[Peace-discuss] Fwd: Re: Warren, Bernie, Hillary: Back Obama's Iran Diplomacy
David Johnson via Peace-discuss
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Wed Oct 22 19:45:45 EDT 2014
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Warren, Bernie, Hillary: Back Obama's Iran
Diplomacy
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 18:45:18 -0500
From: David Johnson <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net>
To: Robert Naiman <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>
Sure Bob,
I see your logic.
Anyone who is not a neo-liberal democrat is a Trotskyist.
Not that that should be a bad thing, nor being a Maoist, an Anarchist, a
REAL Progressive, a Populist, a Liberation Theology Catholic, or anyone
else who opposes neo-liberal policies.
What happened to the old Bob Naiman who supported the anti-neo-liberal
governments and policies of Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador ?
Now you seem to be an Obama / Move-on.org apologist.
Where has unquestioning support of the democrats gotten us in the last
20 some years ?
How did that big campaign to get Chuck Hagel nominated as Secretary of
Defense help anything ?
The democrats in the last 20 years have not improved things, look at the
FACTS Bob, the democrats have become worse with every passing year.
Do I need to provide an EXTREMELY long list ?
David Johnson
On 10/22/2014 5:23 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote:
> You seem to have the worldview common among young campus Trotskyists:
> the masses are poised for revolution, if only the opportunist labor
> lieutenants of capital could be stopped from diverting them into
> reformism.
>
> Back on Planet Earth, the handicappers give the Republicans better
> than even odds of retaking the Senate.
>
> But maybe you would see that as a positive development. After all, as
> every young Trotskyist knows, Worse Is Better.
>
>
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org <http://www.justforeignpolicy.org>
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org <mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>
> (202) 448-2898 x1
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Carl G. Estabrook
> <galliher at illinois.edu <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>
> Bob--
>
> This appears to be another dodgy MoveOn petition in support of the
> administration's murderous Mideast policies.
>
> Those policies are in the interest of the American 1% (and no one
> else), who wish to continue their control of the world economy by
> dominating Mideast energy flows.
>
> It is simply false to say that the US is trying "to provide
> assurance to the international community that Iran will never try
> to build a nuclear weapon." That is the made-up reason for US
> attempts to exert control over the Iranian economy, particularly
> its production and distribution of gas and oil.
>
> Since Iran rejected US control in 1979, every US administration up
> to and including the current one has sought to reassert it.
>
> "In 2010, Iran accepted a proposal by Turkey and Brazil to ship
> its enriched uranium to Turkey for storage. In return, the West
> would provide isotopes for Iran's medical research reactors.
> President Obama furiously denounced Brazil and Turkey for breaking
> ranks, and quickly imposed harsher sanctions. Irritated,
> Brazil released a letter from Obama in which he had proposed this
> arrangement, presumably assuming that Iran would reject it. The
> incident quickly disappeared from view.
>
> "Also in 2010, the NPT members called for an international
> conference to carry forward a long-standing Arab initiative to
> establish a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the
> region, to be held in Helsinki in December 2012. Israel refused to
> attend. Iran agreed to do so, unconditionally.
>
> "The U.S. then announced that the conference was canceled,
> reiterating Israel's objections. The Arab states, the European
> Parliament and Russia called for a rapid reconvening of the
> conference, while the U.N. General Assembly voted 174-6 to call on
> Israel to join the NPT and open its facilities to inspection.
> Voting "no" were the United States, Israel, Canada, Marshall
> Islands, Micronesia and Palau" - apparently the "international
> community" to whom you say "U.S. negotiators [wish] to provide
> assurance..."
>
> Obama, in his usual mendacity, has been quite consistent in his
> hostility to Iran, even though his threats violate the UN Charter:
> during his campaign for a Senate seat a decade ago, Obama
> supported the possibility of a pre-emptive attack on Iran. On 25
> September 2004, the Chicago Tribune wrote, "…the United
> States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear
> production sites in Iran, Obama said … ‘having a radical Muslim
> theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse [than] us
> launching some missile strikes into Iran…’ he said."
>
> Instead of this dishonest MoveOn petition, we should demand Obama
> lift the sanctions on Iran, stop the bombing and the continuing
> threats (he's now bombed eight predominately Muslim countries -
> two more than George Bush), and remove US troops from the Middle
> East. That alone will "de-escalate tensions in the Middle East,
> helping us prevent war in the future.”
>
> Regards, CGE
>
> On Oct 22, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Robert Naiman
> <noreply at list.moveon.org <mailto:noreply at list.moveon.org>> wrote:
>
>> Dear C. G. Estabrook,
>>
>> U.S. negotiators are facing a *November 24 deadline* to try to
>> conclude a comprehensive agreement with Iran on constraining its
>> nuclear program to provide assurance to the international
>> community that Iran will never try to build a nuclear weapon. The
>> /New York Times/ recently reported [1] that the White House has
>> decided to try to avoid in the near future a Congressional vote
>> on any agreement reached with Iran, using the President’s power –
>> granted by Congress – to suspend U.S. sanctions on Iran, rather
>> than seeking legislation to repeal them. *The U.S. Treasury
>> Department has concluded that President Obama has the legal
>> authority to suspend the vast majority of U.S. sanctions on Iran
>> without seeking a vote by Congress.* It is widely accepted by
>> experts that suspending U.S. sanctions on Iran will be a
>> necessary ingredient of a diplomatic agreement that constrains
>> Iran's nuclear program sufficiently to provide assurance that
>> Iran will never build a nuclear weapon.
