US |
Trump dumped from conservative event in Atlanta over 'inappropriate' comments
WASHINGTON |
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was dumped from a prime speaking role to an important gathering of conservative activists on Friday for his criticism of Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly after a combustible debate performance.
Trump was scheduled to deliver the keynote address on Saturday night at a conference in Atlanta organized by Red State, an influential conservative group.
Red State chief Erick Erickson said he had disinvited Trump from the event because of what he described as "demeaning" remarks about Kelly who was one of three moderators during the first major Republican debate on Thursday night in Cleveland.
"While I have tried to give him great latitude, his remark about Megyn Kelly was a bridge too far," Erickson said, adding he had invited Kelly, one of Fox's highest profile anchors, to attend his conference in Trump's place.
Trump was unbowed by the dumping.
"This is just another example of weakness through being politically correct," his campaign said in a statement.
"For all of the people who were looking forward to Mr. Trump coming, we will miss you. Blame Erick Erickson, your weak and pathetic leader. We'll now be doing another campaign stop at another location."
During the debate, Kelly asked Trump to respond to derogatory statements he had made in the past about women, calling them "fat pigs" for example. Trump tried to wave off the question and dismissed Kelly during a raucous debate performance.
"And honestly Megyn, if you don't like it, I'm sorry," Trump said. "I've been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be, based on the way you have treated me. But I wouldn't do that."
Erickson said in a Facebook statement that in a CNN interview Trump said of Kelly: "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever."
"His comment was inappropriate," said Erickson.
"It is unfortunate to have to disinvite him. But I just don't want someone on stage who gets a hostile question from a lady and his first inclination is to imply it was hormonal. It just was wrong," he said.
"He is not a professional politician and is known for being a blunt talker. But there are even lines blunt talkers and unprofessional politicians should not cross. Decency is one of those lines."
A variety of Republican presidential candidates have been speaking at the Red State gathering in Atlanta and Trump was scheduled for a prominent appearance.
Shortly before Erickson's statement, Trump's campaign had just put out a media advisory with the schedule for Trump's appearance.
The New York billionaire has been riding high in the polls in recent weeks as Republican search for their nominee to face the Democrats' choice in the November 2016 election.
Carly Fiorina, the business executive who is the only woman running for the Republican nomination and who spoke to Red State on Friday, applauded Trump's dumping.
"I stand with @megynkelly," she tweeted.
May God Bless America.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteTrump has proven himself to be a crude boor and petty tyrant. There is no way he should be on a debate stage running for president. When he doesn't go too far, as he did in his Megyn Kelly tweet, he can provide some entertainment value. What will be more interesting than Trump himself will be the public response to his act. I am waiting for the first polls to come out after the debate. They should tell us some important things about the American public.
As for Geller, as far as I know, no one denied her right to take the actions she did. What was questioned was her 'motives' for doing what she did. Naturally, she says she only did it to promote free speech and defend the 1st Amendment. Call me cynical but I think her motives go beyond mom and apple pie.
You should have the right to say what you please. That doesn't mean you should do it.
Just my opinion.
.
ReplyDeleteGen. Qassem Soleimani ignored a travel ban and UN sanctions and flew to Russia to meet with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and President Vladimir Putin
No worse than PM Netanyahu ignoring standard diplomatic political protocol and inserting his fat ass and big mouth before his supplicants in The US Congress.
ReplyDeleteExcept that Gen. Qassem Soleimani is labeled a terrorist by the world and is subject to UN sanctions.
DeleteSO your comparison is specious as usual.
As a matter of fact, that ought to be a reality check for the Conga Line that the World is already moving on without them and China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Latin America and the EU are dealing with an emergent Iran. The US can stick with The Colony Club with all the associated benefits which it derives from them, and await further instructions from Tel Aviv.
ReplyDeleteAs a matter of fact what the world does?
DeleteDoes not define right or wrong.
Supporting the normalization of the Islamic Nazis in Iran will end with people dying.
It doesn't matter. The Republican Party (and, about half of the Democrats) are addicted to violence, and feel out of sorts if the U.S. isn't at war with someone.
ReplyDeleteDo you actually stay sober to write this shit or do you jot it down while drunk?
DeleteThe worst Iranian group has not done anything close to the damage to the US as has been done by the slimeball outfit, Aipac and their client state, Israel. Not even close.
ReplyDeleteThe worst Iranian group has helped genocide almost 850,000 arabs..
