If Trump leaves it, as I assume he will, I think he will be making the right move, for two reasons. First, how can you have a treaty that was not properly ratified as a treaty? Second, how can you have a deal that makes certain sites off limits?
Discuss.
[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Powered by WordPress.
Ding.
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:49 ampoor jimmy mattis
she’s gonna have a hearty pout over this
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:11 amThe US installed and supported the Shah for two reasons: to block Russian (Soviet at that time) power in the region and to have a counter to Saudi Arabia in OPEC. I think these goals are still in the national interests of the US as they have been for fifty years. I think we should make nice with Iran’s current rulers as we did with the previous ones. Antagonism to Iran does not further the two national interest goals I outlined.
Slugger (68b552) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:18 amIf one gives Wimpy a hamburger today and expects payment on Tuesday, one is a fool. This is exponentially more true when dealing with Islamic regimes. And deadly.
Ed from SFV (291f4c) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:21 amYes Beirut and the one third of the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:23 amopec has less than absolutely nothing to do with this Mr. Slugger
this is about doing nonproliferate all up in it
this is about preventing Obama’s dream of Iran doing nuclear genocide on Israel from coming to fruition
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:26 am3
Kishnevi (c2a547) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:29 amLet’s pretend the basic policy of the current Iranian leadership is not oppose the USA in every way possible.
BTW, may I suggest adding The Storm Before The Storm to your reading pile.
Kishnevi (c2a547) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:31 am“If one gives Wimpy a hamburger today and expects payment on Tuesday, one is a fool. This is exponentially more true when dealing with Islamic regimes. And deadly.”
Yes… what’s the Arabic word for that again? Oh, yeah… lying.
Colonel Haiku (45621b) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:31 amA farsi’s a farce, of coarse, of coarse…
Colonel Haiku (45621b) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:32 amThe Shia clerics in Iran are focused on 2 things — Shia hegemony over the Middle East; and expansion of Shai Islam throughout the western world.
The first problem is most easily addressed by nuking Isreal off the map.
Will millions of Shia die in the process? Sure, but these are the same guys who sent human waves of 14 year-olds into the field-of-fire of Iraqi tanks in the Iran-Iraq war.
Its all part of the “cost of doing business”.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:46 amCautiously support leaving aside the deal but in some ways it is a moot point: there has to be a broader strategy towards the problems posed by the current Iranian government.
The tea leaves seem to suggest a new series of sanctions, implying that lifting sanctions against the regime early in 2016 was a wayward step. This seems the right idea in my opinion.
JP (27cc8b) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:59 am3rd reason for leaving the Iran deal: the full terms of the deal are still not publicly known. I find it difficult to believe that the secrecy furthers American interests.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:04 ami think will should kill the current leaders of Iran. They have been at war with us since 1979. Time to recognize that fact.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:05 amObama sukks
mg (9e54f8) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:07 amKerry sukks
And stop the presses as Trump may be doing something correct.
It’s very simple. The theocratic Iranian government is our enemy, they are not rational, and they are not honest. We can’t trust their promises or their intentions, and they will eventually kill millions of us if they get the chance. 9/11 had the singular benefit of changing our perspective on threats and we cannot permit Iran to have nuclear weapons.
As far as I’m concerned, President Trump should demand full access, with inspectors right there on the border ready to go check every site deemed suspicious, and when Iran says no, bomb those sites immediately.
A few weeks later, he should demand full access, with inspectors right there on the border ready to go check every site deemed suspicious.
And across minefields. Human life is cheap to a lot of ruling classes. Fortunately so are tomahawk missiles to our ruling class.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:10 amIf President Trump was at a 50/50 tipping point on his Iran nuclear policy decision, the actions of former SOS, and current POS John Kerry to try and undermine the President’s foreign policy might be the one thing which pushes him to reject the agreement.
The foreign policy Dana (044268) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:10 amrapey eric’s sucking up a lot of the bandwidth the anti-semitic fanboys of iran wanted to use this morning
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:12 amObama betrayed every soldier that gave his life in Iraq with the way he handled our victory in that war, so there’s no reason to honor his treaty, which didn’t even yield a victory. Partisan foreign policy is a terrible thing, but it’s illogical to make these things one-sided.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:12 amhey guess who really really wants us to stay in the appeasement deal?
that would be Russia
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:26 amYou can do anything you want, so long as you get to define what words mean and a sufficient media megaphone exists to convince the people that such was what those words have always meant.
Skorcher (5ba7f6) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:27 am#3, Slugger done struck out. The overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddeg had nothing to do with OPEC which didn’t exist in 1953. The coup was a joint British/American plot (code name ‘Boot’ for MI-6, and ‘TPAJAX’ for CIA).
Under Mosaddeg Iran had nationalized the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later to become British Petroleum) which infuriated Sir Anthony Eden, who appealed to the Eisenhower Administration for help.
The US assigned CIA’s Senior Officer in Tehran, Kermit Roosevelt, (yes that Roosevelt) to remove Mosaddeg in a military coup. The US has admitted its part, but the Brits are still trying to downplay their central efforts.
ropelight (91a9b9) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:38 amThat’s only part of the story mossadecq only really had the support of the tudeh and had angered the mullahs and the merchants.
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:45 amI think slugger is talking about Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, ropelight, not his PM Mohammad Mosaddeg who was reportedly ousted by joint British/American interests.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:47 amThe Shah was overthrown in the 1979 Iranian coup.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:47 amBut I disagree with slugger that the US can reach its goals with the Iranian mullahs who engineered the coup or with their successprs. The Iranians want to kill us. You don’t make peace with that.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:49 amIts a talking point that ignores pahlevi was overthrown by the same forces 25 years later
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:51 amIs this teh right thread for an oldie?
Q: what does the average Iranian husband do if cut off from the nightly affections of his wife?
A: Ghotzbadeh
Colonel Haiku (45621b) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:53 amProbably not, taheri is my source for the earlier point, also wanniski noticed that land reform was not
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 10:01 amhelpful for the shah
This should not be controversial. The only way Obama was able to get away with it in the first place was because the opposition could not get 67 votes in the Senate to defeat his veto of a bill forbidding him to do the deal. Nonetheless, it was still only a memorandum of understanding not a treaty, as Patterico notes, and Iran and the world were warned that the next President could abrogate it. Iran did okay upfront, too, with the release of $100 billion of its assets and three years of unfettered oil exports.
nk (dbc370) — 5/8/2018 @ 10:26 am67 votes in the Senate
maybe this is why mullah fanboy Bob Corker is actively campaigning for a Democrat to replace him
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 10:31 amIt’s shocking that Obama would give $100 billion dollars and other revenues to a regime that is developing nuclear weapons for use against us. Why not simply claim that money as ours, as payment for the hostage crisis?
Dustin (ba94b2) — 5/8/2018 @ 10:39 amBUT who hired Black Cube?
Tillman (a95660) — 5/8/2018 @ 10:52 amSo we’re planning to go to war with Iran? Is that the big picture? No deal is in the works here? Only a war-monger’s paradise for Mr. Mustache?
Tillman (a95660) — 5/8/2018 @ 10:54 amSo we’re planning to go to war with Iran?
Yes, you didn’t get the message? We outlawed Russian back in 1980-something and once that war finally gets started, we begin another one with Li’l Kim in Korea, and THEN we bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb Iran. Do try to keep up.
Skorcher (5ba7f6) — 5/8/2018 @ 10:57 amMr. Tillman, did you know that leopards eat babies alive?
Let’s not be babies. We cannot trust the mullahs.
nk (dbc370) — 5/8/2018 @ 11:01 amIt isn’t a treaty. It doesn’t claim to be a treaty – at Iranian insistence, yet.
It’s a Plan of Action
If Iran does this, the U.S.and other countries will do that.
Iran actually noted that if they didn’t get the practical effect of relief of sanctions, it would consider the U.S. to be violation, but so far they haven’t withdrawen (although the Obama Administration gave them more than $1 billion in cash not to back out, technically as settlement of old claims)
It’s easy. Just write that down.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 5/8/2018 @ 11:06 am11. shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:46 am
Before that happens, Israel will bomb the presidential palace in Damascus or kill Bashar Assad in some other way.
I don’t think the Supreme Leader in Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is off limits either.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 5/8/2018 @ 11:10 amnk @30.
One hundred billion?
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 5/8/2018 @ 11:11 amBUT who hired Black Cube?
Tillman (a95660) — 5/8/2018 @ 10:52 am
Dark Crystal
Colonel Haiku (45621b) — 5/8/2018 @ 11:14 amthe Iranian people have grown to despise the perverted mullahs and the piggy politicians
but Europeans want to keep the Iranian people subjugated for so they can sell airbuses and have preferential access to oil deals
Europe is very depraved
especially the burgeoningly fascist UK
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 11:14 amWell, DJT got another one VERY right. Good on him. It does not suck that Bolton and Pompeo are right there to keep him on a pragmatic and basically isolationist course, with Mattis to back it all up.
Special marks for our president renewing and bolstering substantial sanctions. Well done, sir.
Glory to God? OutSTANDing remark. Wow. Grand slam swing of a phrase there.
Ed from SFV (291f4c) — 5/8/2018 @ 11:24 amIs there any way to let Israel handle this?
I know Iran is an enemy of ours, but so are at least a half-dozen Islamic states.
Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.
Pakistan hid Bin Laden, supports the Taliban, has nukes.
Why Iran? Why NOW? Is it because of the Netanyahu briefing?
gp (0c542c) — 5/8/2018 @ 11:26 am“the Iranian people have grown to despise the perverted mullahs” Their society was fairly secular and Westernized before late seventies. Is there any sign of internal revolt?
gp (0c542c) — 5/8/2018 @ 11:29 amthey did riots all up in it just this past January
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 11:36 amPeople saying the treaty must remain or Iran will bring war to the region……..smh.
And not even McCain’s funeral will have a moment where the corpse is dropped on the ground.
harkin (c60926) — 5/8/2018 @ 11:56 amMore than $100 billion, Sammy. About halfway down the page in the Lifting Sanctions section.
nk (dbc370) — 5/8/2018 @ 11:59 amI thought it was $150 billion at the time, myself.
nk (dbc370) — 5/8/2018 @ 11:59 amJust think: if President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry had negotiated a good Iran deal, one which could have been submitted to the Senate for ratification, President Trump could not have simply withdrawn from it.
Vladimir Putin strongly supported the Iran deal. Yet here I thought that Donald Trump was supposed to be Mr Putin’s stooge. This does not compute.
The diplomatic Dana (044268) — 5/8/2018 @ 12:00 pmgp asked:
The Israelis just proved that they can do whatever they want to Iran; letting the Israelis handle it might just get things done right.
The snarky Dana (044268) — 5/8/2018 @ 12:02 pmThe goal of Obama’s Iran deal was to damage if not eliminate Israel. Too bad Teump can’t get back the plane loads of cash which has turned up in the hands of Hesbolla and other terrorist proxies.
AZ Bob (07f1eb) — 5/8/2018 @ 12:07 pmoh it compute alright
dirty cia cheesedick John Brennan’s said *several* times on CNN fake news that whenever Russia wants President Trump to do something they just threaten him with urinating hooker picture
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 12:08 pmOnce is,tragedy, the next time is as well:http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/213292
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 12:17 pmWhat about black cube in deed:
https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/270119/supporters-iran-deal-used-government-spy-members-daniel-greenfield
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 12:19 pmSo we’re planning to go to war with Iran? Is that the big picture?
And on cue the Barack Obama/Ben Rhodes talking point from 2015 is resurrected.
JVW (42615e) — 5/8/2018 @ 12:29 pm“So we’re planning to go to war with Iran? Is that the big picture?”
“And on cue the Barack Obama/Ben Rhodes talking point from 2015 is resurrected.”
If you’ve got a way to target only the mullahs and the labs, and not the Russians, and not the populace-allegedly-in-revolt, have at it.
If we kill more Russians in the ME (Pompeo said 200 so far,) and they decide to kill a couple hundred of our guys, what then? If that happens, and we find ourselves unable to show the world a nearly-functional Iranian atom-bomb, that seems like a bad outcome.
gp (0c542c) — 5/8/2018 @ 12:39 pmI knew that installing the Shah preceded OPEC’s ascendancy and was trying to be brief. A counter to SA in the Oil Protection Extortion Cartel would be beneficial for the US.
Slugger (68b552) — 5/8/2018 @ 12:42 pm“The Ayatollahs hate us.” Their emotional life is not important to me. I think that many nations make accommodations with us for reasons other than affection for the stars and stripes.
“Let Israel take care of Iran.” The 2006 war against Hezbollah was not all that successful.
If we kill more Russians in the ME (Pompeo said 200 so far,) and they decide to kill a couple hundred of our guys, what then?
The story of man since the beginning of time. The thing is, unlike the Chinese, the Russians can’t afford to lose a couple hundred a pop. See when they got rid of communism, they forgot to lock the prisoners in…
https://tsarizm.com/analysis/2018/05/03/russians-are-leaving-russia/
Putin starts losing on a visible scale and this problem only accelerates. And guess where a good number of those Russkies leaving Russia would like to be?
Skorcher (5ba7f6) — 5/8/2018 @ 12:43 pmhas food stamp issued a statement yet i’m curious if he’ll have the balls to defend the cowardly appeasement deal he made with his genocidal terrorist friends
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 12:53 pmAmerica breaks it’s word. How very… Russian.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/8/2018 @ 12:54 pmSkorcher, Russia weighs on my mind since they are the only nation possessing an arsenal capable of completely destroying the USA. They like to assassinate their journalists, among other things, and have a disposition best exemplified by their project at Katyn.
Unless Iran is close to a bomb, why risk tangling with Russia? Hey, on 9/12/2001, I would have supported nuking every major Islamic state, and so would have maybe a majoprity of Americans. Our will quickly subsided, the elites decided the best action was to kissy-face Muslims (doubling their population in the USA since then.) But today, where in the USA, outside Washington DC, is the hot anger calling for attacks on Iran?
gp (0c542c) — 5/8/2018 @ 12:55 pmhere’s food stamp’s statement
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 12:56 pmadorbs
food stamp cites the support of appeasing ass-pansy Jimmy Mattis
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 12:59 pmRussia weighs on my mind since they are the only nation possessing an arsenal capable of completely destroying the USA
Putin’s a lot of things. Suicidal ain’t one of them. Their nuclear capabilities are likely in worse shape than during the CW. They have (strategically rightly) been concentrating on improved fighting forces used in border wars, insurgencies and such in Georgia, Syria, etc. And they’re not really doing that very well. While they do win these conflicts, their general weakness is exposed. Their strength is in their elite troops. That’s about it. Taking out a company of some of their best men undermined a good bit of Putin’s strongman persona among many of his admirers. Our worthless MSM ignored that story.
Skorcher (5ba7f6) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:06 pmNope. America has a process by which we give our word: treaties. Obama is not America, and whatever words he spoke expired when his presidency ended.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:18 pm“America breaks its word”
I’m sure that’s the way the Obama clowns would like to see it characterized. They should file it under “Lessons Learned: no tickee, no laundry”.
Colonel Haiku (45621b) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:25 pmIf Trump were a conservative and a supporter of constitutional government, he would have submitted the Obama deal with Iran to the Senate for ratification or rejection. He could have submitted it with a recommendation that the Senate refuse to ratify it, but regardless: The Senate would have rejected it.
The debate in the Senate, moreover, would have forced Dems to take positions before the 2018 midterms that would be highly embarrassing to them, especially in the states that Trump won in 2016 with Democratic incumbents up for election. The debate would have actually enhanced Trump’s on-going political credibility as he comes up with a replacement strategy to confine Iran’s nuclear and missile programs — my recommendation is that he seek Congress’ approval of a naval blockade and air interdiction of major land trade routes. Whatever the plan (and I see no indication that Trump has one), any president in these circumstances would need that credibility and that Congressional authority — but Trump, as a chaos child distrusted by most of the world and at least half the American population, especially needs it.
The decision to renounce and exit the deal would then have the political, constitutional credibility and authority of the Senate behind it. The world has been rather spectacularly on notice for 200+ years that in the United States, no POTUS has authority to make a binding treaty on his own. The world was reminded of that quite emphatically when the Senate repeatedly refused to approve the League of Nations treaty, even though the whole damn thing was Woodrow Wilson’s doing in the first place. It’s about time for another reminder: It would discourage future American presidents from the kind of unconstitutional crap Obama engaged in, and it would warn others that they can’t rely on unratified-by-the-Senate agreements that purport to bind the American government.
Not only would Trump have been furthering constitutional government and reminding Americans and the world of some basic American civics propositions, he would have robbed the supporters of the deal of the opportunity to paint this as an erratic act personally identifiable with him personally.
But Trump is a moron and a complete narcissist. Even when he does the right thing, as here, he does it in a way that makes the discussion all about him.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:25 pmthe Russian Collusion Hoax that obama and his gestapo FBI did so much to start only made this decision that much easier
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:26 pm67… so amidst all the mad dog foaming, recriminations and preaching, you like this announcement?
Colonel Haiku (45621b) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:29 pmsleazy cocaine mitch can’t even do confirmations (unless you’re his corrupt pig wife)
he can’t handle another big agenda item on his plate
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:29 pm69. A broken clock is right twice a day.
Gryph (08c844) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:31 pmThis isn’t a case of America “breaking it’s [sic] word.” Only Senate ratification could count as “America’s word.” That’s right there in the Constitution, for all the world to read when it’s trying to figure out how much authority any POTUS has when negotiating.
Trump doing this unilaterally as an action of the Executive Branch furthers that false narrative, though, handing ammo to those who know neither constitutional law or the difference between a contraction and a possessive.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:31 pmWhat I want to know is how much of that US Taxpayer cash the Obamanauts shipped to Iran got recycled into their own bank accounts.
Beau Merz (5a4596) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:31 pm@66. =Haiku= Gesundheit!
And Putin smiled…
“Oh man, you’re just like the rest of us, ain’t ‘ya.” – Chief Gillespie [Rod Steiger] ‘In The Heat Of the Night’ 1967
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:33 pmmitt romney likes wieners the best
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:34 pm72. In other words, for all you Trump humping sycophants out there, Trump is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. If we were following the constitution (which we’re not, so this particular discussion has been moot since the end of WWII), only treaties ratified by the Senate are considered ones that the USA is a party to. Technically we never left the Kyoto accord because the Senate never ratified it. I’m pretty sure the Senate didn’t ratify the Paris accords either.
