"Twenty-six former senior leaders of major American Jewish groups" who are now left-wing lobbyists who bow to Obama?
Do you have a link?
"Twenty-six former senior leaders of major American Jewish groups" who are now left-wing lobbyists who bow to Obama?
Do you have a link?
_______________________________________________________________________
Your post son. Prove me wrong.
"Twenty-six former senior leaders of major American Jewish groups" who are now left-wing lobbyists who bow to Obama?
Do you have a link?
_______________________________________________________________________
Your post son. Prove me wrong.
It's a stereotype and your second post reinforces it. You really are a piece of odious sh_t!
Retired generals and admirals urge Congress to reject Iran nuclear deal
By Carol Morello August 26 at 9:00 PM
William G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was deputy undersecretary of defense under George W. Bush and is now the executive vice president of the Family Resource Council, is among the signatories of a new letter opposing the nuclear deal. (Ed Andrieski/Associated Press)
By Carol Morello August 26 at 9:00 PM
A group of nearly 200 retired generals and admirals sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday urging lawmakers to reject the Iran nuclear agreement, which they say threatens national security.
The letter is the latest in a blizzard of missives petitioning Congress either to support or oppose the agreement with Iran, which would lift sanctions if Iran pared back its nuclear program. Letters have come from ad hoc groupings of rabbis, nuclear scientists, arms-control and nonproliferation experts — and now, retired senior military officers, many of whom have worked in the White House during various administrations dating to the 1980s.
The letter, addressed to Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate and the House, is a response to one sent last week by three dozen retired senior military officers who support the nuclear deal.
“The agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous, render the Mideast still more unstable and introduce new threats to American interests as well as our allies,” the letter states.
[Read the open letter from retired generals and admirals opposing the deal]
The Iran nuclear deal explained in 60 seconds
Play Video1:14
Iran has finally reached a nuclear deal with the U.S. and international partners. Here's what's in the deal, and what happens next. (Gillian Brockell and Julio C. Negron/The Washington Post)
The signatories include retired generals and flag officers from every branch of service, including a handful who were involved in some public controversies during their careers.
One is retired Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush and is now executive vice president of the Family Research Council. He had a history of making controversial speeches, including one in which he characterized U.S. military operations against Islamist extremist organizations as a Christian fight against Satan.
It also was signed by retired Vice Adm. John Poindexter and retired Maj. Gen. Richard Secord, who were involved in the Iran-contra affair in the Reagan administration, in which arms were sold to Iran to fund the contras in Nicaragua.
Many of the signatories served in the White House, under Democratic administrations as well as Republican. The only thing they appear to have in common is that they consider the Iran nuclear deal a threat to U.S. interests in the region and its own national security.
Leon A. “Bud” Edney, a retired admiral who served as vice chief of naval operations, initiated the letter after he read the letter by other retired officers in support of the agreement.
“I looked at the letter they published, and thought it was very weak,” Edney said. “I just don’t agree with it.” He then got the alternative viewpoint rolling through e-mails sent to some of his Navy and Marine friends. They in turn passed it on.
The competing opinions espoused by people within each group reflect the intense lobbying campaign underway even as Congress is in recess. Lawmakers must vote by Sept. 17 whether to “disapprove” the deal. The Republican majority is unanimously opposed to the agreement, so the Obama administration is focusing on ensuring that enough Democrats support it to sustain a presidential veto. They are close to succeeding. So far, 29 senators have announced their support, only five votes short of the 34 needed to block a veto override.
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, who was vice commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, said he considers the agreement the most dangerous nuclear accord in U.S. history.
“What I don’t like about this is, the number one leading radical Islamic group in the world is the Iranians,” he said. “They are purveyors of radical Islam throughout the region and throughout the world. And we are going to enable them to get nuclear weapons. Why would we do that?”
McInerney said he thinks that most retired general officers do not support the agreement, but he said some did not sign the letter because they feared negative career repercussions.
“I don’t think the retired general officers necessarily speak with one voice,” he said. “We’ve all gone our own way when we retired.”
The opinions expressed in the letter were popular enough that people rushed to sign on, even in the hours before it was sent to Congress. The number of signatories almost doubled between Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday morning, copies of the letter showed.
But it’s unclear whether the letter, or any of those written by people on either side of the issue, will have any effect on Congress. Edney suspects it won’t.
“I don’t think this letter will sway anything,” he said. “It’s just the opinion of people who have served their country. It’s an alternative view to what I consider a very weak letter put out by the administration implying generals and admirals support this agreement. But I don’t think it will have any impact.”
