"This is not a friend, neither in the battle against ISIS nor in the great effort that should be made to deprive him of the capacity to make nuclear weapons. Don't fall for Iran's ruse, they are not your friend," Netanyahu said.Over on "Meet the Press" this morning, Chris Matthews was going on about how Obama needed to meet with John Boehner and really pressure him, ask him — "in public... on television" — "What is your opposition to this immigration bill? Is it we don't have enough enforcement? I'll give you more enforcement. Is it hiring rules? We're going to enforce them. I promise you we're going to enforce them. What do you want? So you're absolutely against any kind of amnesty for people who have been here 20, 30 years, absolutely against it? So what then when the president issues the executive order, people will understand he really tried to negotiate. Let me tell you something, we're negotiating with Tehran right now. We're desperately trying to cut a deal over nuclear weapons to the last moment. Why don't we have negotiations going on right now between the two sides?"
Chuck Todd brings him up short: "You know... I can hear Republicans now echoing, he'll negotiate with the Iranians, he won't negotiate with us on immigration."
Matthews (clearly upset): "That's not the way I said it."
Todd: "No, I'm telling you how you're going to get requoted.... that's how he's going to get requoted."
Matthews: "But they want to negotiate though, Chuck." They, that is, Iran.
Now, go back to the top and read what Netanyahu said.
Posts
83 comments:
Iran is not negotiating. It is playing "Rope a Dope". Only one guess about who the Dope is.
Bibi has a far better understanding of diplomacy and World Politics than BHO. Bibi is a pragmatist and pragmatists have to deal with reality rather than fantasy.
The Iranians aren't negotiating. They're simply waiting for the U.S. to figure out a way to capitulate without losing face and call it a "victory."
How do adults let themselves get this stupid. I'm guessing it's all an act. Matthews and Todd don't believe in anything other than their own celebrity.
Let's give some illegals their jobs. We can give it to someone 25 year olds who were brought to this country illegally when they were three.
As soon as celebrities start losing jobs or watching their wages get lowered illegal immigration will be lowered. Maybe their kids can go to school with some of these illegal children and watch their property taxes be chewed up on hiring ESL teachers.
People should remember that nobody puts Bibi in a corner.
There are two axioms on display here:
The Left is always in a state of war with the majority of its fellow citizens.
Chris Matthews is an idiot.
Thank goodness for straight talk from Bibi! Our "esteemed" president doesn't have a clue how to be truthful - he just assumes we are all idiots. Well, f..k him!
Obama is always willing to talk with Iran; he's almost never willing to talk with Republicans.
However, Todd got the Republicans' response wrong: Obama's word is worth nothing on capital hill. He has lied too often for the Republican leadership to take his word that, this time (unlike all the other times), he really will keep his promise to enforce the law. Even if the Republican leadership wanted to believe him, they know that they'll be held accountable if (when) Obama breaks his word.
Does Mathews have a solution to that dynamic? I didn't think so.
Obama is not in a position to negotiate with Republicans. He cannot say "I'll give you more enforcement." "I'll enforce hiring rules." Obama has destroyed his own credibility. Only a fool would believe his promises.
Not even Matthews believes Obama will bargain in good faith with Republicans, only that Obama can improve the optics of not making a deal.
Once BHO used an Executive Order to amnesty the DACA teens, noboby on the "Security First" side of the aisle will ever ever trust him on immigration, ever...
Ah, but Obama wants to be Iran's friend and will keep trying and trying to make that happen.
Barry hates Republicans; he doesn't hate Iran.
Barry needs Iran; he doesn't need Republicans.
Therefore, he will "negotiate" with Iran (i.e., cave) but not with Republicans.
"Obama has destroyed his own credibility."
Of course, any possible assurances on immigration enforcement would be laughable. But in other ways Barry is very credible: he will do whatever serves the progressive cause at the moment.
If Bibi wore a shirt with cartoon women on it and a bunch of eunuchs and unstable women made an issue out of it, he would tell them to go fuck themselves.
If Obama wore a shirt with cartoon women on it and a bunch of eunuchs and unstable women made an issue out of it, he would apologize for something for the first time in his presidency because those people are his base. But he wouldn't cry because he can't since he's a sociopath.
Well said, Mr. Prime Minister. But is anybody here in a position of power and influence listening?
Watch this video..
Listen to Panetta in the beginning. Matthews to his credit (and my surprise) has been tough and going after Obama on immigration.
