Obama Killed DEA Hezbollah Drug Investigation

[+joc]

Obama Protected Hezbollah from DEA

 

In its determination to secure a nuclear deal with Iran, the Obama administration derailed an ambitious law enforcement campaign targeting drug trafficking by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah, even as it was funneling cocaine into the United States, according to a POLITICO investigation.

 

 

 

 

 

[ExpandMyMind]

Nuclear armed Iran or a drug-funded Hezbollah. Kind of a Catch-22 situation.

I know which I would choose. What about you, Joc?

[+joc]

It isn't so simple EMM.  On one hand...the Obama Deal was a closed door, sneaky, deal...which involved giving Billions to the Iranians in unmarked cash.   Nothing like infusing billions into an exporter of Terrorism.

Aside from that ....

...and more importantly...

Obama ...POTUS...took an oath!  He swore to uphold the laws of the United States and to Protect the Citizens of the United States from ALL enemies both domestic and foreign.  

If he thwarted the DEAs investigation of Hezbollah...where 100s of tons of Cocaine were being funneled into the United States...

...EMM...that is Treason!   To put a Deal he wanted to happen with Iran...a Terrorist Country...above and beyond the harm of tons of Cocaine pouring into our country...Treason!

But wait ...there's more...Purposefully thwarting an ongoing investigation which involved names of persons high on the list within Hezbollah, a terrorist entity of Iran, as well as names of persons high on the list within the government of Iran itself....that has a name too!  It is called Obstruction of Justice!

Not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars in money laundering by Hezbbollah buying used cars in America and selling them in Africa!

And you can sit there at your computer and defend Obama?   Just wow!

Show me some consistency...If the name in that story was Trump...would you being throwing up the same argument?  Somehow, I think not!

Oh, and may I add...Obama is a self confessed user of Cocaine.  

Edited December 18, 2017 by joc

[preacherman76]

8 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Nuclear armed Iran or a drug-funded Hezbollah. Kind of a Catch-22 situation.

I know which I would choose. What about you, Joc?

I’d like to think a real leader would look for a third option. Especially when the man was putting medical marijuana growers and sellers in prison. 

Then again he was having marines protect poppy fields, that supply 80% of the worlds heroin. 

[ExpandMyMind]

6 hours ago, joc said:

It isn't so simple EMM.  On one hand...the Obama Deal was a closed door, sneaky, deal...which involved giving Billions to the Iranians in unmarked cash.   Nothing like infusing billions into an exporter of Terrorism.

Those billions belonged to the Iranians, not the US. It was seized by the US and given back as part of the deal. After God knows how much the US had made from the interest.

6 hours ago, joc said:

Obama ...POTUS...took an oath!  He swore to uphold the laws of the United States and to Protect the Citizens of the United States from ALL enemies both domestic and foreign.  

If he thwarted the DEAs investigation of Hezbollah...where 100s of tons of Cocaine were being funneled into the United States..

Are you sure the cocaine went to the US? The article is around 15,000 words long and I haven't read much of it (far too daunting). And world leaders always have to make difficult choices for the greater good. Churchill, during WW2, allowed an entire city to be Blitzed to prevent the Germans from discovering we had broken their code.

The fact is, the Iranian deal is probably the best foreign policy arrangement from any US leader in decades. Definitely in my lifetime. It completely eradicated a crisis that many people (incorrectly in my view) thought was the most pressing issue in the world.

6 hours ago, joc said:

...EMM...that is Treason!   To put a Deal he wanted to happen with Iran...a Terrorist Country...above and beyond the harm of tons of Cocaine pouring into our country...Treason!

You clearly have no idea what treason means. For one, it requires the US to be in a Congress-declared war. That's not happened since WW2, hence the zero convictions for treason since then.

6 hours ago, joc said:

But wait ...there's more...Purposefully thwarting an ongoing investigation which involved names of persons high on the list within Hezbollah, a terrorist entity of Iran, as well as names of persons high on the list within the government of Iran itself....that has a name too!  It is called Obstruction of Justice!

First, explain to me what you think obstruction of justice means.

Second, Hezbollah are not Iranian. Even in the article above - within the first few paragraphs - the ex-CIA director explains the complexities of Hezbollah.

6 hours ago, joc said:

Show me some consistency...If the name in that story was Trump...would you being throwing up the same argument?  Somehow, I think not!

I would be 100% defending him. Like I said, the Iranian deal was the best bit of foreign policy that I've seen in my lifetime. Given the relations between the two countries, it was practically a work of art.

I have no problem complementing Trump for anything he has done that warrants it. I personally think the the Iranian deal happens to be one of the only things Obama did that was to the benefit of the world. I've spent nearly a decade criticising his foreign policy, but, like the vast majority of the world, I can't fault the Iranian deal. 

