DrAlphaeus wrote:

Nalod wrote:when I was in the 8th grade my friend had stolen some money from my fathers drawer. About$50. He had done this to others. When he learned of the accusation he went on how he was gonna kick my ass for talking smack. Dude was big and lifted weights! I had no chance. I was in class and he was posturing outside the door way how at the end of class it was gonna be on. Really, I was scared. Nalod for some reason thought it be best to get this over with and at least the teachers could pull us apart if it happend in the hall than off school grounds and we'd both be in trouble. If his parents got involved it would would be over.

Nalod got up, kicked over the desk an rushed "John" into the lockers. Very dramatic, we both got a few good punchs in and it ended quickly as a draw. Our parents came up and it all got sortedout.
I got suspended and john didn't. Thats what happens when you pre-empt a strike. it looks like your agreeser but in fact your not waiting. You do it on conditions that suit you.

IN the John got accused by others and he respected me. We became better friends. We had an undrstanding that we would never pay for weed and in the long run it was cool.

Isreal will always look bad becuase its not gonna wait to garner the sympathy as a victim. They won't wait until Hammas finishe its tunnels and then starts killing its children. Don't freaking build tunnels.
And it won't wait until Iran who has sworn its distruction and funds and advises Hezbollah and Hammas to finish a bomb. As much as I want Obama to get a good deal I like the rest of the world hold my breath. GOP does not want Obama to get credit or a nobel prize.

Those who are sympathic to the human plight of the the refugees stuck in Gaza and the West Bank must understand the lack of leadership and the influx of corruption not by Israel, but from within have kept them from obtaining a good deal. Many have been offered and rejected. Billions from aid squandered by leadership. Its sad. Bottom line is you can't make peace with someone who does not. How do you deal with a group willing to sacrifice its children?

So allowing Iran to work with the international community to develop nuclear energy will lead to Hezbollah getting nuclear weapons? This is the logical jump that I'm having trouble understanding. I don't understand nuclear physics outside of the broadest of strokes, but is the fear that the fuel intended for power will be weaponized? Is this fear founded on facts — if so please share — or just paranoia?

Isn't the whole idea of bringing Iran into the light of day with inspections by an international agency responsible for watching out for this what the negotiations are about?

To get the bomb or nuclear fuel you need enrich uranium to specific grade needed for both.
The avenue was given for Iran was clear - the nuclear fuel will be provided for then by other counties in the form ready for Nuclear station in controlled manner. So it will be checked as being used for energy generation.
This was rejected by Iran.
They also constantly prevent the work of inspectors and keep multiple sites not accessible and moving the nuclear facilities underground, building and running more centrifuges to produce weapon grade nuclear fuel.
Not sure how it can be not clear what are their intentions.
Only blind person or complete full cannot see what is going on.
On top of this Iran has rockets capable to reach not only Israel but US.
They do have facilities working on conventional warheads development which can be easily adjusted to carry nuclear workload.
Iran leadership does not hesitated to facilitate more then 1 million people killed during Iran/Iraq war.
Their theological believes are readily accepting and glorifying mass suicide in the name of God.
Israel is the firs target with Shia Arab countries and US are next.

jrodmc wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

Nalod wrote:when I was in the 8th grade my friend had stolen some money from my fathers drawer. About$50. He had done this to others. When he learned of the accusation he went on how he was gonna kick my ass for talking smack. Dude was big and lifted weights! I had no chance. I was in class and he was posturing outside the door way how at the end of class it was gonna be on. Really, I was scared. Nalod for some reason thought it be best to get this over with and at least the teachers could pull us apart if it happend in the hall than off school grounds and we'd both be in trouble. If his parents got involved it would would be over.

Nalod got up, kicked over the desk an rushed "John" into the lockers. Very dramatic, we both got a few good punchs in and it ended quickly as a draw. Our parents came up and it all got sortedout.
I got suspended and john didn't. Thats what happens when you pre-empt a strike. it looks like your agreeser but in fact your not waiting. You do it on conditions that suit you.

IN the John got accused by others and he respected me. We became better friends. We had an undrstanding that we would never pay for weed and in the long run it was cool.

