I think you’re obligated to come up with a substantive criticism, as opposed to “I don’t like anyone who doesn’t support Obama on this.” That is not serious argument; it’s the kind of reasoning one sees on the Real Housewives of (Wherever).
Once again, the NfbW show puts me in the uncomfortable position of pointing out that people I disagree with have views that are informed, cogent, not unreasonable, and should at least be taken seriously. The idea that the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Menendez, has not thought about his position and is unable to justify it just isn’t credible… ESPECIALLY compared to the tripe you’ve posted in this thread, in which you specifically refuse to talk about the substance of their position!
But allow me to exit this merry-go-round now. I think we all see where it’s going. Page after page of claims that we don’t understand what you’re saying, and page after page of several posters (several of whom violently disagree with each other, BTW) trying to confirm the most elementary facts, like that the letter doesn’t actaully have anything to do with the interim agreement.
Adieu. If anyone wants to turn the discussion back to actual foreign policy, that would be awesome.
Your error is obvious. You refuse to quit it. I have not argued or developed a pattern of facts to support my argument that the Summer Letter has anything to do with the interim agreement announced afterward. It does not. The letter merely contains a list of the Seventy Six Senators who many of which continued the demand for tougher sanctions in opposition to Obama’s policy request to ease up on some.
And you continue to avoid this:
What does it accomplish toward a peaceful resolution of Iran’s nuclear program for a high ranking Democrat to blatantly oppose the President’s preference for giving the interim deal a chance to play out by easing of some of the sanctions right now?
Just so we all have it right before us, here is the now infamous letter:
Emphasis added. That should look familiar, because it is exactly what the interim deal looked like. The Senate also stated that Iran needs to suspend nuclear enrichment, which wasn’t part of the interim deal, but is nothing new since UNSC Resolution 1696 from 2006 says the same thing.
What would anyone consider to the most ‘moderate’ position for Americans and their Representatives to hold with respect to Iran’s ambition to have a peaceful nuclear energy capability?
Don’t care if Iran enriches uranium to weapons grade capability.
Don’t mind enrichment to energy production levels but must not proceed to weapons capability. IAEA verification and inspection can insure the limitations are kept for peaceful energy production with all proper safeguards in place. Sanctions backed by the threat of use of military force should be used to achieve this level of assurances.
Do not want Iran to have any capability to enrich uranium for any reason. The IAEA can never fully verify and limit enrichment capability. Sanctions will not stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. The only thing that will is bombing them all the way to using tactical nuclear weapons on them.
If there are levels of a moderate opinion between these … please feel free to fill it in.
Again, that amounts to nothing more than Republicans = Bad and Democrats = Good. If Republicans had written a letter saying that Obama was the best president since George Washington, the Democrats should not “associate” themselves with that sentiment. Yeah, that makes lots and lots of sense.
Once again, instead of simply admitting you made a mistake, you continue your “argument” based on the flimsiest and least credible grounds. It’s going to be hard for the Senate to get anything done if the Democrats refuse ever to “associate” with Republicans.
I was talking to John. Kinda why I quoted him. Why he chose to answer my question with a question is another matter that does not directly involve you.
I answered your question with a statement. That’s why it ended in a period and not a question mark. The question was related to the letter, not the use of the term “neocon”. And so far, you have not answered it. Do you care to?
Is that not a question mark, then? Why are you implying some form of dishonesty on my part when that is clearly a question, not an answer.
The “answer”, in the vanishingly small chance that you don’t actually understand, is that I favor those things which could lead to a break out of peace in the Middle East. Frankly, I thought that qualified under the heading of the bleeding obvious.
I find the letter to places entirely too much stress in “tough guy” talk and damned little in the way of conciliatory gesture. It is all about what they must do to please us and not much in the way of “give”. Happily, as noted, events have passed it by and we can be hopeful if not actually optimistic.
Tell me I’m wrong, tell me I am misguided, but be so kind as not to tell me I can’t read.
Not sure what you mean by “that”. Here was the answer I gave to your question about the use of the term “neocon”. Not sure why it’s necessary to repost it, but here goes:
Nary a question mark in sight.
Not implied. Not explicit. I’m confused why you see a question mark when there is none. But, as they say, the eyes are the first thing to go, so maybe it’s just that.
Now, that is what implying dishonesty looks like!
That’s fine. I’ll only point out that the letter is to Obama, not to anyone in Iran. But, reasonable people can disagree about such things, so I don’t have any problem with your stance.
I’m just telling you there is no question mark in the response I gave to you about the “neocon” comment. Correct me if I’m wrong. I have no doubt that you “can read” in general, but I’m at a loss to explain lack of said skill in this one instance.
Note that I separated your post into two parts: one about the “neocon” issue, and one about the contents of the letter. Two separate issues. Two separate answers.
Er… Nobody said the UK or even Northern Ireland stopped being democracies during the Troubles or that the US wasn’t a democracy during the Civil War when it was split in two. Certainly if Thatcher and Lincoln led “functioning democracies” then so the governments of Lebanon and Iraq.
Beyond that, I was disputing the notion that Iran, which doesn’t have a democratically elected government was somehow more of a democracy than countries which have democratically elected governments.
Frankly, I’d have though you’d have disputed the notion put forth by Brain Glutton that Israel was the Middle East’s only functioning democracy because I assumed you didn’t consider Israel a democracy.
To me insisting Israel isn’t a democracy while wrong is certainly very defensible since the Palestinians of the West Bank aren’t allowed to be citizens despite the fact that every Israeli government since 1967 has insisted that the West Bank is part of Israel and “Israel’s eastern border is the Jordan River” and gone so far as to print maps without the green line.
Just saw on the news that one of our more famous politicians says there is only a 50/50 chance of the interim deal Obama brokered with Iran being successful. These guys need to stop with that kind of talk, and let Obama do his job. The politician in question:
Barack Obama. But you probably guessed that already.
