If I could turn back time

Chuck Hagel June 2015Don Walton writes in his Monday column about how if the Iran Nuclear deal had been presented in 2000, 2004 or 2008, the votes from the Nebraska delegation might have been different.

Um…ok?

Then again, this worthless conjecture conjures up the old Saturday Night Live skit, “What if…”

There was, “What if Napoleon Had a B-52 Bomber?”
And, “What if Superman Had Landed in Nazi Germany?”

These were comedy skits, mind you.

Today, Walton asks, “What if Ben Nelson, Bob Kerrey, and Doug Bereuter could have voted on the Iran Nuclear deal???”

Gosh. What if…

Walton then concludes that Kerrey and Nelson were such awesome “indepedents”…but says they would have voted FOR the Democrat deal with the rest of the Democrats.

So what was that about independence?

Heck, Ben “Cornhusker Kickback” Nelson showed that he was there for the Democrat President in crunch time.

And it is not real clear what all the conjecture is with Walton and Bereuter, since he clearly could have asked him about it in the first part of the interview.

And as far as wondering about Hagel, he said a few days ago in Denver, “I support it…I was part of that process.”

Which is interesting in itself. Since here is what Hagel said three months ago, BEFORE the details of the deal became public:

“How are you gonna verify, how are you going to ensure that everything that you you’ve agreed to is going to be carried out the way the deal in the agreement was made? How do you do that? Unfettered inspections at all times. And you have access to those facilities. And there are ways to do this…and maybe they can’t get there.”

So on the one hand there you have Chuck Hagel putting his line in the sand, and then a few months later, Hagel says he supports this deal, which takes a flying leap over his line.

In any case…what in the world is Don talking about?
Frankly, “What if Spartacus Had a Piper Cub?” was much more relevant…

***

Then Don points out that State Senator Ernie Chambers made Politico’s “Top 50 thinkers, doers and visionaries for 2015” because of the Death Penalty repeal.

(And shockingly, Don doesn’t mention that they validated enough signatures to put the issue on the 2016 ballot…)

In any case, it is pretty clear that Poltico did not receive the recent “letter” that Chambers sent to members of the Legislature last week.

In a rant worthy of someone holed up in a homemade cabin in the Montana woods, Chambers says he must respond to an “attack” Governor Pete Ricketts made…four month ago! (Ricketts said that Chambers was “soft on crime”.)

Chambers takes to his typewriter to peck out a 10-page letter to colleagues, on official state stationery, which includes a 3-page poem that Chambers wrote about Ricketts..er, “PEETIE”. He includes such lines as, “Capital punishment, oh brother, I don’t give a hoot one way or another,” and calls Ricketts as a “dope” and a “bumbling idiot.

Hmm.
So is that Thinker, Doer or Visionary?

***

Speaking of Bob Kerrey, he was recently on Fox Business with Maria Bartiromo talking about Hillary Clinton and her email server. See it here:

Kerrey’s point is that Hillary “did an end-run around FOIA requests” by having the personal server. Essentially pointing out that she’s a faker and liar and shouldn’t be trusted.

Well, he didn’t say exactly that.
But it certainly should be implied, right?

Oh but wait, because Kerrey said the exact opposite when Hillary was running for President back in 2008.

At THAT time he said

“I support Hillary because I like her, trust her, and have confidence in her as commander and chief… She’ll never let you down.”

(Strangely enough, that video is no longer available…)

Of course no one believed him then.
But it’s nice how he is finally coming around.
It’s almost like he is meeting her for the first time.

***

Hey kids, Like Leavenworth St. on The Facebook, and be updated with every new post!

And be sure to share it with your Friends!

24 comments

  1. TexasAnnie says:

    I have read and duly noted your ideas here Street Sweeper.
    However, I just can’t stop thinking about _____________________ whenever I think about Nebraska!

  2. Sparkles says:

    The pervasive misinformation that continues to circulate among right wing media re the Iran deal is remarkable.

