Democrats & Liberals Archives

"Corruption of Blood," and other Constitutional Sins

I get lectured by conservative commenters all the time about how little regard I have for the Constitution. They assume that they love it more than I do, more than other Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives do. But beneath all that boasting, I’ve found they have a tendency to disregard the Constitution entirely when it suits them. We can start this discussion with this week’s rather poor bit of conservative judgment, the open letter from the 47 Senate Republicans to Iran.

The framers deliberately concentrated the power of foreign policy into the President's hands. Just as it rarely works out well to have the kid be able to go to their mother or father to get a second opinion on what the other parent said about a matter, it rarely works out well to have more than one branch of government carrying out diplomatic functions, especially when one is designed to be a body containing a multitude of not necessarily coherent opinions.

You may not like those decisions, but then, you might not like what the opposing party churns out of the Congress when they have the power. Our republic is not built on you liking every decision made by it.

We invest the President with the status of Head of State, with the lead on our international negotiations, so America can speak with a single voice, and not simply have our enemies, friends, and frenemies playing one political party off another, one faction of the Congress off another to get a desired result.

The Republicans from the Senate, nearly all of them, barged into a situation in a way that, even if it wasn't illegal, certainly did not strengthen America's hand, or improve its reputation.

It was an arrogant attempt to defy the Constitutional order, and not merely a case of one or two congress-critters going for a visit the other guys don't like, but a full-blown strategic act by a Senate delegation. Bu it's not the first case of such disregard for the nation's framework.

Take this case: The leading author of the letter, Sen. Tom Cotton, offered an amendment to a law back in 2013 which would automatically throw the families of those who broke Iran Sanction in jail.

Cotton also seeks to punish any family member of those people, "to include a spouse and any relative to the third degree," including, "parents, children, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, grandparents, great grandparents, grandkids, great grandkids," Cotton said.

"There would be no investigation," Cotton said during Wednesday's markup hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "If the prime malefactor of the family is identified as on the list for sanctions, then everyone within their family would automatically come within the sanctions regime as well. It'd be very hard to demonstrate and investigate to conclusive proof."

The amendment immediately sparked objections from several members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who noted that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees due process rights to anyone charged with a crime under American law.

We are given any number of rights by the Bill of Rights which guarantees that our government can't simply drag us away for no reason, can't search our homes and intercept our communications without probable cause and/or a warrant, and can't punish us, depriving us of life, liberty, or property, without the necessary legal procedures, the indictments, and whatever else.

If that was all, that would be bad enough, but for this man, who learned Constitutional Law from President Obama's Alma Mater, the next problem should be simply staring him in the face. It may be sort of ambiguous, but it's highly doubtful that the Framers would have thought much of the use of "Corruption of the Blood," or of Congress passing a law that essentially convicts people before they have their day in court- a bill of attainder, in essence. Even a person convicted of treason cannot have his or her family suffer for their crime, or the punishment extend past their lifetime to their heirs and descendants. How then would this be appropriate for the lesser charge of breaking sanctions against Iran?

I'm sure Tom Cotton thinks the world of his motivations. So did the Kings of England and Kommisars of the Soviet Union who would do similar things to the families of those that opposed them. Tyrants often believe their motives pure, their actions right.

People don't always see the harm their ideas do, the corruption it might create. Forfeiture laws meant to go after the funds and the property of drug lords have, in too many cases, been turned into a means of police and sheriff departments to shakedown citizens, to take from them without due process.

Power like this can be used for good, theoretically speaking, but all too often, those without scruples or conscience can abuse such powers. The Framers knew this, and so, even as they expanded and solidified the powers of their government, they counterbalanced it by making many of the offices elected, by pitting different parts of the government against each other. In some places, the Framers expanded power, in others, they pulled it back. The Bill of Rights goes even further, shaping our judicial system into something that was more than just a plaything of the powerful.

I suppose there are a bunch of rationalizations that Republicans could apply to this situation with the letter to Iran. What strikes me is that, despite their rhetoric, they seem to be treating the constitution as mere guidelines when they don't like the Current Administration or Congress' decisions.

The Arizona Immigration case, I think, is a good example.

I think Justice Kennedy had it right:

"Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermined federal law," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

They challenged the Supremacy clause, didn't even bother to slow down as they ran over one of the Federal Government's enumerated powers, the regulation of immigration and naturalization. Again, we're talking a clear provision of the Constitution.

It's another empty boast from a party full of them: Republicans care more about the Constitution. Truth is, all too many just pay lip service to it, treating it like a fairy-tale, to which exceptions must be made.

I know my party's record isn't perfect, especially when it comes to the Patriot Act, the Drug War, NSA surveillance and the like. Nobody's record is perfect though, and if we go searching for somebody whose record is perfect, we're unlikely to find it. Thing is, one party's hitched it's wagon to spreading the power, spreading the franchise, while another's decided to bank on keeping power restricted to Christian White Males, even if it's just informally.

They've decided that their political position is so important, that it cannot bear to be defeated. This makes them different in their estimation of themselves from... well, not too many partisans in recent or ancient history. History's full of people who thought their political movement, their cause, their nation, their empire, their whatever was the light of the world, the greatest thing since sliced bread.

It's also full of people who happen to be fallible, and some who are simply crooked, crazy, or stupid. The strength of one's beliefs is not the test of their truth. So, we get into a situation where people who believe things rather strongly drive their governments, their nations, their factions and parties, right into the ground, their dedication fueling their harsh impact with the ground, the ugliness of the reality check that follows.

Look, I believed, and still believe I was doing the country a favor when I helped elect Obama and the other Democrats, when I wrote in support of them. Republicans on this site believe the same thing. Personally, I wouldn't shut the other side's rhetoric up, but I'm sure there are more than enough Democrats who would prefer if the GOP crawled in a hole and died, while there are obviously more than enough Republicans who wish for the Democrats to become a small enough party to take to the bathtub and drown. There is a competitive impulse in each political faction to defeat the other side, and obviously a preference that the defeat last as long as possible.

In the real world, though, power structures that stick around too long without serious challenge, lose touch, lose muscle, lose their bloody minds. Let me say this: I think that's what happened in the Republican Party in the last decade. Unfortunately, rather than let that version of the party die and become the fertilizer for the next version, they put the old version of the GOP on long term life support.

Party principles are nice, but they don't outrank the stability of the country, the franchise of the voters, the rights of Americans, and the framework of our nation's government as a priority. Whatever party you adhere to, that party should exist within that framework.

It's part of what's kept us from becoming a banana republic or a failed state.

The Republicans seem to think their righteousness overrides things, that Obama's government has to be subverted because it's heading in directions they don't like. It doesn't. The GOP can't be the only set of people who get to decide things. They shouldn't want to be.

One of the secrets to the relative peace and prosperity of this country is that most citizens have a strong enough stake in this country's power structure that they would stand to lose from the disruption. The First Amendment's prohibition of laws that restrict religion and laws that establish it kept religion from being as strong of a breaking point for the peace of the country as it was in other nations, before and after.

You don't have a country where the Catholics and the Protestants, the Protestants and the Evangelicals, etc., are waging wars for the control of territory or even the nation itself. All the religions of the world live in peace within our borders.

Similarly, the grant of birthright citizenship, while frustrating to some, gives each of us born here a stake in the fortunes of our nation. It encourages those born here to integrate into society, rather than remaining walled off in their own enclaves, unlikely to ever recieve the benefits of citizenship, the protection of the law.

Racial integration does the same thing. The less stratification there is between minorities and whites, the more each individual in those group can honestly hope to participate fully in the competition to make one's fortune, the more they are invested in preserving that system against harm.

The price, though, is that you don't get to have things your way perfectly, no other influences disrupting your ideal. You have to dance with the other groups, fight, compete within the ground rules of the Constitution. More importantly, you have to keep an eye on the real worl results of your policies. You don't get to sit mightily on high, sprinkling magic wisdom dust down on everybody else. You don't get to be the whole affair.

Trust me, I find it very frustrating! But what if I decided that Republicans were so evil, that I had to take up arms and cut them out of the system on a permanent basis? Would they take that sitting down? No. Better an electoral backlash than a bloody revolution that leaves the nation in tatters.

I don't see much good in the kinds of disruptive behavior Republicans have engaged in. i would not recormmend my own party do what they did, not on that scale. There is one branch of government given the lead on such policy. The reason is simple: even if you don't like it, it benefits our country to have a consistent policy, one negotiating team against theirs. It also means our response is more decisive, more quick. If somebody were to start a war with us in some part of the world, heaven forbid, would you want to have to wait for Congress to work things out and pass something, especially this one, before we responded to it? And if we were negotiating the end to that war, or perhaps the agreement to prevent it, would you prefer that same, fractious rogue's gallery to be working things out?

Keep it simple. America needs one face to present to the world, one that can be held accountable through budget restrictions and the requirement to run treaties that bind our country by the Senate, but it needs those friends, enemies, and associates in the world to know that there is one foreign policy, not two or three, or hundreds. That's part of the reason that the Framers created a strong executive in the first place.

Republicans will expect, when they get into office, that their President will be respected, that his policies will not be undermined in the foreign sphere. With huge stunts like this and the Netanyahu speech, where's their moral ground to demand that respect, that inviolability. They may be able to maintain double standards among themselves at to what they do and do not respect, but they can't seriously expect everybody else to spare them the obstruction, humiliations, interference, and disrespect that they didn't spare others. If they want people to stay in their lanes, if they want to strengthen their authority on the Constitution, they need to respect the integrity of those limitations, even when it hurts and frustrates what they think is important.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at March 11, 2015 11:38 AM
Comments
Comment #390482

Democrats have done the same thing Stephen but I guess because the shoe is on the other foot you liberal/progressives cry louder. see my comment in the red column

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 11, 2015 6:07 PM
Comment #390485

Mr. Daugherty writes; “…it rarely works out well to have more than one branch of government carrying out diplomatic functions.”

Agree!

Do you agree that it rarely works out well to have more than one branch of government carrying out legislative functions?

He writes; “…(Republicans) decided to bank on keeping power restricted to Christian White Males, even if it’s just informally.”

How so? What power are you writing about? You certainly can not be writing about voting rights, spending priorities, social justice or acting beyond ones Constitutional Oath.

No comment on the rest of Daugherty’s post as it is merely political twittering.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 11, 2015 6:26 PM
Comment #390488

Listening to Kerry in his senate hearing was just nauseating. Here’s the POT calling the kettle black.

Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn’t alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators “brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels…That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow.” Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government:

We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It’s beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them [the Sandinistas], they want to throw them out, they don’t want to talk to them.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 11, 2015 7:00 PM
Comment #390489

Obama has undermined existing UN Security Council resolutions negotiated by previous administrations that ban any nuclear enrichment at all by Iran. He has also turned a blind eye to Iranian terrorism–including attacks planned in the heart of Washington, D.C. on his watch.

He failed to assist the Iranian opposition when it rose up in 2009.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 11, 2015 7:22 PM
Comment #390494

Funny, how the conservatives on this blog are so quick to accuse Obama of violating his constitutional authority yet jump to the defense of 47 extremist doing so at one time in one letter. Pointing to certain occasions by one person 40 years ago as justification for the conservative extremist to do so today. Pathetic guys just pathetic using the “well he did it to Mom” excuse to portray the Senators as well meaning. Face it conservatives your guys have little respect for the constitution despite your constant preaching otherwise. Your guys, all 47 of them, are doing the bidding of the unelected government, selling out to the highest bidder. How you can defend this is beyond me. Doesn’t anyone on the right side of the aisle have any integrity?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 12, 2015 10:25 AM
Comment #390500

Anybody else recognize the number 47? Mitt Romney used it in reference to 47% of people who are takers, he only garnered 47% of the popular vote which was not enough, and now 47 Senators pull perhaps one of the dumbest things ever attempted by the Senate to insert their ideas in a totally unnecessary and detrimental manner in regards to foreign policy.

I’m sure someone with a numerology background would find some reasoning to point to but I don’t really hold much in the belief of Numerology. It does seem rather coincidental though, doesn’t it?

