Cancel 2018.1
New member
So what would that be? "Cut it out" ? Sanctions? (We already have that, don't we?) War?
Last edited:
Dems Continue to Rehabilitate and Unify With Bush-Era Neocons
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
You're asking the question that I just asked you. I've already stated what it would be .. FINDINGS that lead to SOLUTIONS. I have no fear of information. I fear doing nothing.
Findings, whether they come from this group or any other, should be compared, analyzed, and vetted. If, as you say, we have tried everything else, what is the problem with looking outside the box for solutions .. doing what is not normal in todays politics .. working together?
Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney have allied to fight against cyber attacks, specifically from Russia. Should we just do the usual stupid and just call them losers, or should we appreciate the alliance against a threat the IC determines is real?
Oil concerns hold up Russia sanctions push
merican oil and natural gas companies are pushing for changes to a massive expansion of economic sanctions on Russia, warning lawmakers that the new regulations would harm them, too.
House leaders are negotiating several fixes to a bill expanding economic penalties on Russia and Iran, which includes new limits on the extent to which American and Russian oil and gas companies can interact.
The White House has asked for several changes to the bill that would limit Congress’s ability to re-impose Russian sanctions if they’re lifted by the administration. Lawmakers have mostly rejected that request, and Democrats have cited it to raise concerns about President Trump’s potential connections to Russia.
But American energy companies say the expanded sanctions were rushed through the Senate without enough vetting and could prevent United States oil and gas companies from drilling near Russian companies, even if they’re not working together.
Originally drafted as a bill to impose sanctions on Iran, senators added Russian sanctions shortly before the bill’s final passage in June. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) introduced the Russian sanctions as an amendment on June 12. The amendment was adopted on June 13, and the bill passed on June 15.
Energy companies are concerned with sections of the Russian sanctions that ban American investments supporting the “maintenance or expansion of the construction, modernization, or repair of energy pipelines by the Russian Federation.” The sanctions bill also bans investments that “directly and significantly [contribute] to the enhancement of the ability of the Russian Federation to construct energy export pipelines.”
Those provisions are intended to harm Russian energy companies, many of which are state-owned or closely tied to the Kremlin, and reduce Europe’s dependence on Russian oil and gas. The United States has increased crude oil and natural gas exports as a way to counter Russian influence in the region, a stated goal of the president.
But energy firms and lobbying groups say that the sanctions could prevent American companies from drilling in the same oil and gas fields as Russian companies if the firms are forced to collaborate by the host countries.
The American Petroleum Institute (API), the nation’s leading oil and natural gas lobby, is pressuring the House to take a more nuanced approach. The industry argues the Senate’s legislation would accidently harm American producers by barring them from participating in oil projects outside of Russian territory simply because Russian firms are present there as well.
“Sanctions are a valuable tool of American foreign policy,” API President Jack Gerard said in a statement to The Hill. “But
Key lawmakers from leadership on down say they’re open to tweaking the package to accommodate the industry’s concerns.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) are leading negotiations over the bill, and senators have expressed openness to making changes to give energy companies more peace of mind, Republicans say.
Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said last week that lawmakers were considering fixing the bill “to [make] sure that we don’t actually inadvertently help Russian oligarchs and oil firms.”
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), who is helping craft the House bill, said, “Unfortunately, the Senate version of the bill would give Russians the opportunity to weaponize these sanctions against American businesses.”
He added, “I believe we need to thoroughly look at this and make necessary changes to protect American job creators.”
The oil industry began raising objections after the Senate sent its sanctions package to the House last month. Lobbyists said they simply didn’t have enough time to push the Senate to make the changes they wanted.
But pressure has ramped up this week, with both behind-the-scenes lobbying and public appeals to lawmakers.
In a letter to McCarthy on Monday, the Petroleum Equipment and Services Association (PESA) said it wants changes “made to language contained in [that bill] that, while ostensibly targeting the Russian energy sector, would in fact threaten many ongoing and future business activities of PESA member companies and other businesses.”