DeleteAs for direct damage to Americans? I suggest you ask the victims of the liquid copper IED's how they feel....
Or the survivors of the Kobar Towers...
They're becoming exposed, though. Bullies, and tyrants will not fare well in the age of the Smartphone, Facebook, and Twitter.
ReplyDeleteReally?
DeleteTo whom are you referring?
JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS AUG. 7, 2015
ReplyDeletePresident Obama had a tough message for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, the powerful pro-Israel group that is furiously campaigning against the Iran nuclear accord, when he met with two of its leaders at the White House this week. The president accused Aipac of spending millions of dollars in advertising against the deal and spreading false claims about it, people in the meeting recalled.
So Mr. Obama told the Aipac leaders that he intended to hit back hard.
The next day in a speech at American University, Mr. Obama denounced the deal’s opponents as “lobbyists” doling out millions of dollars to trumpet the same hawkish rhetoric that had led the United States into war with Iraq. The president never mentioned Aipac by name, but his target was unmistakable.
The remarks reflected an unusually sharp rupture between a sitting American president and the most potent pro-Israel lobbying group, which was founded in 1951 a few years after the birth of Israel..
In a speech at American University on Wednesday, President Obama denounced opponents of the Iran deal as “lobbyists.” {Fucking A!}
Ronald Reagan opposed Aipac when he defied Israeli objections over the sale of Awacs reconnaissance planes to Saudi Arabia in 1981. A decade later, George H. W. Bush took on the group during a fight over housing loan guarantees for Israel, saying he was just “one lonely little guy” going up against a thousand lobbyists on Capitol Hill.
But the tone of the current dispute is raising concerns among some of Mr. Obama’s allies who say it is a new low in relations between Aipac and the White House. They say they are worried that, in working to counter Aipac’s tactics and discredit its claims about the nuclear accord with Iran, the president has gone overboard in criticizing the group and like-minded opponents of the deal.{Obama is using kid gloves instead of the brass knuckles they deserve}
“It’s somewhat dangerous, because there’s a kind of a dog whistle here that some people are going to hear as ‘it’s time to go after people,’ and not just rhetorically,” said David Makovsky, a former Middle East adviser for the Obama administration and now an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Studies. But Aipac’s claims, he said, had been just as overheated. “There’s almost a bunker mentality on both sides.”
Mr. Obama’s advisers strongly disputed the suggestion that he used coded language to single out Aipac when he said in his American University speech that “many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal.”
“This has nothing to do with anybody’s identity; this is a policy difference about the Iranian nuclear program,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications. “We don’t see this as us versus them,” Mr. Rhodes added, predicting that the White House and Aipac would work closely in the future on other matters, including Israeli security. “This is a family argument, not a permanent rupture.”
But for now, the struggle is critical for Mr. Obama, who regards the agreement — which lifts some sanctions against Iran in exchange for restrictions aimed at restraining its ability to obtain a nuclear weapon — as a landmark achievement. He is fighting to rally enough Democratic support to preserve the deal ahead of a September vote on it in the Republican-led Congress. Aipac is working to deny him that by leaning hard on Democrats, including Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, who on Thursday announced his opposition.
{...}
{...}
ReplyDeleteThe group had sent 60 activists to Mr. Schumer’s office to lobby him last week, while Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, an offshoot Aipac formed to run at least $25 million in advertising against the deal, ran television spots in New York City. As Mr. Schumer deliberated, he spoke with Aipac leaders, but also with representatives of the pro-Israel group J Street, which supports the deal.
The White House courted Mr. Schumer heavily even though officials always suspected he would oppose the agreement, they said Friday. “I don’t know if the administration’s been outlobbied,” Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said Thursday before Mr. Schumer’s announcement. “We certainly have been outspent.”
Besides individual meetings with Mr. Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and Wendy R. Sherman, the chief negotiator, Mr. Schumer had three hourlong meetings with members of the negotiating team, who answered 14 pages of questions from him.
Mr. Schumer hashed out further details with Mr. Kerry, Ms. Sherman and Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz in a recent dinner at the State Department. Mr. Obama, in the White House meeting with Aipac leaders, sharply challenged the group after one of its representatives, Lee Rosenberg, a former fund-raising bundler for Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign, said the administration was characterizing opponents of the deal as warmongers, according to several people present, who would speak about the private meeting only on the condition of anonymity. The meeting included some 20 leaders of other Jewish organizations.
