Let the rage begin - Lindsey says his views have changed

[Legion]

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today sent a letter to committee DEMOCRATS regarding the recent Supreme Court vacancy.

Graham wrote, “When the American people elected a Republican Senate majority in 2014, Americans did so because we committed to checking and balancing the end of President Obama’s lame duck presidency. We did so. We followed the precedent that the Senate has followed for 140 years: since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee during an election year.”

He continued, “Lastly, after the treatment of Justice Kavanaugh I now have a different view of the judicial-confirmation process. Compare the treatment of Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh to that of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, and it’s clear that there already is one set of rules for a Republican president and one set of rules for a Democrat president.

“I therefore think it is important that we proceed expeditiously to process any nomination made by President Trump to fill this vacancy. I am certain if the shoe were on the other foot, you would do the same.”


https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/chairman-graham-to-committee-democrats-after-the-treatment-of-justice-kavanaugh-i-now-have-a-different-view-of-the-judicial-confirmation-process

[Charoite]

Rage? You're way too stale to ever get rage with your posting scat.

[Legion]

Rage? You're way too stale to ever get rage with your posting scat.

Yet here you are.

[Nordberg]

That is the best Lindseed could do? He is a hypocrite and the label will stick.

[PostmodernProphet]

That is the best Lindseed could do? He is a hypocrite and the label will stick.

ragged with rage.....

[Matt Dillon]

All this Supreme Court kerfluffle is a nothingburger.
In the end, Trump will have done 4-5 things good for America after the dust from this diversion settles.
Bank it! While they're all up in arms about this..he may be bringing peace to Syria or Iran or something like that. LOL!

[Nordberg]

All this Supreme Court kerfluffle is a nothingburger.
In the end, Trump will have done 4-5 things good for America after the dust from this diversion settles.
Bank it! While they're all up in arms about this..he may be bringing peace to Syria or Iran or something like that. LOL!

We had not only peace with Iran, but they were prohibited from building a nuke. Now we are having words with Iran and they are building nukes. Was that a great accomplishment?

[Legion]

We had not only peace with Iran, but they were prohibited from building a nuke.

Yet intelligence says they were building nukes anyway.

The Obama administration blocked a highly effective interagency effort to dismantle a Hezbollah drug and money laundering enterprise to grease the skids for the nuclear deal with Iran. That’s the story Josh Meyer of Politico told in his recent well-documented, well-sourced, investigative report.

Admittedly, for those unfamiliar with the context of the Iran deal, it must sound outlandish. But for those who followed the events surrounding the Iran deal, it fits a pattern of Obama administration behavior and is entirely believable.
ADVERTISEMENT

In 2009 President Obama outlined his vision of a world without nuclear weapons, and the centerpiece of this anti-nuclear weapon agenda was to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. The Obama team set out to negotiate a deal that would, supposedly, roll back the nuclear program and set up a verification regime to ensure compliance.

Many Iran-watchers were skeptical, to say the least. The regime was as repressive, anti-Zionist, and supportive of Islamist militancy as it ever was. Even if the Obama diplomats could verifiably totally dismantle the nuclear program, flushing the regime with cash without requiring reform in other areas seemed dangerously foolish. And it took years of diplomatic heavy-lifting for the United States to build consensus among other nations to isolate Iran.

Sanctions may not have finally prevented Iran from stopping its nuclear program, but they were really starting to hurt the regime. After all, it was the pain from those sanctions and isolation that brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place.

But President Obama sought to allay concerns, insisting he was willing to walk away if the deal wasn’t good. This was quickly disproven.

For example, Iran was permitted to keep some key technology necessary for making a nuclear weapon.

While only at lower levels, Iran was permitted to continue enriching uranium, an irreversible blow to what’s left of the nonproliferation regime.

