Jump to content

Republicans write open letter to Iran undermining nuclear negotiations


Ben

Recommended Posts

Not sure about Rall but he might be good for a laugh. You know, the kind of laugh they had back in 1798 ? Probably one of few times I've heard Democrat and Republican mentioned in the same party... ( Democratic Republicans )

Just re-read the 1798 articles for reference. There are similarities to what is going on today but nothing as bad as the President's own Vice President being the instigator. Not sure how it would work to have someone like Rand Paul as Obama's Vice-President. Pretty sure there would be blood spilt in the white house.

In other words, Homer would you be our candidate ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine congress pulling this shit with Nixon in China or during Gorbachev's visit under Reagan.

In this case I think it's more about appeasing the Islamaphobia/xenophobia of their know-nothing constituents. I mean, fuck diplomacy, right? What we need is another war in the Mideast! Get too peaceful with Iran & next thing you know it's Sharia law in St Louis. Hey don't ask me what Sharia law is, I just know it's bad and nothing at all like not being able to buy liquor on Sunday or get married if you're gay or get an abortion because Bible.

Where'd all that "religious freedom" go? Hmm..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine congress pulling this shit with Nixon in China or during Gorbachev's visit under Reagan.
In this case I think it's more about appeasing the Islamaphobia/xenophobia of their know-nothing constituents. I mean, fuck diplomacy, right? What we need is another war in the Mideast! Get too peaceful with Iran & next thing you know it's Sharia law in St Louis. Hey don't ask me what Sharia law is, I just know it's bad and nothing at all like not being able to buy liquor on Sunday or get married if you're gay or get an abortion because Bible.
Where'd all that "religious freedom" go? Hmm..


Well said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are going to be fair...

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2561314

Here are just five examples.

1. That time "liberal lion" Ted Kennedy proposed a secret alliance with the Soviet Union to defeat President Ronald Reagan

A 1983 KGB memo uncovered after the fall of the Soviet Union described a meeting between former KGB officials and former Democratic Sen. John Tunney (Sen. Kennedy's confidant) in Moscow. Tunney asked the KGB to convey a message to Yuri Andropov, the Soviet leader, proposing a campaign in which Kennedy would visit Moscow to offer talking points to Andropov and Soviet officials on how to attack Reagan's policies to U.S. audiences. According to the memo, Kennedy, through the intermediary, offered to help facilitate a media tour in a proposed visit by Andropov to the U.S. Kennedy's hope, as conveyed by the letter, was to hurt Reagan politically on foreign policy at a time when the economic recovery was working in his favor.

2. "Dear Comandante"

In 1984, 10 Democratic lawmakers including the then majority leader and House Intelligence Committee chairman sent a letter to Nicaraguan Communist leader Daniel Ortega known as the "Dear Comandante" letter. In it, the lawmakers criticized Reagan's policy toward Nicaragua and whitewashed the record of violence by the Sandinista communists.

3. Pelosi visited Syrian ruler Bashar Assad

In 2007, newly elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. As the Associated Press reported at the time, "The meeting was an attempt to push the Bush administration to open a direct dialogue with Syria, a step that the White House has rejected."

4. Democrats visited Iraq to attack Bush's policy

As Stephen Hayes recounts: "In September 2002, David Bonior, the second-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, flew to Baghdad in an attempt to undermine George W. Bush's case for war in Iraq on a trip paid for by Saddam Hussein's regime. Bonior, accompanied by Reps. Jim McDermott and Mike Thompson, actively propagandized for the Iraqi regime. McDermott, asked whether he found it acceptable to be used by the Iraqi regime, said he hoped the trip would end the suffering of children. 'We don't mind being used,' he said."

5. Jimmy Carter tried to sabotage George H.W. Bush at the U.N.

On Nov. 20, 1990, as President George H.W. Bush gathered support to oppose Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait, the former Democratic President Jimmy Carter wrote a letter to nations who were in the U.N. Security Council trying to kill the administration's efforts. As Douglas Brinkley explained, Carter's letter was an attempt "to thwart the Bush administration's request for U.N. authorization of hostilities against Iraq. President Bush's criterion for proceeding with a war was the exhaustion of 'good faith talks,' and Carter placed his interpretation of that standard above the administration's."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im curious did any of them meet with defense contractors the very next day?


Certainly would be interesting to know. How many of the ones listed above are connected with Department of Defense ? In one way or another, they have some form of connection to defense whether it is intelligence, supply support, etc...

The above statement was just simply a nice way to say, when a political party thinks it's shit don't stink, it does stink.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=D

If these charts are correct, the Republican party did in fact receive more donations than the Democratic party in regards to the defense industry. This is also saying that the Democratic party did receive approximately two thirds or so of what the Republican party received.

In short, both parties Shit Stinks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, you guys! I'm a radical, which I suppose might mean that to some people I might be borderline seditious...

 

Jamie and I are thinking of starting a new party called the "Champeen Spelers Patry." It'll be a festive gathering that's half treason and half New Orleans music blowout:

 

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IydYLIsT9LA[/media]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are going to be fair...

