Is it more worrisome that the president is lying about what's in the Iran deal, or that he actually believes what he's saying?

John Hinderaker:

1) President Obama persisted in his false dichotomy: the alternative to this agreement is war with Iran. He says this despite the fact that no major American or European political figure advocates war with Iran.

I’m hearing a lot of talking points being repeated about “This is a bad deal. This is a historically bad deal. This is a historically bad deal. This will threaten Israel and threaten the world and threaten the United States.” I mean, there’s been a lot of that.

What I haven’t heard is what is your preferred alternative? …

And the reason is because there really are only two alternatives here. Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it’s resolved through force, through war. Those are — those are the options.

There is a blindingly obvious third alternative, which we and countless others have advocated, and which Obama, despite his disingenuous disclaimers, is obviously aware of: don’t do anything! Keep the sanctions in place and keep the pressure on Iran’s rulers with a view toward ultimate regime change, the only contingency that will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and using them to threaten the United States and our major population centers.

2) The worst feature of the Iran agreement is that as soon as it is implemented, Iranian assets that have been frozen in Western countries will be “thawed” and sent to the mullahs. The total of such assets is estimated at $100 billion to $150 billion. Iran’s rulers will use this money to fund their proxies in Syria, Yemen and Iraq and terrorists around the world. Understand that this is an enormous amount of money: the entire GDP of Iran is only around $369 billion. The prospect of $100 billion flowing into their coffers is what makes Iran’s leaders (and Syria’s, and Hezbollah’s) delirious with joy.

Iran has made promises extending over the next 15 years in exchange for this $100 billion and other considerations. This is a simple way of illustrating what a terrible agreement the Obama/Kerry team has negotiated: shortly after Implementation Day (as defined in the agreement), $100 billion will flow into Iran, under the regime’s control. Once that money has been collected, the mullahs could say, “Ha ha! Fooled you!” and terminate the agreement. They would be $100 billion the richer, and Obama would look like an idiot.

Obama is still insisting that the sanctions will be lifted gradually, despite black and white language in the agreement that says otherwise.  He also insists that the sanctions can "snap back" even if China and Russia disagree.  This is nuts.  A "no" vote by either of those powers in the U.N. Security Council – which would have to vote on reimposing sanctions – would defeat the resolution.  Obama is in dreamland if he thinks any meaningful sanctions can be reimposed on Iran.

But the real drama at the press conference occurred when CBS reporter Major Garrett asked the president about the American prisoners being held in Iran:

The president later took umbrage when CBS News reporter Major Garrett asked why he is "content" the freedom of American prisoners held in Iran was not secured, despite their cases apparently being raised. 

"The notion that I am content, as I celebrate, with American citizens languishing in Iranian jails -- Major, that's nonsense, and you should know better," Obama said, adding: "I've met with the families of some of those folks, and nobody's content." 

The president said teams are working "diligently" to free them, but said tying their freedom to negotiations could create an incentive for Iran to use American prisoners as leverage for concessions. 

Garrett's tough question that the thin-skinned Obama threw back in his face was criticized by CNN reporter Dana Bash:

A lot happened during President Obama‘s Iran presser today, but the moment getting the most attention is when CBS’ Major Garrett confronted the president by asking, “Why you are content with all the fanfare around this deal to leave the conscience of this nation, the strength of this nation unaccounted for in relation to these four Americans?”

Obama took some offense at the question, saying, “That’s nonsense, and you should know better.”

Garrett defended himself a little later, insisting he intended to pose a provocative question. But a fellow reporter thought he went a little too far.

CNN’s Dana Bash said after the presser, “There’s a fine line between asking a tough question and maybe crossing that line a little bit and being disrespectful, and I think that happened here.”

Ooooh – best not get our president all riled up by asking him a question about the fate of American citizens being held against their will.  That would dampen the mood of triumphalism at the press conference and hurt the president's feelings.

Lapdog press, indeed.

The Iran deal is 159 pages long and is well worth the read.  If you peruse it, you should compare the president's statements about what's in the deal with what the deal actually says.  You won't be surprised to find out that Obama is trying to sell America a bill of goods by lying about the agreement's contents.