Edited December 18, 2017 by ExpandMyMind

[ExpandMyMind]

27 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

I’d like to think a real leader would look for a third option. Especially when the man was putting medical marijuana growers and sellers in prison. 

Then again he was having marines protect poppy fields, that supply 80% of the worlds heroin. 

The deal was the best option. The only other option was war, considering the Republicans in the US (along with much of the other party) and Israel were convinced they were trying to develop nuclear weapons (which wasn't actually true, but that's a debate for another time).

Edited December 18, 2017 by ExpandMyMind

[+joc]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Those billions belonged to the Iranians, not the US. It was seized by the US and given back as part of the deal. After God knows how much the US had made from the interest.

Are you sure the cocaine went to the US? The article is around 15,000 words long and I haven't read much of it (far too daunting). And world leaders always have to make difficult choices for the greater good. Churchill, during WW2, allowed an entire city to be Blitzed to prevent the Germans from discovering we had broken their code.

The fact is, the Iranian deal is probably the best foreign policy arrangement from any US leader in decades. Definitely in my lifetime. It completely eradicated a crisis that many people (incorrectly in my view) thought was the most pressing issue in the world.

You clearly have no idea what treason means. For one, it requires the US to be in a Congress-declared war. That's not happened since WW2, hence the zero convictions for treason since then.

First, explain to me what you think obstruction of justice means.

Second, Hezbollah are not Iranian. Even in the article above - within the first few paragraphs - the ex-CIA director explains the complexities of Hezbollah.

I would be 100% defending him. Like I said, the Iranian deal was the best bit of foreign policy that I've seen in my lifetime. Given the relations between the two countries, it was practically a work of art.

I have no problem complementing Trump for anything he has done that warrants it. I personally think the the Iranian deal happens to be one of the only things Obama did that was to the benefit of the world. I've spent nearly a decade criticising his foreign policy, but, like the vast majority of the world, I can't fault the Iranian deal. 

 The Iranian deal was not the best deal ever made it was the worst deal ever made.

[ExpandMyMind]

1 hour ago, joc said:

 The Iranian deal was not the best deal ever made it was the worst deal ever made.

Explain to me why you think that this is the case.

[+joc]

Because Obama was behind it!

[+joc]

Why would the justice department shut down an investigation of this scope?   Obama! That's why.  Because the guy is and was a communist, Islamic Terrorist Sympathizer.  And I don't trust him!  Why do you?

[preacherman76]

15 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

The deal was the best option. The only other option was war, considering the Republicans in the US (along with much of the other party) and Israel were convinced they were trying to develop nuclear weapons (which wasn't actually true, but that's a debate for another time).

I refuse to believe we had to let a terror organization deal drugs in this country. In fact I hardly see how the two situations are at all related.

[ExpandMyMind]

15 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

I refuse to believe we had to let a terror organization deal drugs in this country. In fact I hardly see how the two situations are at all related.

I haven't read the article. Can you quote the part that says the drugs were sold in the US?

Have you ever heard a deal being made, in law? The DEA and basically any law enforcement organisation let criminals away with crimes all the time as a part of deals. "Give us what we want and we'll look the other way".

And it's not so unheard of in the US. The CIA basically sold or sanctioned the sale of cocaine in the US in order to fund the fight against "communism" in South America. Now, if it happened here in the UK, then I'd be shocked. 

[preacherman76]

10 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I haven't read the article. Can you quote the part that says the drugs were sold in the US?

Have you ever heard a deal being made, in law? The DEA and basically any law enforcement organisation let criminals away with crimes all the time as a part of deals. "Give us what we want and we'll look the other way".

And it's not so unheard of in the US. The CIA basically sold or sanctioned the sale of cocaine in the US in order to fund the fight against "communism" in South America. Now, if it happened here in the UK, then I'd be shocked. 

In its determination to secure a nuclear deal with Iran, the Obama administration derailed an ambitious law enforcement campaign targeting drug trafficking by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah, even as it was funneling cocaine into the United States, according to a POLITICO investigation

 

We don't "look the other way" when it comes to empowering terrorist. At least we didn't, till 0bama.

If this was Trumps deal you would be losing your mind right now, and you know it.

 

[ExpandMyMind]

1 minute ago, preacherman76 said:

We don't "look the other way" when it comes to empowering terrorist. At least we didn't, till 0bama.

Well that's simply not true. You've always supported terrorists and allowed terrorism as long as it was in your interests, long before Obama was even born.

I 100% would not be losing it if Trump had the political savvy to de-escalate one of the most potentially volatile situations in the world. But, unfortunately, we've seen the extent of his diplomacy skills: Twitter wars with the leader of the most dangerous nation on the planet. 

