Pig F**king Traitors: the GOP

[Who]

The Iranians are the world's all-time leaders in exporting state-funded terrorism around the globe. They are involved in a number of proxy wars through their terrorist organizations. They are responsible for  most American deaths during our time in the Middle East. They refer to the U.S. as "The Great Satan" and speak openly about wiping our closest ally in the Middle East (despite Dear Leader's best efforts) off the planet. They have no intention whatsoever of ever telling us the truth about anything, or agreeing to any treaties when it does not benefit them, or, if they can get away with secretly reneging on it. And they have said as much!

For anybody to rationally come to the conclusion that this regime is not interested in acquiring a nuclear Arsenal, and wouldn't' do ANYTHING to achieve that, is either profoundly naive or absence of the facts.You CAN NOT negotiate with these people in any normal manner. And you certainly DO NOT have the Executive branch involved in face-to-face direct negotiations. No, what you do is merely inform them of what horror will visit them if they do not give the UN absolute unfettered access to every square inch of their nuclear development and industrial facilities ...and MEAN it. THAT is how you negotiate with those clowns.

The US and Israel, independently or in concert, could turn Iran into a smoking parking lot and the Iranians know it.  The younger generations of Iranians are pro-western.  It's only a matter of time until the bearded geezers presently running the country die or are forced out. When that happens, Iran will become a dependable Western ally. 

The best way to permanently alienate the younger Iranians would be to join Benjamin Netanyahu in a military strike on Iran.  At best, it would slow Iran's development of nuclear weapons five years.  It would alienate the pro-western younger generation of Iranians forever.

P.S.  I'm only in the politics forum until the next Falkie video surfaces.  Then I'm back to the Wonderful World of Falkie.

[PB the Deplorable]

Regardless of the right or wrong approach to Iran, the problems the GOP perceive with the administration are internal.  Any problems they have with the structure of government or interpretation of the constitution must be dealt with internally.  And regardless of what they think, a united front must be presented in international dealings.  Going behind the President's back to a foreign power and attempting to countermand him is mutiny.  It's treason, and presenting a divided front is plain stupid and a selfish way to achieve partison agenda.

I think we stopped presenting a united front to the world during the Vietnam War.  Certainly during the Reagan Presidency.  If the D's want to get back to that, they should say so, and abide by it if and when they lose the White House.  But any treaty will still need to be ratified by the Senate

More important than 'presenting a united front' to the world in conducting foreign policy is adhering to our Constitution.  Obama's plan to enact this treaty by calling it an 'Executive Order' rather than a Treaty is the problem here, not the Senate Republicans.  And that's before considering the contents of the thing.

There have been plenty of treaties over the years that were not ratified.  Or that the Senate amended and were sent back to the President and his negotiating partners (to get around this, now they are often put on the 'fast track', i.e., an up or down vote with no amendments).  Many were simply not brought up for debate or a vote, and expired.  It's hardly 'mutiny' or 'treason', depending on the treaty it may or may not be 'stupid', 'selfish', or even 'partisan' - but it is Constitutional.  Separation of Powers is extremely important to our freedom, it's certainly more important than Obama and his ego

As far as the 'Advise' part of the Constitutional clause, it makes sense for a President to work with the Senate while he's negotiating (or before negotiations), so he will know in advance what they can support.  Too bad we don't have a President either willing or able to work with others at this time.

The Senate is not going behind the President's back.  They aren't trying to negotiate in his place.  They are simply reminding the Iranian regime that they have a say in any treaty, and the Treaty is meaningless without their consent.  It's providing them with information.   And perhaps saving us from this destructive President and his plan to allow a nuclear Iran

[PB the Deplorable]

i don't mean to suggest it necessarily does.  i'm only speaking to our overall philosophy in dealing with these types of countries... iran, north korea, etc..  i know next to nothing about this treaty...

We're probably not that far apart

... regime change will be great if it's from within, but a meddling outside force tends not to work very well based on what history, both recent and distant, has shown us.  the bigger question is, why can't we seem to learn from our mistakes?...

Like the regime changes at the end of WWI and WWII?  Or after the fall of the Berlin Wall?  There have been plenty of positive changes in the leadership in countries around the world over the past 70 years - many aided by the US.  Many with little or no violence

It has been US policy during the post war period (1945-present) to encourage democracy among dictatorships, and strangle (economically, politically, diplomatically, and sometimes militarily) totalitarian governments that seek expansion.  That has worked quite well for us, and for the people of the world.  Iran falls into the totalitarian/expansionist category now.

