Republicans Admit: That Iran Letter Was a Dumb Idea

[kyredneck]

....Does anyone really believe that the United States will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? Yeah, just like North Korea!

I think the mere fact that China is involved is testament to how serious the P5+1 are to keep Iran from becoming nuclear armed. And 'The 47' has just pooped on them all.

"...On Tuesday, the day after his letter to Hezbollah’s masters became public, Cotton provided a clue about his motives: He’d had a breakfast date with the National Defense Industrial Association — a trade group for Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and the like.

You’re not allowed to know what Cotton said to the defense contractors. The event was “off the record and strictly non-attribution.” But you can bet it was what Dwight Eisenhower meant when he warned of the military-industrial complex.

The defense industry contributed more than $25 million in the 2014 election cycle and spent more than $250 million lobbying over that time period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. For the defense industry, this is a good investment: If Senate Republicans blow up nuclear talks, it makes war with Iran that much more likely — and nobody would benefit as much from that war as military contractors. …"

 

[Zaac]

It doesn't make their move any less stupid. Republican candidates could have used 'Democratic lawlessness' to their advantage, now the table is turned:

Kathleen Parker on GOP Letter

"....It must be relatively simple, as one clips along the marble halls of the Russell Senate Office Building, speaking only to those of like mind, to decide that undermining the president is a public service. Hating the president isn’t personal; it’s a national imperative! He’s not our leader, after all. Therefore, he shall not be allowed to lead. Collateral damage? Well, such is the toll we pay for truth, justice and My Way.

Yes, the preceding paragraph could as easily have been written about the president, whose approach to governance has become an executive action (or agreement, in this case) and a pen. The disorder isn’t unique to one party and is, apparently, highly contagious.

So what was the rush to tell Iran, essentially, “You’re wasting your time” ? The 47 senators are like food critics who condemn a chef before he has finished preparing the entree. Their letter also signals to the world that they have zero respect for our president, or for the other world powers attempting to try diplomacy first.

This cannot have been helpful to any but the signees’ legendary standing in their own minds.

In comments about the letter, his lips stretched a little tighter than usual, Obama suggested that the 47 were seeking “common cause” with Iran’s hard-right religious leaders.

The foregoing observations don’t mean that Republicans are wrong about their concerns. Many Democrats are concerned, too. No American disagrees that Iran is a bad actor undeserving of faith or trust. But there are other ways to accomplish our goals than profiling for political profit. The 47 may have felt like Zorro, inking their opposition with the bold felt tips of their swords, but they were acting like children at the school fair whose single purpose is to dunk the principal.

No one is jockeying for a bad deal, plainly. And everyone at the table and beyond knows that the United States and Israel will not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. Period. Thus, an attempt at a diplomatic agreement is more than a hedge against the unthinkable — a nuclear-armed Iran. It is a message to the world that, if and when we do take military action, it will be as a last resort....."

Very well said by kathleen. But those who desire to undermine the President because they elate when they can go against anything he says. It's politics over country because they know best.

Never mind that they don't get to make foreign policy. They dislike and disrespect the current President so they don't have to follow the rule of law about which they are always blabbering.

 

[carpro]

It doesn't make their move any less stupid. Republican candidates could have used 'Democratic lawlessness' to their advantage, now the table is turned:

It doesn't make Obama any more willing to give up the farm to make a deal he knows the iranians won't honor either.

Legacy building is expensive and he'll make the US pay any price. The letter did not change that.

 

[kyredneck]

Again, no point you've made makes their move any less stupid. When you're a politician public opinion is everything and the Dems will have a field day with this.... already are.

 

[Zaac]

Again, no point you've made makes their move any less stupid. When you're a politician public opinion is everything and the Dems will have a field day with this.... already are.

Yep. As they should because it really was just a stupid move.

 

[OldRegular]

I think the mere fact that China is involved is testament to how serious the P5+1 are to keep Iran from becoming nuclear armed. And 'The 47' has just pooped on them all.

"...On Tuesday, the day after his letter to Hezbollah’s masters became public, Cotton provided a clue about his motives: He’d had a breakfast date with the National Defense Industrial Association — a trade group for Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and the like.

You’re not allowed to know what Cotton said to the defense contractors. The event was “off the record and strictly non-attribution.” But you can bet it was what Dwight Eisenhower meant when he warned of the military-industrial complex.

The defense industry contributed more than $25 million in the 2014 election cycle and spent more than $250 million lobbying over that time period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. For the defense industry, this is a good investment: If Senate Republicans blow up nuclear talks, it makes war with Iran that much more likely — and nobody would benefit as much from that war as military contractors. …"

Did you and Poncho have a mind meld! You sure you two did not meet with Crabby!

 

[kyredneck]

As I've said before OR, you're the invert of an old 'yellow dog democrat', but the same in that you refuse to accept that 'the old party' is no more; it's went off and left you.

Ike was a smart man, a whole lot smarter than you, and over fifty years ago he precisely articulated the very situation the U.S. finds itself in now:

Dwight Eisenhower warns of the military-industrial complex

".....Dwight D. Eisenhower ends his presidential term by warning the nation about the increasing power of the military-industrial complex.

His remarks, issued during a televised farewell address to the American people, were particularly significant since Ike had famously served the nation as military commander of the Allied forces during WWII. Eisenhower urged his successors to strike a balance between a strong national defense and diplomacy in dealing with the Soviet Union. He did not suggest arms reduction and in fact acknowledged that the bomb was an effective deterrent to nuclear war. However, cognizant that America’s peacetime defense policy had changed drastically since his military career, Eisenhower expressed concerns about the growing influence of what he termed the military-industrial complex.

Before and during the Second World War, American industries had successfully converted to defense production as the crisis demanded, but out of the war, what Eisenhower called a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions emerged. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience Eisenhower warned, [while] we recognize the imperative need for this development we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence…The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. Eisenhower cautioned that the federal government’s collaboration with an alliance of military and industrial leaders, though necessary, was vulnerable to abuse of power. Ike then counseled American citizens to be vigilant in monitoring the military-industrial complex. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together...."

Now carry on with your petty mockery and bashing OR, this is not important to you.

 

[kyredneck]

You consistently express your deep concerns for the slaughter of the 'innocent unborn', and rightly so. But what about the 'innocent born'? What about all the innocents that are slaughtered directly as a result of the influence of this military industrial complex that spurns the diplomacy side of foreign policy? What about the future of our own innocent children and their children's children in leaving them with this crushing debt that largely came about from feeding this military industrial complex?