Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 Arguably the diplomatic act that had the greatest lasting benefit to our economy was Nixon's opening up relations with China. You mean by gutting our manufacturing sector and ballooning trade deficits?
Tiberius Posted January 27, 2016 Author Posted January 27, 2016 Arguably the diplomatic act that had the greatest lasting benefit to our economy was Nixon's opening up relations with China. By the time old Tricky Dick was done, we had more Communists on our side of the Cold War than the Russians did! Might be saying too much, but it could be argued Nixon is the one that won the Cold War.
B-Man Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 New details released on Iran-prisoner swap, and it just got worse Reuters is reporting that Nader Modanlo, an Iranian-American businessman who was convicted of taking a $10 million payment from Iran in exchange for his help in brokering a deal between Iran and Russia to launch a satellite, apparently gets to keep the cash as part of the prisoner swap deal: Reuters Top NewsVerified account @Reuters 15h15 hours ago Exclusive: The White House dropped a $10 million claim to sweeten the Iran prisoner deal. http://reut.rs/1QCIcqi pic.twitter.com/AY5CVz3Qvx According to Reuters, Modanlo refused the Obama administration’s first offer of clemency and had to “sweeten” the offer by offering to drop its claim on the cash: So much for "We don't negotiate with terrorists." .
Chef Jim Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/183809-new-orleans-to-remove-excremental-rebel-monuments/?p=3858928
B-Man Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 CHANGE — DEMOCRATS’ SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL PLUNGED TEN POINTS SINCE 2014: Back in 1992 when Bill Clinton was running against George H.W. Bush, if Israel was your issue, you voted for Clinton because he was rightly viewed as more pro-Israel than Bush. Twenty-four years ago, supporting Israel carried no cost for Clinton. According to Gallup, in 1992, 52 percent of Democrats were pro-Israel. On the other hand, Bush was probably harmed somewhat for the widespread perception that he was anti-Israel. In 1992, 62% of Republicans were pro-Israel. Over the past 15 years, the situation has altered considerably. Today, Republicans are near unanimous in their support for Israel. According to a Gallup poll from February 2015, 83% of Republicans support Israel. Only 48% of Democrats do. From 2014 to 2015, Democratic support for Israel plunged 10 points. The cleavage on Israel is particularly acute among partisan elites. As Caroline Glick writes, “Part of the reason Obama is acting with such urgency and intensity is that he knows that regardless of who is elected to replace him, the next president will not be as viscerally hostile to Israel or as emotionally attached to Islam as he is.” That really would be a welcome change. Read the whole thing. Related: A February 2015 post at the Israel Matzav blog titled “Can’t say we didn’t warn you: Most Democrats don’t sympathize with Israel” has the Gallup poll chart illustrating the plunge that Glick describes above .
Doc Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 CHANGE — DEMOCRATS’ SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL PLUNGED TEN POINTS SINCE 2014: Back in 1992 when Bill Clinton was running against George H.W. Bush, if Israel was your issue, you voted for Clinton because he was rightly viewed as more pro-Israel than Bush. Twenty-four years ago, supporting Israel carried no cost for Clinton. According to Gallup, in 1992, 52 percent of Democrats were pro-Israel. On the other hand, Bush was probably harmed somewhat for the widespread perception that he was anti-Israel. In 1992, 62% of Republicans were pro-Israel. Over the past 15 years, the situation has altered considerably. Today, Republicans are near unanimous in their support for Israel. According to a Gallup poll from February 2015, 83% of Republicans support Israel. Only 48% of Democrats do. From 2014 to 2015, Democratic support for Israel plunged 10 points. The cleavage on Israel is particularly acute among partisan elites. As Caroline Glick writes, “Part of the reason Obama is acting with such urgency and intensity is that he knows that regardless of who is elected to replace him, the next president will not be as viscerally hostile to Israel or as emotionally attached to Islam as he is.” That really would be a welcome change. Read the whole thing. Related: A February 2015 post at the Israel Matzav blog titled “Can’t say we didn’t warn you: Most Democrats don’t sympathize with Israel” has the Gallup poll chart illustrating the plunge that Glick describes above And a lot of Dems are Jews.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 And a lot of Dems are Jews. You have that backwards. A majority of Jews are Dems, but I'd wager they make up a tiny fraction of the party....Easily outnumbered by non-Jews.
