demeaning tone.
Apparently quoting Bachmann’s own words
is sarcastic and demeaning to her.
Since most of Eric’s post was direct quotations, it’s apparent who’s statements are ‘sarcastic and demeaning’.
Yup…as Tina Fey once said while playing Sarah Palin.
“Don’t twist my words by quoting me verbatim.”
Why give ‘her’ the white space here…yet,I do wonder…
Can Bachmann solicit money for contributions for false claims that border on character assassination of President Obama? …is there no legal accountability required here?
Very little
Where would politics be without false (or at least unverifiable) claims?
La Michele is soliciting (good word, that) money to support a political campaign; not specific campaign activities.
Selective Editing, Perhaps?
You might think about the credibility of Black’s selective quotation, and what was not cited. Black’s words:
“I can’t find the whole MichelePAC email on the Web so I can’t link to it, but here’s the key section:” and…
“(Emphasis added).”
It’s not on the web, as I later discovered, apparently available only via the PAC, so where did Black get his copy? That’s a fair credibility question of sourcing.
If a reader is a Black fan, one may naturally ignore little concerns for missing context and continuity. If a reader is simply following the post for straight information and perhaps a chuckle, he may honestly question same.
In either case, Black’s tone should be quite clear.
Context
Good try.
But if you really want context, this is not the first thing that Bachmann has said on the topic.
In the context of her many public statements, it is quite believable.
Truly
That’s true, Paul. We all know how she tends to take a kernel of credibility and launch it deep into outer space…The Kepler View, I called it. Had the moderator posted my initial submission, you would know that I am not supporting her position at all, but reacting to Black’s blatant editorializing I was not allowed.
Ad hominem
I’ve had my own posts blocked, usually because they contained something that could be interpreted as an ad hominem attack.
Please note that Eric Black is an editorialist (commentator), not a reporter.
I doubt that a post that simply pointed out that obvious fact would be blocked.
Of course, if you want editorializing that pretends to be reporting there’s always Fox News.
Republicans will be to blame …
… if the deal with Iran collapses when President Obama vacates office in 2017.
Several Republicans in the US Senate openly warned Iran that any deal with President Obama would end when he left office. It isn’t President Obama’s desire to end the deal at the end of his second term, nor that of most thoughtful Americans either. It is specifically the Republican plan.
So … if former Rep. Michele Bachmann is disturbed that Mr. Obama may intend the Iran deal to end when he leaves, we’ll be sure to hear her voice admonishing fellow Republicans to continue the deal, regardless of who becomes president, correct? She’s not criticizing the president for wanting to end a deal that she herself does not support, correct?