    How about the words and wisdom of possibly -the- most informed man on the planet regarding middle east relations and national security, Brent Scowcroft, in his OpEd for the Aug 21, 2015, Washington Post (please note the part about “unprecedented verification and monitoring”):
    “The forthcoming vote on the nuclear deal between the P5+1 and Iran (known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA) will show the world whether the United States has the will and sense of responsibility to help stabilize the Middle East, or whether it will contribute to further turmoil, including the possible spread of nuclear weapons. Strong words perhaps, but clear language is helpful in the cacophony of today’s media…
    ..In my view, the JCPOA meets the key objective, shared by recent administrations of both parties, that Iran limit itself to a strictly civilian nuclear program with unprecedented verification and monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.N. Security Council..
    ..There is no more credible expert on nuclear weapons than Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, who led the technical negotiating team. When he asserts that the JCPOA blocks each of Iran’s pathways to the fissile material necessary to make a nuclear weapon, responsible people listen. Twenty-nine eminent U.S. nuclear scientists have endorsed Moniz’s assertions..
    ..decades of experience strongly suggest that there are epochal moments that should not be squandered. President Nixon realized it with China. Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush realized it with the Soviet Union. And I believe we face it with Iran today.”

    Scowcroft cred –
    Former National Security Advisor to two Republican presidents, Ford and H.W. Bush (Scowcroft is the only person to have held the job twice), Assistant to Henry Kissinger during Kissinger’s term as National Security Advisor to Richard Nixon, retired Air Force 3 Star General, member of the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, a board member of The Center for Strategic and International Studies, and The Atlantic Council of the United States.
    Scowcroft has chaired or served on a number of policy advisory councils, including the President’s General Advisory Committee on Arms Control, the President’s Commission on Strategic Forces, the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management, the Defense Policy Board, and the President’s Special Review Board (Tower Commission) investigating the Iran-Contra affair. He also serves on the Guiding Coalition of the nonpartisan Project on National Security Reform.

  3. oops I did it again says:

    So the DCRP did it again. They kicked off the life blood of the party. Letters went out apparently kicking off members that are “establishment.” What a joke.

  4. “possibly -the- most informed man on the planet regarding middle east relations and national security, Brent Scowcroft”

    You misspelled decrepit aging ex-cold-warrior with 20th century ideas and a bias against Israel. Hope this helps!

  5. Macdaddy says:

    From Scowcroft’s op-ed:
    “And while I believe the JCPOA, if implemented scrupulously by Iran…”

    Full stop. Iran has never scrupulously implemented anything when it came to the values of the rest of the world. This deal hands Iran $140 billion which it will scrupulously use to destabilize Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and ramp up attacks on Israel through its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. It will scrupulously use it to buy weapons from Russia and China. It won’t lift a finger against ISIS as long as ISIS doesn’t directly attack Iran.

    Scowcroft’s other contention that we won’t be able to reinstitute sanctions if we walk away now shows a faith in Russia and China that nobody else sees. Sanctions will never return on Iran. Not if Iran kicks out the inspectors, not if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, not even if Iran nukes Israel, which is Obama’s end game. Our partners in this deal have just been given the green light by Obama to do business with Iran. They see $140 billion of new cash as a big incentive. They won’t go back. Obama gave away the store and Scowcroft is using that fact as a reason to support it. This deal is wrong on so many fronts and Scowcroft’s weak arguments don’t make it any better of a deal.

  6. Macdaddy says:

    Wait, the Politico didn’t mention Chambers’ prophetic call to arms against the cops? The guy pens a letter giving the green light to kill cops and not even a week later down goes Officer Orozco, murdered by a suspect the cops are trying to apprehend. Thankfully, the perp was also killed or we’d have to put up with Chambers’ incessant defense of the guy. All across the country cops are being targeted and Chambers was in the forefront of that movement, but instead he gets lauded for a Pyrrhic victory after he happens to have a couple dozen liars elected to the unicam with him.

    I guess it shows how hip Politico is. “Look! We’re so hip we found an edgy politician in fly-over country! He’s the next big thing!” Not.

