AWESOME! - Chris Hayes Brilliantly Explains Lobby's Effort to SABOTAGE Iran Deal

[Segami]

Must watch! ..........



For years I have been writing here in the Huffington Post and elsewhere that almost no one in the mainstream media has the nerve to explain the nexus between U.S. policy decisions relating to the Middle East and the power of the Israel lobby. And, when it comes to television, not "almost no one" but no one at all.

But then last night Chris Hayes described why 16 Democratic senators are trying to undo President Obama's most significant foreign policy achievement -- the nuclear agreement with Iran -- by imposing new sanctions on Iran to torpedo the deal. And he explained that it's all about AIPAC and its power.

I am not going to write anymore because nothing I can write is as eloquent as Hayes was.


What a great moment. Hayes is only 34. Maybe it's a new day.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/awesome-chris-hayes-brill_b_4611031.html?utm_hp_ref=media&ir=Media

[think]

1. Great clip K&R /nt

[adavid]

36. Sam Sedor also said the same thing

[think]

38. Sam Seder maybe? /nt

[Segami]

2. "....That the bill is designed to destroy the current talks,...

...burn diplomacy to the ground and salt the ashes end of story. Why the heck are 16 Democrats
co-sponsors this piece of legislation, it`s not like there`s some broad
revolt against the talks. They`re skeptical it will work. Diplomacy has
been endorsed by peace groups to the head of the foreign relations.


The only plausible answer is that the Democrats either genuinely want
military escalation with Iran or they`re afraid APEC, which has made
passing this bill their current number one priority. They`re making a
political calculation that is in their political interest not to cross APEC
and its allies they`re not a group you want to get on the wrong side of.


Here`s what I would say to these Democrats. The ones you see listed
there, who are thought to entertain aspirations for higher office. Years
ago, another group of senators faced a monumental choice on how to vote on
an urgent matter of war and peace, their advisers were telling them they
had to look in such a way they would look tough and resolute and bolster
their credibility. When the time came to vote on a resolution for the
force in Iraq, this is what happened.





(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: I have concluded after careful
and serious consideration that a vote for the resolution best serves the
security of our nation.



JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: I will vote because I believe it is the
best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable.





(END VIDEO CLIP)



HAYES: So Senator Booker, before voting on this bill maybe call up John
Kerry and Hillary Clinton and ask them if they could have that vote back.
If we end up in a war with Iran, it will be seen as a disaster, and you`ll
be condemned by history and your role for bringing it about. If we end up
with peace with Iran, it will be your obstruction. So think hard Senator
Booker and Gillibrand and Coons and Blumenthal and everyone else, whose
advice you should listen to on this vote.


And if you happen to be a constituent of one of these senators you see on
the screen right now then maybe you should tell them how you feel because
war and peace is too darn important to leave to the professionals.


http://www.nbcnews.com/id/54089717/ns/msnbc-all_in_with_chris_hayes/

[Enrique]

32. his point about Kerry and Clinton was so oddly wrong

he's saying they wish they could have that vote back, but look what fate befell them after having made those votes. First one of them became Secretary of State, then the other one did! And Joe Biden became Vice President after voting for that war.

His point might have been better if he had used John Edwards lol.

But it was an excellent segment aside from that.

[rhett o rick]

3. To those here that try so desperately hard to make their own lives easy by equating

badness with Republicans and goodness with DEmocrats, please step forward and explain what is happening here.

As I have said over and over, the war between R's and D's is a distraction. The war is between the liberals and conservatives and there quite a few conservative Democrats. These 16 Democrats are willing to throw in with the Republicans. It's the Iraq War vote all over again.

What's worse than a Republican? A Republican that calls themselves a Democrat.

[rhett o rick]

4. This is a very important issue. How does H. Clinton-Sachs stand on this issue? nm

[Segami]

7. I'm waiting for the memo....

won't be long now......waiting,......coming soon........

[Whisp]

19. she stands on a stack of money. n/t

[polynomial]

5. That news telecasting is good

for the current time. However for the new millennium any war should be a declared war taxed appropriately and not a volunteer war.

Whereas we the people do here by declare all new wars are initiated with a vote by Congress as stipulated in the Constitution.

Whereas every eligible citizen will be called to duty and the draft will be initiated for all men and women. There will be no endless rotation for duty in combat, American serviceman will only be required to serve once. Absolutely no mercenaries, no National Guard, back door draft type operations to be done.

Wars of the future will contain only random free citizens. For it is noted and obvious that mercenaries have been politically motivated in bias and obnoxious in pay scales that do not represent a clear understanding in tactical war measures that can be redeemed in good security or real patriotic efforts for all Americans not just a political party.

It is obvious this has been abused with the hubris and arrogance unfit in the commander chief that was George W. Bush in the past.

[Larkspur]

6. Yep, love Chris Hayes and this was a stand out episode.

[Buns_of_Fire]

8. Unfortunately, I doubt anyone will be treated to a "Profiles in Courage" moment.

Remember, these are politicians, not statesmen. As such, their primary goal is ensuring their re-election -- everything else is secondary.

[unc70]

9. Jon Stewart explained it, too

I agree that Chris Hayes did a great job on this. Like a lot of his work.

Jon Stewart did a decent job explains this issue on TDS.

[adavid]

37. So did Sam Sedor

[MindMover]

10. Chris did OK, however this vote goes much deeper than AIPAC ... I say we need to ..

put investigative journalism back in the forefront of our news daily ....

[Spitfire of ATJ]

24. Exactly. He does mention the Saudis too which is unheard of in American media.

[tnlurker]

11. for later

[polichick]

12. "Because war and peace is too darned important to leave to the professionals."

~ Chris Hayes

[yellowwoodII]

13. Ohhhh!

That was good!