In a weekend op-ed in the Washington Examiner, the industry-funded Institute for Energy Research warned the sanctions bill “has the potential to affect a wide variety of industries — up and down the global energy, manufacturing, and engineering value chain.”
Energy-related concerns aren’t confined to American companies.
European allies have also worried new U.S. sanctions could jeopardize previous oil and gas contracts and partnerships with Russian firms that provide the continent with energy.
Wolfgang Ischinger, a former German ambassador to the U.S., wrote in a Wall Street Journal column that the sanctions could do economic harm to America’s partners in restraining Russian aggression.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said Wednesday that he thinks the Senate bill is flexible enough to deal with industry and European concerns, but that he’s open to making fixes to reassure them.
“There are ways we could clarify that to give them greater comfort if that opportunity presents itself,” Cardin told reporters. “We would support those modifications,” whether through a separate bill or amendment, Cardin said.
The language on energy sanctions is one of several hurdles facing the sanctions bill. Lawmakers are sparring over a provision that only allows the House majority leader, not the minority leader, to introduce a bill re-imposing sanctions lifted by the president.
The House will also need to resolve an issue regarding the Constitution’s “origination clause,” which requires any bills affecting revenue to start in the lower chamber. Since the sanctions bill started in the Senate, the House would need to pass a new version for the Senate to approve later.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/342839-oil-concerns-hold-up-russia-sanctions-push
*crazy assed nuttiness*< my comment
merican oil and natural gas companies are pushing for changes to a massive expansion of economic sanctions on Russia, warning lawmakers that the new regulations would harm them, too.
House leaders are negotiating several fixes to a bill expanding economic penalties on Russia and Iran, which includes new limits on the extent to which American and Russian oil and gas companies can interact.
The White House has asked for several changes to the bill that would limit Congress’s ability to re-impose Russian sanctions if they’re lifted by the administration. Lawmakers have mostly rejected that request, and Democrats have cited it to raise concerns about President Trump’s potential connections to Russia.
But American energy companies say the expanded sanctions were rushed through the Senate without enough vetting and could prevent United States oil and gas companies from drilling near Russian companies, even if they’re not working together.
Originally drafted as a bill to impose sanctions on Iran, senators added Russian sanctions shortly before the bill’s final passage in June. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) introduced the Russian sanctions as an amendment on June 12. The amendment was adopted on June 13, and the bill passed on June 15.
Energy companies are concerned with sections of the Russian sanctions that ban American investments supporting the “maintenance or expansion of the construction, modernization, or repair of energy pipelines by the Russian Federation.” The sanctions bill also bans investments that “directly and significantly [contribute] to the enhancement of the ability of the Russian Federation to construct energy export pipelines.”
Those provisions are intended to harm Russian energy companies, many of which are state-owned or closely tied to the Kremlin, and reduce Europe’s dependence on Russian oil and gas. The United States has increased crude oil and natural gas exports as a way to counter Russian influence in the region, a stated goal of the president.
But energy firms and lobbying groups say that the sanctions could prevent American companies from drilling in the same oil and gas fields as Russian companies if the firms are forced to collaborate by the host countries.
The American Petroleum Institute (API), the nation’s leading oil and natural gas lobby, is pressuring the House to take a more nuanced approach. The industry argues the Senate’s legislation would accidently harm American producers by barring them from participating in oil projects outside of Russian territory simply because Russian firms are present there as well.
“Sanctions are a valuable tool of American foreign policy,” API President Jack Gerard said in a statement to The Hill. “But
Key lawmakers from leadership on down say they’re open to tweaking the package to accommodate the industry’s concerns.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) are leading negotiations over the bill, and senators have expressed openness to making changes to give energy companies more peace of mind, Republicans say.
Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said last week that lawmakers were considering fixing the bill “to [make] sure that we don’t actually inadvertently help Russian oligarchs and oil firms.”
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), who is helping craft the House bill, said, “Unfortunately, the Senate version of the bill would give Russians the opportunity to weaponize these sanctions against American businesses.”
He added, “I believe we need to thoroughly look at this and make necessary changes to protect American job creators.”