Gryph (08c844) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:35 pm@ Haiku (#67): I have always opposed the Iran deal. One of the reasons I opposed Donald Trump in the GOP primary is that he was the only candidate who wouldn’t commit to renouncing the Iran deal on Inauguration Day. We talked about that here at the time, Haiku. I fault Trump for waiting a year, and for not submitting it to the Senate. But yes, even though I think Trump wasted a year and bungled the pull-out, I will nevertheless continue to oppose the deal.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:36 pmSorry, that last (#77) from me was directed to Haiku’s question at #69, not #67.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:36 pmSeth Mandel
harkin (c60926) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:40 pm@SethAMandel
Can’t wait to watch the Iran deal announcement then flip to CNN to see a former Obama staffer interviewing another former Obama staffer.
@65. =yawn= And Putin smiled. Actually, it’s yes; every international agreement negotiated between the United States w/allies across the world are not Senate ratified ‘treaties.’ But thanks for playing. What do we have for him, Johnnie…
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:41 pm80. Again worth noting, if we are following the constitution, there is nothing binding about any “agreement” we make outside of Senate ratification. I’m utterly convinced and quite disappointed that this is one regard of many in which the constitution itself is currently a dead letter.
Gryph (08c844) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:43 pmBeldar – I see Obama and the Senate in 2015 as the violators of the Rule of Law here. Not to mention outrageous fecklessness and mendacity in handling this betrayal of American interests.
I do agree that DJT is maximizing/orchestrating this to personal benefit.
Freeing three hostages from DPRK? Big whoop. This is a dangerous personalization of an intractable issue of massive importance. When he takes that victory lap, I will be repulsed. Besides, isn;t Kim’s softening directly related to a catastrophic failure of his nuclear development program and the resultant PRC handcuffs placed upon him? In other words….Donald – this ain’t about your wizardry.
Ed from SFV (291f4c) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:44 pmFurther @ Haiku: If you think my original comment at #67 is “mad dog foaming, recrimination and preaching,” you should be specific about what you disagree with and why. Otherwise it’s just another gratuitous insult. And if that’s all you’re interested in, I suggest you return to the anatomically impossible act I’ve recommended for you and the horse you rode in on.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:44 pmStuff and nonsense. A President is under no obligation, none!, to submit a bad non-treaty posing as a treaty left over from the last administration. There is nothing in our constitution or our history that demands or even suggests such a stupid idea. That’s like saying Trump should dust off all of Obama’s failed policies and submit them to Congress.
Name one time that any administration has done such a thing. Any instance in which an administration sent legislation to Congress that the President opposed, just because the previous administration favored it.
It would be a radical departure from our normal political process. It is neither demanded by the constitution or by any conservative principle.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:44 pmAny site in Iran could have been inspected if the US had presented evidence that prohibited activity was going on.
That the US never even attempted to use the strict verification provisions – which would lead to automatic reimposition of sanctions by the other six parties (Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia and the EU) if Iran were found in violation – kind of gives the game away. Note also that Trump did not even allege that Iran had violated the agreement.
Huge propaganda victory for Iran, plus all the other parties are under no obligation to resume their own sanctions, so Iran gets the best of both worlds.
There’s dumb, there’s dumber, and then there’s Trump level stupidity.
Dave (062363) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:44 pmObama lied about the need to bolster moderate forces in Iran. There were none and still aren’t any.
AZ Bob (02390a) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:45 pmMeh. Like father, like son. Strip the bark off this as just another example of what it is; Trump just wants to piss on every thing Obama. Ol’dead Fred was a bigot; so is Donald.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:47 pm84. On this particular point, Mous, you and I agree. There is nothing wrong with the current president — be it Trump or anyone else — declaring that a treaty will not be sent to the Senate for ratification. What I don’t like about this whole business is that Trump seems to be operating under the assumption that the treaty/agreement/whatever you want to call it, was binding on President Obama’s say-so.
If Trump had an ounce of the zeal fo constitutional government his supporters seem to think he does, he could have just issued a short statement to this effect:
Gryph (08c844) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:48 pm@ Ed from SFV, who wrote (#82): “I see Obama and the Senate in 2015 as the violators of the Rule of Law here. Not to mention outrageous fecklessness and mendacity in handling this betrayal of American interests.”
Yes, and Trump could make that case far more effectively if he were using today’s Senate as his partner. Instead, by acting unilaterally, he’s at a minimum confusing that case. To the extent this becomes “Trump vs. Obama” in the public perception, conservatives and supporters of the constitution are disadvantaged. This was indeed about a POTUS, Obama, who was too big for his britches — not as decided by a subsequent POTUS, but rather, as decided by the Constitution and the Senate insisting upon its proper role thereunder.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:50 pm87. I think you just hit on why the Trump humpers love him so much. We may not actually get any closer to restoring constitutiona government. We may not be any freer in any meaningful sense, but as long as Trump gets enough people to think he’s repudiating Obama’s eight years, Trump will skate into another term in office easily.
Gryph (08c844) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:51 pmMr. DCSCA you sound uncharacteristically bitter today
*hugs*
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:52 pm@ Mous (#84), who wrote, in response to my earlier comment:
Please re-read what I wrote. I didn’t say that Trump’s decision to abrogate an agreement made by a prior POTUS is unconstitutional.
When I think something is unconstitutional, I say that, exactly that.
I said this was foolish and a missed opportunity. So please stop putting words into my mouth so you can win an argument with those words.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:53 pm“Huge propaganda victory for Iran, plus all the other parties are under no obligation to resume their own sanctions, so Iran gets the best of both worlds.”
Go sell crazy on campus. You’ll find an endless supply of suckers.
Colonel Haiku (45621b) — 5/8/2018 @ 1:59 pm@91. Oh no, Mr. Feet. Thrilled! Can’t wait for President Trump to withdraw the United States from that lousy deal at Appomattox, too.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:00 pmI did not use the word unconstitutional. Stop putting words in my mouth. And, I did quote your words. Here, I’ll do so again.
Trump is both a conservative and a supporter of constitutional government, as evidenced by the fact that he did not take up the incredibly dumb idea of submitting Obama’s Iran travesty to the Senate. Only someone who doesn’t understand the way our government works would think that Trump should have done such a thing.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:02 pm83… “But Trump is a moron and a complete narcissist. Even when he does the right thing, as here, he does it in a way that makes the discussion all about him.”
Just how many different ways can you say this? It’s the same stuff day in/day out.
We get it.
Colonel Haiku (45621b) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:02 pmI very nearly quoted you, Mous, in fact, because what you wrote above in #65 is almost (but not quite) right:
The first sentence is exactly right. The first clause of the second sentence is exactly right. The last clause I’d modify to say that whatever agreements Obama purported to make for America without Senate ratification can indeed be revoked by any successor. Your phrasing suggests that they’re self-expiring, and that’s not right. And indeed, before today, Trump has publicly declined to repudiate the deal Obama struck. That didn’t bind Trump’s hands today, nor would it have bound a future POTUS either.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:03 pmGryph, we make many agreements at the executive level. While they lack the force of law a ratified treaty would carry, there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about them. They are the international equivalent of an executive order.
Dave (062363) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:03 pm@ Haiku: The day he changes, so will I. And you actually don’t seem to get it.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:04 pm95. That doesn’t make him a supporter of constitutional government. It made him someone who stumbled into the correct course of action for the wrong reasons. I don’t care how old you are; if we had a president who really and truly advocated for the constitution the way the founders wrote it, you wouldn’t recognize the Federal Government tomorrow. No one alive today knows what government under the constitution looks like cause that’s not the government we’re currently operating under.
Gryph (08c844) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:05 pm98. Illegal? Perhaps not, but neither do they have the force of law. Like executive orders, anything the president does unilaterally can be undone just as easily by subsequent administrations.
I shouldn’t have to remind all you ersatsz constitutional scholars out there; if there is a power the government is exercising that is not granted to it by the constitution, it is not constitutional. And that includes the power to unilaterally broker agreements with other nations. It’s just nowhere to be found in the plain English text.
Gryph (08c844) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:06 pmA supporter of constitutional government, Mous, would have said: “Obama should have complied with the Constitution. He didn’t. I’m not obliged to do so, because his executive decision doesn’t bind me. But out of respect for the fact that he was indeed the POTUS when he purported to commit America to this deal, I am going to take the voluntary but appropriate step of giving the Senate the say that the Constitution requires, rather than simply abrogating what Obama did.”
That’s not the same thing at all as saying, “Trump’s action in repudiating Obama’s deal is unconstitutional.” I didn’t say that. You pretended, and continue to pretend, that I did. You even quoted something pretending it says that, when it doesn’t.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:08 pmSure, he could have done that. He also could have ended DACA, DAPA, and NAFTA on day one. But, although his opponents like to portray him as a bull in the China shop, Trump has been methodically working towards ending or modifying various policies. This gives allies, trading partners, business interests, etc, an opportunity to lobby their side as well as prepare for the changes. It also allows the administration the chance to negotiate with all of the above to work with us on these changes.
Part of what we want from Europe and others is cooperation on trade sanctions against Iran. To the extent that is possible, it’s better to get them on board.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:09 pmThe Iran Deal FACTS: What The MSM Isn’t Telling You About The JCPOA
Excerpts:
“…..the Washington Post fact checker claimed today that Iran would never build a nuclear weapon because they reduced the number of centrifuges to 5,060. The reduction is true, but according to former deputy director of the CIA Mike Morell that gives them enough enrichment capacity to produce bombs but not enough for a peaceful power program.
John Gambrell of the Associated Press wrote a once-sided anti-Trump article about Iran and the JCPOA without mentioning that the AP discovered a secret side deal that allows Iran to upgrade and modernize its centrifuges thus increasing its enriching capacity, all before the deal officially expires.“
https://lidblog.com/facts-what-the-msm-isnt-telling-you-jcpoa/
harkin (c60926) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:10 pmTrump is a big supporter of Article XII of the Constitution, I’ll give him that.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:11 pmwhen nuclear genocide of israel is in the balance you don’t roll the dice on a piss-stained Corker Flake McCain Cocaine Mitch senate just for to make a rhetorical point
this is obvious to anyone who is willing to do the analysis
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:11 pm103. NAFTA was ratified by the Senate, Mous. Under the constitution, it would have to be undone by the Senate as well. That is one instance in which (again, under the constitution) Trump can not act unilaterally, as that particular agreement does have the force of law.
Gryph (08c844) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:11 pm106. Get a clue, feet. The reason that we’re having this discussion at all is because Obama put an agreement through via executive order that we’re all pretending is binding, when it’s really not.
Gryph (08c844) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:12 pmI love President Trump Mr. Gryph and today once again he did the good leadership
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:13 pmTrump Just Shredded The Iran Deal. Here Are 5 Reasons He Was Absolutely Right To Do So.
By Ben Shapiro
https://www.dailywire.com/news/30392/watch-trump-just-shredded-iran-deal-here-are-5-ben-shapiro
harkin (c60926) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:13 pm109. Oh I know, Feet. You fantasize about licking his boots and [Redacted].
Gryph (08c844) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:14 pm110. Hah! Ben Shapiro agrees with me that Obama acted unconstitutionally in his end-run around the Senate.
Gryph (08c844) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:16 pmMous wrote:
Yes, I agree. And therefore, Trump ought to avoid acting in ways that give support to the likes of John F’in Kerry as he flies around saying, “Pay no attention to Trump, he’s crazy and he doesn’t speak for America.” Because that will encourage our allies, whose support we would like to have, to dither and wait and hope that Trump has a stroke or gets impeached or whatever.
If, by sharp contrast, the United States Senate refuses to ratify the deal, then that is a decision clearly attributable not just to Donald Trump, but to the United States as a whole, speaking in the manner contemplated by the Constitution. That is a statement to the world that no, this isn’t just Donald Trump differing with Barack Obama — this is America’s decision, so don’t hold your breath waiting for a different POTUS.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:16 pm@81. Again, the rest of the world doesn’t give a damn about the U.S. Constitution. Sure, it was a dubious deal, but a deal all the same crafted w/allies. And other nations, friend or foe, will note is that in this era, the U.S. gave it’s word along w/allies on the international stage– and broke it. That’s very Russian; it cedes the moral high ground. That’s the broader consequence of this and it surely will come up in North Korea negotiations and w/other nations in years to come. But there’s a more elemental truth is this: Trump simply wants to piss on all things Obama, as he has since his birther days. The man’s a bigot, just like his father was. New Yorkers have seen it bubble up for decades.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:18 pm114. It’s not a “dubious” deal. It literally has no force of law. The constitution doesn’t care if it was made with or without allies; if it’s an agreement brokered between us and another nation, it does not have the force of law until and unless the Senate ratifies it. To call the JCOPA “dubious” gives it more credence than it deserves.
And while we’re at it, I couldn’t care less what foreign powers think about our constitution. I’m far more worried about American voters who care more about foreign opinion than they do adherence to the constitution. That is how we got here. Barack Obama is just a symptom of the real problem, and so is Donald Trump.
Gryph (08c844) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:23 pmLet me put it another way. Anytime Obama made any international agreements backed only by his personal say-so, the agreements had no force on future administrations. No more so than any promises I make to my neighbors about what I will do with my property. I give my word, I have an obligation as long as I’m the owner. Future owners can freely disregard any promises I made, though they may find it advantageous to stick to the arrangement, depending on what benefits flow their way.
I suspect everyone who he was making those promises to were well aware of that. Like that thing with Australia, where Obama agreed that we would take those 1200 refugees (or however many it was). Trump didn’t like the deal, and he could have walked away from it. But, that has costs too. He kept the deal, likely because he thought the benefits of future cooperation with Australia outweighed the fact that we really were getting screwed on the deal.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:25 pmlet’s be real when your “allies” are fascist sluts like the british you’re better off ditching them and just doing the right thing
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:26 pm116. Last time I checked, nowhere in the Presidential oath of office does it require the president to place maintaining good foreign relations above following the constitution.
Gryph (08c844) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:27 pmGryph, “the plain English text” doesn’t give the president power to travel overseas or invite foreign leaders to the US, either.
There is nothing unconstitutional about the president agreeing with a foreign leader (or anyone else, for that matter) to do something he has authority to do on his own.
Dave (062363) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:30 pmthe rest of the world doesn’t give a damn about the U.S. Constitution.
Neither did Obama.
random viking (6a54c2) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:31 pmLike most trade deals, NAFTA gives an incredible amount of leeway to the administration to set specific policies. If Mexico and Canada refuse to renegotiate with Trump, he can effectively set punishing policies under the agreement. For them, they can take the bad medicine for now and hope for a better (for them) administration in the future. Or, they can deal, which would go to the Senate, and lock them in.
So, I was sloppy in my language. Trump can’t unilaterally abolish NAFTA forever. But, he can largely make it non-operative for the rest of his presidency.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:33 pm119. And here we have a shining example of the piss-poor state of civics education in America.
The constitution does not FORBID the president power to travel overseas or invite foreign leaders to the US. It does give the Senate exclusive power to ratify whatever treaties and agreements he may make with those leaders, which by extension infers that the president may not act uinlaterally in such agreements. If the JCOPA does indeed have the force of law, then we are indeed a post-constitutional republic and the constitution is a dead letter as I have opined for the better part of the last 20 years. Don’t think for a second that I am saying this only because Trump is in power.
Gryph (08c844) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:35 pm121. Only if he is willing to completely abrogate his stated oath to protect, defend, and preserve the constitution.
Gryph (08c844) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:36 pm104.
And Israel stole their nuclear bomb research archives (or did they only make copies?)
I don’t know why nobody is using that argument (that they can’t build abomb because Israel stole their archives.)
I guess that argument is flawed.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:41 pm@117. Repent, Mr. Feet: you type using the Queen’s English:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dZz_gSY-_M
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:43 pmMeanwhile Israel is getting ready for a confrontation. Iran has threatened retaliation for some bombing they did in Syria (they are bombing to prevent a war or make the war, if it comes, less deadly.)
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/middle-east/syria/unconfirmed-reports-iaf-launched-three-missiles-south-of-damascus/2018/05/08
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/israel/idf/idf-issues-limited-emergency-reservist-call-ups/2018/05/08/
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/middle-east/syria/idf-orders-bomb-shelters-opened-on-golan-heights/2018/05/08/
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:43 pmthe smelly queen can’t even type
she’s stupid and shallow and she’s pretty much wasted her one god-given life prancing around pretending she’s royalty
ludicrous drunk-ass clown-woman
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:48 pm@127.the smelly queen can’t even type she’s stupid and shallow and she’s pretty much wasted her one god-given life prancing around pretending she’s royalty ludicrous drunk-ass clown-woman
You’re confusing Elizabeth with Rudy, Mr. Feet.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:52 pmIf they were relying on Obama’s unilateral treaty, maybe they should have given a damn about it.
And while I’m glad that Trump has finally caught up to the ‘nevertrumpers’ on Iran, I hope he doesn’t take so long to wake up when it comes to North Korea.
The flip flopping on coddling dictators and on this NY AG’s sexual abuse scandal has me starting to suspect some of y’all might be a bit partisan.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:53 pm@ Mous: You’re mostly right. Consistently with what you’ve written, I merely point out: Deed restrictions that “run with the land” are matters of public record and notice at the county courthouse. In some ways, they’re analogous to Senate-confirmed treaties. In both domestic and international law, if you want to make an arrangement that outlives its original promissors, there are ways to do that, but they typically involve extra formalities and hoop-jumping, with mechanisms to put on notice (and thereby protect from mistaken assumptions) outsiders and even successors-in-interest to the original terms.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 2:58 pmJoint Statement From Prime Minister May, Chancellor Merkel And President Macron Following President Trump’S Statement On Iran May 8 2018
prima facie russian collusion.
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 3:00 pmnk @47
What’s this talking about?
Did they lose control of bank accounts and otehr things in the previous few years?
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 5/8/2018 @ 3:03 pm113 — our allies only interest in the Iran deal is that not having to impose sanction on Iran is good for their economies.
Iran has a population of over 80 million people, which is roughly equal to Germany, and bigger than every other member of the EU.