“Words have consequences, especially when it’s authority figures saying them, and it’s not their intent, perhaps, but we know from history that they become manipulated,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, repeating a concern he had raised directly with Mr. Obama during the closed-door session. “Of all political leaders,” Mr. Hoenlein added, “he certainly should be the most sensitive to this.”
{...}
{...}
ReplyDeleteMr. Obama told the visitors he would be careful with his remarks, but quickly pointed out that Aipac was spending $20 million to campaign against the agreement and was sending hundreds of activists to Capitol Hill armed with what he called inaccuracies to persuade lawmakers to reject the deal. He complained about advertising that portrayed him as an appeaser by comparing him to Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who signed the Munich Agreement with Adolf Hitler in 1938.{ All the Neocons were parroting that}
Aipac says it is not behind those ads, and that its arguments with Mr. Obama are about the deal, not him. And the group denies it lobbied for the war in Iraq, on which it did not take an official position. “This critical national security debate is certainly not about an organization but rather about a deal which we believe will fail to block an Iranian nuclear weapon and will fuel terrorism,” said Marshall Wittmann, an Aipac spokesman. “We hope that all those who are engaged in this debate will avoid questioning motives and employing any ad hominem attacks.”
The friction between Mr. Obama and Aipac over the Iran deal has been building for months. Last week, as Mr. Obama made his way back from Africa on Air Force One, White House officials learned that Aipac would be flying 700 members from across the country to Washington to pressure their members of Congress to reject the deal. Mr. Obama’s team asked to brief the group at the White House, and was told instead to send a representative to the downtown Washington hotel where the activists were gathering before their Capitol Hill visits, according to people familiar with the private discussions.
Ms. Sherman; Adam J. Szubin, the Treasury official who handles financial sanctions; and Denis R. McDonough, the White House chief of staff, all made presentations to the group, but were barred from taking questions to further explain it. White House officials said they were told from the start there would be no questions, while Aipac supporters said that they would have allowed questions but that there was no time.
Whatever the case, Mr. Obama took offense and later complained at the White House to Aipac leaders that they had refused to allow Ms. Sherman and other members of his team to confront the “inaccuracies” being spread about the agreement, leaving him to defend the deal to wavering lawmakers who had been fed misinformation about it.
“You couldn’t miss the message that he was sending,” one person seated at the table said, “of, ‘That’s not O.K. with me, and it will be answered.’ ”
Aipac is the most odious and pernicious political pox on the US political system.
ReplyDeleteSo says you, a man who stands with Hamas and the mullah's of Iran...
DeleteNot the most credible of folks who criticize things...
Might I suggest you tell us when you are renouncing your US citizenship for an Iranian one?
Anti-War Donors Pledge To Withhold $8.3 Million In Potential Donations From Schumer, Iran Deal Opponents
ReplyDeleteMore than 17,000 MoveOn members have said they won't donate to anyone against the deal.,
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) preserved support from his hawkish pro-Israel base with his promise to vote down the Iran nuclear deal on Thursday night -- but will now have to answer to a group of anti-war liberal advocacy organizations who claim that Schumer’s opposition to the diplomatic accord with Iran renders him unfit for the role of the party’s leader in the Senate.
In less than 24 hours since Schumer’s announcement, 17,636 members of MoveOn, a progressive advocacy group, have committed to withhold $8.3 million they would have contributed to Schumer and other Democrats who oppose the Iran deal, the group told The Huffington Post on Friday.
Huffington Post
DeleteNetanyahu and His Marionettes
DeleteBenjamin Netanyahu is laying siege to the Congress of the United States, not for the first time. He has thrown his voice and channeled his influence into the arena of American legislative politics, to abort the nuclear P5+1 settlement with Iran, which was signed on July 14 by the US, Britain, France, Germany, China, and Russia. The Israeli strong man's latest intervention is in keeping with the rest of his political career. Netanyahu owes all his importance and his success to actions that have been purely destructive.
He was first elected in 1996 on the wave of Israeli settler chauvinism that followed the signing of the Oslo Accords. His rise came in the wake of the assassination of his opponent, a courageous defender of the accords, Yitzhak Rabin. A public memorandum detailing the strategy for Netanyahu as leader of Israel was written by the neoconservative war propagandist Richard Perle, along with a small committee of others. The strategy document, "A Clean Break," called for Israel to free itself from the tedious demands of diplomacy once and for all, curtail its efforts to negotiate with Palestinians toward the creation of a state, and give up the idea of joining a neighborhood of nations in the Middle East. With American help, instead, Israel could stand alone as the dominant power, a position it should never compromise by bargaining for peace. To achieve this end, three countries had to be undermined, subdivided, or destroyed: Iraq, Syria, and Iran.