 

 

 

[preacherman76]

23 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Well that's simply not true. You've always supported terrorists and allowed terrorism as long as it was in your interests, long before Obama was even born.

I 100% would not be losing it if Trump had the political savvy to de-escalate one of the most potentially volatile situations in the world. But, unfortunately, we've seen the extent of his diplomacy skills: Twitter wars with the leader of the most dangerous nation on the planet. 

 

 

 

Of course you would. I know cause I would be too. There is no situation on this green earth where you would be defending Trump from me, lol

You'd be calling for his arrest right now, and rightfully so.

[ExpandMyMind]

8 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Of course you would. I know cause I would be too. There is no situation on this green earth where you would be defending Trump from me, lol

 

You seem to think I am a Democrat or something. I have no problem whatsoever with recognising and acknowledging any act I view as favourable or beneficial to the world, regardless of who is responsible. I've pummelled Obama on here for the drone strikes and escalation of the War on Terror, but I simply cannot fault the Iran deal. It seems the vast majority of the world agrees with me. 

Still no one has explained to me what about the actual deal was bad? Joc tried to claim that the US "gave" them billions, but that's it when it comes to the actual deal. You have this Hezbollah drug thing but that was just an act to get the deal done, not the actual deal itself.

Tell me, what exactly is wrong with the actual deal?

[preacherman76]

Well basically after much effort our intelligence uncovered a huge drug trafficking situation from Hezbollah. They were selling coke all over the western world, including the US. When they tried to get the green light to shut it down, they got stand down orders from above. I guess 0bama felt that shutting down terrorist drug traffickers would somehow p*** off Iran, so they just let them continue doing it. He basically let them poison Americans in hopes to stay in the good graces of Iran.

The world might agree that the Iranian deal was a good thing, but that hasn't been played out yet.  From what I've seen of the plan its gonna be a train wreak, but that's just my personal opinion.

[preacherman76]

BTW EMM, no I don't think you are a democrat. In fact you might be surprised to learn that we actually agree on several political fronts, just not those brought up here lately. When it comes to individual freedom, we are close to the same page.

[+joc]

8 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Tell me, what exactly is wrong with the actual deal?

First of all, it is a deal with Iran...a Terrorist State.  Secondly we gave them back billions in cash and other forms of payment that we seized as a result of their taking American Hostages.  Thirdly, it is insane to give a Terrorist State Billions when you know they are working feverishly to join the Nuclear Weapons Club and they have said repeatedly that they would annihilate Israel.

Fourthly, it allows Iran to monitor themselves...that in and of itself is incredibly naive.

Fifthly, and lastly...it was Obama...a man who cannot be trusted!

Edited December 19, 2017 by joc

[+joc]

10 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I haven't read the article. Can you quote the part that says the drugs were sold in the US?

Have you ever heard a deal being made, in law? The DEA and basically any law enforcement organisation let criminals away with crimes all the time as a part of deals. "Give us what we want and we'll look the other way".

And it's not so unheard of in the US. The CIA basically sold or sanctioned the sale of cocaine in the US in order to fund the fight against "communism" in South America. Now, if it happened here in the UK, then I'd be shocked. 

They followed cocaine shipments, some from Latin America to West Africa and on to Europe and the Middle East, and others through Venezuela and Mexico to the United States. They tracked the river of dirty cash as it was laundered by, among other tactics, buying American used cars and shipping them to Africa. And with the help of some key cooperating witnesses, the agents traced the conspiracy, they believed, to the innermost circle of Hezbollah and its state sponsors in Iran.

[Agent0range]

20 minutes ago, joc said:

They followed cocaine shipments, some from Latin America to West Africa and on to Europe and the Middle East, and others through Venezuela and Mexico to the United States. They tracked the river of dirty cash as it was laundered by, among other tactics, buying American used cars and shipping them to Africa. And with the help of some key cooperating witnesses, the agents traced the conspiracy, they believed, to the innermost circle of Hezbollah and its state sponsors in Iran.

Don't you think all drugs should be legal anyway?

[Why not]

3 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Don't you think all drugs should be legal anyway?

I don't understand what that has to do with any of this.  Even if he does.

[+joc]

25 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Don't you think all drugs should be legal anyway?

No I do not!  

[aztek]

you should, it would actually reduce use, not increase. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/11/following-marijuana-legalization-teen-drug-use-is-down-in-colorado/?utm_term=.c0260bb1379e

Edited December 20, 2017 by aztek

[preacherman76]

There are a few drugs I’d keep on the list like heroin and meth, but for the most part yea I think most drugs should be legal.