Read: An open letter from retired generals and admirals opposing the Iran nuclear deal
A group of retired brass says the deal would threaten national security and that Congress should not approve it. Retired generals and admirals urge Congress to reject Iran deal
I see you are in with the American Jewish Community. You can believe me or not but J Street is a minor organization that is anti-Israel not Zionist and very few American Jews, even Democrats, even Obama supporters, agree with.
I am part of an extended Jewish family and so do have some personal insight. I don’t want to make this about identity though.
I’ve cited a number of Jewish sources of support for the deal with links in this thread. From published sources the Jewish community is divided over this deal for a number of reasons. There is support on both sides and is not as lopsided as you claim. These people would be on the same side as J Street.
Twenty-six former senior leaders of major American Jewish groups have signed a letter supporting the recently signed agreement over Irans’ nuclear program.
The letter appeared as a full-page advertisement in Thursday’s New York Times. The letter says that the signers “devoted decades to building and enhancing Israel’s security and strengthening the US-Israel alliance,” and that the agreement “cuts off Iran’s ability to pursue a nuclear weapon.”
The signatories include three former chairs of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, one former executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, former leaders of the Conservative and Reform movements, and former heads of the American Jewish Committee and Jewish Community Relations Council.
Top HeadlinesThe list also includes 9 former heads of local Jewish Federations, some of which have released statements opposing the deal. Former Michigan Democratic Senator Carl Levin also signed the letter, as did former Congressmen Mel Levine (D-Calif.) and Robert Wexler (D-Fla.).
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran/26-former-American-Jewish-leaders-back-Iran-deal-412740
There are people who support the deal and still oppose J Street. J Street is a miniscule organizationw hich is propped up solely by George Soros' money. In the American Jewish World it is an outcast and considered a partisan left wing organization. That's simply how it is. AIPAC,m despite efforts to smear it as right wing or pro-Likud, is a non-partisan AMerican organization which lobbies for the interests of Israel and supports the position of whatever government is in power. So when the Labor Party or other parties than Likud were in charge, AIPAC lobbied on behalf of the. J Street is a leftist organization which has taken positions extremely hostile to Israel and this is one example of it.
As for the "deal" I don't believe one person in Congress supporting it believes it is a good idea. They have been boxed in by Obama. The proof is whether they would support this deal if a Republican president had proposed it. I see zero chance a single one would.
Are the Democrats figuring out getting re-elected is more important to them than supporting Obama? Are Democrats beginning to listen to their constituents?
Democrats end summer meeting with no resolution to support Obama's Iran deal
Published August 31, 2015
The Democratic National Committee reportedly failed this weekend to pass a resolution supporting President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, with Congress set to vote on the issue as early as next week.
Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the committee chairwoman, prevented the resolution from being considered at the group’s summer meeting this weekend in Minneapolis, sources told The Washington Post, which first reported the story.
Obama and his White House team have worked diligently to get enough Capitol Hill votes for the resolution to pass, amid strong opposition from the Republican-controlled House and Senate.
Vice President Biden, in fact, spoke with DNC members on a conference call Wednesday to help garner support. And the group failing to pass such a resolution is largely being considered at setback for what would likely become Obama’s signature foreign policy victory.
Some congressional Democrats who are Jewish also oppose the deal, fearing it will put Israel at greater risk of attack by neighbor and bitter rival Iran. Among them is New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, who is expected to become the next Senate Democratic leader.
If the deal is approved, the United States and five other world powers would lift billions of dollars in crippling economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for the rogue nation curtailing its nuclear-development program.
The House and Senate are expected to have enough votes to pass a resolution of disapproval for the deal.
The Post reports two conflicting arguments about why perhaps members didn’t vote on the resolution -- that procedural issues prevented a vote or it was thwarted by Wasserman Schultz, who is Jewish and whose south Florida district has many Jewish voters.
Wasserman Schultz, who has not said whether she will vote in favor of the Iran agreement, was not listed among those who signed the letter.
If Wasserman Schultz indeed blocked the vote, this would not be the first time she has faced criticism about putting her political future ahead of the party’s.
As far back as 2012, Obama political advisers had purportedly taken steps to replace Wasserman Schultz as chairwoman, and her relationship with the White House has since been strained.
There are people who support the deal and still oppose J Street. J Street is a miniscule organizationw hich is propped up solely by George Soros' money. In the American Jewish World it is an outcast and considered a partisan left wing organization. That's simply how it is. AIPAC,m despite efforts to smear it as right wing or pro-Likud, is a non-partisan AMerican organization which lobbies for the interests of Israel and supports the position of whatever government is in power. So when the Labor Party or other parties than Likud were in charge, AIPAC lobbied on behalf of the. J Street is a leftist organization which has taken positions extremely hostile to Israel and this is one example of it.