The world changed with the fall of the USSR, and the rise of a capitalist China.  The Western democracies are still trying to find their way in dealing with the rest of the world now that it is no longer bi, or tri-polar.  We do meddle too much at times (invading Iraq was a massive blunder), and at other times let atrocities go unchecked when perhaps we should have acted (Rwanda, currently with ISIS). 

It's case by case, cost/benefit - the problem is our elected officials in Congress and in the White House too often have little or no foreign policy experience, and don't listen to the people who do - inside the government and outside of it.

The mistakes will stop when we start to elect better people.

... this is the arrogance of modern american foreign policy.  the US government should always be willing to talk with other regimes if those regimes are willing to talk with us.  we can't be so proud as to cut off communication with another government because... god forbid... it might give them legitimacy.  that's just playground cave-man thinking.  their government is in power, regardless of our opinion on the matter, so let's deal with them...

Oh, we should absolutely talk if they want.  But getting an invite to the White House is to be earned.  If anyone out there decides to change, even incrementally, we should listen and encourage.  Again, that's been US foreign policy all along.

But we are talking about regimes that want to be 'friends', that want to be a part of the international community in good standing.  We shouldn't be propping up or appeasing those who don't - that is the lesson we should learn from history.

... let's make friends of them.  let's change their culture through peaceful trade and transparency.  we've been trying it your way for a long time, and i'm not impressed by the results...

We can only make friends, have peaceful trade, etc if they want it.  Not everyone does. 

And it's not MY way, it's been bi-partisan US policy.  It's easy to point to policy failures or things that didn't work out as we hoped, but there have been many more successes than failures - it's just that they aren't what is controversial and thus in the headlines.  I will agree we've been going backwards for awhile now, frankly the past at least 3 presidents have done a very poor job of it.

But just look around the world at all the democracies and other countries with better governments.  That didn't happen by itself.

... countries that trade with one another usually don't bomb one another.  it establishes lines of communication that might not otherwise exist, which creates new opportunities to resolve conflict through peaceful means...

Like Russia and her neighbors?  China and hers?  The Islamic world?  Africa?  I wish it worked that way, things would be so much easier

[Gd5150]

Looking forward to the details of the deal Obama puts on the table. Rumors are Iran is making almost no concessions and the US is bending over. So setting the table to toss the deal before Air Force 1 is back in Washington was an outstanding move and nice to see Democrats get a taste of their own meds. No sense in pretending this deal is going to fly when its not. Elections have consequences, and Republicans control Washington. 

[Zoo]

Fucking Democrats did the same fucking thing. The true traitors is the American people for letting the government fuck us over and over and doing nothing about it!!1

[FightTheFuture]

The US and Israel, independently or in concert, could turn Iran into a smoking parking lot and the Iranians know it.  The younger generations of Iranians are pro-western.  It's only a matter of time until the bearded geezers presently running the country die or are forced out. When that happens, Iran will become a dependable Western ally. 

Trust me, the religious zealots are blissfully content to burn the whole thing down in exchange for getting rid of the Jews. And, unfortunately, they have a pretty strong farm club full of blackbeard's ready to inherit their rightful position as soon as the greybeards have departed.

We had the chance of a lifetime to make regime change in Iran, way back in 2009. You may remember it. Our Dear Leader decided not to encourage the uorising that was taking flame after the elections. He, instead, unbelievably, sided with the Mullahs. Had he just done the one thing that he is most notably famous for, we would not even be having this conversation today. All he had to do, is get on television, and give a speech supporting freedom and democracy for all the brilliant young people of Iran. Now, the chances of that happening again anytime in the near future, my friend, are very dim.

Thanks to Dear Leader, it may take another generation of Iranians before we see any real reforms. Just think, because Obama is such a rank amateur, and totally, utterly unfit to dictate foreign policy, the world may soon teeter on the brink of worldwide devastation the likes of which has not been seen before.. Think of the ramifications of his incompetence. Its  staggering.

[PB the Deplorable]

Fucking Democrats did the same fucking thing. The true traitors is the American people for letting the government fuck us over and over and doing nothing about it!!1

What do you suggest, apparently only people who hate this country are allowed to have rallies or demonstrate

[NowhereInTime]

Err...so let me get this straight.  Obama is making a bad deal for the world with Iran.  And our elected officials are trying to salvage it.  Whats traitorous about that?

Err... let me straighten this out for you, then.  Obama (along with the UK, France, Germany, China, and Russia-yes, Russia!) is trying to convince a sovereign nation that it cannot build nuclear weapons.  Yes, with the guarantee of inspections, it can develop a nuclear energy technology but not weapons grade material.  If it were to do so it would face the weight of what is, essentially, the powers that form the UN Security Council.  Your "elected leaders" are posturing douchebags who, along with self aggrandizing, are undermining a worldwide effort at peace.  To what end?

