Nancy Pelosi on Iran deal opponents: ‘Have they even read it?’

by Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times  |  published on July 31, 2015

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi wondered Thursday whether opponents of President Obama’s Iran nuclear program agreement read the deal before coming out in opposition to it, and said she’s certain she can keep enough Democrats in line to sustain an Obama veto and preserve his policy.

Praising both Mr. Obama and former President George W. Bush, who she said began building the international coalition that first imposed sanctions and then earlier this month agreed to the deal with Iran, Mrs. Pelosi said she was confident the opponents’ campaign to try to defeat the deal in Congress will fail.

She also questioned opponents’ motives.

“You wonder why. Have they even read it? It looks political to me,” she said.

  • pete G

    No Nancy we’re still reading Obamacare.

  • Tex Irvin

    stupid question from a stupid bitch who never read the health care law before passing it. Ask her what the side deals were

  • ICDB

    Pelosi Can’t read it. 1. She Doesn’t have the brain power. 2. Her plastic surgeon has stretched her eyes out so far it makes reading impossible.

  • reagangs

    But … but, “we have to pass it so we will know what’s in it” …. right!! I mean, that’s the routine isn’t it??? Shoot first and ask questions later …. maybe.

  • wmagg

    We don’t need to pass it to know whats in it
    As for Pelosi we don’t need to know what she thinks
    We Know she is a traitor to this nation and defiles freedom and the rights of a free America at all costs. The truth is nothing she is even remotely acquainted with, she seeks only to destroy this nation just like her Kenyon POS ruler the criminal in chief.

  • JuneUSA

    Has she read it? Does she really think we should vote for it? That is beyond stupid.

  • LieutenantCharlie

    Everyone with an IQ higher than an Earthworm, knows that Nancy Pelosi is a burnt out California weed smoker.
    Thanks California, we needed another Moron in Congress.

  • Mel Cardonell


  • Dave In Arizona

    Well, apparently only some of the Republicans and none of the Democrats.
    Even Kerry hasn’t read all the document. You know, the parts where
    Obama gets to surrender to the Iranians.

  • Patriot1955

    It looks like Nancy failed the intelligence test again. What I read is that Obama gave away the farm an showed his cowardice against the enemy and should be branded and thrown out of office.

  • Richard Schwartz

    A problem with “lets make a deal” and that is town hall meeting these senator will attend. Senators will get an earful. My suggestion is they pay attention!!!

  • Bob2002

    Hey witch, you set the precedent when you passed ACA (ObamaCare or SCOTUS Care) back in 2009. No one reads bills put before them, they are like cattle; if the head cow does something, they all follow. Remember, you infamously said, “we must pass the bill to see what is in it?” Pelosi, your time as come and gone; retire, go home to San Francisco, and enjoy the millions of taxpayer dollars you sent to your husband’s company.

  • Dana Lind

    and this from the ” you have to pass it to find out whats in it?” lady!! what a hoot, She doesn’t want them to read it. Just agree with His majASSty and approve it.

  • Frederick Bowers

    They won’t let anyone read it, it is secret stuff. And did any one read the obamacare thing? Come on dumbo I am sure you can give boehner or what ever his name is a big kiss and he will go for anything you ask !

  • Webb

    Nancy Pelosi on Iran deal opponents: ‘Have they even read it?’
    No one read the 2600 pages of ObamaCare…Look at the Damage its caused America!
    The Question is Pelosi, Have you read The Iran Deal?
    Many that have still thinks that a Nuke is still going to get Built…Its a Bad Deal!!

    • Don

      And it is Israel that gets the wrong end of that stick – we are throwing them under the bus. How can we pray for them peace of Israel when we are going to arm her enemy with a nuke?

      • Webb

        That’s the point that brothers me…Israel is the nation in danger from this Deal. I’m at a loss of how anyone can find this to be The Deal…Iran says Death to America and Death to Israel, yet Kerry and Moniz state its a good deal?
        I just can’t see it…

      • Bob2002

        Agree. That is what happens when the stupid voters put a Muslim in our White House. He hates Israel and wants to advance the Islamofascist agenda.

    • Frederick Bowers

      The really stupid thing is that kerry says no one knows what it says and he can’t tell. But he is just being kerry !

      • Bob2002

        Kerry is a typical Democrat and he believes any deal is a good deal with Iran; even if it gives them the nuclear bomb to destroy Israel and attack us.

  • The redhawk

    I have DUG up ROCKS Smarter than this IDIOT!

    • Frederick Bowers

      You don’t have to dig them up they are laying all over the beach !

      • The redhawk

        and EACH of them is Smarter than PIGLOSI!!

  • Richard Schwartz

    Nancy: We aren’t permitted to read the deal? Guess we are not smart enough to read. Further why so many side deals? Why is the presentation so weak? Why so many leaks? If we are told the real story this wouldn’t happen. Why are secret things no brought to our attention? These should be issues. Is their any credibility? Why isn’t this cut and dry? I thought this was a complete deal.
    It is not ready for a debate because of side deals and secret agreements.