We were promised "anytime, anywhere" inspections, but by the time the deal was done, verification, while still hailed as the toughest verification regime in history, still only allowed managed access to Iranian sites, and the agreement was written with such ambiguity as to allow the Iranians to continue to insist certain sites remain off limits.

Also, Obama officials, with great messaging discipline, insisted all Iranian malignant activity “unrelated” to the nuclear program, would be addressed in other ways, but excluded from Iran deal negotiations.

What about Iran's illicit missile program? We were told by the lead U.S. negotiator, Wendy Sherman, it would be addressed in some way, even if excluded from the terms of the Iran deal. What about Iran's terrorism? We were told terrorism-related sanctions would remain in place. Even so, John Kerry and Susan Rice admitted that the money from the Iran deal would almost certainly be used to fund Iran's continued terrorism activities.

But the Iran nuclear deal, which, even according to President Obama, would only delay Iran's breakout time by mere months, not eliminate it, was so important to the Obama agenda, that the administration insisted the scope of the deal must remain excruciatingly narrow. Officials and their friends in the media argued that tacking on other issues risked upending the Iran deal.

As the administration’s time to seal the deal dwindled away, and Congress considered levying more sanctions against Iran, those who continued to sound the alarm about the concessions were admonished to “give peace a chance.” Put another way, the Obama administration’s construction was “the Iran deal or war.”

So when Iran released American hostages in exchange for hundreds of millions (which we later found out was actually billions) of dollars, it was impossible to believe this transaction was not another concession by Obama officials if the alternative was derailing the Iran deal, aka war. And wouldn’t it be worth it to Obama officials to answer the demands of the Iranian government and release Iranian prisoners guilty of conspiring harm against America, if, according to them, the alternative was derailing the Iran deal, and therefore, war?

If Obama officials were willing to accept that money Iran would acquire due to the Iran deal would be used to fund its far-reaching terrorism operations, if Obama officials were willing to lay off Iran’s efforts to build a massive ballistic missile force, were willing to break U.S. policy about ransoms (predictably inciting Iran to nab more hostages), willing to free from prison dangerous men bent on harming the United States, the Politico report is entirely compatible with what we already know.

What’s thwarting an anti-Hezbollah effort when the alternative was derailing the Iran deal, aka war? And, to be clear, nobody believed the Obama administration was ever, ever considering war with Iran. This was just a hyperbolic construction to sell the administration’s precious deal, which legitimized Iran as an acceptable, indeed, recommended trade partner.

The Politico report is indeed a bombshell. But it’s really not surprising. The question we should all be asking at this point is, what other concessions did the Obama administration make that are out there waiting for journalists to uncover?


https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/366197-now-theres-no-denying-it-obamas-failed-iran-deal-wasnt-worth-the

[Lightbringer]

We had not only peace with Iran, but they were prohibited from building a nuke. Now we are having words with Iran and they are building nukes. Was that a great accomplishment?

How would we have known they weren't building a nuke?

[dukkha]

How would we have known they weren't building a nuke?

lol.
we could inspect, except where we could not

[Legion]

lol.
we could inspect, except where we could not

And they couldn't have enriched uranium, except that they could.

[cancel2 2022]

We had not only peace with Iran, but they were prohibited from building a nuke. Now we are having words with Iran and they are building nukes. Was that a great accomplishment?

You're hopelessly naive and ignorant I doubt you can shit and shave at the same time.

[RB 60]

You're hopelessly naive and ignorant I doubt you can shit and shave at the same time.

Transgenders shave?

[dukkha]

We had not only peace with Iran, but they were prohibited from building a nuke. Now we are having words with Iran and they are building nukes. Was that a great accomplishment?

according to the Obama/Kerry agreement Iran would be at breakout right around now
They are close to it as well under sanctions .But we're not paying them billions..

Same with Korea they have miniaturization -but we didn't give them anything,and they are not using ICBMs

Trump's policies/negotiations are far superior

[StoneByStone]

Fascists are such pussies. Just admit that you don't care about anything other than power.