Posted by: Speak4all at March 12, 2015 11:36 AM
Comment #390510

Rich KAPitan-
If it is not unique in kind, it is unique in scale and organization. And guess what, you guys put up such a stink over one or two people visiting dictators or regimes, so what’s with virtually the whole senate delegation sending a foreign government a letter with an explicit message meant to obviously influence the negotiations. You don’t clarify things for people who are doing things like they should be doing, in your mind.

Royal Flush-
Okay, so do you, as such admit that the Republicans were wrong to send the letter?

As far as legislative function? The President’s kept within his bounds, for the most part. Your trouble, really, is that you folks have never been content to stay within your power. We get the majority, you sabotage it with an unprecedented, 80% disruption of all legislation that came to the Senate from the House.

It would have been nice to only get a reputation for having done nothing the way you got it, by actually doing nothing, or deliberately refusing to negotiate with the other chamber’s majority. Instead, we got it because you engaged in a scorched earth, deliberate political campaign of obstruction, with the President as a target.

Again and again, Democrats have had to come through to pass compromises for Republicans who refuse to compromise. The latest was passing funding for the DHS, just this year, with BOTH houses in Republican hands.

Republicans just don’t want to bargain.

As far as voting rights go… You could take one easy step towards ensuring that by dropping useless Voter ID laws that disenfranchise legitimate voters more than they block fraudulent ones, by the necessity that there are so few of the latter. You could also pass a new, updated coverage formula so that Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act can be enforced again. Why is it considered so unlikely that Republicans would do that? Explain that to me.

Oh, and while we’re on the subject of Nicaragua…
There’s Iran Contra, where the Reagan Administration funneled weapons to the Contras, and rewarded Iran for its Hostage-taking by giving weapons to our sworn enemy, all to get around legislation by Congress.

Oh, and then there’s Using taxpayer dollars to support activity by the Contras that included a heck of a lot of drug trafficking on their part.

There’s interfering in negotiation, which Congress is not supposed to do, and there’s fact-finding and oversight, which is part of Congress’ duty.

As for Iran? Let’s first start from the principle that no delusion or proper perception about Obama’s Iran policy allows Republicans to engage in their own diplomacy.

That cleared up, let’s go down the line: You can ban export of enrichment equipment to Iran, you can ban export or trade of Uranium and Uranium Ore to Iran, but one issue is that Iran has Ore supplies of its own, in the form of the world’s tenth largest mine.

Additionally, it’s virtually an open secret that Obama attacked the Iran Uranium enrichment program with the Stuxnet malware, which exploited a mechanical weakness in the centrifuges that cause them to shake to pieces.

As for turning a blind eye to the alleged plot… No, he actually commented on it, and sanctions were increased on Iran. There is doubt, however, that it was a genuine Iranian plot, since a bombing traced to the Iranian government in America would likely trigger a harsh, immediate response. Also, somebody described the situation with man who was supposed to carry out the plot by saying that they were looking for 007 and got Mr. Bean instead. The man was also diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and apt to get rather grandiose and delusional in that state.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 12, 2015 3:05 PM
Comment #390523

Stephen, Undermining Presidents is not a new thing, you may not like it now because it’s happening to Obama. If it were 47 Democrats doing it to a Republican President we wouldn’t hear a thing but praise out of your key board. So lets cut the BS Stephen it’s wrong no matter which side does it.

Posted by: Rich KAPOitn at March 12, 2015 8:51 PM
Comment #390541

Should the 47 traitors who signed the letter be charged under the Logan Act?

Posted by: phx8 at March 14, 2015 8:39 PM
Comment #390542

I wonder if you would say the same if it were Democrats phx8? Or would you be defending them from the Republicans?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 14, 2015 9:24 PM
Comment #390543

No games of equivalence here, KAP. The 47 traitors approached the Ayatollah of Iran and publicly stated the mullahs should not trust the United States in a negotiation. Consider that. They did not sign a public letter stating Americans should distrust the mullahs. They published one stating the Ayatollah should not truth America.

This is a clear cut violation of law. The 47 sought to undermine a sensitive negotiation between the United States, Germany, France, the UK, Russian, and China with Iran, in order to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. If this negotiation fails, there are really no alternatives. The likely outcome will be that we bomb Iran, and that will result in an all out, disastrous war.

The 47 sought to undermine the president of the United States, and what they have done not only underlies this president and this negotiation, it undermines future presidents and our standing in the international community. The 47 have announced the US cannot be trusted to keep its international commitments. How ironic- the Iranians say they do not trust us, and the 47 traitors tell them they are right.

The seditious letter has been criticized by our allies in France and Germany, many national and local editors in papers, and numerous conservatives. It weakens the power of the United States, not only now, but in the future.

If the 47 traitors letter causes negotiations to fail, and bombing and war follows, as it surely will-

Will you still be playing the equivalence game?

Posted by: phx8 at March 14, 2015 10:14 PM
Comment #390544

I asked you 2 simple questions phx8 and you answer with more BS. That tells me that you would have no problem with 47 Democrats if they did the same thing to a Republican President.. You would probably, like Stephen, have nothing but praise for them coming out of your keyboard.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 14, 2015 10:54 PM
Comment #390545

KAP,

“I wonder if you would say the same if it were Democrats phx8? Or would you be defending them from the Republicans?”

It has never happened. I would condemn either side for sedition. You cited a few past cases pretending things Democrats did were the same as what the 47 traitors are doing today. They are not even close to the same. There is no equivalence.

We are facing the same Neocons that brought us the war in Iraq- right wing Neocons in the US, and the right wing in Israel, led by Netanyahu. He might be out of power after next week, but it is hard to tell. Their political structure is different because governments consist of coalitions, so almost anything can happen in Israel.

The American Neocons and the right wing Israelis do not want negotiations. They want war.

In Iran, the hard liners and Revolutionary Guard are taking that treasonous letter telling the mullahs not to trust us, and demanding the Iranian moderates stop negotiating. They want to build a bomb, and nothing will make that more likely than the failure of negotiations.

Posted by: phx8 at March 14, 2015 11:15 PM
Comment #390546

Somehow I don’t believe you phx8. After all you claim those examples I gave of Democrats undermining Republican presidents was not the same as Republicans undermining a Democrat President. After all we have a man I would consider a Traitor as Sec. of State. Most of our allies don’t trust Obama. So that letter that those Senators sent I’m sure Iran knows already Obama can’t be trusted even before the letter. Beside most of our enemies think Obama is a weak leader anyway.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 14, 2015 11:32 PM
Comment #390547

“Most of our allies don’t trust Obama.”

Not true. The US, UK, Germany, France, China, and Russia are presenting a united front in negotiating with the Iranians, with the common goal of preventing them from building a nuclear weapon.

The foreign ministers of our allies are not criticizing Obama. The German minister in particular is criticizing the 47 traitors.

These people are pushing for a war, KAP. Make no mistake about it.

Posted by: phx8 at March 15, 2015 12:19 AM
Comment #390552

And remember, our allies are negotiating with us, by our side. The GOP is seeking to undermine this. Their 47 traitors letter undermines our allies and negotiating partners just as it undermines the office of the president and the ability of the United States to conduct foreign policy. There is only one group making itself look bad here, and it is the 47 traitors. By doing so, they harm all of us.

The GOP Senators want to blow up the agreement and substitute their own offer to Iran without negotiations and without cooperation- that is if they ever bother to make an offer to Iran at all, and judging from their performance to date, the ability of Republicans to act is highly dubious. Their goal remains the same: undermine all competing alliances, and make it the US and Israel against the world. That is the goal of the Israeli right wing too. They want war, and they want us to fight it for them.

Posted by: phx8 at March 15, 2015 9:54 AM
Comment #390553
I asked you 2 simple questions phx8 and you answer with more BS.

OH for crying out loud KAP. Your questions “I wonder if you would say the same if it were Democrats phx8?” and the even more irrelevant “Or would you be defending them from the Republicans?” are BS. They have no place in this discussion. These questions only serve to confuse the issue at hand, Dismissing your repub buddies with a “the dems did it to” or the even more foolish “what if the dems did it” red herring seeks to diminish the actions of these 47 Senators and their letter disrupting the negotiations for the benefit of Israel and the defense contractors instead of the American people.

The simple fact is 47 repubs signed and sent a letter to the Iranians undermining the international team working to resolve the issue. This grandstanding, or campaigning by many of them should not go unpunished. They did serious harm to the people of this country and put our enemy, the hard liners in Iran, in a better position to gain nuclear weapons. You should know that it is more than foolishness on their part and nothing any Senator has done in our history comes close to this.

Beside most of our enemies think Obama is a weak leader anyway.

Seriously this is some justification on your part to minimize the letter from these 47 Senators! Think about this KAP because this is probably the most ignorant diversion from the issue you have made in years. Ask Osama Bin Laden how weak he thinks Obama is.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 15, 2015 10:32 AM
Comment #390554

You guys might as well give it a rest because it ain’t never gonna happen. It didn’t happen to Nixon, nor did it happen to Reagan, though Iran-Contra was interesting for at least a few minutes.

These 47 guys are desperately seeking to be relevant in a world that already thinks we’re idiots, and the American electorate has the attention span of a gnat.

Why else would there be so much money spent on elections?

Somebody soon is going to yell “squirrel” and the right wing punditry will be off on the next “meme du jour”.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 15, 2015 12:12 PM
Comment #390555

I have mentioned few times phx8 and j2 that what those senators did was dumb and have said that I think it’s wrong for anyone to undermine the President no matter who he is. I have pointed out that democrats have done the same in the past an that I consider our Sec.of State a Traitor for his actions during the Viet Nam era. All I see out of you 2 and others is WE GOOD THEM BAD. Getting back to trust, those Nations you mentioned phx8 may have a vested interest in Iran NOT getting a nuclear weapon but they TRUST Iran less then Obama but don’t be fooled they still have little trust in Obama. j2 if it wasn’t for the efforts of Clinton and G. W. Bush Obama would NEVER have gotten Bin Laden, and yes China, Russia, and Iran and a few others consider Him a weak leader.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 15, 2015 12:25 PM
Comment #390556

KAP,
Let’s look at two of those red herrings you keep tossing out as a distraction:
1) When Senator McDermott went to Iraq in 2003, the GOP said he was undermining the president. Not so. McDermott went to Iraq to review the progress of the weapons inspectors, and he said they needed more time. That was not undermining the president; in fact, McDermott was right and the administration was wrong, and the reason the weapons inspectors couldn’t find any weapons is that there were none.

2) Pelosi visited Syria in 2007, which the Bush administration disliked. The argument was that Syria was a terrorist state, and therefore Pelosi was undermining the administration. I don’t even understand that argument. Pelosi did not undermine anything, unless the idea is for us to never communicate with any country deemed a terrorist state. That makes no sense.

There is no equivalence.

KAP, what makes you think our allies and negotiators do not trust Obama? We are all negotiating together in order to prevent Iran from developing a weapon.

I saw Senator Cotton, author of the 47 traitors letter, on a Sunday morning talk show. That guy is full of hatred. That is the voice of war. He is really bad news.

Posted by: phx8 at March 15, 2015 12:44 PM
Comment #390557

phx8, Pelosi and democrats disliked Bush to an extreme passion and would do anything to undermine or make him look like a fool and for this we can go back in the WB archives to see, so that is a no brainer to prove. As far as Cotton goes he is only one person and can talk all he wants but it takes more than 47 Senators to declare war. As I said phx8 they trust Iran less then they trust Obama. Obama has let this Iran thing build and build and Iran laughing in his face. Now Iran is close to a bomb and the European countries are worried. China and Russia I don’t trust in those talks. Their motives may be 180 out from the rest. China and Russia are at the top of the list of countries that view Obama as a weak leader along with Iran and that is why IMO trust in him is low.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 15, 2015 1:36 PM
Comment #390558

“As far as Cotton goes he is only one person and can talk all he wants but it takes more than 47 Senators to declare war.”

Not really. If the 47 traitors tank the negotiations there will be no effective international coordination of sanctions. The US Congress cannot unilaterally apply sanctions without our partners and expect it to work. Make no mistake: the alternative to the failure of these negotiations will be bombing Iran, and that will lead to war and even worse chaos. By the way, notice how guys like Cotton say nothing about how to pay for such a war?

” Obama has let this Iran thing build and build and Iran laughing in his face.”

