False: Specifically, CIA director George Tenet and United States Secretary of State Colin Powell both cited attempts by Hussein to obtain uranium from Niger in their September testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. At that time, using information derived from the same source, the UK government also publicly reported an attempted purchase from an (unnamed) "African country". In December, the United States Department of State issued a fact sheet listing the alleged Niger yellowcake affair in a report entitled "Illustrative Examples of Omissions From the Iraqi Declaration to the United Nations Security Council." In his January 2003 State of the Union speech, U.S. President George W. Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." This single sentence is now known as "the Sixteen Words."[ According to The Washington Post, when occupying troops found no evidence of a current nuclear program, the statement and how it came to be in the speech became a focus for critics in Washington and foreign capitals to press the case that the White House manipulated facts to take the United States to war. The Post reported, "Dozens of interviews with current and former intelligence officials and policymakers in the United States, Britain, France and Italy show that the Bush administration disregarded key information available at the time showing that the Iraq-Niger claim was highly questionable." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries Barack wasn't president when the decision to withdraw our troops from Iraq was made. George Bush's administration attempted to secure a SOFA with Iraq allowing our troops to remain in that country. After a protracted and unsuccessful effort the Bush administration concluded that the US had no alternative other than to withdraw our troops from Iraq. Bottom Line: Iraq is a sovereign nation and didn't want large numbers of US troops in their country.
What if Iran somehow bombed Israel's atomic facilities? How would an American President react if Iran bombed our nation's atomic facilities? What would be a more accurate description of bombing under these circumstances? ... an ACT OF WAR. That is precisely what Benjamin Netanyahu and the GOP war hawks are advocating. It is beyond belief that after 14 years of nonstop war and chaos that many on the right haven't learned a thing. Cons are still incapable of devising any approach other than starting another "preemptive war" based on flimsy intelligence and irrational fear-mongering.
What happened the last time the US accused a nation of attempting to build an atomic weapon? Anyone remember that little dust-up in a place called Iraq? As far as wiping things off a map that is as close as it gets in our lifetimes.
Take your position to its logical conclusion, do you really believe the leadership much less the people of Iran seek to be obliterated by Israel's hundreds of nuclear equipped rockets and missiles from their Air Force and Navy? Because that is exactly what would happen as soon as Israel detected Iran launching missiles against them. MAD xen·o·pho·bi·aIntense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries. I don't know how else to describe people who honestly believe Iran would build an atomic weapon to destroy Israel knowing their own country would also be destroyed in the process. Iran... a nation that has not started a war in over two hundred years.
How many years has Benjamin Netanyahu and members of the GOP advocated bombing Iran? It works both ways. http://www.jewishjournal.com/irandeal/item/ehud_barak_and_netanyahu_pushed_to_bomb_iran_in_10_and_11
I'm not cool with sanctuary cities as it sets a bad precedence for religious hypocrites with bad hairdos. However, it does nicely contrast the humanitarian actions of progressive big city governments with the exclusionary behavior of superstitious small town hayseeds.
Show your sources for that claim, because it is well known that the Arab nations are no slouches when it comes to funding terrorists. Most of whom (ISIS and Al Qaeda) we are fighting right now. While the US and UK are not indigenous to the region we are well known for funding terrorists as well and have been for over 100 years and counting. So when everyone is funding terrorist groups in the region and the US and our allies are invading with hundreds of thousands of troops on false pretenses what is a nation like Iran to do? Wait for their government to be overthrown yet again by the West and their corporate interests? This is as good as it gets. The GOP is using a foreign crises for political gain and has never offered any realistic alternative. Why? There isn't any. Politicians acting macho and talking tough only scores points with an ill informed public. The reality is much different. Iran is a sovereign nation that has every right to protect itself from other countries and there are many in the ME that would love to destroy her. The US and UK have a long history of interfering in Iran's internal affairs. The billions of dollars mentioned are Iran's to begin with so by cooperating with the US and our allies it is only reasonable that we should unfreeze those funds after 35 years.
Just off the top of my head... The GOP and Dems are both in the pockets of big business/Wall Street. So economically they have much in common. Dems at least have enough sense to sound populist. The GOP are unabashedly bought and paid for tools of the plutocracy. Both Hillary and Jeb will likely support the Pacific and European trade agreements now being negotiated. If these agreements are anything like NAFTA expect big banks and overseas manufacturers to benefit greatly while main street Americans watch their jobs migrate to distant lands. Now where the two politicians/parties differ: Foreign Policy: Jeb/GOP are against the Iran Nuclear Treaty and would do away with it if they win the White House leaving only air strikes and invasion as viable options. Not surprising since most of GOP candidates still have difficulty admitting the invasion of Iraq was a colossal mistake. On the other hand, Hillary/Dems are for the treaty with Iran and would like to give peace a chance. Science: Jeb/GOP are against all those pointy headed nerds. Jeb has stated it's 'Intellectual Arrogance' to agree with scientists about humans driving climate change. Hillary/Dems believe the nerds know what they are talking about and will try and address climate change if elected president. Racial Issues: One party believes minority civil rights are under attack. The other party believes we live in a post racial society and minorities need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Women's issues: Jeb/GOP will legislate what is best for women and their bodies. Hillary/Dems will treat women as full fledged adults and allow them to decide what is best for themselves. If you consider foreign policy, war and peace, science or superstitions, environmental issues, civil rights and the capability of half our nation's population to decide what is best for their own bodies MAJOR ISSUES then there are significant differences between the two parties. If you don't believe these are important differences... well then, I can see your point.
The NC AG cited legal precedence when he announced he would not defend the state's gay marriage ban. One would hope the State AG had the ability to understand the law and when it was pointless to waste any further tax dollars defending the indefensible. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2014/0728/NC-attorney-general-won-t-defend-his-state-s-gay-marriage-ban
What is the better alternative to this treaty? All the nations that helped support our economic sanctions are in favor of it. Without their support continued sanctions will be ineffective. War? Anyone remember Iraq and WMDs? How did that work out for us? The ME is now in greater chaos than ever before thanks to our invading/destabilizing Iraq. Should we attack Iran, the only nation in the region able to effectively fight ISIS? Does that sound like a good idea? Studies indicate bombing alone is unlikely to eliminate Iranian's ability to develop nuclear weapons, only delay it for a few years at best. Invade? Iran is three times the size of Iraq and their military is twice as large as the one we faced in 2003. The logistics of invading Iran would be daunting since it is unlikely that either Iraq or Afghanistan would allow us to use their territory for such an operation. An invasion is utter madness that will make Iraq look like a picnic by comparison. Other than Israel, what nation of any significance would support American military action? The party of NO doesn't have a viable alternative. They just see the political mileage to be gained from opposing this treaty. Opposition to this treaty is red meat for xenophobic Americans that don't appreciate the difficult realities of the situation.
An Attorney General can legally decide not to defend a law. However, since the USSC Obergefell ruling, it has been unconstitutional to refuse same-sex couples the right to marry. Kim Davis is violating the constitutional rights of other Americans based on her personal religious beliefs. Religious beliefs that seem to be rather whimsical based upon her marriage history.