You sir, are no Winston Churchill.
What is Tom Cotton afraid of? All this drama queen talk seems ridiculous. You would think that all of the Soviet Union was marching towards DC.
Are people really listening to Tom Cotton? He did not disappoint. He evoked Hitler within one minute. That’s quite a record.
Maybe Tom Cotton is concerned about what he saw as an infantry officer of the 101st Airborne during some of the heaviest fighting in Iraq in 2006 and then in Afghanistan in 2008. Not to mention the possible gutting of the US Army to troop levels equal to pre-WW II and the Navy to too few ships to maintain our two-front war theory. Maybe he fears the USA may be becoming an also-ran in the super power arena in an overseas world full of nations and crazies flexing their muscles and giving our traditional allies some serious concern. Just maybe.
Glad somebody in Washington has remembered Winnie — despite the old hero having his White House bust shipped back to England by the current POTUS.
An Officer in the United States Army should understand more than most the Constitutional form of our Government, and the responsibilities which are under the purview of the President of the United States. If Tom Cotton doesn’t understand our Constitution, he’s a loose cannon in the Senate.
Charge him with Treason and get him off the national stage.
The Hitler meme is always a tempting piece of demagoguery, particularly given that we are far enough away from those times and voters are generally ignorant of the details of the 1936-1940 period that Hitler can be used as a boogeyman to good political effect. The analogies to Iran are pretty strained, I would think.
What is clear is that Iran has hegemonic aspirations in the Middle East, that it has a capable military and a good technology base to support weapons development, whether nuclear or conventional. It is also indisputable that ultimate power in Iran rests, at least currently, with an inner group of religious zealots whose views of the world are not particularly subtle. In that view, the United States remains that great enemy and Israel is seen both as an artifact of European colonialism and as a surrogate for the United States. Iran is definitely a threat to Arab countries with which we have some sort of alignment and uses Israel as a monstrosity around which political opinion can coalesce to distract the populace from other issues.
All this requires very complex diplomacy backed by credible use of force.
The nuclear approach of the Administration appears to be based on holding together the P5 countries, because without their active support, sanctions will have no effect, while building in time enough that the grip of the religious leadership in Iran will see its power diluted. The thought is that, with a strong inspection regime and a limited ability to produce weaponizable nuclear material, if Iran breaks away from the agreement, there would be a time buffer in which the US and the P5 could get Iran back in line, or, if necessary, destroy the program. It’s complex and a bit risky, but the alternative appears to be a disintegration of international sanctions, sanctions which have been fairly effective, more so than against virtually any other country we are feuding with, and a near imperative to open a war, a war that probably will weaken the United States even more than we have been depleted by Iraq, and a war in which several of our potential geopolitical adversaries (think Russia and China particularly) will be very much the gainers.
That Cotton and his band of rubes want to land kerplunk in the middle of this is a testament to either or both of their ignorance of the situation, or their determination to play the issue for short-term political gain at the expense of the welfare and security of the United States. They do not have a workable alternative to near term war or, if they do, they are keeping it very much under wraps.
The next war is already here and it is cyber and drones. No need for costly soldiers that get injured and then cost even more. Buying more old-style ships and B-52 bombers is a waste of money because we will project power economically and electronically and not with boots on the ground.
Why do we care what happens in the Middle East? Let the Chinese and Indians who need the oil to keep their economy growing spend their precious military hardware and national treasure on maintaining order. If we had spent all the money wasted on the Iraq war on a distributed electrical grid powered by wind, solar and nuclear and fleets powered by natural gas we would have no energy worries and could safely let the Muslims fight among themselves for their desert sandboxes.
The Republican Party has gone rogue at every level of Government. Every Senator who attempted to disrupt the legitimate negotiations of the President and the Executive branch deserves to be arrested and tried for treason.
Republicans are a millstone around this Country’s neck. It knows no limits to what it is willing to do to cling to power and impose its ideas on others. This is a Party which should be left on the trash heap of failed ideas and disgraceful conduct so America can move on.
