Patterico's Pontifications

Ding.

Patterico (3ff87e) — 11/23/2013 @ 10:20 pm

I wish Israel the best.

mg (31009b) — 11/23/2013 @ 10:32 pm

I was reading that they were close to an greement but was hoping this wasn’t so.

I don’t believe there’ll be any future deal.

Obama and Kerry don’t realize that if Iran ios prepared to go this far, they would also be prepared to go much further. They accepted the first semi-acceptable offer. They probably couldn’t believe their luck and success.

They don’t understand success in negotiations doesn’t require work – it requires that the conditions be right.

Sammy Finkelman (8cd742) — 11/23/2013 @ 10:36 pm

The final arrangements for the staging of the IDF-AF from bases in northern Saudi will now be made.
The House of Saud will not ask permission to engage in this joint exercise with Israel.

askeptic (2bb434) — 11/23/2013 @ 10:54 pm

“…don’t realize…..don’t understand…”

Pretty much encapsulates the intellectual parameters of Obama et al.

askeptic (2bb434) — 11/23/2013 @ 10:56 pm

This apparently leaves the Iranian nuclear program at T -6 months or less and holding. Or maybe slightly advancing. Maybe it is, or will be, T-3 months.

It is allowed to get a little closer but before the end of the six months it is supposed to go further away again. Kerry argues the whole agreement puts Iran about 3 to 5 weeks further away, and even longer from getting enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb and makes it more detectable if they try.

The centrifuges keep spinning, abd they can keep making more 3.5% U-235 till they get to 8 tons from the current 7 tons – except that then it’s got to go back to 7 tons by the end of 6 months.

Iran agrees to stop enriching uranium past 5% and to make it more difficult to do so for the time being. Iran agrees not to install or start any more centrifuges.

Its 20% U-235 is to be degraded to below that or convered into uranium oxide. The Arak heavy water reactor has much work frozen (no more additional components, no fuel produced for it, and of course not to be put into operation. But it is not dismantled or converted into a light water reactor.

To get this, some sanctions are removed.

Iran knows that even if they would come back if the agreement was immediately violated, there could come a point where’d they’d have the 3 to 6 months free time.

And also this gives them more time to hold out next time. If sanctions come back on six months from now, they’ll be in a better position than they are right now. Sanctions coming back doesn’t put the pressure back.

But Iran will most likely keep negotiating, waiting for the right time to break out, which probably isn’t right now.

It is not necessary. You don’t need to test anything. This offer will not be taken off the table by Iran and replaced with more stubborness, and if there is a risk of that, the negotiations could not possibly lead anywhere anyway.

Iran could have agreed to do all of the same things it now is agreeing to do – the same freezing – but not in exchange for any lifting of sanctions. Just in exchange for a promise not to initiate military action. That’s mayhbe all tghat should have bene offered.

Maybe a mild lifting of danctions that would give temporary relief might have been offered if they were afraid of squeezing too hard too fast.

Iran has made no top level policy decision to get out of the nuclear business. Which is what is needed.

Sammy Finkelman (8cd742) — 11/23/2013 @ 10:58 pm

And this is ignoring all the other issues the United States, and the world, has with Iran.

Its intervention in Iraq and in Afghnistan and in Lebanon and in Syria..

Its support for terrorism.

Its history of doing very criminal things.

Sammy Finkelman (8cd742) — 11/23/2013 @ 11:10 pm

4. As if we could pull Iran out of the ‘Soviet’ orbit. This’d be an own goal if we weren’t on the same team.

The end is nigh.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/23/2013 @ 11:17 pm

Maybe Barry will also put his name on thi:
The ObamaDeal.

But if this one blows up too…

PC14 (2f8051) — 11/23/2013 @ 11:20 pm

One can hope, and pray.

(0+Waffle rant deleted.)

I wonder where I can find an IDF tee?

htom (412a17) — 11/23/2013 @ 11:24 pm

4. Cont. Any day now Sauds will be converting yuan to riyals.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/23/2013 @ 11:58 pm

The Western powers agree with the Iranians, while the Iranians intended victims are betrayed.

Geneva is to Munich as the Iran is to Nazis as Israel is to Czechoslovakia.

Only difference is that the Israelis can fight back. I expect the word has been given.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/24/2013 @ 12:42 am

Israel is going to lose a thousand men doing this, and the destruction of American influence in the middle east will be complete.

It is no mistake the NY Times ran an op-ed last week blaming Iran’s nukes on Bush, because Obama won’t stop them.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/24/2013 @ 12:49 am

Iran has made no top level policy decision to get out of the nuclear business. Which is what is needed.

With the US launching drone strikes against Muslims all over the place, killing all sorts of innocent people including children, sometimes with the double-trap strategy to kill rescuers including family members distraught and running in to help and so on … plus maintaining a proven ability to invade and topple Middle Eastern regimes at will … why would Iran agree to such a thing?

Would you? I mean, is the US currently and becoming a bastion of individual liberty or something?

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 1:17 am

horseface is what we sent over
horseshit is what comes back

mg (31009b) — 11/24/2013 @ 3:39 am

Attention: All countries without nukes- build now. Repeat- build now.
Japan, can you hear me?
China is gearing up for some islands in your area.
All countries view America as weak in the knees without a backbone.
Good grief.

mg (31009b) — 11/24/2013 @ 4:11 am

With due respect, correction, mg.

“weak in the knees without a backbone”

Some do, some don’t. With all the killing America does, actually a lot don’t.

But the antithesis of freedom, yeah. Unfortunately, through the surveillance state, boot-camp indoctrination / SWAT team militarization of police forces, and insane (but more to the point, evil) quintupling of the prison population in 35 years, a lot of people who used to support the US can’t in good conscience any more. And when they do, it’s with major reservations.

This loss of faith internally and among the US’s allies is a major national security problem, but it’s also a moral and liberty problem. Iran is no fantastic place, but is America these days?

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 4:40 am

former

feel free to move, I for one will spring for the boxing tape

EPWJ (c3dbb4) — 11/24/2013 @ 4:46 am

I speak my mind too much. I’d probably be killed in Iran or similar countries for doing so.

I acknowledge there is a qualitative difference between Iran and the US.

But you cannot pretend that the US has become more free, nor can you pretend that it isn’t getting a lot less free in a real sense. It is a problem.

Who knows? Maybe that can be arrested now that the filibuster is gone or something.

But I would have liked to have remained a “Current Conservative” if not for the incredible and startling overreaches. They are disheartening, to say the least. You must feel the same way, even if your line in the sand is different.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 4:50 am

Former Conservative,
Don’t you live in Canada?

To all:
Thanks for the well-wishes, I am out of the hospital and doing fine right now.

To Sammy:
A personal question I’ve wanted to ask for some time… Have you ever been diagnosed with Asperger’s? It would explain a lot.

Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 11/24/2013 @ 4:59 am

15. …Japan, can you hear me?
China is gearing up for some islands in your area.
All countries view America as weak in the knees without a backbone.
Good grief.

Comment by mg (31009b) — 11/24/2013 @ 4:11 am

Japan has heard you. I give you the Izumo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aozyIqsHbEY

The military is sexy again in Japan. And why not? I can’t think of a European navy, not even the Royal Navy, that can match the JMSDF in combat power. They’re even having popular contests about who should be Mr. or Ms. JMSDF:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-SUEVf6I-NA

I especially liked Mr. Mori, a member of a JMSDF boarding team introduced around the 3:15 mark. Everybody knows the key to success to controlling Somali pirates in the Bab el Mandeb is speaking Japanese LOUDLY and CLEARLY. You know, so they’ll understand. I’m sure those Aikido skills will waste away due the effectiveness of his voice commands.

It still kind of stuns me that this country voted to degrade itself publicly in this manner. I suppose it shouldn’t, but it does.

Steve57 (338553) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:00 am

FC, aren’t you Christoph?

Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:01 am

Yes, Stashiu3, which is why I added the bit about allies. But I was, for almost all of my life, about as pro-American an ally (and mostly conservative) as you could find.

I remember being at a peace march for the Iraq war, for example, where — as near as I could figure — there was about 5,000 of them, one of me. I’m still surprised I didn’t get my ass kicked.

But … at some point, my eyes opened to the fact that America and even my native land, following your lead, wasn’t like it was when I was a child. So I pretty much had to bite the bullet and side more with people like Ron Paul and the like, despite mocking him for ages. In a lot of ways, I disagree with him. I have a military background, partly in practice, much more in study and interest … and understand the point of a national defense, law and order, and the like.

But Jeeze Louise. Society has gone off the deep end toward hyperstatism control-freakism. In what sense did the west win the Cold War if this is the result?

And why the heck spread this liberty around the world, when it is in fact the perpetual diminishment of liberty?

In a lot of ways, as a practical day-to-day matter, you’re probably less hyperregulated and controlled in countries we’ve never considered to be free.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:04 am

Stashiu

I think trying to ask Sammy a personal question that is intended to cast something on him such as a mental condition – isn’t the best way to handle someone – if you really cared about their well being.

Everyone contributes in his/her own way – some more than others

EPWJ (c3dbb4) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:11 am

Also, a lot of the worst excesses were pushed by Republicans and Republican Presidents, like how the war on drugs was started and accelerated by them, the Patriot Act, and the like. Even Reagan bears a huge responsibility for these errors which have resulted in untold families being destroyed, police forces corrupted, liberties done away with. And they don’t work, of course.

Government programs rarely do, including when Republicans push them.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:11 am

former

yeah

Republicans:

Dropped Atom Bombs on defenseless cities
Firebombed Defenseless cities
carpetbombed defenseless cities
jailed American citizens without trial based on heritage
rounded up Americans and mass deported them in the 20’s 30’s and 40’s
created the KKK
created an entitlement state that has put the world on the brink of nuclear war
Denied blacks civil rights for 100 years
Same for Women

Oh wait wrong party

EPWJ (c3dbb4) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:22 am

EPWJ, I know Democrats have done these things and others.

But … where is the evidence government growth reverses under Republican administration, individual liberties increase, etc? There doesn’t seem to be any.

There may be a point in a third party or even non-political (in the realm of philosophical discourse; I don’t mean rebellion, which is utterly impractical in this day and age).

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:24 am

Doesn’t matter, to bibi, neither to King Abdullah, probably;

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4457157,00.html

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:26 am

Where are the Republican reverses

Former,

you should ask the democrats who have controlled one house or both for the last 100 years

Republicans have not had the 60 votes in the senate – EVER

But the democrats have

You keep blaming the Republicans for NOT UNDOING – what the democrats have done

That’s the whole point – and its good for the tea party idiots out there to grasp this simple fact as well

EPWJ (c3dbb4) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:29 am

EPWJ, you may have a good point. I referred to it earlier when I talked about the filibuster.

Legal Insurrection called it a ratchet making the growth of the state go in one direction since it became frequently used, which is relatively recently in historical terms. If Jacobson is right, the perhaps the growth can be reversed.

I’m not sure the GOP will actually do so, but I guess they could in principle now.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:31 am

22. …I remember being at a peace march for the Iraq war, for example, where — as near as I could figure — there was about 5,000 of them, one of me. I’m still surprised I didn’t get my ass kicked.

Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:04 am

You didn’t get your ass kicked because no one took you seriously then. As I can not now.

What year did you march in this “peace” march?

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that it was after the cease fire with Iraq at Safwan. In other words you were the reason Saddam Hussein thought he could violate those accords with impunity because you had his back.

Steve57 (338553) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:32 am

*then

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:32 am

What year did you march in this “peace” march?

I was opposed to the peace march, and it was pre-invasion. I was in their face. I guess they were more civil than I guessed.

Any, I now regret my prior support for the war in Iraq.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:34 am

*Anyway

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:34 am

Now i’ve come around to the notion, that the Gulf War was less of an unalloyed success, because one of it’s beneficiaries, being Osama Bin Laden, but at the time, that wasn’t one of the issues being debated.

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:36 am

True, narciso, but if you were in any way talking about me, I mean Iraq War 2. During the first Iraq war, I was a high school student and while I supported that war too, I didn’t do any campaigning other than talk to friends.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:37 am

yes, the partisans of peace, no they are always on the other side,

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:40 am

Billions in aid/exchange to Iran as part of the deal. Is this true? Are these the long frozen Iranian funds being released or something else?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/11/outrage-obama-administration-to-give-4-billion-in-aid-to-iran/

elissa (ce1ea8) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:43 am

32. …Any, I now regret my prior support for the war in Iraq.

Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:34 am

What year did you decide you opposed the war in Iraq? If it was before it started, before we drove them out of Kuwait, I can respect that.

If it was at some point afterward during the years of the armistice I can’t. And I’ll be happy to explain.

Steve57 (338553) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:44 am

Comment by EPWJ (c3dbb4) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:11 am

Not really interested in anything you have to say.

Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:48 am

I have mixed feelings about the deal.

I’ve know Iranians, and they’ve generally been among the nicest people I’ve met anywhere. I don’t want them or their country to get bombed.

On the other hand, their government and political-religious leadership sucks (with which Iranians largely agree).

So I hope this deal is good and it succeeds. But it was done by Kerry and Obama, so one suspects it’s incompetent. Hopefully actual civil-servant professionals brought some realism to the politicians. At the end of the day, I doubt the leadership in Iraq really wants to get their asses nuked. It’s a prestige chip, it’s for domestic political reasons, etc. The Saudi-Israeli alliance brought pressure on them the Bush and Obama administrations did not.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:49 am

I suppose the Iraq war and ObamaCare seem worlds apart but they’re not. They’re how we do things. Congress writes up wish lists and gives them to Santa hoping they’ll magically happen.

When you do that on the domestic scene you get healthcare.gov. Which just doesn’t work. But Barack Obama spoke about it so that means it’s done.

When you do that on the international scene you get Saddam Hussein. Who wakes up one day and realizes, “Hey, those Americans aren’t seriously considering following through. They’re all talk.”

Reinforced by Bush 41 and Clinton, who can’t shut up about how stupid it would be to actually enforce our demands. Then both wonder why Hussein isn’t meeting our demands.

You try enforcing a no fly zone under those conditions.

Steve57 (338553) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:52 am

Steve57, I’m talking about the second war in Iraq. And I probably started changing my mind around 2011, maybe a bit earlier, but in earnest then.

I don’t really respect my prior support for the war; I think it was a bad error. I am interested in your reasons why you don’t respect the switch, of course.

For me, it was mostly moral and compassionate reasons. I met a lot of people from various parts of the middle east and, to be frank, I found them to be as good or better as human beings than most people I know in the west. I lost interest in hating them and blowing them up out of fear. The west still has vastly greater military capacity anyway.

Still, I argue with them about some things, sometimes losing friendships, again over moral grounds. I’m not such a huge fan of Mohammed, for obvious reasons, and this doesn’t go over that well. I feel similar about other religions, so it isn’t personal to Muslims (but they’re hypersensitve).

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:54 am

40. …So I hope this deal is good and it succeeds. But it was done by Kerry and Obama, so one suspects it’s incompetent. Hopefully actual civil-servant professionals brought some realism to the politicians. At the end of the day, I doubt the leadership in Iraq really wants to get their asses nuked. It’s a prestige chip, it’s for domestic political reasons, etc. The Saudi-Israeli alliance brought pressure on them the Bush and Obama administrations did not.

Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:49 am

Hope and doubt have no place in a plan of action.

Steve57 (338553) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:56 am

Stashiu

Yeah, but then again why did you make such an ugly comment then?

Is it proper to make cheap shots using your medical expertise to discredit people?

Says loads about your character which I suspected all the time but you just confirmed it here

EPWJ (c3dbb4) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:57 am

42. …I’m talking about the second war in Iraq.

Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:54 am

But there was no second war in Iraq. Just like there can be no second Korean war. Not until the first one ends.

Steve57 (338553) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:58 am

Well, I argued the same thing in supporting the second military conflict or first invasion or whatever you want to call it.

If you want to be legally precise, the re-initation of major hostilities. And yeah, I’m aware Iraq was extremely ineffectively launching sorties and missiles against hugely superior western air power.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:00 am

Stashiu3, good to see you my friend.

SPQR (768505) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:01 am

Stashiu

If ideas and comments drive you to do things that you as a reputed medical professional – are ethically prohibited from doing –

Sammy is just researching drawing conclusions and has never gotten personal.

Do I agree with most/some/all of his conclusions – well no neither does anyone

But if ideas drive you to such anger that you cannot operate within the bounds of your professional training

Maybe this isn’t the venue for you

EPWJ (c3dbb4) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:04 am

Re: the growth of state in recent decades.

William Jacobson may be right that that’s largely the function of the filibuster as a “ratchet”, and getting rid of it is great news. My view is it’s mostly an inevitable consequence of technological growth, especially IT, which makes administration of large bureaucracies possible (ObamaCare aside), as well as surveillance and the like, and the massive gap between the capabilities of weapons in the hand of the state vs. the armed, but now minimally armed by comparison, populace.

But there’s a third thing that few people give enough attention to. I think it’s one of the worst problems with how America’s democracy is set up.

Look at Canada or Australia and how Harper and now Tony Abbott are rolling back leftist programs in earnest. One of the biggest reasons they can do that is their legislatures have 3-5 years to do their work. So they have a little time after an election to do some unpopular things, then regain popularity when the results of these come in and/or they’re forgotten by subsequent events.

American democracy, with the best of intentions, was set up with a Congressional election period of every 2 years. Problem is this puts them in constant election mode, at least now that media is everywhere, and they have very little time to pass anything without being in re-elect campaign mode.

But they do have to pass things, so instead of rolling back programs, they pander — they pander like mad! — to voters’ most base instincts. On both sides of the aisle.

I don’t know that there’s a solution, but it would have been better if Congress was elected less frequently.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:14 am

Mere legalisms, FC? There are people getting, at times, full combat pay on the DMZ because when you have an armistice your are in fact at war.

The Second ID (Second to None) is or was there facing across no man’s land against the NORKS. For years. And there have been long periods of time when those gents have received the same combat pay as the guys in Iraq or Vietnam did.

Why? Because it’s not a mere legalism to refer to the Korean War as a war. It’s a fact. There’s an actual war. In 1996 a Sango class sub grounded near Seoul. That prompted a deadly manhunt that lasted months.

Am I dealing with mere legalisms in your mind, FC?

Steve57 (338553) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:20 am

You’re not saying anything I disagree with, Steve57, although you think you are for some reason.

Troops in the DMZ deserve combat pay because, while it may be a low-casualty zone for a long time, there is both the stress of a massive artillery and land assault, plus the realistic threat of a sudden flood of casualties inflicted upon them.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:22 am

Unbelievable that Obama and Kerry are so enthusiastic at dismantling long-standing bipartisan US policy on Iran … to no actual benefit. Why would they want to do this? Other than petulance to Israel.

