The GOP Senators Letter To Iran

Search

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,670
Tokens
REPORT: DEM REPS MET WITH IRANIAN REGIME TO SABOTAGE GEORGE W. BUSH

National-Iranian-American-Council-President-Trita-Parsi-AFP-640x480.jpg
AFP PHOTO/Karen BLEIER

by JORDAN SCHACHTEL11 Mar 2015Washington, D.C.154

Between 2006 and 2007, at least twelve Democratic Congressmen agreed to meet with Iranian officials in the Ayatollah’s regime at the behest of National Iranian American Council (NIAC) President Trita Parsi, according to a report by Hassan Dai of the Iranian American Forum.

Parsi allegedly solicited the help of current Iranian Defense Minister Javad Zarif, who was Iran’s Ambassador to the UN at the time. Zarif is now one of the lead negotiators for Iran’s nuclear program on behalf of the Islamic republic.

The NIAC leader—who, this report claims, was actively engaged in sabotaging American foreign policy with regard to Iran—said at the time:

These [Democratic Party] members are very disillusioned with the Bush foreign policy and are tired to sit on the sidelines as Bush undermines the US’s global position. As a result, they are willing to take matters in their own hands and they accept the political risk that comes with it.

The aforementioned email correspondence was only made available after NIAC attempted to sue Iranian journalist Hassan Dai for defamation. Dai’s work demonstrated, quite convincingly, that NIAC had allegedly become the Washington D.C. political lobby for the Iranian regime.


In 2006, Parsi and his group started a campaign called the “Iran Negotiation Project,” where NIAC would help to link up Democratic Congressmen with the state-sponsor of terrorism. Dai reports that NIAC arranged for a group of 12 Democrat “Congress members that opposed Bush’s policy toward Iran” and that they “met regularly to coordinate their efforts and planned to meet members of the Iranian parliament.”


Recently, NIAC bought a full page ad in the New York Times in a failed attempt to pressure Congress to oppose Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s March 3 speech to Congress. “In a slimy ad, pro-Iranian pressure group plays the disloyalty card,” Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe described the NIAC smear campaign against Israel.


Breitbart News has reported on NIAC’s troubling ties to the Iranian regime. Leaders of Iran’s Green Movement and other anti-regime organizations have often described NIAC as “following the path of the regime” and “lobbying secretly” for “the Islamic republic.”

 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
They should have continued working towards a veto-proof bipartisan majority. Why don't you read what Bob Corker had to say or what Jeff Flake had to say. This letter was beyond stupid.

I know you'll casually dismiss the following quote but it's 100% true....

“Before the letter, the national conversation was about Netanyahu’s speech and how Obama’s negotiations with Iran are leading to a terrible deal that could ultimately harm U.S. national security. Now, the Obama administration and its Capitol Hill partisans are cynically trying to push the conversation away from policy, and towards a deeply political pie fight over presidential and congressional prerogatives,” said a Senate Republican aide whose boss signed the letter.

Yeah right. Like that’s going to happen.

Someone could find a cure for cancer and there would be an argument over whether the FDA should immediately approve the drug or have a 20 year study first.

Our country is more divided now than in any time in my life.

I guess that’s what fundamentally changing the country means.
 

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
23,941
Tokens
Flashback: the sewer rat spammer who created this thread was cheering this on:

If President Bush won’t end the war in Iraq, when I’m president, I will.”
The New York Democrat also said she supports talking with Iran and Syria about Iraq.
“I applaud Speaker Pelosi,” she said, when asked about California Democrat Nancy Pelosi’s recent visit to Syria, despite objections from the White House.
Mrs. Clinton declined to say whether she would support a bill cutting off funding for troops in Iraq if Mr. Bush vetoes the current Senate supplemental-funding bill, which includes a timetable for withdrawal.
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,670
Tokens
and sadly at the US for having idiots in the Country who would be so treasonous)

@):mad:

Except there is no "treason" you laughable fucking liar.

No kidding.

Who's closer to having committed treason, a guy who uses a press release for a badly needed "remedial civics 101" course or a guy who's determined to give a terrorist state known for proclaiming "death to America" a 10-year path to uranium enrichment?

A-barack_obama_treasonous.png
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
45,023
Tokens
Yeah right. Like that’s going to happen.

Someone could find a cure for cancer and there would be an argument over whether the FDA should immediately approve the drug or have a 20 year study first.

Our country is more divided now than in any time in my life.

I guess that’s what fundamentally changing the country means.

but but but Obama promised to bring bipartisanship and transparency?

 

New member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
12,449
Tokens
but but but Obama promised to bring bipartisanship and transparency?


Politics as usual, no matter who we vote for. Lie, lie, lie, cheat, steal, lie, lie, pocket money, lie, steal, screw American's for votes, lie.... goes on and on now days.

That's the typical Washington DC crowd now, and with each passing year it keeps getting worse and worse, as they push it farther and farther.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
6,748
Tokens
Yeah right. Like that’s going to happen.

Someone could find a cure for cancer and there would be an argument over whether the FDA should immediately approve the drug or have a 20 year study first.

Our country is more divided now than in any time in my life.

I guess that’s what fundamentally changing the country means.

Well, Lindsey Graham and Bob Corker seemed to think it would. I tend to think they have a better pulse on where the Senate Democrats stand than you and Joe.
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,670
Tokens
Iranian President: Diplomacy With U.S. is an Active ‘Jihad’

Diplomacy just as significant as new weapons, missiles

Hassan Rouhani / AP

BY: Adam Kredo
March 12, 2015 5:00 am


Iranian President Hassan Rouhani described his country’s diplomacy with the United States as an active “jihad” that is just as significant to Tehran’s advancement as the slew of new weapons and missiles showcased by the Islamic Republic’s military.

