It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: [post=19114346]ProfessorChaos
I do, however, feel that the letter was pointless, as they could have either had the next President simply void the deal, or pressured the next President to do so, depending on said next President's party affiliation.
Strategically, the letter was ill-timed, and fruitless, as it will most likely become a Security Council agreement that will have more far-reaching effects should the U.S. decide to try to step away from it in the future.
The U.S. media have been sadly incurious about the origins of yesterday’s unprecedented Open Letter of 47 Republicans to the Iranian leadership seeking to block the president’s likely deal with Iran. The press has portrayed the letter as the work of Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, a 37-year-old freshman senator so new to the limelight that the New York Times got his name wrong on first impression. But as a Times commenter writes, “Does anyone really believe the ‘freshman senator from Arkansas’ wrote the letter? No.”
The media are all over the unprecedented nature of the letter — which informs Iranian hardliners that Obama’s likely deal with Iran is a “mere executive agreement.” Chris Matthews and Chris Hayes and Michael Steele on MSNBC last night all expressed outrage or surprise. Paul Waldman at the Washington Post calls the letter “stunning” and “appalling.” But apart from a passing reference to neocons from Matthews, no one is looking under the hood.
I don’t know who wrote the letter, but I can tell you whose fingerprints are on it: the only folks who are supporting it publicly, the hard-right Israel lobby. Even as Cotton himself splutters on national television, rightwing lobby groups are the main voices out there defending the letter.
Like Bill Kristol of the Emergency Committee for Israel:
Cotton open letter: “Just so you know, we’re a constitutional democracy. Congress (or next president) has a say.” Dem response: Hysteria.
J Street’s Dylan Williams fingers Bill Kristol for writing the letter:
Who gave @SenTomCotton & others the awful idea for the Iran letter? Seems like Sarah Palin-for-VP-level bad advice doesn’t it @BillKristol ?
There’s a reason for Williams’s suspicion. Kristol’s Emergency Committee for Israel gave Tom Cotton nearly $1 million in his race for the Senate just five months ago, Eli Clifton reported. “Cotton received $960,250 in supportive campaign advertising in the last month.” (Thanks to Kay24 in comments).
Cotton also got $165,000 from Elliott Management Paul Singer’s hedge fund. Singer is the billionaire who is trying to stop Obama’s Iran talks (Clifton’s reporting again). He funds the Israel Project too– Josh Block’s efforts.
...
originally posted by: queenofswords
Just want to put this out there for information purposes for those that may not already know this. That open letter to Iran was not "sent" to Iran. It was an open letter posted on Cotton's website.
An Inconvenient Truth
originally posted by: Iamthatbish
I was actually embarrassed too. For our entire country. These are publicly elected officials. That means their signature stands for literally thousands of people!
originally posted by: Cuervo
originally posted by: Granite
originally posted by: Metallicus
Now Obama knows how the country feels about him being our President, except embarrassed doesn't even adequately convey the shame.
I call Obozo the "double-down" gambler:
• Iran turns down his nuke delay deal, Obozo "double-down's" and goes to the UN with his failed plan instead of working on tougher sanctions.
• His 2012 re-election team tells him his promise of $2500 reduction in policy is impossible and recommends he admit the real cost, Obozo "double-down's" says no we will deal with it later... in seven years!
I could go on and on with examples because never once has he said "okay, let's work together on a solution".
"I'm embarrassed" indeed Obozo indeed...
I don't think you understand the expression or use of "double-down". Doubling-down is when something doesn't work (like incorrectly using the term "double-down") and, instead of backing off or doing something different, the person compounds it with a more extreme version of what they just did (like your even worse usage of double-down on your second example).
originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: queenofswords
And their bank accounts and the defense contractors they represent who want to keep sending Americans to war thank you right back!
originally posted by: NavyDoc
originally posted by: Cuervo
originally posted by: Granite
originally posted by: Metallicus
Now Obama knows how the country feels about him being our President, except embarrassed doesn't even adequately convey the shame.
I call Obozo the "double-down" gambler:
• Iran turns down his nuke delay deal, Obozo "double-down's" and goes to the UN with his failed plan instead of working on tougher sanctions.
• His 2012 re-election team tells him his promise of $2500 reduction in policy is impossible and recommends he admit the real cost, Obozo "double-down's" says no we will deal with it later... in seven years!
I could go on and on with examples because never once has he said "okay, let's work together on a solution".
"I'm embarrassed" indeed Obozo indeed...
I don't think you understand the expression or use of "double-down". Doubling-down is when something doesn't work (like incorrectly using the term "double-down") and, instead of backing off or doing something different, the person compounds it with a more extreme version of what they just did (like your even worse usage of double-down on your second example).
Okay, let's get this straight. Dissension was patriotic when evil-Bush-Hitler was president but now its treasonous when Obamamessiah is president? AmIrite?