The Euros have substantial economic interests in Iran remaining an open market to them, and having access to Iranian oil. The EU is the recipient of nearly 20% of all Iranian oil exports.
And it was the actions of a large collection of EU states that necessitated the creation of Jewish state in the Middle East. Euro governments have long-established relationships — in many instances historical relationships based on a colonial past in the area — with most of the Arab world and North Africa.
When Russia and China are right behind Germany and France in urging the US to stay in the deal, you have to really take a moment to consider the motives of Germany and France.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 5/8/2018 @ 3:06 pmBreaking- Stormy Daniels’ attorney Michael Avenatti alleged Tuesday that President Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen received $500,000 from Russian oligarch.– The Hill
D’oh!
“Michael’s my lawyer.” – President Donald Trump
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/8/2018 @ 3:20 pm67 Beldar do you really think it works that way? Trump unilaterly just writes up a treaty and sends it to Congress to approve? No need to negotiate or get any agreement from Iran? Or do you propose we spend a year negotiating a treaty with Iran for the sole purpose of sending it to the Senate to get rejected? If your going to bash someone for not having a plan you are aware of, how dare Trump not consult you or publicly disclose his plans to trick Iran but only report it locally so they don’t hear, at least have logical expectations.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 5/8/2018 @ 3:23 pmDCSCA wrote (#114):
In international negotiations, every government should consider whether the person or persons with whom it is negotiating are indeed duly authorized to speak for and make commitments on behalf of the countries they’re purporting to represent. America has always had, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, “a decent respect [for] the opinions of mankind[, which] requires that [Americans] should declare the causes which impel them” to take actions of international consequence. When it was ratified, the American Constitution was indeed widely circulated and discussed around the entire world, because it did indeed put the entire world on notice of the sharp limits that the American people impose on the American POTUS when he’s purporting to negotiate on behalf of, and bind, the United States.
Here, Obama was within his authority in negotiating, but went beyond his authority in purporting to commit the United States. He engaged in what international law (and domestic law, for that matter) calls an “ultra vires” act — something beyond his delegated powers under the Constitution — to the same extent that he purported to commit the United States to future performance of an agreement that the Senate never ratified. Everyone who entered into the same agreement at the same time did so with both constructive knowledge and actual knowledge that sometimes U.S. Presidents can’t deliver Senate ratification, unless you mean to argue that Iran and the U.K. and France and all the rest are ignorant of the failure of the League of Nations and the resultant Second World War.
If America had tricked the rest of the world — if it had concealed the provisions of the U.S. Constitution regarding Senate ratification of treaties from the rest of the world — then those countries might have justifiably relied upon Obama’s apparent authority, and they might have grounds now to complain about Trump’s reversal of Obama’s unilateral executive actions. America might be equitably estopped from denying that Obama was authorized, if we’d led the rest of the world to think that he was.
But we didn’t, so America is not bound to ratify Obama’s unauthorized acts now, nor is Trump bound to keep promises Obama made but chose never to submit to the Senate for ratification.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 3:24 pmActually, the disinformation you’re peddling now is “very Russian.”
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 3:25 pmIran sold oil throughout Asia (and to a much lesser extent, the whole world). USA Sanctions meant a lot of the revenue from this sold oil was sitting in escrow accounts. Iran could also use the funds to buy Chinese goods, etc, but Obama released the funds for things like nuking Manhattan.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 5/8/2018 @ 3:25 pmOK.
Where does it give the senate power to ratify anything other than formal treaties?
So when Trump and Macron reach an agreement that Macron will visit the United States on such-and-such a date, the Constitution requires that this agreement be ratified by the Senate?
Who said it had the force of law? I said the exact opposite in my previous comment. *You* claimed it somehow violated the constitution to make an agreement with a foreign government which isn’t ratified by the senate.
When congress enacted the law(s) imposing sanctions on Iran, they gave the president wide latitude and discretion, up to and including removing the sanctions entirely. Why do you suppose they did that? Could it be that congress wanted to allow the president to use the sanctions as a bargaining chip in negotiations? And isn’t that exactly what Obama did?
You can argue that the JCPOA is not in America’s interests, but there was nothing unconstitutional or illegal about it. It imposed no obligations on the US beyond what Obama already had the authority to do by executive action.
(Because Trump is corrupt and beholden to Putin, the recent Russia sanctions were highly atypical in that they did not include this freedom for the president to lift them without approval of congress)
Dave (445e97) — 5/8/2018 @ 3:30 pm85 “Any site in Iran could have been inspected if the US had presented evidence that prohibited activity was going on.”
Learn nothing from Saddam? Do we really need to start another game of whack a mole with WMDs? We ask to investigate a site, they say no, we file complaint, they draw it out for a few weeks to a couple months, then allow inspection by which time even the odor from the bleach has dissipated. Any agreement that doesn’t allow unfettered immediate access to any site is no agreement, not worth the paper it’s written on, meant only to appease a naive public.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 5/8/2018 @ 3:31 pmslut
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 3:33 pmMr. Ogden, once again, I fail to follow what you’re trying to say to me (#135). No, I don’t think Trump unilaterally writes up a treaty and sends it to Congress to sign. I actually have no illusions that the Iranians, or the North Koreans while we’re on this subject, will ever voluntarily give up their nuclear ambitions. As I said above, I believe we should continue to try to marshal such allies as we can find, but I’m not optimistic about them either, nor do I believe America can continue to take half- or quarter-measures with either regime, which is why if I were POTUS, I’d go to Congress to ask not just for further economic sanctions, but an authorization for use of military force to impose a naval blockade and a continuing air interdiction of major land trading routes into both countries. It was the success of the British-led naval and trade blockade of Germany, after all — once Germany brought America into the war by returning to unrestricted submarine warfare — that actually ended World War 1, not a comprehensive defeat of the German military (who were still holding ground in France & Belgium when the Armistice was declared). Trump and his feckless predecessors, most prominently and proximately Obama, have wasted too much time for anything less to have a chance to be effective.
I will grant that Trump would need to be at least as politically effective as Bush-41 and Bush-43 were in leading American public opinion to the point that Congress would authorize force.
But regardless of whether he wants to negotiate a new deal or more to more robust and kinetic means of enforcing our will upon the Iranians and the Norks, Trump needs to answer the question: “What next?” He certainly hasn’t done that yet, and today, when he’s taking unilateral action against Iran, might have been a good time to confirm that yes, he has a plan, some sort of plan.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 3:35 pm104 AP followed it up with another one sided factually lacking hit piece.
https://apnews.com/cead755353a1455bbef08ef289448994/Trump-decides-to-exit-nuclear-accord-with-Iran
Trump needs to stop treating these propaganda sites as fourth estate journalist, it’s a war that is going to have to be fought.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 5/8/2018 @ 3:38 pm142 “which is why if I were POTUS, I’d go to Congress to ask not just for further economic sanctions, but an authorization for use of military force to impose a naval blockade and a continuing air interdiction of major land trading routes into both countries.”
This makes sense and is very agreeable. But it sounds, to me, far different then this comment that I read to just package up the accord and submit it to congress as if it was a treaty.
“If Trump were a conservative and a supporter of constitutional government, he would have submitted the Obama deal with Iran to the Senate for ratification or rejection. He could have submitted it with a recommendation that the Senate refuse to ratify it, but regardless: The Senate would have rejected it.”
Then label him, “But Trump is a moron and a complete narcissist.” for not doing something which is impossible doesn’t make sense.
The two ideas also seem very far apart, can you hear the left scream about warmongers and we are starting WWIII if Trump asked for a military blockade, no matter how good of a plan it was. How the media would spin that. How he was only doing it to distract from Russia probe and his inanimate arrest and impeachment.
“Trump needs to answer the question: “What next?” He certainly hasn’t done that yet, and today, when he’s taking unilateral action against Iran, might have been a good time to confirm that yes, he has a plan, some sort of plan.”
How effective would any plan be if he published it in the NYT? Another unreasonable demand.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 5/8/2018 @ 3:48 pm138… those sanctions were working, which is why Iran was interested in making a deal, especially one weighted heavily in their favor. They certainly weren’t moved by the desire to stop their nuke weapon program.
Obama and his stooge Kerry either didn’t understand that or it wasn’t as appealing as building their legacy fantasy.
Colonel Haiku (45621b) — 5/8/2018 @ 3:49 pmYou should educate yourself on what the agreement actually says.
Maximum time allowed between initial request for inspection and compliance under JCPOA: 24 days.
If the US, France, Britain, Germany and EU agree that a site needs inspecting, and Iran doesn’t comply, sanctions are automatically reimposed not just by us, but by all the Europeans and maybe China too, if the greatest negotiator of all time had convinced them.
If the Trump administration had evidence of a violation last fall, sanctions could have been reimposed MONTHS ago. And not just by the US, but by everybody.
Iran might try to play a shell game. Fine. Let them do it a couple times, building a case that it is *they* who are acting in bad faith, and *then* withdraw. Again, if the US had simply availed itself of the remedies the agreement allows, all this could have played out months ago, and Iran would be in a far worse position.
In his statement today, Spanky did not even allege that Iran has violated the agreement, or present a shred of evidence to that effect.
Dave (445e97) — 5/8/2018 @ 3:50 pmNobody saw this coming:
Patch
Pinandpuller (16b0b5) — 5/8/2018 @ 3:51 pm“Their nuclear capabilities are likely in worse shape than during the CW”
No doubt. Both USA and Russian nuclear stockpiles are a small fraction of what they were. One current estimate says that our vicious, uninspected adversary is down under 1800 warheads now. Suppose “only” 5% of those decrepit rusty old weapons successfully detonate on “only” 90 USA targets?
So we risk total war with one uninspected enemy possessing two thousand bombs, to attack another uninspected enemy possessing no bombs. Because you’re sure Putin isn’t suicidal. We can be suicidal because they surely aren’t.
Why the rush? Why NOW?
gp (0c542c) — 5/8/2018 @ 3:54 pmGiven that Trump ran as a candidate for office on a promise to renegotiate the Iran deal, not pull out of it, and then delayed for about the first one-third of his entire four-year term in taking any action to either end or renegotiate the deal, our allies might have had reasonable grounds to expect him to do that, instead of what he did today. And indeed, they may still suspect that he can be talked back to the negotiating table.
Whether it’s negotiating a new deal (which I think would be a fruitless exercise) or something more robust and kinetic (which I think is the only thing that could work), either way, Trump’s hand would be immeasurably strengthened by showing that the U.S. Senate has had a chance to ratify the deal Obama struck, and has refused. In fact, I doubt that the Iran deal would even get a majority of Senate votes, much less the required two-thirds for ratification.
At that point, Trump could credibly claim the advantages of a negotiator whose off-stage principal’s approval is clearly going to be hard to get. “I can’t sell that, guys, even if I wanted to,” he can say, truthfully.
There’s a reason the car salesman says he’ll take your last, best offer to his manager, and then comes back saying, “Sorry, he won’t let me do the deal at that number, but I can do this one instead and we’ll throw in the clear-coat undercarriage treatment, a retail value of $800 [that costs them $0.80 in parts and labor].”
You’d think the master of the Art of the Deal would have a clue about all this, but … maybe we should have elected his ghost-writer. (Joking, joking — that guy doesn’t know about negotiating deals either, it’s a stupid book.)
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 3:59 pmThere’s really no downside to this. To a great extent Trump is closing the barn door after the horse is gone, but it was Obama who peed in the milk bucket — better for Trump to kick it over than to have it sitting around getting sourer.
nk (dbc370) — 5/8/2018 @ 4:01 pmrussia has hypersonic missiles they could toast all our marshmallows before we had our first cup of coffee
the sleazy gold-plated mattis military don’t got no hypersonic missiles but they have an opinion on the Iran agreement
they love it so much they wanna kiss it and lick it and call it George
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 4:02 pm99… Beldar, you are often wise with your counsel. But there is a sense of sadness that permeates this place when you are not.
Colonel Haiku (45621b) — 5/8/2018 @ 4:03 pmum hello we’re in the window where we have maximum leverage to renegotiate
out slutty allies are tripping over themselves to help
and President Trump was very clear that there’s a window here where we can talk about maybe getting a better deal in place
but he’s also made it very clear we’re willing to walk away
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 4:06 pmDave: “In his statement today, Spanky did not even allege that Iran has violated the agreement, or present a shred of evidence to that effect.”
Maybe because he’s already alleged that. Here’s an unfriendly “fact check” of Trump’s allegations:
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/trump-irans-multiple-violations/
It nevertheless could not exclude this:
Albright, who agrees with the president that Iran is “not in full compliance,” says the IAEA has not asked for access to the military sites for fear it would “bring down the entire deal.”
“The IAEA can ask to go and if Iran refuses, the JCPOA contains a mechanism to allow one party to snapback all sanctions,” Albright said. “But the IAEA is not likely to want to bring down the entire deal by asking to go to a military site.”
random viking (6a54c2) — 5/8/2018 @ 4:06 pmoopers *our* slutty allies i mean
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 4:09 pmWhy the rush? Why NOW?
Yes, it’s cliche but if not us, who? And if not now, when? They hit us with anything, they’re done for. We suffer, they essentially get wiped off the map. They know this. We know they know this. They know that we know they know this. And they’ll tell two friends, and so on. They are more vulnerable than ever. Their bluff was called by Reagan once. And as things opened up following the CW it was exposed that they were even worse off than even our most optimistic analysts thought. Putin knows this. For all his faults, he’s not stupid. He knows he has a weak hand. His political genius is how well he has played it. He also knows Trump isn’t the kind of soy-boy American fool our “leaders” of the last 30 years have been. He understands Trump’s game enough to know not to do anything stupid. If he didn’t get the message before, he got it in the form of 200 body bags. If we don’t push while we have a hard man like Trump in power, we’re done for.
Skorcher (5ba7f6) — 5/8/2018 @ 4:09 pmAbout time someone told the worst purveyor of terror around the world to go pound a goat.
Colonel Haiku (45621b) — 5/8/2018 @ 4:13 pmDebatable.
Sanctions by the US alone will hurt Iran very little if the Europeans, Russians and Chinese remain open for business because Iran hasn’t violated the agreement. They will also get a propaganda boost – instead of the World vs. them, it’s now the World vs. us.
At the same time, we’ve unilaterally removed ourselves from the group of countries who can police their compliance with the agreement. That’s why I said Trump gave the Iranians the best of both worlds:
1) Britain, France, Germany, and the EU are still in the agreement, and open for business.
2) And the US (the only country who might aggressively pursue violation) is out.
Dave (445e97) — 5/8/2018 @ 4:17 pmwhy’s Stormy’s pimp the new spokesman for Herr Mueller
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 4:20 pmDoing the right thing is never up for debate, ConDave. Except in academia.
Colonel Haiku (45621b) — 5/8/2018 @ 4:21 pmNit surprising framatome and Siemens set the foundation of the Iranian nuclear program at the plant at darkhovin. In the 70s
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 4:32 pmThe exact procedure is:
1) One of the parties to the agreement presents evidence of a violation to IAEA
Dave (445e97) — 5/8/2018 @ 4:32 pm2) Doesn’t matter, since the US never bothered to do step 1…
Absent a mole or moles embedded deep in the Iran nuke program, it is exceedingly difficult to find evidence of cheating when they are built underground or in mountains, or they’ve made purchases of technology using some of that Obamacash.
Colonel Haiku (45621b) — 5/8/2018 @ 4:38 pmThere is that, too. If we think they’re building a nuke, we won’t be bound to follow The Deal’s protest procedures. We can just go ahead and “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”.
And it would make John McCain very happy. I wonder … will he change his mind now and let Trump come to his funeral?
nk (dbc370) — 5/8/2018 @ 4:45 pmhe’s already wellstoned his coward-pig ass and he’s not even dead yet
the man has absolutely zero dignity
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 4:49 pm150 — A treaty must be ratified by 2/3 of the US Senate.
47 US Senators sent a letter to “Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” on March 9, 2015, stating that the deal with Obama could be revoked by the next President with the stroke of a pen.
It was not a “Treaty” nor was it a “Congressional-Executive” agreement.
Not sure what a “show vote” would have accomplished given that it was well established at the time of the agreement that Obama did not submit it to the Senate for ratification because, not only would it have lost, it might not have received double digit votes in favor.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:00 pmA vote to ratify or refuse a treaty is not a “show vote.” It is a solemn vote, as solemn as the ones cast by the jurors in the cases you or I try, swcrank. Letters from Senators aren’t the equivalent; guesses about how the vote would have come out, and whether it would have been a foregone conclusion, aren’t the equivalent, even if they are very sound guesses. Votes put senators on record in a way that nothing else can do.
If guesses and polls and letters from senators and all of that collectively were the same as votes, then Hillary Clinton would be president.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:04 pmHell, would Joe Arpaio, let alone PDJT, 1) be invited and 2) if invited, actually go?
urbanleftbehind (847a06) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:05 pm139. That’s my whole goddam point, Dave. It’s not illegal inasmuch as there are no consequences for it. It just doesn’t have the force of law. What is the JCOPA, if not a “formal treaty?” And what is a treaty, if not an agreement between two governments binding them both?
Jesus, the state of civics education in America leaves loads to be desired… SMDH
Gryph (08c844) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:06 pmMadeline Albright: Another legend in her own mind.
Colonel Haiku (45621b) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:07 pmwonderful discussion from Mr. McCarthy
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:09 pm@136. But we didn’t, so America is not bound to ratify Obama’s unauthorized acts now, nor is Trump bound to keep promises Obama made but chose never to submit to the Senate for ratification.
=yawn= You talkin’ to me? After your self-aggrandizing rants about blocking? Guess that puts you in the disinfomation camp w/Trump, big fella. 😉
But you’re sorta swinging after the belldar. If you wanna wrap yourself in the C , wave a U.S. flag and not the stars and bars, fine by me. But this was an agreement, not a treaty and the international players understood same. You may dispute whether Obama was within his authority to float it but that ship sailed a while ago. Yes, and Trump was within his authority to torpedo it, too. But that’s not really the issue.
It’s the hard realities of 2018, with a mature America and it’s now sullied reputation for ‘keeping it’s word’ that is certain to be thrown back in the nation’s negotiating face by friend and foe for years to come. And that’s self-centered by Trump, short-sighted for America– and very Russian by nature.