Baloney. This built during the Bush administration. They did absolutely nothing about Iran because they wanted Halliburton to profit from its Iranian oil contracts. Again, we did nothing before 2008 because that is what the Bush administration wanted. Halliburton finally moved off shore to avoid paying US taxes. Problem solved as far as Neocons are concerned.

Ding! Did I just hear a light bulb go off?

“China and Russia I don’t trust in those talks. Their motives may be 180 out from the rest.”

Their motives are the same as ours. Our interests coincide. No one wants to see nuclear proliferation in that part of the world. China and Russia may occasionally be political partners or allies of convenience, but culturally, they share nothing in common with Iran.

“China and Russia are at the top of the list of countries that view Obama as a weak leader…”

Oh, I doubt that very much. The US and its allies have been economically strangling the Russian economy. The ruble has already collapsed. Either Russia changes its nationalistic ways re Ukraine, or that government will collapse. Give it another year, at most. An economic depression, widespread unemployment, starvation, and failure to pay the troops will be the end of Putin. He is warning the Russian people that this will be the price of Russian nationalism. Given the choice of food or nationalism, I’m pretty sure the Russian people will want to eat, and send Putin packing.

Posted by: phx8 at March 15, 2015 2:27 PM
Comment #390559

It may have built during the Bush years but it escalated during the Obama years,phx8. Russia has been tanking itself, they don’t need us or anyone else to help them tank. As far as Cotton goes he is old news it will take more than him and his 46 cronies to make war. I really don’t think anyone is taking them seriously. I see the Huff Post keeping it alive but that’s all.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 15, 2015 2:55 PM
Comment #390560

It is not just HuffPo keeping the 47 traitors letter alive. The story is still strong on other left wing sites, and it also on the Sunday morning talk shows, liberal and conservative alike. In social media, the 47 traitors hashtag already has over 286,000 shares.

If these negotiations fail, the blame will fall on the 47 traitors. Also, the political fate of Netanyahu will be known soon.

Russia is tanking for two reasons: 1) low oil prices, and 2) sanctions by the US and its allies.

“Russia’s central bank cut interest rates by 1% to 14% on Friday, highlighting the dire state of the country’s economy.

The bank also slashed its growth forecast. It expects the Russian economy to contract by between 3.5% and 4% in 2015, worse than its January prediction of 3%.

There is plenty to worry about.

Low oil prices and Western sanctions have crushed the economy. The ruble plunged 40% against the dollar in just six months — sparking a backlash against the central bank. Some even accused it of sabotage.

The Bank of Russia is caught in a bind. Inflation is soaring — it hit 16.7% in February, with food prices jumping by 23% compared to last year. Cutting rates could push prices even higher, but leaving them at elevated levels may mean an even deeper and longer recession.”

http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/13/news/economy/russia-central-bank/

Putin has disappeared from sight for the past week and a half. He might be sick. There is an outside chance he might have already been overthrown.

Posted by: phx8 at March 15, 2015 3:20 PM
Comment #390561

Yes phx8 LEFT WING sites all the rest it’s old news. Russia has been tanking for years. The 47 is old news being kept alive by the left no one else is taking it seriously. Netanyahu ahh, is the W.H. funding the plan to oust him????????

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 15, 2015 3:49 PM
Comment #390562
I have mentioned few times phx8 and j2 that what those senators did was dumb and have said that I think it’s wrong for anyone to undermine the President no matter who he is.

Yes KAP but only as a prelude to …..

I have pointed out that democrats have done the same in the past an that I consider our Sec.of State a Traitor for his actions during the Viet Nam era.

Which is wrong KAP. Not only is it wrong it is irrelevant to the discussion.

All I see out of you 2 and others is WE GOOD THEM BAD.

Not from me KAP. I haven’t said anything remotely close to that statement. Why, because it isn’t relevant to the issue at hand. The issue is the 47 Senators writing letter to Iran to intentionally undermine ongoing negotiations with Iran. That letter was more than just dumb KAP. That letter serves the interests of a foreign nation, Israel, not the interests of this country KAP. The intent of the letter is to get our kids fighting for Israel in Iran.TO disrupt the negotiations and make war the answer to the problem.

Getting back to trust, those Nations you mentioned phx8 may have a vested interest in Iran NOT getting a nuclear weapon but they TRUST Iran less then Obama but don’t be fooled they still have little trust in Obama.

SO what KAP, does this give these Senators any reason to circumvent the negotiation process in your mind? Does this give them some moral authority to tell Iran we cannot bargain in good faith because we have hard liners that will seek to nullify any agreement because their corporate sponsors want war instead.

j2 if it wasn’t for the efforts of Clinton and G. W. Bush Obama would NEVER have gotten Bin Laden,

KAP once again, so what! A weak leader wouldn’t have taken the chance to get Bin Laden yet we cannot ask him if he thinks Obama is a weak leader because he isn’t here. To think that this justifies these Senators interfering with sensitive negotiations is worse than foolishness KAP.

The problem is you KAP, your hatred of Obama doesn’t allow you to make such judgements about Obama. Your hatred allows you to seek all these silly reasons to justify the unjustifiable letter from the 47 extremist Senators in Congress. Yet none hold water. Trying to justify their evil intentions as Obama’s fault is wrong KAP. “They did it cause Obama is weak”!Such BS. “They did it because dems did it” is a lie KAP stop repeating it, you know better. They did it because they did it because they were directed to by defense contractors and Israel.


and yes China, Russia, and Iran and a few others consider Him a weak leader.

Once again KAP, so what! An ultra nationalist in Russia considers Obama weak! The dictatorship in China consider Obama weak! and the Authoritarians in Iran considers Obama weak! Even if it were true so what. It doesn’t mean he is weak KAP.

Do you think these 47 Senators thought “well if they think Obama is weak we will undermine the process so we can” what… go to war or …. or what KAP? Did they think this letter would solve the perception Obama is weak by doing this? The point KAP is this drivel has nothing to do with the letter from these Senators.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 15, 2015 4:01 PM
Comment #390563

What wrong j2 am I picking on your lilly white Democrats? Yes I do not like Obama but I also do not like when either party try’s to undermine any sitting president. He’s weak j2. Thin skinned and weak!.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 15, 2015 4:12 PM
Comment #390564

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1696 – passed on 31 July 2006. Demanded that Iran suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and threatened sanctions, invoking Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter to make that demand legally binding on Iran.

Since 2006, nearly ten more UN SCR’s have been passed prohibiting enrichment and reprocessing activities.

Iran ignores these UN resolutions for the most part and now the US seems hellbent to undo these resolutions for a bargain that insures Iranian nuclear weapons in the near future.

Who the hell isn’t upset by this administrations attempt to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Those 47 senators are heroic in my mind.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 15, 2015 4:40 PM
Comment #390565

RF,
Good grief. You promote the rule of law, but you are ok with torture. You love the Constitution, but you are ok undermining the office of the president when conducting foreign policy.

For crying out loud, these Senators sent a letter to the AYATOLLAH of Iran during an adversarial negotiation and told the mullahs WE are not to be trusted to keep an agreement!

And not only that, the 47 traitors letter also casts doubt on our allies- Germany, the UK, and France- and their judgment! It doesn’t get much worse than this.

No one is saying the Iranians are the good guys. Quite the contrary. That is the WHOLE POINT of the negotiation. Through cooperation with our allies, we have brought the Iranians to the negotiating table. The hardliners and the Revolutionary Guard do not want these negotiations to succeed. They want to develop a nuclear weapon come hell or high water. The moderates want to negotiate. The current Ayatollah is sick and there will be a new one soon. The entire purpose of the 47 traitors letter seems to be to push Iran to become more radical and develop a bomb, and for us to then bomb then and unleash even worse chaos in the Middle East.

And that is “heroic?” Oh dear.

Well, at least the American people side with Obama in this by a wide majority, the foreign ministers of Germany, the UK, and France are on our side, along with most of the US mainstream media, national and local newspapers, and even moderate conservative columnists like Gershon and Parker, among others.

Posted by: phx8 at March 15, 2015 5:38 PM
Comment #390566

OH DEAR. Iran ignores multiple UN SCR’s over a period of more than a decade regarding their nuclear program and their intransigents brings us to the bargaining table to give the Iranians what they most desire.

Somehow, the neolibs believe that evidence of Iran ignoring UN sanctions is proof that they will honor an agreement with obama. How naive can one get?

My liberal friends seem to be unaware of what an “open” letter means. It is open to the world and designed to reveal the frailty of any agreement.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 15, 2015 5:50 PM
Comment #390567

Correction: “intransigence”

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 15, 2015 5:52 PM
Comment #390568
What wrong j2 am I picking on your lilly white Democrats?

Not at all KAP, you are defending these 47 Senators with pitiful arguments.


Yes I do not like Obama but I also do not like when either party try’s to undermine any sitting president. He’s weak j2. Thin skinned and weak!.

KAP you are resorting to name calling. You have tried but failed to prove him weak. How thinned skin an anyone president be especially after 7 year of extreme hatred by those on the right. It isn’t Obama that is the problem, KAP it is you and people like you that listen to the hate mongers and believe this crap.

Those 47 senators are heroic in my mind.

Royal, such a definition of heroic, Senators cowardly writing a letter behind the presidents back and sending it to Iran to undermine negotiations is considered heroic by you! Sure explains a lot.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 15, 2015 6:02 PM
Comment #390569

I would remind those who denigrate the efforts of the 47 letter signing senators of Winston Churchill’s “traitorous” efforts to alert the world to Germany’s threat before Great Britain declared war on Germany.

In July 1934, Churchill wrote in the Daily Mail:

“I marvel at the complacency of ministers in the face of the frightful experiences through which we have all so newly passed. I look with wonder upon the thoughtless crowds disporting themselves in the summer sunshine, and upon this unheeding House of Commons, which seems to have no higher function than to cheer a Minister; [and all the while across the North Sea], a terrible process is astir. Germany is arming.”

- See more at: http://www.historynet.com/winston-churchills-prewar-effort-to-increase-military-spending.htm#sthash.04woWM5d.dpuf

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 15, 2015 6:31 PM
Comment #390570

RF,
No one is saying the Iranians are the good guys. There have been a series of covert actions to prevent them from developing their nuclear program, ranging from assassinations to perhaps the most interesting of all, the STUXNET cyber attack:

http://www.businessinsider.com/stuxnet-was-far-more-dangerous-than-previous-thought-2013-11

You should read that link. You’ll like it.

Anyway, one of the keys to this negotiation is verification. The Iranians have been brought to the negotiating table by sanctions coordinated by us with our allies. The 47 traitors letter weakens the US by undermining our ability to coordinate with our allies.

The Iranians are not a vanquished, occupied nation. They are independent and sovereign. However, sanctions and low gas prices have hurt them a great deal. We have an opportunity to resolve the situation peacefully. Efforts to stop that kind of resolution are most definitely NOT “heroic.”

By the way, the 47 traitors letter is addressed as follows:

“An Open Letter to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

The addressee is quite clear.

Posted by: phx8 at March 15, 2015 6:42 PM
Comment #390571

“Efforts to stop that kind of resolution are most definitely NOT “heroic.”

We do not need a NEW resolution, just enforcement of the UN resolutions in place and agreed to by the Security Council.

Why the rush to ease the pressure on Iran? By your own admission it is working.

Who gives a shit to whom an “open” letter is addressed. It’s purpose was to alert the world.

Was Churchill a “traitor” for calling attention to the danger facing his nation?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 15, 2015 6:54 PM
Comment #390572

Churchill did a lot of good things. He also did a lot of bad things. Ever hear of Gallipoli? Or the fire bombing of Dresden, a German city with no military value filled with civilians and wounded? Sometimes Churchill was right. Sometimes he was very wrong. He won elections. He also lost them, or was demoted in disgrace. He was a man who supported colonialism and pushed for war, whether it was against the Boers, or in colonial Sudan, or elsewhere. He was right to push against the Nazis and Stalin after WWII, and that was huge. But he made plenty of mistakes too. Be careful about idolizing Churchill.

As for Iran, sanctions are not an end in themselves. The point is to change what the Iranians are doing- the point is to ease sanctions in exchange for capping their nuclear program so it does not build a weapon.

“Who gives a shit to whom an “open” letter is addressed. It’s purpose was to alert the world.”

No. It’s purpose was to convince the Iranians that the word of the president in an executive-to-executive negotiation cannot be trusted, and that the US is an unreliable negotiating partner.