You also seem to forget that Obama is an "elected official" - an official who's won the Presidency twice promising to do this very thing.  The 47 teabag Senators are stepping way beyond the scope of "advise and consent" here to attempting to conduct foreign policy.

The truth is Netenyahu and the whole Middle East warned us.

The truth is that Netanyahu is a self-promoting jackass who knows better, but wanted the voters back home seeing him lecture our President in our nation's capital.  He knows that joint US/Israeli operations like Stuxnet can and will frustrate and limit any Iranian capacity long enough for further action.   

But Obama stuck his head in the sand and pretends like he knows more than them.

"Stuck his head in the sand"?   Where do you wing-nuts get this crap?  He's the guy trying to ensure our future safety and to bring Iran back into the world community to end the bitterness and acrimony.   

Choosing to not even listen to our supposed Israeli allies.

"Supposed" is right.  Be refreshing if Israel would stop trying to tell us what to do and stop dragging us into every political and military fray in that region.

Something seems a bit fishy about Obama's thought process.....

Not surprising to see a conservative say that.  It's called "rational thinking" and its part of a pragmatic, productive approach to solving problems rather than the "shoot first, clean gun second, celebrate third, then ask questions (but ignore answers)" approach you teabaggers take to everything. 
[/quote]

[NowhereInTime]

It's called the US Constitution.  Separation of powers.

Except that the President is the one charged with negotiating said treaties and your conservative Senate, who's only goal is to make sure Black President never succeeds, regardless of the cost to the country, is trying to thwart this "treaty" before its even presented to them. 

Reckless, irresponsible, and a wholesale dereliction of their solemn duties.  Glad you're proud of that, Mr "Strict Constructionalist".

Not to mention this is supposed to be a Representative Republic with officials operating on behalf of and under the consent of the governed.

Most of whom voted for this President, twice, to do things productive like end the threat of an isolated Iran lashing out.  MV's right; bringing Iran back into the influence of western culture will curb their outright aggression.  It would be naive to underestimate the fundamentalists, but we have that very problem right here in America, don't we?

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 (quote):  "He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advise and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..." (end quote)

In other words some dangerous destructive jerk, who manages to get himself elected president, cannot legally do grave damage to this Republic on his own through in agreement with a foreign entity.

In other words, 47 jerks who would never be elected President (just ask John McCain), won't even bother to do their due diligence and understand the treaty before they oppose it.  Then, they have the gall to send a communication to a foreign head of state declaring their intention to undermine the whole process!!  Unbelievable!!  This is how you define "American Exceptionalism"?!?

So not exactly an 'en-around' by he Senate, it's the consequence of Obama's 'end-around' the Constitution.

So exactly an end-around.  Not just our President, but basically the whole modern world by a bunch of backwater hicks who are heavily overweighted in representation thanks to our arcane, property based Senate seat allocation.   

This person is not a dictator, no matter how much he would like to be one

Really, beyond being old (and unsubtantiated), this is just stupid.

..., no matter how much he despises our form of government.

You mean the one where he won the Presidency fair and square?  Twice?

Issuing one of his Unconstitutional 'Executive Orders',...

I missed the part where they suddenly became "unconstitutional.  Is that because the constitution views him as 3/5's of a man?  So the Executive order only carries 3/5's of the authority that Reagan's did?

... and not calling an agreement with Iran a treaty as a way around the US Senate should be revoked, and apparently will be.

Or, not.  You presume too much.  A Republican will not be elected President and the Dems will probably re-take the Senate in '16.  Good luck with your petty tyrants until then.

You want to see a Traitor, look no further than the current occupant in the Oval Office

Why, is Jim Inhofe visiting there?

That's the answer to Part One of your post

No, it's part one of your specious, circumlocuitous attempt to justify the shameful behavior of a minority of the Senate.  Actions (and elections) have consequences, but you and yours are too full of self righteous umbrage to ever see that.

[ONeill]

who's only goal is to make sure Black President never succeeds, regardless of the cost to the country, is trying to thwart this "treaty" before its even presented to them. 

Oh yeah, full Chris Mathews analysis. You explained everything in the first paragraph, what's the point of the following wall of text?

[NowhereInTime]

The answer to Part Two of your post, the why of it:

That's easy: wing nuts playing to their braying jackass base.

Iran is the fount of Shia terror.