So the post is about Iran, but just once I wish one of these pundits would ask the amnesty supporters why they are so hell bent on importing poverty and cheap STEM workers to under cut our own. Amnesty just assures that we get more and more.
We get to decide who lives here, not the world.
It's our country.
Yes indeed, dangerous deceitful duplicitous dishonest and not to be trusted; The Islamic Republic of Iran and our President Barack Hussein Obama are birds of a feather.
rhhardin:
By some definitions of the word 'we' perhaps.
When the mushroom cloud rises over that Iranian test range in central Baluchistan, we'll hang it around Hilary's neck.
I agree with Matthews. Obama should engage Boehner with offers and counter-offers and counter-counter-offers. In other words, negotiate. It is the essence of our form of government. Unfortunately, negotiating with Republicans is not part of the president's repertoire. Just one more reason that history will not be kind to Barack Obama.
From Drudge: NYT PAGE ONE MONDAY: Obama admin and health insurance companies have 'powerful, mutually beneficial partnership'... Developing...
Do tell...
Birkel wrote: By some definitions of the word 'we' perhaps.
We are not amused.
Quaestor.. how about that?!
Huh, us stupid voters had never noticed it..
The Senate is the arena where compromise is made. It is structurally set up that way.
If Obama was interested in compromise, he would have pressured Reid to negotiate with the GOP. Instead Reid stiff-armed the senate Republicans, with Obama's approval.
It's not a matter of Obama choosing to compromise. He can't compromise. He does not have that skill. Obama believes that the only way you can win is if someone else loses.
Well with our 'Gruber in Chief' Obama, expect more lies from the government over any and all agreements with China, Iran, Syria, Russia, etc... Yes President Gruber will sell out Israel, ignore ISIS, and you will see the Middle East become one huge battleground... UNLESS....
I feel now that Biden would be a more reasonable President and get some things done with Congress.
Time to fire Obama. He has Grubered this presidency, and the country with it, into the ground.
It plays both ways. If you don't like Obama, it's "he can negotiate with Iran but not the GOP--that says something about Obama!" If you do like Obama, it's "he can negotiate with Iran but not with the GOP--that says something about the GOP!"
Obama is not your ally. Obama is not your friend. Obama is your enemy. He's not your partner. Obama is committed to the destruction of America.
Too bad there are no adults left in obama's administration to tell him to forget the Iran treaty and other wet dreams. He's done, stick a fork in him. He'll use what remaining political strength he has to protect obamacare which is imploding on itself. The surviving democrats on capitol hill will not die on this hill for the sake of Obama's legacy.
"he can negotiate with Iran but not with the GOP--that says something about the GOP!"
If you have that thought you should check yourself into the mental ward.
The GOP is made up of about half the country and are your fellow citizens. Your 'friends and neighbors' as Obama once said. Iran is a particularly repressive, odious regime which has been at war with the United States since the 1970s.
So you're absolutely against any kind of amnesty for people who have been here 20, 30 years
Except we all know that amnesty includes those who have been months as well as 20-30 days.
Chuck Todd brings him up short: "You know... I can hear Republicans now echoing, he'll negotiate with the Iranians, he won't negotiate with us on immigration."
Matthews (clearly upset): "That's not the way I said it."
Of course it's not the way he said it. But Chuckster was right, that is how at least half the country would hear it. And rightly so.
"Matthews and Todd don't believe in anything other than their own celebrity. "
Hugh Hewitt says Todd's book on Obama is good and I am thinking of getting it. Maybe there is some substance to Todd. To Matthews ? Not a bit.
Obama will lead us to disaster before he is done. No one in the world believes anything he says outside of Huffington Post and NBC.
Why would you negotiate with a person who consistently lies, moves the goal posts at the 11th hour when you think you've made a deal, and has a propaganda machine (of which chuck todd is merely a cog) that is guaranteed to portray you as obstructionist no matter how much you compromise.
Republicans are under no obligation to "negotiate" or "compromise" with Obama. In fact, I don't see any conciliation from Obama at all. Certainly President "I'm the one that everybody elects" signaled he was not going to meet the GOP at the Republican 50 yard line. Chris and Chuck are simply subtly advancing the Left's talking points about Republicans and "compromise"
Chris Matthews is a left-wing liar and phony. He poses as some sort of old timey JFK Democrat but when push comes to shove he supports the left - no matter what.
Just like that other sanctimonious 100 year old fraud Bill Moyers.