  7. Sparkles says:

    A peek at Brent Scowcroft’s history of brilliant analysis:

    “..on Aug. 14 (2002), seven months prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the CIA sent a classified, six-page report to the White House, titled “The Perfect Storm: Planning for Negative Consequences of Invading Iraq,” highlighting the potential downside of removing Saddam Hussein from power.

    Among other things, the CIA’s analysis, according to a report about prewar intelligence recently released by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, warned that a U.S. invasion could result in al-Qaeda taking “advantage of a destabilized Iraq to establish secure safe havens from which they can continue their operations.”

    The CIA also warned that a U.S. invasion could produce anarchy in Iraq, reduce European confidence in U.S. leadership, expand Iran’s influence in the region, destabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan, and bolster Islamic hostility toward the United States.

    On Aug. 15, 2002, the morning after the White House received the CIA’s words of caution, the Wall Street Journal published “Don’t Attack Saddam” by Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser in the administrations of Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush.

    Acknowledging that Saddam Hussein was “a menace” who “brutalizes his own people” and “launched war on two of his neighbors,” Scowcroft contended that “an attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counter-terrorist campaign we have undertaken.”

    There was “scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks,” argued Scowcroft. “Indeed Saddam’s goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them.”

    Additionally, “There is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of his aggression.”

    Continued Scowcroft, accurately, as it turned out: “The United States could certainly defeat the Iraqi military and destroy Saddam’s regime. But it would not be a cakewalk. On the contrary, it undoubtedly would be very expensive – with serious consequences for the U.S. and global economy – and could as well be bloody.”

    The fall of Saddam, advised Scowcroft, “would very likely have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation,” a state of affairs “certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism.”

    Additionally, given the “virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time,” the U.S. would be caught in “a virtual go-it-alone strategy,” making our “military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive.”

    An American attack, warned Scowcroft, might well “swell the ranks of the terrorists” while simultaneously causing “a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism.”

    Scowcroft was proven absolutely dead on correct in his prognostication.

    But hey, our current GOP crop of anti-everything-Obama doesn’t give a flying f*%& about being correct, or factual, or rational.
    After all, rational doesn’t pay the bills or fill the campaign coffers. They need fear and demagoguery for that.
    The exact fear and demagoguery for which AIPAC was willing to pay, by some media accounts, up to $50 Million dollars.
    That kind of money will get our money grubbing little congress critters scurrying about in a hurry. 58 members of the House, Republican and Democrat, traveled to Israel in August. Trips paid for by the American Israel Education Foundation, the charitable arm of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

  8. bynd says:

    USA Today: Two striking facts stick out. Those who negotiated a life without parole plea deal did so because the death penalty was on the table. Common sense would dictate that once it is gone, no such plea deals will take place.

    Look at the length of time that those exonerated spent on death row, 27 ears, 30 years etc. The legal system has advanced to the point that they can correct a mistake made 30 years ago. That testifies to the soundness of today’s system vs the system of decades ago.

    We do not have a justice system, we have a legal system. The fact that the SCOTUS has found the death penalty to be constitutional, but as of yet yet has not devised a way to implement it without all the appeals and delays, is testimony to the impotence/reluctance of the SCOTUS to have faith in their own decisions. Would that be their job? I would say yes. They would spell out the details and the legislative branch would write the law.

    I also believe that the Bible, although not mentioned in this article as far as I read it, condones the use of the death penalty by a secular government. Ro. 13:4.

    Having said all that, the only real reason to keep the death penalty is for leverage in plea deals. And that seems like a small reason to keep it. I decided a few years back, it isn’t worth the hassle and is probably more expensive than life without parole.

    But if anyone believes that I support Ernie and his point of view, this message will self destruct 10 seconds after such claim is made on this site!

  9. bynd says:

    Sparkles:

    You are the only poster I now who can write more than me:)

    Scowcroft is a man, as such, he is subject too and will be wrong at sometime. Questions are when and were? Look at Petraus.

    As they say about the stock market, past performance is not an indication of future performance.