    • Bob2002

      Yea, Obama and Kerry are using the same tactics that Obama has used over and over again to fool the stupid American congress in getting their very bad agenda passed. How are we supposed to approve of a very bad deal with the Iranians when we can not see and read everything in the deal?

      • Richard Schwartz

        wE WOULD USE COMMON SENSE WHICH NONE IN dc SEEM TO HAVE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • gary

    You can’t read what they keep secret…and that reeks of corruption….Of course Nancy hasn’t read all of it either so she is blowing smoke as usual..

  • savage24

    Didn’t Kerry tell congress that they cannot tell the American people what’s in that agreement. That alone should be enough to kill it. Stupidity compounded by idiocy equals bureaucracy.

    • I Seigel

      No Savageboy, Kerry did NOT tell Congress that. And if you’d been paying the least bit of attention to FACTS you would know that. What Kerry (and the Secretaries of Defense and Energy) told Congress was that some parts of the deal are classified, and they went to Congress to brief the Senators and Congressmen in closed-door hearings on those classified details.

      Reagan signed nuclear deals with the Soviet Union, and some of those details were classified. Should that have been enough to squash the whole deal? Nixon signed deals, too, with the Soviets, some parts of which were also secret.

      What part of “CLASSIFIED” don’t you understand?

      • martianpoet

        Neither Nixon nor Reagan presented the “deals” to the UN for approval before sending to Congress who, representing the people, reviewed ALL the details. In addition, the Soviets already had the nukes, and they were not muslim terrorists whose idealogy is to destroy the infidels throughout the world and establish the one world Caliphate. Iran has long been identified as THE biggest exporter, supporter and instigator of terrorists throughout the world. In addition, the USA at that time (no longer true thanks to obama and the communists/islamists in power of our federal government) had THE most powerful and best equiped military in the world and did not subjugate our Constitution to the communists, socialists, islamists who make up most of that dysfunctional organization. The Soviets at that time also were not holding and torturing American citizens. Kerry has long since proven he is a lying sack of political expediency crap and is willing to tell bald faced lies directly to Congress.

        • I Seigel

          You have things a little skewed there, Martian. Obama did not “present” the deal to the UN for approval prior to Congress reviewing it. In fact, it was just the opposite. The Obama Administration pleaded with the UN NOT to take up the matter until Congress had a chance to review it. But, unlike the deals that Reagan and Nixon were involved with, this Iran deal is between Iran and SIX other countries – the UN Security Council members + Germany. So you’re not correct on two fronts.

          Furthermore, it was the Soviet Union’s goal to “bury” the US and to crush capitalism, in order to spread Communism throughout the world. So you’re incorrect on that point, as well.

          The Soviets were not holding and torturing American citizens? Are you sure? They were holding and torturing their own citizens and sending them to the gulags. There are MANY reports that American POWs from WW2, the Korean War and the Cold War were being held by the Soviets. There are reports that Americans captured by North Korea were transferred to Soviet control, and there are reports that the Chinese handed American prisoners to the Soviets, too. The Soviets kept these Americans in their concentration camps (the gulags). Whether they were tortured there, as well, is unknown.

          You ARE correct that Iran has long been “identified as THE biggest exporter, supporter and instigator of terrorists throughout the world.” So was the Soviet Union, so was Libya and so was North Korea and Cuba. But American administrations have long chosen to negotiate with all of them, in the hopes that a better situation and relationship could be created.

          • martianpoet

            First I Seigel, let me thank you for presenting your arguments in an adult fashion without so much of the personal attacks and name calling i see on these sites. We can agree to disagree on certain items and I do appreciate your meaningful response — your claim that I was wrong in saying that obama presented the “deal” first to the UN and “it was just the opposite” and that the Obama administration “pleaded with the UN NOt to take up the matter until Congress had a chance to review it” is skewed — if true, shows the duplicity of the obama administration — if that were really their wish for the UN to wait, why even present it first to the UN before presenting it to the Congress? Did the UN get to see the “classified” or secret parts? if not, how could they possibly draw a proper conclusion on the “deal”. As for Nixon and Reagan — they were using “treaty” and following the US law in presenting to Congress. As for the holding and torturing — no i am not sure – just have the words of the times. There were no known names of actual citizens being held that I have heard or read about. Much the same as some of the MIAs in Vietnam. The case in the Iran situation is much clearer with documented evidence of those being held and tortured. They were not part of Kerry’s treaty (excuse me, Kerry’s “deal”) and so far no real effort appears to have been made to force Iran to give them up. The obama administration can turn loose captured islamists, some of whom were directly funded by Iran according the US Intelligence agency statements. As for the Soviet Union’s goal to “bury” the US and to “crush capitalism” — there is quite a diffence in poitical rhetoric with shoe banging at the UN, and threats followed through with in thousands of terrorist acts throughout the world supported by the islamist adherence to the Qu’uran and Sharia. Even the Soviet Union relented somewhat for Christians and Jews to exist, despite their earlier denunciation. The islamists have not. Not only was the right of Israel to exist not a part of this “deal”, the only protection afforded by Kerry was to the Iranians — allowing them billions of dollars which he admits may be spent to arm more terrorists, but Kerry gave approval to offer protectionTO IRAN in case Israel did what they should do – eliminated the nuclear weapon capabilities of a Country that has continually publicly called for the extermination of Israelis — followed through with financing and arming of terrorists to do just that.
            As for this “deal” being between IRAN and six other countries — What are the six other countries giving/risking with this deal? At the time Reagan spearheaded the fall of the old Soviet Union, LOTS of other countries benefitted from the US stance and agreements. USSR was obviously afraid of the power of the USA —- something, thanks to Obama and Clinton(s), they no longer are. Those other countries benefitted from the US Treaty. Even Treaties with multiple other countries involved were submitted to Congress FIRST.
            While i continue to disagree with you, it has been refreshing to me to be able to discuss this without name calling. Thank you!