Chrissy would be in favor of 100 million Arabs, Hindus and Zulus - all with syphilis and 90 IQs - moving to the USA, as long as it didn't hurt him and they voted Democrat 60-40.
Chuck Todd should have told Chris Matthews that polls show the immigrants intend to vote Republican by 7:1. Matthews would be in favor of border enforcement in a nanosecond.
Valerie Jarrett, Iranian agent of influence.
Quaestor: ever hear of "risk corridors". The ACA guarantees a profit to insurers in Valois amounts and it is in their profitability interests to work with the government to make sure everything is "gonna be alright" for them.
Please see paragraph 3 in link to start reading.
http://americanactionforum.org/research/the-acas-risk-spreading-mechanisms-a-primer-on-reinsurance-risk-corridors-a
Oops! Valois should be various
If there are two issues to choose between, trust liberals to get deeply tangled in the less important one. And the easier to make into sound bites. Iran with nuclear weapons is a gigantic threat. So ignore it as much as possible. Too many hard choices.
The President's relentless posturing, lecturing, and mendacity will be as nothing if he decides to single-handedly impose amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. Exactly why he is so arrogant is less of a puzzle than why so many still support him.
I conclude that it's a product of the now 120-year old disease of progressivism, with its explicit disdain for American founding principles and that useless, obstructionist Constitution. Couple that with postmodernism's rejection of Reason and you have a perfect formula for the world of Big Brother, a mere thirty years late.
Sidney and Beatrice Webb would be so proud, even though leering behind their beatific countenance is the specter of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
Humans simply have a tough time learning necessary lessons.
Have we already forgotten how the deal Clinton and that troll Madelyn Albright made with North Korea worked out?
The Democrats have always considered themselves the party of the people. The party of the little guy. The blue collar working man.
How is the middle class, blue collar, working guy going to feel when he finds out Obama has just legalized millions and allowed them to legally work and take our jobs?
I don't see this as working out well for Democrats. Perhaps in the short term. But in the long term, I believe a lot of Democrats and Independents are going to feel betrayed over such a move.
It'll be interesting to see how the media covers this.
Prediction: The focus will be on the Republicans. But it should be asking Democrats how they feel.
This whole suicide bombing thing started with Iran. They initiated the Martyr's Brigade. Teenagers were given cool red headbands to tie around their foreheads and were instructed to walk across minefields in order to clear them. The kids got paradise, and the Mullahs got a cleared minefield. Win win for everyone. Martyrdom as a way of life really took off......Anyway, these are not the kind of people one would trust with a peanut butter sandwich, much less a nuclear weapon.......Remember those movies like Seven Days in Mays or Dr. Strangelove. The unstated point was that the Ametican military were just too unstable and crazy to be trusted with nuclear weapons. That was then. This is now. Containment worked with the Soviet Union. There's no reason it can't work with Iran.
The Republicans played the last year pretty well. They focused on winning control of both houses of Congress and avoiding unnecessary, symbolic controversies. As a result, they are in a position to minimize the damage that Obama can do in his last two years as president.
The Republicans need to hold that discipline over the next two years, because the primary objective now has to be to lay the ground work for a successful Republican presidential campaign. The Republicans are on the popular side of issues like immigration, and medical insurance, and energy policy. They need to take the initiative in those areas to make Obama look bad -- and to challenge Obama's would-be successors to take a stand.
Chris Matthews was going on about how Obama needed to meet with John Boehner and really pressure him, ask him — "in public... on television" — "What is your opposition to this immigration bill? Is it we don't have enough enforcement? I'll give you more enforcement. Is it hiring rules? "
Although I'm an immigrant and thus conflicted Mathews is too stupid to understand that if Boehner had any cojones the question he would pose to the Democrats and their house organs is "do we have such a shortage of poor people that we need to import more of them?"
Everyone acquainted with the commandment against bearing false witness should be aware of the Shi'a concept of dissimulation. Taqiyya is an accepted way to lie and deceive non-believers. Let no one fool you into thinking that Shi'a Iran is a truthful negotiating partner.
My question for Mathews, is '06, '07, '08, '10. Why did you not press for an immigration bill then?? Why all of a sudden is there a need to "fix" immigration by Executive decree? Why was he not suggest Bush do the same thing in '07 when Obama led the opposition to a nearly identical bill as BHO is calling for?
Everyone knows, but it would be interesting to hear BHO have to explain this clearly.
