Where have I seen this before . . .

[CMP70306]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...orea-without-tough-deal/ar-AAydlxo?li=BBnb7Kz

That’s right it was from a couple years back when Obama was making that bull shit deal with Iran though the roles are now flipped. Pretty sure if you swapped names and changed NK to Iran people would think the article was several years old.

The hypocrisy is astounding, the Iran deal would expire in 10 years and let them do whatever they wanted with missiles. Now however the democrats demand that any deal with NK be permanent, if they were that set in their convictions under Obama maybe they could have come up with a better deal.

Also Schumer’s comment is laughable at best because the Iran deal included no limits on missile testing which is arguably just as important as the nuke itself. Even a dirty bomb would do a lot of damage hitting Manhattan but the most powerful nuke in the world doesn’t do much to your enemy if the missile detonates during launch or prematurely explodes over the North Atlantic.

 

[Former0302]

Like Trump would accept a deal that wasn't permanent or allowed missile testing. Much more likely that Schumer and the Dems are nervous that Trump is going to make the previous administration's "deal" with Iran look as foolish as it was and have a national security victory. When faced with that possibility, they can say this and at least say that their hard line stance helped secure that victory. They've tried their best to undermine this negotiation with NK, now they're just switching tactics and trying to steal Trump's thunder.

 

[FS1]

The Dems are in a panic...because their party is sounding like a Stuka dive bomber right now. Chuck and Nancy are pulling back as hard as they can on the stick, But the controls are unresponsive.