Isreal will always look bad becuase its not gonna wait to garner the sympathy as a victim. They won't wait until Hammas finishe its tunnels and then starts killing its children. Don't freaking build tunnels.
And it won't wait until Iran who has sworn its distruction and funds and advises Hezbollah and Hammas to finish a bomb. As much as I want Obama to get a good deal I like the rest of the world hold my breath. GOP does not want Obama to get credit or a nobel prize.

Those who are sympathic to the human plight of the the refugees stuck in Gaza and the West Bank must understand the lack of leadership and the influx of corruption not by Israel, but from within have kept them from obtaining a good deal. Many have been offered and rejected. Billions from aid squandered by leadership. Its sad. Bottom line is you can't make peace with someone who does not. How do you deal with a group willing to sacrifice its children?

So allowing Iran to work with the international community to develop nuclear energy will lead to Hezbollah getting nuclear weapons? This is the logical jump that I'm having trouble understanding. I don't understand nuclear physics outside of the broadest of strokes, but is the fear that the fuel intended for power will be weaponized? Is this fear founded on facts — if so please share — or just paranoia?

Isn't the whole idea of bringing Iran into the light of day with inspections by an international agency responsible for watching out for this what the negotiations are about?

You cannot be this naive. Read the speech. Inspectors are a joke.

How's that nuclear energy program in North Korea going? I heard there were inspectors there too, watching out for things.

I'm being argumentative, not naive. Regarding inspectors: how about Iraq though?

DrAlphaeus wrote:

arkrud wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

Nalod wrote:when I was in the 8th grade my friend had stolen some money from my fathers drawer. About$50. He had done this to others. When he learned of the accusation he went on how he was gonna kick my ass for talking smack. Dude was big and lifted weights! I had no chance. I was in class and he was posturing outside the door way how at the end of class it was gonna be on. Really, I was scared. Nalod for some reason thought it be best to get this over with and at least the teachers could pull us apart if it happend in the hall than off school grounds and we'd both be in trouble. If his parents got involved it would would be over.

Nalod got up, kicked over the desk an rushed "John" into the lockers. Very dramatic, we both got a few good punchs in and it ended quickly as a draw. Our parents came up and it all got sortedout.
I got suspended and john didn't. Thats what happens when you pre-empt a strike. it looks like your agreeser but in fact your not waiting. You do it on conditions that suit you.

IN the John got accused by others and he respected me. We became better friends. We had an undrstanding that we would never pay for weed and in the long run it was cool.

Isreal will always look bad becuase its not gonna wait to garner the sympathy as a victim. They won't wait until Hammas finishe its tunnels and then starts killing its children. Don't freaking build tunnels.
And it won't wait until Iran who has sworn its distruction and funds and advises Hezbollah and Hammas to finish a bomb. As much as I want Obama to get a good deal I like the rest of the world hold my breath. GOP does not want Obama to get credit or a nobel prize.

Those who are sympathic to the human plight of the the refugees stuck in Gaza and the West Bank must understand the lack of leadership and the influx of corruption not by Israel, but from within have kept them from obtaining a good deal. Many have been offered and rejected. Billions from aid squandered by leadership. Its sad. Bottom line is you can't make peace with someone who does not. How do you deal with a group willing to sacrifice its children?

So allowing Iran to work with the international community to develop nuclear energy will lead to Hezbollah getting nuclear weapons? This is the logical jump that I'm having trouble understanding. I don't understand nuclear physics outside of the broadest of strokes, but is the fear that the fuel intended for power will be weaponized? Is this fear founded on facts — if so please share — or just paranoia?

Isn't the whole idea of bringing Iran into the light of day with inspections by an international agency responsible for watching out for this what the negotiations are about?

To get the bomb or nuclear fuel you need enrich uranium to specific grade needed for both.
The avenue was given for Iran was clear - the nuclear fuel will be provided for then by other counties in the form ready for Nuclear station in controlled manner. So it will be checked as being used for energy generation.
This was rejected by Iran.
They also constantly prevent the work of inspectors and keep multiple sites not accessible and moving the nuclear facilities underground, building and running more centrifuges to produce weapon grade nuclear fuel.
Not sure how it can be not clear what are their intentions.
Only blind person or complete full cannot see what is going on.
On top of this Iran has rockets capable to reach not only Israel but US.
They do have facilities working on conventional warheads development which can be easily adjusted to carry nuclear workload.
Iran leadership does not hesitated to facilitate more then 1 million people killed during Iran/Iraq war.
Their theological believes are readily accepting and glorifying mass suicide in the name of God.
Israel is the firs target with Shia Arab countries and US are next.