As for the "deal" I don't believe one person in Congress supporting it believes it is a good idea. They have been boxed in by Obama. The proof is whether they would support this deal if a Republican president had proposed it. I see zero chance a single one would.
If as you say the deal is not a good deal it appears to still be a done deal and so Obama must have gotten significant support for it. If J Street had any impact will be for the historians to determine.
The theory of modernization places great emphasis on open borders and entry routes for capital. From this the more Iran opens up and engages with capitalist forces the greater the likelihood that the ayatollahs are overthrown or removed from power in some way in the near future. Capital is very threatening and this is why it always wins. Countries afraid of this power close their borders like North Korea.
Iran was supporting terrorists even with the sanctions. With the money shortages the Ayatollahs families were still able to buy Porsches and so the hunger for commodity items is already there. Cater to these tastes and let them expand and if there are any signs of nuclear mischief the snap back sanctions come back on. In this case they would be more powerful because they would come from all the P5 + I nations and their allies. There is a tremendous amount of international pressure at work here.
This is from an interview with Ariel Sharon on a solution to Iran developing nuclear arms.
And therefore, I think, that the free world, led by the United States, should make a very clear time table that if they will not react positively, they have to be brought to the Security Council. And I think that steps should be taken against them, pressure, political pressure, economic pressure. And maybe the only possibility that there will be a change inside Iran, that may occur only as a result of pressure put on Iran. And I therefore think that all the steps should be taken in order to prepare taking them to Security Council.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/04/14/transcript-sharon-warns-iran-nuke-threat.html
This was the deal that Obama and the P5+1 and Iran agreed to.
The problem is that Netanyahu changed course and did not want Iran to have any access to any kind of nuclear power at any time. This was his main objection to the deal. This weekend Netanyahu said Israel could accept Iran having nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Israel will be very well rewarded for this concession.
There are people who support the deal and still oppose J Street. J Street is a miniscule organizationw hich is propped up solely by George Soros' money. In the American Jewish World it is an outcast and considered a partisan left wing organization. That's simply how it is.
Rubbish. You no more speak for the "American Jewish World" than J Street does.
There are people who support the deal and still oppose J Street. J Street is a miniscule organizationw hich is propped up solely by George Soros' money. In the American Jewish World it is an outcast and considered a partisan left wing organization. That's simply how it is. AIPAC,m despite efforts to smear it as right wing or pro-Likud, is a non-partisan AMerican organization which lobbies for the interests of Israel and supports the position of whatever government is in power. So when the Labor Party or other parties than Likud were in charge, AIPAC lobbied on behalf of the. J Street is a leftist organization which has taken positions extremely hostile to Israel and this is one example of it.
As for the "deal" I don't believe one person in Congress supporting it believes it is a good idea. They have been boxed in by Obama. The proof is whether they would support this deal if a Republican president had proposed it. I see zero chance a single one would.
If as you say the deal is not a good deal it appears to still be a done deal and so Obama must have gotten significant support for it. If J Street had any impact will be for the historians to determine.
The theory of modernization places great emphasis on open borders and entry routes for capital. From this the more Iran opens up and engages with capitalist forces the greater the likelihood that the ayatollahs are overthrown or removed from power in some way in the near future. Capital is very threatening and this is why it always wins. Countries afraid of this power close their borders like North Korea.
Iran was supporting terrorists even with the sanctions. With the money shortages the Ayatollahs families were still able to buy Porsches and so the hunger for commodity items is already there. Cater to these tastes and let them expand and if there are any signs of nuclear mischief the snap back sanctions come back on. In this case they would be more powerful because they would come from all the P5 + I nations and their allies. There is a tremendous amount of international pressure at work here.
This is from an interview with Ariel Sharon on a solution to Iran developing nuclear arms.
And therefore, I think, that the free world, led by the United States, should make a very clear time table that if they will not react positively, they have to be brought to the Security Council. And I think that steps should be taken against them, pressure, political pressure, economic pressure. And maybe the only possibility that there will be a change inside Iran, that may occur only as a result of pressure put on Iran. And I therefore think that all the steps should be taken in order to prepare taking them to Security Council.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/04/14/transcript-sharon-warns-iran-nuke-threat.html
This was the deal that Obama and the P5+1 and Iran agreed to.
The problem is that Netanyahu changed course and did not want Iran to have any access to any kind of nuclear power at any time. This was his main objection to the deal. This weekend Netanyahu said Israel could accept Iran having nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Israel will be very well rewarded for this concession.
________________________________________________________________________
Iran has stated that their intent is to wipe Israel off the planet while also chanting Death to America.
What else to you need to know?