>>
>> But some Members of Congress, like Republican Senator Mark Kirk
>> and Republican Senator John Cornyn, *want to derail President
>> Obama and Secretary of State Kerry’s efforts to achieve a
>> diplomatic agreement*. [2]
>>
>> If key Democratic leaders don’t support President Obama’s
>> diplomacy, an agreement with Iran will be much less likely. *Urge
>> key Democratic leaders to support President Obama’s diplomacy
>> with Iran by signing our petition at MoveOn:*
>>
>> *http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/key-Dems-Iran-diplomacy*
>>
>> Here’s the text of our petition:
>>
>> *“Democratic leaders Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Bernie
>> Sanders, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should
>> strongly back President Obama's efforts to negotiate a
>> comprehensive agreement with Iran on constraining its nuclear
>> program by the November 24 deadline, thereby ensuring that
>> Iran will not build a nuclear weapon and de-escalating
>> tensions in the Middle East, helping us prevent war in the
>> future.”*
>>
>>
>> President Obama will have a brief window of opportunity after the
>> U.S. election in November to negotiate an agreement – *a window
>> of opportunity that may not come again*. [3] When President Obama
>> and Secretary of State Kerry negotiated the interim nuclear deal
>> with Iran, Senator Warren [4] and Senator Sanders [5] were early
>> supporters. Former Secretary of State Clinton attacked the deal
>> through surrogates [6], only finally embracing the deal [7] when
>> opponents of the deal were about to concede. [8]
>>
>> *Support from key Democratic leaders will help thwart efforts by
>> Republicans to sabotage President Obama’s diplomatic efforts.
>> Urge key Democratic leaders to support President Obama’s
>> diplomacy with Iran by signing and sharing our petition:*
>>
>> *http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/key-Dems-Iran-diplomacy*
>>
>> Thanks for all you do to support diplomacy and help prevent war,
>>
>> Robert Naiman
>> Just Foreign Policy
>>
>> References:
>> 1. “Obama Sees an Iran Deal That Could Avoid Congress,” David
>> Sanger, New York Times, 10/19/14,
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/us/politics/obama-sees-an-iran-deal-that-could-avoid-congress-.html
>> 2. “Report: White House to bypass Congress on Iran nuclear deal,”
>> Peter Sullivan, The Hill, 10/20/14,
>> http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/221231-report-white-house-to-bypass-congress-on-iran-deal
>> 3. “A Nuclear Deal, Now or Never,” Vali Nasr, New York Times,
>> 10/21/14,
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/opinion/vali-nasr-a-nuclear-deal-now-or-never.html
>> 4. “Senator Elizabeth Warren Endorses Interim Iran Nuclear Deal,”
>> Robert Naiman, Huffington Post, 12/13/2013,
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/senator-elizabeth-warren-_b_4437313.html
>> 5. “Leahy opposes new sanctions on Iran; Sanders: Increased
>> sanctions might help hardliners,” Nicole Gaudiano, Burlington
>> Free Press, 1/6/14,
>> http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20140106/NEWS03/301060029/Leahy-opposes-new-sanctions-on-Iran
>> 6. “Does Hillary's Silence on Iran Deal Show Neocon Influence on
>> Her Presidential Run?” Robert Naiman, Huffington Post, 12/2/13,
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/does-hillarys-silence-on-_b_4372394.html
>> 7. “Hillary Clinton backs Obama on Iran sanctions,” Maggie
>> Haberman, Politico, 2/2/14,
>> http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/hillary-clinton-iran-102997.html
>> 8. “Bill Clinton, AIPAC urge delay on Iran sanctions,” Manu Raju
>> and Burgess Everett, Politico, 2/6/14,
>> http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/bill-clinton-iran-sanctions-103219.html
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> This message was sent to C. G. Estabrook by Robert Naiman through
>> MoveOn's public petition website. MoveOn Political Action
>> licensed and paid for this service, but does not endorse contents
>> of this message. To unsubscribe or report this email as
>> inappropriate, click here:
>> http://petitions.moveon.org/unsub.html?i=25894-2656067-SOI5mn
>>
>> *Want to make a donation?* MoveOn is entirely funded by our 8
>> million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from
>> CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a
>> long way. Chip in here.
>> <https://civic.moveon.org/donatec4/creditcard.html?cpn_id=687>
>>
>> Web Bug from http://petitions.moveon.org/o?i=25894-2656067-SOI5mn
>> Web Bug from
>> http://list.moveon.org/wf/open?upn=e1-2F-2FEAR3sQFfdoSEDub2TS80s1kPnZTIE4eTkmcKsntHUOfws28NcHiLhEEmkDdGiy-2F4d9l5Z-2FXDqU8ey4Sgvf5N1o5jDjMuA0YNO-2Bl3uDrlkZp2HHZ6C0DLtk-2FIQhNn14Z62HLlt7A0wf5CzWgIVtdVLmcDRNL-2F7JVRBp-2FSS7uJWMaQ7r2SvJc7-2FVBtwRwBd4J08-2FT5yUJxFnGF8nk4lxMOoMrw14D-2FTrBn7SEWzqYCZSesRA-2BxVkB3-2Bj79BKgo
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20141022/68cea24b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list