Oh look….another person that doesn’t understand either treason or what that letter meant. Go read the letter and get back to us explaining the treasonous parts.
The letter is on the other thread about the Senators. I made it easy for you.
See my statement to El Guapo.
We’ve covered this. Keep up.
See my statement to El Guapo.
We’ve covered this. Keep up.
@Scout
And you have a problem with the Senate reminding the President of his constitutional responsibilities and limits…….why?
Here you go…I’ve made it easy for you.
Please point out ANYTHING in this letter that contradicts the Constitutional powers and limits of Congress. Please point out ANYTHING in this letter that undermines our President, merely by pointing out the obvious.
You are all running on faux outrage.
First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.
Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then—perhaps decades.
What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.
We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.
[Signed by the above senators. ]
@Wolve
I would say if he believes we are no longer a superpower then he has more problems than we imagined.
About the Churchill bust. One was a loaner. There are matching busts. From the Telegraph:
@Cargosquid
That letter had ever intent of undermining. It was very transparent. Soft-soap it all you want. It is what it is.
At this point, communication about concerns should have been directed to the president, not Iran.
The intent was clear.
Given all the failures and the corrruption from this administration – and, the lack of transparancy – not to mention the longest list scandles in american history, I think its funny that the Democrats need to gin up their horror at this congressional letter to remind Lord Obama of his duties and the limits of his authorities, even as he says he will take it to the UN for ‘ratiication.” And then Today as we are celebrating the FOIA Act, whats he do – he cancels it as not applying to the White House. Wait — look over there, nothing to see here!
Tom Cotton. Raised on a cattle ranch in Arkansas. Harvard BA in Government (magna cum laude). Writer for the Harvard Crimson. Publius Fellowship at Claremont College and Claremont Graduate School. Harvard Law 2002 (Elizabeth Warren was one of his instructors). Clerkship with the US Court of Appeals. Private law practice. Married to an attorney. Left the law because of 9/11 and joined the US Army for five years. Army Officer Candidate School. Airborne and Ranger schools. 101st Airborne combat officer in Iraq and Afghanistan. Old Guard at Arlington Cemetery. Elected to Congress from Arkansas in 2013. Hard charger. Highly regarded in the House as a newcomer with excellent potential. Won the Repub Senate primary in Arkansas and then took on incumbent Dem Mark Pryor in 2015. Thumped Pryor 56 to 39.
I love it when the libs and RINO’s get all nervous and nasty about a young Republican who shows guts and action. The Huff Post has called Cotton a “bully.” The Huff and Puff Post calling you names says that you are considered to be a tough adversary. Good. Lay that stuff on, lasses and laddies. Badges of honor, wot, wot?
“band of rubes?!!!” What a nasty snob ad hominem. Scout — Your hysteria is showing…..You really shouldn’t let people play you like that.
A la guillotine!!!
The Jacobins are among us!!!
In 1984, a group of Democrat members of the US House of Representatives, led by Jim Wright, destined to replace Tip O’Neil as Speaker of the House, wrote a direct letter to Soviet-supported Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, expressing their disagreement with President Reagan on the Contra rebels. They promised to work with Ortega in opposition to the Reagan policy. This came to be labeled as creating separate diplomatic relations with Ortega.
In November 1987, there appeared to be movement toward peace talks between Sandinistas and the Contras, with Catholic Cardinal Miguel Obanda y Bravo as the likely go-between. Jim Wright, by then Democrat Speaker of the House, arranged a meeting with Ortega and Obanda y Bravo in the Speaker’s offices to discuss the Nicaraguan peace process, not making SecState Schultz very happy, although Schultz did attend the meeting. The joke in the Reagan White House was this: Question: “Where are President Ortega and the Nicaraguan rebels going to meet?” Reply: “Speaker Wright’s embassy.”