You clearly know the DoI isn’t a governing document and it’s not 1790 America, when the country was new, not a global superpower, short on reputation, w/far fewer int’l accords, the AofC in the trash and on it’s second try w/t ink on the quilled C still drying. The international repercussions in the 21st century are what matters. And whether you accept it or not, the U.S. ceded a genuine ‘Trump’ card by breaking it’s word– a card it could always play in negotiations worldwide from the moral high ground (not that Bibi cares.) No more– certainly for the immediate future.
If you don’t believe America ‘breaking it’s word’ isn’t going to surface in future negotiations in any area of international discourse w/friends and foes- like North Korea, or China, or Mexico and surely Putin’s Russia, then there’s a recently elected CiC Noo Yawker from Queens who’d love to sell you a bridge to Brooklyn. What he should have done is kept called it for what it was- a lousy deal, regardless of Bennie’s b-tching, but a deal is a deal all the same; one he’d never make, kept tagging it to Obama’s tail, maintain it as a work-to-rule agreement w/allies and press on to any improved accords w/t big, brassy Trump name on it. But that’s too much work.
Strip the bark off this, Beldar; you’re a smart guy. All this does is reaffirm his pattern of pissing on all things Obama. The man’s a bigot, just like his father was– and from Queens, just like Archie Bunker. But if peevishly pissing on all things Obama fits your pistol, look backwards and fire away.
_____
@137. Actually, the disinformation you’re peddling now is “very Russian.”
If you’re gonna crack wise, Beldar, keep in mind what Dan Aykroyd said: “The Coneheads started out as the Pinhead Lawyers of France.” – source, ‘Live From New York’ by Tom Shales & J.A. Miller
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:10 pmNo it was just a pact negotiated by Rhodes and Sherman, the nature negotiates that great deal with the Kim dynasty, that corker obviated ratification (I still don’t understand how corker is not under investigation for 3.3 mullion in undeclared taxes.
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:13 pmBut after Al. As Obama put in 2008 ‘its such a small country’
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:15 pmVal-Jar the gimp-midget was involved too Mr. narciso
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:15 pmDave: The exact procedure is:
1) One of the parties to the agreement presents evidence of a violation to IAEA
2) Doesn’t matter, since the US never bothered to do step 1…
Total and complete BS.
The IAEA can request access to any site. It doesn’t need evidence of a violation.
random viking (6a54c2) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:15 pm168 — there are 47 “wet” signatures of US Senators on that letter.
I don’t disagree that submitting the Obama agreement for ratification, and then watching it go down in flames as DEMOCRAT Senators like Chuck Schumer and Bill Nelson would have been compelled by domestic political considerations to vote NO, would have been decent tactical move.
But it wouldn’t have conveyed any new information to anyone with a stake in the deal. All sides knew what Obama didn’t submit it for ratification.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:18 pmoh dear looks like Mueller and his faggy FBI goose-steppers are in quite the panic
Comey casts doubt on judge who slammed Mueller probe
this stinks of desperation commingled with hot and horny Lisa Page juices
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:18 pmWell, if the international community doesn’t like it, they’re welcome to take Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize back. Carter’s and Kissinger’s too.
nk (dbc370) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:23 pmDCSCA, I wasn’t talking to you, I was talking about you, or more specifically, about how stupid and wrong the things you write here are, yet again. You wrote, and continue to repeat, that “a deal’s a deal.” You obviously know that’s an overstatement, indeed in this context, a falsehood, for you concede that “Trump was within his authority to torpedo it” (#173).
I have no hope of ever persuading or educating you about anything. When and if I decide to point out that something you’ve said is stupid or dishonest — both apply here — I’m hoping to persuade or educate others.
If you felt all special because I bothered to point out your stupidity, I suppose that’s the price I have to pay.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:25 pmyou’re just a nasty pompous asshole
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:27 pm@ swcrank: Joe Manchin will run for reelection in November, in a state Trump won overwhelmingly, and he’ll claim as part of his reelection campaign that he joined Republicans in 2015 in an final but unsuccessful Senate attempt to block the Iran deal.
That vote cost him nothing. His party already had a comfortable majority voting against Republicans, so that his defection — purely a matter of campaign optics — wouldn’t change any results. His party won’t hold the vote against him at all, and they will support him this November. That was a “show vote.”
It would have been useful for the prospects of a GOP win in West Virginia in November 2018 to put Joe Manchin on record, along with all the other Dem senators from red or reddish states that Trump carried: Manchin would have been prevented from having his cake and eating it too. He could have voted “nay,” that is, against ratification, and enraged members of his own party whose financial and other support he desperately needs; or he could have voted “yea,” in favor of ratification, and pleased the Dems but alienated the voters of West Virginia.
This is extremely basic politics. It’s unfortunately that we don’t have a president who’s capable of understanding even extremely basic politics.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:35 pmA couple of questions for Beldar:
Your points regarding why Trump should have submitted the Iran deal to the Senate for ratification or rejection make a lot of sense, but how would this work procedurally? Defenders of the deal can say that Congress did approve it 2015 by not rejecting it, under the (in my simplistic view, unconstitutional) procedure whereby the Senate waived its traditional ratification right by allowing the deal to take effect if not affirmatively rejected. If no one had challenged the legality of the deal under US law and it was considered legally binding, then what is there for the Senate to ratify? Senators did take a position on the deal back in 2015, although that seems to have been purposefully set up to allow some Democrats like Schumer to vote against it while nevertheless assuring it would still take effect.
Not that you need my OK but feel free to point out any mistaken assumptions etc underlying my questions. Feel like I’m missing something here.
RL formerly in Glendale (40f5aa) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:39 pm@173 “If you don’t believe America ‘breaking it’s word’ isn’t going to surface in future negotiations in any area of international discourse.” If you want Americas’ “word,” there is a solution–sign a treaty. “Political understandngs” and “executive agreements” aren’t the word of America.
pete (a65bac) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:39 pm@181. ROFLMAO. Reaffirmed: “The Coneheads started out as the Pinhead Lawyers of France.” – Dan Aykroyd, source, ‘Live From New York’ by Tom Shales & J.A. Miller
Bonsoir, Beldar.
________
@182. And his little dog, too, Mr. Feet?
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:41 pmAmerica breaking it’s word is a long-planned talking point
it signifies they don’t have a lot of substance to bring the discussion
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:42 pmoopers *to* the discussion
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:42 pmA nonbinding agreement isn’t a suicide pact, Mr Grandpa Snowbird DCSCA.
Pinandpuller (16b0b5) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:43 pmi just don’t think you deserve to be called stupid Mr. DCSCA you argue your point of view as ably as anyone here
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:43 pmThis is extremely basic politics. It’s unfortunately that we don’t have a president who’s capable of understanding even extremely basic politics.
Tax cuts
EPWJ (440789) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:45 pmConservative judges
Removal of regulations
Record stock market
Lowest unemployment
Record black support
China giving trade concession
India giving trade concessions
Got the nomination
Won the presidency
North Korea talking in direct negotiations
6.5 years to go
happyfeet, I’m sorry to say that you broke through the ice. And DCSCA is skating around the edge of the hole. On one skate. With the lace untied.
nk (dbc370) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:47 pmhe’s also exposed more corruption than any president in history Mr. EPWJ
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:47 pmno Mr. nk this is not even good America
read here
Mr. Hoagie didn’t do anything wrong and pompous narcissistic beldar tries to get him banned
then he turns around and uses abusive rhetoric on Mr. DCSCA
it’s just nasty
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:49 pmAsk the Laotian, vietnamese Cambodians Iraqis, my paisans Kurds have a beer, what the word of the us means.
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:53 pmthere’s no such thing as “the word of the US”
and thank God
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:54 pm@187. It’s less a TP and more a legitimate point, Mr. Feet, w/ramifications across the negotiating spectrum in this era, particularly given the tall tales our current Captain likes to spin. The nation spent a lot of treasure and spilled much blood to build up that reputation. Still, can’t wait for Trump to scuttle that Appomattox deal!
@190. Meh. If you keep turning right you go in a circles, Mr. Feet. That’s sad. And truly stupid.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:55 pmYou can’t fix category error as profound as disco displays pikachu.
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 5:58 pmi go right all the time that’s not the point
the point is if Team Food Stamp really had a case to make they wouldn’t need this “America’s word is being broken” talking point
did they use that when we withdrew from the Paris Agreement?
I don’t think they did cause they had a huge and detailed portfolio of global warming hoax talking points
i think they’re dragging it out now as a smokescreen
cause they never made their case to begin with
so on the flipside here as President Trump scuttles this pernicious agreement, there’s no foundation what’s been laid from which to argue their case
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:01 pm“And DCSCA is skating around the edge of the hole. On one skate. With the lace untied.”
Wrong. In his world, up is down, wrong is right. He IS the hole.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:05 pmThat’s fuckin rich, happyfeet – you complaining about the tone of another commenter’s posts. I have a policy of ignoring you, even when I find you amusing, and I know I’m just feeding a troll and you’ll get a kick out of that, but I can’t help myself. You win this round.
Leviticus (bb9a47) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:05 pmOh the poles which not only had their entire cabinet, liquidated in smolensk but along with the Czechs had their missile defense slashed, the Hungarians re 56,
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:06 pmTotal and complete BS. Here’s the exact wording (emphasis added):
“the basis for such concerns” means that such a basis (i.e. evidence) must exist.
The Trump administration has never alleged that the IAEA has overlooked any alleged violations of the agreement.
And in today’s statement, Trump did not even accuse Iran of violating the agreement.
P.S. welcome back swc and narciso
Dave (445e97) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:08 pmOne guy at NYT agrees with Trump. Strongly. And focuses on the “we broke our word” aspect. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/trump-courageous-iran-decision.html
As they say in Rio Linda, read the whole thing.
nk (dbc370) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:09 pmBuild on political sand; get washed away by the next electoral wave.
this is not who we are
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:11 pm147 Dave “You should educate yourself on what the agreement actually says.
Maximum time allowed between initial request for inspection and compliance under JCPOA: 24 days.”
I said a couple weeks to a couple months, looks like I know exactly what I’m talking about.
24 days is more than enough time to move a lab down the street. Anything less than immediate access is meaningless.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:11 pm@ RL formerly in Glendale (#184): Hi there, and thanks for the civil inquiry. You wrote in part,
I don’t think your view is simplistic. I agree with you absolutely that what the Senate purported to do didn’t comply with the Constitution and was an attempt to end-run the normal ratification rules.
I nevertheless think that Trump would have been correct to treat this attempted deal as an attempted treaty which, having never been voted upon, could still be submitted to the Senate. The Treaty of Versailles, for example, including the provisions by which the United States would, through ratification, have joined the League of Nations, was voted upon three different times in the Senate:
So there are definitely precedents for the submission of treaties to the Senate on something other than a straight up-or-down vote, and there’s some considerable latitude on resubmitting. In preparing a version of the Iran deal to submit now as a treaty to the current Senate, Trump would have had to craft some revisions in the implementing language, basically disavowing the end-run around the Constitution that the Senate and Obama already tried. But I think that could easily have been done, such that what was now submitted would otherwise have been the same deal that Obama purported to make on the United States’ behalf.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:13 pmmuch better
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:16 pm181.I wasn’t talking to you, I was talking about you, or more specifically, about how stupid and wrong the things you write here are, yet again.
How would you know? With grand-if-not-grandiose histrionics you announced blocking many commenters here, including myself, for your peace of mind many, many moons ago.
Lighten up, Beldar. Life is short, although Mickey Rooney lived to be 93.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:16 pmBecause 24 days is a couple months.
Dave (445e97) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:19 pmMight wanna rethink the Kurds (see Pinandpuller’s #148 above), Nars.
urbanleftbehind (875112) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:21 pm=Haiku!= Gesundheit!
‘wrong is right…’
You said it, Colonel.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:27 pmNote well: We can, if we choose, find out the precise dates on which the Versailles Treaty was submitted to the Senate almost 100 years ago, along with the exact votes cast each time it came up. Those senators went on record, and we have the record, and even before the advent of the internet, libraries all over the country maintained the Congressional Record with its indices and numbering protocols to find out what that record reveals.
Sen. Lodge and those in his camp, Pres. Wilson and those in his camp, and everyone in the middle also wrote letters and made speeches and gave strong indications about how they likely would have voted. Most astute observers were able to predict the outcome of the treaty even before it was signed, when Wilson ignored the fact that the Senate had flipped in the November 1918 midterms but he nevertheless refused to include any GOP representation in the delegation he took with him to France.
It was still worth taking, and recording, those votes, because yes, people a century from now may well be talking about the consequences of Obama’s Iran deal.
I just hope that Tel Aviv or New York aren’t paved in green glass then.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:29 pmYes and thanks to corker, Manchin and company got away with it, meanwhile spending a year and a half on this vekakte snipe , we wasted an opportunity.
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:33 pmA long time ago I agreed to send the Columbia Record and Tape Club a penny and they agreed to send me Kiss Destroyer and Aerosmith Toys in the Attic etc and I agreed to buy eight more at regular price. At a certain point I didn’t send the card back and I probably got something like Depeche Mode and whatnot and I owed them 24 bucks. And then I didn’t pay and they threatened to send me to collections. So I typed them a letter and said basically,”GFY, I’m only 16 years old.” And that was that.
Pinandpuller (16b0b5) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:34 pmand we were ill-prepared and wrong-footed for last January
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:34 pmA little taste of that when you are a minor probably turns some people into Sovereign Citizens.
I choose not to contract with you.
Pinandpuller (16b0b5) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:37 pmLet me also point out something I thought was obvious, but perhaps it’s not:
If Trump had treated this like a treaty and submitted it to the Senate as such for either ratification or rejection, then the question of whether Iran has or hasn’t complied with the deal’s specifics is moot.
And that’s as it should be. This ought not be a debate about whether Iran is or isn’t in compliance. It really ought not be a debate about whether this is a treaty, an executive agreement, or something else. It should be a debate about whether we intend to go on pretending that Iran — which committed acts of war on the United States in 1979 and has continued committing them year-in and year-out since then — is going to be permitted to continue its war against us. It’s time, and long past time, for the U.S. to continue ignoring these acts of war. Trump’s announcement that he’s sending this deal to the Senate should have been made in a room filled with American disabled veterans maimed by Iranian IEDs and by the families of American soldiers and civilians slain in the war Iran has been making on us since 1979.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:38 pm215, in modern times I say a small child enrolled me online by accident
urbanleftbehind (875112) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:39 pmBah. Time, and long past time, for the U.S. to stop ignoring these acts of war. Mea culpa for the confused prose.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:39 pmHow does spitting in our allies’ eyes help us?
How does our pulling out of the deal do anything to set back Iran?
Dave (445e97) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:40 pmFor one thing, U.S. banks and foreign banks that want to do business with U.S. citizens, can be barred from doing business with Iran. Like Iran was the Medellin Cartel or something.
nk (dbc370) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:42 pmDave: “the basis for such concerns” means that such a basis (i.e. evidence) must exist.
More BS.
You don’t provide a link. Oh, here’s one:
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/1974/infcirc214.pdf
Reference Article 70 onward.
You’re blowing smoke, as usual.
random viking (6a54c2) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:43 pmAnd speaking of Medellin, that was the case in which the Supreme court said what makes a treaty a treaty and the supreme law of the land and not a handshake agreement by the guy currently in the White House.
nk (dbc370) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:46 pm@ Dave, who asked (#221):
I don’t agree that this is spitting in our allies’ eyes. I’m entirely confident that our principal allies continuously study American politics and were following what was going on in the United States as Obama and his SecStates Clinton & Kerry were speaking for the Obama Administration. I don’t think it’s “spitting in their eye” when, as they surely saw coming, a Republican POTUS, backed by a Republican Senate, withdrew from the agreement.
As for your second question: By itself, pulling out of the deal does nothing, I agree. It is, however, the appropriate first step toward any of several future scenarios, which could run the gamut from reimposing some or all sanctions, or imposing more sanctions, in an attempt to negotiate a new and better deal that the U.S. Senate would indeed ratify, all the way to kinetic options (which I think we’re already at the point of needing, joined by whatever coalition of the willing is inclined to go along with us).
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:50 pmBtw it was Ted Cruz who took that argument to the supreme court.
This agreement was a poor joke, which corker enabled and fideloflake concurs woth.
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:51 pm@ nk: A Ted Cruz case!
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:52 pmThank you, narciso. I thought I saw Cruz’s name but I wasn’t sure.
To explain to the folks from Rio Linda, what makes American treaties special, specialer than the treaties of other countries, is that if they’re ratified according to the Constitution they are the Supreme Law of the Land along with the Constitution and Laws passed by Congress:
nk (dbc370) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:57 pm*and Beldar*
nk (dbc370) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:58 pm@189. It’s painless; it brings on many changes and you can take or leave it if you please, PP
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/8/2018 @ 6:58 pmAnd I finally caught on. They only capitalized the nouns, whether proper or common, in 1789. Like modern German.
nk (dbc370) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:01 pmBeldar wrote:
‘Twould have been interesting, as the Democrats would have to filibuster a ratification vote on the agreement made by President Obama. 🙂
The Dana eating popcorn (044268) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:05 pm@231. Sorta like that ‘declare war’ thingy, eh, nk. Quaint.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:10 pmThe SCOTUS opinion in Medellin v. Texas was announced on March 25, 2008. On August 5 of that same year, thanks to then-Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz’ efforts and Chief Justice John Roberts’ 6/3 opinion affirming the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision, the victims of Jose Ernesto Medellin and the people of the State of Texas finally saw justice done when Medellin was executed by lethal injection. Medellin was the killer in the 1993 gang rape and murders of two teenage girls in Houston.
Our hosts deals with monsters like this in his day job. IMHO, every chance we get, those of us who appreciate his efforts, which take place on a very sloped playing field in California and the Ninth Circuit, should remind him that we do appreciate him and his colleagues. So say I.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:16 pm@ Dana who: Look how much internal bickering continues to this day within the Democratic Party regarding every Dem’s votes on the Afghanistan and (especially) Iraq votes! You can’t make them squirm until you pin them down. And the Congressional Record is such a credible source, so very hard to ignore or refute!