    I would say that the nuclear issue is not the one that matters. It is the $100+ billion dollars or more that Iran will receive. If you had a neighbor who absolutely hated you, would you give them enough money to go buy a gun?

    Was that part of deal? If it wasn’t that is incompetence by the Obama administration. And I have not seen any of the supporters of the deal address this issue in any depth.

    So the ramifications and consequences of this deal go far beyond a nuclear weapon for Iran. I would say in ten years, unless Israel uses theirs, Iran won’t need a nuclear weapon except to threaten us. They will have few enemies of any consequence left in the region. And the arms race is just beginning.

    But then, maybe that is how the Obama administration intends to ramp up the economy. Through the arms dealers and companies.

    As they say, look at the big picture:)

  10. Sparkles says:

    Macdaddy at 10:49am

    You stated:
    “..not even if Iran nukes Israel, which is Obama’s end game.”

    It’s official, you are a kook.

  11. Key 'n Trumpets says:

    “What if Spartacus Had a Piper Cub?”

    Republicans would assess the plane’s cost. Democrats would demand Spartacus be gay.

    What if… Trump tickled several accomplished rational GOP candidates in the middle of their own strong points, i.e. Fiorina as first woman POTUS, Jeb with a Hispanic wife being the top expert on border issues, and Ben Carson the upholder of religion in politics? And suddenly when confronted with that tickle, Fiorina spews raw liberal feminism, and Jeb says it is “love” that invades our borders, and Carson is kicking the crap out of those terrorist Presbyterians. What if Walker, who has been in office since he was 25 years old, says he “isn’t a career politician” and Perry’s parting shot goes into Perry’s own foot? They all blame Trump for what they themselves stupidly do and say.

    What if a really good negotiator was negotiating for the USA? The kind of leader who knows shit from shinola without tasting it.

    Republicans are the rational ones, the greedy bean counters who can add. If Trump has them self-destructing, Democrats are DOA.

  12. TexasAnnie says:

    GONG! You’re wrong, Grundle!

    But now that you invited my input, it’s those awful abuses at BSDC I’m thinkin’ about!!!
    How come such a nice pro-life fella such as yourself never worries about them?
    Or if you do worry, why not express yourself in that regard?

    BSDC inmates sure need protection from the State of Nebraska, which has taken them into custody…

  13. Anonymous says:

    Looks like a coup going down on Lancaster County GOP Convention this week. Getting letters from establishment Republicans running for office and now some guy I’ve never heard of running for Chairman who says he worked for the NRA and Young Americans for Liberty (code: Tea Party young’uns?) Can’t these people work their way up and reside here for more than a year before rushing in to take the top spot? It’s pretty transparent what’s going on. I’m not crazy about the old guard but am even less crazy about carpetbaggers.

  14. Pete says:

    Not sure what all the hoopla is RE: DCRP news.

    Shocker! DCRP is worse off today than it was yesterday. A trend that has gone on for quite some time and will continue until it’s dissolution and reformation.

  15. Macdaddy says:

    Sparkles, Obama has just guaranteed that Iran will develop nukes completely unmolested by anyone. Why? Because he believes an urban myth about a fatwa that forbids Iran from developing nukes? Because he thinks they are lying when they say they are going to wipe Israel off the map? Because he thinks it would be a good idea for a nation who daily threatens our navy and has killed hundreds of our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan to have nukes? Please tell me why. There’s only one plausible reason: use them on Israel.

    Scowcroft never wanted Saddam thrown out of Iraq, even during Gulf War 1 which was probably the best time to do it. Instead, we had another 10 years of war with Iraq and a lead in to Gulf War 2.

  16. Macdaddy says:

    Sorry, Sparkles. I didn’t read down far enough to see your comment about the evil Joos buying Congressmen. I may be a kook but at least I’m not an anti-Semitic one.

  17. The Grundle King says:

    @TA, who says I never worry about such abuses? Are they my primary focus in life and politics? No…but to say that I would never worry about such a thing is just plain wrong…I just don’t possess a microscope similar to the one you’re looking through.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.