If you have some links to support your claims, I'd appreciate it... otherwise I will look some of this up. I haven't been following the negotiations very closely and still trying to catch up on the geopolitics of this.

Iran is Shi'a so I think you meant Sunni Arab countries. No doubt the Arab countries are wary of Iran's influence, Kerry had to assuage the Saudis' fears the other day.

As to your claim that mass suicide via a nuclear first strike is theologically sound with the ayatollahs, my research suggests the opposite: that Khomeini and subsequent Iranian leaders issued fatwas against chemical and nuclear weapons programs, claiming them haram and handcuffing Iranian troops from chemical weapon retribution on Iraq in their war.

http://theweek.com/articles/442912/khomeini-said-iranian-nukes

I of course don't want Iran to have the bomb but I also ideally wouldn't want anyone to have the bomb. And I'm down on nuclear energy in principle: it can be damn near carbon-free but the waste and environmental issues are still problems that haven't been solved.

Speaking about Ayatollah:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/ayatollah-tells-air-force-we-enriched-uranium-20-commanders-death-0
He officially announced that Iran enriched Uranium to 20% which is 90% effort required to get it to weapon grade.
Obviously Iran may not use nuclear weapons but they will be able to use the fact of possessing it to enforce their political agenda.
The proxy wars they are running against Israel and Sunni Arabs (yes I made a mistake in my post) using Hezbollah and other terrorist groups will only reignite.
The fact that Israel has nuclear capabilities is the final guaranty of their existence.
Israel will immediately announce their nuclear capabilities if other country in middle east will do same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

Estimates as to the size of the Israeli nuclear arsenal vary between 75 and 400 nuclear warheads. It is estimated that the Israel nuclear deterrent force has the ability to deliver them by intermediate-range ballistic missile, intercontinental ballistic missile, aircraft, and submarine-launched cruise missile.[2] The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates that Israel has approximately 80 intact nuclear weapons, of which 50 are for delivery by Jericho II medium-range ballistic missiles and 30 are gravity bombs for delivery by aircraft.[2]

Iran, unrealistically, is demanding the immediate removal of all sanctions. Barack Obama, America’s president, can suspend most of America’s, but only Congress can remove sanctions that it has legislated. The rapturous applause for the speech Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, gave to Congress on March 3rd suggests that suspension is the best the Iranians can get from America for the foreseeable future. The European Union and the United Nations Security Council could, however, remove their sanctions more permanently.

Iran also wants to be able to continue to develop more advanced centrifuges, which would allow the rapid ramp-up of uranium enrichment (and thus speed the path to a bomb) once the agreed restrictions fall away. The centrifuges that Iran hopes eventually to deploy spin about six times faster than the ones installed now, which they say they will need to produce low-enriched uranium (LEU) on the industrial scale needed to fuel commercial reactors.

Iran has said it will accept the International Atomic Energy Authority’s (IAEA) Additional Protocol, which involves more intrusive inspections of nuclear facilities than usual. But Iran has not yet agreed to other inspections, which given its history of cheating is deemed a necessary requirement by the West. A final key issue yet to be resolved is that Iran must come clean about past weapons-programme activities. It has thus far steadily refused to do so because it still insists, no matter how implausibly, that there never were any.

That said, the outlines of a deal are now in place that would extend the “break-out” period—ie, how long it would take Iran to produce 25kg of highly-enriched uranium (the standard measure for one weapon’s worth) were it to decide to renege on its commitments—to more than a year. That compares with what most estimates suggest is a current break-out time of about three months. The main components of the agreement, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, would look something like this:

The 9,500 centrifuges now currently operating would be cut to about 6,000–7,000.
All other centrifuges, including the 9,000 that are installed but not operating, would be placed in secure domestic storage under the seal of the IAEA.
Iran’s 8,000kg stockpile of LEU would be substantially reduced by exporting much of it to Russia and by converting some of it into oxide. This is crucial: the more LEU Iran has to ship out the fewer centrifuges it will need to give up.
Changes to the cascade configuration of the remaining centrifuges would be made that would impede production of highly enriched uranium (HEU)—the weapons-grade stuff. Although such changes can be reversed, it would take time to do and would signal Iran was breaking other commitments.
There would also be changes to the design of the Arak heavy water reactor to ensure it can produce no more than 1kg of plutonium a month, rather than the 8kg it has been designed to do (plutonium offers a another route to a nuclear weapon).
The full range of restraint measures would remain in force for ten years, after which there would be a staged relaxation. However, some restraints would last for 20 years or more.