Amusing how the libs either forget their own history (or perhaps never learned it in our modern schools) and start calling for the heads of others to roll.
Surprised Scout never alludes to any of this, since he always claims to have worked for Ronald Reagan.
As I recall, the estimate for naval power to be successful in a two-front war is up near 350 ships, with 300 as a minimum As of now the US Navy has circa 284, I think, and is complaining about the lack of construction funding to reach the desired 300 mark. The Chinese navy alone is now level with us in submarines (71 for each of us, diesel and nuclear) per Vice Admiral Joseph Mulloy, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Capabilities and Resources. Thankfully, at this moment we are better because of our advanced technology. (How long will that last?) The Chinese navy lags behind us slightly in the numbers of all sorts of naval ships and are way behind in carriers. But they are working on it. They are also working on new missiles that may seriously threaten our ace in the geopolitical hole, our carrier fleet, and may eventually cause us to back further away to sea from our current presence in the Western Pacific.
That and the possible reduction of combat troops to pre WW II levels is not peanuts. I am glad that Senator Cotton has chosen to focus on that. Good man. Ranger badge, Bronze star, and all that. And I haven’t even mentioned the weed and test cheating scandals in our ICBM silos or the purges of flag officers — and even mid-level officers right while they are on combat service in Afghanistan.
Cargo — “faux outrage” — good choice of words.
@Ed Myers
Yours is an alternative thought that at least gives one something to think about. Your last sentence made me smile.
@blue
Those are some mighty big superlatives, there, Blue/ The most scandals? Bwahahahahahahaha.
What do YOU consider a scandal?
Transparency is in the eye of the beholder.
@Wolve
You know, I don’t care what his credentials are. He is a blow hard and fool hardy. He should stop saying we are a weaker nation. Even someone from Harvard can act foolishly and be a jerk, speaking of elitism. Does that impress?
It doesn’t impress me one little bit.
@Wolve
Some of them certainly have gone rogue locally.
Moon — Blow hard and foolhardy? Maybe he just knows more about the subject than you do. As far as the military goes today, perhaps he is saying that the emperor is wearing no clothes. Truth can lead to a change of course. Did not the so frequent mutiple postings to combat of our troops and the resultant problems with family, PTSD, and suicides tell you something about the state of the ranks?
As far as credentials go…Well, I would suggest that Senator Cotton, even at his comparatively young age, has more credentials for high office than did POTUS in 2008. Of course, we have never been allowed to see all of the POTUS credentials, if there are any.
Wolve – re the Nicaragua capers, I thought they brought no credit on the US participants and I have said little about it other than to query you as to why, given that you and I probably both agree that it was daft, you now appear to be holding it out as an example of how Members of Congress should behave. I find that curious, at best. Of course, the Ortega situation in Nicaragua was far different than the nuclear situation in Iran and far less was at stake. In any event, I have not the slightest problem with individual Members of Congress talking to foreign representatives, but those projects should be largely learning endeavors – Ear exercises, not Mouth exercises, particularly for opposition members. Otherwise, one might give the impression to adversaries that we lack solidarity in our approach to foreign affairs and inadvertently convey the impression that opposition legislators are trying to undermine the elected Executive and his Administration in their conduct of foreign affairs.
The 47 are a Band of Rubes, Wolve, at least in this context. They damaged their country, and abetted its adversaries. They did it either because they were collectively oblivious (McCain’s explanation supports this) or they did it because the pervading atmosphere in the Senate continues to be so much geared to politics, as opposed to governance, that they knowingly elevated putting a stick in Obama’s eye over the national interest. I suppose that conjunction needn’t be “or”. It could have been that both factors were present for some of the 47.
@ Cargo: I have no problem with a Senator telling the President that he/she feels that constitutional prerogatives are being given short shrift. That seems to be a constant in this Republic and there are many ways that a signal along those lines can be sent. Conversely, I have no problem with an Executive or his designees finding ways to send that message in the other direction. Where did you get the idea that I have a problem with these rather constant sorts of exchanges?
