Skip to main content

View Diary: Amazing...Senate Democrats Criticize Obama's Iran Deal (218 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not to mention that (53+ / 0-)

    whatever the failings of the Iranian government (and who would want to live under a right-wing theocracy like that?), this whole saga was started by the U.S. itself.

    Politicians and the media talk about Iranian aggression, when in fact we're the ones that engineered a coup in their country, overthrowing their democratically elected leader and installing a dictator.

    We're the ones that shot down an airliner of Iranian civilians, killing every man, woman and child on board. If another country had done this to us, we would call it terrorism.

    It may seem like ancient history, but it's really not - many of the people running Iran would have grown up in the midst of the 1953 coup. That's why one of Obama's first actions regarding Iran was to publicly acknowledge it - something no U.S. President had previously done.

    Apparently nothing will ever teach these people that the other 99 percent of the population exist. —George Orwell

    by ukit on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 03:58:51 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly (15+ / 0-)

      I was going to mention that:

      one of America's most intractable diplomatic problems
      was brought on itself, all by itself.

      Thanks for this diary. It needs to be pointed out that there are those who feel a tad more loyalty to their own 're-election campaigns' and to a foreign state than they do their own party's President. It's disgusting.

      This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

      by lunachickie on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 04:55:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Israel is not exactly (1+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        Hidden by:

        a "foreign state" to Schumer - he, like a number of others in Congress, has dual citizenship.

        •  I don't think so. (6+ / 0-)

          If reality clashes with your belief, then the problem clearly is reality.--God

          by Flyswatterbanjo on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 05:51:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Evidence that Schumer has Israeli... (10+ / 0-)

          ...citizenship, please.  

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 06:04:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think the commenter's phrase (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TLS66, word is bond, misslegalbeagle
            like a number of others in Congress
            suggests that he was referring to Members of Congress who are Jooooooooooooz, suggesting that they inherently suffer from dual-loyalty.
            •  Yes. That is what I assumed, too. I'm ... (5+ / 0-)

     fan of Schumer's foreign policy views and think he is dead wrong to be challenging the administration on the Iranian agreement and pushing for even more sanctions. But the accusations of dual-loyalty are unacceptable.

              Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

              by Meteor Blades on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 07:55:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  MB (0+ / 0-)

                Apologies for being late in replying to this controversy I created - most often, I'm "early to bed and early to rise" on the East Coast.

                I'd like to point out, first, that I made no accusations in my comment, although, in retrospect, I can understand how one might think an accusation was implied.  I was merely stating a fact - a country cannot be "foreign" to a person if the person holds citizenship in that country - and what I believed to be fact.  I don't remember now where I read the account, but I do remember that it was around the time of the imbroglio over Bachmann's attempt to hold Swiss citizenship.  In my search to satisfy the request for evidence, I get a number of sites, none of which I've read previously and all of which I'd be particularly reticent to cite as reliable, so I'll retract the comment.

                •  How about the "others in Congress"? (3+ / 0-)

                  Were those "others" just Ms. Bachmann, or were you thinking of anyone else? I think it would be salutary for you to share the names of the other members of Congress you had in mind, provide sources if you can recall any, and help the community try to understand where the recurring speculation about dual loyalty comes from.  In other words, now that you have withdrawn the comment with respect to Schumer, perhaps you can educate all of us about the origin of this recurring accusation more generally and help clear the air.

                  •  word, (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm trying to understand why you say I had others "in mind" and why you think my comment is only retracted in part.  I can only imagine it is because you have concluded that the article I read concerned Schumer only.  And, no, I won't be discussing the article further, nor will I be participating in a discussion about dual loyalty - I did not mention that terminology, nor did I intend that my comment should imply it.

                    •  dharmafarmer, (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      I appreciate your courteous reply.  I thought you must have had other dual citizens in mind because you wrote:

                      ... Schumer - he, like a number of others in Congress, has dual citizenship.
                      So it seemed that somewhere you were informed (or misinformed) that multiple members of Congress have dual citizenship. If this is true, or if it is a lie that is being spread maliciously, it is worth getting to the source. Although you have retracted your comment, the [mis]information is still out there.

                      I don't see much difference between dual citizenship and dual loyalty unless there is a suggestion that a member of Congress is loyal to the non-US citizenship and disloyal to the US - then there would be no dual loyalty despite dual citizenship, but the member of Congress would be disloyal to us. Not a possibility I would like to entertain about elected Democrats.

                      Anyway, you can choose not to discuss your source further - perhaps it was inherently not credible or not respectable - but I do think it was at least worth trying to figure out how these kinds of lies (not really very different from the whole Obama-born-in-Kenya thing) get circulated and believed.

                    •  It seems to be something of an urban legend (0+ / 0-)

                      I did a quick search and several hundred thousand results come up for Schumer, despite it apparently not being true.

                      Apparently nothing will ever teach these people that the other 99 percent of the population exist. —George Orwell

                      by ukit on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 12:02:45 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Accusations and innuendo (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                While it is encouraging to see a firm pushback against outright accusations of dual loyalty, it is disheartening to see the extensive support in these comments for references to "big money" and control of the press.

                These are historic dogwhistles and like many stereotypes, they arise from the fallacy of generalizing from individual cases to characterize an entire group. Neither big money nor control of the press belong to any one group. Bigotry of this type is not tolerated by the dKos community when it is directed at other groups, but comfortably raises its head when the subject has even the slightest bearing on Israel.

                We can disagree with Democratic Senators without impugning their integrity. Should we condemn a Senator for being responsive to large numbers of voters in his/her state, or for being influenced by the news media? These are generally considered valid elements of representative democracy, and that should remain the case even when we disagree on the issues.

                The fact is that a substantial majority of Americans of all stripes are sympathetic to Israel, despite the reprehensible policies of its right-wing-dominated coalition governments and the well-publicized suffering and demands of the Palestinian people. The fact that many disagree does not alter that reality.

                It is also a fact that the takeover of our embassy in Tehran, the holding hostage of embassy personnel, and the years of vituperation against the "Great Satan" are fresh in American memories. If Iranian views of America are truly shaped by the events of 1953, it should be no surprise that events of 1979 and subsequent years influence public opinion in this country. Americans have good reason to mistrust the Iranian government as the Islamic republic is currently constituted, and to oppose its development of nuclear weapons.

                None of this is to say that we shouldn't pursue the course of diplomacy that President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry have embarked upon. I, and I think most Americans, will always favor peaceful approaches in foreign policy, and support efforts to establish effective communication with other countries. However, I think it is possible to accept that a Senator who expresses misgivings about a particular agreement is doing so for legitimate reasons, and not because he/she is in the thrall of a particular group's presumed wealth and control of the press.

        •  This comment is flat out anti-Semitic (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lying eyes, misslegalbeagle

          I'm not going to bother hide-rating it and am glad it has been challenged, but it is the kind of comment that should lead to banning unless retracted.

        •  This is an antisemitic lie. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:


          Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

          by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 10:41:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Well, this whole saga was actually started by (9+ / 0-)

      the Brits (and French in a supporting role). The U.S. was a relative late-comer to meddling in the affairs of Persia and the Arab states. Few peope know that Churchill actually at one point said he was all in favor of using poison gas to control those unruly (and uppity) Arabs. This was, of course, long before Churchill rose to greatness during World War II. (And we express such shock and horror now that their irregular forces might just do the same to us!)

      Ancient history, eh?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site