          • I Seigel

            Mr Martian, I don’t have time to fully reply to your post, but let me say this:

            As I pointed out, this is a deal involving the Security Council + Germany and Iran. What are the others risking/offering? A good question, as most of the heavy lifting seems to fall on the US. But don’t forget, ALL of these countries (plus others) are upholding the embargo against trading with Iran. They are forsaking a source of oil and markets for their goods. So they are, in fact, giving up a lot. If this deal fails, or if the US had been seen to not be negotiating in good faith, the Russians and the Chinese would have bailed on the embargo and the whole thing would have started to unravel. Congress can keep an embargo against Iran if it wants, but if the rest of the world doesn’t follow suit, we’re just pissing in the wind.

            And, related to this point: I’m not sure the US itself presented the proposed treaty to the UN. The other Security Council powers certainly would have been within their right to do so. Calling the US or Obama “duplicitous” on this is not correct, IMO.

            You made some other good points, but I will respond to them later.

          • Jrmags

            @Martianpoet … great posts, you stumped comrade Seigel, he has to pause to request a new line of attack lies from the Demokrat Kounsel!

            The 2 biggest lie in his previous post are as follows:

            1. “You have things a little skewed there, Martian. Obama did not “present” the deal to the UN for approval prior to Congress reviewing it. In fact, it was just the opposite. The Obama Administration pleaded with the UN NOT to take up the matter until Congress had a chance to review it.”

            2. “But, unlike the deals that Reagan and Nixon were involved with, this Iran deal is between Iran and SIX other countries – the UN Security Council members + Germany. So you’re not correct on two fronts.

            Furthermore, it was the Soviet Union’s goal to “bury” the US and to crush capitalism, in order to spread Communism throughout the world. So you’re incorrect on that point, as well.”

            The above 2 quotes are from I Seigel, who hates capitalism, but likes to defend this administration’s love of the Alinsky socialist ideals of politics!

          • I Seigel

            Hello Mags,
            Not stumped. Working.

            So you copied and pasted my words, but you didn’t refute them or explain how they are lies. What’s up with that? Just being lazy?

          • Jrmags

            @I Seigel, sheesh, I’m supposed to explain they are lies, I look at them more as obfuscations (Alinsky style), #1, first of all the administration has sent this to the UN for their approval, time line? And, the Congress of the US is now openly discussing the treaty (publicly), when will they take action? When will the UN take action? (? = who knows)

            #2, of course this is different than Nixon, Reagan deals, just like Nixon and Reagan treaties differed, so, your first para in #2 says nothing, but your implication is that Martainpoet lied on two fronts (Alinsky style)!

            And, your third point, of #2 is that communism wanted to bury capitalism therefore it’s akin to a Caliphate that wants to bury the USA! Again, it’s an Alinsky type debate point, that all of a sudden you sound like someone who was against communism, but your previous arguments show that you were also, actually against the USA back then … this is true Alinsky, you learned well!

            Now, to play your game, you responded to my response, but didn’t refute your role as an administration Alinsky style apologist!

            BTW, I was once very liberal on many issues, but I found the left’s arguments, especially when they are in the wrong, quite telling, about their real intentions, just like I find the left embracing Alinsky’s rules as very telling of intent!

            The left doesn’t get it! They still think that not taking responsibility for their failed actions by obfuscation and blaming others on the right for their miscalculations would continue to carry the water forever … not so, people are starting to pay attention!

  • 7papa7

    Well gee nancy if they would send all of it including the side deals which the administration refuses to send over then maybe they could read all of it. By the way witch have you read it, or did you read obamacare or have you ever read any of the bills that have passed thorough the doors of the house. Do you even know how to read?

  • ann parker

    no nancy we have to pass it so we know what’s in it. LOL

    • The redhawk

      and Look what she Produced!!!!!

  • Luke

    The idiots like peelosi are more dangerous to America that the religion of peace..

Google Analytics Alternative