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2561314
 

 

Thing with Tunney is shady, meeting with the KGB? Assuming that actually happened, and I'm skeptical as I can't help but note that every example there was a Democrat, but if so he probably should've been removed from office.

 

Beyond that, none of these are a branch of government writing a foreign leader during negotiations with the direct intent to undermine the authority of the President. Nice try, though.

 

That being said, maybe you can clarify your point?

 

It seems to me that it's either this is no big deal, which in the grand scheme of things I'd have to agree but I have to wonder if you'll feel the same way if your candidate gets elected and gets hamstrung by an openly-hostile Congress during their entire time in office?

 

Or, is your argument that someone got away with a thing that one time so it's not fair to criticize anyone else for it.  I hear that a lot & have to say it's bs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Dub. It's trying to present the flip side and show that no party is without fault. It's not that we can't criticize, we should and we should continue to criticize more often. Regardless of which party made the goof.

I try to be even handed about politics and religion. However, certain events within my life have colored my vision somewhat. I have been screwed over by both sides of the political community and desire a viable candidate who is not a Party President. Vote Homer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Beyond that, none of these are a branch of government writing a foreign leader during negotiations with the direct intent to undermine the authority of the President. Nice try, though.


I believe everyone of them could be considered a branch of government. Contacting openly hostile governments is not undermining ? My goal was not to convince you of anything but simply to give another view of the situation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The menage a trois of mistrust between the US, Iran and Israel is pretty breathtaking, some of it warranted, some of it not.

 

Still, SOME type of dialogue and SOME type of deal with a country we've not had diplomatic relations with in decades is SOME type of progress, no?

 

I do however have very little faith in the UN and the IAEA to be able to fulfill the inspection process over the long haul as I do believe Iran is trying as hard as it can to develop a nuclear option in order to reach a "mutually assured destruction" detente with Israel. 

 

Maybe we're keeping a Stuxnet-style attack in our back pocket to undermine Iran if we determine they aren't being legit on their end of the bargain.

 

Who knows. Ultimately the Middle East is a pretty fucked up and unstable place in some respects, not the least of which causes are the meddlings of foreign powers.

 

I've reached critical mass in my mind and would like to simply say fuck any country run by religious nutjobs, no matter the religion or where the country is on the globe, and that includes our "fundamentalist friends" in the Republican Party. Iran is also run by zealots, and so is Israel. There's no great outcome from that kind of governance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points, Bung. One thing, though. I was driving across town this am listening to some radio commentary about this deal and as always, no one seems to want to bring the Saudis into the equation. And I'm thinking that you can't explain anything in the Middle East very well--especially larger geopolitical strategy--without factoring their interests in, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points, Bung. One thing, though. I was driving across town this am listening to some radio commentary about this deal and as always, no one seems to want to bring the Saudis into the equation. And I'm thinking that you can't explain anything in the Middle East very well--especially larger geopolitical strategy--without factoring their interests in, too.

I certainly agree but their country is a fucked up place too, we only make nice with those rich asshole monarchy motherfuckers because of oil. They are just as religiously zealous in terms of governance as Iran is, maybe even moreso in terms of their lack of tolerance and failure of adoption of Westernized thinking as it pertains to scientific and technological development like Iran seems to be heading. Who knows, it's all a crazy geopolitical shell game of false stability.

 

I can't stand being allied with countries like this. Perhaps it's a necessity for our perceived global hegemony, but I hate it all the same, despite a seeming lack of good alternatives, which seems to be the rub therein. I don't have any answers, but this once again smacks of the outdated and historically obliterated policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

 

The Saudis aren't any different than the Iranians in terms of self interest, it's just that one side is "allied" with us and the other is not and likely never will be because of the elephant in the room, Israel (and I firmly believe the House of Saud would be just as happy if Israel ceased to exist as the Iranians would be). It's just a fucking mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I trust Iran about as much as I trust the Neo-cons to use the Iraq blueprint of "WMDs" to scare people into a war they want so they can put in their puppets to give us better oil prices than Iran might otherwise. Because lets face it our short term memory as a country is bad and so is our long term one, so using that Iraq blueprint would be easy to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points, Bung. One thing, though. I was driving across town this am listening to some radio commentary about this deal and as always, no one seems to want to bring the Saudis into the equation. And I'm thinking that you can't explain anything in the Middle East very well--especially larger geopolitical strategy--without factoring their interests in, too.

 

 

That's why I think the Neo-cons want war with Iran, tired of having to give the Saudi's a handjob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is Kermit Roosevelt when you need him ? :ninja:

This is a bad deal but it's the only one on the table. If there's no viable alternative for the issue, then it is all we have at this point.

Oh shit, that was funny, Numbers.

 

Best article I've read thus far. Escobar is a writer people should read on a regular basis even if they disagree with his outlook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would take some fine instrumentation to measure the difference in my levels of trust between Iran & the Royal House of Saud. 

 

I mean, at least Iran has been open in their hostility.  I probably don't need to elaborate when saying our relation with SA has been all sorts of duplicitous.

 

I'd be willing to bet that some of the same folks that signed this letter have Saudi oil money in the bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...