Of course, that’s not what happened here. If you look at the letter from the 47 guys with clown feet, it was addressed not in quiet channels to the sitting President, but most publicly to some of the most difficult adversaries the United States has had to deal with in post- World War II history. It was extraordinarily insulting in its tone, and simplistic to the point of childishness in its content. By the account of some of its signers, it was drafted and published in hasted (can’t miss that plane, you know) and it was sent to our enemies in the midst of delicate negotiations over issues that could have life and death consequences for Americans, not to mention others in the Middle East. Its message was that the United States is not to be trusted. The ayatollahs probably cackled all night about this completely unexpected gift.
This is not the outward sign of a great power. It is a sign of complete dysfunction and disintegration. An adult should have stepped in. The damage is not just in negotiations with Iran, it was with the impression it leaves with the other negotiating powers, two of whom wish us nothing but harm in other contexts.
BTW, we have fallen back on the discussion about the Magnificent 47, something about which the regulars here have probably said all that can be said, between this thread and the immediately preceding one on the subject. However, the particular presentation by Senator Cotton, at least as far as the clip goes, is about defense posture and resources necessary to ensure military preparedness in the coming decades. I have little use for careless allusions to 1930s Europe, but Cotton is quite right to be focussing attention on this. The country is war-weary, our arsenal is tired and depleted, our men and women in uniform have been sorely taxed. But, if anything, the post-Iraq world is far more dangerous than the pre-2003 or pre-2001 world was for the United States. Not every problem is resolved by military upgrades, but without some very cold calculus about how we position the United States militarily and diplomatically, we will simply be overwhelmed by the multifaceted nature of threats combined with the internal political dysfunction of which we have had so much evidence in the past few days and weeks. As difficult as budget issues have become, we have to accept that close attention must be paid to refurbishing our military capabilities to meet a multiple threat world. We also have to be very skillful and aggressive about holding together our traditional alliances and parallels of interest with countries who can be supportive. I thought it significant that the Administration dispatched Ambassador Powers to speak with the UK government about concerns over their negligence of the defense sector.
Given that we will hear nothing new here about the Senators/Ayatollahs letter, maybe we should pick up the point that Cotton was addressing in the clip in the post. Wolve and Ed gave it a shot (comments nos. 1 and 4), but then we all slipped back.
@Scout
If 47 out of 54 Republican Senators are deemed by yourself to be a “band of rubes,” then you, who claims to be a Republican, appear to be in a very small minority. Better watch it or you could get bounced right out of the party and have to live with libs. Imagine a smiley face here.
But, keep right on with that “rube” bit if you wish. All the “rubes” out there in Arkansas allowed Cotton to steamroll Mark Pryor by a huge margin and to play a role in the turnover of the Senate. Keep on referring to “rubes.” Might even add “hicks.” Good luck with that.
Anyway, I keep telling you that the letter of the 47 is nowhere near the Dem machinations in the 1980’s, including Kennedy-Andropov. (Did you ever read the released Soviet document discussing Kennedy’s offer?) I see none of those 47 telling the Iranians that they want to cooperate against POTUS behind his back or trying to arrange a separate diplomatic contact with them. So, they dropped a stone in the pool. The mullahs were warned not to try to snooker America — which I think is what they have been trying to do.
I recently ran across a good quote on this letter thing: “collective freak-out by the left.” I think that sums it up pretty well.
Interesting comments being passed around by Prince Faisal of the Saudi royal family. From what the Saudis have heard about the proposals on the table at Lausanne, they will be demanding the exact same considerations vis-a-vis nuclear capabilities. I suggest that this means liftoff may be very near for a weapons race in the Middle east.