It is pretty ugly when the Iranians denounce the US for being unreliable and untrustworthy, and they are right, because the 47 traitors just told them we are unreliable and untrustworthy.

Posted by: phx8 at March 15, 2015 7:14 PM
Comment #390573

Not defending j2, just pointing out both sides are guilty of undermining presidents. J2 he does have thin skin every time someone disagrees with him either he or people like you use the race card.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 15, 2015 8:18 PM
Comment #390574
Was Churchill a “traitor” for calling attention to the danger facing his nation?

Royal thanks for the red herring, you guys are priceless in your foolishness. Comparing the 47 Senators to Churchill! Didn’t we hear the same thing from you leading up to the invasion of Iraq and the WMD’s that didn’t exist. These war mongers you are so proud of don’t have a Churchill amongst them, they are closer to the aggressors the people Churchill warned Britain about. Usurping authority for political gain sounds more like Hitler than Churchill IMHO.

Not defending j2, just pointing out both sides are guilty of undermining presidents.

Not doing a good job of defending them, at the least KAP, with that worthless argument.

J2 he does have thin skin every time someone disagrees with him either he or people like you use the race card.

Well as we continue around in circles KAP, Your hatred is the only card being played here. It causes you to see things that just aren’t true. “Thin skin” just another delusion of the hateful mind.


Posted by: j2t2 at March 16, 2015 12:21 AM
Comment #390583

“The point is to change what the Iranians are doing- the point is to ease sanctions in exchange for capping their nuclear program so it does not build a weapon.”

How naive! The decade long UN Security Council resolutions were not met. The provisions in any new agreement will be disregarded by the Iranians also. The same signatures on a new document will be just as meaningless and worthless in curbing Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Delay and lifting of sanctions is the Iranian game plan and this administration is folding its trump hand. Iran is now providing both the cards and the dealer.

j2 is just twittering.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 16, 2015 2:43 PM
Comment #390586

Royal, whats with you guys, blaming the Iranians for writing the letter from the 47 Senators to the Iranians. These 47 Senators told the Iranians that we, the people of the United States of America couldn’t be trusted to negotiate in good faith! Cotton and some of the others refused to give the process a chance, They subverted the process in an attempt to ensure the failure of the sanctions and negotiations. Their failure in discipline has given the extremists in Iran the upper hand against us and our allies in the negotiations.

You speak of Churchill but the actions you support are the actions of the extremist who told us the Jews and other minorities were the problem in Churchill’s time. The same people you defend by blaming Iran are the extremist wanting to invade another sovereign nation at the demand of Israel. Just because the UN resolutions weren’t meant doesn’t give these 47 Senators the right to deliberately intercede in the process. They violated their oath of office when they violated the constitution.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 16, 2015 5:31 PM
Comment #390587

j2, Here’s a simple question for you. Do you honestly think the Iranians are going to negotiate in good faith? A simple yes or no to the question.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 16, 2015 5:40 PM
Comment #390589

Just because the UN resolutions weren’t meant doesn’t give these 47 Senators the right to deliberately intercede in the process. They violated their oath of office when they violated the constitution.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 16, 2015 5:31 PM

I normally wouldn’t even bother responding to such a comment. Let’s separate his comment into two parts.

1. Because the UN Security Council resolutions were not met over a decade of time is proof positive that the Iranians have no intention of following any agreement by anyone. The only reason the Iranians are at the table is to end the sanctions and to give them more time to develop nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them to our front door.

2. A senators oath of office requires them to defend the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and the constitution.

Your feeble attempt to link the two is silly.

I would like to read j2’s reasoning to justify trusting the Iranians? Can he/she point to any recent agreements, treaties, or agreements with the West that they have honored?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 16, 2015 6:28 PM
Comment #390590

When Ronald Reagan sold them weapons through Oliver North, the Iranians honored the deal, and paid. It was a good deal for them, because the deal included Hawk missiles, the only ground-to-air missile at the time that was likely to penetrate the ECM of a B-52 and shoot it down.

Those of us in SAC at the time were not happy about that. We came within 24 hours of bombing Bandar Abbas during the tanker wars, and some of us would have been shot down because of Ronald Reagan and Ollie North.

As it turned out, the USA shot down an Iranian airliner and killed 290 civilians, including 66 children. Everyone backed down.

Posted by: phx8 at March 16, 2015 6:47 PM
Comment #390591

Iran Removed From Terror Threat Report As Obama Negotiates Nuclear Deal

“President Barack Obama’s appointees have airbrushed Iran out of the terror section of the 2015 annual report on national security threats, just as he tries to negotiate a nuclear weapons deal with Iran’s theocratic leaders.

The 2015 “Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community” excludes Iran and its network of jihadi groups who are motivated by Islam’s Shia sect, from the report’s terror section.”

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/16/iran-removed-from-terror-threat-report-as-obama-negotiates-nuclear-deal/

Just when one thinks our president can’t sink any lower in his contempt for the security of our country and its citizens he proves he can.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 16, 2015 7:56 PM
Comment #390593
j2, Here’s a simple question for you. Do you honestly think the Iranians are going to negotiate in good faith? A simple yes or no to the question.

KAP if I didn’t think they were going to negotiate in good faith does that give me the right to send them a letter that tells then we won’t honor the terms of the agreement. Does it give me the right to barge into the room with SoS Kerry and tell them we want to go to war with their extremist? How about if I did think they were going to negotiate in good faith? Still doesn’t give me the right to interfere does it. So it seems to me your question is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to what these 47 Senators did. It doesn’t justify their actions.

I normally wouldn’t even bother responding to such a comment. Let’s separate his comment into two parts.

Royal, you seem to think being a paid off Representative of Israel and defense contractors as is Senator Cotton allows one to become the president or the secretary of state instead of Senator. The Constitution is pretty clear on whose job it is to deal with foreign governments. Senators aren’t part of the negotiations and when they sent this letter they did not uphold the constitution they violated the constitution. It’s that simple bud.

You also seem to think that only you and Cotton have the insight into the moderates in Iran and their intentions. Cotton is an extremist, as is most of these 47 Senators, who is bought and paid for by Israel and defense contractors so we don’t know anything but the fact it is Cotton and his friends who profit from this extremist stand on Iran. The propaganda you read may cause you to believe all Iranian are extremist and want some holy war and Cotton assistance in helping further the cause of not only the Iranian extremist but the extremist in Israel and in this country may well be the reason Iran doesn’t come to terms. We won’t know because the outcome has been tainted by our extremist in the Senate. War mongers the lot of them.

I would like to read j2’s reasoning to justify trusting the Iranians? Can he/she point to any recent agreements, treaties, or agreements with the West that they have honored?

Royal quit blaming the Iranians for the actions of these 47 Senators. The issue is very simple these guys wrote a letter to the Iranians telling them they couldn’t trust us to keep to our end of the bargain. You try to complicate it by saying their actions, these 47 extremist Senators, were justified but they were not justified in undermining the ongoing negotiations.

No one says Iran is right or that we trust them or any of the other BS you have been pulling out of your a** to defend these Senators. But using your logic you would have us believe 2 wrongs make a right. That just isn’t the case.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 16, 2015 9:09 PM
Comment #390595

j2, I asked a simple question, Letter or no letter, Do you think the Iranians will negotiate in good faith? A simple yes or no.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 16, 2015 9:36 PM
Comment #390602

KAP,
This article addresses your question with some pretty good insights. Agree or disagree, it is worth pondering…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reza-marashi/iran-us-nuclear-deal-_b_6881776.html

Posted by: phx8 at March 16, 2015 11:07 PM
Comment #390603
j2, I asked a simple question, Letter or no letter, Do you think the Iranians will negotiate in good faith? A simple yes or no.

And I answered KAP, it makes no difference to the issue at hand. The options you gave me did not include c. none of the above. Why should I be forced to answer your question and go off on a tangent when the issue is the 47 Senators who knowingly interfered in the negotiations by telling the Iranians we will not honor what we say we will. Lets not get off on a tangent that leads us into wrongly thinking the Senators were doing this sabotage for some worthy reason KAP. Lets not blame Iran for the wrongdoings of our unelected government, through the doings of our elected Senators. Stay focused on the real problem to this country. People like Senator Cotton whose narcissism makes him think he has some right to sabotage negotiations the administration is conducting with foreign countries. Using foolishness like comparing Obama to Chamberlain even though the comparison is groundless.

So here we go, election season has been thrust upon us and those who are elected to represent us but instead are bought and paid for hucksters for foreign governments and defense contractors have started the fear tactics. Very effective, evidently, as they have been parroted by Royal and KAP here on WB already.

BTW KAP I have an irrelevant question for you. Should Iran heed the words of the current “Churchill” of Iran, who is telling Iranians of the dangers of not arming themselves before the coming invasion of their country by a war machine hell bent on a holy war.

More money for the war machine. False claims to enrage the conservative followers and urge them into supporting fear, hatred and the profiteers. If only Britain had armed themselves when Churchill deemed it wise. We must learn from their mistake and arm early… err…umm… wait we already spend more than the next dozen or more countries combined we are ready , but as we see the problem is now we have become the Germany of 1936, the armed to the teeth country invading foreign countries to fore them into doing our bidding, or we will be if guys like Cotton get there way. The country whose extremist leaders in Congress re telling us it is the Islamic people that are causing the problems. The country who invaded Irans next door neighbor and has caused terrorist to take hold of the country.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/16/tom-cotton-hitler-senate-speech_n_6882428.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Posted by: j2t2 at March 16, 2015 11:28 PM
Comment #390604

You just answered my question j2, you go off on a tangent when Republicans do stupid things but give your liberal/progressives a pass. I have not defended those 47 Senators in fact I have stated they did stupid things. It is people like you who I consider the fear mongers and race baiters of this country, just look at your above comment, full of fear mongering. If a war begins it’s going to come from the middle east NOT from the U.S. I give examples of Democrats doing like things but YOU like the true liberal/progressive you are blow them off. As I said before to you when you can say Democrats are not saints then and only then will I take anything you write as credible until then you are just a parrot of the liberal media.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 16, 2015 11:58 PM
Comment #390605

BTW j2, I know Democrats are not going to do a damn thing about those 47 Senators because you know damn well that Democrats did the same in the past and will do the same in the future. So all your crying is for absolutely NOTHING.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 17, 2015 1:08 AM
Comment #390606
You just answered my question j2, you go off on a tangent when Republicans do stupid things but give your liberal/progressives a pass.

I answered it the first time as well KAP. Seems you have now decided to get back on the “well they did it to” defense. Don’t you get tired spinning so much?


I have not defended those 47 Senators in fact I have stated they did stupid things.

Whatever KAP, when you try to justify their actions with excuses like you have been yes in fact you are defending them.

It is people like you who I consider the fear mongers and race baiters of this country, just look at your above comment, full of fear mongering.

Well of course it is me you blame KAP. After all I pointed out the foolishness of the different defenses you guys have parroted the past few days. You wouldn’t think of putting the blame where it belonged instead you call me racebaiter even though nothing has been said to warrant such stupidity. The sad part is because I point out the fear mongering Cotton and his ilk are saying you find it necessary to blame the messenger. Just not smart enough to figure out it is you being duped by Cotton and his crew.

If a war begins it’s going to come from the middle east NOT from the U.S.

Sure Iran will invade us right KAP? Or did you mean it would be their fault when we invade them because they didn’t put up with us telling them what to do. Because God is on our side, right. Because we told them not to trust us to honor our word and then they walked out of the negotiations.


I give examples of Democrats doing like things but YOU like the true liberal/progressive you are blow them off.

Because they are not a justification for the actions of the 47 Senators who sabotaged the negotiations KAP. Because you tell me one dem did this or that and it somehow carries equal weight with what 47 Senators did. You use half truths and outright lies to get to that point as well KAP. Your bias is very one sided.

As I said before to you when you can say Democrats are not saints then and only then will I take anything you write as credible until then you are just a parrot of the liberal media.

KAP I don’t believe you when you say you will take anything I write as credible even if I did denounce dems for what repubs have done. Sorry but you just don’t have it in you to accept anything conservatives do or say as wrong. To much kool aid, KAP you have guzzled to much of the kool aid for me to believe that old line.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 17, 2015 8:39 AM
Comment #390607
BTW j2, I know Democrats are not going to do a damn thing about those 47 Senators because you know damn well that Democrats did the same in the past and will do the same in the future. So all your crying is for absolutely NOTHING.