The "fount of Shia terror"... You know, for people who hate "Hollywood", you guys can sure Cecil B DeMille things up.

There is now a power vacuum in the region (thanks to Bush invading and deposing Saddam, followed by Obama cutting and running).  Iran is a second caliphate, in competition with ISIS for control over the region - certainly anywhere with a significant Shiite population.  They are openly on the move in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and now Yemen.

What "vacuum"?  You mean no US corporate friendly strongman like Hosni Mubarak?  Hell, between the Saud family, The Iraq puppets, and Kuwait we seem to do alright.

The Kurds are forming a state (and standing up to the IS); we should support them and Iran's Persian Caliphate is really a figment of conservative imagination.  Iran is trying to ensure that the Sunnis don't show up in downtown Tehran, beheading people for looking at them funny. 

Obama's L. Paul Bremer's fecklessness, weakness, and cluelessness in negotiating an agreement that will would remove sanctions and remove the threat that we will destroy their nuclear sites, in exchange for very little, Saddam's Baathists in a peaceful transformation to a secular government is was a lousy deal, period.

Fixed it for you.  History really isn't open to interpretation, let alone re-imagination.

Bremer's foolhardiness caused the insurgency that has morphed into the sectarian ISIS.  His inability to understand that a bureacracy (and a military) was in place that could have been put to use in the reformation of Iraq was the very act (besides the invasion itself) that doomed the region to this conflict.   

Tossing out thousands of people, most of which really were just soldiers and bureaucrats in service to their nation, without any plan to reintegrate them into Iraqi society was the spark that set off the formation of IS.  Once the conflict in Syria degraded to this sectarian mess, it created an opportunity for alliance that has morphed into this monstrosity.

If you conservatives would stop trying to compensate for your diminutive phalli by throwing around the weight of the US military as your foreign policy, we wouldn't have these messes.

If Persian Iran is allowed to continue their quest to join the nuclear bomb club, then the Arab Saudi's are going to want one as a counter balance.  As are the Egyptians.  As are the Turks.  Every two-bit tin-horn dictator watching the world deal with Iran, and also North Korea, will wonder why they shouldn't start building one.

The whole point is to prevent them from joining the bomb club.  I only wish you and your team would've been this diligent when AQ Khan helped Pakistan, North Korea, and, oh yes, IRAN get their hands on nuclear tech.  Yet we were too busy dealing with Vietnam, Nixon's shame, and Ford's folly to stop proliferation in time.   

Is that what we want?  There is a reason US policy over the years is non-proliferation, and especially Iran,  And one jerk in the White House can overturn that with an 'Executive Order'?  This president is dangerous and needs to go.

Really?  Please explain to me what St Ronald, HW, or W did to prevent this set of circumstances?  This "jerk" is the first guy to take the issue head on.  Go John Wayne on your own time.

[NowhereInTime]

and by the way, everybody does it.

www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2561314

I'm sorry, I was going to ignore this but I just can't.  The Washington Examiner?!?  You had more listeners on last night's Gabcast than the Washington Examiner (a billionaire's vanity rag) has readers!

Seriously, the only sources on the alleged Kennedy entreaty to Andropov are all right wingers (the Forbes article was not written by staff, but by someone from the Hoover Institute!!) who cannot produce the alleged document!  The alleged visit to El Comandante; was that before, during, or after Reagan had Ollie North selling the Iranians weapons (violating US law) to fund the Contras (violating US law) fight?!?  There is nothing, certainly not a signed document on US Gov't letterhead, that rises to this level of perfidy!

And, even if you take this all at face value, you have fallen into the conservatives' moral equivalency trap!  So, two wrongs make a right?

[ONeill]

I'm sorry, I was going to ignore this but I just can't.  The Washington Examiner?!?  You had more listeners on last night's Gabcast than the Washington Examiner (a billionaire's vanity rag) has readers!

Seriously, the only sources on the alleged Kennedy entreaty to Andropov are all right wingers (the Forbes article was not written by staff, but by someone from the Hoover Institute!!) who cannot produce the alleged document!  The alleged visit to El Comandante; was that before, during, or after Reagan had Ollie North selling the Iranians weapons (violating US law) to fund the Contras (violating US law) fight?!?  There is nothing, certainly not a signed document on US Gov't letterhead, that rises to this level of perfidy!

And, even if you take this all at face value, you have fallen into the conservatives' moral equivalency trap!  So, two wrongs make a right?

The truth lies where it lies. Those are simple facts it doesn't matter how small is the platform that reports them, they are still there.