The Logan Act.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Wolve – I have little fear of being expelled from the GOP. The GOP has to earn my loyalty each election cycle. If I choose to withhold it, it’s their problem, not mine. I have no doubt that my views are minority views in the Party these days. I take that to be a barometer of their validity. We’ve been entirely too lackadaisical about maintaining standards and, as far as I can tell, virtually anyone can be in the Party these days.
Again, I question your reasoning and your standards if you say that this current mess is justified because you regard 1980s misbehavior by Dems as a sound model. Libs like you are ruining the country, Wolve. All this situational ethics. Sheesh.
As for a nuclear weapons race in the Mid-East, I would think that problem would be accelerated by the failure to reach an agreement with Iran. If your point is that an agreement with Iran will cause the Saudis to seek to be subjected to a rigid inspection regime and safeguards intended to restrict nuclear use to power generation, why is this a problem?
You are funny, Scout. I know you don’t actually think that Faisal was alluding to inspection regimes and safeguards to restrict nuclear uses. As I said, the Saudis seem to sense what is on the table at Lausanne. I take Faisal’s remarks as a warning. Any agreement judged to leave the Iranian mullahs with holes to sneak through, and you will get Iran’s major Sunni foes looking for the equalizer.
And, my dear Scout, my point still is that the Dem escapades in the 1980’s represented far more of an activist undermining of POTUS policy than that one Senate letter which is making the lefties freak out. The lefties crying “Treason!” is truly silly, given their own historical rap sheets. Maybe we should suggest trying the late Lion of the Senate in absentia?
I contend that two strategic blunders have gotten us in our current pickle. The first was the precipitous and unwise withdrawal from Iraq in 2011. Prior to that, Iraq was relatively stable, Islamic extremists had been pushed out, and the U.S. had access to a forward bases from which to keep an eye on Iran. The Iraq War did not become a colossal waste of money until the strategically dim Administration left a power vacuum that ISIS and Iran were all too happy to fill.
The second blunder has been to allow the steep decline in US military power, aggravated by sequestration. There are plans to cut the U.S. Army to 450,000 by 2017, which will be the smallest force since the WWII mobilization. The Air Force plans to scrap the A-10 to save money, and the Navy is down to 275 battle-ready ships. Since Desert Storm in 1990, the conventional force has decreased by almost 40% while the nuclear force has declined by 80%.
The result is that the U.S. does not always pose a realistic threat to bad actors. The U.S. now lacks the forces to fight ISIS, to confront Russian aggression in the Ukraine, and to intimidate Iran at the same time, if necessary. This weakness severely constrains our options to respond to simultaneous threats.
As I recall, it was in 1975 or so when the Department of State ruled that the Logan Act of 1799 did not apply to Congress because Congress was a part of the U.S. Government and not the equivalent of a private citizen. Good thing too. The Lion of the Senate and Speaker Jim Wright could have shared a cell at Leavenworth.
I don’t believe anyone has ever been convicted under the Logan Act. Tell me if I’m wrong here.
@Moon-howler
We have been telling the President for a YEAR now that he is needs to address Congress.
Please….I left the text. WHAT part undermines the President? Where?
Nothing in that text does anything of the sort UNLESS he IS trying to sell out.
@Scout
“Its message was that the United States is not to be trusted.”
Which Obama has proven..that he cannot be trusted…thus the letter. This was a challenge to the President who ignores the prerogatives of Congress and lies. All. THE. TIME. NOTHING in the letter overreached. This letter reminded the President that he CANNOT act alone.
@Scout
Obama’s deal lets the Iranians get nukes after 10 years.
They aren’t supposed to get them at all.
Personally, I feel that it is impossible to stop them, especially with the appeaser in chief we now have.
Let them know that if they want to play ball…..well, we reserve the right to destroy their entire country if they set off a nuke outside the boundaries of their own country in a hostile action.