The problem in both cases is that Obama is negotiating from a position of rapidly increasing weakness. So the question of what he can actually bring to the table starts to be a major stumbling block.
On the immigration bill, Matthews is talking about selling the Senate bill to the House. The outgoing Senate bill, that is, because the new Senate looks a lot more like the House. And part of the reason it looks that way is because the immigration bill was extremely unpopular -- it was one of the main issues in the exit polling. So if Boehner can delay action until January, he's in a much stronger negotiating position.
So what exactly does Obama bring to the table in a negotiation? He could threaten to leave the table and make his case to the public (sort of late for that), or he could act unilaterally (very risky, massively unpopular, unclear likelihood of success). The time to put the hard sell on the Senate bill was this time last year, when Obama could deliver the Senate and the electoral prospects were unclear. Instead, he and/or Boehner decided to wait for the election. Just because that decision worked out poorly for the president doesn't mean it wasn't a decision.
On Iran, I still don't see what Obama actually has to offer. At the moment, Iran's interests are naturally aligned against ours, and they've been having a lot of success simply looking out for #1 and letting us screw up on our own. Just like the immigration bill, Obama has some ability to act unilaterally, but the prospects for success are unclear and any action is likely to be very unpopular. Also like the immigration bill, Obama lost the ability to deliver the Senate by waiting too long to act.
I think that some people in the administration have the idea that they can pull off a massive realignment in the Middle East by basically selling out Israel and making nice with Iran. (Not unlike Nixon selling out Taiwan and making nice with the PRC). But the problem is that we don't really have any interests in common with Iran. Either we can abandon our position or Iran can abandon theirs, and never the twain shall meet.
"Valerie Jarrett, Iranian agent of influence."
I do wonder a bit. Along with Huna Abedin.
So you're absolutely against any kind of amnesty for people who have been [breaking the law every day for] 20, 30 years, yes I am.
I promise you we're going to enforce them.
If you like your hiring rules, you can keep your hiring rules.
Obama's negotiating style has always had a strong component of "if you're not at the table, you're on the menu," combined with an aggressively small conception of who deserves to be at the table. But if you do that long enough, you give the people who aren't at the table a huge incentive to disrupt what you're doing, and you don't have any basis for adjusting the deal if it turns out your position wasn't as strong as you initially thought.
Israel isn't sitting at the table now, and House Republicans weren't sitting at the table when the immigration bill was written. But both of them have pretty strong hands to play. Pretending that you could make a deal without involving them wasn't aggressive negotiating, it was just stupid.
Zach said... (Not unlike Nixon selling out Taiwan and making nice with the PRC).
Am I mistaken in thinking that, 40 years later, Taiwan remains a sovereign nation?
Bibi must marvel at naive way Obama seeks love back from Iran by learning to love their Bomb.
The naive Episcopalian guys running The National Cathedral in DC just held a prayer service with the Muslims in the Cathedral because they are fellow members of a faith community.
The Episcopalians were ignorant that the innocent sounding Muslim The Call to Prayer is not prayer at all. It is simply a fierce war proclamation that there is no other god than the one god that empowered Mohammed to be his prophet, thereby 1)denying Jesus to be the Son of God, and 2) proclaiming that title to the National Cathedral has converted over to a Muslim owned structure forever and as such must be violently defended from Trinitarian idol worshipers such as Epicopalians, forever.
"The naive Episcopalian guys running The National Cathedral in DC just held a prayer service with the Muslims in the Cathedral because they are fellow members of a faith community."
Thanks for calling them "Episcopalian guys" instead of Christians. Last time I checked, a belief in Jesus Christ wasn't required to be a member of the the Episcopalian Clergy.
Am I mistaken in thinking that, 40 years later, Taiwan remains a sovereign nation?
Um, not according to the United States Government. Not according to the United Nations, either. When we recognized the PRC, we stopped recognizing Taiwan and they lost their UN seat, including their seat on the Security Council.
Obviously, recognizing the PRC worked out well for us. And there really were common points of interest -- the Chinese didn't like the Russians any more than we did, and recognizing them essentially split the communist bloc into two halves. But we achieved that by more or less selling out Taiwan. Nixon and Kissinger both say that in so many words in their respective memoirs.
The Iranians aren't negotiating. They're simply waiting for the U.S. to figure out a way to capitulate without losing face and call it a "victory."