SPQR (768505) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:27 am

Constitutionally you probably couldn’t get enough votes among the states to set it up, but it would be a huge improvement to American governance if you just kept Congressional elections every 2 years as a sop to tradition, but divided them into two groups with staggered terms of 4 years each in a similar way to how senate terms are staggered.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:28 am

I think where we disagree is that there was a second Iraq war.

I think where we might have agreed is should there have been an Iraq war at all.

But once there was, and we fought it, it was our obligation to see it through.

Steve57 (338553) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:29 am

SPQR

THey think we are so far from any real danger, that the Arabs will love us, and lower the price of oil and stop terrorism and say – see – it doesn’t take war

using it as the butter over guns ad naseum

EPWJ (c3dbb4) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:30 am

“Unbelievable that Obama and Kerry are so enthusiastic at dismantling long-standing bipartisan US policy on Iran … to no actual benefit. Why would they want to do this? Other than petulance to Israel.”

Takes the pressure off politically with what appears to be a foreign policy win. Plus, they probably do want to both avoid a war (either with Iran directly or between Saudi Arabia and Israel ad Iran) and avoid Iran getting nukes. It may be bad judgement, but I don’t think their motives are insincere. Not in this case.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:30 am

“But once there was, and we fought it, it was our obligation to see it through.”

There’s no obligation to continue a war just because. The political leadership can take American interests into account.

The amount of treasure alone sunk in Iraq is staggering compared to other wars.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:31 am

52. Unbelievable that Obama and Kerry are so enthusiastic at dismantling long-standing bipartisan US policy on Iran … to no actual benefit. Why would they want to do this? Other than petulance to Israel.

Comment by SPQR (768505) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:27 am

Perhaps you need to reread Obama’s speech at Nuremburg.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-citizen-of-the-world-presidency-1/

It’s all part of the fundamental transformation, SPQR.

Steve57 (338553) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:33 am

57. …There’s no obligation to continue a war just because. The political leadership can take American interests into account.

The amount of treasure alone sunk in Iraq is staggering compared to other wars.

Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:31 am

Then there was no obligation to deliver a list of demands there was never any possibility we’d, you know, actually demand.

You really don’t get it, do you?

Steve57 (338553) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:36 am

==to no actual benefit. Why would they want to do this? Other than petulance to Israel.==

Well, SPQR, the Sunday shows are talking about Iran–something vague and far away. Not Obamacare–close at hand and a material disaster. So there’s that.

elissa (ce1ea8) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:38 am

Basically you’re taking the Henry Kissinger position of prestige being super important.

Fine.

Iraq 2 didn’t help American prestige, however.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:38 am

Semi-relevant on the prestige front.

Far be it for me to agree with Mort Kondracke about anything, but I’ll give him this one:

http://blogs.rollcall.com/beltway-insiders/jfks-signal-accomplishment-saving-the-world-kondracke/

I didn’t read or watch every observation of the anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s assassination (who could?) but the ones I did gave short shrift to his signal accomplishment — saving the world from a nuclear holocaust.
Kennedy ATH 435×600 JFKs Signal Accomplishment:

His cool restraint during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis — resisting many advisers who were calling for bombing Soviet missile sites in Cuba — ought to earn him the top-of-the-heap public approval ratings he enjoys (90 percent in a CNN poll).

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:42 am

We fought Gulf I because the kind, benevolent, freely-elected, democratic, constitutional, honest, corruption-free, government of Kuwait was violently overthrown by vicious Iraqi vampire zombies who took babies out of their incubators, sucked out their brains, and left them on hospital floors.

And also because the royal family of Kuwait paid off everyone who needed to be paid off.

nk (dbc370) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:47 am

61. Basically you’re taking the Henry Kissinger position of prestige being super important.

Fine.

Iraq 2 didn’t help American prestige, however.

Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:38 am

No, I’m not. I’m not taking any approach you’ve previously dealt with. You really don’t get it. There was no Iraq 1. So there couldn’t be an Iraq 2.

So you’ll vote to blunder your way to the future. All the things you’re blaming for the past are not to blame. You are. And as you continue to comment I plan on making mention of it.

Steve57 (338553) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:58 am

EPWJ,

I will respond just this once, no matter how you further try to twist and contort things.

There is no anger in my heart towards Sammy.
There was nothing unprofessional about asking the question, Sammy is not my patient.
I did not say anything negative about Sammy. You’re the one who apparently thinks Asperger’s is something negative and ugly.
Nothing about Asperger’s would discredit someone’s opinion.
Finally, I asked the question for the exact reason I stated. It would explain a lot. As in, “Oh, that makes more sense now.”

You, however, can’t be explained. You can be anticipated though. I expect you to continue to draw unwarranted conclusions and make unfounded accusations in an attempt to attack my character. I won’t be drawn into any further nonsense with you. You’re a waste of precious time. Yes, I still think you should be banned. Feel special… you’re the only one I’ve ever asked to be banned. You’re hateful and a liar which is known to almost every regular here.

Now, spew your venom all you want. Make things up. It’s what you do. I refuse to play.

Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:59 am

What do you mean there was no Iraq 1?

Former Conservative (2e9802) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:59 am

Hello to you also SPQR. Hope you are well.

Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:00 am

Your position is that Iraq 1 + Iraq 2 = a single war. I think that’s pushing it a bit, but I see the point in a pedantic sense.

But there is at least an Iraq 1, if only in the sense that Iraq 1 = Iraq.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:08 am

pedantic was the wrong choice of words. I ought to have said in a technical sense.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:08 am

Briefly (believe it or not)
in general, nk, allowing nations to invade other nations without consequence gives tacit approval to the behavior and leads to more of the same, so even if the Kuwaitis were not perfect, I think it was reasonable to oppose Saddam, and so did a lot of the rest of the world.

IMO, whether there is some deal with Iran or not will make no difference in what Iran does, it will only be one factor in how the administration and press spins the state of history; whether that makes a difference ort not, I don’t know.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:09 am

You could have whacked the hell out of the Saddam regime without either leaving it in power or trying to occupy a Muslim country to little effect.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:20 am

I would’ve preferred a simple photo of Obama bowing to the mullahs and the IRG.

Colonel Haiku (106e45) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:23 am

lol

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:24 am

PeeWee… speak to teh hand…

…………………./´¯/)
………………..,/¯../
………………./…./
…………./´¯/’…’/´¯¯`·¸
………./’/…/…./……./¨¯\
……..(‘(…´…´…. ¯~/’…’)
………\……………..’…../
……….”…\………. _.·´
…………\…………..(
…………..\………….\

Colonel Haiku (106e45) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:35 am

Glad you’re back, Stashiu. Stay well.

MD, the reason Saddam thought he could invade Kuwait was because he was our buddy, fighting Iran for us. Bush 43 was certain that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons because Reagan and Bush 41 had given them to him to kill Iranian teenage boys with. Israel tried to warn us about getting into bed with a snake like Saddam, and the Bush 41’s response, by way of James Baker?, was “F**k them, they [the Jews] didn’t vote for us the last time and they won’t vote for us this time”. When Kuwait bought us off, Saddam thought that 41 had betrayed him the way Hitler had double crossed Stalin. That’s why he wanted 41 killed.

And Kuwait did buy us. Literally. They spent billions in DC to get the war going, and they paid us for our military expenditures after they got their oil fields back. We were their mercenaries.

Obama’s Middle East policy is stupid. But so were the policies of the four Presidents preceding him. We’re always going into an ant’s nest, stirring it a little with a stick, and leaving the same chaos behind when we lose interest.

And if you think this is a rant, wait till I tell you what I think about the way we behaved towards Afghanistan after the fall of the Soviet Union. 😉

nk (dbc370) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:46 am

The Saudis hate it too.

So what does Dear Leader mean when he says he consulted with our allies for this deal?

The National Lawyers Guild? SEIU?

Patricia (be0117) — 11/24/2013 @ 8:05 am

and yay, Stashiu!

Colonel Haiku (106e45) — 11/24/2013 @ 8:07 am

21- Steve57, The Japanese better keep their heads on a swivel.
I still think they are vulnerable to the Chicoms.

mg (31009b) — 11/24/2013 @ 8:07 am

78-

You are right, mg. The Chinese have continually hated Japan with a white hot passion ever since events in the late 1930’s.

elissa (ce1ea8) — 11/24/2013 @ 8:15 am

Double Secret Probation for Obama and Kerry and their year-long “secret talks”…

It’s delusional to believe this will not lead to nuclear proliferation throughout the region.

Colonel Haiku (106e45) — 11/24/2013 @ 8:40 am

more smoke and mirrors from the fundamental tranny boys…

Colonel Haiku (106e45) — 11/24/2013 @ 8:45 am

Stashiu3 – Good to hear you are on the mend.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/24/2013 @ 8:50 am

But Jeeze Louise. Society has gone off the deep end toward hyperstatism control-freakism. In what sense did the west win the Cold War if this is the result?

Welcome to the Administrative/Progressive State of the future, now on a Capitol Hill near you.

askeptic (2bb434) — 11/24/2013 @ 8:54 am

But … at some point, my eyes opened to the fact that America and even my native land, following your lead, wasn’t like it was when I was a child.

My same sentiments too.

For some reason, Former Conservative, whenever I saw your handle at Patterico.com, I couldn’t help thinking it meant that you were a person who had gravitated from the right towards the left or squishy center at this time in your life. (BTW, I’ve witnessed that phenomenon in a few older people I know personally, and it’s disconcerting.) After all, since the middle of the socio-political spectrum in the US has shifted to the left over the past 50 years, that type of philosophical movement in people is never too reassuring to me.

But “Former Conservative” apparently refers to your becoming more of a libertarian, which I can deal with. In my case, I know that I have a more isolationist attitude in 2013 than I had in the past, although I also recall what the world’s stage was like (ie, with America being happily isolationist — and understandably so, following WWI) prior to Pearl Harbor.

Speaking of a jittery past, a response of the US keeping to itself and giving Iran merely a cold shoulder (which is sort of what has been true until now) would make no less sense than what sounds like a rather feckless, Neville-Chamberlain-type of agreement between the Western powers and Iran.

Mark (58ea35) — 11/24/2013 @ 8:55 am

Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:28 am

I am always amused by “parliamentarians” who presume to tell unenlightened Americans how to improve their Constitutional Republic, so as to make it more like what they are familiar with.

F… Off!

askeptic (2bb434) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:03 am

His cool restraint

You mean his abject surrender to the Soviets, in removing the missiles from Turkey, and giving Castro a guarantee against invasion or overthrow.
That kind of “cool” can get you killed (which is what happened at the Bay of Pigs when Jack lost his nerve).

askeptic (2bb434) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:07 am

And also because the royal family of Kuwait paid off everyone who needed to be paid off.
Comment by nk (dbc370) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:47 am

Well, they learned the ways of Washington.

askeptic (2bb434) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:08 am

The military is sexy again in Japan. And why not? I can’t think of a European navy, not even the Royal Navy, that can match the JMSDF in combat power.

Between the Middle East and the apparently growing tensions in Asia, it’s so reassuring knowing that the White House currently is occupied by the wise sage out of Hawaii/Indonesia/Chicago. Sarcasm aside, any president dealing with Iran in 2013, along with the countervailing forces of the strange bedfellows that are Saudi Arabia and Israel, is looking at a hotbed of Hobson’s Choices and Catch 22s. But when the president is as philosophically corrupt and inept as Obama is, he is a bit likelier to exacerbate the nature of those Hobson’s Choice and Catch 22s.

Mark (58ea35) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:09 am

There’s only one thing that can undo what Teh Won has wrought… Mechali’lkim…

http://media-cdn.fishwrapper.com/2013/11/24/1123-fish-split-kim-2.jpg

Colonel Haiku (106e45) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:10 am

Bravo, Stashiu3.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:14 am

Can anyone explain why a nuclear Iran would be more problematic than a nuclear Israel?

In any event, does not MAD apply?

Michael Ejercito (906585) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:15 am

Senate Democrats like Schumer are already signaling that Obama’s Iran “deal” is dead with talk of new sanctions on Iran.

There is probably a veto-override super majority in both Houses opposed to Iran “Munich policy”.

SPQR (768505) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:16 am

Someone up-thread said implied that if the IDF attacks Iran, a thousand Israeli’s will die – at least that is how I read it.
If the IDF does not attack, and destroy Iran’s nuke capability, millions of Israeli’s will die.
I think Bibi is willing to make that trade-off, and he probably has a majority behind him.

askeptic (2bb434) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:17 am

Michael Ejercito, because Israel has not been making destruction of other countries part of its foreign policy like Iran has.

Because Israel is not spreading an extremist jihadi ideology through support of terrorist / insurgent movements with arms, as Iran is.

Why do you even ask that silly question?

SPQR (768505) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:18 am

In any event, does not MAD apply?

Not when one of the parties is actually mad.

askeptic (2bb434) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:19 am

because Israel has not been making destruction of other countries part of its foreign policy like Iran has.

Note the Islamist tendency toward suicidal attacks.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:24 am

Well, SPQR, the Sunday shows are talking about Iran–something vague and far away. Not Obamacare–close at hand and a material disaster. So there’s that.

Probably why they announced last Friday the postponement of the next round of Obamacare pain until after the 2014 elections. They knew they were going to bury that news on Saturday, and by the time the press is done with this new bone, their transparent attempt to hide the bad news on Obamacare will have passed unremarked.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:24 am

Well said, 94 and 95.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:25 am

There is probably a veto-override super majority in both Houses opposed to Iran “Munich policy”.

Well, yes, but who says the Congress will be asked. Obama will just waive the sanctions under his authority as Bossman.

And another line gets added to the impeachment list. And this one will have legs, especially if Israel has to go to war.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:28 am

Look at to what extent Israelis will go to save one of their citizens halfway around the world. Look at the ease with which Muslims are recruited to blow themselves and innocents up.

Now you see the problem with Muslim states getting nuclear weapons.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:28 am

If you’re wondering whether the Obama Administration made a good deal or not …

A key Senate Democrat said he is wary of lifting sanctions on Iran, and struck a skeptical tone toward the new diplomatic deal aimed at that nation’s nuclear program.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, criticized the agreement Sunday, saying Iran received too much relief from economic sanctions in exchange for its limited concessions on its nuclear program. He emphasized that the international community will have to track Iran’s adherence to the temporary agreement closely, and was reluctant to trim back sanctions until Iran has terminated its nuclear program.

“In my view, this agreement did not proportionately reduce Iran’s nuclear program for the relief it is receiving. Given Iran’s history of duplicity, it will demand ongoing, on the ground verification,” he said in a statement. “Until Iran has verifiably terminated its illicit nuclear program, we should vigorously enforce existing sanctions.”

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:29 am

(One values lives, including their own lives, more than the other.)

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:30 am

re: #97, c’mon, Kevin, I just heard Juan Williams insist this pushout beyond Nov-’14 election was not political in nature. Juan never, ever, no, never lies.

Colonel Haiku (106e45) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:31 am

remember, friends… many top Iranian officials pine for the Return of the Twelfth Sammy.

Colonel Haiku (106e45) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:33 am

Meanwhile, the GOP leadership in the House is still promising immigration reform. Stupid.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:33 am

And we have 3 more years of this crap. Someone tell me again how Romney would have been the same. I can’t hear that enough.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:35 am

I just heard Juan Williams insist this pushout beyond Nov-’14 election was not political in nature.

Well, my minimum high regard for Mr Williams has just got more minimum. What a tool.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:36 am

Why do they keep buying what he is selling;

http://therightscoop.com/full-iinterview-sarah-palin-responds-to-bashirs-comments-and-more/

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:39 am

As for Juan Williams, my response is to quote Captain Mal”

“Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.”

SPQR (768505) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:41 am

Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:29 am

Menendez, and Schumer, look at their base, and see a lot of people who would normally be sympathetic towards Israel, and might not take kindly to a sell-out.
The words “Never Again” have special meaning in the NYC area.

askeptic (2bb434) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:41 am

Lol, I missed that line, another line that is appropriate ‘someone tries to kill you, you kill them right back.’

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:43 am

And of course, Captain Mal’s negotiation strategies.

SPQR (768505) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:55 am

The LAT headline says “Iran’s Leaders Call Nuclear Deal a Success”. I am not POTUS, but even I know if Iran is labeling something a success, then it’s not only very possible but highly probable that this is not in our best interest.

Dana (e034c7) — 11/24/2013 @ 10:18 am

Somewhere on the high seas, harpoon at the ready, Cap’n Ahab maintains his quest.

Colonel Haiku (0f1c4b) — 11/24/2013 @ 10:21 am

Wendy Sherman, the architect of the deal with North Korea, ‘shirley they can’t be serious;

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2013/11/24/what-the-iran-deal-does-and-doesnt-do/

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 10:29 am

Stashiu,

since you have done this before, and been called out on it, I think whatever motivations were pretty apparent.

You know better and you did it anyway

Way to man up.
Blaming me for YOUR BEHAVIOR is creepy at best

And you know what – no one’s medical condition is any business of yours

Is that clear enough for you?????

Or lets speculate

EPWJ (590d06) — 11/24/2013 @ 10:33 am

Finally, I asked the question for the exact reason I stated. It would explain a lot. As in, “Oh, that makes more sense now.”

As in its a severe disorder, and you were diagnosing again

You’re just angry you were caught..

again…

EPWJ (6140f6) — 11/24/2013 @ 10:46 am

Can anyone explain why a nuclear Iran would be more problematic than a nuclear Israel?

Well, for one thing, the former has leaders who love to deny the Holocaust ever happened, while the latter is full of people whose relatives were victims of that same holocaust.

Meanwhile, the GOP leadership in the House is still promising immigration reform. Stupid.

I’m not sure if that’s due to “compassionate conservatism” (run amok) or simple, plain opportunism (or greed too—ie, “I don’t want to feel guilty or be legally hindered in latching onto cheap labor).

Mark (58ea35) — 11/24/2013 @ 10:47 am

the former has leaders who love to deny the Holocaust ever happened

It did happen, but certain elements were most definitely exaggerated.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 10:49 am

==it did happen, but certain elements were most definitely exaggerated.==

Oh do tell, FC. On second thought, please don’t. Your bias on this topic is well known, Christof.

elissa (ce1ea8) — 11/24/2013 @ 10:52 am

Oh good Allah, the only exaggerated part was that all the Jews on the European continent were not annihilated, but not for lack of effort.

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 10:54 am

A driver was stuck in a traffic jam on the highway outside Washington, DC. Nothing was moving. Suddenly, a man knocked on the window. The
driver rolled down the window and asked, “What’s going on?”

“Terrorists have kidnapped the entire US Congress & The President, and they’re asking for a $100 million dollar ransom. Otherwise, they are going to douse them all in gasoline and set them on fire. We are going from car to car, collecting donations.”

“How much is everyone giving, on an average?” the driver asked.

“About a gallon.”

Colonel Haiku (106e45) — 11/24/2013 @ 10:54 am

elissa, if you’re ignorant, that’s not my problem.