The oil industry began raising objections after the Senate sent its sanctions package to the House last month. Lobbyists said they simply didn’t have enough time to push the Senate to make the changes they wanted.
But pressure has ramped up this week, with both behind-the-scenes lobbying and public appeals to lawmakers.
In a letter to McCarthy on Monday, the Petroleum Equipment and Services Association (PESA) said it wants changes “made to language contained in [that bill] that, while ostensibly targeting the Russian energy sector, would in fact threaten many ongoing and future business activities of PESA member companies and other businesses.”
In a weekend op-ed in the Washington Examiner, the industry-funded Institute for Energy Research warned the sanctions bill “has the potential to affect a wide variety of industries — up and down the global energy, manufacturing, and engineering value chain.”
Energy-related concerns aren’t confined to American companies.
European allies have also worried new U.S. sanctions could jeopardize previous oil and gas contracts and partnerships with Russian firms that provide the continent with energy.
Wolfgang Ischinger, a former German ambassador to the U.S., wrote in a Wall Street Journal column that the sanctions could do economic harm to America’s partners in restraining Russian aggression.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said Wednesday that he thinks the Senate bill is flexible enough to deal with industry and European concerns, but that he’s open to making fixes to reassure them.
“There are ways we could clarify that to give them greater comfort if that opportunity presents itself,” Cardin told reporters. “We would support those modifications,” whether through a separate bill or amendment, Cardin said.
The language on energy sanctions is one of several hurdles facing the sanctions bill. Lawmakers are sparring over a provision that only allows the House majority leader, not the minority leader, to introduce a bill re-imposing sanctions lifted by the president.
The House will also need to resolve an issue regarding the Constitution’s “origination clause,” which requires any bills affecting revenue to start in the lower chamber. Since the sanctions bill started in the Senate, the House would need to pass a new version for the Senate to approve later.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/342839-oil-concerns-hold-up-russia-sanctions-push
*crazy assed nuttiness*< my comment
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Douchebag Donald being classless and undignified were part of the reasons why I became #NeverTrump. But, yeah, I understood that the neocons opposed him for different reasons. They would have tolerated his seven decades of leftism had his sudden shift been in the direction of Wilsonian interventionism and nation-building.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
I'm saying that we should welcome alliances of AMERICANS who recognize the threat that has been validated by AMERICAN Intelligence .. and so-called 'patriots' are supporting the very threat AMERICAN Intelligence has identified.
.. but I'm the crazy one.
They want American Exceptionalism and they don't care how it's done -hard, soft power or war- is all the same to them
—if neoconservatives can convince others that fighting some war, somewhere is for America’s actual defense, they will always make this argument and stretch any logic necessary to do so. Whether or not it is true is less important than its effectiveness. But their arguments are only a means to an end. Neoconservatives rarely show any reflection—much less regret—for foreign policy mistakes because for them there are no foreign policy mistakes. America’s wars are valid by their own volition. America’s “mission” is its missions. Writes
Needless to say, perpetual war to rid the world of evil is about as far as one can get from traditional conservatism but it was also the mantra of Bush’s Republican Party. Boot now snidely asks the current GOP if they want to be known as the “anti-military, weak-on-defense, pro-dictator party” due to their opposition to the Libyan intervention. This argument might sound strange yet familiar to Republicans—it was exactly what they said about Democrats who opposed the Iraq War.
John McCain now calls Republicans who oppose the Libyan War “isolationist.”
The Senator’s use of that term is as illogical as it is illustrative—in that his bizarre definition is identical to what most of his fellow Republicans believed just a few short years ago.
The Libyan War makes clear what the Iraq War made confusing: There is a difference between conservatives who believe in a strong national defense and neoconservatives who believe in policing the world under the guise of national defense. The neoconservatives will only remain successful to the extent that they can continue to blur this distinction.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2011/06/23/whats-a-neoconservative/
Needless to say, perpetual war to rid the world of evil is about as far as one can get from traditional conservatism but it was also the mantra of Bush’s Republican Party. Boot now snidely asks the current GOP if they want to be known as the “anti-military, weak-on-defense, pro-dictator party” due to their opposition to the Libyan intervention. This argument might sound strange yet familiar to Republicans—it was exactly what they said about Democrats who opposed the Iraq War.