One thing was certain as Obama was elected and re-elected: Iran would nuke up. Our allies in Europe knew it, our allies in the ME knew it, certain folks in the USA knew it, Obama himself certainly knew it and knows it now … and, of course, Iran knew it.
Forget the inevitably ineffective and cosmetic "sanctions." The only way Iran could have been stopped was if their nuclear facilities were destroyed or damaged. Obama could have had it done by Israel during his first term but refused to contemplate such a thing.
Anyone remember the Iranian "Green Movement" uprising against the Iranian regime during Obama's first term after the bogus 2009 Iranian presidential elections? Obama would not give the demonstrators even verbal encouragement, confining himself to strained, mild, carefully parsed general statements. The Green Movement was asking for a strong show of support and waiting for it with hope but it never came. The opportunity came and went.
rhhardin said...
"We get to decide who lives here, not the world.
It's our country."
Naw. Google, Amazon, and Walmart need some cheap labor and the democrats/statists need a new electorate.
Don't think they will let the little people stop them.
"Iran is not your ally. Iran is not your friend. Iran is your enemy. It's not your partner. Iran is committed to the destruction of Israel."
Poor Bibi. Doesn't he know that fashion is more important? Some guy somewhere is wearing a shirt with hot chicks on it somewhere... We don't have time to worry about Iran getting nukes.
"Is it we don't have enough enforcement? I'll give you more enforcement."
I believe that TOTUS has lied through his teeth about enforcement, didn't he?
"Containment worked with the Soviet Union. There's no reason it can't work with Iran."
On the contrary. Containment worked with the Soviet Union because we physically surrounded the place, wherever possible with our own troops. We are not in such a position with Iran.
Is it we don't have enough enforcement? I'll give you more enforcement. Is it hiring rules? We're going to enforce them. I promise you we're going to enforce them.
Oh well gee, I didn't realize he'd promise. That changes everything! Will he pinkie swear? That'd get some things done, I bet.
Does anyone else remember that we had an amnesty in 1986? And that along with that amnesty was supposed to come enforcement sufficient to make any future amnesties unnecessary? What's different this time? Is the plan to just have an amnesty every 30 years or so, with 7x as many people each iteration? Good plan, good plan.
Chuck Todd sucks democrat dick and carries water for democrat party members. Immediately after bringing up Gruber and his serial lies, he allowed Burwell to prattle on about the wonders of Obamacare and how pissah it is and already over-delivering the awesome. Next he interviewed Bobby Jindal and spent the whole time interrupting him, interjecting democrat party talking points about mean republicans making their constituents go without "health care" just to spite Obama, how they are liars about medicaid and Obamacare, and accusing Jindal of creating a budget deficit of a billion dollars in Louisiana, among other aspersions. Jindal did a good job of rebutting the sandbagging, but Todd is still a fucking democrat party tool and hitman.
In Obama's mind, his real enemies include no foreign sovereignties but only Republicans and American private sector businesses. Those are the real enemies. Iran is just a friend we haven't bought off yet.
" Containment worked with the Soviet Union because we physically surrounded the place, wherever possible with our own troops. We are not in such a position with Iran."
No, containment worked because the Soviets were rational. They were corrupt and bad guys but they did not want to die for 72 virgins.
So are the Iranians are doing with Obama what Matthews suggests the President do with the GOP?
"What is your opposition to this nuclear research?? Is it UN inspection? I'll give you more inspection. Is it international laws? We're going to obey them. I promise you we're going to obey them. What do you want? So you're absolutely against any kind of nuclear energy for Iran, absolutely against it?" So what then when the Iranians test a weapon, people will understand they really tried to negotiate.
Grackle:
Anyone remember the Iranian "Green Movement" uprising against the Iranian regime during Obama's first term after the bogus 2009 Iranian presidential elections? Obama would not give the demonstrators even verbal encouragement, confining himself to strained, mild, carefully parsed general statements. The Green Movement was asking for a strong show of support and waiting for it with hope but it never came. The opportunity came and went.
Meanwhile it is being reported that on Nov 5 Obama met with the Ferguson protest leaders urging them to stay the course because riots in Ferguson will no doubt accomplish more for Obama's agenda than the Green Revolution would have in Iran.
Terry said...
"he can negotiate with Iran but not with the GOP--that says something about the GOP!"
If you have that thought you should check yourself into the mental ward.
The GOP is made up of about half the country and are your fellow citizens. Your 'friends and neighbors' as Obama once said. Iran is a particularly repressive, odious regime which has been at war with the United States since the 1970s.