I don’t need to, in the slightest, venture in to the theories of Holocaust deniers to show this. There were several things we were taught as children that turn out to be bullshit according to mainstream sources.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 10:55 am

elissa, if you’re ignorant, that’s not my problem.

I don’t need to, in the slightest, venture in to the theories of Holocaust deniers to show this. There were several things we were taught as children that turn out to be BS according to mainstream sources.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 10:55 am

Like the Wansee conference, seriously, there was a systematic plan to kill all the Jews in Europe, the Grand Mufti was a partner in this, in Central Europe, on a smaller scale was their viceroy in Baghdad, as the farhad of ’41, showed.

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 10:59 am

Anyway, I’ll give a short list.

The Soviets, Poles, and Nuremburg Commission said there were 4 million or more Jews murdered at Auschwitz. The US Holocaust Museum now has it at at least 960,000 and Auschwitz itself has it at about 1.1 million.

A horrific number, but also a stupendous inaccuracy.

We were also taught that Dachau and the other western camps had purpose-built extermination gassing of Jews. That has since been revised to not be Dachau and the other western camps, but to be the camps later occupied by the Soviets. Which is kind of odd, but whatever.

Allegedly the Nazis made soap out of Jews. Now, not so much. Allegedly, they made lamp shades out of Jews. Now, not so much.

Etc.

Holocaust was horrible, but there was not a little propaganda going on too.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 11:01 am

You’ve been waiting all morning for the moment to spring this, haven’t you Christoph?

elissa (ce1ea8) — 11/24/2013 @ 11:02 am

I didn’t bring it up, Elissa.

But facts are important. I don’t know what your problem with them is.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 11:03 am

How does one say ‘Mission Accomplished’ in Farsi,

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/11/foreign-minister-celebrates-deal-iran-to-continue-nuclear-activities/

remember Zarif had the clout to get Hezbollah to release several of the hostages.

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 11:08 am

“There were several things we were taught as children that turn out to be BS according to mainstream sources.”

FC – What does that say for the Canadian education system?

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/24/2013 @ 11:15 am

They were taught in the American and British education systems too. It was mostly their documentaries.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 11:15 am

The Soviets, Poles, and Nuremburg Commission said there were 4 million or more Jews murdered at Auschwitz. The US Holocaust Museum now has it at at least 960,000 and Auschwitz itself has it at about 1.1 million.

A horrific number, but also a stupendous inaccuracy.

We were also taught that Dachau and the other western camps had purpose-built extermination gassing of Jews. That has since been revised to not be Dachau and the other western camps, but to be the camps later occupied by the Soviets. Which is kind of odd, but whatever.

Allegedly the Nazis made soap out of Jews. Now, not so much. Allegedly, they made lamp shades out of Jews. Now, not so much.

You do note that this waas in the immediate aftermath, where we were still trying to calculate the extent of what the Nazi nithings did.

Michael Ejercito (906585) — 11/24/2013 @ 11:16 am

See once you know who Zarif and Rouhani, are you wouldn’t trust them to tell you the time, yes the former aided us in Afghanistan, but that’s because they held the Northern Alliance account, we see how quickly they switched to support to the Taliban,

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 11:16 am

I was educated about this in the 70s and 80s, not the immediate aftermath.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 11:17 am

The (and it’s important) propaganda about the western camps aside, a lot of it had to do with accepting Soviet claims at face value because it was politically expedient to do so.

Same with how the Russians tried to blame the Germans for the massacre at the Katyn forest.

Anyway, while I’m willing to accept the current, revised scholarship on the Holocaust, I’m still struck by the fact that the dedicated extermination camps were in the Soviet occupied areas where it was, for a long time, hardest to get records out of or investigators in to. But even taking all this at face value, there was a lot of misinformation going on.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 11:22 am

For example;

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/10/01/Israels-Netanyahu–We-will-not-let-Iran-get-nukes

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 11:22 am

The claims I’ve seen by Holocaust deniers seemed interesting when first listened to, then fell apart upon analysis.

For example, claims that the ovens used in the Auschwitz crematoria could only dispose of one body per hour. There is a lot of evidence the actual rate is one ever 25 minutes, and that makes the 1.1 million figure possible.

I’m not denying the Nazis did evil or that the Jews and others (gays, Gypsies, mentally ill), completely innocent of wrong doing, were enslaved and murdered. I’m just saying accuracy and truth matter.

Or do they not?

If you have a problem with this stance, take it up with the US Holocaust museum, not with me.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 11:31 am

And personnel is policy, whether Shamkhani, Vahidi or this guy;

http://www.ncr-iran.org/en/news/terrorism-fundamentalism/14342-iran-hassan-rouhani-s-defense-minister-was-founder-of-lebanese-hezbollah

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 11:40 am

“The Soviets, Poles, and Nuremburg Commission said there were 4 million or more Jews murdered at Auschwitz.”

FC – Do you have a link for this Nuremburg Commission? Also, when were those documentaries you claimed to have viewed made?

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/24/2013 @ 11:42 am

Well considering how they lucked out with the last deal, anyone who thinks they got rid of all their weapons raise their hands;

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/syria-welcomes-nuclear-deal-iran_768149.html

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 11:46 am

“About a gallon.”

LOL. I read that joke a few weeks ago, but it’s still a good one.

As for any controversies surrounding the Holocaust, I’m far more intrigued by the little (or never) mentioned ironies surrounding the two major public figures of World War II, namely Franklin D Roosevelt and, of course, Adolph Hitler. That Roosevelt was an astonishingly bigoted, anti-Semitic, anti-miscegenation person in private — and had the gall to blame the Jews for inflaming Europe during the 1930s — while Hitler was an artiste and vegetarian who endorsed animal rights—and led a personal life that would have been in sync with today’s “GLBT” agenda.

Mark (58ea35) — 11/24/2013 @ 11:48 am

syria-welcomes-nuclear-deal-iran_768149.html

I’m not sure if it’s correct or not to have a sense that history is repeating itself, since, after all, I not long ago incorrectly guessed the stock market would be doing quite poorly right around now. Still, the news over the past day or so makes me wonder if Neville Chamberlain, instead of turning over in his grave, is giving a high five to people like Obama.

Mark (58ea35) — 11/24/2013 @ 11:54 am

I saw them on TV and in school a long time ago, daleyrocks. I remember specifically, for example, claims that Jews’ bodies were routinely put through some machine to sift through their blood to get gold from their teeth or stomach if they were swallowed.

Of course, this caused deep hatred of what the Nazis did. Which is fine, but it was exaggerated … to the perhaps unfair detriment of Germans, who certainly still deserved a whole lot of blame.

But no, I don’t have links to documentaries I watched in school and on TV. But they were certainly burned in to my mind and formed a huge part of my worldview moving forward.

As for the 4 million figure, I’m sure there are better sources, but a cursory glance includes this one, on a website designed to fight Holocaust denial:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/denial-of-science/four-million-01.html

It’s an older entry, and scholarship has mostly adjusted this 1.5 million estimate downward since then, but it says:

In the view of those who believe–or cause others to believe–in the [Holocaust], mass gassings, especially of Jews, were carried out in the concentration camps of the Third Reich. Above all in Auschwitz (hence the term “Auschwitz Myth”), four million Jews were gassed. [The Nuremberg Tribunal “established” that four million PEOPLE (Jews and non-Jews) had been KILLED (by all means) at Auschwitz.]

Currently, though, unimpeachable sources are seeking to reduce this [sic] figure to 1.5 million. On mathematical grounds alone, the “symbolic figure of Six Million ” should be reduced by 3.5 million. Of course, such a reduction does not lessen the [gravity of the] crime in any way, because even one victim is one too many.

The point being a lot of people were murdered in a wholly evil period of history, but there were some exaggerations made. I don’t claim to know what the exact figure was. I accept that the US Holocaust museum is probably mostly right and records have been more forthcoming from the Soviets since the fall of communism.

Cole was one of the people’s whose claims about the Auschwitz ovens did not stand up. He made some other interesting, possibly fair, points, but his main point failed.

If someone proves that the original claims were true, that’s fine with me. My only interest is gaining the best understanding of what happened possible.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 11:58 am

So they don’t have to give up refining in Arak, Natanz or Fordows (sic) yes this is a great plan,
and we give them 9 million in aid,

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 12:10 pm

Anyway, I don’t think that the claim that there were only 3.5 million Jews murdered is substantiated. They may have got the total number mostly right, but the allocation of where they died and how they died partly, but substantially, wrong.

Plus some more fanciful (but horrific) tales were taught as if they were fact for too long. What really happened was more than bad enough.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 12:13 pm

Anyway, daleyrocks, this undermines the claim that the Nuremburg Commission accepted the 4,000,000 figure (although it was often passed along in documentaries via the Soviets and Poles claims) at the end of the day.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/09/some-misconceptions-related-to.html

It is important to stay within the realm of facts. But the soap, lampshade thing are acknowledged as mostly bogus now.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 12:18 pm

‘Words just words,’ the real parties that matter are not impressed;

http://www.timesofisrael.com/saudi-prince-to-iran-we-wont-sit-idly-by/

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 12:24 pm

“I saw them on TV and in school a long time ago, daleyrocks. I remember specifically, for example, claims that Jews’ bodies were routinely put through some machine to sift through their blood to get gold from their teeth or stomach if they were swallowed.”

FC – Interesting. I don’t recall ever seeing or reading anything about bodies being put through a machine. Were you even alive in the 1970s?

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/24/2013 @ 12:36 pm

propaganda fit for teh Canadian hosers, eh.

Colonel Haiku (0b9ff1) — 11/24/2013 @ 12:38 pm

“Former Conservative”, I’ve been waiting all year for your scholarly discussion of the Holocaust.

Uh … not.

SPQR (768505) — 11/24/2013 @ 12:39 pm

Were you even alive in the 1970s?

Unfortunately.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 12:41 pm

Colonel – Put the puck in the net, eh.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/24/2013 @ 12:45 pm

FC – Interesting. I don’t recall ever seeing or reading anything about bodies being put through a machine.

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/24/2013 @ 12:36 pm

Yeah, I’m calling BS on this one, too, daleyrocks.

I was taught that of the 13 million victims of the Holocaust, 6 million of them were Jewish. We learned the names of concentration camps like Auschwitz and Dachau.

I remember being tested on those facts.

But soap and lampshades, not so much.

Pons Asinorum (8ce71a) — 11/24/2013 @ 12:50 pm

How old are you, Pons?

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 12:50 pm

12

Pons Asinorum (8ce71a) — 11/24/2013 @ 12:53 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/11/24/world/middleeast/ap-cn-canada-iran.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 12:53 pm

Well I don’t know if you’re serious (I doubt it), but if you’re 12 or in any case younger, then you would have been taught based on newer, better scholarship.

I didn’t mention the blood straining whatever the first time around, because I only ever heard it from one source unlike the lampshade and soap claims which were made a lot. Point being some of the more inflammatory claims were added to the real ones to gin up emotions. The strictly true claims ought to have been more than sufficient.

Kudos to modern scholars for doing a better job, no doubt aided by more access to records with the fall of the Soviet Union.

This topic is pretty much exhausted, I think.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 12:57 pm

If ideas and comments drive you to do things that you as a reputed medical professional – are ethically prohibited from doing –

Bye, EPWJ.

Patterico (9c670f) — 11/24/2013 @ 12:59 pm

stop being a jackalope’

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/iran-nuclear-deal-fuels-anger-jitters-mideast

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 12:59 pm

Good riddance, Patterico.

SPQR (768505) — 11/24/2013 @ 1:02 pm

Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 12:57 pm

I’m 49, but look ~~40ish…~~ 35ish.

No, we were not taught those things in school, at all.

Pons Asinorum (8ce71a) — 11/24/2013 @ 1:06 pm

Well that’s good, Pons.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 1:06 pm

timesofisrael.com/saudi-prince-to-iran-we-wont-sit-idly-by/

What a murky mess.

I didn’t sympathize with the Saudis when it came to their position regarding Syria, but they do seem more on the ball regarding Iran. But the Saudis in general, particularly due to their habit of supporting anti-Western terrorist factions, have to be treated like the proverbial broken clock—which when it does tell the correct time, it’s limited to several seconds only twice a day.

Prince Mohammad also voiced unusually abrasive criticism of the West for what he said was a too-soft approach to Iran, calling Washington’s “rush” to engage with Tehran “incomprehensible.”

Exactly. Why now? After all, the agreement is so flimsy, why did the TPTB (particularly Obama and the EU) even bother going through the motions of negotiating it in the first place?

Because Obama is such a manipulative, dishonest, self-absorbed politician, who knows how much of the strategy is to stroke his Nobel-prize-winning ego, how much is to create a “wag the dog” moment, how much is to curry favor with like-minded anti-Imperialist, anti-Western liberals throughout Europe?

Mark (58ea35) — 11/24/2013 @ 1:07 pm

One thing I’ll say is I did a lot of watching documentaries outside of school, and reading too. My father was very anti-Nazi/anti-Holocaust (and who wouldn’t be?). While these were claims I definitely remember from the WW2 documentaries on TV, I’m sure he added to or reinforced it in some way. We would have talked about it for sure.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 1:10 pm

Exaggerated claims about major historical events happens all the time. I do remember the soap and lampshade stories (and more), but claiming these stories were taught in school as a matter of course is not accurate. Even in Canada, I doubt this was in the curriculum.

As you say, facts are important.

Pons Asinorum (8ce71a) — 11/24/2013 @ 1:20 pm

FC – I think it is mighty big of you to admit that the Holocaust was horrific, just not as horrific as you thought because the information you received as a kid differs from the information from whatever sources you have now and your belief that Iranians are better people than Westerners or something.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/24/2013 @ 1:22 pm

Well this makes me feel less apprehensive:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/11/24/Iranian-Foreign-Minister-on-Deal-All-Plots-Hatched-By-Zionist-Regime-Have-Failed

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 1:24 pm

Yeah, this is gonna hurt.

Is the President a big appeasement fan (ignorant of history) or just plain old fashion stupid?

Pons Asinorum (8ce71a) — 11/24/2013 @ 1:27 pm

Floor wax or desert topping;

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 1:31 pm

==I think it is mighty big of you to admit that the Holocaust was horrific, just not as horrific as you thought because the information you received as a kid differs from the information from whatever sources you have now and your belief that Iranians are better people than Westerners or something.==

So, daleyrocks, in other words he monopolized the thread for hours and all we got was this lousy t-shirt?

elissa (ce1ea8) — 11/24/2013 @ 1:43 pm

So this deal, is ‘the horror’ hopefully it will not be observed, but the fact that exists is disquieting enough,

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 1:51 pm

48. Your position is that Iraq 1 + Iraq 2 = a single war. I think that’s pushing it a bit, but I see the point in a pedantic sense.

But there is at least an Iraq 1, if only in the sense that Iraq 1 = Iraq.

Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:08 am

49. pedantic was the wrong choice of words. I ought to have said in a technical sense.

Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:08 am

Either would have served for my purposes. Allies. Either we is or we isn’t. You want to now say it’s pedentic or semantic or romantic, or now a technicality, to claim we really meant those words when we listed those demands of the Hussein regime at Safwan. It’s OK to ignore those words? And I’m guilty of a technicality for even bringing them up?

Now our erstwhile allies are reviewing their treaties with us illuminated by the same knowledge. Well they should. And why not? What are you going to say? This time we mean it?

If driving Iraq out of Kuwait was enough we just should have declared peace and carried on. But, NO! We had to list a bunch of crap that Iraq didn’t have to fulfill right then, but had to fulfill eventually, as essential to terminate the war.

You haven’t learned a damned thing. And you vote.

Steve57 (338553) — 11/24/2013 @ 2:01 pm

I knows he’s a Journolist, but this is still embarassing;

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/11/24/Buzzfeed-s-Ben-Smith-Obama-Has-Earned-His-Nobel

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 2:02 pm

There’s so much hypocrisy, European powers, France and Germany, built up Iraq’s stockpiles, they arranged the oil for food program, that was Saddam’s rainy day fund, yet they pretended their opposition was based on noble principle,

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 2:06 pm

I think it is mighty big of you to admit that the Holocaust was horrific, just not as horrific as you thought because the information you received as a kid differs from the information from whatever sources you have now and your belief that Iranians are better people than Westerners or something.==

WTF? Levels of horrific are now being argued? Doesn’t get any more shameful than this. Lampshades or blood filtering, there were 6 million Jews killed – isn’t that horrific enough for you?

Meh.

Dana (45070c) — 11/24/2013 @ 2:10 pm

Christoph,

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. Are you denying the Nazis used human skin, etc., to make artifacts or only that they used skin to make lampshades? (Re: lampshades, this article might interest you.)

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/24/2013 @ 2:10 pm

The idea that the Iran deal is a success is as premature a conclusion as the original decision of the Nobel Prize committee to give the award to Obama in 2009, before he had done anything.

The only ones besides who Obama who really see this as a success already are the…..Iranians.

Heh. This is classic,

In 1939, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was nominated for the Nobel Prize for leading the Munich talks at which Czechoslovakia was abandoned to the Nazis. Many hailed Chamberlain’s “peace for our time.” A year later, Europe was at war, largely because of the aggression the Munich agreement had encouraged. The Nobel Prize committee gave no Peace Prize in 1939. Even they realized that peace is distinct from appeasement.

Was the Nobel Prize committee just smarter back then?

Dana (45070c) — 11/24/2013 @ 2:13 pm

6 million jews killed is what Valerie Jarrett calls a benchmark

happyfeet (8ce051) — 11/24/2013 @ 2:19 pm

Okay then, no backbacon for you, hoser!

Colonel Haiku (3a0ea8) — 11/24/2013 @ 2:19 pm

narcisco, this might be marginally worse from another lister,

http://twitchy.com/2013/11/24/oh-dear-john-kerry-crush-inspires-matt-yglesias-most-sidesplitting-tweet-yet/

Gazzer (e6ddf8) — 11/24/2013 @ 2:20 pm

Obama’s wish comes true as Honduras moves left.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/24/2013 @ 2:27 pm

Syria is pleased, that should count for something!

Colonel Haiku (3a0ea8) — 11/24/2013 @ 2:27 pm

Bye, EPWJ.
Comment by Patterico (9c670f) — 11/24/2013 @ 12:59 pm

Thank you.

Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 11/24/2013 @ 2:30 pm

Well that’s unsurprising and somewhat humorous;

http://twitchy.com/2013/11/24/lost-in-translation-hmm-something-seems-very-familiar-about-kerrys-iran-deal-spin/

Schumer just got an extra case of Maalox, as this deal will be tied around his team.