So far, things have gone roughly according to plan. Iraq and Syria are out of the picture -- the latter with considerable satisfaction to the people around Netanyahu. But Iran has continued to pose a stumbling block; and as early as 2008, Barack Obama's interest in lowering the terrorist threat to the US by calming the violence of the region was perceived by Netanyahu as a threat to his plan for dominance.
DeleteFrom their first meeting in 2009, Netanyahu made it plain that Obama was an obstacle to be overcome by any means necessary -- political assaults from his rear and flanks; concocted international incidents; speeches to Congress and the United Nations and AIPAC and Congress again. Obama was to be treated as an enemy in all but name. The story was to be circulated that Obama, possibly from motives of racial resentment, was profoundly unfriendly to the state of Israel. In the six years that followed their first meeting in May 2009, a continuous strand of Netanyahu's foreign policy has been devoted to weakening the Obama presidency.
Over the same period, the Republican party set itself as a primary goal the nullification of everything Obama proposed. It was natural therefore that its alliance with Netanyahu would grow increasingly public. Only self-respect in the Republicans and a sense of decency in Netanyahu could have prevented it. But one should not underrate the element of racism in Netanyahu's resolve. On the day of the last Israeli election, in March 2015, which ended by returning him to office with a far-right, settler-based coalition, Netanyahu sent a panic Facebook message to his followers. "The right-wing government is in danger," he wrote. "Arab voters are coming out in droves to the polls. Left-wing organizations are busing them out." His followers had a particular duty to vote in order to offset the droves of Arabs.
Now, "droves" is a word normally applied to cattle, just as "swarm" is applied to insects and "hordes" to murderous barbarians. The chairmen of White Citizens' Councils in the American South in the 1950s used to warn their faithful against the "hordes of n-----s" that would vote them out of office unless white people came out and voted. For Netanyahu, President Obama has always been one of the "droves." He has treated Obama with a degree of disrespect approaching and often crossing into contempt, without parallel in the previous relations of American leaders and our professed allies. The black caucus noticed this when they boycotted Netanyahu's speech to Congress in March; and among Jewish lawmakers, Dianne Feinstein has spoken with well-earned disgust of Netanyahu's "arrogant" presumption that he speaks for all Jews.
DeleteReactions of this sort are likely to intensify among those (including the present writer) who feel the disgrace of a foreign leader singling us out in a speech carried in US media, which was addressed peculiarly to Jewish Americans and implicitly separated our interests from those of other Americans. The gesture embodied by such a speech bears a family resemblance to incitement to treason. Imagine a leader of India puffing himself up to deliver a special address to Americans of Indian descent, asking them to subvert the authority of the president who signed a trade deal the Indian prime minister judges to be disadvantageous. And yet, the relations today of Netanyahu to many of the biggest American Jewish donors, and of the same donors to the Republican Party -- these linkages are so extended and tangled that lesser actors can barely tell which are the strings and which the fingers. They only know that their arms and legs move obediently to execute a pilgrimage to Jerusalem or Las Vegas. And then they vote and then comes the money.
The defection to the Republican side by Chuck Schumer was predictable, but the terms in which he cast his decision tell us much about the man and the situation. It has been said that one can judge a politician's intent not only by the things he says but by the things he crucially omits. In Schumer's written defense of his vote with the war party, in a text of some 1,700 words apparently drafted by the senator himself, a word that never appears is "Israel." (The exception is the almost anonymous appearance of the country in a catalogue with five other countries said to have been direct or indirect victims of Iran). But depend on it, Israel was on Schumer's mind.
DeleteHe has often said, with an artless self-love, that his name in Hebrew, "shomer," means "guardian"; and he takes pride in the fact because he thinks of himself as the appointed guardian of Israel's interests in the US. How bizarre and again how unprecedented this is! Think of any other nation in the world. Imagine an Italian-American named Frank Consiglieri assuring his listeners that his name means "advocate" in Italian and he is supremely vigilant for the interests of Italy as a lawmaker in the US.