The Israeli prime minister’s excoriation of this as a “bad deal” is not without foundation. He is right to say that it will leave Iran as a nuclear-weapons threshold state and that Iran will quite probably continue to use that as a means to bully and intimidate its neighbours. He is also right to say that without dismantling Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, the country will continue to have a path to a bomb, which may become even more rapid after ten years, when the first stage of the deal lapses.

What he has failed to do is to propose anything better. He argues that if sanctions are maintained and even tightened, a chastened Iran will return to the negotiating table and give in to every demand made of it, no matter the degree of national humiliation that would entail. There is no evidence at all for the truth of this. In fact, people who understand Iran well or are close to the negotiations believe the exact opposite of what Mr Netanyahu claims. Iran is suffering from sanctions, but it is a proud nation that will not be brought to its knees. Mr Netanyahu accuses others of wishful thinking, but if he genuinely believes what he is saying, he is guilty of it too.

It may be that he does not. Mr Netanyahu insists that he is not advocating for war with Iran, but it is hard to draw any other logical conclusion from the position he has staked out. The trouble is that only America has the military power to deal a serious and lasting blow to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Even then, it would not wipe out enough of a vast and sprawling enterprise to set Iran back by more than a few years. And it would make it virtually certain that Iran’s leaders, having expelled the IAEA weapons inspectors, would authorise the resumption of a clandestine nuclear weapons programme at the first opportunity.

President Obama clearly has no appetite for this unattractive risk-to-reward calculus. It is also doubtful whether any presidential successor, or even Mr Netanyahu’s Congressional cheerleaders, would see things very differently were they in his position. If Iran does at some point make the momentous choice to get the bomb, military action is very likely to be the consequence. But that will represent failure rather than success.

Until then, what Mr Netanyahu calls a bad deal looks quite a bit better than any of the alternatives.

BasketballJones wrote:Well, given that Obama is not legitmately president (having been born in Kenya, and not loving america the way you and I do) it makes perfect sense to have Bibi be our president. He's the closest thing we have to Bush/Cheney - you know, real american presidents.

Understandable irony and illustrative one.
Most of Americans do not give a damm about Israel and Iran... and if they will nuke each other.
It was the same attitude about this funny dudes in Germany and Russia... before Japan strike Perl Harbor.
Then we have to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki to kill hundred of thousands and radiate millions do slowly die later.
Positively people sadly never learn...

arkrud wrote:

BasketballJones wrote:Well, given that Obama is not legitmately president (having been born in Kenya, and not loving america the way you and I do) it makes perfect sense to have Bibi be our president. He's the closest thing we have to Bush/Cheney - you know, real american presidents.

Understandable irony and illustrative one.
Most of Americans do not give a damm about Israel and Iran... and if they will nuke each other.
It was the same attitude about this funny dudes in Germany and Russia... before Japan strike Perl Harbor.
Then we have to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki to kill hundred of thousands and radiate millions do slowly die later.
Positively people sadly never learn...

Well, no one has dropped a nuke in combat since 1945. That horrific lesson has been heeded so far at least.

WWII — the last war Congress ever officially declared — made unlikely allies out of the US, Russia, and China. "The United Nations" was the name for the Allies and along with UK and France remain the permanent members of the Security Council. Our former allies China and Russia — who collectively had a military death toll around 12-13 million(!!!) to our 400,000 — were our mortal enemies but a few years later. Out of the Armistice these former allies waged a Cold War with Mutually Assured Destruction as a guiding principle.

So the rest of the world learned how to play this game by being pawns in proxy wars. So maybe people learn all too well.

