Hey look... "collusion!"

[ProdigalHorn]

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/

But as Project Cassandra reached higher into the hierarchy of the conspiracy, Obama administration officials threw an increasingly insurmountable series of roadblocks in its way, according to interviews with dozens of participants who in many cases spoke for the first time about events shrouded in secrecy, and a review of government documents and court records. When Project Cassandra leaders sought approval for some significant investigations, prosecutions, arrests and financial sanctions, officials at the Justice and Treasury departments delayed, hindered or rejected their requests.

The Justice Department declined requests by Project Cassandra and other authorities to file criminal charges against major players such as Hezbollah’s high-profile envoy to Iran, a Lebanese bank that allegedly laundered billions in alleged drug profits, and a central player in a U.S.-based cell of the Iranian paramilitary Quds force. And the State Department rejected requests to lure high-value targets to countries where they could be arrested.

 

[Clean]

That's pretty amazing. All that harm just to do a deal with Iran, which isn't worth the paper it's written on, and for which Iran ridiculed him to his face.

 

[Seattle Husker]

This type of thing happens more often than any of us likely know and is done. No presidential administration is immune. The primary difference is the degree to which politics influence decisions. The Reagan administration (Iran hostage, Iran-Contra arms deals) may have been the worst but that's not to dismiss other administrations and their transgressions.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Certainly true. Of course, the Contras were trying to overthrow a government as opposed to raising money for international terrorism by shipping illegal drugs into the U.S. (as I recall... it's been a while and I was pretty young at the time so may have missed some nuances), so I'm not sure I'd make that moral parallel. But yes, your basic point that U.S. leaders have a long and bi-partisan history of picking criminal allies and looking the other way on bad behavior is absolutely true.

The Obama issue was that he spent inordinate amount of time, energy, capital, and moral capital on the concept that a country that hates us will somehow like us more and do what we want them to do if we give in basically across the board. Basically... if you're going to make morally bankrupt political decisions, at least make ones that actually accomplish something.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Certainly true. Of course, the Contras were trying to overthrow a government as opposed to raising money for international terrorism by shipping illegal drugs into the U.S. (as I recall... it's been a while and I was pretty young at the time so may have missed some nuances), so I'm not sure I'd make that moral parallel.

Unfortunately, drugs were involved with the Contras in the 80's. The difference is that we took bribes from the Medellin cartel (at least $1.5M) and diverted it for use to supply the Contras with arms. What do you think the drug cartel received from their bribe? Less DEA enforcement? Additionally, per those now released security archives, there is evidence that the Contras were also directly involved in the cocaine trade.

But yes, your basic point that U.S. leaders have a long and bi-partisan history of picking criminal allies and looking the other way on bad behavior is absolutely true.

The Obama issue was that he spent inordinate amount of time, energy, capital, and moral capital on the concept that a country that hates us will somehow like us more and do what we want them to do if we give in basically across the board. Basically... if you're going to make morally bankrupt political decisions, at least make ones that actually accomplish something.

Accomplish something like delaying the nuclearization of Iran? I'd argue the belief that any determined state actor can be stopped from going nuclear in 2017 is more hope than reality.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

I'd argue the belief that any determined state actor can be stopped from going nuclear in 2017 is more hope than reality.

I think you're probably right, which begs the question: why is "delaying" a useful tactic, especially when it comes at the expense of paying billions of dollars to that country so that they can fund terrorist organizations while slowing their nuclear program advancement? At least the other way we'd be dealing with that reality with some leverage and less terrorism.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I think you're probably right, which begs the question: why is "delaying" a useful tactic, especially when it comes at the expense of paying billions of dollars to that country so that they can fund terrorist organizations while slowing their nuclear program advancement? At least the other way we'd be dealing with that reality with some leverage and less terrorism.

That's a good question, one that has no easy answer. I guess it depends on your priorities. Is Iran's support of terrorism or a nuclear Iran a greater threat to the US? It seems we've chosen the latter with NK albeit their terrorism is less impactful (Sony notwithstanding).

This is where the hard tradeoffs come for any administration. Do you stand pat and do nothing because you can't solve 100% of all issues or do you try make headway in one area knowing you're giving up ground in another.

That's my biggest problem with Trump's approach to negotiations. All-or-nothing approaches rarely work and even moreso in International negotiations. See Trump's stances on International trade agreements for an example.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I think you're probably right, which begs the question: why is "delaying" a useful tactic, especially when it comes at the expense of paying billions of dollars to that country so that they can fund terrorist organizations while slowing their nuclear program advancement? At least the other way we'd be dealing with that reality with some leverage and less terrorism.

And I think it's highly debatable that the deal even delayed much. For it to even delay Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon, you have to assume that Iran is trustworthy enough to actually follow the agreement. Frankly, if I trusted Iran to follow a nuclear agreement, I'd probably trust them with a nuclear weapon. I don't trust them in either regard.

The bottom line is that we did the deal for political appearances, not because we thought it would make a real impact. It's also no surprise that the deal is lopsided in Iran's favor. The only way to actually stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is by force, and nobody was willing to use force. Iran knew that. The US knew that. The EU knew that. So how much leverage did the West really have? Not much. We could have walked away from the table, but for whatever reason, we and the EU wanted a deal more than we wanted to keep the sanctions.

Like I said at the time, I don't like that we entertain a bunch of horse crap mostly to make the diplomatic class look more useful than it actually is, but I accept it as reality and can tolerate it so long as we don't make our defense decisions in reliance on the horse crap. The smart thing to do is assume that Iran will have a nuclear weapon in the reasonably near future, and be prepared for it.

 

[Phil Elliott]

When, oh when, will blacks figure out that the Dems do not care about them, only their votes?

The Black Community stood behind Barack Obama and his administration tooth and nail. They ignored the bad economy, the failed policies, the rise of ISIS terror and furthermore in 2012 they turned out and saved him from defeat against a much more competent adversary.

Barack Obama didn’t just betray America by enabling international terrorists in order to allow himself to fund one of the World’s primary backers of said terror, but he did so knowing that the Hezbollah drug trade terrorized black neighborhoods, black families and particularly young black men, betraying those who had been his most loyal supporters.

Those black lives destroyed by the drug trade didn’t matter to Barack Obama or his administration as much as funding Iran did. That’s an uncomfortable truth that many who voted Obama will silently endure rather than admit how badly they have been played.

http://datechguyblog.com/2017/12/20...lack-lives-actually-mattered-to-barack-obama/