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 2:35 pm

Katy Perry says this is a bad deal that will ensure a regional arms race and drive Israel, Saudi Arabia and several other Gulf states to seek new alliances and move away from their ill-advised dependence on neo-fascist america.

happyfeet (8ce051) — 11/24/2013 @ 2:37 pm

Heh, Bob Schieffer wonders if Iran “deal” is a diversionary tactic.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bob-schieffer-to-gop-rep-is-iran-deal-diversionary-tactic-for-obama-admin/

elissa (ce1ea8) — 11/24/2013 @ 2:40 pm

Now that it has been brought up, I think I remember something about the Nazi’s looking for gold fillings from crematorium ashes, but it is not a big deal, I don’t think, what one does with ashes compared to what was done to the once living people.

“Blood and Guts” Patton vomited when he first saw what was in the concentration camps.

OT, FWIW- I was talking to a friend raised in Belgium; she learned in school that the Marshall Plan was essentially an evil plot of the US to make Europe feel dependent upon them/us; as to be expected, the teacher who pushed this idea was a pro-Soviet “socialist”.

So, maybe the US was behind Hitler so Europe could be destroyed so the US could rebuild it and take over…

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/24/2013 @ 2:40 pm

An interesting meme, that has surfaced in the course of the recent canonization of JFK, this week, was his support for the test ban treaty, now it didn’t really solve the problem of nuclear proliferation, but it did make people feel all warm and fuzzy, A similar sentiment obtains with this deal,

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 2:45 pm

Stash, if you’re still reading the thread, I hope you’re recovering well and it’s good to see you in the threads once in a while.

Dustin (303dca) — 11/24/2013 @ 2:53 pm

So… Saturday’s dominated by a moronic Kennedy assassination re-hash and today by Holocaust Trutherism…

Ye Gods!

Colonel Haiku (3a0ea8) — 11/24/2013 @ 2:54 pm

Because Romney!

Colonel Haiku (3a0ea8) — 11/24/2013 @ 2:56 pm

here’s the top comment on the article on this from National Soros Radio

the typically anti-semitic crowd there is loving this

Mr. Shoe
• 8 hours ago

It’s apparent that Israel does not want peace, therefore we need to pull all financial aid until they tone down the war rhetoric. Beyond that, we need to consider putting sanctions in place. Watch our “terrorist threats” disappear and watch who becomes hostile over that one.

happyfeet (8ce051) — 11/24/2013 @ 3:02 pm

happyfeet,

It’s exasperating to read such a manipulatively hateful and intellectually dishonest comment. Not because my expectations of the left are higher than this, but because that sort of comment so very aptly represents who is in control of this precarious situation as well as our country at large.

Dana (45070c) — 11/24/2013 @ 3:09 pm

that comment has by far the most votes in support so it must be very representative of the NPR audience’s thinking on these matters

happyfeet (8ce051) — 11/24/2013 @ 3:15 pm

A mastery of understatement:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/after-iran-nuclear-deal-tough-challenges-ahead/2013/11/24/9853518e-552c-11e3-835d-e7173847c7cc_story.html?tid=ts_carousel

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 3:18 pm

If you like your nuclear program, you can keep it. But if you think you’re going to be allowed to go to the dermatologist of your choice, we’ll send the IRS and the Justice Department over to your house.

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/24/2013 @ 3:21 pm

What me worry?

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2013/11/24/this-deal-could-make-iran-a-regional-superpower/

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 3:34 pm

Revisionist history is popular with liberals. Racism is Republicans’ fault, even though it was Democrats who supported Jim Crow and opposed civil rights. And Israel is the biggest threat to peace, even though Iran and its allies are the ones preaching the destruction of Israel and the Jews.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/24/2013 @ 4:34 pm

We can thank our horrible education system.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/24/2013 @ 4:35 pm

No it’s not merely revisionist history, although the latter point about education as Robin has pointed out, has merit, it is failure of logic.

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 4:39 pm

Because Romney!

Comment by Colonel Haiku (3a0ea8) — 11/24/2013 @ 2:56 pm

In a way, yes. It’s a shame the GOP miscalculated and did not pick a winner last year. The stakes for this country were far reaching. Many lifelong Republicans were frustrated at the choice of Obama vs Romney or Obama vs Mccain. Me, I was mostly angry at the ballot access disaster in Virginia that was ruled unconstitutional. But you are right that this issue is related to foreign policy in a sense.

I still feel that we should order our primaries based on each state’s unemployment and deficit : GDP ratio in order to let the states picking a good government have more say in our nominee than, say, Iowa.

Indeed, the primary candidate I supported served in the military whereas both the presidential candidates in 2012 had not, one of them even staying in Paris during the draft. These things have a way of self correcting. If this agreement is an historical mistake, we will unfortunately face the consequences, and hopefully begin to value leaders with the necessary consistent principles and experience that I personally prefer.

Dustin (303dca) — 11/24/2013 @ 4:40 pm

We can thank our horrible education system.

Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/24/2013

It’s a huge part of this issue. When I took post civil war American history at Texas Tech, the professor never mentioned World War Two or the Cold War. Issues like segregation and civil rights were taught in a bizarre and vague way. We were tested on Michael Moore videos that were shown to class in place of lectures.

When I was unsure of an answer on a test I would simply assume the answer is the most knee jerk hack one, and that assumption served me well, unfortunately.

The professor was a really nice lady and I am a fan of her academic freedom, but I do feel that there’s a huge problem in education when it’s time for students to learn about the world today.

Dustin (303dca) — 11/24/2013 @ 4:44 pm

Those are interesting links, DRJ; I have come across them before.

I’m definitely familiar with Ilse Koch, and have used her as an example of the evil of the Nazis during the Holocaust many times, including back when I took as fact all of these early accusations. A few things to note though are that the lampshade unearthed during Katrina was never show to be of Jewish origin. There’s only one. And even aside from that, if it was tied to Koch, that would be one particular Nazi sadists rather than the Nazis in general. And most museum curators now dismiss claims about the lampshades and soap.

In fact, she and her husband were tried by the Nazis because, despite being murderous in carrying out their orders, they had gone too far into the realm of personal sadism and corruption even by Nazi standards.

I think the soap claim is, despite and because it is incredibly distasteful, worth looking at. Basically it accuses the Nazis and SS of not only being horrible mass murderers, but also implies that the German population and soldiers were so OK with this that they were willing to use personal hygiene products made of the bodies of Jewish men, women, and children.

I totally agree with MD in Philly that it matters more what is done to the victims while alive than dead, but at the same time, this would indicate such a callous and perverse shared complicity in terms of use of such a personal product that it’s almost beyond comprehension. It would paint the Germans as not only looking the other way, which is largely true, but as gleefully (literally) bathing in the bodies of their enemies. But now this claim is pretty much dismissed with. There’s no evidence for it.

If and when there was good evidence for it, I would simply revert to my first position about it. At the end of the day, and in pretty much any area of life I can think about, I’m interested in discovering the truth however wretched. I am under few illusions about the fact that humans are capable of great wretchedness. I just think that the Germans deserve an accurate accounting as do the Holocaust survivors.

Ironically — and I do think it’s ironic (and not unrelated) — the Germans now lead most of the world in humane child protection efforts.

That’s my last comment about this; thanks for referring to those sources.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:01 pm

Indeed, the primary candidate I supported served in the military whereas both the presidential candidates in 2012 had not, one of them even staying in Paris during the draft. These things have a way of self correcting. If this agreement is an historical mistake, we will unfortunately face the consequences, and hopefully begin to value leaders with the necessary consistent principles and experience that I personally prefer.

Different day, more of the same horsesh*t…

Colonel Haiku (3a0ea8) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:04 pm

You seem to masterfully missed the point, maybe I could introduce you to someone who prosecuted these war criminals, 30 to 40 years after the fact, because of teutonic meticulousness, they recorded every death they perpetrated.

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:07 pm

19. Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 11/24/2013 @ 4:59 am

To Sammy:

A personal question I’ve wanted to ask for some time… Have you ever been diagnosed with Asperger’s? It would explain a lot.

No, although someone, I think maybe my sister-in-law thought that I had it. I don’t think that fits at all, since someone with Aspergers is supposed not to understand how people think.

The issue is now moot, since the disease has been abolished.

I am not sure what it would explain.

One thing to remember is that all this sort of thing does is oversimplifies and pigeonholes people * – and why would you want to do that?

* saying if X or Y is true, then W and Z are true, which is not true, it isn’t even often true that X or Y is true exactly

Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:11 pm

“WHICH IS WHY OBAMA LIED: Poll: If Voters Had Known They’d Lose Their Insurance, They’d Have Voted For Romney…” http://weaselzippers.us/2013/11/23/if-voters-had-known-theyd-lose-their-insurance-theyd-have-voted-for-romney/

Colonel Haiku (3a0ea8) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:12 pm

104. Comment by Colonel Haiku (106e45) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:33 am

many top Iranian officials pine for the Return of the Twelfth Sammy.

One thing I understand is that’s not true at all. I assume you mean the 12th imam.

Well, I assume you mean some kind of a joke too, but then it’s just a joke.

Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:13 pm

Not because my expectations of the left are higher than this, but because that sort of comment so very aptly represents who is in control of this precarious situation as well as our country at large.

Obama deals with Iran and Israel in a typically ass-backwards manner, common among the left. So in this instance, instead of a Trayvon Martin you have an Iran (or a Manual Zelaya of Honduras in 2009, or a Henry Gates Jr, or a Nidal Hasan). And instead of a George Zimmerman you have an Israel (or a group of constitutionalist defenders in Honduras, or a police officer in Cambridge, or the political-correctness squad in the US military).

buzzfeed.com, November 24: Israeli officials knew they were being kept in the dark as the U.S. conducted secret talks with Iran, and the knowledge that the White House was “going behind Israel’s back” was one of the key sources of tension between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama, according to a senior Israeli minister and other Israeli officials.

“We did not know from the beginning, but we knew, we had intelligence that these meetings were happening,” said the Israeli minister, who spoke to BuzzFeed by phone from his Jerusalem office. He said that a “friend in the Gulf” shared intelligence with Israel that the meetings were taking place, and urged Israel to find out more… That “friend,” one foreign ministry official said, was Saudi Arabia, which along with Israel has most strongly objected to the nuclear deal reached between Iran and the West over the weekend.

One Israeli lawmaker from Netanyahu’s party said that Israel’s leadership was “furious … we felt like we were being stabbed in the back.”

“There was never a great love or warmth between Obama and Netanyahu but after we confirmed that they were seeking to hide talks with Iran from us there was distrust and suspicion in the relationship,” said the lawmaker.

U.S. officials told AP that the discussions were kept hidden even from the U.S.’s closest friends, including its negotiating partners and Israel, until two months ago, and that may explain how the nuclear accord appeared to come together so quickly after years of stalemate and fierce hostility between Iran and the West.

Mark (58ea35) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:16 pm

WASHINGTON POST: President Romney? Yes, if the election were held today. “The poll of registered voters shows Romney at 49 percent and Obama at 45 percent in the rematch, a mirror image of Romney’s four-point (51-47) popular-vote loss in 2012.”

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/179606/

Colonel Haiku (3a0ea8) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:18 pm

Re: #207… Sammy, you will always be the Numero Uno Imam in my eyes… you not numbah 12, you numbah 1!

Colonel Haiku (3a0ea8) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:20 pm

This is a mirror of how Rabin conducted the Oslo talks, with Arafat, and we remember how that turned out,

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:20 pm

“WHICH IS WHY OBAMA LIED: Poll: If Voters Had Known They’d Lose Their Insurance, They’d Have Voted For Romney…”

I have little doubt that if the election were held today, without a campaign, but simply a decision today, Romney would win slightly.

The same was probably true in November last year, though. It’s the campaign that made the difference. Romney’s proposed solution to Obamacare was too much like Obama’s own recent mistake of executive fiat, in my opinion.

The solution/problem is not the politicians. Romney and Obama are symptoms of an electorate that is too easily swayed by silliness and insufficiently concerned with principles or performance in office. Indeed both Obama and Romney were basically just candidates when they were nominated (for Obama I mean in 2008, where Obama as a senator had missed much of his senate work). We aren’t nominating successful governors anymore.

The states are not equally afflicted with low info voters, as we can see from the ease with which meat and potato performers can do their jobs and beat charlatans in some states. That’s why I think the primaries should be reordered to benefit the better run states.

One thing I understand is that’s not true at all. I assume you mean the 12th imam.

Well, I assume you mean some kind of a joke too, but then it’s just a joke.

Comment by Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1) — 11/24/2013

He’s just joking. He means well. I used to get really bent out of shape about that kind of thing too, mainly when it came to Iran, but it’s not meant to upset.

Dustin (303dca) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:22 pm

Romney should consider running again, if only because his predictions about what would come to pass have proved so true, and his honesty will stand in stark contrast to Obama’s now-revealed deceptions. But as during the original election, RomneyCare is an albatross.

So it’ll probably be someone else. Could do worse than Rand Paul because he has a strong pro-liberty bent, which is great in these days of NSA and IRS scandals, but has a more realistic foreign policy inclination than his father. I know because it p*sses off many anarchist and antistatist libertarians I’m familiar with. They consider it a betrayay, but it would be more familiar to the electorate.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:23 pm

We’d be in a helluva better place with Romney at the helm… even you, Cap’n Horsesh*t, despite your happy horsestuff talk of this elusive rock-ribbed conservative who never appeared on the scene.

Colonel Haiku (3a0ea8) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:24 pm

*betrayal

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:24 pm

mg 15. …Japan, can you hear me?
China is gearing up for some islands in your area.
————

The President of South Korea just recently lectured John Kerry about Japan. He had wanted her to be more nice to Japan. After all they both have problem with China.

She said if Germany had acted as non-apologetically as Japan did and said hurtful things (denied things basically you know) there never would have been able to be the kind of alliance Europe has now (a very rough paraphrase)

I read it in the paper but can’t seem to find mention of this online.

Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:32 pm

He really is that stupid, Korea was a colony of Japan for about 40 years off and on, and she is the daughter of the previous dictator Park, so she is more than a little aware of who should deal with what.

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:38 pm

Modern Education:

We credential the indoctrinated, and education is left at the door-step.

askeptic (2bb434) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:43 pm

Different day, more of the same horsesh*t…

Comment by Colonel Haiku (3a0ea8) — 11/24/2013

We can happily just agree to disagree. I don’t think Romney will run again, although that’s what I thought when in 2008. I don’t mean to provoke you when I criticize the poor guy. It’s an issue I’ve been concerned about since the 1990s. I do think that when someone runs for president they open themselves up to criticism, and if they can’t take it then we should be concerned.

I don’t think it’s horses*** to lament that Mr Romney did not serve in the military or that he was in Paris during the draft. You don’t have to care about that issue, but I would have liked him better if he had military experience. And more Americans can’t live in a foreign country for years when the nation begins conscription. There’s something deeply unfair and aristocratic about those who took this route at that time, and the problem obviously crosses party lines. When these policies only affect the little guy, and the favored son of a governor needn’t worry about them, I have a problem, much as I have a problem when a policy like Obamacare doesn’t apply to everyone the same.

When we talk about Iran’s negotiations with our Administration I think about how these negotiations will affect people differently. A more unstable world will impact the younger Americans at a time when those who are making these policies might not even be with us, so I want a long term approach. Negotiations that are permissive of nuclear enrichment might not manifest as anything for a decade, kinda like it was when North Korea admitted they broke their agreement for years and made a nuclear weapon, at which point there was nothing we could do about it.

Obviously that’s what will happen with Iran one day. If it leads to war, it will impact our citizens differently. No doubt our political class (which is what it is at this point) will be affected much less, and I think that’s one reason they seem apathetic to some of the concerns in this agreement.

Dustin (303dca) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:07 pm

We’d be in a helluva better place with Romney at the helm… even you, Cap’n Horsesh*t, despite your happy horsestuff talk of this elusive rock-ribbed conservative who never appeared on the scene.

Comment by Colonel Haiku (3a0ea8) — 11/24/2013

It seems like part of your sentence was left out. Or you may be saying the country would be better for me, but in your rush to insult me you forgot to write all the words. Again, we can just agree to disagree without anger.

Things would be different, but I question how different.

I mean, Romney’s big complaint during his short and single time in office was that the democrats kept winning when they had differences over policy.

Would Romney be a match for Senator Reid today? His judicial nominations would be the biggest difference, and I wonder just how good they would be. Remember how you felt with Justice Roberts ruled Obamacare was a legal tax, and thus constitutional.

On foreign policy we have so little to rely on to know what Romney would do. He has gone both ways on so many issues. I wonder if you’re just assuming that the Romney we’d get would be awesome.

I will say this, I think John Mccain would have been better than Obama on foreign policy. Many of his guesses, such as on the surge or Lebanon or Afghanistan have been well ahead of other leaders. On all else I think a President Mccain would have been essentially the same as a President Romney or a President Lindsey Graham.

But there’s no way to know. Romney was not able to beat Obama during the election, primarily because he was not able to criticize the aspects of Obama’s record that resemble Romney’s. Christoph is noting that Romney predicted much of Obama’s problems accurately. That’s true, and unsurprising given the parallels in their records.

Dustin (303dca) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:14 pm

I will say this, I think John Mccain would have been better than Obama on foreign policy.

Not me. He seemed to want to get involved in foreign conflicts all over the place, on the side of jihadis half the time like in Lybia and Syria. Regrettably, McCain’s trauma led him to want to be part of far too many fights.

Former Conservative (58282f) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:17 pm

Romney was serving a mission for his church, it’s not as if he was on holiday, Dustin. You have a habit of characterizing events or actions in the worst possible light and its dishonest at its core.

Colonel Haiku (819c71) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:18 pm

And you’re a smarmy sonuva b*tch, to boot.

Colonel Haiku (4e5a95) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:21 pm

Whereas Fehrnstrom and Stevens, never saw Obama in that way did they, ‘he’s just in over his head’ really is that your final answer,

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:23 pm

Who is this mystery candidate, this rock-ribbed conservative that would have won the nomination and election, if he existed, Dustin? Just one name.

Colonel Haiku (4e5a95) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:24 pm

his predictions about what would come to pass have proved so true, and his honesty will stand in stark contrast to Obama’s now-revealed deceptions.

I don’t really see a wise prediction as a sign of moral integrity. Romney is a very smart guy by all accounts, and his ability to predict the future was why he did so well as an investor. I’m sure it would have helped him as President, but I don’t think it helps on his real problem, which you seem to be addressing. It has always been hard for me to trust politicians in either party who passionately explain their principled view, but then when the popular opinion changes they passionately explain their principled view which is now the opposite.

We just saw this with the talk of the filibuster.

Here’s the problem: It would be a huge advantage to a political party if they had discipline enough to never do this, but the individual politicians who do this will tend to lose to those who say whatever is popular at the time. Whether that’s condemning the Reagan era or saying he is a great admirer of it.

One reason I use Romney to illustrate this issue is that I think he’s got to be the easiest example. Even with all the advantages he had, such as running for president for most of a decade (!) and loaning himself millions of dollars, I still am amazed he was the nominee with these glaring issues. Ultimately I voted for Romney in the general election, but I also decided I’m not really a Republican as the party does not seem principled or even coherent. The nomination hurt the party. I disagree with you that we should nominate Romney in 2016. The 2012 election’s economy and employment made it one of the easiest elections for the GOP to win in our lifetimes.