We don’t know what the deal is, Cargo, because there isn’t one yet. But from rumours and leaks, the structure appears to be that the deal has a ten-year duration, and a structure in which, because of its limits on Iran’s capacity to weaponize uranium, it would take approximately a year for Iran to go from that point to having a nuclear military capability. During that time, the US would have all options, including the war that you guys seem to want so badly right now, to either attempt to destroy or to re-negotiate new safeguards. My guess is that the thinking is that in 10 years, the nature of the Iranian regime might change signficantly and that the Iranians themselves would see the wisdom of not pursuing nuclear military capability.
The question is whether a 10 year restriction on obtaining nuclear capability is preferable to Iran moving forward right now to obtain it. Their capability surged the last time we declined to entertain a de-nuclearization proposal. Why would it not similarly advance now if this multi-national deal falls through? Don’t tell me because of sanctions – the sanctions regime has been effective because China, Russia and the UN have been on board. If we sabotage the talks now, we can’t count on that degree of international support for the sanctions regime.
I take it no one wants to talk about our defense posture, what our capabilities should be at this time, and how we pay for it? Kelly alludes to it (#30), but that was what Cotton was getting at in the clip at the top of the thread. I don’t think anyone is breaking any new ground on the 47 Letter or the Iran agreement.
I think that this just boils down to something very simple. Anyone who dares to go against the grain of this President gets the full traitor/rube/disrespectful/drama queen (am I missing any) treatment from the President’s supporters.
Remember Valery Plame? Remember her husband? Want to talk about retribution?
Congress is trying to meddle and influence the Iranian deal so that Obama does not have any accomplishment.
Announcing new sanctions while negotiations are underway, inviting Bibi, the letter – all in an attempt to scuttle any progress at all. If there is an agreement reached – Congress does have the power to keep the sanctions in place. Do we want no agreement in place? Does anyone think Iran will bow to the West’s every demand?? They are a sovereign country and can do as they wish. Should we also go after Pakistan (who I believe is a similar terrorist sponsor)? Or India or China?
Reagan signed over 1,500 Executive Agreements – Including at least 1 with Iran – but we are ok with that.
From the Chicago Sun Times regarding a speech by Rep. Cotton:
“In Cotton’s defense, this is one of the more logical Hilter references we’ve seen.
“The world is growing ever more dangerous, and our defense spending is wholly inadequate to confront the danger,” Cotton said. “To be exact, during the last four or five years, the world has grown gravely darker. We have steadily disarmed, partly with a sincere desire to give a lead to other countries and partly due to the severe financial pressure of the time. But a change must now be made. We must not continue longer on a course in which we alone are growing weaker while every other nation is growing stronger.
“I wish I could take credit for those eloquent but ominous words, but I cannot. Winston Churchill sounded that warning in 1933 as Adolf Hitler had taken power in Germany. Tragically, Great Britain and the West didn’t heed this warning, when they might have strangled that monster in his crib. Rather they let the locust continue to eat away at the common defense.”
Seems about right to me.
The Executive Agreement – Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq – that was signed by President Bush set the timeline for the withdrawal. Iraq was not going to grant immunity to our soldiers – we had to get out or face consequences. That is the problem with going into a Sovereign nation.
“Tom Cotton: Imaging himself as Churchill?” – just curious as to how you came to that conclusion from that speech? He echoed Churchill’s words comparing that time to what is going on today. Nowhere in that speech did he compare or ‘imagine’ himself as Churchill.
“He evoked Hitler within one minute” – did you listen to the speech? He was putting Churchill’s words into historical context.
I can understand Democrats having an issue with Rep. Cotton for the open letter. What I can’t understand is the faux outrage at this speech.
He is quoting Churchill.
I agree, and apparently people are starting to notice that this isn’t “the most transparent administration in history” like we were promised. It’s quite the opposite:
“For the second consecutive year, the Obama administration more often than ever censored government files or outright denied access to them under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, according to a new analysis of federal data by The Associated Press.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3000203/US-sets-new-record-denying-censoring-government-files.html#ixzz3UkYMsEbo
The Obama Admin is setting new records each year on being the least transparent Admin in American history.