However, to the moral equivalence crowd, Republicans' opposition to gay marriage is the same thing as when Iran hangs homosexuals. They see no difference between opposing "free" contraception here and forcing women to wear burkas there. In other words, they see Republicans as particularly repressive, odious regime which they've been at war with since the 1970s, if not long before. They're morons.
If Bush was unable to get the base of *his own party* to accept an immigration reform bill in 2007, I doubt that Obama can in 2014.
What the GOP base wants on immigration, no President can promise. The GOP base wants no more immigrants to get the right to vote, because immigrants vote for Democrats.
But the Supreme Court has already ruled that every citizen has the right to vote.
Hence the GOP base would never accept a path to citizenship for immigrants, making the whole idea of an immigration reform bill superfluous.
Evan Sayet (Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals "Think") says "What I discovered is that the Modern Liberal looks back on 50,000 years, 100,000 years of human civilization, and knows only one thing for sure: that none of the ideas that mankind has come up with--none of the religions, none of the philosophies, none of the ideologies, none of the forms of government--have succeeded in creating a world devoid of war, poverty, crime, and injustice. So they're convinced that since all of these ideas of man have proved to be wrong, the real cause of war, poverty, crime, and injustice must be found--can only be found--in the attempt to be right."
Anything that claims to be truth and therefore identifies positions over which there can be differences is discrimination and inherently wrong and therefore evil. Like morals and borders.
I don't want to think this is a correct view of the Democratic party, but it would explain some things.
Sinz52: and the dems want to get more people to vote for them so want to legalize illegal immigrants to get more people to vote for them. Even though we have laws of the books to deal with immigration which the democrats was flaunt.
And even though legalizing millions will only hurt minorities who are already not finding the jobs that are not there because the dems did nothing to grow the economy.
What happened to the idea that we need illegals to do the jobs Americans won't do. If they're legalized they're not going to do those jobs. So then we'd need a whole new influx of illegls to do those jobs. In the meantime we'd now have millions of largely unskilled workers competing for jobs Americans will do. And then dems want to push the idea of a living wage AND raising the minimum wage. How are the assuming that companies will be able to rise those wages or have enough demand to hire 11 million more people when they aren't hiring now?
All the dems care about is getting more voters. They don't care that they will be destroying the economy and hurting the poor most with this push.
and they"ll demagogue anyone as racist if they oppose it. Even though legal immigrants come from all over the world and are not just Mexican.
There's rhis guy named Obama who said that illegal immigration would drive down blue collar wages and hurt blacks and other poor people. Maybe he should talk to the president.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/16/shock-flashback-obama-says-illegal-immigration-hurts-blue-collar-americans-strains-welfare-video/?advD=1248,657950
I bet this NUAnced Stance is why people like Althouse voted for Obama in the first place. Because he wasn't just taking the lefty position. He was in fact a moderate. But no, as is revealed he was just giving lip service to moderation to sell himself as a senator, sell his book and run for president.
Now that he IS president he can forgo the nuance and govern like the lefty he is.
Matthews is such a goof. He stumbles into blurting out the truth, that Obama is "desperate" to negotiate with Iran and will not negotiate with republicans, then when he hears his words repeated back to him as Obama will negotiate with Iran but not republicans, he panics and says "that not the way I said it." The truth is that Obama is just doing this for political purposes, trying to tie up Hispanics as democratic votes and in general loyalty with the open borders crowd. Republicans also are largely political, although their politics drive them to try to find a fix/compromise.
"I don't see this as working out well for Democrats."
No, things aren't going so well for Democrats. But that is OK by Obama. He has bigger fish to fry. What stooges like Matthews don't grasp is that Obama is perfectly happy to destroy the Democratic Party, if he can weaken America in the process. The Democrats are nothing more than a vehicle to Obama, a collection of useful idiots.
If American foreign policy were guided by actual rational self-interest and strategic smarts, we'd tell the Israelis to get lost, let them buy our weapons with their own money rather than American taxpayer-subsidized corporate welfare, reestablish full diplomatic relations with Iran, reopen the US embassy in Tehran (and an American University of Tehran), assist the Iranians with developing a domestic nuclear energy capacity, and give visas to Iranian grad students to study in American universities. But of course, this is America. So instead we will continue to kowtow to ethno-religious fanatics while Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban, billionaire boosters of our two main political parties, publicly hatch a scheme to take control of the New York Times because that paper's editorial line is simply insufficiently groveling towards the state of Israel.