Dustin (303dca) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:24 pm

the left make sure they mobilize their base, they cater to Red Squaw Warren, even give an unwarranted hearing to Wendy Davis, the GOP spits on theirs, and frankly even hires people who bring the spitoon,

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:29 pm

“I don’t really see a wise prediction as a sign of moral integrity.”

I don’t think “moral integrity” is the electorate’s main requirement for President. But they’ll be turned off by that degree of deception and incompetence, so its alternative will be of some interest to them. If not in the person of Romney, then some other option.

It would be a mistake to nominate someone this time around who can’t capitalize on contrasting themselves with Obama’s off-putting weaknesses.

Former Conservative (58282f) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:31 pm

Sammy,

First, thank you for answering. I meant no offense and I’m glad you didn’t seem to take any. What it would seem to explain would be a tendency to be very literal, sometimes verbose, and having difficulty recognizing when someone is being sarcastic or rhetorical… all things you have seen people complain about here in the past.

I don’t believe these things are an all-or-none occurrence for anyone. You are usually very insightful, sometimes to the point where you start reading far more into a situation than most would consider reasonable. That doesn’t make you wrong. When this happens in the future, I will try to remain as patient as you consistently demonstrate towards others.

Thank you again.

Stashiu3 (552bda) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:32 pm

142. for the 4 million figure, I’m sure there are better sources, but a cursory glance includes this one, on a website designed to fight Holocaust denial:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/denial-of-science/four-million-01.html

The people who put that site together don’t really understand what went on with that 4 million killed at Auschwitz figure and how that happened.

This was a Communist claim. This is based on a sign put up outside the camp by the Polish Communist government. Communists didn’t particularly care about accuracy, even when the truth is more or less on their side and wouldn’t change anything. Nobody else made that claim.

I once saw in a library, a translation of a 1976 Soviet textbook. It has 6 million Jews killed – 4 million in Auschwitz and 2 million in Maidanek. These were both sites liberated by the Red Army. With the 6 million used up, they didn’t even have room for Treblinka.

I think also maybe one reason for this is they interrogated the last commandment of Auschwitz, and he gave them an account of how it worked, and they equated the total number they could have killed there, in all the days the gas chambers operated, if they had operated at full capacity, with the number that they actually killed there. Stalin, or his minions, maybe had a touching faith in German efficiency.

Needless to say, it wasn’t like that. There were about 1 1/2 to maybe 1 3/4 million Jews shot to death in mass graves, mostly in what was the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, including the annexed territories of eastern Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia.

There were about 3 million to 3 1/2 million Jews killed in 6 concentration camps that had gas chambers. Four — Chelmno, Sobibor, Belzec and Treblinka – were pure death camps with almost no live prisoners, except those the Nazis there kept alive for their own benefit without telling any higher ups, and needed for the operation of the camp, including inspecting the dead bodies for gold teeth — the Nazis believed, thanks to the Schwartze Kappeleh, that contact with a corpse, even a corpse that had been dead only for a very short time, carried a high risk of disease – this concept briefly reapeared at the time of the Waco Fire because somebody evidently had been reading up on the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto.

So this very dangerous task was reserved only for Jews, who were periodically killed and replaced by other Jews. The Nazis only found out they had been the victim of a scientific fraud after the July 1944 plot against Hitler when the plotters were arrested and tortured and one of them gave up the hiding place where they had recorded their “great deeds” and the book was read only by the Nazis and later destroyed. But we can fill in the gaps. After the July plot, by abiut Auguist 1944, the Nazis were no longer afraid of dead bodies. Before there were only two ways by them to dispose of a dead body: immediate, and I mean immediate burial, or burning.

That’s what complicated the killing a lot. At least after it got a little professional, after 1939. In 1939, for two months, September through November 1939, they killed abot 150,000 Jews in Poland, mostly by locking them up in synagogues in small towns mostly near the new border and burning the synagogues with the Jews inside.

Well, that’s already worry about contact with corpses. The Nazis weern’t afraid of live Jews but they were terribly afraid of getting killed by dead Jews. Until about August 1944, as I said.

Nobody knew this, though. Few people even realize it now.

Then, in about November 1939, Hitler must have realized, or more likely was persuaded, that Jews wouldn’t allow themselves to be identified and counted if they knew they were to be killed, and what about those in Russia? they’d run away as soon as he invaded – they ddin’t understand the kind or effectiveness of the censorship that existed in the Soviet Union – and many would escape, and so the whole thing stopped dead in its tracks for 19 months, except for individual acts of sadism pr collective punishment, and instead the decision was made to confine Jews in ghettos and treat them miserably and starve them.
And a good many died in the ghettos.

But things didn’t get rolling till the June 22, 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union, and at that time it started at first only in the newly conquered territories.

The belief by the SS that even momentary contact with dead bodies was extremely dangerous – and the fact also they had to do it without any money – complicated the killing.

And that wasn’t all:

Hitler had been persuaded to keep the whole thing very secret and therefore there was no budget for it – only the salaries of the SS – and none of the top Nazis dared to remind Hitler that he’d forgotten to give them any money. Not one pfennig.

The money to pay for the trains to the far away gas chambers (needed for disease free disposal of the bodies) for instance had to be confiscated that day and could not be held overnight or it belonged to the Reich Treasury.

The total number of Jews killed was around 5.700,000 – or more – and we know this total from Census figures, and exact totals in certain territories, and the Nazis’ own estimates, which was 5 million in early 1944 before any killing of the Jews in Hungary.

Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:34 pm

Good comment, Sammy. I don’t want to wade back in to that since I said I wouldn’t but that was all reasonable.

Former Conservative (58282f) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:36 pm

222. Comment by Colonel Haiku (819c71) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:18 pm

Romney was serving a mission for his church,

Not only that, he was nearly killed in a car crash.

Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:39 pm

It’s a shame the GOP miscalculated and did not pick a winner last year.

We did pick a winner. We picked the single best candidate we’ve run since Reagan.

But the election was rigged, in that one side had command of the government apparat and the news media.

The IRS was used to crush the opposition grass roots. People who had handed Obama his head in the midterms were unable to organize as any political committee they tried to form was unable to accept legal contributions. Other agencies were also used against large contributors to the TEAs.

The Federal Reserve dumped $2 trillion into the economy during the summer, and when that didn’t spike the economy enough, the Commerce Department published false economic statistics.

Romney tried to bring up the Obamacare “you can keep it” lie, and the news media had Obama’s back, factchecking the truth with more lies. He tried to bring up Benghazi and Crowley!, among others. He tried to bring up Detroit and Obama said he’d saved it, and the media agreed. He tried to bring up the growing dependency and the media accused him of hating poor people.

We don’t know the extent of NSA spying on Romney, thye effect of the Justice Department’s attacks on voting rules, or quite what happened to the Romney web site on election day. But none of this worked in Romney’s favor either.

There was nothing to do but lose. Take a look at Obama’s approval numbers 2009-2013, at your choice of pollsters, and you’ll see that his numbers are in the toilet except for a sharp peak in November 2012.

Given so far who we have running in 2016, I’d run Romney again. At least he’s made most of his mistakes already. And he’d still make a hell of a President.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:41 pm

what happened to the Romney web site on election day

It was a horrible effort. No way to blame Obama or his followers for that.

I gave my own theory about why that happened at the time. It wasn’t very popular.

Former Conservative (58282f) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:44 pm

And who’s to say they won’t try it again, politics is full contact sport, like Ultimate Fighting, but some seem to think, it’s like tennis, the consequences of such thinking, are the events we see today.

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:51 pm

228- Be a good tool and take a shower, then come back for more spittle and drool.

mg (31009b) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:54 pm

I am not sure what it would explain.

Sammy, I’d thought the same thing before. For me, it would be referring to your tendency to drill down into details far finer than most people need (or care to hear) to come to an opinion. Kind of the “not knowing where to stop” symptom of that end of the autism spectrum. Although I’m not use that it translates the same way online — body language isn’t available to anyone here.

In any event, I’ve often thought that you’d be more effective writing shorter, less detailed responses. If you have that many things to say, try several posts. But almost no one reads a wall of words.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:56 pm

* ~~use~~ sure

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:56 pm

208.

buzzfeed.com, November 24: Israeli officials knew they were being kept in the dark as the U.S. conducted secret talks with Iran

This belongs in the category of shooting the messenger. If you don’t let the messenger know details in time, this doesn’t make the deal, or the negotiating, any better.

Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:03 pm

237. Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:56 pm

If you have that many things to say, try several posts. But almost no one reads a wall of words.

I do that sometimes – split them up – but then I also worry (more) about leaving too many posts, one after the other.

I wish the right side “Recent Comments” sidebar had, not, the last ten posts, but the last ten threads on which anyone left a post.

Or leave a maximum of 3 for any one thread, so there’d always be at least 4 threads up there. But the software’s apparently not up to that.

Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:08 pm

Long posts with paragraph breaks are fine, Sammy.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:10 pm

#233… well said, Kevin, much more succinct and eloquent than I could ever be, especially after having repeated alarms go off on my autonomous horsesh*t detector, a situation which seems arise more often than not, whenever Dustin appears.

Colonel Haiku (3a0ea8) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:12 pm

And you’ll note that none of these folks ever come up with the name of this mysterious, highly-principled, rock-ribbed conservative who apparently feared for his or her life or thought the timing wasn’t quite right.

Colonel Haiku (3a0ea8) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:18 pm

Take a look at Obama’s approval numbers 2009-2013, at your choice of pollsters, and you’ll see that his numbers are in the toilet except for a sharp peak in November 2012.

“In the toilet?” I wish. Regrettably, that assertion is an overstatement. Even more so since someone of Obama’s ilk should never have gotten into the White House to begin with. That someone with all his disreputable characteristics and “d’oh!” moments since 2009 should never have gotten more than 50 percent approval in the first place. Then, to top that all off, that someone of his qualities managed to even get re-elected in 2012. That says more about us than about him, or about Romney or the Republican hierarchy per se.

I guess it’s easier to blame a few people instead of millions of them. But when opinion polls indicate that even today, in 2013, a majority of Americans still ascribe current economic problems to George W Bush instead of Obama, that in a nutshell reveals what’s truly wrong. Namely, too many of our fellow citizens are no less foolish than their counterparts are in Argentina, Mexico, France, Greece or Venezuela.

We have met the enemy, and it’s the feel-good (or gimme, gimme) liberal instincts found in our fellow humans, here and elsewhere.

Mark (58ea35) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:21 pm

Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/24/2013 @ 6:41 pm

Romney tried to bring up the Obamacare “you can keep it” lie, and the news media had Obama’s back, factchecking the truth with more lies.

When did he do that? He didn’t bring it up in any of the debates did he?

I see Paul Ryan did: (in passing, at the end. This would not have convinced a single person who didn’t already know it) I didn’t even know he had said it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/vice-presidential-debate-transcript-danvilel-ky-oct-11/story?id=17457175&singlePage=true

RADDATZ: Congressman Ryan?

RYAN: ….And then I would say, you have a president who ran for president four years ago promising hope and change, who has now turned his campaign into attack, blame and defame.

You see, if you don’t have a good record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone to run from. That was what President Obama said in 2008. It’s what he’s doing right now.

Look at all the string of broken promises. If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. Try telling that to the 20 million people who are projected to lose their health insurance if Obamacare goes through or the 7-point million — 7.4 million seniors who are going to lose it.

Or remember when he said this: I guarantee if you make less than $250,000, your taxes won’t go up. Of the 21 tax increases in Obamacare, 12 of them hit the middle class.

Or remember when he said health insurance premiums will go down $2,500 per family, per year? They’ve gone up $3,000, and they’re expected to go up another $2,400.

Or remember when he said, “I promise by the end of my first term I’ll cut the deficit in half in four years”? We’ve had four budgets, four trillion-dollar deficits…..

He tried to bring up Benghazi

And he got lost.

He tried to bring up Detroit and Obama said he’d saved it, and the media agreed.

Detriot meaning he auto companies, not the city. He didn’t know Obama’s common arguments. Or teh counter.

Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:24 pm

Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:21 pm

a majority of Americans still ascribe current economic problems to George W Bush instead of Obama, that in a nutshell reveals what’s truly wrong.

All that is, is would you blame the person who “caused” it, or the person who didn’t solve it, and the answer is the person who caused it.

Maybe some people blame neither very much, but that’s not an option allowed by the question.

Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:26 pm

It was a horrible effort. No way to blame Obama or his followers for that.

A bad effort still might have worked well enough, and still might have brought down by attackers. If a brittle effort was attacked, is it wrong to say it was attacked?

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:31 pm

201. Comment by Dustin (303dca) — 11/24/2013 @ 4:44 pm

When I took post civil war American history at Texas Tech, the professor never mentioned World War Two or the Cold War.

Where did she stop? With Prohibition, or the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl?

And then maybe try jumping ahead to segregation and civil rights, and recent politics, as seen by Michael Moore?

Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:32 pm

She said if Germany had acted as non-apologetically as Japan did and said hurtful things (denied things basically you know) there never would have been able to be the kind of alliance Europe has now (a very rough paraphrase)

It’s interesting because among the nations of the industrialized world, Japan is perhaps the only one that instead of showing what’s increasingly common among its counterparts — meaning the reverse extreme of national chauvinism (eg, “Islam is just as good as our Western culture and values!!!”) — continues to tap dance and hem and haw over its blatantly imperialist tactics over 60 years ago.

From one extreme to the other. (But I guess in the context of an increasingly Nidal-Hasan-ized US, I have mixed emotions about which extreme is worst.)

Mark (58ea35) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:33 pm

The slightest evidence that it was attacked by anyone, Kevin M?

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:33 pm

Bravo Kevin at 233. Very well said and succinctly, too. All Mitt basically has to do is show up and say, “Now are you going to listen?”

Gazzer (e6ddf8) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:34 pm

“In the toilet?” I wish. Regrettably, that assertion is an overstatement.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:35 pm

Sammy, 5 seconds with Google come up with this, at the Denver debate:

Obama: “…Number one, if you’ve got health insurance, it doesn’t mean a government takeover. You keep your own insurance. You keep your own doctor….”

Romney: “…Right now, the CBO says up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as Obamacare goes into effect next year. And likewise, a study by McKinsey and Company of American businesses said 30 percent of them are anticipating dropping people from coverage….”

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/multimedia/2012/october/denver-debate-obama-romney-health-care.aspx

I’m sure if I cared I could find more, and I’m also sure that the post-debate fact checkers attacked Romney on this.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:40 pm

Kevin M, I was referring to the long-term record of opinion polls and their reflection on Obama. Thank bejesus they’re just now finally starting to show a bit of sanity amongst various respondents. By comparison, the Democrat’s notorious Jimmy Carter, who was no less liberal and at least less disreputable than Obama, reached a negative turning point in polling well before his first term ended.

As far as I’m concerned, Obama never should have broken above 50 percent to begin with, going back to 2009.

Mark (58ea35) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:43 pm

The slightest evidence that it was attacked by anyone, Kevin M?

Because it was there? Surely it was. But if you are asking whether this was at Obama’s command, then no, none. Then again, he wouldn’t have to.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:43 pm

110. Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:41 am

The words “Never Again” have special meaning in the NYC area.

The history of “Never Again” and maybe people are even forgetting this, even my friend Gary Rabenko, is that it was not said about the Nazi murder of the 6 million Jews.

It was about American Jewry’s passivity at that time, or relative passivity, and he applied it to the situation of Soviet Jewry, which was nothing new but he treated as new – it had been going on on almost 50 years. Never again will be silnet. Something like that.

The danger to Soviet Jews was not them getting killed, and nobody thought so. It was the loss of the freedom to leave and the knowledge and ability to practice of all religion. It was pretty late in the day already.

And Meir Kahane succeeded in creating a situation where Jews could leave. For many years, only Jews. And practically nobody had been able to leave the Soviet Union since the early 1920s – except non-Soviet citizens during and after World War II.

Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:45 pm

Mark,

Obama’s numbers were sky high in 2009, but had fallen to negative (especially if you count intensity as Rasmussen does) by the start of 2010 and were poor in November of that year, when he lost the House. The did not rise again until late summer of 2012 and peaked the week of the election, falling back early this year.

They are now the worse they have ever been, worse than Nov 2012, but they’ve been pretty bad for 4 of his five years.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:46 pm

And Crowley conveniently having the Rose Garden speech trnscript open at the correct page. They are so brazen because they know there won’t be consequences.

Gazzer (e6ddf8) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:47 pm

Although, Sammy, reading that debate, I think that Romney’s main problem is he’s too civilized. His answers needed to be shorter, less involved, on-point and declarative. As it was, he was speaking over the heads of many viewers, and so he failed to connect. Hmmm. That sounds familiar somehow.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:50 pm

And Crowley conveniently having the Rose Garden speech trnscript open at the correct page. They are so brazen because they know there won’t be consequences.

If only Romney had asked her: “Did you two discuss this?!?” And walked out when she said yes.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:52 pm

The slightest evidence that it [the Romney get-out-the-vote IT effort] was attacked by anyone, Kevin M?

Because it was there? Surely it was. But if you are asking whether this was at Obama’s command, then no, none. Then again, he wouldn’t have to.

That’s weak, Kevin. Just admit it’s idle speculation without a shred of evidence for it.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:53 pm

253. Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/24/2013 @ 7:40 pm

Sammy, 5 seconds with Google come up with this,

I searched only for “keep it” in the text of tghe 4 debates.

at the Denver debate:

That would be the first debate, which Romney won.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/multimedia/2012/october/denver-debate-obama-romney-health-care.aspx

Obama: “…Number one, if you’ve got health insurance, it doesn’t mean a government takeover. You keep your own insurance. You keep your own doctor….”

Here it is “keep your own insurance…doctor” No word “it”

This should be added to the Politifact 37 or so. It’s another one.

Obama then goes on to say how much better insurance will be – no limits – children stay till age 26 – rebates – and anybody who doesn’t know have health insurance gets into a de facto group plan that should be 18% lower than current rates on the individual market.

Romney: “…we didn’t…a number of people…recognize…put people in a position where they’re going to lose the insurance they had and they wanted.

Right now, the CBO says up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as Obamacare goes into effect next year. And likewise, a study by McKinsey and Company of American businesses said 30 percent of them are anticipating dropping people from coverage….”

Romney, however does not explain why Obama’s plan does that and his didn’t. Obama then talks about everything except this point about the CBO saying that people would lose insurance due to the law.

I’m sure if I cared I could find more, and I’m also sure that the post-debate fact checkers attacked Romney on this.

I’m sure everyone missed it.

Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1) — 11/24/2013 @ 8:05 pm

260. Crowley would not have discussed this with Obama personally.

Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1) — 11/24/2013 @ 8:07 pm

You know when the nuke goes off, they’ll be debating the direction of the fallout plume:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/11/24/N-Y-Times-Israeli-Saudi-Anger-over-Iran-Deal-Expected-Theater

narciso (3fec35) — 11/24/2013 @ 8:14 pm

It supportive of the truth of a statement to say the CBO says it, but it is not the point itself.

It’s got to be explained why the law does that and why Romneycare didn’t, or didn’t seem to, or wasn’t accused of. What’s the difference?

Fifteen or twenty words maybe.

And this is important and shouldn’t slip by and needs to emphasized and repeated.

In the debate when an attacking statement was on point,, Obama often didn’t respond to it.

Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1) — 11/24/2013 @ 8:15 pm

264.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/world/middleeast/officials-say-the-toughest-work-on-irans-nuclear-program-still-lies-ahead.html?hp&pagewanted=all&_r=0

By itself, the interim pact does not foreclose either side’s main options or require many irreversible actions — which was why the two sides were able to come to terms on it. That was also a reason for the sharp negative reaction the deal elicited on Sunday from Israel, an American ally that is deeply suspicious of Iranian intentions.

This is news?

Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1) — 11/24/2013 @ 8:20 pm

but had fallen to negative (especially if you count intensity as Rasmussen does) by the start of 2010 and were poor in November of that year, when he lost the House

Kevin, if you’re correct (and I wish you were), then I must have been looking at various opinion polls and thinking they should have been far more negative than they were. But I don’t think so, since I always recall wondering why so many Americans — far too many of them — had warm fuzzies towards Jeremiah Wright’s pal. However, I did notice that Obama throughout much of the past 5 years hasn’t necessarily tracked any better than George W Bush during corresponding times he was in office. But I also felt that just by equaling Bush, Obama was already getting more benefit of the doubt than he deserved.

Mark (58ea35) — 11/24/2013 @ 8:21 pm

You know when the nuke goes off, they’ll be debating the direction of the fallout plume:

Yea, I know the following is an extremely flippant, very vindictive comment, but if the terrorists on 9-11 had to bring down buildings in New York City, why didn’t they at least use as their target the headquarters of the New York Times?

Mark (58ea35) — 11/24/2013 @ 8:27 pm

187. test ban treaty.

It was signed because it was so limited. It only protected the environment, before they even talked about the environment. Nuclear tetsts inn the atmosphere were prohibited. Instead nuclear tests were done underground. It was followed by other countries. France took some time but then honored it. Every nuclear power since has honored it, even though not a signatory. India and Pakistan honored it although both developed nuclear arms in secret. North Korea honored it even though it violated other treaties it did sign. Even Iran is expected to honor it – unless they are ready to actually use it.

There’s another treaty now to ban any kind of testing and that’s the usual disarmanent thing.

Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1) — 11/24/2013 @ 8:30 pm

“I’m sure everyone missed it.”

Sammy – Really? Seriously Sammy, just because you missed or can’t recall something or the sources you read don’t talk about something does not mean everybody missed it or ignored it.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/24/2013 @ 9:02 pm

We did pick a winner. We picked the single best candidate we’ve run since Reagan.

But the election was rigged, in that one side had command of the government apparat and the news media.

The IRS was used to crush the opposition grass roots. People who had handed Obama his head in the midterms were unable to organize as any political committee they tried to form was unable to accept legal contributions. Other agencies were also used against large contributors to the TEAs.

The Federal Reserve dumped $2 trillion into the economy during the summer, and when that didn’t spike the economy enough, the Commerce Department published false economic statistics.

Romney tried to bring up the Obamacare “you can keep it” lie, and the news media had Obama’s back, factchecking the truth with more lies. He tried to bring up Benghazi and Crowley!, among others. He tried to bring up Detroit and Obama said he’d saved it, and the media agreed. He tried to bring up the growing dependency and the media accused him of hating poor people.

We don’t know the extent of NSA spying on Romney, thye effect of the Justice Department’s attacks on voting rules, or quite what happened to the Romney web site on election day. But none of this worked in Romney’s favor either.

There was nothing to do but lose. Take a look at Obama’s approval numbers 2009-2013, at your choice of pollsters, and you’ll see that his numbers are in the toilet except for a sharp peak in November 2012.

Given so far who we have running in 2016, I’d run Romney again. At least he’s made most of his mistakes already. And he’d still make a hell of a President.

Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/24/2013

I respectfully disagree. The election wasn’t rigged. It was just hard. Yes, the media was biased against Romney. But it was far more biased against Bush in the aftermath of the Bush v Gore case, yet Bush was reelected.

You are correct that Obama’s approval numbers were very poor in most of the months leading up to the election. It is not very rational to say this shows that Romney was a good candidate.

You are incorrect to say Romney was an effective critic of Obamacare, which of course was modeled after Romneycare (as Romney suggested). Romney’s criticisms of Obamacare were to complain about various details in its implementation, not complain that the project of mandating this choice is deeply wrong for a government to undertake.

The 2010 election proved that Obamacare was a hot political issue, yet the GOP did not benefit much in 2012 as our nominee was very tame in his commentary on the subject.

The reason why is obvious. Romney was already frequently and rightly criticized for his flip flopping. He had to be very careful of criticizing Obama harshly for things Romney had also done or nearly done.

The media didn’t just accuse Romney of hating poor people. They quoted Romney making truly ridiculous gaffes.

Take the 47 percent gaffe:

“Well, clearly in a campaign, with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you’re going to say something that doesn’t come out right,” Romney said. “In this case, I said something that’s just completely wrong.”

Yeah, Romney agrees with me.

One reason the media walked all over Romney was that Romney was not very effective in responding to the media’s bias. This was fine in the primary when the media disliked the more progressive Romney (self described as such) the least.

The main thing I actually liked about Newt was how he would quickly identify a media misconception or loaded question and explain how it was so in his answering it (or dismissing it). Romney never did that.

You mention Obama’s spending. Obviously Romney’s deficits as governor weren’t even remotely as bad, but how in the world is he supposed to champion a balanced budget? He had one for his first year as governor and then was unable to keep it up. Sure, he had a democrat legislature to thank for much of that, but his own proposals called for deficit spending. We need someone with a better record to point to, partly because it gives them more credibility to criticize those who are spending more than they have to spend.

You explain how it’s not Romney’s fault he lost, and then say we should try Romney again. What has changed? Has the media bias changed? Has Romney somehow erased the aspects of his record that weakened his ability to criticize the ideas he failed with? Has Romneycare itself started succeeding? No to all of those. Watch the later two debates sometime. Over and over Romney has little to say to Obama’s points. It’s because the comeback is ready and waiting should Romney trigger his own record. Obama lost the first debate, handily, but that was 100% on him. He was barely conscious during it.

We have been down this road of trying candidate of mixed principles with Mitt, and Mccain, and in my opinion, with Dole. It doesn’t work because it doesn’t feel like leadership.

I disagree that the 2016 slate of candidates are all inferior to Romney. Scott Walker and Chris Christie both have done better as governors and are smarter, more able debaters. Ted Cruz is a gifted orator, and while he is far less experienced than Romney he does appear to have convictions.

Unemployment numbers don’t mean a lot. Real unemployment means real problems for real voters, and we had quite a problem with it on election day. We also had a recent blowout in the 2010 elections mainly over Obama’s singular ‘accomplishment’. Might I add that the GOP won the last two contests before Obama ran against Mccain and Romney. No, the game wasn’t rigged and the deck wasn’t stacked against Romney. In fact, it was stacked in his favor and I disagree with those who would like to try the same thing and expect different results.

Dustin (303dca) — 11/24/2013 @ 10:18 pm

Bravo Kevin at 233. Very well said and succinctly, too. All Mitt basically has to do is show up and say, “Now are you going to listen?”

Comment by Gazzer (e6ddf8) — 11/24/2013

Yeah, and then he’ll win the election!

Oh no, he’ll lose badly again. But at least there will be a feel good moment or something.

The GOP is already badly damaged from the last two nominations, which have been to unprincipled men who don’t fight very hard. This round I hope somehow, by some miracle, it nominates someone who believes in something. Unfortunately, the very same problems Kevin complains about in the general, such as money and media, those same things that shape the general election will shape the primary. The same things that Romney’s supporters dismiss as relevant to the primary ‘it ain’t beanbag!’ will force a loss in the general ‘it just isn’t fair!’

Until we fix our primary system, mainly so the drawn out contest gives conservatives a voice, and the debates are governed by people who actually believe in the things the GOP ostensibly does, then I fear we will see nominees who are difficult to distinguish from a modern day Red State democrat.

Dustin (303dca) — 11/24/2013 @ 10:25 pm

I don’t think “moral integrity” is the electorate’s main requirement for President.

You are right, Christoph. The thing speaks for itself in a democracy after all, and despite Kevin’s view otherwise, I do think that this country’s elections are more or less fair, albeit imperfect.

The GOP meant to nominate Romney, no doubt aware that he had been on both sides of core issues, because he seemed like he would keep the right side of the bread buttered for example promising half a trillion in restored entitlement spending. I’m out of step with them. The USA meant to elect and reelect Obama, no doubt not all that unaware that much of the promises were not quite true, but also pretty sure he would keep the right side of the bread buttered even better than Romney could.

That’s about the sum of it these days.

The reason I said it doesn’t make sense to see proof of honesty in Romney’s keen foresight into the failure of Obamacare (which I suspect has something to do with the pronounced problems with Romneycare) is because you said it did show honesty when you said “if only because his predictions about what would come to pass have proved so true, and his honesty will stand in stark contrast to Obama’s now-revealed deceptions”

Romney has never had a problem being honest when the statement is self serving. Few do. When has Romney shown honesty when it isn’t easy? For example, when Pawlenty dismissed corn subsidies to Iowa, or Perry defended the Dream Act in a GOP primary, or the other rare examples of a politician standing on an honest principle to a booing crowd and saying what he really thinks instead of what he thinks will get him votes.

Romney’s supporters, much like Obama’s (and I do think they resemble eachother quite a bit) have remarked that Romney’s the ruthless one, due to his awesome fighting in the primary. He could nail conservative candidates to the wall and outmaneuver then. Sure, sometimes it looked cynical, but we need a fighter to beat Obama!

Only it doesn’t work. In the general election, it is much harder for the (more) conservative candidate to win that way. You can be easily outmaneuvered and have to stand on practical long term principles, with an idealist’s voice for how they will lead to a better future. That just doesn’t work if no one believes you are honest.

Romney wasn’t looking to return to the Reagan/Bush era. He said so and he proved so. But Reagan was a winner.

Dustin (303dca) — 11/24/2013 @ 10:45 pm

Apparently, Honduras may not move to the left after all:

With just over half the ballots tallied by late Sunday, Juan Orlando Hernandez of the governing National Party had a comfortable edge over Xiomara Castro, whose husband Manuel Zelaya was ousted in a 2009 coup that has left the country politically unstable.

Now, the question is, once the ruling party wins, will Obama offer congratulations, like he did with Chavez not so long ago? Or are only Socialists worthy of his time?

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/24/2013 @ 11:36 pm

That’s weak, Kevin. Just admit it’s idle speculation without a shred of evidence for it.

What part of “We don’t know the extent of NSA spying on Romney, the effect of the Justice Department’s attacks on voting rules, or quite what happened to the Romney web site on election day.” sounds like it isn’t speculation?

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/24/2013 @ 11:39 pm

Crowley would not have discussed this with Obama personally.

Crowly HAD discussed it with Obama personally, by her own account, which came out the day after the debate. She had suggested that the President had never called it terrorism and he corrected her, several days before the debate. During the debate, he turned to her and prompted her for the info, knowing that she knew he had, in passing, mentioned terrorism in his post-Benghazi comments.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/24/2013 @ 11:42 pm

Fair enough, Kevin. But there is a ton of evidence for an own goal where the Romney Campaign GOTV campaign is concerned.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 11:48 pm

What part of “We don’t know the extent of NSA spying on Romney, the effect of the Justice Department’s attacks on voting rules, or quite what happened to the Romney web site on election day.” sounds like it isn’t speculation?

Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/24/2013

Honestly, I would be surprised if there wasn’t such trickery. The IRS stuff you mentioned isn’t really speculation.

This stuff has been done by both parties, going back past Watergate. It’s unfortunate and I wish we could stop it, but it is something Republicans have overcome, for example in the very close 2000 election that came just after Clinton’s very successful term.

I recall a lot of discussion of the problem with Romney’s election day efforts, much at Ace of Spades HQ, that noted problems with the contractors used. This was the first election in a very long time I didn’t volunteer to work in so I can’t say if it was really so bad.

I will say that most of the friends I knew who volunteered in elections in the past sat this one out. Romney got our vote, but we didn’t bus 1000 people to the polls for him. Romney isn’t the kind of leader who inspires that kind of supporter. I think that had something to do with it. Let’s not pretend Romney wasn’t particularly difficult for the ‘base’ to swallow.

Dustin (303dca) — 11/24/2013 @ 11:54 pm

#276:

I need to correct that, as I remembered it slightly wrong. Crowley had discussed it with Axelrod, not Obama, and Axelrod had corrected her. It would be surprising if Axelrod had not talked to Obama about the upcoming moderator, and Obama sure looked like he knew that she knew the obscure point and was waiting for it.

Here is a contemporaneous report:

Crowley knows full well that it’s Team Obama that needs to be held accountable here, not the challenger. Back on September 30, Crowley herself pinned down Obama spinner David Axelrod on this point: “Why did it take them until Friday [September 28], after a September 11 attack in Libya, to come to the conclusion that it was premeditated and that there was terrorists involved? John McCain said it doesn’t pass the smell test, or it’s willful ignorance to think that they didn’t know before this what was going on.” Of course, Axelrod shot back that Obama in the Rose Garden called it an “act of terror.”

Yes, it isn’t direct collusion, but it was still a set-up based on using the moderator.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/25/2013 @ 12:03 am

Let’s not pretend Romney wasn’t particularly difficult for the ‘base’ to swallow.

as in (*cough*)Mormon(*cough*)?

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/25/2013 @ 12:07 am

I disfavored Romney’s nomination mainly for that reason, Kevin M. I was told over and over again that I was wrong for saying enough Christian Conservatives could sit it out rather than vote for a Mormon to throw the election.

However, Romney did a pretty good job campaigning — even though I had hoped it would be Gingrich since it would have been a helluva brawl.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/25/2013 @ 1:15 am

As I just saw someone on Facebook say:

It is beyond me why anyone would sign an agreement with such a crazed group of ideologues who have proven repeatedly that they cannot be trusted.

Iran doesn’t have a great reputation either.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/25/2013 @ 1:32 am

I would rather see Gingrich running for Senator from Virginia right now. Doesn’t seem likely. As for President, I favored him, too, but his disintegration in Florida was discouraging. His ego was always his weak point, and his passion for ideas sometimes led him to misplaced enthusiasms. Romney was boring, but boring is also steady.

Also: If the Social Conservatives had a problem with Mormonism, how would they deal with Newt’s VERY messy private life?

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/25/2013 @ 1:33 am

Also: If the Social Conservatives had a problem with Mormonism, how would they deal with Newt’s VERY messy private life?

Hypocrisy.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/25/2013 @ 2:14 am

as in (*cough*)Mormon(*cough*)?

Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/25/2013

I don’t think this has anything to do with criticism of Romney, except perhaps from a very small number of extremely weird people. The same goes for criticism of Obama being based on his race.

In both cases I have found that those who turn there with no justification are being disingenuous.

While many did not turn out for Romney as much as hoped, obviously as he failed, the evangelical Christians maligned with this accusation actually turned out for Romney more, not less, than other groups.

The ‘blame it on anti Mormon’ sentiment was always a baseless slander. Romney did very poorly among non-religious and non Christian groups. Those who have the least reason to care about his faith, which of course should have nothing to do with one’s decision in an election.

No, the reason I thought conservatives would have a hard time electing Romney is because Romney isn’t conservative. Romney famously called his views progressive. He famously imposed a gun tax which he explained was just because gun control is good. He famously mandated his subjects must buy health insurance, and used heavy taxation to subsidize this new entitlement. Government grew under his short time in office, and unsurprisingly he has never won office a second time. There is a better place for progressives to turn for a reliable partner in the democratic candidate.

Romney soon turned his back on his former principles because it was politically necessary, but it was not enough and Mccain crushed him in 2008 with a far smaller campaign budget. Romney made it farther in 2012, but unsurprisingly the man who had no trouble beating Mccain had no trouble beating the guy Mccain had only some trouble beating.

We’re well off topic of Iran gaining nuclear weapons, but do you trust a man like Romney, who has changed his mind about his core principles, to properly handle a decision of that magnitude? He will only choose whatever is most popular. Usually that is fine, and I suppose on this he may have done better than Obama, but there’s no reliable way to see that. With a guy like Romney it just boils down to rank partisanship, in which I’m not able to participate.

It was rude to insinuate bigotry to dismiss my arguments for Romney not earning my support on policy grounds, but unfortunately I am used to Romney’s supporters behaving this way. It’s why the GOP has been torn apart. Even now that his real argument, electability, has been shown to be exactly as I said it was: missing the forest (a political spectrum) for the trees (our faith in a bona fide leader), his supporters cannot admit it was a mistake to nominate him.

I start to wonder if this religious justification you and a few others have mentioned is projection of some kind. It just comes out of nowhere.

Dustin (303dca) — 11/25/2013 @ 2:29 am

I was told over and over again that I was wrong for saying enough Christian Conservatives could sit it out rather than vote for a Mormon to throw the election.

And you were wrong, Christoph.

How White Evangelical Protestants Voted

Another way to gauge voter enthusiasm for Romney’s candidacy is to compare his support with that for the GOP candidates in the 2008 and 2004 elections. Analysis of exit poll data from prior elections shows that, nationwide, voter support for Romney among white evangelical Protestants was the same as for George W. Bush in 2004 (79% for both GOP candidates). And Romney won more of the white evangelical Protestant vote than John McCain did in 2008 (73%).2

That demographic actually voted more for Romney than it had for Mccain.

Yes, it isn’t direct collusion, but it was still a set-up based on using the moderator.

Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/25/2013

You mentioned Newt. Imagine how Newt could have handled Crowley. Romney never seemed able to think on his feet about this stuff. He had the budget to prepare rigorously for questions, and the intellect to match, but I rarely saw him quickly realize a moderator or questioner was doing wrong and the spine to call it out quickly.

Still, it is foolish to say this harmed Romney. It obviously helped him, as the aftermath of the debate focused on how CNN’s moderator interfered and was wrong, with much attention to the issue Romney attempted to raise. The moderator went to far with her bias, and you have to be more subtle.

It may seem to you that the bias is so bad that the election was rigged, but we would have won in 2012 with a conservative candidate with political skill. The economy alone made it our election to lose.

Dustin (303dca) — 11/25/2013 @ 2:39 am

Seriously, what possible difference could it make at this point to vote Republican?