Well KAP for once we agree, but for different reasons. Not because the “dems did it to” as you falsely claim but because in all likely hood the Logan act wouldn’t pass constitutional muster should charges be brought against these guys. I understand it was a political move for Cotton and other extremist presidential candidates, and it will also raise money for the dems as people are outraged by the actions of these Senators. In fact I told you this was grandstanding and campaigning in a previous post KAP.

I realize you will continue to defend the neocon policies of creating war at any cost in the middle east, you will use any pretext these guys tell you to parrot, that you will justify their actions with myth misinformation half truths and outright lies. So while you may think I am crying I am not. I am expressing my outrage over the callous way and great lengths Cotton went to to please a foreign government and how not only you but conservatives everywhere are blind to the facts. How so easily you swill the kool aid Cotton tells you to without using any critical thinking skills.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 17, 2015 8:59 AM
Comment #390608

Your right j2 I will defend conservative policy but I also will say when conservatives screw up and not defend them if they are wrong. I can see by your last post you would never say a Democrat screwed up. Your defense of your party is admirable, I can see you would lie, cheat, steal, and possibly kill for them.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 17, 2015 11:38 AM
Comment #390609

j2 wrote; “Sure Iran will invade us right KAP? Or did you mean it would be their fault when we invade them because they didn’t put up with us telling them what to do.”

Invade? Where does that come from? The “US” you refer to are the members of the UN Security Council with numerous resolutions ignored for over more than a decade.

j2 wrote; “…conservatives everywhere are blind to the facts.”

Here is blind acceptance of a fact.

Iran Removed From Terror Threat Report As Obama Negotiates Nuclear Deal

Amazing that the neolibs find this acceptable.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 17, 2015 2:08 PM
Comment #390610
Your right j2 I will defend conservative policy but I also will say when conservatives screw up and not defend them if they are wrong.

So KAP when 47 extremist conservatives “screw up” in such a huge and damaging way what is the fair penalty for them? You see my Senator was one of these 47 that signed this letter. I wrote to him and in his response he to, just as so many conservatives have done, deflected on the issue. He insisted upon blaming Iran and took zero responsibility for his actions. To cowardly to admit what he did was foolish.

Ya see it seems to me KAP that you can only say conservatives screwed up in the same breath as you are saying “they did it to”. You were, in this case, unable to differentiate between the severity of the examples you deemed to be “dems doing it to” and the 47 Senators writing a letter to Iran disrupting ongoing negotiations between the Iranians and several countries, including us and some of our allies.

IMHO you also defended them, despite saying they screwed up,through out this and another thread here on WB. By deflection, by blaming, by name calling, by insisting upon compliance with unwarranted requests, you defended them.

I can see by your last post you would never say a Democrat screwed up. Your defense of your party is admirable, I can see you would lie, cheat, steal, and possibly kill for them.

Well it seems you may have drawn your own conclusions as to what I said but FYI they are the wrong conclusions. What has happened KAP is I didn’t suffer your deflecting comments and your side stepping the issue. I focused on the 47 Senators and their actions. Ya see in this instance the dems didn’t screw up. Not one dem signed this letter.

And one more time I am not a dem KAP, never have been and don’t plan on being one. I have registered as an independent voter forever. SO to say I would lie, cheat, steal and possibly kill for them could not be more wrong. Your reasoning abilities have let you down once again.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 17, 2015 4:00 PM
Comment #390611

“47 extremist conservatives”

Obviously j2 has no clue as to who a conservative senator might be. What a silly idea that signing a letter would make anyone a political conservative.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 17, 2015 4:12 PM
Comment #390614

Royal, The actions by these 47 scumbags has identified them as extremist conservatives. Signing the letter doesn’t make anyone a political conservative it makes them an extremist conservative.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 17, 2015 8:45 PM
Comment #390615

These traitors sent “An Open Letter to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” telling the Ayatollah not to consider an agreement re nuclear arms binding. The traitors told the mullahs not to deal with our president, and by extension, the UK, France, and Germany.

The day after the traitor Cotton sponsored the letter, he met behind closed doors with defense contractors. Then he gave his first speech on the Senate floor, and within the first minute, brought up Churchill and the Nazis, and called for increased defense spending!

He is not just a traitor. He is a corrupt traitor.

Posted by: phx8 at March 17, 2015 8:59 PM
Comment #390616

We have U.S. Traitor named Kerry negotiating with a Dictator. Makes sense, a guy that was willing to sell his country out to the N.V. now is giving in to the Iranians. Then some have the balls to call Cotton and 46 others traitors. Like I said when some can say their party has dirt in it then they can criticize the other party. Now I’ll probably here the old BS statement “Not the same”

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 17, 2015 10:02 PM
Comment #390617

KAP still at it, after denying you are defending these scumbags in the Senate here you are defending them once again. You’ve shot any integrity you thought you had in the foot with this tripe my friend. The problem is not only have you been attempting to deceive us you have also agreed with these 47 Senators doing the work of the extremist in Israel. You have sid with the war mongers based upon misinformation. Like lemmings over the edge of the cliff you have fallen into the kool aid without questioning your movement leaders. You have fallen for and tried to parrot each and every excuse the extremist have used to keep the followers in line. All but one. you must have missed Ted Cruz telling us he was helping the negotiations by signing the foolish letter.

The truth is they are working for a foreign government KAP, the Senators we elected have been bribed by far right extremist in Israel to do their bidding here in our country.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 18, 2015 2:00 AM
Comment #390618

Our President has exhibited the intention of not using religious ideology to dictate foreign policy. His approach to the negotiations has been for the most part a secular approach to determining a way forward. He has the ability to do this and is using that. I don’t doubt that there may be just as many people who believe he is Christian as there are people who believe him to be Muslim. I really don’t care if he is Christian, Muslim or Pastafrarian.

He is attempting to negotiate policy in an area of the world that for over a thousand years has seen religious ideology dictate the actions of both sides. I believe he recognized that people like myself would say “Enough”. Now that we have two distinct religious ideologies at war with each other over and over again someone needs to try to say that.

These 47 senators are mired in the religious ideology that is fomenting the unrest in the Middle East. It was a very dumb position to take and could be a detriment to the negotiations. But I expect that our President will continue to use this approach. as the only alternative would be to take a side in the religious fervor of the moment in the Middle East. He will not submit to their religious ideologies and I respect him for that. The 47, well they will just have to live with the understanding that they are participating in the stupidity of religiousness in attempting to determine foreign policy.

Posted by: Speak4all at March 18, 2015 9:28 AM
Comment #390620

j2, What left wing media outlet did you get that from j2 bribed by rightwing extremist from Israel. LOLOLOL You are joking j2 ?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 18, 2015 10:15 AM
Comment #390622

” I really don’t care if he is Christian, Muslim or Pastafrarian.”

LOL…thanks for adding a new word to my vocabulary.

I find the liberal dislike for Israel interesting and telling. I will remind them that the non-Jewish citizens of Israel constitute about 25% of the population with 20% being Arabs.

“Arab Israelis have equal voting rights and their own political parties, serve on the Israeli Knesset, Cabinet, and Supreme Court; hold diplomatic positions; actively participate in the Israeli music and arts scene; and represent Israel on the national soccer team, including winning the Israeli national championship. They are granted all fundamental civil liberties, including freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly, and in fact enjoy more civil rights than Arabs living in any other Middle Eastern country. Israel is also the only country in the Middle East where Arab homosexuals can live without fear of prosecution, which is why many Palestinian gays have fled for Israel.”

http://www.arabisraeliconflict.info/arab-israel-facts/fact-2-arab-israeli-citizens

Here’s a challenge for my neoliberal friends. How many Jews are citizens in Arab countries?

Congratulations to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in winning a resounding victory in the Israeli election.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 18, 2015 12:25 PM
Comment #390623

RF, probably not many but that shouldn’t have any inclusion in determination of foreign policy by our country. We will not solve their religious problems we can only devise our foreign policy to negate their religious zealotry from entering into the discussion or decisions made.

I don’t have any dislike for Israel or any Arab nation beyond a belief that they should treat all of their citizens equally(which none do to my satisfaction). What I have is a mistrust of Israel that actually began when I served in the Navy and was directly involved with the USS Liberty recovery. Following that they used an American spy to gather all of our secrets for encryption communication that I had to use and swear my oath of secrecy to, that I still adhere to today. They should not be trusted and I won’t.

I do not use any reference to their faith to determine my support for either side and that is the way this country should design their foreign policy. Period.

Posted by: Speak4all at March 18, 2015 12:49 PM
Comment #390626

“their (Jewish) religious zealotry”

j2, I don’t understand. Twenty percent of the entire population of Israel are Arabs with full citizenship. What kind of “zealotry” is that again?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 18, 2015 1:10 PM
Comment #390628

RF, perhaps I misunderstood your response. I do not believe j2 referred to “their religious zealotry”, I did. And I said that in reference to both the Israelis and Arabs. The religious zealotry is rampant in both instances. Certainly not all of their citizens hold those beliefs but a lot of them hold their religious beliefs above their countries well being. We do not do that in the United States of America, we try to hold strict adherence to the separation of church and state and what they(the Israelis and Arabs) are building are governments based on religious beliefs. They will remain mired in their predicament until they realize that government is not a place for religious beliefs. And that is exactly what President Obama is attempting to get across to them and some people in this country too. It is a daunting task and I wish him all of the best in his attempts. I would not deny anyone their religious beliefs however I also do not want any of those beliefs to predicate government decisions.

Posted by: Speak4all at March 18, 2015 2:24 PM
Comment #390629

Speak writes; “…in the United States of America, we try to hold strict adherence to the separation of church and state and what they(the Israelis and Arabs) are building are governments based on religious beliefs.”

One should never write offhandedly about that which they have little knowledge.

Theocratic democracies struggle to balance religion and rights. Israel has an independent and powerful Supreme Court, a vibrant and vigorous press, a party system in which religious parties rarely capture more than a quarter of the seats, and a majority of citizens who describe themselves as “secular.”

Although Israel is a Jewish state it is definitely not ruled by priests and government definitely does not operate in the name of god. The PM and senior ministers in Israel today are not priests, and most are not even religious.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 18, 2015 2:43 PM
Comment #390630

Speaking of offhandedly and with little knowledge what do you think about the following:

“Both Judaism and Islam are religions based on rituals (‘works’ to use the Christian term) rather than faith. In this way these two religions are closer to each other than either is to Christianity.”

“Chief Rabbi Mordecai Eliahu and former Chief Ashkenazic and Rabbi Avraham Shapira have called for an Israeli state governed by Halakha in the same manner that Islamists have called for Islamic states to be governed by Shari’a, Islamic law. Each group goes so far as to say that, without their particularistic imprimatur, the state has no lawful authority. So far as they are concerned these are God’s laws, and when the state doesn’t live in accordance with the sacred law, state laws are not valid.”

Both quotes are from this link and there are more. There is a growing number of Israelis that want to establish a government based on “Halhaka” much like the Arabs strive to establish government based on “Shari’a”.

Do you think Fundamentalists in Israel that espouse a government based on “Halhaka” are as much in the wrong as Fundamentalists in Arab countries that espouse a government based on “Shari’a”? Or is one better than the other?

Posted by: Speak4all at March 18, 2015 3:13 PM
Comment #390643
j2, What left wing media outlet did you get that from j2 bribed by rightwing extremist from Israel. LOLOLOL You are joking j2

Oh KAP really! Why do you find it so hard to believe that your boy Sen. Cotton would be in cahoots with Netanyahu? Well do this for me, because lord knows you won’t see this on Fox, first look up the party that controls and just won re-election in Israel. You will discover it is the Likud party which is a far right extrei party. (In fact only a couple of theocratic parties are farther to the right than these guys.) But don’t believe me use your own unbiased sources. LOL

Next look up the PAC that is the source of funds for anything pro Israel. It is AIPAC BTW, American Israel Public Affairs Committee. It is the front for Likud in this country and its purpose is to bribe our representatives in government, yes KAP both repubs and dems, to well for one thing sign letters to the Iranians to thwart the ongoing negotiations. But don’t stop there look up what Cotton did first week as a Senator for these guys.