Cedarford, is that you???
@Kirk Parker: I am not sure what that means or if that's even directed towards me, but just in case, I'll answer. And the answer is I have no idea what that means ;)
If American foreign policy were guided by actual rational self-interest and strategic smarts, we'd tell the Israelis to get lost …
Israel: the freest nation in the ME, the most democratic nation in the ME, the only nation in the ME that tolerates and protects its religious minorities, the only pro-Western nation in the ME.
But we should tell Israel to "get lost" in favor of a regime that is culpable, through their smuggling of more powerful IEDs into Iraq and Afghanistan, of the deaths of many US soldiers. A nation that is well-known to be the major source of Islamic terrorism throughout the world. Interesting.
… reopen the US embassy in Tehran (and an American University of Tehran) …
The last time the US had an embassy in Tehran our embassy personnel were held hostage and mistreated for 444 days during the Jimmy Carter Presidency.
… assist the Iranians with developing a domestic nuclear energy capacity …
"Domestic nuclear energy capacity?!!" HaHaHaHa. Yet another delusion. One HAS to wonder what reality the commentor is living in.
America's second closest ally in the region is Saudi Arabia, one of the most authoritarian, chauvinistic states on the planet. A state that has spent decades and billions of petrodollars pumping out Wahhabism--the ideological nourishment for the Sunni radical groups we have spent a decade-and-a-half futilely attempting to bomb out of existence. We maintain close alliances with Pakistan and India, two states that illegally and clandestinely obtained nuclear weapons. We also manage to maintain relationships with those two states, despite their mutual disdain and antagonism towards one another. Japan, China, and Vietnam have each killed more Americans, directly and indirectly, than Iran, and we maintain close trading relationships and diplomatic ties to all three.
It is utterly absurd and embarrassing to watch the national politicians of a continental superpower tripping over themselves to see who can more abjectly suck up to Israel. It is not up to the United States--or Israel--to decide who can and cannot have a domestic nuclear energy program. It is a right under the NPT. The best way to work with Iran is to do so through normal diplomatic channels, just like we do with virtually every other state on the planet. Sorry, I do not know how to refute an incredulous laugh.
I have been to Saudi Arabia and Iran, and while neither is the kind of society I would ever wish to call my home, if forced to choose between the two, it would take me about a millisecond to say Iran.
It is not up to the United States--or Israel--to decide who can and cannot have a domestic nuclear energy program.
HaHaHaHa. Someone who believes the "domestic nuclear energy" nonsense is lecturing the rest of us! First I thought, "shill." But "rube" is a better fit, I think.
America's second closest ally in the region is Saudi Arabia, one of the most authoritarian, chauvinistic states on the planet. A state that has spent decades and billions of petrodollars pumping out Wahhabism--the ideological nourishment for the Sunni radical groups we have spent a decade-and-a-half futilely attempting to bomb out of existence. We maintain close alliances with Pakistan and India, two states that illegally and clandestinely obtained nuclear weapons. We also manage to maintain relationships with those two states, despite their mutual disdain and antagonism towards one another. Japan, China, and Vietnam have each killed more Americans, directly and indirectly, than Iran, and we maintain close trading relationships and diplomatic ties to all three.
There's always whining about 'unsavory' US alliances in the ME. They ought to read a little history and contemplate the phrase, "practical diplomacy." The facts are that for many years Israel was the ONLY democracy in the ME. ALL the rest were headed by despots ruling by force of arms – every single one. Other than Israel, there were NO 'nice' nations in the ME to ally with. None. Zip. Zero. If a Western nation allied with any nation in the ME it was necessarily allying with a murderous despot because there was nothing else to deal with.
Again, a laugh and an insult is not an argument. If you'd be like to provide any actual evidence, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. Is the only thing you know about Iran what you absorb through the popular press?
Your second paragraph is making my point. The fact that Israel is a democracy is totally irrelevant to the United States, just as the fact that Saudi Arabia is a totalitarian monarchy. Israel looms so large in American foreign policy decision-making for precisely two reasons: a majority of Americans believe in the Big Book of Jewish Fairytales and the importance of Jewish money in domestic politics. The United States should ally with Iran in a manner that is most advantageous to its national interests. The warmongering rantings of a bigoted prime minster of a tiny client state should be utterly irrelevant to us.
Post a Comment