Schumer voted for the Iraq war on a rationale similar to the one he now urges as the path of reason and good sense with Iran. He may or may not recognize that he is only assisting the Likud and the neoconservatives with part three of the Middle East "clean break" strategy: Iraq, Syria, Iran. Their prognosis is simple. When the work of destruction is complete, one country in the region will stand upright and intact amid the surrounding rubble.
How many Americans know that the Iran deal is supported by the vast majority of Israel's defense and security establishment? The opinions of the security officials within Netanyahu's government are impossible to discern because they have been placed under gag order; but the suffrage of qualified judges in Israel, as also in Europe, Russia, China, and the IAEA, forms a strange contrast with the current alignments in America. "As unanimous as the politicians are in backing the prime minister," J.J. Goldberg recently wrote in Forward, "the generals and spymasters are nearly as unanimous in questioning him. Generals publicly backing Netanyahu can be counted on -- well -- one finger." Equally strange is the fact that security support for the deal is an open secret in the Israeli press, and in an American Jewish paper like Forward, but the evidence is subordinated to a point of near invisibility in the New York Times and other American outlets.
DeleteIn defending the deal, in the most sober, straightforward, unapologetically argumentative and honest speech of his career, President Obama spelled out the reasons why its acceptance would surrender no opportunity while rejection would squander a chance that will not return.
If, in a worst-case scenario, Iran violates the deal, the same options that . . . . . .
David Bromwich
How many Americans know any details of the "deal" with Iran that already has given over 11.8 billion in cash to Iran, not freed the 4 Americans who are being held hostage?
DeleteHow many Americans know that the overwhelming population of Israel are not for the "deal"?
Great article. Who cares what the overwhelming population of Israel wants?
DeleteThe so called deal with iran?
ReplyDeleteDoes not allow the USA to inspect any military site.
Allows Iran to provide it's own soil samples...
Great deal..
.
ReplyDeleteIt is telling that the first or second reason usually given to oppose the Iran agreement by its antagonists is that it is not in the interests of Israel, as if that should be a prime consideration when deciding American foreign policy.
Lost in their specious argument is the fact that in rejecting the deal the US would be dissing long-term allies like Britain and France, NATO partners like Germany, the EU and the UN, and once again lowering the US' standing in the world.
.
Don't over think quirk, it's not good for your health old man...
Deletethere are SO many reasons the deal is shit it's hard to define a top 10...
That being said...
How about Iran doesn't have to stop developing it's ICBM's...
Not an ISSUE for an Israel Firster like me... After all Iran doesn't NEED ICBM's to hit Israel with a nuke..
Quirk: It is telling that the first or second reason usually given to oppose the Iran agreement by its antagonists is that it is not in the interests of Israel, as if that should be a prime consideration when deciding American foreign policy.
DeleteI guess your depth of knowledge about what is important to American Foreign Policy should be shared.
Why do you think Israel is not important to American Foreign Policy?
.
DeleteAs for the ICBMs, you know my response. You have heard it before. Worrying about Iranian ICBMs is not on my priority lst of concerns and I seriously doubt the Joint Chiefs are staying awake at night thinking about it. Where Iran to launch an attack on the US the response would be swift and complete. Iran knows this.
Israel is important to American foreign policy. Bbut not to the exaggerated degree you seem to think. Our western allies, the UK and France, NATO, the EU, the very countries that have been involved in negotiating this deal are more important to American interests than Israel.
.
Why do you think Israel is not important to American Foreign Policy?
DeleteIsrael is important to US interests and American Foreign Policy, but not in any positive way. It is like making the assertion that crime in not important to Detroit or humidity is not important to New Orleans. Israel has had a deleterious effect on US standing and has involved the US in one disaster after another including the 911 attack and the absurd ME wars.
Name one thing that Israel has done for the US citizenry that is was not paid for. Good luck.
Prediction.In ten years Iran will be recognized as important a US ally in the ME as Germany is in the EU.
Israel will be right up there with Portugal or Scotland.
The "deal" with Iran sucks.
ReplyDeleteThe alternative?
Easy, American lead sanctions.
If China and Russia want to trade with Iran?
Go for it.
But if you do business with Iran, then you cut yourself off the American market and banking system.
CHOOSE
.
DeleteGet serious. If we stopped doing business with China where would we borrow the money to pay Israel their annual baksheesh.
'
QuirkSat Aug 08, 02:28:00 PM EDT
Delete.
Get serious. If we stopped doing business with China where would we borrow the money to pay Israel their annual baksheesh.