3rdnlng Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 CHANGE — DEMOCRATS’ SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL PLUNGED TEN POINTS SINCE 2014: Back in 1992 when Bill Clinton was running against George H.W. Bush, if Israel was your issue, you voted for Clinton because he was rightly viewed as more pro-Israel than Bush. Twenty-four years ago, supporting Israel carried no cost for Clinton. According to Gallup, in 1992, 52 percent of Democrats were pro-Israel. On the other hand, Bush was probably harmed somewhat for the widespread perception that he was anti-Israel. In 1992, 62% of Republicans were pro-Israel. Over the past 15 years, the situation has altered considerably. Today, Republicans are near unanimous in their support for Israel. According to a Gallup poll from February 2015, 83% of Republicans support Israel. Only 48% of Democrats do. From 2014 to 2015, Democratic support for Israel plunged 10 points. The cleavage on Israel is particularly acute among partisan elites. As Caroline Glick writes, “Part of the reason Obama is acting with such urgency and intensity is that he knows that regardless of who is elected to replace him, the next president will not be as viscerally hostile to Israel or as emotionally attached to Islam as he is.” That really would be a welcome change. Read the whole thing. Related: A February 2015 post at the Israel Matzav blog titled “Can’t say we didn’t warn you: Most Democrats don’t sympathize with Israel” has the Gallup poll chart illustrating the plunge that Glick describes above . From your link: On Wednesday the US media interrupted its saturation coverage of the presidential primaries to report on President Barack Obama’s visit to a mosque in Maryland. The visit was Obama’s first public one to a mosque in the US since entering the White House seven years ago. The mosque Obama chose to visit demonstrated once again that his views of radical Islam are deeply problematic. Obama visited the Islamic Society of Baltimore, a mosque with longstanding ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. During Operation Protective Edge, the leaders of the mosque accused Israel of genocide and demanded that the administration end US support for the Jewish state. According to The Daily Caller, the mosque’s former imam Mohammad Adam el-Sheikh was active in the Islamic American Relief Agency, a charity deemed a terror group in 2004 after the US Treasury Department determined it had transferred funds to Osama bin Laden, Hamas, al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. El-Sheikh left the Baltimore mosque to take over the Dar el-Hijra mosque in northern Virginia. He replaced Anwar al-Awlaki as imam after Awlaki moved to Yemen in 2003. In Yemen Awlaki rose to become a senior al-Qaida commander. Awlaki radicalized many American jihadists both through direct contact and online. He radicalized US Army major Nidal Malik Hasan, and inspired him to carry out the 2009 massacre of 13 US soldiers and civilians at Fort Hood in Texas. Awlaki was killed by a US drone strike in 2011. In 2010, a member of the Islamic Society of Baltimore was arrested for planning to attack an army recruiting office. According to the Mediaite news portail, the mosque reportedly refused to cooperate with the FBI in its investigation. Obama’s visit to the radical mosque now is a clear signal of how he intends to spend his last year in office. It tells us that during this period, Obama will adopt ever more extreme positions regarding radical Islam.
B-Man Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 THIS SEEMS LIKE A BIG DEAL: Exclusive: Whistleblowers Warned Top Spy About Skewed ISIS Intel: It wasn’t just the generals who were warned that ISIS intelligence assessments were overly rosy. The office of the director of national intelligence knew, too. Related: Clapper knew. White House knew. NSC knew. They ALL knew. Background here: Obama’s Messy Iraq Intelligence Scandal.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 THIS SEEMS LIKE A BIG DEAL: Exclusive: Whistleblowers Warned Top Spy About Skewed ISIS Intel: It wasnt just the generals who were warned that ISIS intelligence assessments were overly rosy. The office of the director of national intelligence knew, too. Related: Clapper knew. White House knew. NSC knew. They ALL knew. Background here: Obamas Messy Iraq Intelligence Scandal. But obama said they were the J-V team?
