Hewitt: All right, now let me turn to the Iran deal. Now yesterday, the Supreme Leader said the first day of the deal means the end of sanctions. After that announcement, Senator Paul, should we walk away from the negotiating table?
Paul: I think my biggest concern about the whole thing is that immediately on the Obama administration coming forward with the talking points of what they say the agreement means, you have the Iranians tweeting in English at us saying that basically, the agreement doesn’t mean anything that we say it means. And so I do think there’s a great deal of concern about a lack of sincerity on the Iranians’ part. And yes, I’m very skeptical. The one thing I’ve said over and over is that we cannot constitutionally let the President undo law on his own. So the sanctions were passed. I voted for the sanctions against Iran. These sanctions were passed by Congress. I don’t think there is a legal way in which he can remove him without our approval.
Hewitt: But the Supreme Leader said they have to come off on the day the deal is signed, or there’s no deal. Given that, and given your position on Congressional oversight, any point in us going back to Switzerland?
Paul: Well, my point has always been that there should be a delay between the two, and that you should see proof of compliance and proof of goodwill on Iran’s part before any sanctions would be removed. But as far as going back, this is where I differ from some Republicans. I still am in favor of continued negotiations. I don’t think immediately stopping negotiations, I think they need to keep the sanctions in place, but I think keeping the door open and continuing conversations is better than war.
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Sen. Rand Paul: I'm In Favor Of Continuing Negotiations With Iran
Senator Rand Paul was a guest on Friday's Hugh Hewitt Show and as he has done with each of the Presidential candidates, the radio host asked about the Iran deal. Paul said he doesn't trust the Iranians and that only congress can remove the sanctions, but given the opportunity he would continue negotiations with Iran. Like the Obama administration he believes the only alternative to more negotiations is war.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'm not sure that the declared thesis was really tested here. I was a bit unhappy by the way that the presenter softened the approach by suggesting that this was money for the purpose of getting the groups to change (by eradicating poverty and diminishing the propensity of people to join) What this means is that this is not money being given to support the groups in their violent activities, but to counteract them. Still, that some people insisted such any group would be better served by changing its name (to hide its purpose or affiliation) is still disturbing.
Lots of money given to lots of charities probably buys humanitarian rockets, and humanitarian bullets, and humanitarian night vision goggles, humanitarian bayonets, humanitarian explosives for humanitarian bomb vests. So we don't know if our professors are stupid, or complicit. I don't know which is worse, frankly.
What the money goes to in the end is one thing, what they believe it is going to is something else. We all know that much of the aid money that has been sent to Gaza is lining Hamas' pockets and/or is going to build or repair tunnels. The issue I have is that the person on the video is telling people that the money is to reduce poverty so as to prevent future recruits for terror. Sounds like a decent cause (if you buy into the premise that poverty is the cause of Hamas terrorism), sounds like a motivated group, it is not surprising that people might give to such a cause. After all, many countries are committing to provide aid to Gaza after the bombing and flooding (which was not caused by Israel opening dams, no matter what the Arab media says).
That some university actually counseled them to hide the ultimate recipient of the funds was disturbing. However, for the most part these people are not 'supporting terrorism', they most certainly are not saying that what Hamas does is acceptable. To the contrary, they are donating money to try and deprive Hamas of recruits. At least that is their declared intention, and it is the proposed project that is offered to them by the video's actor. If they had been asked for money for Hamas without any declaration of what the money was for, that would have been more reasonable evidence of complicity. If they had been asked for money to re-arm Hamas, that would have been clear evidence of support for terror.
Certainly they are gullible. They may be complicit, but we cannot know that from the material in this video. But most certainly this does not show a "Hot Bed of Terrorism Support" as it claims to do. I've seen other videos which show the actual and openly declared support for anti-Israel forces far more strongly, Crossing the Line being one of those. This was disappointing. I expected far more from it.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." -- Robert A Heinlein
"To misunderstand the nature and threat of evil is to risk being blindsided by it." -- Joel C. Rosenberg
Post a Comment