Once again you show us all that you are not a serious person.
Just a jackass.
"QuirkSat Aug 08, 02:28:00 PM EDT
.
Get serious. If we stopped doing business with China where would we borrow the money to pay Israel their annual baksheesh.
Get serious, American sanctions were pointed and specific.
If you do business with Iran you cannot do business with America.
So if you are so set on the DEAL and how the sanctions can SNAP BACK?
What will they SNAP BACK TOO??????????
As for the cost of American support for Israel?
3 billion a year?
Hardly a large amount of the total America borrows.
But to put it into perspective?
America is 17,000 billion in debt... I bet that 3 billon makes all the difference....
AND America prints 45 billion a month in quantitative easing... almost 18 trillion in the last 6 years...
I bet that Israeli welfare is bankrupting America.
America spends more on pro-football than it does on Israel.
Give the slander and spitballs a rest...
Israel has caused damage to the US in excess of $3 trillion.
Delete.
DeleteMy answer was as serious as the question. Pointed and specific? There have been sanctions against Iran for the last 35 years. If they have worked why has Bibi been crying for the last 20 that Iran is on the verge of developing the bomb.
Why are we arguing that Iran is only a couple months away from having the ability to make a bomb?
If as you and Bibi insist Iran is determined to get a bomb and this deal is dumped what incentive would Iran have to not complete a bomb immediately and create facts on the ground?
What incentive have other countries to continue sanctions against Iran if the deal falls apart much less impose new sanctions. You say the US could bully them into it. The US has played the bully for decades imposing its will on other countries, but, unless you haven't noticed, things are starting to change. China and Russia are setting up their on trading groups and countries are begging to join. China is also trying to get the yuan set up as an internationally accepted currency of exchange and is having some success. More than one country is looking to have another currency or bundle of currencies as an alternative to the dollar for international exchange. These moves will continue. US bullying will only accelerate them.
If this deal falls through it will once again prove the US to be an unreliable negotiating partner. We have been working with our KEY allies on this deal for years and you seem to think there will be no negative repercussions to US standing in the world when we tell those allies and the world sorry boys this deal has been scuttled by a bunch of warmongering dicks who control Congress and who are in turn controlled by the Lobby and the MIC.
.
Best argument against the deal with Iran is easy.
ReplyDeleteIt does NOTHING to curb Iran's support of international terror, it doesn't change Iran's pathway to nuclear cycle.
All American Interests...
Of course if you love the way Iran has helped murder 850,000 sunnis? I guess you'd be for the deal..
.
DeleteIt does NOTHING to curb Iran's support of international terror, it doesn't change Iran's pathway to nuclear cycle.
It sets back the timeline for any development of a bomb from the current couple months to about a year. It delays their ability to develop a bomb for at least 10 years. At the end of that time, the NPT will still be in effect and the US will still have the same options open to us that we have today.
As for the Sunnis? Please stop. You could give a flying f--k about 1 Sunni or 1 million Sunnis. You have said so a dozen times. Go warm up your popcorn and stop making a fool of yourself.
.
It doesn't set back shit.
DeleteYou assume the Irans will not cheat or lie or break sanctions...
Something they already have done numerous times.
Do you want to trust your grandkids to that promise?
as for the sunnis? I could give a flying fuck about them you are correct. But you, a self righteous prick that you are should...
Deuce, you, rufus and rat lecture how HORRIBLE Israel is to the fucking Palestinians SHOULD care about the fucking sunnis..
So the ONLY one making a fool of themselves? IS YOU.
Piss and whine about Israel and the Israel 1sters, meanwhile your Iranian friends are actually causing genocide to palestinians in syria, and hundreds of thousands of sunnis across the middle east...
Talk about being a hypocrite.. and a fool
The only country I see as being international recognized as tormenters to the Palestinians are the right-wing theocrats and religious thugs in The Colony Club, the bulldozin chosin.
Delete.
DeleteYou assume the Irans will not cheat or lie or break sanctions...
And you assume they will be able to. That is the basis of your position (at least the one you are stating now even though we know it is not you real reason for objecting). Bibi says that position won't lead to war. In saying this, he once again proved himself to be a liar. Ultimately, if we refuse to negotiate with Iran and as you assert Iran really wants a bomb, the only alternative will be war.
If Iran cheats on the agreement is null and void and any options open to us now will be open to us then.