B-Man Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 CHANGE: Voting underway in Iran elections with moderates forced to the sidelines. I had been assured by no less than the U.S. President and the Secretary of State that signing a deal with Iran concerning that country’s nuclear program would empower the moderates there.
Tiberius Posted February 26, 2016 Author Posted February 26, 2016 CHANGE: Voting underway in Iran elections with moderates forced to the sidelines. I had been assured by no less than the U.S. President and the Secretary of State that signing a deal with Iran concerning that country’s nuclear program would empower the moderates there. Let's hope the moderates gain more control there. That will be a big step towards a more integrated and friendly global economy. Voters are choosing a new parliament and Assembly of Experts, a clerical body that appoints the Supreme Leader. Reformists are hoping to increase their influence in both institutions, which have been dominated by conservatives. The outcome could affect reformist President Hassan Rouhani's chances of re-election in 2017. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35666107
Tiberius Posted February 26, 2016 Author Posted February 26, 2016 Really good Guardian piece on what's going with Iranian election. Moderates in jail, reformers uniting, Conservatives trying to stir up foreign hobgoblins, ahhh...election time. Looks like the Iranians are learning http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/26/election-day-arrives-in-iran-with-reformists-well-organised-to-seek-gains
Deranged Rhino Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35681250
Tiberius Posted February 28, 2016 Author Posted February 28, 2016 Sounds like good news, let's hope it translates into a more peaceful stance in world affairs
B-Man Posted March 29, 2016 Posted March 29, 2016 Not fearing Obama’s ‘snap back’, Iran openly develops Nuclear Missile Delivery Capability Remember the famous ‘snapping back’ of sanctions that President Obama promised last year if Iran were to violate the Nuclear Agreement? The New York Times had hailed the ‘snap back’ as a diplomatic masterstroke, writing “snapback mechanism [to reimpose sanctions on Iran] is one of the most unusual parts of the deal. In the event that Iran is perceived as violating it, the agreement allows the full raft of penalties to resume automatically.” Well guess what, Iran continues to violate the Nuclear Deal and President Obama’s ‘full raft’ is nowhere to be seen. Obama Administration has instead responded reluctantly to Islamic Republic of Iran’s repeated testing of ballistic missiles capable to carrying nuclear warheads by blacklisting a handful of Iranian companies. (more…)
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 29, 2016 Posted March 29, 2016 Not fearing Obama’s ‘snap back’, Iran openly develops Nuclear Missile Delivery Capability Remember the famous ‘snapping back’ of sanctions that President Obama promised last year if Iran were to violate the Nuclear Agreement? The New York Times had hailed the ‘snap back’ as a diplomatic masterstroke, writing “snapback mechanism [to reimpose sanctions on Iran] is one of the most unusual parts of the deal. In the event that Iran is perceived as violating it, the agreement allows the full raft of penalties to resume automatically.” Well guess what, Iran continues to violate the Nuclear Deal and President Obama’s ‘full raft’ is nowhere to be seen. Obama Administration has instead responded reluctantly to Islamic Republic of Iran’s repeated testing of ballistic missiles capable to carrying nuclear warheads by blacklisting a handful of Iranian companies. (more…) That fool. I hate him. I don't dislike him. I don't disagree with him. I hate him for what he's done as commander in chief. That deal alone was a seismic diplomatic disaster, and easily the worst of many bad things he's done as president.
4merper4mer Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) That fool. I hate him. I don't dislike him. I don't disagree with him. I hate him for what he's done as commander in chief. That deal alone was a seismic diplomatic disaster, and easily the worst of many bad things he's done as president. How do you feel about his Secretary of State? Pictured below: Edited March 30, 2016 by 4merper4mer
Doc Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 "Snap back"? Who comes up with these inane catchphrases? Val?
DC Tom Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 "Snap back"? Who comes up with these inane catchphrases? Val? Kal Penn. Of course, he worked for Val. Really, it probably comes out of that office...someone tasked with creating catch-phrases that resonate with the Selfie Generation ("Hey...it sounds like 'Snapchat!'" The President really understands us!")
Recommended Posts