Plus, it would have shifted the narrative away from “Trump is CRAZY!” to the actual merits of the deal and, also very importantly, the constitutional limits on presidential deal-making authority.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:21 pmAlternate universes tonight on CNN & Fox: On the former, it’s all about Cohen and the cash. (AT&T paid that mutt tens of thousands for his “insights”?!? Oh. My. I want a rebate on my ISP bill for the past two years.) On the latter, it’s MEGA Trump vs. Evil Mueller.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:27 pmOh, sorry – I figured you knew about Google. I quoted the JCPOA verbatim.
That, of course, is not the JCPOA, it is the 1974 agreement pursuant to the NNPT and you should have kept reading.
Articles 76-77 (“Access for inspections”), specifically. The inspections permitted under Articles 71 – 72 are only allowed access to sites declared by the Iranian government as nuclear sites.
Article 76 governs access for ad hoc (Article 71) and routine (Article 72) inspections, which concern, respectively, the initial inspections following the signing of the agreement (no longer applicable) or declared nuclear sites:
The following paragraph, (d), allows Iran, at their sole discretion, to nevertheless limit access to those (declared) sites for extended periods of time.
Article 77 covers “special inspections”, and says, after an indeterminate period of “consultation” between the IAEA and the government of Iran, the IAEA may:
Article 21 allows for an indeterminate period of “discussion” between Iran and the IAEA Board of Governors.
The procedure for resolving disagreements (Article 22) has a 60+ day timetable, and can eventually require appointment of an arbitrator by the International Court of Justice.
In short, your link is irrelevant. The JCPOA is far more strict, and allows more rapid inspections of undeclared sites, but still requires justification for access to sites that have not been previously agreed to.
Dave (445e97) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:28 pmYou know, he can still do it. Trump. Send Obama’s agreement to the Senate for ratification. The way Beldar said. Hold a press conference in the White House, with survivors of Iranian terror present, and say: “The Democrats are wailing and gnashing their teeth because I abrogated Obama’s stupid deal with Iran. So here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to make them put their votes where their mouths are. On the record. …”
nk (dbc370) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:29 pmAnd the West Virginia GOP distinguishes itself in comparison to the Alabama GOP, which should make the above-referenced Sen. Joe Manchin very nervous: Zombie Coalmine Magnate-Convict Don Blankenship has conceded, after finishing a distant third to the plump state AG.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:31 pmVictor Davis Hanson writes…
“After the 2016 election, the so-called deep state was confident that it had the power easily to either stop, remove, or delegitimize the outlier Donald Trump and his presidency.
Give it credit, the Washington apparat quite imaginatively pulled out all the stops: implanting Obama holdover appointees all over the Trump executive branch; filing lawsuits and judge shopping; organizing the Resistance; pursuing impeachment writs; warping the FISA courts; weaponizing the DOJ and FBI; attempting to disrupt the Electoral College; angling for enactment of the 25th Amendment or the emoluments clause; and unleashing Hollywood celebrities, Silicon Valley, and many in Wall Street to suffocate the Trump presidency in its infancy.
But now the administrative state’s multifaceted efforts are starting to unwind, and perhaps even boomerang, on the perpetrators. If a federal judge should end up throwing out most of the indictments of Paul Manafort on the rationale that they have nothing much to do with the original mandate of the special counsel’s office, or if Michael Flynn’s confession to giving false statements is withdrawn successfully because the FBI politicized its investigation and FISA courts were misled in approving the surveillance of Flynn, then the Mueller investigation will implode.
Indeed, the Mueller investigation would likely lose so much public support that the Department of Justice could probably dismiss it with impunity. So, in an ironic sense, Mueller’s overreach might well end once and for all the absurdities of the special counsel/prosecutor law that for nearly half a century has plagued the nation.
Until recently, deep-state apparatchiks such as John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, and Andrew McCabe seemed immune from accountability after lying either to Congress or to federal authorities. In a perverse sort of way, the more Robert Mueller plays the role of the obsessed but impotent Inspector Javert, the more he demonstrates that there is no Russian-Trump collusion. Meanwhile, he is establishing precedents that those whom he exempts from his own zeal will inevitably have to account for their own lawbreaking. One cannot justifiably hound Michael Flynn for supposedly misleading FBI agents, when agency investigators were told by Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills that they had known nothing about Hillary Clinton’s private server during her tenure as secretary of state — despite evidence that they themselves had communicated over it (as had the former president of the United After the 2016 election, the so-called deep state was confident that it had the power easily to either stop, remove, or delegitimize the outlier Donald Trump and his presidency.
Give it credit, the Washington apparat quite imaginatively pulled out all the stops: implanting Obama holdover appointees all over the Trump executive branch; filing lawsuits and judge shopping; organizing the Resistance; pursuing impeachment writs; warping the FISA courts; weaponizing the DOJ and FBI; attempting to disrupt the Electoral College; angling for enactment of the 25th Amendment or the emoluments clause; and unleashing Hollywood celebrities, Silicon Valley, and many in Wall Street to suffocate the Trump presidency in its infancy.
But now the administrative state’s multifaceted efforts are starting to unwind, and perhaps even boomerang, on the perpetrators. If a federal judge should end up throwing out most of the indictments of Paul Manafort on the rationale that they have nothing much to do with the original mandate of the special counsel’s office, or if Michael Flynn’s confession to giving false statements is withdrawn successfully because the FBI politicized its investigation and FISA courts were misled in approving the surveillance of Flynn, then the Mueller investigation will implode.
Indeed, the Mueller investigation would likely lose so much public support that the Department of Justice could probably dismiss it with impunity. So, in an ironic sense, Mueller’s overreach might well end once and for all the absurdities of the special counsel/prosecutor law that for nearly half a century has plagued the nation.
Until recently, deep-state apparatchiks such as John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, and Andrew McCabe seemed immune from accountability after lying either to Congress or to federal authorities. In a perverse sort of way, the more Robert Mueller plays the role of the obsessed but impotent Inspector Javert, the more he demonstrates that there is no Russian-Trump collusion. Meanwhile, he is establishing precedents that those whom he exempts from his own zeal will inevitably have to account for their own lawbreaking. One cannot justifiably hound Michael Flynn for supposedly misleading FBI agents, when agency investigators were told by Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills that they had known nothing about Hillary Clinton’s private server during her tenure as secretary of state — despite evidence that they themselves had communicated over it (as had the former president of the United States).”
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/president-trump-deep-state-critics-risk-blowback/
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:33 pmYou know that West Virginia is also unconstitutional, right? It was created from part of the State of Virginia without the consent of Virginia?
nk (dbc370) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:35 pmWhich reminds me: I give Trump due credit for urging West Virginia Republicans not to vote for Blankenship.
That still didn’t stop Blankenship from claiming that he’s “Trumpier than Trump,” and that may be one of the few truthful things he said in the campaign.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:36 pmBlankenship concedes GOP Senate primary in W. Va.
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:36 pmIndiana and Ohio GOP voters got it right in their Senate races, as well. Looks like Pittenger (a GOP establishment congressman) went down in North Carolina. The only incumbent GOP congress critter to yet suffer that fate in 2018.
Ed from SFV (291f4c) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:36 pmYou gots that Wheeling Feeling:
Coal Magnate Gets Shaft. Film at 11.
WTRF-TV, Wheeling, WV
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:37 pmso in last 24 hours
rapey eric resigns
the iran deal is ash-heap of historied
west virginia senate seat tilts red
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:37 pmJoe Manchin is not the bellwether. Claire McCaskill is. And I mean ewe. That’s the race to watch.
nk (dbc370) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:42 pmoh.
i thought team r screwed the pooch there already this year
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:43 pm“114.@81. Again, the rest of the world doesn’t give a damn about the U.S. Constitution. Sure, it was a dubious deal, but a deal all the same crafted w/allies. And other nations, friend or foe, will note is that in this era, the U.S. gave it’s word along w/allies on the international stage– and broke it”
This is pretty stupid. The entire world knows the requirements for the US to make a treaty. They’d have to be willfully ignorant to know that the Presdent’s say-so is not enough.
The U.S. did not “give its word”. That agreement was written on sand, and everybody knows it.
fred-2 (ce04f3) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:44 pmBeldar’s little ratification idea was fascinating to read about. I do wish the GOP had some more of that kind of thinking. It’s also more democratic and more accountable. It’s bringing this decision a lot closer to the voters of each state.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:44 pmWell Hawley is wearing best white yoga, he forgets how they cleaned those things back there.
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:45 pmOt now that I’m on antenna, one gets to appreciate the classic avenger series and I mean the one with honor Blackman, Diana rigg came later.
Beldar, you hate Trump so much that you are just saying incomprehensible things. Why in the world should a President submit something that he doesn’t want to be a treaty to the Senate? There are a whole lot of things that fit the category of “Things that I, as President, do not want to become a binding treaty”. Why would he waste his time and the Senate’s time on these?
———
” I were POTUS, I’d go to Congress to ask not just for further economic sanctions, but an authorization for use of military force to impose a naval blockade”
But you aren’t POTUS, are you? There’s a way to rectify that. Run and get elected.
“Trump needs to answer the question: “What next?”
For some reason, nevertrumpers think that they get to make binding demands on Trump. “He must do this. He has to do that.” Guess what? No he doesn’t.
“when he’s taking unilateral action against Iran, might have been a good time to confirm that yes, he has a plan, some sort of plan”
Have you paid *any* attention to what he says? Obviously not, because he has said many, many times that he doesn’t announce his plans ahead of time. For gods sake, read his book even!
Latest thing is the bit about the meeting with Kim the Rocket Man. He’s said a number of times that the location and the date has been decided. But do you know where and when? No. Nobody does other than SOS Pompeo and crew. Because Trump has NOT REVEALED it. Duh. Gad, you guys are so predictable. And boring.
“Trump could credibly claim the advantages of a negotiator whose off-stage principal’s approval is clearly going to be hard to get”
You get funnier and funnier. Trump *is* the principal. Going into the bargaining table he announces in no uncertain terms that HE is the guy with whom you have to make the deal. Read his book. He never said, “I would take your offer but my boss won’t agree to it.” He just said, “Nope, I reject your offer.”
Here’a a thought…Maybe, just maybe, a guy who got rich in New York CIty real-estate knows a little bit more about negotiating than random internet posters.
fred-2 (ce04f3) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:46 pmToga, maybe kislyaks favorite stroganoff guest
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:47 pm“Sanctions by the US alone will hurt Iran very little if the Europeans, Russians and Chinese remain open for business” Did you miss the entire set of sanctions Mr. Stumpy did to North Korea? Scott Adams made a couple of youtube videos outlining and explaining it all. At this point, Trump doesn’t even need to say, “Don’t call my bluff.” Everybody knows that he isn’t bluffing.
——–
fred-2 (ce04f3) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:47 pm“Still, can’t wait for Trump to scuttle that Appomattox deal”
I’m in the middle of reading Chernow’s Grant, and it said the deal was “Robert E. Lee unconditionally surrenders to Grant.” Are you expecting Trump to announce that the North doesn’t accept his unconditional surrender?
But of the ones we know, France, Germany and Britain all urged Trump to remain in the agreement. And he flipped them off. He had every right to do that, just as they will have every right to tell us to go pound sand next time we try to convince them to do something we want.
Moreover, I think he has made it more difficult, politically, for them to take a tough line on Iran. Just as you exhort Patrick and other former Republicans that we would have more influence inside the party, don’t you think that we would have more influence with our allies (over Iran) inside the agreement?
I think Iran is in about the best imaginable position at this moment – much better than if we had stayed in the agreement and worked together with our allies to enforce it strictly.
Dave (445e97) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:48 pmGreitens’ trial starts a week from today. The prosecution does not have the photo. They only have the woman. Let’s see what happens.
nk (dbc370) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:49 pm246, had to check if it was the less but still rapey Eric.
urbanleftbehind (875112) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:50 pmLincoln carved a state out of a commonwealth, and argued a sort of implied consent by the latter, which was a pretty dicey theory, but it held up in the SCOTUS in 1870. But there was still a question of how to settle the check, eventually resulting in a split the baby/don’t count the slaves decision by Justice Holmes and the SCOTUS in 1911. I don’t know if they fuss at you in West Virginia if you refer to their state as a “commonwealth” now, but I think they still do fuss at you in Virginia if you refer to their commonwealth as a “state.” Maybe Trump will recognize the Commonwealth of Orange County.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:54 pmReading comments from guys like the corksoaker John Brennan strengthens my opinion that Trump made the right move. No doubt about it.
“Today, Donald Trump simultaneously lied about the Iranian nuclear deal, undermined global confidence in US commitments, alienated our closest allies, strengthened Iranian hawks, & gave North Korea more reason to keep its nukes. This madness is a danger to our national security.”
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:55 pmOt now that I’m on antenna, one gets to appreciate the classic avenger series and I mean the one with honor Blackman
They are very, very good, too. She’s such a sassy lass; left Steed to do Bond. Video, too; not filmed. Recorded live. For hour long teleplays of the era, very well written, performed and directed.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:55 pm@234 “Sloped playing field” doesn’t even begin to describe the nutiness in California. Not only are initiatives and laws passed to ensure criminals don’t face incarceration as punishment, the LA County Association of Deputy District Attorneys (don’t know if the host belongs to that group) pointed out that George Soros is contributing millions to DA races in California to elect DA’s who will implement his left wing views on the criminal justice system. https://www.laadda.com/the-ongoing-attempt-to-buy-the-criminal-justice-system/
In fact, Soros just put in $1.5 million in the San Diego County DA race to elect a left wing public defender with 11 years of experience and who has never held any leadership position.
Any thoughts on what the Soros supported DA ($500,000) has done in Houston since her election?
pete (a65bac) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:56 pm@ fred-2, who asked (#252):
As I explained, a President should do that precisely in order to show the world that the Senate indeed wouldn’t pass it — and in particular, that many of the Dem senators now criticizing Trump for unilaterally pulling out of the deal wouldn’t vote for its ratification if put the the test, and tying the damn thing around the necks of every Democratic senator who does vote to ratify it.
I assure you it’s in no danger of accidentally being ratified.
If your imagination can’t conceive of situations in which a POTUS submits something to the Senate with a recommendation that it consider, but reject, it, you haven’t studied much American politics.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:58 pmMostly notably Soros spent 1.5 million to elect a prosecutor, who is against the death penalty, because Orlando’s got it all down pat.
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:00 pmAnd Brevard cty earns the title of the spaced coast how’s the song go “jokers to the left of me…
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:03 pmRight, because there were no sanctions on North Korea already, and we do SO much business with them.
I’ll bet he did.
Dave (445e97) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:04 pm@ pete (#261): I haven’t followed that closely enough to have an opinion that I’d be comfortable sharing here. I will note that in January of this year, Texas executed Houston serial killer Anthony Shore, about which Harris County DA Kim Ogg (D) was quoted thusly:
She won’t go on record as being categorically opposed to the death penalty, but I don’t know if she’s slow-walking or otherwise putting a thumb on the scales. Texas overall remains reliably red and in favor of the death penalty; Dallas, El Paso, Bexar Counties, along with several counties in the Rio Grande Valley, are fairly reliably blue in their local and county elections; and Harris County proper is genuinely purple.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:07 pmSorry, that quote (#266) was from the reflexively progressive and biased Texas Tribune.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:08 pm(Oh, and Travis County aka Berkeley-on-the-Colorado is also reliably blue, of course.)
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:09 pmIn the most obvious example was the fellow who had killed a woman had been in hiding for a week then murdered a police officer,
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:10 pmIt was in the news for a while, the Brevard reference is they voted down any security protection in the schools.
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:12 pm@ fred-2: You remember when Obama warned GOP House majority leader Eric Cantor, “Don’t call my bluff!” back in 2011?
Trump submitting Obama’s deal to the Senate would be an example of calling Obama’s bluff.
(I still wish I could play poker for just one night against Barrack Obama, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton with some serious money at stake.)
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:12 pmFWIW, I like Beldar’s idea.
The senate and house often hold votes on legislation (or amendments to legislation) that have no chance of passing, simply to force politically embarrassing votes on opponents.
The Kyoto Treaty was not itself submitted for a vote, but the senate passed the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which essentially said “don’t bother”, by a vote of 95-0.
Dave (445e97) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:14 pmAlso @ fred-2, who went on to write (#266):
You’re wrong. The Constitution requires that the Senate ratify any treaty the POTUS negotiates. Always has. Trump is the guy on the sales floor, alright, doing the negotiating. He’s not the owner of the dealership. The POTUS is only an agent for the United States of America, and Trump no more is the United States of America than Barrack Obama was.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:16 pmAnd fred-2 — in fact, I do negotiate deals for a living. And I don’t hire a ghost-writer to talk about it, either.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:17 pmJim Acosta
@Acosta
Obama policies dumped by Trump: Iran deal, Paris Climate Agreement, Trans-Pacific Trade Deal, DACA, Obamacare Individual Mandate.
__ _
DaveinTexas
@DaveinTexas
Turns out a pen and phone agreement is only as good as the next election
******
Bill Neely
@BillNeelyNBC
The Foreign Minister of America’s closest ally on the US violation of the Iran deal…
__ _
David Harsanyi
harkin (c60926) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:17 pm@davidharsanyi
There was no “violation” by the United States. Every reporter who writes this is perpetuating a myth. Trump has authority to withdraw from the agreement.
It’s encouraging to see Trump and his politics rejected so bigly.
Dave (445e97) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:19 pmI held out high hopes for Boris Johnson, but then I remember his panic attack over the Iraqi museum in 2003, where most of the pieces were locked in a bank vault, he’s better than terrible Theresa but just.
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:22 pmStill @ fred-2, now that I’m warming to the topic:
I posted here earlier in the spring a challenge to any Trump supporters to name a single thing of consequence that Donald Trump has negotiated through to closing since he took office.
Don’t say, “Gorsuch.” That wasn’t a negotiation, it was a POTUS nomination that McConnell et al. rammed down the Dems’ throats by brushing away the last figment of the appointments filibuster left by Harry Reid.
Don’t say, “the tax bill” or “the spending bill.” In both of those cases, there were negotiations to get passage, but the negotiations were completely among Republicans in Congress. Trump didn’t deliver a single Dem vote and in both cases what ended up being passed had only a general resemblance to anything specific that he’d promised.
His high-profile attempts to negotiate deals — like his meeting with Chuck & Nancy over DACA — have been failures, or at least, aren’t successes yet.
So what’s the master of the Art of the Deal actually closed in the first third of his first term as POTUS?
Covfefe is only for closers, fred-2.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:22 pmAre you Jim Carrey or Jeff Daniels,
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:23 pmYes they wanted everything and they got nothing a few judges who can’t read the law it was stalled to their forehead came through including sadly rocket surgeon John bates
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:26 pmTrump Tower receptionist sexually assaulted by Donald Trump wins nomination for the Ohio legislature.
Dave (445e97) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:27 pmIt’s a start, long faced lurch should be in the shadows scurrying like Liam neeseon
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270102/arrest-kerry-collusion-islamic-terror-states-daniel-greenfield
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:31 pmI don’t know why my FB friends in NW Indiana bother voting – their politics don’t sell past Elkhart on a good day and Merrillville on a bad day.
urbanleftbehind (875112) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:32 pm265… gee, it’s hard to argue with ConDave’s logic.
/sarc
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:32 pmIn dark man, from Vietnam to Nicaragua to Iraq and syria.
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:32 pmA kiss is not a sexual assault. It’s not even attempted sexual assault. A colleague in my office litigated that, and won, in a notorious serial rape case.
nk (dbc370) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:33 pmHe got his parade!
Dave (445e97) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:34 pm@ Dave, who pointed out (#255):
Oh, yes, and the list is much longer than that, as it also was with the Paris Accords.
When I read your sentence, though, the first thing that flashed through my mind was Neville Chamberlain clutching the document with Hitler’s signature as he got off the airplane from Munich, declaring “Peace for our time!” And I thought of the Japanese ambassador and his staff frantically trying to decode the message from Tokyo on December 6, after they’d been used to lull the United States into complacency just before Pearl Harbor.
I hope the Brits, at least, would come along; I don’t count on the French or the Germans. But none of them is going to try to run a U.S. Navy blockade of Iranian ports, d’ya think? Regardless, we have to do what’s best for America, and there is no universe in which Iran getting nukes & ICBMs is good for America.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:37 pmIt was the Korean framework a million cold re the dead thread:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/08/trump-robert-mueller-eric-schneiderman/amp
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:40 pm276 what are you talking about Dave?
“To the great people of West Virginia we have, together, a really great chance to keep making a big difference,” tweeted Trump. “Problem is, Don Blankenship, currently running for Senate, can’t win the General Election in your State…No way! Remember Alabama. Vote Rep. Jenkins or A.G. Morrisey!”
How was Trump rejected?
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:42 pmOnly con coughttps://www.telegraph.co.uk
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:43 pmmr mg, how can you not be chiming in when Joe Manchin ran against GD Swinjin!!!???
Pinandpuller (16b0b5) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:44 pmBad Omen for NAFTA? The 3 no-hitters in MLB this season have occurred in Oakland, Monterrey MX and tonight in Toronto.
urbanleftbehind (875112) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:45 pmA kiss is not a sexual assault. It’s not even attempted sexual assault. A colleague in my office litigated that, and won, in a notorious serial rape case.
nk (dbc370) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:33 pm
POMONA (CBSLA.com) — Police are searching for a man whom they say filmed himself licking and kissing a student’s toes at Cal Poly Pomona.
The incident reportedly occurred around 3 p.m. on Friday when the male suspect approached a young woman near the men’s gymnasium on campus and asked to photograph her bare feet, according to Cal Poly police.
CBS
Pinandpuller (16b0b5) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:46 pmI would play a Morrissey song in acknowledgement, but that could get you beat up in WV.
urbanleftbehind (875112) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:46 pm286 I remember a few years back a 6 year old was charged with sexual assault for kissing a girls hand or something. If I recall he also beat the charges.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:47 pmIt wasn’t “a” kiss, it was a two-minute long non-consensual make-out session during which Trump physically held her in place while he forced himself on her.
Dave (445e97) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:51 pmThey would hang their head in shame if they had any togive
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/08/cabinet-split-northern-ireland-veterans-minister-refuses-amnesty/
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:51 pmMaking America grate again:
Boeing may lose $20 billion in aircraft deals as Trump to pull US out of Iran nuclear pact
‘President Donald Trump announced Tuesday he will withdraw the U.S. from a nuclear pact with Iran, a move that threatens Boeing’s multibillion dollar deals to help restock Iran’s aging commercial air fleet.
The world’s largest aerospace company has agreements to sell planes worth roughly $20 billion to Iranian airlines, based on list prices. The number of aircraft in the agreements is tiny compared with Boeing’s total order book, however. Boeing ended the first quarter of this year with a backlog of more than 5,800 airplanes, including more than 4,600 orders for 737s.
Boeing said it had not included the Iranian deals in its order book, so its backlog remains unchanged. Boeing’s European rival Airbus, however, has included its deals with Iranian airlines in its order book.
“Following today’s announcement, we will consult with the U.S. government on next steps,” Boeing said in a statement. [AKA, lobby for an exemption, flyboys!!] Shares of Boeing ended the day down 0.6 percent.
Trump said Tuesday he would restore sanctions on Iran. The 2015 pact lifted sanctions, after Iran agreed to limits on its nuclear program, allowing the deals with Iranian airlines to take place.
Boeing announced the largest of its deals with Iranian airlines in December 2016: 80 jets for Iran Air – including 50 of the 737 MAX 8 model. In April 2017, Iran Aseman Airlines signed an agreement to purchase 30 Boeing 737 MAX planes, with an option to buy 30 more.
When it announced the Iran Air deal, Boeing said such an order would support 100,000 U.S. jobs. That same month, Boeing’s rival Airbus announced a deal to sell 100 planes to Iran Air. A list of Airbus’ orders through the end of April included more than 100 planes on order for Iran Air and Iran Aseman Airlines. Airbus did not immediately respond to a request for comment.”‘ – source, cnbc.com
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:52 pmYou mean like the group transports that were ferrying forces to and back from Syria,
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:56 pmNot many Americans today know what the hell the Suez Crisis of 1956 was, or who the players were, or what the issues were. But France and Britain very definitely concealed their plans to seize the canal from the U.S., and counted on being able to drag the Americans along with them (and the Israelis).
As Anthony Eden learned while he was having to vacate No. 10 Downing Street, this was a miscalculation, a very bad misreading of both America and its POTUS, who had indeed already pulled their collective fat out of the fire as SACEUR but had no intention of supporting British and French colonialism in Egypt.
We all forgave each other. But no one forgets.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:57 pmSexual assault is what they used to call rape. You’re doing nobody a favor by diluting the meaning of the term.
It wasn’t “a” kiss, it was a two-minute long non-consensual make-out session during which Trump physically held her in place while he forced himself on her.
That’s battery, and possibly unlawful restraint.
nk (dbc370) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:57 pm“I’m not saying Israel won’t get its hair mussed, but this aircraft deal is huge”
harkin (c60926) — 5/8/2018 @ 8:58 pmI think we actually dodged a,bullet there beldar you know who was waiting in the wings Hassan Ramadan fAther of the Egyptian schneiderman
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:00 pm“After the 2016 election, the so-called deep state was confident that it had the power easily to either stop, remove, or delegitimize the outlier Donald Trump and his presidency.
Give it credit, the Washington apparat quite imaginatively pulled out all the stops: implanting Obama holdover appointees all over the Trump executive branch; filing lawsuits and judge shopping; organizing the Resistance; pursuing impeachment writs; warping the FISA courts; weaponizing the DOJ and FBI; attempting to disrupt the Electoral College; angling for enactment of the 25th Amendment or the emoluments clause; and unleashing Hollywood celebrities, Silicon Valley, and many in Wall Street to suffocate the Trump presidency in its infancy.
But now the administrative state’s multifaceted efforts are starting to unwind, and perhaps even boomerang, on the perpetrators. If a federal judge should end up throwing out most of the indictments of Paul Manafort on the rationale that they have nothing much to do with the original mandate of the special counsel’s office, or if Michael Flynn’s confession to giving false statements is withdrawn successfully because the FBI politicized its investigation and FISA courts were misled in approving the surveillance of Flynn, then the Mueller investigation will implode.” – VDH
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/president-trump-deep-state-critics-risk-blowback/
harkin (c60926) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:01 pmBut it was a,shock to Eden at the time and it probably provoked Dennis potter’s angry man phase.
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:04 pmI think Don Blankenship has a great future ahead of him — in Hollywood, where he will be typecast as “Generic Republican/Corporate Villain.” And if he branches out into “Zombie Republican/Corporate Villain,” he won’t even need makeup.
Anyway, tonight they have the good champagne at the McConnell residence.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:05 pmThe Paris Accords were another example of dumb diplomacy. They imposed no obligations on us, other than filing meaningless, non-binding reports. As such, there was no cost to remaining in the accords, and a real cost to withdrawing.
Not sure of your point. It’s arguable that postponing war for a year in 1938 materially helped Britain, France and the United States (who were playing catch-up in rearmament by that point) considerably more than it did Germany. In any case, nobody is talking about appeasing Iran. I am talking about maintaining a united front against them.
Dave (445e97) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:06 pmIke also smelled a giant Frenchie rat in Vietnam. It was the naive JFK who got us inexorably attached to that particular evil.
Ed from SFV (291f4c) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:25 pmOnly an idiot would send a doofus buffoon like Kerry to negotiate with the Persians. Kerry is lucky he still has his watch… or does he?
Trump pegged this as a bad deal. It was.
James Mattis is supposed to have opposed Trump torpedoing the deal, but I doubt it, Trump is playing bad cop, but I’d almost guarantee that Mattis knows the names of every US Marine and US Soldier who were killed by Iranian IED’s in Iraq… Mattis may indeed have wanted to continue the deal… I’ll let someone argue that, but he also has a long list of Iranian military men who are on the “die first” list.
steveg (a9dcab) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:25 pm@281 Gosh, Dave, since she was running unopposed in the primary one would hope she would win.
pete (a65bac) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:29 pmBeldar (#207)
I agree that, any procedural quibbling aside, it would have been a nice stroke for Trump to say the deal was never properly ratified and have put the matter to the Senate. Supporters of the deal would have squawked, but they’re doing that anyway. And even if many of the current Senators did vote on it back in 2015, that vote was as close to a sham as it gets, with the outcome predetermined.
No need to say thanks for a civil inquiry, but you’re welcome. I thought we were all raised that way. Plus, I learned a while back that an uncivil inquiry not only isn’t likely to lead to a useful discussion, it is likely to become Exh. 1 to opposing counsel’s declaration and make me look bad, so I try to stay away from that now.
RL formerly in Glendale (40f5aa) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:31 pmOh so it was an Obama type situation
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:31 pmThe NY penal codes define “sexual contact” (in part) as:
It goes on to define Sexual abuse in the third degree (in part) as:
I couldn’t find a statutory definition of “intimate parts” in reference to this section. The statute on unlawful surveillance (voyeurism) does define it, and there it does not include the lips or inside of the mouth.
Still, it seems incongruous that casually brushing your hand across somebody’s (fully-clothed) @ss is felony, but forcibly sticking your tongue down their throat isn’t.
President Trump’s reputation is saved!
🙂
(Since she was an employee, criminal sexual harassment was likely also committed)
Dave (445e97) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:37 pmI think Trump did it the right way.
steveg (a9dcab) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:41 pmBlow up the old flawed deal and if there is a new deal, push that to the lawmakers to ratify.
Dave, I was just making the point that with the conspicuous exception of Winston Churchill, the French and British, despite all their claimed diplomatic sophistication, have been obvious suckers in comparable circumstances in the past. To some extent they still have different interests than we do in the Middle East. But I also believe that they’re failing to recognize even their own best interests, because the pressure from appeasers is stronger there, still, than here. In supporting this deal, they’re being suckers now, and I see no reason for America to conform itself to them. We’ve consulted, and will continue to do so; we should continue to try to persuade them to wise up, but if they won’t, we must act without them.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:43 pmAnd any deal that allows Iran to retain any nuclear capacity, even for purportedly civilian uses, is appeasement, Dave. The existing deal is appeasement, another Munich Agreement.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:46 pmWho, besides us, do you reckon is eager to make this new deal?
The Iranians, Brits, Germans, French, EU, Russians and Chinese all remain in a deal they are happy with.
I agree with Beldar that if you want to go to war with Iran, with no allies other than Israel or Saudi Arabia (the two are mutually exclusive, so take your pick), this was the right decision.
Otherwise, we’ve made it politically impossible for our erstwhile partners to support any future effort to keep Iran’s nuclear program under control.
Dave (445e97) — 5/8/2018 @ 9:50 pm@318
“The Iranians, Brits, Germans, French, EU, Russians and Chinese all remain in a deal they are happy with.” Correction, they Brits, German, French and Chinese will remain in the deal until they are forced to choose between American dollars and Iranian money. And that’s an easy choice, over the side go the Iranians.
“Who, besides us, do you reckon is eager to make this new deal?” See answer above.
“Otherwise, we’ve made it politically impossible for our erstwhile partners to support any future effort to keep Iran’s nuclear program under control.” Nope, as long as our “erstwhile” partners believe a new future deal will allow Iranian dollars to flow to them, they will be on board.
pete (a65bac) — 5/8/2018 @ 10:03 pmThe Munich Agreement is infamous because two major powers attempted to buy their own safety by sacrificing a small, peaceful third country. There is no such moral hazard here, I think.
You either negotiate with the Iranians or bomb them. I don’t see how we are in a better position to negotiate now, having thrown away whatever leverage we had by leaving the agreement.
Dave (445e97) — 5/8/2018 @ 10:08 pmDave, you know how fussy I am about people who recharacterize my views.
What I wrote, and repeat, is that Iran has been at war with us, and that I’m in favor of taking action, including military action, to end that war on terms that we dictate, instead of continuing to pretend that Iran is a civilized nation that can be trusted to honor in letter or spirit any agreement they ever make. This is a regime that has killed and maimed thousands of our countrymen. This is a regime that sends its own young teen boys out to clear minefields with their feet.
I also do not concede that we’d be without allies. Hell, I don’t even agree with your assertion that we’d have to pick between Israel and the Saudis. I understand that you may not share my opinions, and I respect you, and your differing ones. But please be sensitive to avoid overstating or misstating my positions, since I’m so snappish about that when others here, not including you, regularly do that deliberately and out of intellectual dishonesty.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 10:11 pmJeff Daniels is an idiot, the lions share of Arab nations sans qatar concur with this decision, as does Israel, now Germany that plays the same detestable parliamentary musical chairs, France that is plagued by strikes like in marathon man once again and Britain where sadiq khan watches the streets running red with blood like a cricket match.
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 10:16 pm@320 “You either negotiate with the Iranians or bomb them. I don’t see how we are in a better position to negotiate now, having thrown away whatever leverage we had by leaving the agreement.”
If you think the Iranians came to the table because they were worried that Obama would bomb them? Please. They came because they needed to get rid of the economic sanctions, and then played Obama to the end. Going forward–they definitely are thinking Trump might bomb them, and we will see what economic sanctions are unveiled over the coming months by the US, soon to be joined reluctantly by those vaunted EU allies who chose access to US market as being more important than sales to Iran.
pete (a65bac) — 5/8/2018 @ 10:17 pmRecall FDR’s words to Congress on Dec. 8, 1941, in which he asked Congress not to declare war on Japan, but to declare that since the dastardly attack of the previous day, as state of was had existed.
It’s a distinction with a difference. It could be said today, except instead of “yesterday,” it’s 1979.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 10:23 pmAlso, there are 90 days before sanctions kicked in. After the European pouting ends, expect to see numerous drafts offered up by them to amend the deal. Then, its up to Iran to decide if they want to walk away.
Of course, if as reported Iran follows through on what is currently being reported as its desire to strike Israel, it may end up miscalculating the depth of Israel’s response to the those attacks. For example, if there are major casualties in an Israeli city, you can bet Israel will retaliate not only in Syria but directly in Iran, likely with cruise missiles from subs…and then all bets are off.
pete (a65bac) — 5/8/2018 @ 10:28 pmAlso, Dave — and yes, this is quibbling — the significance of the Munich agreement to the Czechs (definitional problems there, but lay them aside for the nonce) was the dismemberment of their country. But to the rest of the world, the significance of the Munich Agreement is that it quite reasonably and predictably led Hitler to believe, and gave him the grounds to point out to his countrymen and general staff as grounds for the belief, that the French and British wouldn’t go to war over further territorial demands or grabs by Hitler, including Poland. That was the lesson of appeasement — not that it leads to the dismemberment of small countries that can’t fight back, but that it leads to world wars.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/8/2018 @ 10:40 pmI apologize, that was not my intention. I did not mean to suggest that you thought we would have no allies, that is indeed my own opinion.
I don’t disagree with you, either, that Iran is waging proxy war against us (at least I think that is what you asserted – not trying to mischaracterize!) and that we can’t naively expect them to keep their commitments out of honor.
On the other hand, I am not sure it’s realistic to initiate open hostilities with them. Forcing regime change on them Saddam-style seems out of the question. An open-ended precision bombing/missile campaign against their nuclear facilities seems costly and doomed to ineffectiveness. It will do damage, but I can’t see how it ever solves the problem permanently. All-out strategic aerial warfare aimed at bringing them to the table by collapsing their economy will result in problematic civilian casualties and suffering. Also, we can’t prevent Russia from providing assistance to them.
What do you mean, exactly, by “end that war on terms we dictate”?
Dave (445e97) — 5/8/2018 @ 10:43 pmThis is who I was referring to:
https://mobile.twitter.com/NatashaFatah/status/993964148521291776
narciso (d1f714) — 5/8/2018 @ 10:47 pmDonald Trump on Iran nuclear deal: ‘We have a horrible contract, but we do have a contract’
By David Sherfinski – Washington Times – 9/4/2015
‘Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said Friday that he’d try to work with what he called a “disastrous” nuclear deal with Iran to turn it around and that there will be “hell to pay” if Iran violates the terms, taking a different path from some of his 2016 GOP rivals who have vowed to immediately tear up the deal.
“We have a horrible contract, but we do have a contract,” Mr. Trump said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “I have all my life — I love to buy bad contracts where … people go bust, and I make those contracts good. This is a perfect example of taking over a bad contract. I will find something in that contract that will be very, very well-scrutinized by us, and I think they will not be able to do it, whatever it may be.”