I believe the IAEA and the Obama administration when they say that we have the measuring tools and surveillance capabilities now that we didn't have 20 years ago and that we would be able to detect any cheating long before Iran was able to complete bomb which in the worst case scenario means we would be no worse off than we are right now.
But face it. You aren't worried about Iran getting the bomb. Nether is Bibi. What you are interested in is crippling Iran and making sure they are limited in the amount of money they can spend on their surrogates. We've seen this play out with Bibi before in the run up to Bush' Iraq war. Wash, rinse, repeat. If Iran were to disappear tomorrow, Bibi would come up with another most dangerous country in the world and you can bet it would be in Israel's neighborhood. All design to promote Israel's interests not those of the US.
.
.
Deuce ☂Sat Aug 08, 06:48:00 PM EDT
ReplyDeleteIsrael has caused damage to the US in excess of $3 trillion.
wow Deep thoughts there deuce..
did you think of that all by yourself?
During 2010 testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Central Command chief General David Petraeus remarked on the damage to U.S. interests generated by “insufficient progress towards a comprehensive Middle East peace.” Petraeus said that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict foments anti-American sentiment.
ReplyDeleteHe added that Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits partnerships with governments and peoples in the region, weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world, allows militant groups to exploit that anger to mobilize support, and gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients.
I’ll do a post on the math. Easy Peasy.
In private, military commanders and intelligence personnel can’t stand Israel. Why? Because they know them.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteHer is the kind of right wing nut jobs we are fighting.
George Jonas: Why dropping the bomb 70 years ago was necessary, and why we need to be ready to do it again
True as this was, to put it mildly, Japan could have continued defending its remaining possessions and home islands for a long time, and there’s little doubt that without Truman’s decision to deploy the bomb, it would have done so. Some estimates put the number of combined Allied and Japanese lives lost, had the war continued, to over a million, arguing that the decision to drop the bomb saved lives.
Even if true, this isn’t the argument I would prefer to rely on at Judgment Day. I would sooner argue that ending the war before the enemy could develop a similar weapon was the duty of any U.S. president. Once the scientific capacity to harness the destructive energy of atomic power existed, it was only a question of time before other nations’ scientists developed it as well.
Related
Events in Hiroshima and Nagasaki mark 70th anniversary of Second World War atomic bombings
The Germans were close to developing the technology before the Nazi regime was defeated, and although the Japanese turned out to have been far away, the Allies had no way of knowing that 70 years ago. They did what seemed imperative at the time: stopping Japanese military expansionism, the fascism of the rising sun, before it was too late to do so.
Dropping the bomb is a harsh but possible method of stopping proliferation; banning the bomb through international treaties is not. Ban-the-bomb campaigns and negotiated agreements ensure only that the most aggressive and fanatical regimes possess the most destructive weaponry...
First, the man skews the conversation offering up the ridiculous assertion that dropping the a-bombs on Japan possibly saved a million lives, a claim denied by leading military experts at the time. Then, he argues that negotiated agreements don't work and can't be trusted and the only way to assure non-proliferation is to nuke any country moving in the direction of getting the bomb reprising the Russian cold-war meme that a nuclear war could actually be 'won'. Which again brings up the question 'who would want to?'.
The argument suffers in a number of ways. He argues that dropping nuclear bombs will actual prevent nuclear war which is insane given the people who have the bombs today and their positions vis-a-vis each other. See the bolded comment.
He s not so subtle in insinuating that the 'the most aggressive and fanatical regime...' he is talking about is Iran. This is a meme constantly used by the Lobby, the neocons, and there enablers in the media. It is also ridiculous. It may be viewed that way in Israel bt only a fool would consider it so for the US.
The following article makes this clear
Could Russia's New Nuclear Weapons Win World War III
.
.
ReplyDeleteOne NBC poll shows when asked who was the big winner in the debate Fiorino came in first with Trump coming in second. Interestingly, wen asked who was the big loser, Trump came in first by and even bigger margin.
On a national poll, however, Trump remains on top at 23%. Rubio and Fiorino moved up while Bush and Walker moved down.
That's about how I saw the debate also.
.
Post-Debate Poll (NBC)
ReplyDeleteTrump 23%
Cruz 13%
Carson 11%
Fiorina 8%
Rubio 8%
Bush 7%
Walker 7%
.
ReplyDeleteThere are people so fed up with today's politics as usual that they are willing to vote for Trump assuming that regardless of how bad he is he couldn't be worse than the other professional politicians running.