Now put first and next together and you have “bribed by right wing extremist from Israel”

I mean really! did you think the speech in front of Congress by Bibi about the Iranians and this letter were not related! LOL

So don’t laugh as if it is so far out of the ballpark KAP it is true. You just don’t hear about it from conservative propaganda sources that is why you find it so preposterous.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 18, 2015 9:04 PM
Comment #390644

j2, LOLOLOLOLOL You are funny. Bribed, now who’s on the KOOL AID.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 18, 2015 9:37 PM
Comment #390647

Rich Kapitan-
I’d be telling them, “Don’t do it you f***ing morons!”

It’s one thing to visit and talk with a foreign leader. There are any number of positions that can be taken. As long as you’re not doing Hanoi Jane fun and games with them, that’s alright.

But this? I’d have a hard time advising 47 Democratic senators to pull this ****, for all the reasons I’ve expressed already.

But then, I don’t think I’d have to. Most Democrats have the common sense not to put themselves in a position where they can be seen as selling out the nation’s interests to further those of their own party, and that’s what Republicans have done here. I don’t just disagree with their intent, I think their behavior is fricking moronic on the merits.

Royal Flush-
You guys are always inserting motivations that aren’t there. You don’t even ask the simple question: who would benefit, politically, if what you say Obama wants came to pass?

Not Obama. There’s no common sense way for Obama to win from Iran going nuclear. He does get credit, and win politically, if Iran doesn’t go Nuclear, agreeing to get its nuclear fuel from some other nation, rather than enriching it itself.

Yes, the 47 senators are heroic in your mind, because in your mind, the party politics matters more than America’s strength on its own. For you, the fact that you folks just humiliated this country in front of the international community, just said to one of our enemies that the only man in our government constitutionally allowed to negotiate is weaker than he seems, just flies over your head.

You’ve lost the ability to step outside of party politics and recognize outcomes that are objectively bad, no matter whether you’re talking about a Democrat or a Republican doing. Do you just enjoy undermining people’s faith in the word and character of America’s leaders?

And what victory exactly are we snatching defeat from? I know you guys are pros at doing that, so maybe your expertise matters here. You took the complete eviction of the Taliban and al-Qaeda and turned it into the chronic, enduring presence of both in that region of the world. You took an unquestionable military victory over Iraq, and turned it into an insurgency that almost lasted a decade, and whose ultimate result has been the rise of ISIS.

So, given all the experience you have of taking the strength and power of the United States of America and squandering it, tell us, what victory in Iran policy would you be looking to see? Can we isolate them entirely? No. Can we completely destroy their economy? Maybe, but that doesn’t seem to be catapulting the Ayatollahs out of office.

You people seem to want war, and if you don’t want that, I don’t know what the hell you want, and maybe you don’t either, other than to stand around and look tough because you say “no negotiations, no give and take.”

But to do that, the numbnuts in the Senate have publicly bashed the credibility of this country as a trustable partner in the negotiation. How, just how, does that benefit anybody here? Does it also occur to you that after 47 Republicans have done this, they’ve given up all rights to bash Democrats over going one or two at a time to just talk. They’ve actually, deliberately, tried to sabotage the sole, legitimate representative of this country to the international community in front of the whole world.

The fact that you did it out in the open no more mitigates things than streaking through a crowd mitigates indecent exposure, makes it better than just flashing a single person.

Oh, and Royal, Churchill never told the Germans not to trust Chamberlain. He told America and Europe not to trust Hitler. He warned his friends and allies, not his enemies and adversaries.

You talk about an oath to protect the United States of America from all enemies foreign and domestic, right? Except the content of the letter seems to aimed at protecting the Islamic State of Iran against our President. So, you’ve kind of gotten things backwards. They’ve sold this country’s interests out in order to get the kind of policy they want.

You know, for me, that makes it worse. That they have betrayed us just so they can have a war, or a state of adversarial silence, rather than being genuinely committed to a cause opposed to this country just casts what they did in an altogether more bitter light. They’ve put their politics above their nation’s standing in the world, the trust of world leaders in this nation’s word, and in the informal agreements we expect our friends and enemies alike to live by.

I’ve always believed that the objective must rule the subjective, the practical needs of our country must overrule the needs we might have to reach certain partisan goals and manifest our political philosophies.

Our politics is what we would LIKE to have. That must always bow to what we NEED to have, or this country is in trouble.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 19, 2015 11:01 AM
Comment #390648

Stephen, Democrats won’t do it until a Republican is in the W.H. Be more truthful. Democrats have done the same in the past. Maybe not on the scale of 47 but they have done the same. Democrats have common sense, get off the Kool Aide Stephen.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 19, 2015 12:08 PM
Comment #390649

Mr. Daugherty asks…”And what victory exactly are we snatching defeat from?”

In the decade since the UN Security Council imposed sanctions, Iran’s economy is in shambles, the citizens are not happy with the leadership and they have come to the bargaining table. That’s victory.

The purpose of the sanctions was to punish Iran for its failure to open its nuclear program for inspection to prevent it acquiring nuclear weapons and a delivery system for them.

My understanding of the proposed agreement is to allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons at some point. That’s defeat.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 19, 2015 12:54 PM
Comment #390655

“When they sign the deal, that will be the beginning of new negotiations, because Iran will violate the agreement before the ink is dry and then we’ll be back at the table,” Bolton said. “I wouldn’t trust these people with a spare electron.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/19/iran-deal-would-reportedly-ease-sanctions-immediately-allow-nuclear-enrichment/

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 19, 2015 4:54 PM
Comment #390656
My understanding of the proposed agreement is to allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons at some point. That’s defeat.

You are terribly ill-informed. From day 1, President Obama has made it clear that an Iranian nuclear weapon will never be tolerated. This doesn’t mean Iran cannot develop civilian nuclear technology such as medical or electricity, but it must do so under supervision by outside inspectors.

You are right that the sanctions have worked to slow the Iranian nuclear program and that the election of a moderate cleric instead of the radical firebrand like Ahmadinejad is a direct consequence of the sanctions’ impact on the Iranian economy. However, sanctions alone will not prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon, they can only delay it. If you are a proponent of the notion that Iran should be able to obtain nuclear weapons at some point, by all means oppose the agreement that is being hashed out.

However, if you want to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, this deal is probably your best shot at achieving that goal. Rumors indicate that Iran’s ability to enrich uranium will be limited and monitored extensively for at least 10 years. After that point, Iran will be subject to the same limitations and monitoring imposed upon other signatories of the NPT. If Iran violates any of these terms, there’s nothing preventing the reimposition of economic sanctions.

The real tragedy with the letter penned by Tom Cotton is that it is that letter that is more likely to cause defeat to be snatched from the jaws of victory. Given the history of US-Iran relations, Iran has much reason to doubt that the US would abide by the deal to be signed. Iran runs a real risk of unilaterally shutting down its nuclear weapons program only to be greeted with little or no change of economic sanctions. In order to achieve the best possible deal, US negotiators need to convince their Iranian counterparts that the chance of this sort of betryal happening is zilch. However, Senator Cotton and his 46 friends have just given the Iranians 47 reasons think otherwise.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 19, 2015 5:30 PM
Comment #390657

Rich KAPitan-
So, when you say, “Get off the Kool aide,” you’re essentially saying, “stop believing this so strongly, because reasons”

No. I am not impressed by the beverage you have offered me, argument-wise. I shall continue to drink from the cup that is given me by the facts.

Were this Democrats doing this, they’d probably lose an entire election over it. But they don’t do this, don’t give nickels worth of free advice to our foreign adversaries with the intention of undermining our nation’s sole head of state in his current negotiations, because they know for sure they’d get a lot of flack for doing that.

And that’s one reason why Democrats have screwed up far fewer things as of late. Not that we’re perfect, but in fact that we know we’re not, that we know we’re vulnerable. Republicans think they can’t lose, and the Tea Party Win hasn’t helped them with their sense of humility.

Republicans need to realize that they can lose, and have themselves to blame, or otherwise, they’re going to try even worse **** than this.

Royal Flush-
If we just wanted to ruin Iran, we’d bomb them into the pavement. The point of sanctions is to prompt repentance. When repentance is shown, you lift sanctions, reward positive behavior. When bad behavior is shown again, sanctions go back. Victory isn’t Iran in shambles, it’s Iran compliant with international law, moderating its worst tendencies, and gradually normalizing and democratizing to become a modern, peaceful nation.

That’s the thing, really. You only see victory in destruction. But people living in destruction see their own defeat, and feel it necessary to strike back. Witness Germany, post WWI.

America hasn’t had to return to put Germany and Japan in their place, in part, because we managed a recovery from despotism for them. Sanctions has been our offense against them, and it seems now they’re ready to come to the table. If we want to complete our victory on this matter, on detering nuclear proliferation, then Iran has to willingly give up Nukes in order to take up economic growth.

As for Bolton? God. You guys are great at doubting, great at eliminating alternatives before they’re even considered, but lousy at actually doing things yourselves. Ironically, you even make excuses by citing the other side’s performance, when you were hindering that, too, at the time. We actually managed to pass one budget, before Republicans decided to filibuster the other one so they could threaten to shut down the government when the time came to work things out.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 19, 2015 5:40 PM
Comment #390658

Warren writes; “If Iran violates any of these terms, there’s nothing preventing the reimposition of economic sanctions.”

How naive. Do you actually believe that we will ever again find the UN Security Council willing to reimpose sanctions on Iran? There isn’t a snowball’s chance in Hell you would get the Chinese and Russians back on board.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 19, 2015 5:42 PM
Comment #390659

I’m talking about US sanctions. Russian and China are going to probably lift their sanctions even in the absence of a deal.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 19, 2015 5:46 PM
Comment #390660

I’m talking about US sanctions. Russian and China are going to probably lift their sanctions even in the absence of a deal.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 19, 2015 5:46 PM
Comment #390661

I’m talking about US sanctions. Russian and China are going to probably lift their sanctions even in the absence of a deal.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 19, 2015 5:47 PM
Comment #390662

Daugherty: “Victory isn’t Iran in shambles, it’s Iran compliant with international law, moderating its worst tendencies, and gradually normalizing and democratizing to become a modern, peaceful nation.”

You wouldn’t recognize victory if it rose up and bit you in the ass.

Only a naive twit would trust Iran to keep any agreement. They have thwarted 12 years of UN Security Council resolution, they have not allowed meaningful inspections, they have greatly increased their ability to produce bomb quality nuclear material, their missal technology is becoming dangerous to the world, and they continue to avow the destruction of Israel.

The left approaches this proposed agreement with Iran in the same backward way it approaches illegal immigration.

Common sense tells us that we close the border first, and then negotiate. Common sense tells us that Iran must allow total inspection, destroy their bomb making capability, and then we negotiate normalizing relations.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 19, 2015 5:57 PM
Comment #390663

Russian and China are going to probably lift their sanctions even in the absence of a deal.
Posted by: Warren Porter at March 19, 2015 5:46 PM

Please link to the source of your comment.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 19, 2015 6:06 PM
Comment #390664

Stephen, What those 47 Senators did was dumb, but please don’t hand me the BULLS**T that your precious democrats haven’t done similar acts, in fact one of those democrats is now Sec. of State. So again get off the Kool Aide.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 19, 2015 6:27 PM
Comment #390665

Always so much hypocrisy and circular logic, it’s hard to choose where to begin. For someone who supposedly taught constitutional law, it is amazing how little it is understood, and those that defend those constitutional violations find themselves digging a very deep hole….especially after the in-party becomes the out-party. Some hypocrites find it so easy to forget their prior positions. That’s what happens when a person has no real moral compass.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the FOR-SALE, corrupt government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, perhaps until it finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 19, 2015 6:35 PM
Comment #390667
The administration thinks that if the United States gets the blame for using hardball tactics that derail talks — if, say, Congress imposes more sanctions, as administration critics want — there is no way its international partners would keep existing sanctions in place, let alone double down and impose new ones.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/16/politics/iran-talks-nuclear-deal/

Moreover, many Iranians expect that both Russia and China would provide escape routes for Iran, either by publicly disavowing the sanctions—if, in their view, the West was at fault for the failure—or by quietly circumventing them, for both economic and strategic interests.

http://carnegieendowment.org/2014/11/13/what-iran-would-do-without-nuclear-deal

Do you honestly think Russia has an ounce of respect for international law? They are desperate for international commerce after the West imposed sanctions a year ago. Even if the sanctions against Iran remain in effect on a nominal basis, I am pretty sure Russia will violate them every opportunity it gets.