You verbally bitch about 'American Exceptionalism' as a slogan used by the other side, you simply replace it by some kind of 'Obama Exceptionalism' and if actions of some people don't follow it it's absolutely fine to utter something like 'Pig Fucking Racist Traitors' in their direction as a headline of your following string of thoughts.

I disagree with current American administration but there's nothing special about it, it's simply that someone I don't necessarily like won some election. What I really hate is the way they push their policies down everybody's throats. Oh there is so much of 'Obama Exceptionalism' in it. The Ukraine crisis in large part is a result of American meddling in affairs of our part of the world, as was the Syrian crisis and the birth of ISIS.

I happen to completely agree with MV on the policies the world should implement towards Iran. There is one thing about international sanctions. In the early 80s we had sanctions against Poland for the actions of our communist puppet government. The propaganda minister of that government (oh definitely a pig-fucking traitor) put it it one sentence 'the government will find a way to feed itself.'

[albrecht]

For all we know it could be the Iranians who are having internal problems, and debates, about signing a secret treaty with Obama. After all they don't like Sunnis or those with Sunni sympathies, especially radical ones, and their people might worrying about whether Obama policies, such as unsecured open-borders or higher taxes and regulations, might be initiated against their country if they sign onto some pact with him.

[VtaGeezer]

We had the chance of a lifetime to make regime change in Iran, way back in 2009. You may remember it. Our Dear Leader decided not to encourage the uorising that was taking flame after the elections. He, instead, unbelievably, sided with the Mullahs. Had he just done the one thing that he is most notably famous for, we would not even be having this conversation today. All he had to do, is get on television, and give a speech supporting freedom and democracy for all the brilliant young people of Iran. Now, the chances of that happening again anytime in the near future, my friend, are very dim.

That's silly and self-serving conservative myth; that a speech or two by Obama would have magically pushed aside a zealot thug like Ahmadinejad and disarmed the Basij and Revo Guard. Iran is not Egypt, with a heavy American and Euro training influence restraining the military and police.  The brief Green Uprising over Ahmadinejad's "re-election" was largely limited to Tehran, and was brutally suppressed by Ahmadinejad's security police and militias. It lasted only a week and never had a chance because most Iranians saw the protests in Tehran the same way you saw the Occupy fools. The only thing Obama would have accomplished by promoting open uprising was thousands of dead Iranian protesters.  The protests actually aided the hard liners by giving them an excuse to imprison reformers. 

[MV/Liberace!]

That's silly and self-serving conservative myth; that a speech or two by Obama would have magically pushed aside a zealot thug like Ahmadinejad and disarmed the Basij and Revo Guard.

exactly... although i don't consider this "war always, now and forever" philosophy to be conservatism, but i guess that's a different discussion.  anyway... what is it assumed obama would even have said in this magical mystery speech?  would he have promised arms?  ground troops?  gatorade?  if the speech didn't promise arms or military assistance to those resisting the iranian government, it would be of zero value.  also, we've seen how well it works out when we ship arms to shitty countries thousands of miles away.  we end up being shot at by those same guns, or they end up being used in the commission of other atrocities.

i'm an isolationist.  meddling sucks and is counterproductive in the long term.

It lasted only a week and never had a chance because most Iranians saw the protests in Tehran the same way you saw the Occupy fools.

i don't have any facts about this one way or the other, but my instincts tell me you are probably entirely correct here.  i'll bet you the older iranians (you know... parents, business owners, government employees) viewed this uprising with exactly the same contempt people felt for the "occupy" shit.

The only thing Obama would have accomplished by promoting open uprising was thousands of dead Iranian protesters. 

or it could have had zero effect.

[NowhereInTime]

The truth lies where it lies.

So do lies. 

The problem is that there's no source for this but someone from the Hoover Institute who cannot produce any evidence but hearsay.  Just because the Examiner, Breibart, Goebbels.com et al repeat the exact same unsubstantiated story over and over does not make it true. 

Those are simple facts it doesn't matter how small is the platform that reports them, they are still there.

Except that they're not; its conservative apocrypha designed to gin up the base, smear liberalism in general and Ted Kennedy in particular.  Please post a copy of said KGB Memo (unimpeachable source, btw  )and I will not only relent, I will do what not one conservative poster on this site as ever done: apologize.

You verbally bitch about 'American Exceptionalism' as a slogan used by the other side

No, I facetiously mock its use as some kind of feel good code and excuse for our incessant mistakes.  Big difference.

..., you simply replace it by some kind of 'Obama Exceptionalism'

Yeah, that's conservative contrivance.  Never used said phrase.

... and if actions of some people don't follow it it's absolutely fine to utter something like 'Pig Fucking Racist Traitors'

Not a direct quote (again), but thank you, I agree.