The unaccountable Federal Reserve is upping QE 50%, bringing forward the death of financial collateral.

Cisco, a wonderful proxy for GDP and world production efficiency forecast revenues down 8-10% for 2014. Caterpillar expects reduced revenue on each and every product line.

EBT payments down 5% thru 2014, SS increase at 1.5% with real inflation at circa 10%, Medicare/Medicaid now at 60% of scale about to suffer huge cuts.

Israel is inspecting Saudi airbases on the ground.

Republicans aren’t just cowards they are irreparably brain dead.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/25/2013 @ 3:21 am

gary-they don’t need votes, they need execution.

mg (31009b) — 11/25/2013 @ 4:10 am

Gary, the truth hurts.

I do tend to agree that it doesn’t make enough of a difference at this point, and the problem is not well explained as ‘not enough Republicans in power’. Even when the GOP held both houses and the white house the government grew pretty rapidly, dependency grew rapidly, and the debt grew rapidly. Albeit less than with democrats, but towards the same inevitable problems.

Partisanship blinded me to this for years as I was too busy trying to be an activist in a good direction to realize that it was only making a difference in who held power, not what that power led towards.

But it’s certainly not hopeless. This nation is a great one and can accomplish amazing things when the times demand it. It’s just that partisanship isn’t the way.

Dustin (303dca) — 11/25/2013 @ 5:40 am

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Colonel Haiku (4e5a95) — 11/25/2013 @ 5:48 am

Once more, who was this eloquent, highly principled, rock-ribbed conservative who, lacking nads or spine, chose to keep his/her powder dry and sit out the 2012 election cycle?

Colonel Haiku (404b97) — 11/25/2013 @ 5:51 am

I think it’s reached- The I’m in this for my family’s concern, not some lying republicans next campaign.

mg (31009b) — 11/25/2013 @ 6:18 am

Looks like we have a few folks who have volunteered to be the Dr. Conrad to the mythical, eloquent, highly principled, rock-ribbed conservative Michael Jackson. Don’t forget his nightly catheter as he continues his no-show slumber.

Colonel Haiku (d63e9f) — 11/25/2013 @ 6:20 am

Col.- My wife and I went to a major Cystic Fibrosis Benefit Fri. night. Talked to some N.E. republican long time friends, who as I know donate to the cause in big sums. They are done with the donations to the elites. I was amazed at how none of them care about any of the scandals in d.c.
Sad.

mg (31009b) — 11/25/2013 @ 6:29 am

Taking their ball and going home? Seems like there’s a lot of that going around.

Colonel Haiku (c27e3f) — 11/25/2013 @ 6:40 am

With just over half the ballots tallied by late Sunday, Juan Orlando Hernandez of the governing National Party had a comfortable edge over Xiomara Castro,

If the final tally continues in that direction, good for them! But, in a way, a sad reflection on us that Hondurans therefore are reacting with more common sense than we did in November 2012.

Mark (58ea35) — 11/25/2013 @ 7:31 am

Perhaps they have a better grasp of what’s at stake, Mark.

Colonel Haiku (cd6dde) — 11/25/2013 @ 7:33 am

It was rude to insinuate bigotry to dismiss my arguments for Romney not earning my support on policy grounds, but unfortunately I am used to Romney’s supporters behaving this way.

I can relate to both you and Colonel Haiku too, so the amount of fury that your countervailing opinions provoke in each other is somewhat puzzling to me. After all, I think many of the observations you make about Romney, and, in turn, many of the observations that Colonel have made about the election in 2012 are correct.

I’d tend to side more with your reactions if I sensed a larger percentage of the American electorate were of the right, or at least truly — truly — moderate. But, sadly — and from my previous posts you know exactly what my POV is — my observations lead me to believe that far too many of our fellow citizens are pushing the US in the direction of a bigger version of a France mixed together with a Mexico, sprinkled with a dash of Venezuela and Argentina.

Mark (58ea35) — 11/25/2013 @ 7:40 am

288, 289. I can understand a union official, a precinct steward, feeling they owed the Dhims a vote. With little effort we can tick off many of these interest groups.

But the pay roll out grows the extortion receipts and there’s no fix for it.

Be on the ready now, at a moments notice, to dissolve away.

Are Cobra hand-helds a good buy and sufficient?

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/25/2013 @ 7:42 am

Seriously, what possible difference could it make at this point to vote Republican?

Gary, the only reason why I’m not totally confident in even my own predictions (regarding political and social-cultural patterns) — even in what’s stated in my #298 — is there are always strange trends that go against conventional (or seemingly logical, practical) wisdom. For example, the stock market over much of the past year. I originally thought it was a given that the market would, if not crash, certainly do far poorer than what has been the case. Even uber-blue places like Los Angeles, full of liberal idiocy galore, nonetheless is showing signs of life that, again, goes against conventional wisdom (or at least my wisdom).

Still, I fear the illness of Detroit-itis, Mexico-itis and France-itis, and I can’t help but suspect that is in our future, no matter what.

Mark (58ea35) — 11/25/2013 @ 7:48 am

300. RE: Getting rich.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-22/hugh-hendry-capitulates-cant-look-himself-mirror-he-throws-towel-turns-bullish

There are 2,160 Billionaires in the world this instant. I get that day trading or HFT algorithms have a magnetic pull.

But there are today a thousand opportunities for meltdown poised to emerge instantly. Their timing is uncertain only.

Japan’s yen is over 100 to the dollar and exports continue to fall. Their debt stands near 300% of GDP. Britain’s total financial and public debt stands at 1000% of GDP.

Yesterday, in response the the Fed’s mooting IOER elimination our banks said they would have to charge for the privilege of depositing.

Gentlemen, to your marks.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/25/2013 @ 8:12 am

The ‘blame it on anti Mormon’ sentiment was always a baseless slander.

I personally had a Christian couple tell me they could never vote for a Mormon. I doubt they are the only ones.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/25/2013 @ 8:28 am

Yes, they were (and are) out there. I do know that a great many Southern Baptists hold a strong animus against those of the Mormon faith, they are taught that from the pulpit.

Colonel Haiku (4e5a95) — 11/25/2013 @ 8:36 am

“used heavy taxation to subsidize this new entitlement”

Dustin – What heavy taxation was used to subsidize Romneycare. Please be specific.

“Government grew under his short time in office”

Like the growth in Texas government spending, not faster than population and inflation, we’ve been over this before.

“Romney soon turned his back on his former principles because it was politically necessary”

It would be nice to be presented with examples of these rumored flip flops rather than just myths.

“We’re well off topic of Iran gaining nuclear weapons”

I can’t figure out how that happened.

“It was rude to insinuate bigotry”

Really, when it is insinuated that only the aristocratic avoid military service rather than a common Mormon practice for the young to go on missions? We’ve been over this before as well.

“I start to wonder if this religious justification you and a few others have mentioned is projection of some kind. It just comes out of nowhere.”

No, it comes in reaction to the words you actually wrote on this thread and comments you have made here previously.

Isn’t it time to move on? Isn’t your oft repeated statement that you don’t want to relitigate the past as big a whopper as any of Obama’s? What purpose did derailing a thread about an Iranian nuke deal serve?

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/25/2013 @ 9:39 am

Dustin, I’m going out on a limb and guessing that not a whole lot of your ex-girlfriends stay in touch with you.
Or something.

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/25/2013 @ 10:39 am

202. Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/24/2013 @ 5:01 pm

I’m definitely familiar with Ilse Koch, and have used her as an example of the evil of the Nazis during the Holocaust many times….if it [making human skin into lampshades] was tied to Koch, that would be one particular Nazi sadists rather than the Nazis in general. [which is true] And most museum curators now dismiss claims about the lampshades and soap.

In fact, she and her husband were tried by the Nazis because, despite being murderous in carrying out their orders, they had gone too far into the realm of personal sadism and corruption even by Nazi standards.

It wasn’t sparked by any outrage over sadism, or at least the people behind the investigation didn’t dare to mention that, since Hitler had abolished the very concept of murder and cruelty being wrong, and which I don’t think was involved, but the issue was corruption – stealing things, killing the wrong people (often to hide things) and covering it up.

Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1) — 11/25/2013 @ 11:04 am

I think the soap claim is, despite and because it is incredibly distasteful, worth looking at. Basically it accuses the Nazis and SS of not only being horrible mass murderers, but also implies that the German population and soldiers were so OK with this that they were willing to use personal hygiene products made of the bodies of Jewish men, women, and children.

It was a widespread belief, especially soon after the war, but that, in part, lasted many years later, that this had happened, for a combination of reasons.

There were actual bars of soap, engraved RIF. This
was explained as standing for Pure (Rein) Jewish Fat. When people heard this they ignored the mystery as to why the SS did not have a separate letter J in their font, or gave themselves an answer.

They were used (only?) in the concentration camps. Those bars never were common and not many were found after the war, if I am correct.

My father was given such soap – he told me that at the time they didn’t know what this was. But in reality, it seems that just stood for Reich Indutrial Fabrique (Factory)

In some concentration camp somewhere, which was not a mass killing camp, and maybe this could have happened more than once, some prisoners were told, by some guards, that RIF stood for Pure Jewish Fat.

Someone living in occupied France in 1942 had already heard this story about soap. It had actually gotten out to France. Maybe some French prisoners were involved somewhere in this story.

As some prisoners were transferred this information spread, so at the end of the war there was a small number of liberated prisoners who had this “information” about the source of the soap.

An additional fact was that the SS did, indeed, try to use body parts, and interest other parts of the German government in taking advantage of this. They were only able to get Admiral Doenitz or Raeder to use human hair in submarines. Which may explain the reason why Hitler chose Doenitz as his successor, which is really otherwise a complete mystery. Maybe it is because he thought he still had a navy. The other thing they were successful in finding someone to take was dental gold. Neither actually requires killing people.

In 1944 or so the SS actually did build an experimental facility and attempt to make useful products out of body parts, but the soap wasn’t good. The RIF bars did not come from there. You really can’t make good soap from human fat. At least without carefully working out a specialized process.

Finally, there was the fact that a story about a German “corpse factory” had circulated during World War I, so this tied in with that. That may have even been an inspiration to someone in the SS to turn it into reality, but the whole thing needs more research and would make a good book, if someone wanted to read it.

Oh – also another point – saying that they wanted to turn Jews into soap, gave the Hitler and Nazis what sounded like a more rational motive for killing so many Jews (how much soap can you gte from one person?) and that maybe helped keep the story alive for a while, although this did not comport with any of the details about the killings that became known. And that kind of version of the story faded away.

Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1) — 11/25/2013 @ 11:20 am

Sammy, your father was in a camp?

nk (dbc370) — 11/25/2013 @ 11:31 am

287. Comment by Dustin (303dca) — 11/25/2013 @ 2:39 am

You mentioned Newt. Imagine how Newt could have handled Crowley. Romney never seemed able to think on his feet about this stuff.

Or even after being given a day or two.

Romney never checked the transcript of what Obama said Sept 12th, checked his memory, talked to people, and figured out that, although the Administration’s statements got closer to reality between the morning of September 11 and September 12th, so that they were saying or hinting it was or could be terrorism, they diverged away from reality further snd further between about Septemer 12 and September 16, and only then went back in the direction of reality.

Romney had a picture in his mind of a straight line getting closer and closer to reality.

Romney was not he kind of person who would try to solve the question: Where did I go wrong? He would just give up.

Romney also did not have an ability to understand that he had misunderstood something. He was mixing up two different 47%s throughout.

Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1) — 11/25/2013 @ 11:32 am

303, 304, 305. This is what I love about the Republican’s indentured servants.

They’d rather re-enact prior losses to better fail in the future than actually prepare to fight, win or lose.

You tell them, over and over, they need to win regardless of the ballot box and all they talk about day in day out is “we wuz robbed.”

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/25/2013 @ 11:43 am

Comment by nk (dbc370) — 11/25/2013 @ 11:31 am

309.Sammy, your father was in a camp?

6 concentration camps, if you count 3 days in transit in Buchenwald. From the chronology, this is right when (Nov 1943) Hitler had ordered all Jews remaining in Poland to be killed, including those in concentration camps, so a lot were brought into Germany!

(That resulted in the Maidenek massacre, which actually though did not kill all the Jewish prisoners. That order did not apply to Auschwitz, or to the Lodz Ghetto – which had been reclassified as concentration camp – because both were in the part of Poland that had been annexed to Germany.)

And the earliest one he was in was kind of open – he could have visitors, or at least get things. I don’t understand it, but his father visited him. He got typhus there.

He was liberated in Theresienstadt on May 8, 1945. The Nazis had transferred a lot of prisoners there. Many died on the way.

He had been working someplace where they dropped a bomb. But he had gone to the latrine just before, Everybody else wsas killed. They accused him of signalling the planes or something or knowing abuut he raid, and they put him in some makeshift “hospital” and interrogated him, but before they gave up on him, there was a further retreat and so he was put on a train to Theresienstadt I think.

There’s a hundred miracles, maybe the wrong word, how anybody survived.

After liberation he remembered what his father had told him about the starvation after World War I – it was dangerous to eat (richer?) food, but many people didn’t know this and they ate from the stores of the SS, tings like chocolate and maybe even less things, and they died. He only ate the same kind of food he had had. He wass starving. He would have died the next day or something.

Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1) — 11/25/2013 @ 11:54 am

Damn, Sammy. Just damn. Is he still with you?

nk (dbc370) — 11/25/2013 @ 12:06 pm

312. Thank you for this account.

I had a dear friend, a corporal at the time, who spent the winter after Sicily in the Apennines, on his own.

A host of miracles were visited on him.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/25/2013 @ 12:15 pm

A heart-wrenching story, Sammy.

# 311… a complete misread of those three posts, Gary. You should stick to your stories of gloom, doom, economic calamity and the extinction of teh human race.

Colonel Haiku (32b8a6) — 11/25/2013 @ 12:24 pm

312. Cont. Frankly there could be no more appropriate thread than the current to introduce the senior Finkelman’s tribulation.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/25/2013 @ 12:26 pm

316. Not to worry, I don’t read dreck.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/25/2013 @ 12:28 pm

If only we had nominated a true, pure conservative such as Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann, we would have defeated Obama !
Or something.

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/25/2013 @ 12:33 pm

Heavy stuff, Sammy.
wow.

mg (31009b) — 11/25/2013 @ 12:37 pm

“They’d rather re-enact prior losses to better fail in the future than actually prepare to fight, win or lose.”

Sounds rather specious (and not a little precious) coming from a fellow who advises all hope is lost and that it really doesn’t matter, given our impending extinction/ruin.

Colonel Haiku (404b97) — 11/25/2013 @ 12:38 pm

318. One might anticipate that events ‘will work together to the good of those who love Him’.

Amenhotep III: “Their god is God.”

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/25/2013 @ 12:55 pm

He’s a born-again Doomsday Prepper! Yay!!!

Colonel Haiku (358fb1) — 11/25/2013 @ 1:01 pm

Pure and Holy Conservatives such as Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann were soooo popular among conservatives that they couldn’t even beat a phony conservative such as Mitt Romney in the primaries.

But at least Santorum and Bachmann won in some people’s dreams—and those are ~~victories~~ dreams which can never be taken away.
Or something.

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/25/2013 @ 1:04 pm

320. “our impending extinction/ruin.”

Not at all. We are some 300 Million. I’d reckon the odds no worse that 1 in a hundred will perish.

But I could be wildly optimistic.

In fact, given your locale of residence, I would think your chances of survival are above average.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/25/2013 @ 1:05 pm

322. Moi?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi

Scroll down to ‘Twelver Shi`ism’.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/25/2013 @ 1:09 pm

This just gets better and better;

http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/11/25/iran-fm-zarif-strikes-different-tone-in-tehran-nuclear-activities-to-go-on-as-normal-fars-reports/

narciso (3fec35) — 11/25/2013 @ 2:23 pm

By next week it will turn out that not only are they continuing on as before, but we’re subsidizing them.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/25/2013 @ 2:41 pm

Of course, the bombs aren’t going to build themselves.

narciso (3fec35) — 11/25/2013 @ 3:01 pm

Dejavu all over again;

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/11/2013-iran-nuclear-deal-repeats-mistakes-of-2003-deal/

narciso (3fec35) — 11/25/2013 @ 3:06 pm

Lets consider the real enemy;

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/11/25/Obama-Administration-s-Vatican-Embassy-Move-Has-Former-Envoys-Seeing-Red

narciso (3fec35) — 11/25/2013 @ 6:19 pm

“Romney was not he kind of person who would try to solve the question: Where did I go wrong? He would just give up.”

Sammy – I disagree. I think Romney is the type of person who believes a president should act honorably on national television and not resort to underhanded semantic games, which is what Obama did. Romney is not the person who believes it wise to call a president a liar on national television when the moderator has joined his side and 98% of the media is also on the president’s side. It’s just that simple.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/25/2013 @ 6:25 pm

So how do you expect to win, daley, if the moderators are ‘on the other side’ you think it will be easier with Hillary, or Red Squaw are on the dias.

narciso (3fec35) — 11/25/2013 @ 6:33 pm

Daley, you just need to come to terms with the fact that this unnamed conservative who didn’t participate in the primaries would have defeated Obama.
Or something.

Elephant Stone (108847) — 11/25/2013 @ 6:36 pm

“So how do you expect to win, daley, if the moderators are ‘on the other side’ you think it will be easier with Hillary, or Red Squaw are on the dias.”

narciso – Easy. Run a pure rock-ribbed conservative from a red state who supports amnesty and who used to be a democrat and in favor of Hillarycare. D’oh!

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/25/2013 @ 8:38 pm

It’s gonna be a loooong three years.

elissa (4738eb) — 11/25/2013 @ 8:45 pm

elissa – 2012 was way too short. We need to start talking and planning now!!!!!!!!

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/25/2013 @ 8:59 pm

The Soviets, Poles, and Nuremburg Commission said there were 4 million or more Jews murdered at Auschwitz.

No, they never said that. The Soviets and Poles tried to make Auschwitz about Poles instead of Jews, so they invented 3 million Polish victims, to dilute the ~1M Jews who were killed there. Hardly anyone ever took that claim seriously.

Allegedly the Nazis made soap out of Jews. Now, not so much.

Yes, that was a rumour that did the rounds at Auschwitz, where nobody had the least trouble believing it. But it isn’t true. They did do a feasibility study, mind you, but it turned out to be impractical so they didn’t implement it.

Allegedly, they made lamp shades out of Jews. Now, not so much.

Um, yeah, they did this. Not on an industrial scale, this was more a matter of handmade objets d’art, but they existed.

Milhouse (b95258) — 11/25/2013 @ 10:06 pm

We were also taught that Dachau and the other western camps had purpose-built extermination gassing of Jews. That has since been revised to not be Dachau and the other western camps, but to be the camps later occupied by the Soviets. Which is kind of odd, but whatever.

Actually there was a gas chamber at Dachau, and the evidence is that it was used on an experimental basis, but not on a large scale.