Now against ISIS in a destabilized Iraq and Syria the US is fighting them from the sky while the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Iraqi government, Kurdish forces, Iran, Hezbollah and Shi'a militia fight on the ground. A lot more difficult than "Allied" and "Axis"... It's a mess we had a hand in creating... not just the current or previous administrations, but going back to Truman at least.

Splat wrote:

arkrud wrote:

holfresh wrote:The Economist..A very fair minded publication's take:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/03/america-and-iran?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709

The best of bad options

THE March 24th deadline for an agreement with Iran may be looming, but the parties to the talks have kept impressively quiet about the details being hammered out this week in Montreux, Switzerland. Despite speculation that a deal is imminent, significant gaps still remain which could yet scupper one.

Iran, unrealistically, is demanding the immediate removal of all sanctions. Barack Obama, America’s president, can suspend most of America’s, but only Congress can remove sanctions that it has legislated. The rapturous applause for the speech Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, gave to Congress on March 3rd suggests that suspension is the best the Iranians can get from America for the foreseeable future. The European Union and the United Nations Security Council could, however, remove their sanctions more permanently.

Iran also wants to be able to continue to develop more advanced centrifuges, which would allow the rapid ramp-up of uranium enrichment (and thus speed the path to a bomb) once the agreed restrictions fall away. The centrifuges that Iran hopes eventually to deploy spin about six times faster than the ones installed now, which they say they will need to produce low-enriched uranium (LEU) on the industrial scale needed to fuel commercial reactors.

Iran has said it will accept the International Atomic Energy Authority’s (IAEA) Additional Protocol, which involves more intrusive inspections of nuclear facilities than usual. But Iran has not yet agreed to other inspections, which given its history of cheating is deemed a necessary requirement by the West. A final key issue yet to be resolved is that Iran must come clean about past weapons-programme activities. It has thus far steadily refused to do so because it still insists, no matter how implausibly, that there never were any.

That said, the outlines of a deal are now in place that would extend the “break-out” period—ie, how long it would take Iran to produce 25kg of highly-enriched uranium (the standard measure for one weapon’s worth) were it to decide to renege on its commitments—to more than a year. That compares with what most estimates suggest is a current break-out time of about three months. The main components of the agreement, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, would look something like this:

The 9,500 centrifuges now currently operating would be cut to about 6,000–7,000.
All other centrifuges, including the 9,000 that are installed but not operating, would be placed in secure domestic storage under the seal of the IAEA.
Iran’s 8,000kg stockpile of LEU would be substantially reduced by exporting much of it to Russia and by converting some of it into oxide. This is crucial: the more LEU Iran has to ship out the fewer centrifuges it will need to give up.
Changes to the cascade configuration of the remaining centrifuges would be made that would impede production of highly enriched uranium (HEU)—the weapons-grade stuff. Although such changes can be reversed, it would take time to do and would signal Iran was breaking other commitments.
There would also be changes to the design of the Arak heavy water reactor to ensure it can produce no more than 1kg of plutonium a month, rather than the 8kg it has been designed to do (plutonium offers a another route to a nuclear weapon).
The full range of restraint measures would remain in force for ten years, after which there would be a staged relaxation. However, some restraints would last for 20 years or more.

The Israeli prime minister’s excoriation of this as a “bad deal” is not without foundation. He is right to say that it will leave Iran as a nuclear-weapons threshold state and that Iran will quite probably continue to use that as a means to bully and intimidate its neighbours. He is also right to say that without dismantling Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, the country will continue to have a path to a bomb, which may become even more rapid after ten years, when the first stage of the deal lapses.

What he has failed to do is to propose anything better. He argues that if sanctions are maintained and even tightened, a chastened Iran will return to the negotiating table and give in to every demand made of it, no matter the degree of national humiliation that would entail. There is no evidence at all for the truth of this. In fact, people who understand Iran well or are close to the negotiations believe the exact opposite of what Mr Netanyahu claims. Iran is suffering from sanctions, but it is a proud nation that will not be brought to its knees. Mr Netanyahu accuses others of wishful thinking, but if he genuinely believes what he is saying, he is guilty of it too.