Rouhani praised the country’s military leaders for standing “against the enemy on the battlefield” and said as president, he would carry out this “jihad” on the diplomatic front.

Iran has made headway in convincing the U.S. to allow it to maintain much of its core infrastructure through diplomatic talks that Rouhani said are viewed as a “jihad.”

“While Rouhani talks about a ‘win-win’ nuclear deal to global audiences, his comments make clear that he continues to view the U.S. an antagonistic global oppressor that must be triumphed over, in this case by a diplomatic ‘jihad,’” Shamir said. “This is clearly not the language of a moderate or of a regime with which rapprochement is at all realistic.”

As Rouhani and Zarif grandstand on the nuclear front, Iranian military leaders have begun to unveil a host of new missiles and sea-based weapons.

On Wednesday, the State Department said any final deal with Iran was “nonbinding,” meaning that neither party would be legally obliged to uphold the agreement.

:puppy:
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,391
Tokens
Been busy with work for the last few days.

As I scroll through this thread, I think the following video is the best way to describe Guesser's contributions. I'll put it in rasslin' language so he'll understand...he's basically playing the role of Vince McMahon, and this is how several other posters much smarter than him have treated him:

 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,670
Tokens
Yeah right. Like that’s going to happen.

Someone could find a cure for cancer and there would be an argument over whether the FDA should immediately approve the drug or have a 20 year study first.

Our country is more divided now than in any time in my life.

I guess that’s what fundamentally changing the country means.

Hussein has gone rogue, pretty much getting away with any illegality he wants and people like Mantis are whining about 'bipartisanship'
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
6,748
Tokens
Hussein has gone rogue, pretty much getting away with any illegality he wants and people like Mantis are whining about 'bipartisanship'

Where did I "whine about bipartisanship". This is why I can't talk to you. As I said yesterday, you're either dishonest or irrational. Lately, it seems like both. You're as difficult to deal with as Guesser.
 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
Hussein has gone rogue, pretty much getting away with any illegality he wants and people like Mantis are whining about 'bipartisanship'

You know bipartisanship is a bad deal if Liberals want it.

Hell, the GOP can’t even agree on what they want to do.
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,670
Tokens
You know bipartisanship is a bad deal if Liberals want it.

Hell, the GOP can’t even agree on what they want to do.

If you look at the political landscape removing yourself from the partisan prism of Democrats vs Republicans, there are really THREE political parties: The Communists, The Establishment and Conservatives. The Establishment caucuses with the Communists while the rest of America gets screwed.

Progressive ideology is about creating "new norms", while the Establishment supports the new status-quo.

'R' or 'D' same shit, different pile, same end result = country moves further left
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,670
Tokens
HOW BARACK OBAMA UNDERCUT BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S NUCLEAR NEGOTIATIONS WITH IRAN

In 2008, the Bush administration, along with the “six powers,” was negotiating with Iran concerning that country’s nuclear arms program. The Bush administration’s objective was to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. On July 20, 2008, the New York Timesheadlined: “Nuclear Talks With Iran End in a Deadlock.” What caused the talks to founder? The Times explained:

Iran responded with a written document that failed to address the main issue: international demands that it stop enriching uranium. And Iranian diplomats reiterated before the talks that they considered the issue nonnegotiable.


The Iranians held firm to their position, perhaps because they knew that help was on the way, in the form of a new president. Barack Obama had clinched the Democratic nomination on June 3. At some point either before or after that date, but prior to the election, he secretly let the Iranians know that he would be much easier to bargain with than President Bush.Michael Ledeen reported the story last year:


During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.



So Obama secretly told the mullahs not to make a deal until he assumed the presidency, when they would be able to make a better agreement. Which is exactly what happened: Obama abandoned the requirement that Iran stop enriching uranium, so that Iran’s nuclear program has sped ahead over the months and years that negotiations have dragged on. When an interim agreement in the form of a “Joint Plan of Action” was announced in late 2013, Iran’s leaders exulted in the fact that the West had acknowledged its right to continue its uranium enrichment program:


“The (nuclear) program will continue and all the sanctions and violations against the Iranian nation under the pretext of the nuclear program will be removed gradually,” [Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif] added. …

“Iran’s enrichment program has been recognized both in the first step and in the goals section and in the final step as well,” Zarif said.
“The fact that all these pressures have failed to cease Iran’s enrichment program is a very important success for the Iranian nation’s resistance,” he added.

So Obama delivered the weak agreement that he had secretly promised the mullahs.

In view of these events, it is deeply ironic that the Democrats are accusing 47 Republican senators of undermining Obama’s position in the negotiations for a final agreement. Unlike Obama, they have done nothing in secret. They have published an “open letter” that is intended for the Obama administration and the American people as much as for Iran’s leaders. The letter spells out basic truths relating to our Constitution and the Senate’s role in ratifying treaties. Unlike Obama’s secret overture to Iran, the GOP senators aren’t discouraging Iran from dealing with Obama so that they can get a better deal later. On the contrary, their letter strengthens Obama’s bargaining position. He can say, “Even if I wanted to, I can’t give in on nuclear enrichment. It would never get through the Senate.” But of course, that isn’t what Obama wants to do. He wants to agree to a weak deal that will allow Iran to become a nuclear power. The Democrats are upset because the senators’ letter shines the light of truth on the Obama administration’s plan to give away the store.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/03/how-barack-obama-undercut-bush-administrations-nuclear-negotiations-with-iran.php
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,121,026
Messages
13,590,282
Members
101,045
Latest member
nigeldee
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com