China on the other hand, could go either way.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 19, 2015 9:19 PM
Comment #390670
Common sense tells us that Iran must allow total inspection, destroy their bomb making capability, and then we negotiate normalizing relations.

Royal, how has this “capitulate before we negotiate” strategy worked for conservatives so far? Seems to me it hasn’t. It hasn’t worked when you guys shut down the government or any of the other conservative embarrassments in the last 7 years. Shouldn’t reality have a place in your negotiation strategy?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 20, 2015 9:57 AM
Comment #390672

Warren writes; “Do you honestly think Russia has an ounce of respect for international law?”

Of course I don’t. Do you honestly think Iran has an ounce of respect for international law?

The two links you provided were an interesting read on liberal thinking. No facts were presented, just musings.

Both articles believe that obama desperately needs a successful agreement with Iran because of his lackluster performance in foreign affairs.

Removing a little tarnish from the presidents lack of success in the Middle East, and other parts of the world, is not a reason for the US to sign on to a bad deal.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 20, 2015 11:49 AM
Comment #390673

j2, I believe the Republicans are mostly responsible for obama being able to brag about lessening our deficit.

Given the lefts penchant for spending, without Republican brakes the national debt would be closer to $20 Trillion.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 20, 2015 11:52 AM
Comment #390674

Can anyone on the left explain to us how the “fairy dust” works with a new Iranian agreement?

So far, Iran has failed to meet the requirements of over a decade of UN Security Council mandates.

Please convince us that they will honor any agreement we sign with them.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 20, 2015 11:56 AM
Comment #390675
Please convince us that they will honor any agreement we sign with them.

Royal why not convince us the “capitulate before we negotiate” strategy would work any better than having UN inspectors in place to monitor the Iranians.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 20, 2015 1:36 PM
Comment #390676

The agreement will lower the number of centrifuges and limit the Iranians to the relatively primitive first generation ones they have right now. If the Iranians went all out, it is estimated they could be two months from starting to build a bomb. The agreement will push that time line to four months. The terms of verification are crucial, of course.

The Iranians will do what is in their own self-interest. It is in their self-interest to not build a bomb because of the international cooperation that has made the sanctions work so well; plus, oil prices have hurt them a great deal.

In the end, the negotiations may fail, or they may decide to build a bomb anyway. They will do what is in their own self-interest. It is better right now to take advantage of the situation created by sanctions, low oil prices, and the threat of ISIS, and convince them cooperation is better than confrontation, and that they have more to gain by doing without a nuclear weapon.

They are already working with us against ISIS.

It is worth a try.

Posted by: phx8 at March 20, 2015 1:43 PM
Comment #390677

Royal why not convince us the “capitulate before we negotiate” strategy would work any better than having UN inspectors in place to monitor the Iranians.
Posted by: j2t2 at March 20, 2015 1:36 PM

The answer to your question is contained in your question. If Iran capitulates and honors the demands of the UN Security Council, full and complete inspection would be allowed and no negotiation necessary.

With the mandates of the UN having been satisfied, sanctions would be lifted, as they were imposed by the UN to achieve that very goal.

New negotiations merely indicates to Iran that they can ignore the UN resolutions and be rewarded. The Iranians understand that by merely signing a piece of paper they can have sanctions eased. The paper will be worthless of course, and full inspections will again be denied.

What do we do then? We may reimpose sanctions, but it would be naive to believe we could get the UN Security Council to act again with sanctions.

Iran wins…we lose.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 20, 2015 1:52 PM
Comment #390678

It was written that Iran has relatively primitive first generation centrifuges. And yet, it is estimated they could be two months from starting to build a bomb.

Primitive…Really?

Is the writer above suggesting that an agreement with Iran will make their existing “primitive” abilities even more primitive?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 20, 2015 2:05 PM
Comment #390679

Yes, primitive. Newer generations of centrifuges process more fissile material quicker than the ones the Iranians have now. In addition, an agreement would reduce the stockpile of low-enriched uranium from 8,000 kg down to only 1,000 kg.

Correction to my earlier comment: reducing the Iranian stockpile of low-enriched uranium would drive the time they need to build a bomb from the current 2 - 3 months up to one year.

Posted by: phx8 at March 20, 2015 3:20 PM
Comment #390680

“In addition, an agreement would reduce the stockpile of low-enriched uranium from 8,000 kg down to only 1,000 kg”

So Iran, who ignored or refused previous agreements in order to build a 8,000 kg stockpile, will take that stockpile down to 1,000 kg under this agreement?
Do I have that right, Phx8?

Posted by: kctim at March 20, 2015 4:24 PM
Comment #390681

I will ask again…”Is the writer above suggesting that an agreement with Iran will make their existing “primitive” abilities even more primitive?”

Tim…I know, it boggles the mind.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 20, 2015 4:45 PM
Comment #390682

RF,
There is a wonderful tool available for accessing information on the internet. Not only do you have a computer, but you can actually use it to search for information! Yes! It is true!

Give it at try. Type “www.google.com”

Next, type in a subject; say, ‘Iran nuclear talks’

Look at all the information! Instead of asking tedious questions again and again, you can look it up!

You CAN do it, little engine! You just have to try…

Posted by: phx8 at March 20, 2015 5:08 PM
Comment #390683

phx8, LOLOLOLOLOL, Do you really think Iran is going to abide by any agreement? LOLOLOL

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 20, 2015 5:09 PM
Comment #390684

What a silly answer to a question. How can I discover what a writer means by Goggling? Do I Google the writers WB handle? OH, wait, I know…I Google phTwit.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 20, 2015 5:42 PM
Comment #390685

I agree Rich, these lefties are truly laughable as they try to parse their way out of stupid comments.

When it comes to obama…they all “assume the position”. My Army friends will understand my meaning.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 20, 2015 5:46 PM
Comment #390686

So will this Navy vet. R.F.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 20, 2015 5:49 PM
Comment #390689

Here’s a link to the 1948 Declaration of Israeli Independence. Very interesting and unlike anything found in the Arab world.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-israel/

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 20, 2015 6:37 PM
Comment #390690

Big news coming out of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW).

“CSW ends its annual meeting on Friday, March 20 by condemning only one of the 193 UN member states for violating women’s rights – Israel.

…there no possibility that the UN Commission on the Status of Women will criticize Iran, Iran is an elected member of CSW. Sudan – whose president has been indicted for genocide and crimes against humanity – is currently a CSW Vice-Chair.

Read more.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/03/19/top-violator-women-rights-around-world-it-israel-says-un/

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 20, 2015 6:56 PM
Comment #390693

This reminds me of the run-up to the Invasion of Iraq. Conservative Republicans and right wing Israelis are agitating for war. Just as we could not trust Saddam Hussein back then, even with weapons inspectors literally in-country, today we can not trust the Iranians, regardless of the negotiated terms. We are urged to ignore allies such as France, the UK, and Germany, just as the same conservatives disparaged any allies who would not go along with the seemingly imminent need to invade Iraq “before the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud.” And conservatives have no intention of thinking beyond what would happen if negotiations fail.

Did anyone learn anything from 2003?

Posted by: phx8 at March 20, 2015 9:40 PM
Comment #390754

phx8, Negotiations won’t fail. There may be a deal, BUT will Iran abide by the deal and that is a big BUT. Iran wants the BOMB period, deal or no deal they will get a BOMB. Primitive or not it still will make A BIG BANG. The only war cries are the ones coming out of your key board not from any Republicans.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 20, 2015 10:40 PM
Comment #390764

KAP,
From Reuters:
“Iran has continued to meet its commitments under an interim nuclear agreement with six world powers, a confidential United Nations nuclear agency report seen by Reuters showed on Friday.
The monthly update by the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran was not enriching uranium above a fissile concentration of 5 percent. It also said Iran had not made “any further advances” in its activities at two enrichment facilities and a heavy water reactor under construction.

Under the November 2013 accord between Iran and the United States, France, Germany, Russia, China and Britain, the Islamic Republic halted its most sensitive nuclear activity and took other steps in exchange for some easing of economic sanctions.”

Earlier in the thread I used the word ‘primitive’ and this seemed to cause some confusion. I was referring to the first generation centrifuges currently used by Iran. Compared to follow-on generations of centrifuges, these first generation ones are primitive.

Building a nuclear weapon is a very challenging undertaking. Will Iran go ahead and build one eventually? I don’t know. Nuclear proliferation in that part of the world is a big concern for every country in the region. It would be better if Iran could be stopped through peaceful negotiations. It would be helpful if Republicans would stop talking bombing them.

Congressman Louis Gohmert said this yesterday:

“It’s time to bomb Iran.”

Of course, Gohmert didn’t stop there:

“I’m hoping and praying the president will realize, despite the agenda he has that has put Christians in jeopardy around the world, that he will not want to leave the Democratic Party so devastated that they won’t recover for many decades…”

And in case you were still uncertain whether this guy is completely crazy:

“I’m just grateful that Netanyahu had announced there will be no two-state solution because, as you mentioned, Joel Rosenberg, he loves to point out in his favorite book, Joel, that Chapter 3, God says I am going to bring down judgment on nations that divide Israel. So I’d kind of hate to be a part of the nation that divides Israel.”

And by the way, Netanyahu was lying. He came out against the two-state solution right before the election in Israel, and now says he is in favor of it after all.

Posted by: phx8 at March 20, 2015 10:52 PM
Comment #390794

phx8, One man says bomb Iran, so that means we are going to war? Netanyahu wants a 2 state solution on his terms not Obama’s. Most of the Middle Eastern countries would blow Israel off the map if they could and that is fact and you know that. Keep believing that Iran will honor any negotiation agreement and I’ll sell you Beach Front Property in the North Pole.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 20, 2015 11:16 PM
Comment #390795

The intransigence of Israel on not only the Iran issue but also the Palestinian two state solution is a major obstacle to reducing violence but also to the development of productive self sustaining partnerships in the region.

This conflict between the US and Israel with regard to the settlements and their negative impact on land designated for a Palestinian state is not new.

The most direct and overt statements of US policy disagreements and threat of sanctions came during the GH Bush administration. Secretary Baker was publicly incensed that the Israelis continued their settlement expansions in an effort to de fadto scuttle the proposed Palestinian state, He famously said to the Israelis “Everybody over there should know that the telephone number is 1-202-456-1414; when you’re serious about peace, call us.”

In a recent article Baker advocates that the Obama administration take a harder line on the settlements, “Baker: I don’t fault President Obama for making settlements an issue, but I do fault him for caving in. You can’t take a position that is consistent with U.S. policy going back many years, and the minute you get push-back you soften your position. When you are dealing with foreign leaders, they can smell that kind of weakness a thousand miles away. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have long endorsed the U.S. policy that settlements are an obstacle to peace. If “land for peace” is the path to a resolution, then settlements clearly create facts on the ground that foreclose the possibility of negotiations”

Obama should take a clue from Bajer and clearly delineate US committment to a two state solution and put clear sanctions and pressures to eliminate the settlements obstructing the two state plan.


Posted by: Rich at March 20, 2015 11:40 PM
Comment #390796

Royal, How do you plan to coerce Iran into capitulating before negotiations begin? You talk about fairy dust but then you seem to think it is fairy dust that is needed to get Iran to capitulate. Don’t you think if Iran was ever going to capitulate they would have done so by now? How do you intend to force these guys into capitulation without war as the hammer?