It may be that he does not. Mr Netanyahu insists that he is not advocating for war with Iran, but it is hard to draw any other logical conclusion from the position he has staked out. The trouble is that only America has the military power to deal a serious and lasting blow to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Even then, it would not wipe out enough of a vast and sprawling enterprise to set Iran back by more than a few years. And it would make it virtually certain that Iran’s leaders, having expelled the IAEA weapons inspectors, would authorise the resumption of a clandestine nuclear weapons programme at the first opportunity.

President Obama clearly has no appetite for this unattractive risk-to-reward calculus. It is also doubtful whether any presidential successor, or even Mr Netanyahu’s Congressional cheerleaders, would see things very differently were they in his position. If Iran does at some point make the momentous choice to get the bomb, military action is very likely to be the consequence. But that will represent failure rather than success.

Until then, what Mr Netanyahu calls a bad deal looks quite a bit better than any of the alternatives.

The unstoppable stupidity of US foreign policy by both republicans and democrats has no boundaries.
Going to full scale war at nations who never had any weapons of mass destruction and allow another hostile country freely develop once is really remarkable.
The real reason why US cannot force Iran to give up nukes is our inability to enforce anything in this region without direct agreement from China and Russia. The age of American power is over.
Israel recognized this and preparing to go about it on their own.
They do not have much choice. And this is exact message Netanyahu passed to the Congress and American people.

This is an article for you:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/14/-sp-western-model-broken-pankaj-mishra

Interesting view...
I am not so carried away with "western civilization" moniker.
There is only one human civilization.
Some nations are following through and building wealth and prosperity. Others are falling off and vanish or get assimilated.
Civilization can get a serious step-back altogether.
I think we should not try to forcefully "progress" anybody.
It is lime to leave all nations alone to chose their path.
If we build more secure, happier, and prosper society it will advertise itself.
So our focus should be us...
But we heed to be vigilant and do not allow anybody drag us back into the dark ages.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/asia/white-house-faults-gop-senators-letter-to-irans-leaders.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/09/world/middleeast/document-the-letter-senate-republicans-addressed-to-the-leaders-of-iran.html

47 Senate Republicans wrote a letter directly to the Iranian leadership with a short lesson on the US Constitution(?!?) warning that any agreement between the Obama and Khamenei administrations without Congressional approval could be immediately revoked by the next president.

I agree that from my reading of the Constitution, ideally this agreement/treaty should be put to a vote. But man, the GOP are really being wildcards here: first inviting the Israel PM and now directly communicating with the Iranian government, all around Obama and the State Department. Congresspeople running around the Executive in foreign policy isn't a new thing — Pelosi met with Assad in 2007, McDermott from Washington State and 2 other Congresspeople went to Iraq in 2002. I'm not opposed to challenges from the Congress regarding foreign affairs as a check and balance but this just seems beyond the pale.

Here is an article about the Iraq trip, with a quote from McCain (one of the signers of this letter) that's awesomely ironic now:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/30/international/30CONG.html

Senator Don Nickles, Republican of Oklahoma, who is the party's assistant leader in the Senate, said Mr. McDermott and Mr. Bonior "both sound somewhat like spokespersons for the Iraqi government." He said it was "counterproductive" to undermine Mr. Bush when he was seeking support from allies.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, was gentler. "As long as they're careful what they say and what they do, then I think it's fine," he said. "But all of us should keep in mind that foreign affairs, national security issues, etc., are generally handled by the executive branch, with the advice and consent of the Congress."

Speaking of the administration, Mr. McDermott said, "I believe that sometimes they give out misinformation." Then he added: "It would not surprise me if they came up with some information that is not provable, and they've shifted. First they said it was Al Qaeda, then they said it was weapons of mass destruction. Now they're going back and saying it's Al Qaeda again."

When pressed for evidence about whether President Bush had lied, Mr. McDermott said, "I think the president would mislead the American people." But he said he believed that inspections of Iraq's weapons programs could be worked out.

DrAlphaeus wrote:Some more information: the Arkansas Senator who organized the letter — Tom Cotton, an Iraq and Afghanistan war vet who supports a "policy of 'regime change'" in Iran — said at the Conservative Policy Summit in January:

"The end of these negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of congressional action. It is very much an intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so speak."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/09/tom-cotton-iran_n_6831328.html

With friends like this, who need enemies?