John McCain now calls Republicans who oppose the Libyan War “isolationist.”
The Senator’s use of that term is as illogical as it is illustrative—in that his bizarre definition is identical to what most of his fellow Republicans believed just a few short years ago.
The Libyan War makes clear what the Iraq War made confusing: There is a difference between conservatives who believe in a strong national defense and neoconservatives who believe in policing the world under the guise of national defense. The neoconservatives will only remain successful to the extent that they can continue to blur this distinction.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2011/06/23/whats-a-neoconservative/
His first revelation was having ILA as a pet.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Let me know when they start yelling for invasion & war.
Until then, pipe down. The irony of some of the pro-Iraq righties on this thread saying ANYTHING is too great to calculate.
Until then, pipe down. The irony of some of the pro-Iraq righties on this thread saying ANYTHING is too great to calculate.
they already did it in Libya, they already 100% discount any US role in NATO expansion, or Euromaiden meddling.
They are in it for the same reasons Deep State is in it regarding Russia;detente would be disastrous to their ability to gin up hysteria.
They use it to put Americans permanently on the ground in Finland(et all), and boost Cold War 2.
They can't stand peace or rapprochment.
They've dragged the Democrats into a permanent hostile positioning against Putin.
Dem's don't even want to work w/Russia on Syria,they have the same leftover mindset of "zero sum game"
Neocons/libs want war with Iran,and conflicts to use to expand American exceptionalism
Republicans like Rubio and McCain and Graham are the same - but they were the only party of neocons
before their current putsch
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
It's like you didn't even read Thing's post. We did not invade Libya, we did not Invade Ukraine, and the only person who would think the NATO alliance is a grave threat to world peace is a Kremlin stooge.
Before you are even allowed to claim Thing is a warmongering NeoCon, and you allegedly have anti-NeoCon street cred, would you mind answering these questions, honestly, with absolutely no lying?
Who did you vote for in 2000? Gore or Bush?
In 2004, did you vote for Bush?
Did you ever attend an Iraq War Protest?
Did you - you personally - routinely start and author threads on this, or any other message board forcefully making the moral argument against the Iraq War Disaster?
Are you aware that your hero, Donald J. Drumpf was in favor of the invasion of Iraq, only belatedly- just like Hillary Clinton did - later deciding it was a mistake.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Getin the ring
Verified User
Obama has left us no alternative than to chase ISIS down whereever they may hide, and to deal with whomever may be hiding or aiding them.
Trump is on it, sit back and watch an American President that means what he says operate
Trump is on it, sit back and watch an American President that means what he says operate
When it comes to this new group, the alliance of Democrats with the most extreme neocon elements is visible beyond the group’s staff leadership. Its board of advisers is composed of both leading Democratic foreign policy experts, along with the nation’s most extremist neocons.
Thus, alongside Jake Sullivan (national security adviser to Joe Biden and the Clinton campaign), Mike Morrell (Obama’s acting CIA director) and Mike McFaul (Obama’s ambassador to Russia) sit leading neocons such as Mike Chertoff (Bush’s homeland security secretary), Mike Rogers (the far-right, supremely hawkish former congressman who now hosts a right-wing radio show); and Bill Kristol himself
There is now little to no daylight between leading Democratic Party foreign policy gurus and the Bush-era neocons who had wallowed in disgrace following the debacle of Iraq and the broader abuses of the war on terror. That’s why they are able so comfortably to unify this way in support of common foreign policy objectives and beliefs.
Democrats often justify this union as a mere marriage of convenience: a pragmatic, temporary alliance necessitated by the narrow goal of stopping Trump. But for many reasons, that is an obvious pretext, unpersuasive in the extreme. This Democrat/neocon reunion had been developing long before anyone believed Donald Trump could ascend to power, and this alliance extends to common perspectives, goals, and policies that have little to do with the current president.
