Senate The US Politics discussion

I'm trying to figure out how the GOP thinks they are going to do away with this Iran deal when 5 other countries were involved with the oversight.

 

Yeah, that was a typo.

Let me clarify my comments.

One of my parents' closest friends (now retired), is a GS15 non-political Defense Department analyst. His career involved access to not only sensitive material, but a great deal of gossip. He regularly went to the White House for briefings and has spoken with every President from Carter to Bush (he retired before Obama). Our families used to take trips together most summers, and my late father, who loved politics, would always get into deep conversations with him. As I got older and became able to participate, I was included in these discussions.

In the summer leading up to the 2000 elections, we all went to Hilton Head island for 10 days. Politics were discussed. One evening, after dinner, walking on the beach (men in one group, women in another), he let slip that preliminary plans were being 'discussed' by individuals working closely with W's campaign (and under the direction of Dick Cheney, with whom this individual was friendly) for shifting public opinion towards justifying an invasion of Iraq. Mr. Cheney, whom our friend interacted with on a regular basis, was convinced Saddam was up to no good, and a great deal of effort was being expended behind-the-scenes to lay the political ground work for what many Republicans at the time apparently felt would be an inevitable confrontation.

According to our friend, Colin Powell was very against this (they worked together closely at the Pentagon and my friend had even been to Secretary Powell's house for dinner), although ultimately, his voice was drowned out by the neocons.

Now, this is all hearsay, of course, but I trust this person, and have no reason not to believe him. My point, simply stated, is that long before W was declared the winner, the decision had already been made to go to war. It frightens me, actually, to listen to the drums being beat by the GOP now, considering the subtlety with which the initial ground had been laid for Iraq (at least until 9/11; that shifted the focus to 'make it Saddam's fault, and never mind the truth'--also from my friend), and the fact that the GOP field, in large part, is practically salivating in public to go after Iran.

I sincerely believe, if a Republican President takes office in 2017, even if the Senate goes back to the Dems, that there will be some kind of military action in the Middle East. I also believe that in many of the campaigns, the decision may also have already been made, if not directly, then at least on an unconscious level. It's clear that the GOP feels Iran can never be trusted, at least not until they have been properly humiliated at the hands of the US, which is not going to happen.

I hope I'm mistaken, but it feels similar to back then. At least in my gut.

Peace,

V-03

 

That's because Reagan was senile and the silence was out of pity.


Yeah the more I read about him, the less I like.

 

Because the names of those countries do not begin with the letters USA?

 

Which they conflate with American exclusivism.

 

The Iran deal combines multiple things a lot of Republicans hate, including the uppity black man striking again, and at one of their favorite things. That thing is military power, coupled with a dislike/hatred of anyone that isn't white (which goes a long way toward explaining contempt for Iran). Some of them don't want a deal specifically because they would rather batter Iran into submission militarily.

 

That hit the nail right on the head. One of the best op-eds I've read in quite a while. Strikingly accurate and perceptive. Bookmarked.

 

Oops

 

I think it is very easy to discuss the Republican drumbeat for war with Iran, given how cartoonishly over the top they've been about the whole thing. What's harder to appreciate is they way that inertia and conventional thinking were leading to precisely the same place. Up until this Presidency--and for most people except this President--the twin premises of US policy on this issue is that Iran would be prevented from weaponizing nuclear technology and that the US refused to negotiate with Iran. That basically demands military action. Thus, when a few weeks ago, Clinton could offer no stronger statement than saying something should be done to "put a lid" on the Iranian nuclear program, without specifically endorsing the idea of ongoing negotiations, it as much favored war as one of Tom Cotton's typically bloodthirsty press releases.

This is an object lesson. Too much of the time, we talk about the conventional wisdom as if it is the safest or most viable path. It often isn't. As this episode demonstrates, it is enormously more destructive and harmful than the alternative we actually achieved. Just because people don't perceive a proposal as radical does not mean it's consequences aren't. A responsible leader should recognize that difference, and act accordingly.

 

Wocky, you do realize that Clinton has publicly endorsed the deal, and that the US stands far less chance of going to war with Iran with her in the White House than anyone in the GOP field, sans Rand Paul?

I know you like to take any opportunity to bash her, but still....

 

It is enormously easier to support something that is already successfully completed than to support something with a risk of failure. That's something she never did. Just like she didn't with the Asian trade deal, and still hasn't done with the Keystone XL pipeline.

Besides, you've missed the whole point of my post. Your statement isn't actually very true. If one's policy positions lead logically to war, that's probably what will happen. Whether you are cheerleading for that outcome or acting distraught about it is an aside. You're still pushing things in that direction.

 

Wocky -- Clinton has a Jewish problem, so her statements don't bother me in the least. Israel should be well in line by the time the field is set, so there was no downside to her making those comments at all.

 

I really don't want another war. We're trillions in debt.

 

Wocky, you seemed to miss the point of my post, as well.

I'm not "for" war, never have been (where in my post did I say I was for pushing us in that direction?). The fact that Clinton is calculating to a fault still doesn't change that from a policy standpoint, she is far less likely to attack Iran than any one of the GOP field.

We're on the same side here.

On another note, I think the Democrats should also point out that should the US pre-emptively strike Iran, +/- Israel in tow, we're very likely going to be facing Russian weapons, if not initially, then in any wider conflict. Putin has already made clear his intention to sell the S-300 anti-missile system to Iran, which can take down all but America's most advanced aircraft. If it comes down to shooting, he'll probably supply advanced anti-ship weapons to Tehran, as well.

American deaths at the hands of directly-supplied Russian arms sounds like a recipe for WWIII, especially with a hawk in the White House.

Peace,

V-03

 

Wocky didn't write that you are for war. Your position on the matter was never addressed. What he pointed out was that Hillary had not made any supporting statements about the negotiations until they concluded successfully; and that when asked about Iran prior to this, would just vaguely respond that Iran's nuclear program must be taken care of, with no details as to how. These are strong indicators that she didn't, and wouldn't have had once in power, the fortitude to go against conventional wisdom. Finally, his point in all this was that it doesn't matter if she doesn't personally want war if she reluctantly allows it to happen because of not daring to oppose it. The practical tangible effect would be the same.

 

Does Putin want war with the U.S.?

 

Yes.

 

I'm not so sure about that.

 

Probably not, what he most likely want is weakened U.S.A. that don't "interfere" with what he see as "Russia's interests" but at the same time he don't want U.S.A. to disappear since that would create instability or even chaos which is something he don't want and there are also many things that U.S.A. produce that Russia wants.

 

Again, your not accounting for the fact that we have absolutely no indication Clinton would ever have tried for a negotiated/diplomatic solution if left to her own devices. If she was too politically weak--or, more precisely, to self-preserving--to risk even a comment, but has happy in years past to talk about how she would not negotiate, how are you imagining she ever would have? And if she would not have negotiated, how exactly would she have prevented war?

It's not enough to say she is "less likely" to start one than Ted Cruz or Lindsey Graham. The question is how likely she was to do it at all.

Insofar as I'm aware, neither you nor I are paid consultants for the Clinton campaign. Outside of that narrow context, I have no idea what "no downside whatsoever" means. I know very well there is no political downside to being tepid in your support for diplomacy with Tehran, or even for bashing it outright. That's the premise of my whole post. Sometimes politically expedient positions aren't good policy. This was one of them. How does Clinton handle those situations? As a citizen who has to live through the policy consequences of her executive decisions, I can see plenty of downside.