“I know it would be very popular for me to do what a couple of ‘em said — ‘we’re gonna rip it up,’ ‘we’re gonna rip it up,’” he said. “Iran is going to be an absolute terror, and it’s horrible that we have to live with it. Nevertheless, we have a contract. We’ve lost the power of sanctions because all of these other folks, all of these other countries that were with us, are gone now.” “And, by the way, making money,” Mr. Trump continued. “You see Russia [is] selling missiles and Germany’s involved. Everybody’s involved now with Iran selling them stuff.
We’re probably [going to] be the only ones that won’t be selling them anything, but that’s all gone now.” [BTW, that would be news to Boeing which announced the largest of its deals with Iranian airlines in December 2016: 80 jets for Iran Air – including 50 of the 737 MAX 8 model. In April 2017, Iran Aseman Airlines signed an agreement to purchase 30 Boeing 737 MAX planes, with an option to buy 30 more.] “We have an agreement, it’s a horrible agreement. I will make that agreement so tough and if they break it, they will have hell to pay,” he said.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, while critical of the deal, has likewise indicated it’s unlikely he would tear it up on day one, while GOP contenders like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry have said they would.
“I would much rather … give you an answer that I would rip up the contract, I’m going to go in there … you can’t do that,” Mr. Trump said. “I have to do what’s right. Politically and certainly for the nomination, I would love to tell you I’m going to rip up this contract, I’m going to be the toughest guy in the world, and I’m just rippin’ it up, but you know what? Life doesn’t work that way.”
“I will find things, and I’ve always done this. I love buying bad contracts,” Mr. Trump said. “I buy buildings with horrible mortgages and I straighten out the mortgages, and I go after the banks, and I do lots of things. This is a really bad contract.”
“This is one of the most incompetently drawn contracts … we will find things in there and we will do numbers. These are not good people. This deal should never have been made the way it’s been made,” he said.’ — © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/8/2018 @ 11:10 pmHe certainly used Munich to reassure nervous underlings that the war could be localized (“Our enemies are little worms – I saw them at Munich”); but there is zero evidence that anything could have deterred Hitler. Hitler wanted war and viewed it as a positive good – and this is what made him incomprehensible to an English gentleman like Chamberlain.
Munich was arguably Hitler’s greatest diplomatic triumph, but he was furious about being cheated out of his war in the immediate aftermath. As you probably know, the sequence was that Chamberlain flew to Berchtesgaden and listened to Hitler’s demands, and said he would try to meet them. He flew home, got the agreement of his government, and the French, and (reluctantly) the Czechs. A week later, he flew back to Bad Godesburg, to give Hitler the good news that he had arranged to give him everything he had asked for. And then Hitler told him that wasn’t good enough – it all had to be done in less than ten days. Chamberlain, flabbergasted, went back home, and for the next week, everyone was expecting war to break out. Hitler, however, had misjudged the mood of his people, who were by no means as eager for war as he was. And so, Hitler was the one who backed down from war at the last minute, and wrote to suggest resuming negotiations, which Chamberlain immediately accepted. And the result was that Hitler basically got the same deal he had been offered, but turned down, the week before. And he was p*ssed as hell afterward.
Hitler could have been turned back (not deterred) by decisive action in 1935 or 1936, when Germany was still weak. By the time of Munich, there was going to be a war, the only question was when and where it would start.
Dave (445e97) — 5/8/2018 @ 11:19 pm259. …Trump made the right move. No doubt about it.
=Haiku!= Gesundheit!
Doubtful; see #329…
“We have a horrible contract, but we do have a contract… Nevertheless, we have a contract… We’re probably [going to] be the only ones that won’t be selling them anything, but that’s all gone now… [which would become new to a America’s Boeing w/its $20 billion deal]… I would love to tell you I’m going to rip up this contract, I’m going to be the toughest guy in the world, and I’m just rippin’ it up, but you know what? Life doesn’t work that way.” -Donald Trump, 9/4/15
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/8/2018 @ 11:38 pmStyle points deducted for failing to juxtapose Trump’s past vow to honor the deal with this gem from his statement today:
Dave (445e97) — 5/8/2018 @ 11:48 pm@332. “Life doesn’t work that way.” – Donald Trump 😉
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/9/2018 @ 12:48 am321 — Pot, meet Kettle.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 5/9/2018 @ 1:08 am321 — But I agree 100% with this view as expressed.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 5/9/2018 @ 1:10 am334 and the reference to 331:
That my friends, is a blantant and intentional dishonest mischaracterization of what someone else wrote.
I wrote an objectively true fact — that there was a provision in the DOJ policy on media contact which authorized Jim Comey to conduct his July 2016 press conference, and it was that exception which Comey relied upon at the time to justify his actions.
I DID NOT, in any fashion, suggest it was a “good thing” that he violated the rules.
That was your blatant and intentional distortion for your own purposes.
I’ve never had a moment of confusion about who Jim Comey really was — and I’m guessing I came to my views long before you even knew he held a position of significance at DOJ. I shared office space with a former member of his staff who couldn’t wait to get away from him, and had plenty of anecdotal information about his moralizing, and self-righteous conviction in his own infallibility.
And while we’re on the subject briefly of what would be involved in “waiving” the policy prohibitions as suggested by McCarthy, you might consider the way Rosenstein characterized his recommendation to Trump that Comey be fired, and how he described the decision by Comey to conduct a press conference.
When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.
The letter goes on to cite the written views of several former DAGs in the past few administrations, every one of whom mentioned in some fashion that Comey’s actions violated the “traditions” of the Justice Department. Rosenstein concluded by stating:
But, at the very beginning of his letter, Rosenstein didn’t cite the violation of “tradition” as the reason Comey should be fired. Rather, he wrote:
McCarthy was not — and nor was I — advocating that Trump should place himself “above the law.” Frankly, for someone who understands the law you should feel somewhat chagrined by making such an idiotic claim. The tradition, embodied in a DOJ policy, is to not have DOJ officials publicly comment on pending investigations. As you noted, that policy is GENERALLY for the benefit of the person under investigation, who might never be charged.
Trump is the person under investigation. Playing “hide the ball” with him, as you advocate, is certainly not in his best interest with headline after headline suggesting he is guilty of impeachable offenses.
What you fear is that the Mueller has nothing, and if that’s revealed to the be case the opportunity to catch Trump in a lie will be lost.
If Mueller has nothing, Trump certainly won’t answer any questions.
If Mueller has nothing, the pressure will become overwhelming for Mueller’s adventure to be concluded.
If Mueller has something, you will be dancing in the streets.
So why are you afraid for Trump to put Mueller in the position of having to put his cards on the table?
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 5/9/2018 @ 1:41 amOT- shipwreckedcrew, believe you mentioned you’re in Hawaii. Hope you’re not near any of the volcanic activity. Stay safe, SWC.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/9/2018 @ 1:46 am332, Trump did honor the deal, per the deal with 90 days notice we can exit it.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 5/9/2018 @ 5:41 am325 if Israel did attack Iran could Saudia Arabia resist the temptation to jump in? What better opportunity to crush an enemy but that would be some world redefining optics.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 5/9/2018 @ 5:45 amYou know, I just might come around to happyfeet’s view of the U.S. Navy. https://abcnews.go.com/US/uss-fitzgerald-officer-pleads-guilty-role-deadly-collision/story? id=55021772 Primarily responsible for the deaths of seven sailors, she was punished with a letter of reprimand and three months of half-pay. Be sure to read the very last paragraph. No spoilers.
nk (dbc370) — 5/9/2018 @ 5:59 ammaybe this link is better Mr. nk
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/9/2018 @ 6:00 amIt is. Thank you, happyfeet.
nk (dbc370) — 5/9/2018 @ 6:01 amBut the director lied about the contents of the memo, which
Was the predicate of this investigation as Rhodes did with his echo chamber as corked bat did with his.
Jill I believe in his memoir showed the general staff was ready to bolt had their been a confrontation over the sudetenland
narciso (d1f714) — 5/9/2018 @ 6:01 amAnd the containment of Iran begins.
In Syria.
Colonel Haiku (45621b) — 5/9/2018 @ 6:07 amCoppock chose the wrong spot for that tattoo, should’ve been placed in the middle of the small of her back, as a tramp stamp… anatomically located to commemorate what she had done to her victims.
Colonel Haiku (45621b) — 5/9/2018 @ 6:14 amJust a thought… most of what ConDave posts is more suited for the “hens’ space” in teh faculty lounge.
Colonel Haiku (45621b) — 5/9/2018 @ 6:17 amYes, but we’re they wearing their white coats?
“Walking away from the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] turns our back on America’s closest allies, and an agreement that our country’s leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals negotiated.”
—- Barcky Obama
Colonel Haiku (45621b) — 5/9/2018 @ 6:23 amPope pius was running a network into the German army up until 1943, so these fools who speak of Hitler’s pope like le carres we’re do well brother don’t know what they have been talking about for near 20 years.
narciso (d1f714) — 5/9/2018 @ 6:31 amwho gives a crap what Ollie North thinks about Iran
Oliver North: Trump should sanction anyone who does business with Iran
that’s so random
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/9/2018 @ 6:45 amBo hes got a point, ollie was dealing with some tow missiles in an old storage shed, this deal was like selling the Iranians the 5th fleet.
narciso (d1f714) — 5/9/2018 @ 6:49 amSomeone please explain how if there is no plan B, then how is this not either:
a) A red carpet for them to go ahead and create nuclear warhead capabilities
b) In effect an admission that we will go to war with Iran
Sanctions have not worked. I’m not allowing them to be a possible solution here.
This isn’t complicated.
Tillman (a95660) — 5/9/2018 @ 6:50 amhere’s what you’re missing Mr. Tillman
Trump Is Now Free to Fight for Iranian Freedom
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/9/2018 @ 6:58 amTo listen to some people above, the agreement is worthless since Iran can work around it.
I think that argument ignores a pertinent fact: in a word, Stuxnet. That virus was placed in their centrifuges and set their nuclear capabilities back. We know where those centrifuges are and you can’t waltz to a local hardware store and buy a centrifuge that helps purify uranium. Stuxnet proves that we know how to hurt their nuclear program and where it is.
Tillman (a95660) — 5/9/2018 @ 6:58 am“Sanctions have not worked. I’m not allowing them to be a possible solution here.”
First sentence is not true. The second is just an ostrich strategy.
Colonel Haiku (45621b) — 5/9/2018 @ 7:11 am354. Haiku, they have so much money (from oil) that they can buy their way out of sanctions. Everything has a price. Sanctions haven’t worked, and won’t work.
Tillman (a95660) — 5/9/2018 @ 7:14 amSo much money from oil? Please… you excuse Obamacash.
Colonel Haiku (45621b) — 5/9/2018 @ 7:16 amKeep an eye on Syria.
Colonel Haiku (45621b) — 5/9/2018 @ 7:17 am“Mike Pompeo is in the air and on his way back from North Korea with the 3 wonderful gentlemen that everyone is looking so forward to meeting.”
Too bad Trump is such a lousy negotiator, eh?
fred-2 (ce04f3) — 5/9/2018 @ 7:26 amTillman
4 million barrels a day minus half for domestic use
Leaves Iran 2 million barrels a day for sale
Take 10 percent for brokerage, bunkerage and currency exchange leaves the 1.8 million a day.
Given another 15 percent production costs leaves Iran about 1.5 million a day.
At 100 dollars a barrel, gives Iran a annual net income of 50 billion surplus.
Iran has serious problems, they inefficiently consume almost all of their natural gas production and need American and European oil companies to develop large efficient LNG plants like in Qatar, Australia and in the USA.
What the sanctions will do is make their surplus oil worthless, stressing their society, which is already stressed to the breaking point. Even Obama’s lifting of the sanctions didn’t relieve the Iranian people.
Also the large Christian and Jewish populations in all the Arab countries are becoming more vocal and main stream.
EPWJ (86bb64) — 5/9/2018 @ 7:32 amStuxnet proves that we know how to hurt their nuclear program and where it is.
And thus we see the steady-state logic of Teh Narrative believers. Stuxnet proves that we KNEW how to hurt their nuclear program. They’re stupid but not so stupid as to learn from their mistakes. Stuxnet success does not infer an open door into perpetuity. Yes, we (and possibly/probably the Israelis) have capability to do damage so long as we stay ahead of them. Though post JCPOSWatevs, attempts to implement a similar program or to use intelligence resources in a threatening way simply becomes and excuse for the Iranians (and their cheerleaders in the West) to have an out for their commitments as well. The Iran deal was garbage from Day 1. And the “24 days” provision says a great deal about the idiots on “our” side of the table. That anyone would point to such as some sort of safety net is even more laughable.
Skorcher (5ba7f6) — 5/9/2018 @ 8:05 am“as to NOT learn from their mistakes” … obviously….
Skorcher (5ba7f6) — 5/9/2018 @ 8:07 am“His high-profile attempts to negotiate deals — like his meeting with Chuck & Nancy over DACA — have been failures, or at least, aren’t successes yet.”
So you think that the DACA meeting with Chuck & Nancy was Trump trying to _keep_ DACA? No wonder you don’t understand Trump.
He only did the same damn thing that he’s done on a few other of these things. NAFTA, NOKO, etc. “I’ll give you 6 months to modify the deal to my liking.” {6 months later} “Oops, sorry, you missed the deadline. Deal’s off.”
Y’know, to win it is only neccessary to get the deal you want. A brass band and 6 point above-the-fold headlines are not necessary to announce that you won your negotiation.
fred-2 (ce04f3) — 5/9/2018 @ 8:16 am“308. The Paris Accords were another example of dumb diplomacy. They imposed no obligations on us, other than filing meaningless, non-binding reports. As such, there was no cost to remaining in the accords, and a real cost to withdrawing.”
As I recall, the US was supposed to pay a bunch of money. That’s a cost, no?
And just exactly what “real cost” has the US paid by withdrawing? They fart in our general direction?
fred-2 (ce04f3) — 5/9/2018 @ 8:17 am“316. Dave, I was just making the point that with the conspicuous exception of Winston Churchill, the French and British, despite all their claimed diplomatic sophistication, have been obvious suckers in comparable circumstances in the past. To some extent they still have different interests than we do in the Middle East. But I also believe that they’re failing to recognize even their own best interests, because the pressure from appeasers is stronger there, still, than here.”
Oh man, it’s even worse than that. Not only are they “they’re failing to recognize even their own best interests”, they are actively committing suicide by inviting foreign invaders into their countries. No reason why we should pay any attention to them, if they want to suicide that’s up to them. But count us out.
fred-2 (ce04f3) — 5/9/2018 @ 8:18 amother than filing meaningless, non-binding reports. As such, there was no cost to remaining in the accords, and a real cost to withdrawing
Because those things get done for free. Consumes absolutely no resources whatsoever. See this is why we can’t have nice budget things.
Skorcher (5ba7f6) — 5/9/2018 @ 8:33 am“308. The Paris Accords were another example of dumb diplomacy. They imposed no obligations on us,”
Dave do you not know these facts or do you know them and make these false statements anyways?
“Many national governments offered new financial pledges in Paris. Collectively, developed countries pledged $19 billion to help developing countries, including an announcement by Secretary of State John Kerry that, by 2020, the United States will double its support for adaptation efforts to $800 million a year.”
“Developed countries committed under the UNFCCC to support mitigation and adaptation efforts in developing countries. As part of the Copenhagen and Cancún agreements, developed countries committed to mobilize $100 billion a year in public and private finance for developing countries by 2020.
The Paris Agreement reaffirms developed countries’ UNFCCC obligations; the COP decision accompanying the agreement extends the $100 billion-a-year goal through 2025, and calls for a new goal beyond that “from a floor of” $100 billion a year.”
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 5/9/2018 @ 8:58 amI was going to post something about this, but I read Beldar’s #67. All I can add to that is “ditto.”
My main objection to the conduct of this administration (as opposed to personal conduct of its members) is that it misses its political opportunities rather completely and leads with the chin rather a lot.
The treaty should have been submitted to the Senate as a footnote to the inaugural speech, much as the news about the freed hostages was to Reagan’s. But even now, it should have been submitted tot he Senate. Make the Democrats own it. Also, the global warming deal.
Kevin M (752a26) — 5/9/2018 @ 9:04 am“308. The Paris Accords were another example of dumb diplomacy. They imposed no obligations on us,”
Well, frack. Someone tell that to Jerry Brown and the CA Democrat Party. They are passing laws like Gaia Herself had a gun to their heads.
Kevin M (752a26) — 5/9/2018 @ 9:06 am355. Haiku, they have so much money (from oil) that they can buy their way out of sanctions.
Even a casual following of the news Tillman you would know Iran is hurting financially.
“Due to subsidies, Iran had long had one of the cheapest gas prices in the world, 10 cents per liter or 40 cents per gallon.”
When you sell oil on the black market you don’t get full price.
Look at their GDP since sanctions and the oil crash
https://tradingeconomics.com/iran/gdp
From CNBC
“Iran’s currency, the rial, has plummeted to a record low amid growing economic and political uncertainty, causing a rush to the banks as Iranians desperately try to acquire U.S. dollars with exchanges forced to shut their doors to prevent long and chaotic lines.
If unchecked, the crisis, combined with further deteriorating relations with the U.S., could spell severe instability for the Islamic Republic.
The rial has lost one-third of its value this year alone. The currency is now 60,000 to the dollar; when Iranian President Hassan Rouhani took power in 2013 a dollar bought 36,000 rials. The devaluation has been essentially continuous since the country’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, when one dollar bought 70 rials.”
Obama bailed Iran out, maybe after his massive failure in Syria and Libya he didn’t want to see what a collapse of Iran would look like but Iran is far from wealthy or even stable.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 5/9/2018 @ 9:08 amwti takes 71
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/9/2018 @ 9:21 am359. & & 369. I have no interest in bickering about how much money Iran has or lacks. The point is, they’re no starving 3rd world country and they can afford to buy parts for their nukes under the table. Besides, why haven’t sanctions worked so far? The deal was made since the sanctions weren’t working.
Tillman (a95660) — 5/9/2018 @ 9:29 am“The deal was made since the sanctions weren’t working.“
According to who exactly? Be specific. Links please.