...in their direction as a headline of your following string of thoughts.

Because their words and deeds prove my position time and again.  Am I supposed to sit passively by while con after con bellies up to this bar and starts spouting blather based, not in fact or truth, but in apocrypha, hyperbole, and outright fiction? 

Part of the problem with the progressive movement is that we have always relied on the American people to disseminate truth from fiction and have left waaay too much conservative fantasy unchallenged, resulting in conservatives being elected and destabilizing this country.

Not making that mistake anymore.

I disagree with current American administration but there's nothing special about it, it's simply that someone I don't necessarily like won some election.

I wish I could believe that, but nearly every con who has showed up starts with the "gee, I just disagree" and before you know it we have people calling him a "Muslim traitor who coddles terrorists, was born in Kenya, hates America, or, my favorite, "that character Obama".  So, no dice.  And, really, why do you not like the President?

What I really hate is the way they push their policies down everybody's throats.

Such as?

Oh there is so much of 'Obama Exceptionalism' in it.

Your phrase, not mine.  See?  Self serving drivel used as a foundation for an attack.  Conservatism is nothing more than a house of cards.

The Ukraine crisis in large part is a result of American meddling in affairs

Right, because Shirtless Vlad is the victim in all this.

... of our part of the world, as was the Syrian crisis and the birth of ISIS.

Then you should be pissed at the conservatives!  The damn neo-con chickenhawks were the ones dreaming dreams of  exporting "American Exceptionalism" around the world at the end of a gun!  How has that worked out?!?

I happen to completely agree with MV on the policies the world should implement towards Iran.

So do I.  Then what the fuck are we arguing about?

There is one thing about international sanctions. In the early 80s we had sanctions against Poland for the actions of our communist puppet government. The propaganda minister of that government (oh definitely a pig-fucking traitor) put it it one sentence 'the government will find a way to feed itself.'

Yeah, but how did that work out for them?

[FightTheFuture]

That's silly and self-serving conservative myth; that a speech or two by Obama would have magically pushed aside a zealot thug like Ahmadinejad and disarmed the Basij and Revo Guard. Iran is not Egypt, with a heavy American and Euro training influence restraining the military and police.  The brief Green Uprising over Ahmadinejad's "re-election" was largely limited to Tehran, and was brutally suppressed by Ahmadinejad's security police and militias. It lasted only a week and never had a chance because most Iranians saw the protests in Tehran the same way you saw the Occupy fools. The only thing Obama would have accomplished by promoting open uprising was thousands of dead Iranian protesters.  The protests actually aided the hard liners by giving them an excuse to imprison reformers.

You vastly underestimate the power of millions of people standing against a tyrannical regime. Iran was on the brink and ready to break wide open. Their economy was in shambles, there was widespread corruption, the people had had enough. All we had to do was formally and openly recognize it as the opportunity that it was. Obama just had to give credence to their effort. The entire world was watching. Social media was on fire as young Iranians utilized iPhones to stream the stark images of tyranny  around the world.

Admittedly, this is a very personal issue for me. I am friends with scores of Iranians. Many lived in Iran before the Ayatollah Khomeini seized power, and some left afterwards. I even know people living there today. They all say the same thing; Obama blew it bigtime! I could not possibly agree more.

I'm telling you right now, we had all the resources in place to make it happen. We had resources inside of Iran, around Iran, above Iran, hell, I wouldn't be surprised if we had some under Iran. Everything was in place. A perfect storm, and Dear Leader f***** it all up. It's a crime. Or it should be a crime. He's a disaster as a president and the disastrous state of the world bears daily witness to his breathtaking incompetence.

[FightTheFuture]

i'm an isolationist.

And why wouldn't you be? We can clearly observe the effectiveness of that early 20th century mindset via the black and white images on the History Channel every night.

[MV/Liberace!]

And why wouldn't you be? We can clearly observe the effectiveness of that early 20th century mindset via the black and white images on the History Channel every night.

be specific.  i don't really know how to respond to this.

[Who]

For all we know it could be the Iranians who are having internal problems, and debates, about signing a secret treaty with Obama. After all they don't like Sunnis or those with Sunni sympathies, especially radical ones, and their people might worrying about whether Obama policies, such as unsecured open-borders or higher taxes and regulations, might be initiated against their country if they sign onto some pact with him.

Secret treaty with Obama?  What about the U.K., France, Germany, Russia and China? 

[VtaGeezer]

You vastly underestimate the power of millions of people standing against a tyrannical regime.