Milhouse (b95258) — 11/25/2013 @ 10:08 pm

But the soap, lampshade thing are acknowledged as mostly bogus now.

The soap thing was bogus, though you’ll have a hard time convincing Auschwitz survivors of it. But the lampshade thing is not bogus; Ilse Koch’s home decorating efforts were found and presented in evidence.

Milhouse (b95258) — 11/25/2013 @ 10:14 pm

This is a mirror of how Rabin conducted the Oslo talks, with Arafat, and we remember how that turned out,

Actually Rabin didn’t conduct them. Peres and Beilin did, behind Rabin’s back, and then sprung it on him as a fait accompli.

Milhouse (b95258) — 11/25/2013 @ 10:26 pm

It’s gonna be a loooong three years.

Comment by elissa (4738eb) — 11/25/2013 @ 8:45 pm

It will be for those who force themselves to discuss matters they are not interested in, I suppose. I’ve always enjoyed arguments on politics with smart folks. It’s unfortunate that once in a while someone will get bent out of shape, but we’re all mere human beings and that’s not something I think we should let ruin our days.

I think, ultimately, most of us here have the same goal. We want the USA to be prosperous, free, and stable. We want to encourage good values and for folks to be able to get a job and work towards their dreams. We disagree on many details of how to get there. For example those who prevailed in the last primary are not eager to see the process changed, while conservatives see that the process doesn’t give them the representation they want on national tickets.

But we are all in this together. That’s why I try to treat others with respect, even those who have been extremely disrespectful for years. Even those who have apologized for it and then reverted as soon as they encounter the same disagreement. People are like that, and that’s the price I pay for getting to discuss this particular issue I find so interesting: the GOP’s long term trend towards ‘electable’ politicians who are actually less electable for being so wishy washy.

Dustin (bf7d37) — 11/25/2013 @ 11:14 pm

And I’d be a hypocrite to pretend I haven’t also gotten bent out of shape and regretted it.

It’s actually been a lot easier for me since I realized the GOP isn’t conservative. I’ve been trying to train a cat to roll over. Now I am less delusional about it, but no less interested in the big picture.

Dustin (bf7d37) — 11/25/2013 @ 11:16 pm

Romney also did not have an ability to understand that he had misunderstood something. He was mixing up two different 47%s throughout.

Comment by Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1) — 11/25/2013

To be fair, I was hoping we’d nominate Rick Perry, who I doubt would have handled this particular issue of thwarting bias.

But Perry would have been able to criticize Obamacare very directly and fully in a way Romney did not and could not. We would have had a success story that wasn’t all about Perry being the uberleader, but rather about some pretty basic principles that Perry happened to employ in a way that would lead this country back towards prosperity.

It’s not rocket science to balance a budget or require all agencies to cut their budgets a few percent every year. But it works.

That’s where we get off the tracks when we elect the prime time style smart guys. We shouldn’t be looking to government as a solution to everything anyway. We do not need a brilliant government planner at all. We need someone who honestly will limit this mess. Someone who stood his ground when it was politically difficult (which I admit, Perry only did to limited extent).

That’s why I’m excited about the 2016 slate. We have candidates that I think did so even better than Perry, and have better political skills than Perry as well.

Romney came to the debates lacking the record of success a conservative candidate should have. I don’t hate the guy for it, but it is a little frustrating that someone who called himself progressive was nominated to attempt to run in a platform of ‘progressives are wrong’.

During the later debates I felt Obama was almost begging Romney to attempt to directly take on his policies on a fundamental level. The temptation had to be there, but it was a trap. Romney is smart enough to see that and he avoided it, but for a candidate with a better record it wouldn’t have been a trap at all.

Dustin (bf7d37) — 11/25/2013 @ 11:37 pm

When bit chin mitch is your senate leader, head for the border.

mg (31009b) — 11/26/2013 @ 12:08 am

330. Words are futile, so naturally the Republicans maintain a stable of statesmen emeriti past presidents that are uncommunicative or past hopefuls that make accountants seem erudite by comparison.

That is why we must turn to rough men of action. Anyone know any?

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/26/2013 @ 1:16 am

344. Bevin got 80% of the vote in a recent KY county straw poll.

Bullies.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/26/2013 @ 1:22 am

343. Willard is a legendary student, leading study groups to crush tests with bullet point outlines of the test question material assigned to individual participants.

Of course, there’s something to be said for just knowing the whole subject cold.

Priorities. You don’t get to be President by reading the whole damned book.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/26/2013 @ 1:32 am

Rough men fight to the finish.
most republicans give in, fall to their knees, and take it.

mg (31009b) — 11/26/2013 @ 3:15 am

Tag Team fight
Cruz-Lee
vs
Slappin mitch-miss lindsey

mg (31009b) — 11/26/2013 @ 3:21 am

team leader who embarasses many;

http://therightscoop.com/full-iinterview-sarah-palin-responds-to-bashirs-comments-and-more/

narciso (3fec35) — 11/26/2013 @ 4:01 am

Drill Baby Drill

mg (31009b) — 11/26/2013 @ 4:39 am

A couple of posts on the endgame.

First Peter Schiff whom Rico has featured in the past:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-25/peter-schiff-bashes-bens-rocket-nowhere

And some backstory:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-25/chart-day-how-chinas-stunning-15-trillion-new-liquidity-blew-bernankes-qe-out-water

Relying on the West to buy their stuff has failed Japan and China. The former has no cash to buy our Treasuries either.

With 90+% of American business forecasting negative results, commodities heading south on no production where’s all this excess liquidity going to run?

Amerikkka is for sale.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/26/2013 @ 7:07 am

Of the whole of GOP incumbency those who can communicate a conservative vision comprise Cruz, a TEA, R. Paul, a Libertarian, and Walker a Loyalist.

You’ve got one and only one horse, Republicans, choose wisely or fall on your sword.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/26/2013 @ 7:12 am

350. A good candidate for Phoenix.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/26/2013 @ 7:16 am

313. Comment by nk (dbc370) — 11/25/2013 @ 12:06 pm

Damn, Sammy. Just damn. Is he still with you?

No. He died in May, 1999, after spending six months in the hospital, most of it mostly unconscious. The doctor wanted him to immediately check in, but he asked to go home and he wrote out some checks and made some other arrangements.

He got an infection in the hospital, which never really got better. This is supposed to be one of the best hospitals in New York – NYU Medical Center. It’s a long story, which I’ll go into later.

Sammy Finkelman (ebcaa1) — 11/26/2013 @ 8:45 am

My condolences, Sammy.

nk (dbc370) — 11/26/2013 @ 8:46 am

For your Republican remediation, should it not prove terminal.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/11/irans-nuclear-suicide-vest.html

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/26/2013 @ 8:48 am

Condolences, Sammy.

mg (31009b) — 11/26/2013 @ 8:58 am

“I don’t hate the guy for it, but it is a little frustrating that someone who called himself progressive was nominated to attempt to run in a platform of ‘progressives are wrong’.”

Dustin – You are welcome to keep distorting that talking point for whatever purpose you believe it serves, but I hope you would be honest enough to explain what Romney actually said instead. He described himself as a moderated Republican followed by saying his views were progressive. He did not call himself a progressive, which would have been a direct contradiction to the moderate Republican claim. Reasonable observers, which apparently do not include you, do not interpret the sound bit to mean Romney was claiming to be a liberal or progressive, but that his views were forward looking or progressive, rather than backward looking. Good luck with your obsession.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/26/2013 @ 9:26 am

“Of course, there’s something to be said for just knowing the whole subject cold.

Priorities. You don’t get to be President by reading the whole damned book.”

gary – I think everyone here can agree that it is much if a president does not know anything about the matters he is involved with but instead just makes it up as he goes along.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/26/2013 @ 9:47 am

much better

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/26/2013 @ 9:47 am

Sammy, thank you for sharing about your dad. It never ceases to amaze me what people suffer through and survive in this life.

There is a bitter irony that light illuminates and the skin of Jews was used to dim it.

Dana (15391b) — 11/26/2013 @ 10:10 am

351. Comment by mg (31009b) — 11/26/2013 @ 4:39 am

Drill Baby Drill

While nobody’s been looking, the United States is well along the way toward achieving energy indepedence, by drilling, not for oil, but for natural gas, and getting it by fracking, except in New York State and California, where fracking is still considered dangerously experimental.

Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae) — 11/26/2013 @ 10:14 am

Text of the agreement with Iran:

http://eeas.europa.eu/statements/docs/2013/131124_03_en.pdf

or:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/174434

Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae) — 11/26/2013 @ 10:15 am

“obsession” is the correct characterization, daley. it’s also a compulsive disorder. In Dustin’s world, everything is a little tweaked, a little skewed. What he likes has a glow or halo that most others don’t see. What he does not favor is dishonestly characterized, cast in a negative light and impugned. It is a flaw in his make-up.

Colonel Haiku (ee85e3) — 11/26/2013 @ 10:28 am

360. Mr. daley, ahead of the recent election, you and your ilk convinced me that “this was the most important election of our lifetimes”. I voted precisely as you prescribed.

Future elections hold no such promise.

Our task going forward “is not to die for our country, but to make the other poor dumb bastard die for his”.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/26/2013 @ 10:57 am

As tho it might matter:

http://freebeacon.com/iran-white-house-lying-about-details-of-nuke-deal/

There seems to be a difference of opinion among signatories what the words of agreement might mean.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/26/2013 @ 2:50 pm

Gary Gulrud #366,

When you implement revisionist history by accusing people of being short-sighted about Romney’s prospects last November, I think we should just remind people what you really thought would be the result of the election.
In a thread predicting the outcome, you predicted that Romney would end up with about 337 electoral votes, and that there would be 55 Republicans in the Senate.

See below.
———————-

Exec: Incumbent takes 201, leaving winner at 337?

Senate: Ends at 55 R, 43 D, 1 I, 1 S.

House: GOP loses 4 seats.

Playing safe per usual.

Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/23/2012 @ 8:08 am

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/26/2013 @ 3:07 pm

“360. Mr. daley, ahead of the recent election, you and your ilk convinced me that “this was the most important election of our lifetimes”.”

gary – That was Dustin’s oft repeated line. I never uttered those words. Keep making stuff up.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/26/2013 @ 3:22 pm

368, 369. Exactly my point, you ‘guys’ are as useless as teats on a steer.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/26/2013 @ 3:40 pm

364- Sammy, I think California could have more acres in fracking than any other state.

mg (31009b) — 11/26/2013 @ 3:41 pm

gary was trippin’, Stones… on teh windowpane…

Colonel Haiku (b53983) — 11/26/2013 @ 3:42 pm

Gary,

In your prediction of 55 seats in the Senate for the GOP, did that include a Todd Akin victory in Mizzou ?
Because if you believed that he was going to win, maybe you shouldn’t be lecturing people about who can and cannot win.
And please, don’t bet the mortgage check on the ponies at Santa Anita or Belmont !

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/26/2013 @ 3:44 pm

and still is…

Colonel Haiku (b53983) — 11/26/2013 @ 3:46 pm

“White Lightning”
” Orange Barrels”

mg (31009b) — 11/26/2013 @ 3:54 pm

In the same prediction thread in the fall of 2012, our friend Dustin also stated he thought Romney was going to win.
See below.

———————–
Kevin, not only is our unemployment rate historically high, but the major thing keeping it from being higher is the horde of people giving up on employment or simply working part time jobs (a problem greatly exacerbated by Obamacare).

Democrats who scoff at this being a problem at all are the reason Romney will (and must) win.

Comment by Dustin (73fead) — 10/27/2012 @ 8:30 pm
————————

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/26/2013 @ 3:57 pm

Colonel, and those windowpanes they tripped into weren’t the breakaway kind that they use in the movies !

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/26/2013 @ 3:59 pm

And I’d be a hypocrite to pretend I haven’t also gotten bent out of shape and regretted it.

It’s actually been a lot easier for me since I realized the GOP isn’t ~~conservative~~ for personal liberty nor against big government.

This.

Former Conservative (6e026c) — 11/26/2013 @ 3:59 pm

372. A flashback perhaps, windowpane was over and done 40 years ago.

The anecdotal evidence that my election predictions were badly wrong is uncontested by me, in fact, openly admitted from the eve of Nov. 6th on.

How this might strengthen your hand as ‘Winners’ escapes me, for one.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/26/2013 @ 4:28 pm

The one regular who called the Willard flop, constently and to the end was PeeWee, NTTIAWWT.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/26/2013 @ 4:34 pm

The Allen Thompson Mack, Rehberg juggernaut was unstoppable,

narciso (3fec35) — 11/26/2013 @ 4:37 pm

Gary, I was praying for mittens to win even knowing his posse lacked the killer instinct. Blame it on the ones who criticize failure.

mg (31009b) — 11/26/2013 @ 4:37 pm

I know you are as surprised as I;

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/11/26/ted-cruz-iran-hawk-this-geneva-deal-on-the-iranian-nuclear-program-is-a-disaster/

narciso (3fec35) — 11/26/2013 @ 4:40 pm

375. The trip that eluded me was Soma, the legendary, Amanita muscaria, the fly agaric.

Found a lovely specimen on the Lake Superior southern shore the the western end of Painted Rocks National Park, a backpackers only park from the land.

About 10 inches tall and cap as wide I didn’t have the guts to try it as Amanitas are generally deadly. The distinctive red capped variety is Asian.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/26/2013 @ 4:44 pm

#376… now that was just plain mean, Stones. Oh, teh humanity!

Colonel Haiku (b53983) — 11/26/2013 @ 4:47 pm

Dustin will (and must!) regret that.

Colonel Haiku (b53983) — 11/26/2013 @ 4:48 pm

There once was a wan fella named Dustin
Who’s prognostication skillz are now rustin’
his own choice was Perry
a deaf and dumb fairy
and now his hot air, it’s a-gustin’

Colonel Haiku (b53983) — 11/26/2013 @ 4:57 pm

“369. Exactly my point, you ‘guys’ are as useless as teats on a steer.”

gary – Why didn’t you make that clear in your prior comment instead of attempting to attribute something to me I had never written.

Wake me up when you have a sentient thought.

Kthx.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/26/2013 @ 4:58 pm

Back at the Ranch;

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/26/lawmaker-benghazi-operatives-likely-communicated-with-al-qaeda-leaders-before/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Internal+-+Politics+-+Text%29

narciso (3fec35) — 11/26/2013 @ 4:59 pm

388. Total BS. Your argument was you knew ‘who’ was electable because you’re a Blue State Republican.

Now you want to make me and all other Indies who finally bought your line of effluent as culpable because we smoked the hopium.

This is the same pattern as Il Douche, you can never be pinned down because you won’t stand on anything.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/27/2013 @ 6:50 am

Too much to sample:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/11/larwyns-linx-americas-enemies-are.html

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/27/2013 @ 7:33 am

Ace: http://minx.cc/?post=345275

The White House and Iran Can’t Agree on What It Is They Agreed On

Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be) — 11/27/2013 @ 9:41 am

The Stste Department says this is the outline of an agreement.

Indeed, the text is entitled:

Joint Plan of Action

There are some specifics.

Sammy Finkelman (6ee5be) — 11/27/2013 @ 9:47 am

Colorado state Senatr resigns to avoid a recall – this has the effect of keeping the seat in Democratic hands.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/28/us/politics/official-quits-in-backlash-for-gun-vote-in-colorado.html?hp&_r=0

It seems like tat , in Colorado, iif a sitting Senator resigns, there is no special election, but county leaders pick the replacement..

Sammy Finkelman (da29ec) — 11/27/2013 @ 7:32 pm

“388. Total BS. Your argument was you knew ‘who’ was electable because you’re a Blue State Republican.”

gary – So now you are saying all that crap you post about the world ending and sticking your head up your butt because we can’t do anything to change things is a bunch of nonsense because you actually listen to me?

When did that start? I could have billing you for my newsletter.

My opinion was Romney was the most electable candidate.

Have the guts to own your own opinion rather than blaming it on somebody else like a liberal, putz.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/27/2013 @ 8:32 pm

396. And that is why the GOP is dead, your opinion is counted.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/29/2013 @ 3:49 am

http://theoptimisticconservative.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/the-geneva-deal-and-triggers-for-israeli-action-part-2/#comment-21554

narciso (3fec35) — 11/29/2013 @ 5:25 am

‘those words you are using’

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/iranian-centrifuge-advances_769141.html

narciso (3fec35) — 11/29/2013 @ 10:24 am

narciso – U.N. Security Council somehow manages to pass multiple resolutions with Russian and Chinese participation imposing sanctions on Iran demanding the cessation of uranium enrichment.

Under the beneficent leadership of President Eat My Lunch and Drink My Milk Barack I, the U.S. secures Iran’s ability to continue enriching uranium and eases sanctions.

WTF!

WINNING!

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/29/2013 @ 10:33 am

Maybe President Give Me A Wedgie Obama I viewed those U.N. Security Council resolutions as Red Lines, which are obviously things he must cross and render meaningless.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/29/2013 @ 10:36 am

He has a gift, like he told the Searchlight Strangler;

narciso (3fec35) — 11/29/2013 @ 10:42 am

We are not worthy.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/29/2013 @ 11:05 am

Colorado state Senator resigns to avoid a recall – this has the effect of keeping the seat in Democratic hands.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/28/us/politics/official-quits-in-backlash-for-gun-vote-in-colorado.html?hp&_r=0

It seems like, in Colorado, if a sitting Senator resigns, there is no special election, but county leaders pick the replacement..

Seems to me, if you can recall a senator, shit canning a county superviser should be childs play.

papertiger (c2d6da) — 11/29/2013 @ 11:31 am

No. we’re really not;

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-rohde/2013/11/21/john-kerry-will-not-be-denied/

narciso (3fec35) — 11/29/2013 @ 11:34 am

hello.

I’m new to patterico.com and I have a problem as well started ….

I can not post a picture.

As the images are uploaded to this forum .

Thank you.

mariaiuq (d99e25) — 12/7/2013 @ 4:58 pm

395. “It seems like, in Colorado, if a sitting Senator resigns, there is no special election, but county leaders pick the replacement..”

404. Comment by papertiger (c2d6da) — 11/29/2013 @ 11:31 am

Seems to me, if you can recall a senator, shit canning a county superviser should be childs play.

BY county leaders, I didn’t mean any persons holding public office in the county, but the leaders of the political party of which the resigned state legislator is a member.

(I wonder if that’s arranged by the legislator naming a replacement committee, or if they are actuyally charged by state law with replacing the legislator.)

In any case, it’s a way around a recall, if the recall is based on what political party someone belongs to, or the way they voted, if others are likely to do the same as well.

Sammy Finkelman (1e81da) — 12/7/2013 @ 5:41 pm

11/23/2013

Open Thread: Deal Reached with Iran on Nukes

407 Responses to “Open Thread: Deal Reached with Iran on Nukes”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out