Colonel Haiku (45621b) — 5/9/2018 @ 9:31 amStuixtnet was leaked by general cartwright, interestingly muxhaek Hayden who had left?? The company years ago, was investigated in connection with this leak. Something he didn’t put in his ostensible manual on intelligence.
narciso (d1f714) — 5/9/2018 @ 9:36 am“President Trump announced America’s withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear deal, triggering a paroxysm of fury among liberals, Never Trumpers, and the keepers of conventional foreign-policy wisdom. Yet it wasn’t the 45th president who set the stage for the deal’s collapse. Blame for that belongs to his predecessor.
Beginning in his first term, President Obama set his sights on a nuclear accord with the mullahs, one which he hoped would allow Washington to extricate itself from the Middle East. It was an ill-conceived idea that failed to take sufficient account of the nature of the regime in Tehran, its long record of terror and nuclear deception, and the anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism that form its ideological DNA.
Set all that aside for now. Even if such a deal were desirable, Obama went about pursuing it in the worst possible way. He dealt with crucial foreign and domestic stakeholders—America’s traditional Mideast allies and congressional Republicans—as nonentities and fools, who just couldn’t see that rapprochement with Iran was in their best interests.
He tried to circumvent the Israelis by keeping them in the dark about secret negotiations with the Islamic Republic. For Obama, Arab fears of Iranian expansionism were a tertiary concern, and he was surprised when the most important Sunni powers didn’t show up for a 2015 summit that was supposed to sell them on the deal. He likewise pooh-poohed Iran’s eliminationist anti-Israel rhetoric (“at the margins, where the costs are low, they may pursue policies based on [Jew] hatred as opposed to self-interest,” he told The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg). His aides described a sitting Israeli prime minister as a “chickens—t” (on background, naturally).
He lectured and condescended, and then lectured some more.
On the home front, meanwhile, Obama relied on his signature “pen and phone” methods to ram the deal through. Rather than welcome GOP hawks as good-faith actors seeking to strengthen his hand against an adversary, he treated Republicans as the adversary. He thought his diplomacy pitted him and reasonable Iranians like Javad Zarif against “hard-liners” in Washington and Tehran.
Meanwhile, Obama’s Ben Rhodes-operated media echo chamber swarmed and shouted down journalists and experts who raised concerns about the terms of the accord, not least the fact that it permitted the Iranians to inspect their own military sites and left unaddressed the question of ballistic missiles. The Obama administration never satisfactorily answered critics’ questions about Iran’s refusal to come clean about its prior weaponization activity—the glaring flaw in the deal’s architecture that contributed the most to its undoing this week.”
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/iran/obama-killed-his-own-iran-deal/
Colonel Haiku (45621b) — 5/9/2018 @ 9:41 amHaiku, here is a timeline of sanctions on Iran:
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/timeline-sanctions-iran-embargoed-until-9am-friday-1447753
Obviously they didn’t work or else 1) Iran would not have make progress in getting nuclear warheads 2) There would have been no need for the deal with Iran.
Tillman (a95660) — 5/9/2018 @ 9:58 am*made progress
Tillman (a95660) — 5/9/2018 @ 9:59 am@358. Too bad Trump is such a lousy negotiator, eh?
Huh? Kim returns something he shouldn’t have in the first place and that’s a good negotiation; giving up that which wasn’t his to begin with?? Next month, Homer returns Ned’s own weed wacker in trade for a free BBQ to reaffirm his good neighbor policy.
What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable: Simpson-Flanders diplomacy, eh.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/9/2018 @ 12:30 pm371 Nothing to debate, links were provided showing they don’t have the money you claimed they did. In regards to your no 3rd world starving country they are much closer than you seem to be aware of. This was in the NYT.
Iranians Protest Rising Food Prices
By The Associated Press
Dec. 28, 2017
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Iranians angry over rising food prices and inflation protested in the country’s second-largest city and other areas Thursday, putting new pressure on President Hassan Rouhani as his signature nuclear deal with world powers remains in peril.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 5/9/2018 @ 12:34 pm375 interesting timeline, it stops in 2014, any major events in 2014 that might have changed the playing field? Oh ya, that bottoming out of oil markets and thus their source of income.
Obama stole defeat from the jaws of victory. Had the sanctions stayed in place at worst we could have got a better deal, at best regime change.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 5/9/2018 @ 12:42 pm@ fred-2: It’s possible that Trump will convince the Norks to give up their nukes. It’s possible that the Norks are playing Trump for time the way they’ve played every other American POTUS for at least the last thirty years.
Regardless, fred-2, you’ve shown that you are incapable of distinguishing a deal that has been closed from a deal that still hasn’t even been negotiated. You’re the perfect sucker, therefore, for a con man like Trump, and I believe you to be a true exemplar of Trumpkins generally! Congratulations.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/9/2018 @ 12:47 pmTell me, fred-2, are you still doing high-fives over Trump’s successful negotiations to repeal & replace Obamacare?
Oh, wait, what — you mean that deal hasn’t been negotiated yet either, much less closed? Okay, then, how about getting Mexico to pay for that great big beautiful wall? That deal was going to be “so easy, you won’t believe how easy it will be.”
I repeat: Name one that he’s closed. So far you’ve named exactly nothing that he’s closed, fred-2, you and all of your Trump-supporting friends here put together. Bupkis. Nada. Zero.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/9/2018 @ 12:49 pmHuh? Kim returns something he shouldn’t have in the first place and that’s a good negotiation;
You really don’t expect to be taken seriously anymore, do you?
It’s amusing, quite telling, how desperately weak the anti-Trumpist arguments have been in this thread. Nit picking about 24 weeks, arguing that Trump should have submitted a not-a-treaty-something to the Senate so as to not get it ratified, this, etc. At long last, have y’all left no sense of decency?
Skorcher (5ba7f6) — 5/9/2018 @ 1:05 pm@382. At long last, have y’all left no sense of decency?
=yawn=
Don’t be surprised if our Captain meets w/Kim on the decks of the USS Pueblo and crows that as part his grand negotiating talent, Flanders gets Homer to give us back our own ship they stole over fifty years ago… y’all.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/9/2018 @ 1:15 pmNate, you ignore the fact that Iran was already getting dangerously close to getting nukes before Obama was the President. You can’t blame Obama for everything.
Tillman (a95660) — 5/9/2018 @ 1:25 pmNate, you ignore the fact that Iran was already getting dangerously close to getting nukes before Obama was the President. You can’t blame Obama for everything.
Clinton, W, and Obama ALL share the blame for not dealing with the Iranians and Norks long ago. Also, Jimmy Carter for several reasons.
Kevin M (752a26) — 5/9/2018 @ 1:35 pmJimmy Carter is probably the worst violator of the Logan Act in history, not that it’s ever been used.
Kevin M (752a26) — 5/9/2018 @ 1:36 pm@386. Nixon pitching woo to Ho w/peace deals while LBJ was still in office wasn’t exactly kosher but then The Big Dick was never fond of Jewish cuisine.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/9/2018 @ 1:48 pm381 “I repeat: Name one that he’s closed. So far you’ve named exactly nothing that he’s closed, fred-2, you and all of your Trump-supporting friends here put together. Bupkis. Nada. Zero.”
If your going to be nasty about it;
“President Donald Trump reached an informal deal with Boeing Co. on a fixed-price contract for the new Air Force One program that will cost $3.9 billion, according to White House officials.
White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said Tuesday that the agreement will save taxpayers $1.4 billion from the original estimate for two presidential aircraft and the development program associated with purchasing and outfitting them”
“Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon have reached an agreement to buy 90 F-35 fighter jets, with the defense contractor crediting the reduced price per unit to President Trump’s involvement in the deal.
“President Trump’s personal involvement in the F-35 program accelerated the negotiations and sharpened our focus on driving down the price,” the company said in a statement. “The agreement was reached in a matter of weeks and represents significant savings over previous contracts.”
The contract is worth about $8.5 billion, a decrease of $728 million from the last batch. The price per jet for the F-35A will also land below $100 million for the first time.
The latest “contract is a good and fair deal for the taxpayers, the U.S. government, allies and industry,” Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, F-35 program executive officer, said in a statement. “We continue to work with Industry to drive costs out of the program.”
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 5/9/2018 @ 2:22 pmFrom the NYT
“WASHINGTON — President Trump scored his first significant trade deal this week, securing a pact with South Korea that represents the type of one-on-one agreement that Mr. Trump says makes the best sense for American companies and workers.”
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 5/9/2018 @ 2:24 pmNixon pitching woo to Ho w/peace deals while LBJ was still in office wasn’t exactly kosher
There’s a big difference between engaging the world as President-elect, and conducting foreign policy as a defeated former president. Bill Clinton was ready to drop the hammer on Kim Jong Il but Jimmy flew over there and came back with “peace in our time*” making it impossible for Clinton to act.
———————
Kevin M (752a26) — 5/9/2018 @ 3:56 pm*spoiler: Kim cheated
Well except Nixon, ok kissinger came to israels defense in the tom kippur war, that prompted the oil embargo.
As for 68, thief knew full well how lbj would throw him under the bus, although madam chennault could remind how Truman did it.
narciso (d1f714) — 5/9/2018 @ 4:09 pm@390. You might want to go review that, Kevin; you’ll find The Big Dick wasn’t, in fact, president-elect at the time he was pitching woo to Ho. He was trying to scuttle any peace deals before the election. He lied to LBJ’s face about it and LBJ knew he was lying.
George Will Confirms Nixon’s Vietnam Treason
Nixon’s interference with these negotiations violated President John Adams’s 1797 Logan Act, banning private citizens from intruding into official government negotiations with a foreign nation. Published as the 40th Anniversary of Nixon’s resignation approaches, Will’s column confirms that Nixon feared public disclosure of his role in sabotaging the 1968 Vietnam peace talks.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/08/12/george-will-confirms-nixons-vietnam-treason
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/9/2018 @ 4:29 pmTreason? You mean Nixon was a communist who aligned with Ho against the United States and helped Ho make war? As opposed to a patriot like Jane Fonda who did none of those things?
/dripping sarc
Kevin M (752a26) — 5/9/2018 @ 4:35 pmAnd back then, will was a junior speechwriter for a little known senator dominick
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-vietnam-myth-that-refuses-to-die-1524177729
narciso (d1f714) — 5/9/2018 @ 4:35 pm@394. =yawn=
Nixon’s newly revealed records show for certain that in 1968, as a presidential candidate, he ordered Anna Chennault, his liaison to the South Vietnam government, to persuade them to refuse a cease-fire being brokered by President Lyndon Johnson… Nixon’s sabotage of the Vietnam peace talks was confirmed by transcripts of FBI wiretaps. On November 2, 1968, LBJ received an FBI report saying Chennault told the South Vietnamese ambassador that “she had received a message from her boss: saying the Vietnamese should “hold on, we are gonna win.”
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/08/12/george-will-confirms-nixons-vietnam-treason
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/9/2018 @ 4:43 pm381 — Beldar
There was no path by which Trump could have negotiated a deal to repeal Obamacare.
In order to get the votes of Collins and Murkowski, he would have been required to make concessions that would have cost him the votes of Cruz and Lee (and others).
There was no combination of terms that would bring along both the moderate squishes and the most demanding conservatives. So the failure wasn’t on the part of the Exec., the failure was the result of the spectrum of views across the political ideology of the Senate GOP.
Trump would have signed a bill that met Collins/Murkowski’s demands, and he would have signed a bill that met Cruz/Lee’s demands. But there wasn’t any bill possible that met both sets of demands simultaneously.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 5/9/2018 @ 5:05 pmSo no, you can’t name a deal he’s negotiated and closed — is that the upshot?
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/9/2018 @ 5:07 pmI don’t care about excuses. Name one or admit you can’t. Be a man.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/9/2018 @ 5:07 pmSo in addition to the nit picking about 24 weeks, arguing that Trump should have submitted a not-a-treaty-something to the Senate so as to not get it ratified, saying that it doesn’t count getting hostages out of NK because they never should have been there something something something, we now must endure repeated insistences that a world renowned real estate developer and business man with buildings, businesses, etc. all over the world has never negotiated and closed a deal. Be a man indeed. You do realize the louder and more forcefully you insist on denying the reality of real things, the less credibility you have with those you try to convince, not to mention those on the fence, on the marginal issues?
Skorcher (5ba7f6) — 5/9/2018 @ 5:26 pmAny chance Obama kept the serial numbers on the cash he sent Iran?
“The Iraqi Police intercept 31 boxes filled with stacks of $100 bills, smuggled from Iran, into Iraq, to be delivered to Hadi Al-Amari, head of the pro-Khomeiniist regime Badr militia.”
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 5/9/2018 @ 6:17 pmThere was no path by which Trump could have negotiated a deal to repeal Obamacare.
The only bill that could have passed was the Ryan plan. Everything else was less workable. A straight repeal would have left 5 million self-employed households scrambling for insurance. Again. Never mind the myriad Democrat constituencies helped by Obamacare, those 5 million self-employed families, largely Republicans, had been savaged at least twice by Obama (loss of policy + giant rate hikes). Any repeal that dragged them backwards over the coals would have been a mistake.
The House conservatives blocked the Ryan plan, ensuring Obamacare would continue. They’ll deny that of course, but it was a predictable outcome.
Kevin M (752a26) — 5/9/2018 @ 6:35 pm“The Iraqi Police intercept 31 boxes filled with stacks of $100 bills,
Early reports said it was
Kevin M (752a26) — 5/9/2018 @ 6:37 pm534538 boxes, but they must be mistaken.The only bill that could have passed was the Ryan plan
Oh them ‘Young Guns’ … sure shootin’ blanks:
Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, and Kevin McCarthy…
Two down.
One to go.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/9/2018 @ 6:39 pm396 – 398… pistols at 30 paces now!
Sunday… SUNDAY!!!… Sunday… be there…
Battle of teh Barristers!
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/9/2018 @ 6:51 pmSolicitor Scrum!
Cage Match of teh Counselors!
Jurist Jam-up!
Pounding of teh Proctors!
Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, and Kevin McCarthy…
And watch — what you’ll get is a Haster redux. Earmark, earmark, earmark.
Kevin M (752a26) — 5/9/2018 @ 7:08 pm*Hastert
Kevin M (752a26) — 5/9/2018 @ 7:09 pmIn response to Spanky’s Iran Folly, oil prices spike.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-oil/oil-prices-hit-highest-in-years-as-markets-adjust-to-looming-sanctions-on-iran-idUSKBN1IB07W
And Putin smiled (episode 314)
Tillman (a95660) — 5/10/2018 @ 6:20 amwe need an oil price spike for to expand drilling here in America
and our oil exports represent an increasingly valuable contribution to GDP
this is why President Trump is the #1 best president of America
he’s a big picture president, and wise beyond his years
happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/10/2018 @ 6:30 amGas is still below $3 a gallon and we are exporting billions worth. As exports start to catch up with consumption it will be a net win.
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 5/10/2018 @ 7:28 amAnd gp, further to my point of…
They have (strategically rightly) been concentrating on improved fighting forces used in border wars, insurgencies and such in Georgia, Syria, etc. And they’re not really doing that very well. While they do win these conflicts, their general weakness is exposed.
Per Russia’s fancy pants Pantsyr…
Yeah, Israel just blew those suckers into showers of shrapnel…
https://pjmedia.com/trending/video-israeli-missile-destroys-russian-made-missile-defense-system/
Skorcher (5ba7f6) — 5/10/2018 @ 11:30 am“The president and his new secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, were undoubtedly emboldened to flout the conventional wisdom of Foggy Bottom and its amen chorus in the press corps by their success (caveat: so far) in handling North Korea. Just a few months ago, the usual worrywarts and chin-pullers were fretting that the madman in Washington was about to provoke the only slightly less mad Kim Jong-un into a nuclear exchange in the international equivalent of a dick-measuring contest. Meanwhile, the same Wise Men were thrilled with the “success” of their beloved Obama’s giveaways to the mullahs in Tehran.
And then, suddenly, there was Li’l Kim in South Korea; after nearly 70 years of a state of war between the two Koreas, talk of peace—if not actual reunification—is in the air…
So the end of the Iran deal will have ramifications and repercussions far beyond this nation’s dealings with Iran itself. Certainly, the excitable Iranians must now understand their bluff has been called, there will be no further rollovers from Uncle Sam, and that their long-accruing butcher’s bill, outstanding since 1979, is now due and payable. The Iranian regime is on shaky ground, its youthful population restive, and it might well have fallen during the Obama Administration had we supported the Green Revolution with just the slightest gesture. The abrogation of the “deal” will now doom them, irrevocably.”
https://amgreatness.com/2018/05/10/for-trump-the-end-of-the-beginning/
Colonel Haiku (45621b) — 5/10/2018 @ 12:03 pmIn response to Spanky’s Iran Folly…
Yes, no doubt like-minded ninnies had the same tilt when they characterized Reagan’s “failed” 1986 Reykjavik summit with Gorbachev.
Colonel Haiku (45621b) — 5/10/2018 @ 12:14 pmWhat;s the problem with trump’s decision?
It looks like we can have our cake (Iran not tearing up the agreement) and eat it too (pressure and tghreats to get Iran to agree to more.)
Plan B is the status quo and that’s about the worst possible outcome (nothing changes)
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 5/10/2018 @ 4:34 pmLearning how to convey your message is really important. Discussing is one thing, but when you want to take control of the discussion the ability to ask questions really add more power in your opinion.
Mejores comparativas (d1f02c) — 5/11/2018 @ 2:29 am“H.J.Ansari Zarif’s senior advisor: “If Europeans stop trading with Iran and don’t put pressure on US then we will reveal which western politicians and how much money they had received during nuclear negotiations to make #IranDeal happen.”
That would be interesting.#JCPOA”
That would explain why Obama airlifted the cash and Europe is so persistent on keeping it
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 5/12/2018 @ 6:29 pmAnybody can tweet anything, Nate.
nk (dbc370) — 5/12/2018 @ 6:36 pmYes but it’s about the status of the figure oil for food was nowhere near 150 billion dollars and look how many palms were greased.
narciso (d1f714) — 5/12/2018 @ 6:45 pmEU, Clintons, Obama…..no grifters in that group
Nate Ogden (223c65) — 5/13/2018 @ 8:13 am