There you go, substituting wishful fantasy for reality. "We had all the resources in place..."  Yeah, right.  You've seen too many Chuck Norris movies.

[ONeill]

So do lies. 

The problem is that there's no source for this but someone from the Hoover Institute who cannot produce any evidence but hearsay.  Just because the Examiner, Breibart, Goebbels.com et al repeat the exact same unsubstantiated story over and over does not make it true. 

Except that they're not; its conservative apocrypha designed to gin up the base, smear liberalism in general and Ted Kennedy in particular.  Please post a copy of said KGB Memo (unimpeachable source, btw  )and I will not only relent, I will do what not one conservative poster on this site as ever done: apologize.

No, I facetiously mock its use as some kind of feel good code and excuse for our incessant mistakes.  Big difference.

Yeah, that's conservative contrivance.  Never used said phrase.

Not a direct quote (again), but thank you, I agree.

Because their words and deeds prove my position time and again.  Am I supposed to sit passively by while con after con bellies up to this bar and starts spouting blather based, not in fact or truth, but in apocrypha, hyperbole, and outright fiction? 

Part of the problem with the progressive movement is that we have always relied on the American people to disseminate truth from fiction and have left waaay too much conservative fantasy unchallenged, resulting in conservatives being elected and destabilizing this country.

Not making that mistake anymore.

I wish I could believe that, but nearly every con who has showed up starts with the "gee, I just disagree" and before you know it we have people calling him a "Muslim traitor who coddles terrorists, was born in Kenya, hates America, or, my favorite, "that character Obama".  So, no dice.  And, really, why do you not like the President?

Such as?

Your phrase, not mine.  See?  Self serving drivel used as a foundation for an attack.  Conservatism is nothing more than a house of cards.

Right, because Shirtless Vlad is the victim in all this.

Then you should be pissed at the conservatives!  The damn neo-con chickenhawks were the ones dreaming dreams of  exporting "American Exceptionalism" around the world at the end of a gun!  How has that worked out?!?

So do I.  Then what the fuck are we arguing about?

Yeah, but how did that work out for them?

I don't like the current US president because he is a socialist. That is not an insult (although it should be), it's simply a statement of fact. I come from a country where socialism was once implemented so completely it almost starved everyone do death. It's not a crime to not like someone, even if it is you precious President Obama

You have the same problem every fundamentalist has. If you don't know what my point is, you should read my 2 latest posts again, they are not that long. About the first one:
Chris Matthews Says Obama is the "Perfect Father, Perfect Husband and Perfect AMERICAN"
The statement made in this video is the purest form of fundamentalism. Much of your argument is built on that exact principle, in particular your defense of the abominable title of this thread. The first part of my second post deals with the same issue, which is cosmetics so the confusion that you are expressing at the end of your response is not justified.

I might say how the "Liberals" were behaving about the second Iraq war, how many of them were in support of it when it needed to be approved in the Senate only to later be against the official foreign policy of the US. Because what the President says is the official foreign policy, isn't it? And to be clear - I was and am against that war. I recently listened to the Howard Stern show from 9/11. Interesting to hear how he wants to nuke everything in the Middle East and every caller agrees with that. Puts lots of Bush's decisions in perspective.

To conclude about "Pig fucking traitors":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerzy_Urban
Read this for example and STFU because you haven't seen shit.

[FightTheFuture]

There you go, substituting wishful fantasy for reality. "We had all the resources in place..."  Yeah, right.  You've seen too many Chuck Norris movies.

You cannot possibly be so naive to think that we don't have a very significant underground network setup throughout Iran, can you? I don't know, maybe you are that naive.

[FightTheFuture]

be specific.  i don't really know how to respond to this.

Do you think WW2 would have happened the way it did had we been more engaged around the world after 1919? I mean, you would have thought we'd learned our lesson. Had we been more engaged in Western Europe to confront a growing threat in Germany...who knows. Or Italy? How about Japan? the United States did the equivalent of putting our fingers in our ears while humming loudly. We didn't want to hear it, we didn't want to see it, we didn't want to know about it. It was "their problem." That's isolationism for you.

[VtaGeezer]

You cannot possibly be so naive to think that we don't have a very significant underground network setup throughout Iran, can you? I don't know, maybe you are that naive.

Fantasy.  Wise up. There's no "network" beyond the neighborhood and village mullahs who control who gets the jobs, who goes to higher education, and who gets a motivational visit from the security police.  The omnipotent CIA has so many successes at overthrowing our adversaries...lemmee see....I'm sure one will come to me.

[ONeill]

I have to reiterate about one thing.