I don't always read the liberal press but when I do...
Mo Dowd had some observations on Trump and the debate today.
Calling Trump an Id amongst the Superegos, she observed that he didn't lose any votes by pointing out the venality and quid pro quo involved in the lobbyist culture and the influence peddling in Washington.
She also pointed out the irony of FOX news, the network of legs and boobs and supermodels not only as hosts and commentators but also as their 'experts', calling out a candidate because of sexism.
Trump may start to falter when the GOP field starts to be winnowed down but hopefully he will around long enough to provide some entertainment while at the same time pointing out the hypocrisy that is D.C.
.
47% of the Republican vote going to Trump, Cruz, and Carson.
ReplyDeleteThrow in Huckleberry, and you have half the vote going to the "certifiable."
Iran Tried To Stop Houthi Rebels In Yemen, Obama Says
ReplyDeleteThe move demonstrates Iran's rational nature, the president said.
Posted: 08/06/2015 05:41 PM EDT
WASHINGTON -- Iran tried to hold back Shia rebels who were intent on taking the Yemeni capital of Sanaa at the height of the uprising in 2014, President Barack Obama told a group of reporters Wednesday afternoon.
The Houthi rebels, however, ignored the advice and marched on, precipitating a much wider war in Yemen.
Obama's observation confirms an earlier Huffington Post report that, contrary to widespread assumptions in the United States, Iran was not the driving force of the crisis in Yemen.
The president relayed the anecdote as an example of how Iran is calculating, rational and opportunistic in its interventions, rather than being wildly driven by the passions of its ideology, at a briefing with reporters to discuss the nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers.
“When the Houthis started moving, that wasn’t on orders from Soleimani, that wasn’t on an order from the IRGC,” he said, referring to Qasim Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.”That was an expression of the traditional Houthi antagonism towards Sanaa, and some of the machinations of the former president, [Ali Abdullah] Saleh, who was making common cause out of expediency with the Houthis.”
Obama said the U.S. had a front row seat to the machinations.
"We watched as this proceeded. There were moments where Iran was actually urging potential restraint,” he said. ”Now, once the Houthis march in and there’s no there there” -- in other words, the government completely collapsed and Houthis expecting resistance found none at all -- “are they interested in getting arms to the Houthis and causing problems for the Saudis? Yes. But they weren’t proceeding on the basis of, come hell or high water, we’re moving on a holy war here.”
Despite its malevolent intentions and motivation, displays such this one suggested to him that, in the end, Iran is rational and can be dealt with, Obama said.
Delete“It’s on that basis that we entered into the interim agreement,” he said.
That doesn’t mean, Obama said, that he finds Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei or his ideology palatable. “I think his ideology is steeped with anti-Semitism, and if he could, without catastrophic costs, inflict great harm on Israel, I’m confident that he would. But…it is possible for leaders or regimes to be cruel, bigoted, twisted in their world views and still make rational calculations with respect to their limits and their self-preservation," he said.
"What we’ve seen, at least since 1979, is Iran making constant, calculated decisions that allow it to preserve the regime, to expand their influence where they can, to be opportunistic, to create what they view as hedges against potential Israeli attack, in the form of Hezbollah and other proxies, in the region. I think what Iran has been doing in Yemen is a perfect illustration of this."
The rationality goes hand-in-hand with duplicity, Obama said, but one can be used against the other.
"If you look at how the interim agreement proceeded, they actually executed systematically," he said, suggesting that Iran engaged rationally with the agreement. "There were a couple of times where, by the way, during that interim agreement, they fell short of their obligations. We identified that quickly, insisted that if they didn’t fix it they weren’t getting the sanction relief that was promised, and it was fixed. And that actually, interestingly, gives us more confidence about our ability to manage the implementation of the larger deal."
Rational Actors
Through the first half of 2015, there are now seven states with uninsured rates that are at or below 5%: Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, Minnesota, Iowa, Connecticut and Hawaii. Previously -- from 2008 through 2014 -- Massachusetts had been the only state to be at or below this rate. No state, in turn, has reported a statistically significant increase in . . . . . .
ReplyDeleteGallup Poll
The contrast between Obamacare-friendly states and those hostile to the law is stark. Rhode Island has the lowest uninsured rate, 2.7 percent, while Texas comes in last at 20.8 percent.
ReplyDeleteHuffington Post