Lets remember it is the same crew that told us we needed to invade Iraq to get those WMD’s that are behind this rush to war with Iran. The problem we have is many conservatives continue to drink the kool aid these war mongers serve up. Yet KAP and Royal both deny war is the plan. Royal has the nerve to talk fairy dust with nothing to back up his capitulate before we negotiate strategy.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 20, 2015 11:43 PM
Comment #390797
Iran Removed From Terror Threat Report As Obama Negotiates Nuclear Deal

Once again conservatives believe the propaganda they are fed without using one iota of critical thinking skills, they just swallow blindly anything they are told. The sad thing is they want us to take them seriously, but with so much misinformation how can we?


http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/20/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-says-barack-obama-took-iran-hamas-us-te/

Posted by: j2t2 at March 21, 2015 12:05 AM
Comment #390798

j2, The only problem is the “Chicken Littles” like you who run around crying the Sky is Falling every time someone calls your Liberal Bluff. No One is advocating going to war except you and phx8. If you believe Iran will honor the terms of any deal, I’ll sell you some of that same Beach Front Property up at the North Pole.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 21, 2015 12:06 AM
Comment #390799

KAP, ain’t nothing bout the sky falling my friend. How do you propose to get the Iranians to capitulate before they negotiate without the use of force?

You tell us about the beach front property you have for sale, (which means you must have bought it at one time, BTW, probably WMD’s in Iraq) but you also tell us Iran won’t honor any deal yet you criticize what the 5+1 are doing. So what is your answer as you claim war isn’t on the conservative table.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 21, 2015 9:36 AM
Comment #390800

NEWS FLASH j2, They are already having a war in the area. Iran is the main instigator for the fighting in the area. Maybe you should read what Petraus has said about what is going on ISIS is not the problem Iran is.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 21, 2015 11:26 AM
Comment #390801

No I haven’t bought any property there j2, I’m just a real estate agent selling to suckers who believe the MSM and the BS they peddle.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 21, 2015 11:28 AM
Comment #390802

Kap,

“If you believe Iran will honor the terms of any deal, I’ll sell you some of that same Beach Front Property up at the North Pole.”

Human beings will generally rise to the level of trust they are afforded.
You and your compatriots have stated you don’t trust Iran. Well, thanks to the erstwhile Mr. Cotton, Iran and not more than a few of the other players in this drama probably don’t trust us either.

We have nothing to lose. Throughout this whole sanctions thing the world has still been supplying Iran with foodstuffs and agricultural equipment.

Wasn’t it Saint Ronnie that said “trust but verify”?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 21, 2015 2:06 PM
Comment #390803

Royal has the nerve to talk fairy dust with nothing to back up his capitulate before we negotiate strategy.
Posted by: j2t2 at March 20, 2015 11:43 PM

What has brought them kicking and screaming to the negotiation table has been UN Security Council sanctions and world opinion. The strategy is simple. Stop or delay the negotiations until they have complied with those resolutions.

I have compared this strategy with our illegal alien problem. The left wants a grand bargain before the underlying problem is solved.

Close the border and then negotiate what to do with illegals already here.

Keep the sanctions in place until Iran complies and then negotiate.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 21, 2015 2:12 PM
Comment #390804

Iran Removed From Terror Threat Report As Obama Negotiates Nuclear Deal

j2t2, here’s a link to the Worlwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community. Read it from the official source.

www.dni.gov/files/…/Unclassified_2015_ATA_SFR_-_SASC_FINAL.pdf

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 21, 2015 2:33 PM
Comment #390805

Wasn’t it Saint Ronnie that said “trust but verify”?

Rocky
Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 21, 2015 2:06 PM

Glad you mentioned President Reagan. When Iran allows the verification required in the UN Security Council resolutions we will trust them more.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 21, 2015 2:38 PM
Comment #390806

Honestly, I am totally baffled by the left’s position on dealing with Iran. What has been done by the UN for over a decade has worked. The Iranians have come to the table. All that remains is for them to abide by the resolutions and the sanctions will be lifted.

We don’t need any new negotiations. All that is needed is already in place. Why in the world does the left want to negotiate a winning hand? What we already have in place is much more effective than anything Kerry and company will achieve.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 21, 2015 2:45 PM
Comment #390807

Rocky they want us and Israel DEAD.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 21, 2015 5:36 PM
Comment #390808

KAP,

“Rocky they want us and Israel DEAD.”

Who is “they”?

The government of Iran, the people, who?

As for Israel, every country in the Middle East has said they want to destroy Israel, every one of “them”.

Regimes change, as of now Israel still exists, and, last I checked Israel has done a pretty damn good job of taking care of themselves.

Iran has been two years away from having a nuclear weapon for the last twenty years.

We’re still alive, and Israel is still alive. Iran still doesn’t have a nuclear weapon, and won’t have one any time soon.

What’s your point?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 22, 2015 12:14 AM
Comment #390809

Rocky, Iran, Isis, Hesbola, and all the rest of the Rogue factions in the area. I know your not that stupid Rocky to realize that Iran is not going to abide by any agreement or are you?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 22, 2015 9:23 AM
Comment #390810

Part of the problem we have in dealing with nuclear weapons and Iran is the double standard we have when it comes to weapons of mass destruction. We pick on Iran for not living up to the UN resolutions but we allow both Israel an ourselves a pass on having nuclear weapons. Yet according to the UN we, the US and Israel should be disarming. Now if you were calling the shots in Iran would you be comfortable with Israel having WMD’s but not Iran?

IMHO the first step in this ongoing issue would be to have Israel disarm.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 22, 2015 12:11 PM
Comment #390811

KAP,

“I know your not that stupid Rocky to realize that Iran is not going to abide by any agreement or are you?”

I am pretty certain that Iran didn’t agree to abide by the sanctions placed on them in the first place. Not by the UN and certainly not by the US, dating back to the Carter Administration.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the man we loved to hate, is no longer the President of Iran. He was replaced two years ago by the more moderate Hassan Rouhani, who, BTW, has a PhD in Constitutional law from the Glasgow Caledonian University in Scotland. He has been Iran’s leading diplomat for decades.

As I said before, regimes change.

Sooner or later if our intention is to bring a more moderate Iran back into the world community we will have to take them at their word. Under the agreement being negotiated at this time, including inspections, sanctions can be re-instated if Iran doesn’t live up to the agreement.

If they do we win, if they don’t nothing has really changed.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 22, 2015 1:02 PM
Comment #390812

Regimes change but not Iatolas and their ideology. The Iatola(However it’s spelled) is really in control and if he is a radical you can guess what happens, Rocky. If Hassan Rouhani is really in control Why didn’t things change 2 years ago? By the way Obama was a constitutional professor and we all know what is going on there. So Rouhani can have all the Phd’s he wants, that and $2.00 can buy him a beer in most bars.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 22, 2015 1:19 PM
Comment #390813

Kap,

You don’t even bother to address the question of re-instating the sanctions.

Oh, and BTW, how can we expect to spread democracy if we can only barely “agree to disagree” amongst ourselves without all the rancor that has taken place here in this country for the last twenty years?

The far right wants it’s way period.

We’re done.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 22, 2015 1:52 PM
Comment #390814

Rocky, If Rouhani really wanted to negotiate to get the sanctions lifted he would have done it 2 years ago when he became President of Iran if he is such a conservative as you make him out to be. Of course sanctions and other things could be reinstated if they don’t comply, but the question is Why now and not 2 years ago? The far right wants it’s way, piss poor excuse Rocky!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 22, 2015 2:10 PM
Comment #390815

KAP,

If you can’t bother to stay informed then what exactly is the point of discussion?

The negations did start in 2013, right after Rouhani was elected.

Inform yourself, you’d be amazed at what is going on in the world.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 22, 2015 2:21 PM
Comment #390816

In secret Rocky that is why I didn’t know.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 22, 2015 2:38 PM
Comment #390817

Sorry KAP, the secret has been out for quite a while.

I knew because I looked it up before the discussion. It’s only been in the news ad nauseam because of Cotton’s screw-up.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 22, 2015 2:43 PM
Comment #390818

Royal Flush-
Expectations? In diplomacy, you don’t go in with expectations. You prepare yourself for whichever eventuality comes your way.

I’m quite able to believe they might break the deal. Very well, we go back. I’m also willing to believe that their newer generations are less interested in anti-west, anti-American rhetoric, less interested in the rule of the Ayatollahs, etc., and they could very well stick to the deal so they don’t put themselves in the Shah’s position of being pit against a younger generation that doesn’t want them in power anymore.

Or the result could be an intermediate kind, where the failure prompts Iran to see-saw back to a more reformist attitude.

What’s your alternative? Force, the threat of force? Sanctions forever? As usual, no exit strategy, no end game, just the sense that force or the threat of force will somehow magically solve everything.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 22, 2015 3:06 PM
Comment #390819

Mr. Daugherty, I stated my position and you know very well what I said. I will restate it since you appear to be either reading or memory challenged.

“We don’t need any new negotiations. All that is needed is already in place. Why in the world does the left want to negotiate a winning hand? What we already have in place is much more effective than anything Kerry and company will achieve.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 22, 2015 3:47 PM
Comment #390820

The Ongoing Collapse of Obama-Hillary ‘Smart Power’ Foreign Policy

“You’ll recall that under the Assad/Putin/Kerry deal, Syria was to fully disarm itself of banned WMDs in order to avoid military reprisals. Not only did they utterly fail to do so, they’ve now crossed yet another “red line” by repeatedly deploying the weapons they supposedly discarded. The consequences for this lawless butchery? A seat a the negotiating table. Sec. Kerry went from calling Assad a modern day Hitler to insisting that we must negotiate with him (Hillary infamously dubbed him a “reformer”). Consider that Mr. Kerry is at present leading a much higher-stakes negotiations with Iran.”

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/03/20/updates-obamahillary-smart-power-foreign-policy-collapsing-everywhere-n1973794

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 22, 2015 4:38 PM
Comment #390821

Rocky, Why would I not be surprised at secret negotiations going on with this administration. For someone who is supposedly transparent there sure is a lot of secrecy going on. My question Rocky Why did they have to be secret about it for 2 years? I wonder what Obama has been caving about and promising Iran? Transparent, That’s a laugh.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 22, 2015 7:07 PM
Comment #390823

That’s just lame pal.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 22, 2015 8:59 PM
Comment #390824

Not as lame as 2 years of secret negotiations, Rocky.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 22, 2015 10:50 PM
Comment #390828

Royal Flush-
Oh, I see. So, the Republican efforts to create a stable Democracy in Iraq were successful, provided we keep our troops their forever. Oh, and without a status of forces agreement, which the Prime Minister of the country was against renewing. Funny that Maliki no longer wanted to keep American forces in Iraq. Didn’t they love us there?

The situation in Iraq comes from the fact we broke the civil order, and never successfully replaced it with something that would organically flow from the citizens of the country, from the political organizations they would willingly maintain.

You say we don’t need any new negotiations in Iran. Look, we used the Stuxnet malware to bust a whole lot of their centrifuges. But why did we have to do that? Because the Bush policy basically failed to stop them from developing the program and attaining the technology. They can’t prevent them from getting nuclear material, because they’ve got the tenth largest mine within their own borders.

That’s why we’re negotiating, because the status quo your people left us with isn’t working, and it’s time to stabilize the region, something we unfortunately can’t do without Iran, since we busted Iraq up.

And as for Libya? Look, you guys have obsessed over Benghazi, one attack, and in your quest to deal with that, completely forgotten about everything else, and distracted the nation from doing much about it. You want to keep that witchhunt up, because you want that oval office.

You put your political ambitions ahead of common sense and competence for years. Why should now be any different?

Rich KAPitan-
Deal-making in business and diplomacy alike often involves the back and forth volleys of offers, of concessions demanded and made. Folks need to save face for the concessions they make, or be able to argue they’re getting something in return. These things are sensitive, and if they have to answer for every little bit they give, nothing will get done. That is why we keep diplomatic cables secret. That is why diplomats speak in such hedged terms. The alternative is to end up with every little bump in the road sending you careening into the ditch.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 23, 2015 11:40 AM
Comment #390830

Daugherty writes; “That’s why we’re negotiating, because the status quo your people left us with isn’t working, and it’s time to stabilize the region…”

Silly Twit…this administration has been around for over six years and you’re still blaming Bush.

Sanctions are working, it has brought Iran to the table. It is now expected that obama/Kerry will forfeit all the effort to get them this far by caving to Iran.

Kerry is a buffoon (Kerry went from calling Assad a modern day Hitler to insisting that we must negotiate with him) who is following the orders of a man unable to devise a working strategy in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Hillary as SecState was a failure and Kerry is following in her incompetent footsteps.

This clown-administration is out of its depth.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 23, 2015 5:00 PM
Post a comment