Then you should be pissed at the conservatives!  The damn neo-con chickenhawks were the ones dreaming dreams of  exporting "American Exceptionalism" around the world at the end of a gun!  How has that worked out?!?

So do I.  Then what the fuck are we arguing about?

Oh I do hate neocons, I despise them. When I hear something babbled by Lindsey Graham I want to hurt someone. The problem is, this is actually what we disagree about, that in the aspect of foreign policy Obama is a perfect neocon in my dictionary.

He is doing exactly what Bush was doing, just the methods have evolved because the support of boots on the ground war in the society is nonexistent. In those last few years we have seen the US supporting all kinds of revolutions in north african and middle east countries. The US is arming all kind of militant groups if they are willing to fight for them, this is exactly how ISIS was able to emerge, the largest part being American vendetta against Assad. If I remember correctly Obama wanted to actually do much more but for some reason he felt obliged to implicate congress in this decision. Makes you wonder why he cared about congressional approval this particular time. So Assad and the rebels slaughtered thousands of people using hammers, forks, clubs, knives and everything else but when a few hundred more died by biological weapons that suddenly made the difference. Benghazi disaster is a direct consequence of that kind of politics. So is the way the Ukrainian crisis is progressing. You want those weapons sent, don't you? Your president does.

Oh and of course the drones. This report about torture was the absolute pinnacle of hypocrisy. I believe Sen. Feinstein has a much more serious matter of people being simply assassinated everywhere just under her nose. I'm awaiting similar report on this topic.

And about exporting 'Obama Exceptionallism' (that's my term, I never said you used it). Isn't US foreign aid linked with how, for example, abortion legislation is defined in the target countries? And again - it has nothing to do with my views on the issue.

[PB the Deplorable]

... I missed the part where they [Executive Orders] suddenly became "unconstitutional...

I've already addressed Obama's end-around the Constitution on treaties.  Announcing we have a treaty and bypassing Senate ratification thru the use of an 'Executive Order' is not a valid, legal option.  Nor are his other 'Executive Orders' that he has used to change existing laws and create new ones.  Or every President would have been doing that all along.

I'm surprised you don't understand what a valid Executive Order is, since it's been explained to you before.

Congress passes laws and the President signs then into law.  In order for them to be carried out and applied, details often need to be spelled out in order for those affected to comply.  The agency or department that oversees that portion of the law issues Regulations that go hand in hand with the law and support it.  These Regs aren't supposed to be in conflict with the law, they interpret it and provide detail.

An Administration has a lot to do.  The elected officials at the top and their political appointees typically do not get into the details of Reg writing.  Sometimes an Administration wants to implement or change specific policy and - still in compliance with existing law - issues an Executive Order rather than try to steer it through the bureaucracy.  But it isn't to supersede the law or create a new one.  Or to expand his Presidential powers beyond their Constitutional limits.  Or go around Constitutional provisions on issues that are clearly spelled out, like treaties.

So it's not about 'how many' Executive Orders this president or that on has issued, it's about what the specific contents of those Executive Orders are. 

It's also not about what other presidents may or may not have done in the past.  Obviously other presidents have gone beyond their Constitutional authority with Executive Orders.  That doesn't make it ok for the next president to do so.  And no one has abused this the way Obama has - he's in a league of his own when it comes to illegal Executive Orders, ignoring court decisions, bypassing Congress.  He despises our Constitution, our form of government, the separation of powers that keep us from having our government seized by an 'elected' dictator. 

And from your panicked posts, I gather you do as well

[Zoo]

What do you suggest, apparently only people who hate this country are allowed to have rallies or demonstrate

Well this is not true and you know this. I suggest getting off your ass and doing something anything to stop it. Run for office, do a sit in. Shit stop paying taxes. If you get a speeding ticket take it to trial. If I got to tell you what to do then you are already too much of a sheepeople  to do anything. Just stop helping those who are hurting us and we know who they are Democrats and Republicans the ones in office and the ones voting for them!!1
   

[ONeill]

Do you think WW2 would have happened the way it did had we been more engaged around the world after 1919? I mean, you would have thought we'd learned our lesson. Had we been more engaged in Western Europe to confront a growing threat in Germany...who knows. Or Italy? How about Japan? the United States did the equivalent of putting our fingers in our ears while humming loudly. We didn't want to hear it, we didn't want to see it, we didn't want to know about it. It was "their problem." That's isolationism for you.

Oh, because your engagement in the end was so great. Going to bed with the bloodiest dictator in the world to defeat the second best one in that field to later divide the world in half with the larger SoB. And all of that done by a 'liberal' hero, great stuff.