[Sienna86]

14. Chris Hayes is terrific.

For thoughtful, bright news consumers.

[90-percent]

15. Letter to my Senator Blumenthal

HOW DARE YOU support Sen Menendez Bill to increase sanctions on Iran!!!!

Americans want and demand peace! Are you being servile to Israel, the military industrial complex or both?

We can continue the path to peace and understanding with Iran, or we can continue to live in the constant fear our government elects to put us in with using the military as our first and only solution.

I am not proud of my government when it acts like a child, with the most deadly weapons known to human history, and no inhibitions about using such weapons as a perverse solution of first resort.

We had eight years of a warmongering monstrous Bush White House. Why do you want to perpetuate such tragic crimes against humanity? For what good and to what end?

-90% Jimmy

[bullwinkle428]

16. Cheered on this segment as I watched last night. The IWR analogy was brilliant.

K&R.

[Whisp]

17. This is massive. When will Hayes be called an anti-semite... n/t

[kag]

18. Thank you for posting this!

I had no idea that one of my senators was on that list (Michael Bennet D-CO). I just called his office and left a message. I don't know how much that does, but I hope he at least gets the message.

[antigop]

20. STANDING OVATION!!!!!! Thank you, Chris. nt

[CSStrowbridge]

21. It's not AIPAC.

It's not AIPAC. It's apocalyptic Christians who believe the only way Jesus can return is if Israel is a whole nation. AIPAC has no power without that group.

[Enthusiast]

22. It's a coalition.

A coalition of AIPAC, Neo-Cons and Endtimers®.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

25. You forgot the Saudi - Wall Street connection.

[Enthusiast]

30. Of course.

I thought to include the military industrial complex and some others.

Starting a new war would boost the price of oil, creating an easy windfall for OPEC and the rest.

The list is long and that is why we are seeing this war fervor.

This is especially sickening considering the failure of the past two wars that accomplished exactly zero positives yet uncountable negatives.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

33. One of the things I point out is how Texas Oilmen still exist who LOVE Middle Eastern death.

[Enthusiast]

35. I suppose

the US and their allies will eventually get around to completely subjugating the entire Middle East. Maybe they can call it "Greater Israel". Oops, maybe I shouldn't have said that. I think I hear a drone outside.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

39. Dubya wanted to call it "The Eastern Republic of Texas"....

But then, he pictured himself in a 69 red Cadillac Eldorado convertible with a pair of longhorn steer horns on the front.

[Brainstormy]

23. Terrific segment.

Chris and Rachel are the best things that have happened to news.

[mettamega]

26. C. Hayes, Rachel, Melissa, Ezra & sometimes Lawrence, are Important voice 4 truth

[1StrongBlackMan]

27. Okay, I'm gonna say it ...

there is one stopper, should the bill pass ... PRESIDENT OBAMA (who has already signed that he will veto this Bill). But I fear the damage will be done.

On the other hand, (and I do not have enough information to confirm this) the passage of the bill AND President Obama vetoing it; might speed the diplomats down the road to negotiated agreement ... as in, "Yo, these folks actually want war! I don't want that; you can't want that, but I don't know how long I can hold them back. Let's get this thing done or the next time we speak, it might be my wishing God's mercy on our souls."

[asjr]

28. Every time Pres Obama wants to do something

for our country there will be someone who will oppose it. Most of them will try to sound sincere when they vote nay but frankly I believe at this stage of the game they are afraid of pissing off their sugar daddies.

[Purveyor]

29. Thanks for posting this segment! k&r eom

[Cha]

31. Constituents of these Senators.. Please call and let them know.. like I

called Hillary in 2002!

"White House challenges Democratic Senators who want more Iran sanctions to admit they want war"

Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:58 AM PST.

dk

[Blue_In_AK]

34. This is the canned response I got from Mark Begich

January 3, 2014



Dear Blue_in_AK:

Thank you for contacting me about the ongoing nuclear disarmament negotiations with Iran.

As you know, on November 24, 2013, Iran and the United States, France, Germany, China, Russia and Britain came to an interim agreement, known as the Joint Plan of Action, for Iran to discontinue development of nuclear weapons. The agreement involves several steps, including a reduction in enriched uranium stocks and heightened monitoring and inspections from the International Atomic Energy Agency. In return, there would be no further efforts to reduce Iran's crude oil sales, and several EU and U.S. sanctions on exports would be suspended.

While I appreciate these steps toward a diplomatic solution, I do not support easing sanctions until the Iranian government proves it can be trusted to carry out an agreement to stop developing nuclear weapons. An Iran with nuclear weapons is far too great a threat to the region, especially to our ally Israel.

We have seen repeated failed attempts to negotiate with Iran, and I believe sanctions are the best tool to prevent Iran from threatening our national security. That is why I signed on as a co-sponsor to the bipartisan Nuclear Weapons Free Iran Act of 2013, authored by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This bill would provide the negotiating parties 6 months to achieve a final agreement, with no additional sanctions during those talks. This bill would establish new sanctions if a final agreement is not reached that would make it impossible for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. Sanctions would target human rights violators, foreign financial institutions that facilitate transactions with Iranian banks, countries that fail to reduce oil imports from Iran, and large sectors of the Iranian economy, such as mining and shipbuilding.

I will continue to monitor these ongoing negotiations and keep your thoughts in mind.

Again, thank you for contacting me about this important issue. Please feel free to contact me again in the future.




Sincerely,

Mark Begich
U.S. Senator

This is probably the letter they're all sending out.


I think Mark is probably doing the bidding of the oil companies that run Alaska. With Iranian oil on the market, it seems like the price of Alaska's oil would fall. I could be wrong, but he never struck me particularly as an AIPAC toadie, more of a Big Oil toadie, like 95% of Alaska's politicians.