Did you just declare that one? Is there some official site I can go to in order to find the most and least transparent administrations?
What is it that you want to see?
I sort of thought Dick Cheney hiding all the time was pretty opaque.
@Moon-howler
So when you quote someone your “imaging yourself as” that person?
Some people do.
@Moon-howler
I didn’t just declare that one Moon, it’s been known for quite some time now. Do you not trust the Associated Press and their analysis of federal data?
What is it I want to see? How about every email that Hillary Clinton deleted for starters. She used her personal email server for 100% of State Department work rendering that server the American peoples.
Funny thing about Dick Cheney, I don’t recall him or Bush promising to have “THE most transparent Administration in history”. Obama did and by the analysis done by the AP his administration has either censored or flat out denied more FOIA requests and anyone before him.
Hillary can delete her personal email if she wants. I don’t feel a sense of entitlement that I need to see it.
You might want to link to the associated press stat.
@Moon-howler
How about President Obama’s promise for whistleblower protections which was proudly displayed on Change.gov in 2008? Remember that one? Don’t bother going to look for it, it somehow disappeared on June 8 2013.
Do you know what has happened since?
“The Obama administration also has prosecuted more leakers under the Espionage Act than all other administrations combined.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/03/16/has-obama-delivered-the-most-transparent-administration-in-history/
Do you trust the Huffington Post? They had an interesting article a while back…
“Obama Whistleblower Prosecutions Lead To Chilling Effect On Press”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/obama-whistleblower-prosecutions-press_n_3091137.html
So yeah, the most transparent Administration in history? Like I said before, it’s quite the opposite.
I hate most of those jackals so I don’t think too much about it. Many people who are whistle blowers are a lot of other things also like thieves. Many in the press are jackals. Nothing more, nothing less. There is very little journalism when you get right down to it.
Okay, I can see that there is absolutely no way in hell your ever going to be critical of this Admin for anything let alone claiming to be ‘THE most transparent administration in history’ which is a complete joke even to the most leftist liberals.
I give you link after link after link (from sources you cite by the way) on how non-transparent this Admin is and you just disregard them one after the other. I would say that it mush get tiring to defend this Admin after things like this but I suppose it’s not hard when your only argument is Dick Cheney or calling sources you yourself site nothing but jackals. That’s easy…
Who exactly decided which were personal and which weren’t?
If I went through every email of yours I bet you and I would pretty much agree on what was personal and what wasn’t.
On the other hand, if she had used her very own iphone for all her personal communication, how would you know she didn’t slip some non personal email in there?
I can’t imagine what possesses a person to run for public office.
@Pat.Herve
It was widely expected that a new agreement would be negotiated by the new administration to replace the 2008 temporary agreement. Soldier immunity cannot be used as an excuse for the bungled negotiations, because a compromise was reached that Secretary Gates and commanders in the field were fully prepared to accept.
Here’s a fun fact: Obama would not accept a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq unless it was ratified by their Parliament. How’s that for irony, given the Administration’s refusal to do the same for a potential agreement with Iran.
@Scout
“including the war that you guys seem to want so badly right now,”
What war would that be? And who are “you guys?” Because the only people that I hear talking about war are people like yourself saying that “you guys” want one. And I don’t. And I have seen any conservatives saying that they want a war.
Frankly, Wolve, given that the universally accepted objective is that Iran not acquire a nuclear weapons capability, if one doesn’t impede their progress toward that goal by diplomacy, war seems the only alternative. And it is not a very appealing one on any number of levels, including the level that armed attacks on Iran will probably not halt their ambition to obtain weapons.
PS: I am relieved to hear that neither you nor “conservatives” in your field want a war. I’m not sure what “conservatives” or “liberals” have to do with this. Not every issue breaks along those lines.
PPS – I guess I was addressing Cargo, not Wolve. I didn’t have my glasses on and at a distance, you guys sometimes look alike.