It is true that neocons were among the earliest and most vocal GOP opponents of Trump. That was because they viewed him as an ideological threat to their orthodoxies (such as when he advocated for U.S. “neutrality” on the Israel/Palestine conflict and railed against the wisdom of the wars in Iraq and Libya), but they were also worried that his uncouth, offensive personality would embarrass the U.S. and thus weaken the “soft power” needed for imperial hegemony. Even if Trump could be brought into line on neocon orthodoxy — as has largely happened — his ineptitude and instability posed a threat to their agenda.
But Democrats and neocons share far more than revulsion toward Trump; particularly once Hillary Clinton became the party’s standard-bearer, they share the same fundamental beliefs about the U.S. role in the world and how to assert U.S. power. In other words, this alliance is explained by far more than antipathy to Trump
Indeed, the likelihood of a neocon/Democrat reunion long predates Trump. Back in the summer of 2014 — almost a year before Trump announced his intent to run for president — longtime neocon-watcher Jacob Heilbrunn, writing in the New York Times, predicted that “the neocons may be preparing a more brazen feat: aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver’s seat of American foreign policy.”
Noting the Democratic Party’s decades-long embrace of the Cold War belligerence that neocons love most — from Truman and JFK to LBJ and Scoop Jackson — Heilbrunn documented the prominent neocons who, throughout Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, were heaping praise on her and moving to align with her. Heilbrunn explained the natural ideological affinity between neocons and establishment Democrats: “And the thing is, these neocons have a point,” he wrote.
One finds evidence of this alliance long before the emergence of Trump. Victoria Nuland, for instance, served as one of Dick Cheney’s top foreign policy advisers during the Bush years. Married to one of the most influential neocons, Robert Kagan, Nuland then seamlessly shifted into the Obama State Department and then became a top foreign policy adviser to the Clinton campaign.
As anti-war sentiment grew among some GOP precincts — as evidenced by the success of the Ron Paul candidacies of 2008 and 2012, and then Trump’s early posturing as an opponent of U.S. interventions — neocons started to conclude that their agenda, which never changed, would be better advanced by realignment back into the Democratic Party. Writing in The Nation in early 2016, Matt Duss detailed how the neocon mentality was losing traction within the GOP, and predicted
since you clearly didn't write this you are obligated by site rules as well as federal law to post a link.
I might point out two truisms to your clearly narrow mind;
politics makes strange bedfellows
and The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Getin the ring
Verified User
Hey goof ball, we had to go into Iraq, and yes Obama did invade Libya, for no good reason. Unless you don't call assassinating their leader invading.
And interesting choices you mentioned in the 2000 election, do we take that to mean you voted Gore?
you yuk yuk, that alone disqualifies from most adult conversations. But you got our resident racist applauding you, so there's that
idiot. where do I clam thing is a neo-con? He was against the Iraq war, i don't know what he thought bout Libya.
Libya wasn't an "invasion", but it was an intervention on a massive scale.
I'd have to look up the number of sorties, but we led in sorties, missiles, and command and control.
HRClinton was chief US advocate ( NSA to Obama) and world organizer of regime change surpassing the UN no fly.
She's a text book neocon, and she agitated for "Assad must go" ( Friends of Syria) as well as Iraq of course.
Further she proposed a "no fly" in Syria -regardless of conflicts w/Russian air.
Trump took a meeting w/Putin and accomplished what is looking to be a lasting cease fire in the SE.
Who has a better foreign policy? Trump hands down
NATO is not a threat to world peace. Unfettered NATO expansion is.
Needless, counterproductive and a real reason why Putin annexed Crimea because of our meddling in the Euromaiden,
but also because the next government could have very well pressed for NATO membership -
cutting him off from Sevastopol. Of course his lease was threatened before ( Orange Revolution)
as usual you get everything assed backward, missing the key ideas, while butchering your terminology.
I don't know why you even bother posting on foreign affairs, you are consistently off the rails
I voted Dem all my life for POTUS with the exception of Johnson in 2012
( because of Libya and Obama'sinability to deal w/Putin, and Trump in 2016)
Last edited: