where's my Blue buddies?...a law is a law, right?

[Elfiero]

If your still not able to grasp the difference and how low your party is willing to go:

Nancy Pelosi met with Assad of Syria in 2007. Read what she discussed with him and the nature of her visit, then read what the GOP had to say. If you still can't(or won't) see the hypocrisy, and see that your party does nothing but bow down and cater to the extremists and racists in it's mist(Tea baggers, evangelicals, Israel, etc.) by opposing the President no matter what, on whatever issue; then you really do represent that intellectual bastion of truth that is the modern GOP.<----SARCASM in RED

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17920536/...ugs-bushs-criticism-meets-assad/#.VQETCWMZWPA

Dick Cheney called Pelosi’s trip “bad behavior” and said in an interview with Rush Limbaugh: “The president is the one who conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House.” Writing in National Review, then-Minority Whip Eric Cantor complained that “Mrs. Pelosi usurped the executive branch’s time-honored foreign-policy authority”; “at such a critical moment in the volatile Middle East,” he inveighed, “this is no time for the United States to be sending out mixed signals to our enemies.” The right-wing extremist Congressman Steve King actually introduced legislation to bar Pelosi from traveling to “terrorist states,” arguing:

The Speaker of the House is not the President of the United States. Nancy Pelosi does not represent the Administration. In fact, her policy positions seek to contravene the foreign policy of the United States. Nancy Pelosi, by defying the specific request of the administration to refrain from traveling to Syria, blatantly infringed upon the Constitutional duties of the President. Additionally, I believe her trip was the most blatant violation of the Logan Act by a top elected official in the history of our country. . . . Nancy Pelosi thinks it’s her job to conduct foreign policy in defiance of the President. She is wrong on the Constitution and wrong on the law.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/...ria-policy-v-todays-similar-dem-attacks-iran/

Apples and Oranges, do you know the difference? I wonder how Steve King and Dick Cheney feel today?

Once again Joey speaks for me:

 

[Omar10213245]

I'll go away right after I dispatch you quickly.

Two right wing publications and the times...none of those are academic, but I'll still deal with your nonsense.

I read up on Ortega and his meeting with Wright A MEETING!(don't get me started on Reagan's attempts to overthrow a legit gov.)This is not the same as trying to undermine the foreign policy of the U.S. out of hatred for the administration. The Kennedy incident as far as I can tell is all hearsay, the Cuba trip was also not outside norms.

Doesn't matter because none of those supposed incidents are similar to what the Repugnicans are doing now.

The Senate historian says this is "unprecedented" as far as he has researched it.

“We haven’t found a precedent,” said Senate Historian Donald Ritchie. “That doesn’t mean there isn’t a precedent. After 200 years. It’s hard to find anything that unprecedented.”

In the past, Ritchie said, “what usually happened is a senator would sign a ‘round robin’ letter or a sense of the Senate resolution, or write a letter to the president or secretary of State voicing objections to some particular policy.

Individual senators have also on occasion met with the foreign leaders on policy issues, Ritchie said. In this case, he said his office conducted a general search on disarmament issues to see if an episode similar to the Iran letter could be found.

“We really didn’t find anything,” Ritchie said.

Alan K. Henrikson, director of Diplomatic Studies and a professor of diplomatic history at Tufts University, said the Republicans’ letter “undercuts” how America conducts international diplomacy.

“Neither the Senate nor the House has sought to interfere with actual conduct of negotiations by writing an open letter to the leadership of a country with which the U.S. is negotiating,” said Henrikson, who teaches at Tufts’ Fletcher School of international affairs

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/03/10/259257/precedent-for-gops-iran-letter.html#storylink=cpy

The GOP is full of such despicable scumbags that they'll undermine and endanger U.S. military and innocent civilian lives just to get their way, just like petulant children.

All arising from the hatred of the black man in the white house...oh excuse me let me try to relate to CONservatives: "the n***** in the white house".

Please tell me you're childless...

 

[hamster]

Elfie wants "academic" sources, believing the findings are beyond reproach. ......and not subject to bias required by those funding the research.

 

[Confluence]

If your still not able to grasp the difference and how low your party is willing to go:

Nancy Pelosi met with Assad of Syria in 2007. Read what she discussed with him and the nature of her visit, then read what the GOP had to say. If you still can't(or won't) see the hypocrisy, and see that your party does nothing but bow down and cater to the extremists and racists in it's mist(Tea baggers, evangelicals, Israel, etc.) by opposing the President no matter what, on whatever issue; then you really do represent that intellectual bastion of truth that is the modern GOP.<----SARCASM in RED

So, Pelosi goes to see Assad just months after the US withdraws its ambassador in protest for the Syrian army being in Lebanon and being responsible for the assassination of a Lebanese leader, and she attempts to engage the ruthless Assad? Is this not the same guy, during Obama's presidency, who used chemical weapons, repeatedly, against his own people? Can you not understand that the man simply lied to America (Pelosi, Obama) for a great number of years, and when that became untenable, he became guilty of war crimes against his own population??
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17920536/...ugs-bushs-criticism-meets-assad/#.VQETCWMZWPA

Dick Cheney called Pelosi’s trip “bad behavior” and said in an interview with Rush Limbaugh: “The president is the one who conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House.” Writing in National Review, then-Minority Whip Eric Cantor complained that “Mrs. Pelosi usurped the executive branch’s time-honored foreign-policy authority”; “at such a critical moment in the volatile Middle East,” he inveighed, “this is no time for the United States to be sending out mixed signals to our enemies.” The right-wing extremist Congressman Steve King actually introduced legislation to bar Pelosi from traveling to “terrorist states,” arguing:

The Speaker of the House is not the President of the United States. Nancy Pelosi does not represent the Administration. In fact, her policy positions seek to contravene the foreign policy of the United States. Nancy Pelosi, by defying the specific request of the administration to refrain from traveling to Syria, blatantly infringed upon the Constitutional duties of the President. Additionally, I believe her trip was the most blatant violation of the Logan Act by a top elected official in the history of our country. . . . Nancy Pelosi thinks it’s her job to conduct foreign policy in defiance of the President. She is wrong on the Constitution and wrong on the law.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/...ria-policy-v-todays-similar-dem-attacks-iran/

Apples and Oranges, do you know the difference? I wonder how Steve King and Dick Cheney feel today?

Once again Joey speaks for me:

Good to know that you can at least use Peezy to ground your thinking.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

You can't argue with someone this irrational. A person who will quote HuffPo, Mother Jones, and countless other sources at times, but then discount anything not Left wing.

You can present facts - like Eric Holder saying Darren Wilson committed no criminal wrong doing, and the Communist will still insist he was murdered.

You can present facts to be presented in reply with such nonsense from the Elfie:

"I read up on Ortega and his meeting with Wright A MEETING!(don't get me started on Reagan's attempts to overthrow a legit gov.)This is not the same as trying to undermine the foreign policy of the U.S. out of hatred for the administration."

This is how Elfie lies, and contorts and twists. She'll have you believe it was just a meeting simply because she screams it. When in fact, in 1987, ten Democrats sent a letter to Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. Sound familiar, to Republicans sending a letter to Iran? Sure does to me. But it still wasn't "just a meeting" as she professes. It started with the letter.

THEN Wright organized for Ortega to come to Washington, and attempted to negotiate directly with Ortega, leveraging Cardinal Obando in the process. His actions were so egregious, that President Reagan later "dressed him down" [Wright] for his traitorous actions.

Oh, indeed, these acts occurred, there are countless sources, and well...The NY Times isn't exactly conservative. But Elfie will scream "No it didn't!" (because it doesn't fit her nut job narrative)

This is not the same as trying to undermine the foreign policy of the U.S. out of hatred for the administration.

Ummmm...yes it is, read above. Do more homework Comrade. There's no difference.

The Kennedy incident as far as I can tell is all hearsay,

All just hearsay...whole lot of reporting going on about just hearsay, eh Comrade?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/oct/27/20061027-084248-4386r/
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/te...eagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

I mean heck, that can't just be hearsay right? They have actual written memorandums...specifying negotiating terms. Hearsay?

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/10...e-soviets-to-intervene-in-the-1984-elections/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...r-to-iran-guess-what-ted-kennedy-did-in-1983/
http://spectator.org/articles/39381/ted-kennedys-kgb-correspondence

I'm sure this girlfriend-killing Lefty was a hero to you, wasn't he?

You're a laughing stock Elfie.

 

[GMC]

What a miserable existence such a vial and despicable creature must live. I couldn't imagine living everyday filled with so much hate and rage. Thankfully it doesn't believe in the 2nd amendment.... I'm still trying to figure out how it was removed from my ignore list.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

I agree that that letter was a bad thing to do. Another example of the republican brilliance and backbone in dealing with this president. A ******* letter to Iran explaining the constitutional role of Congress? Hey assclowns, how about a press conference to the American public about it, and a letter to the President? Grow some balls and take Obama on directly. Don't undercut the President to some douchebags in Iran. Congratulations you idiots, you've removed all doubt about what a bunch of gutless, idiotic ******* you are. Every single branch of our government is laughable. A pathetic joke.

 

[Elfiero]

You can't argue with someone this irrational. A person who will quote HuffPo, Mother Jones, and countless other sources at times, but then discount anything not Left wing.

You can present facts - like Eric Holder saying Darren Wilson committed no criminal wrong doing, and the Communist will still insist he was murdered.

You can present facts to be presented in reply with such nonsense from the Elfie:

This is how Elfie lies, and contorts and twists. She'll have you believe it was just a meeting simply because she screams it. When in fact, in 1987, ten Democrats sent a letter to Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. Sound familiar, to Republicans sending a letter to Iran? Sure does to me. But it still wasn't "just a meeting" as she professes. It started with the letter.

THEN Wright organized for Ortega to come to Washington, and attempted to negotiate directly with Ortega, leveraging Cardinal Obando in the process. His actions were so egregious, that President Reagan later "dressed him down" [Wright] for his traitorous actions.

Oh, indeed, these acts occurred, there are countless sources, and well...The NY Times isn't exactly conservative. But Elfie will scream "No it didn't!" (because it doesn't fit her nut job narrative)



Ummmm...yes it is, read above. Do more homework Comrade. There's no difference.



All just hearsay...whole lot of reporting going on about just hearsay, eh Comrade?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/oct/27/20061027-084248-4386r/
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/te...eagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html



I mean heck, that can't just be hearsay right? They have actual written memorandums...specifying negotiating terms. Hearsay?

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/10...e-soviets-to-intervene-in-the-1984-elections/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...r-to-iran-guess-what-ted-kennedy-did-in-1983/
http://spectator.org/articles/39381/ted-kennedys-kgb-correspondence

I'm sure this girlfriend-killing Lefty was a hero to you, wasn't he?

You're a laughing stock Elfie.

Holder/Wilson??? I guess O.J. didn't kill Ron and Nicole either huh? By your standard of course.

Again since you seem to be slow...American politicians can go and meet, or meet here, WITH ANYONE THEY WANT. How did the ones that traveled get passports from the State Department? The State Department under the Repugnican president at the time, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT? They can also write letters and reach out TO ANYONE THEY WANT. The difference is when the Repugnicans undermined U.S. foreign policy by stating in that letter basically: "Don't pay attention to the guy in the White House, he doesn't speak for the American people and whatever he does we will undo when we control the White House".

Do you not understand why the Senate Historian said this was "unprecedented"???? Are you that dense? IT'S BORDERLINE TREASON!

These people are war mongering scum ready to jump at Israels bidding while betraying their country. Disgusting.

How many of these Senators will be sending their kids to fight in Iran??

 

[ZonaBurgh]

At first it was humorous to listen to her snivel.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

The difference is when the Repugnicans undermined U.S. foreign policy by stating in that letter basically: "Don't pay attention to the guy in the White House, he doesn't speak for the American people and whatever he does we will undo when we control the White House".

Damn, you are more dense than osmium.

First, let it be entered into evidence that ElSharpton avoids the beat down given - that in fact the Ortega issue was more than just a meeting, as she claimed, and that the Ted Kennedy facts are just that, and not just hearsay. But I digress, we're used to this spin and drivel from the angry troll.

Now she wants us to believe that somehow this letter by Republicans to Iran (a letter reminding them of our Constitutional structure and that a new Adminsitration could and may rescind any deals put on the table today at some point in the future) is somehow more egregious than the 7 instances of Democrats violating the Logan Act previously. That somehow this is GHASTLY more grotesque than the precedent incidents.

I mean, in 1983 Ted Kennedy worked directly with the KGB and Andropov, and attempted to get the Soviets (our sworn enemies at the time) to help him win an election against Reagan.

Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

First he offered to visit Moscow. “The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.

Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. “A direct appeal … to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. … If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. … The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.”

Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.

Kennedy’s motives? “Like other rational people,” the memorandum explained, “[Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations.” But that high-minded concern represented only one of Kennedy’s motives....

When President Reagan chose to confront the Soviet Union, calling it the evil empire that it was, Sen. Edward Kennedy chose to offer aid and comfort to General Secretary Andropov.

Huh? Republican Congressman sending a letter to Iran reminding them of our Constitutional structure and that they may well overturn any deal put on the table now, in the future, is somehow WORSE than Ted Kennedy arming our Soviet enemies with nuclear information, and asking them to help him win an election here at home? Explain that?

Somehow she attempts to make us believe that Jim Wright, Congressman, was within his full rights to try to work with Ortega, enemy to the then government, to go off and negotiate a peace agreement on his own without support of the White House. That this is somehow less egregious than Republican Congressman reminding Iran, in a letter mind you, of our Constitutional structure. Mr. Wright hosted Ortega in the US, trying to defend and protect a dictator that our White House was trying to overthrow. That is less egregious than a letter?

That is treason. Kennedy and Wright's actions were in fact evidently treasonous. John Kerry and Tom Harkin did the same, by traveling to Nicaragua to negotiate in person outside the Government's blessing. There was McDermott, Bonoir and Thompson, who traveled to Iraq to defend Saddam Hussein.

Yes, these incidents of traveling to countries to negotiate, hosting dictators in the US, and getting foreign governments that are our country's enemies to try to throw elections are far more egregious than Congressmen sending a letter to Iran.

*sigh*

You can lead a horse to water...

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Lest we forget, the "Honorable" (choke) John Kerry was involved in another treasonous act in the 70s. From the traitor himself earlier this week:

“This letter ignores more than two centuries of precedent in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy,” Secretary of State Kerry said, conveniently ignoring the two centuries of constitutional precedent on treaties that the president was ignoring.

Weird?

Let’s flash back to 1971, when Kerry was at the helm of the influential anti-war group. President Nixon and Secretary of State Kissinger were trying to negotiate an end to the Vietnam War in France, talks which would eventually produce the 1973 Paris Peace Accords.

During that time, Kerry travelled to Paris to meet with the North Vietnamese delegation, at that time an enemy combatant nation. He met with Madame Nguyen Thi Binh, one of Ho Chi Minh’s top negotiators, in sessions that were possibly illegal and not fully disclosed until Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign.

Kerry threw the weight of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War behind trying to convince America that President Nixon should accept all of North Vietnam’s demands. Keep in mind that the North Vietnamese plan ordered America to withdraw and to pay the North Vietnamese government reparations.

This was all merely so that North Vietnam would, at some point in the future, maybe release our prisoners of war, or at least set a date in which they said they would do so.

Now, it’s possible in hindsight to have differing opinions about the rectitude and wisdom of the Vietnam War.

It isn’t possible, however, to have differing opinions about what John Kerry did. He undermined the position of the American government at the behest of one of its enemies.

And even if the wisdom of the war can be questioned, nobody could claim that the brutal communist regime of North Vietnam had any moral claim great enough for John Kerry to intervene on their behalf.

Treason. Why his current anger?

Oh...he just forgot what he did in the 1970s.

 

[USDA#1]

Just as I suspected.

Both parties suck.

and both sides are just a buncha **** flinging monkeys that only care if the other party gets prosecuted.

yinz suck at America.

 

[ark steel]

Just as I suspected.

Both parties suck.

and both sides are just a buncha **** flinging monkeys that only care if the other party gets prosecuted.

yinz suck at America.

Is there a statute of limitations on Treason? Prosecute them all.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Just as I suspected.

Both parties suck.

and both sides are just a buncha **** flinging monkeys that only care if the other party gets prosecuted.

yinz suck at America.

This is what you thought would be the answer. Like Ark, I say prosecute them all. The Logan Act has been around forever. Our Government should be abiding by it and using it. And they should be bringing charges against them all. I'm staunchly in favor of leveraging it ubiquitously.

But it's not. And so, for now, I won't stand for this moment-in-time, one-sided nonsense that somehow Republicans have committed some grave sin by sending a letter to Iran while the media and the Left conveniently ignore the many, worse examples of tampering by Democrats in the past. It's a perfect example of a couple of cliches - "Those in glass houses..." and "Hey, Pot? Yeah, this is Kettle. You're black."

 

[Badcat]

Just as I suspected.

Both parties suck.

and both sides are just a buncha **** flinging monkeys that only care if the other party gets prosecuted.

yinz suck at America.

^^^^ THIS!!! Exactly! But I am enjoying the reading of Tim's virtual tea-bagging of Elfiero.

 

[SteelChip]

^^^^ THIS!!! Exactly! But I am enjoying the reading of Tim's virtual tea-bagging of Elfiero.

and I would pay to see this too...

Who should we arrest first? John McCain or Lindsey Graham?

 

[Stewey]

Can you find an academic source for any of that? .

That explains why you're ****** up Elfie.

 

[Stewey]

Elfie wants "academic" sources, believing the findings are beyond reproach. .

Or at least the opinions of academics like Ward Churchill, Cornel West , Bill Ayers...

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

and I would pay to see this too...

You won't catch me offering up my nuts in that direction, I assure you.

 

[Stewey]

Just as I suspected.

Both parties suck.

and both sides are just a buncha **** flinging monkeys that only care if the other party gets prosecuted.

yinz suck at America.

Yes and no. Liberalism sucks at its core, so yeah the democrats suck. The only reason Republicans suck is that the RHINO faction abandons conservative principles and succumbs to whatever DemocRAT trash wants....

Just waiting now for Elsharpton to explain what "conservative principles" mean to him/her.

 

[Supersteeler]

Yes and no. Liberalism sucks at its core, so yeah the democrats suck. The only reason Republicans suck is that the RHINO faction abandons conservative principles and succumbs to whatever DemocRAT trash wants....

Just waiting now for Elsharpton to explain what "conservative principles" mean to him/her.

In my heart I do not believe that any politician on either side has any interest at all in making the country better. Not in the least. The only thing they care about is saying the right things to the right people to get what they want. Sometimes they even have to give the appearance of standing strong on certain issues but ONLY after careful observation of what potential voters want to hear. They have no moral compass, no humanity, no principles. They would swing like the wind on any issue under the sun in a second if it meant getting elected. Politicians are complete and utter phonies. I have no use for any of them or anything they have to say. It's all bullshit anyway.

 

[Elfiero]

Damn, you are more dense than osmium.

First, let it be entered into evidence that ElSharpton avoids the beat down given - that in fact the Ortega issue was more than just a meeting, as she claimed, and that the Ted Kennedy facts are just that, and not just hearsay. But I digress, we're used to this spin and drivel from the angry troll.

Now she wants us to believe that somehow this letter by Republicans to Iran (a letter reminding them of our Constitutional structure and that a new Adminsitration could and may rescind any deals put on the table today at some point in the future) is somehow more egregious than the 7 instances of Democrats violating the Logan Act previously. That somehow this is GHASTLY more grotesque than the precedent incidents.

I mean, in 1983 Ted Kennedy worked directly with the KGB and Andropov, and attempted to get the Soviets (our sworn enemies at the time) to help him win an election against Reagan.



Huh? Republican Congressman sending a letter to Iran reminding them of our Constitutional structure and that they may well overturn any deal put on the table now, in the future, is somehow WORSE than Ted Kennedy arming our Soviet enemies with nuclear information, and asking them to help him win an election here at home? Explain that?

Somehow she attempts to make us believe that Jim Wright, Congressman, was within his full rights to try to work with Ortega, enemy to the then government, to go off and negotiate a peace agreement on his own without support of the White House. That this is somehow less egregious than Republican Congressman reminding Iran, in a letter mind you, of our Constitutional structure. Mr. Wright hosted Ortega in the US, trying to defend and protect a dictator that our White House was trying to overthrow. That is less egregious than a letter?

That is treason. Kennedy and Wright's actions were in fact evidently treasonous. John Kerry and Tom Harkin did the same, by traveling to Nicaragua to negotiate in person outside the Government's blessing. There was McDermott, Bonoir and Thompson, who traveled to Iraq to defend Saddam Hussein.

Yes, these incidents of traveling to countries to negotiate, hosting dictators in the US, and getting foreign governments that are our country's enemies to try to throw elections are far more egregious than Congressmen sending a letter to Iran.

*sigh*

You can lead a horse to water...

Your beating off is misconstrued by you as a beat down, again you are clueless.

Do you not have a basic education in contemporary American history? Reagan was engaged in an illegal war in Nicaragua funded through weapons trading with terrorists. i love the way your quote mentions Ortega as a dictator...what about Somoza? How did Somoza get in power? Is that what brought on the communists in the first place?

Go to school son then come back and try to engage me.


Like I said you are clueless whatever the subject is: climate change, the law, contemporary history, you name it.

You also for seem reason are not able to grasp that in the case of democrats they reach out to make contact and form a dialog TO PREVENT WAR. As opposed to your party which does nothing else but WAR MONGERING.

That doesn't even matter because in none of the cases you mentioned(some never happened) did any of the parties openly try to nullify the position of the president to make policy. That's what the Repugnicans have done. Do I have to repeat the words of the Senate Historian for you again? I don't take things that are repeated ad infinitum by right wing blogs as truth(or any blog) I verify using academic sources with corroboration. That's the only way you can get historical truth.

Now on to the Ted Kennedy's KGB 'deal' which never happened.

The source of this story is Paul Kegnor who teaches at Grove City College just north of Pittsburgh, so it does have academic credence *cough* *cough* the problem is there is no corroboration for this story, NONE. Grove City is a CONservative Christian school with ties to CONservative "think tanks" Kengor is a Reagan CONservative sycophant who writes children's books like "God and Ronald Reagan". Good stuff............

While no one has disputed the authenticity of the document, no one outside of that environment takes it seriously. The reason why is it contradicts Ted Kennedy's position on the soviets at the time, which involved constantly attacking them on human rights. Why if he wanted their help would he constantly beat them up in the media?

Also the document states that Kennedy sought to run for President in 1988, which was not his intention as Kennedy stated in 1985, nor did it happen. This indicates that the author of the KGB document was dishonest, a fact that Kengor conveniently ignores. This story is on Forbes where it states that Kennedy intended to run in 1984, which is NOT what the document states. This lie has been regurgitated on every right wing blog known to man.

Here is part of the translated document, where the KGB agent "embellished"(not the only part):

Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future).

This obviously destroys the credibility of the KGB agent when in fact Kennedy had no intention(as he stated) of running in '84 or '88

The article that brought Kengor's attention to the fact the document even existed is at the link below. It's convenient how Kengor completely disregards what John Tunney had to say about it..... you know....... the guy.... THAT WAS ACTUALLY THERE! Instead he takes the word of a KGB agent who as we all know can be trusted 100% because Reagan sycophants like Kengor love and trust communists...right?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19401082/...ile-Tim-Sabastian-the-Sunday-Times-Feb-2-1992

What does Tunney have to say?

Tunney now a lawyer in Los Angeles rejects the thrust of the KGB memo, claiming Kennedy had no intention of running in 1988, and that there had been no discussion of the senator's electoral chances, he called it "bullshit".

And that is exactly what it is kids, bullshit. The KGB guy was trying to make a name for himself. Cue Joey. I, like him, am tired of this discussion..and whoopin the same ***.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

You also for seem reason are not able to grasp that in the case of democrats they reach out to make contact and form a dialog TO PREVENT WAR. As opposed to your party which does nothing else but WAR MONGERING.

This. Once again, this shows your basic misunderstanding of the most fundamental aspect of this discussion. You’ve attempted to indicate, in a perverse manner, that the Republicans have broken a law and done something heinous, that’s never been done before. You’ve tried to isolate this incident as somehow unique, when in fact, it pales in the compare to your party’s prior actions.

You then make the statement that these 7 incidents of Democrats intervening was to prevent war, while insinuating Republicans are attempting to start war.

Really Elfie? You believe Republicans writing a letter to Iran is war mongering? They are trying to prevent the signing of a deal that would allow them to further develop their nuclear capacity. Their attempts are to protect the American people and Israel. Not to begin a war.

The fact that you see their intervention as War Mongering is, in and of itself, the only evidence any of us needs to see just how truly disillusioned you are, and how far you will go to twist facts into lies then scream that they are truths. Kinda like Darren Wilson killing Michael Brown. I digress.

That doesn't even matter because in none of the cases you mentioned(some never happened)…

Which never happened Elfie? Hmmm?

That doesn't even matter because in none of the cases you mentioned(some never happened) did any of the parties openly try to nullify the position of the president to make policy. That's what the Repugnicans have done.

Let’s revisit what the Logan Act is: “Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

You are attempting to redefine the Logan Act to fit your argument. Each represented act of a Democrat is in violation of the Logan Act, period. Each involved “a citizen of the US…without authority of the US…corresponding with or interacting with a foreign government with intent to influence measures or conduct in relation to disputes and/or controversies with the US.” Each case fits the letter of the law.

Now on to the Ted Kennedy's KGB 'deal' which never happened.

The source of this story is Paul Kegnor who teaches at Grove City College just north of Pittsburgh, so it does have academic credence *cough* *cough* the problem is there is no corroboration for this story, NONE. Grove City is a CONservative Christian school with ties to CONservative "think tanks" Kengor is a Reagan CONservative sycophant who writes children's books like "God and Ronald Reagan". Good stuff............

Ahhh, here we go. If the source is Conservative, it cannot be trusted. If it is Liberal, it cannot be questioned.

While no one has disputed the authenticity of the document….

Yes, the document exists. You’ve just stated as such.

no one outside of that environment takes it seriously. The reason why is it contradicts Ted Kennedy's position on the soviets at the time, which involved constantly attacking them on human rights. Why if he wanted their help would he constantly beat them up in the media?

Just because Kennedy was working for human rights wins in the USSR (mainly, exit visas), doesn’t mean at the same time he wasn't working an inside deal to discuss the Nuclear Arms race. Your choice of words - constantly - exaggerates the man's interactions with the USSR at the time on Human Rights. SMH.

Also the document states that Kennedy sought to run for President in 1988, which was not his intention as Kennedy stated in 1985, nor did it happen.

The KGB Letter was written in 1983, when in fact Ted Kennedy was still considered by himself and others to be a Presidential candidate. It wasn’t until 1985 that he pulled his name out of the running.

This indicates that the author of the KGB document was dishonest, a fact that Kengor conveniently ignores.

No, it does not. I repeat, the KGB letter was written in 1983. Ted Kennedy didn’t announce until 1985 he wasn’t going to run for office in 1988.

This story is on Forbes where it states that Kennedy intended to run in 1984, which is NOT what the document states.

You might want to re-read that Forbes article. It does not state this. Breitbart incorrectly quotes this out of context. They say “Teddy would help stifle Reagan’s anti-Soviet foreign policy if the Soviets would help Teddy run against Reagan in 1984.” The Forbes article does not say this. See below.

What is specifically quoted in Forbes is: “In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election.” Re-read that, Comrade. The Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan. NOT Kennedy.

Also note from the Forbes article it states ““Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988,” the memorandum continued. Wait a minute, you previously stated that Kennedy had no intention of running for President in 1988? But his good friend (friend from childhood mind you – boom) states it IS the Senator’s intent to run in 1988…

Further from the article: “Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him [Andropov] to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.””

Nowhere does Forbes indicate that Kennedy planned to run for President in 1984. ONLY that they were trying to figure out a way to overturn Reagan in the 1984 election. Kennedy only ever planned to run in 1988.

This decimates everything you’ve written.

Here is part of the translated document, where the KGB agent "embellished"(not the only part):

Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future).

This obviously destroys the credibility of the KGB agent when in fact Kennedy had no intention(as he stated) of running in '84 or '88

As I’ve effectively destroyed you, let me repeat. Tunney – Kennedy’s boyhood friend - in your own quote above, states Kennedy planned to run for President in 1988. You previously stated Kennedy never had intention of running in 1988. Whoops.

The KGB letter was written in 1983. Until 1985 Kennedy was still a candidate for President in the 88 race. Kennedy, in exchange for nuclear information, expected Soviet help in the election.

What does Tunney have to say?

Tunney now a lawyer in Los Angeles rejects the thrust of the KGB memo, claiming Kennedy had no intention of running in 1988, and that there had been no discussion of the senator's electoral chances, he called it "bullshit".

Let me repeat that Tunney and Kennedy are boyhood friends. Let me also repeat that you’ve quoted Tunney stating “Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988.” Then you offer up another quote of Tunney’s where he says Kennedy never had any intention of running at all in 1988.

WHOOPS again Comrade. Your claims are just that.

It's been a pleasure pointing out that you eliminated yourself on this one. Quoting Tunney who refutes the very claims you've made.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Wow, would you just look at that?

http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...ith-iranian-regime-to-sabotage-george-w-bush/

Between 2006 and 2007, at least twelve Democratic Congressmen agreed to meet with Iranian officials in the Ayatollah’s regime at the behest of National Iranian American Council (NIAC) President Trita Parsi, according to a report by Hassan Dai of the Iranian American Forum.

Parsi allegedly solicited the help of current Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who was Iran’s Ambassador to the UN at the time. Zarif is now one of the lead negotiators for Iran’s nuclear program on behalf of the Islamic republic.

The NIAC leader—who, this report claims, was actively engaged in sabotaging American foreign policy with regard to Iran—said at the time:

These [Democratic Party] members are very disillusioned with the Bush foreign policy and are tired to sit on the sidelines as Bush undermines the US’s global position. As a result, they are willing to take matters in their own hands and they accept the political risk that comes with it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/12/trita_parsi_reports_to_tehran.html

http://conservativetribune.com/dem-congressmen-teamed-with-iran-sabotage-bush/

NIAC President Trita Parsi, along with then-Ambassador to the U.N. Javad Zarif, who is now the Foreign Minister and involved in the nuclear negotiations, were actively engaged in efforts to sabotage President George W. Bush’s foreign policy regarding Iran.

According to Breitbart, an email from that point in time was recently made public, after the NIAC tried to sue opposition Iranian journalist Hassan Dai for defamation.

“These (Democratic Party) members are very disillusioned with the Bush foreign policy and are tired to sit on the sidelines as Bush undermines the US’s global position. As a result, they are willing to take matters in their own hands and they accept the political risk that comes with it.”

That, my friends, is worse than what the Republican Senators just did. Those twelve Democrat members of Congress met with foreign leadership to discuss ways to actively sabotage a sitting President.

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/unanything/images/4/4f/I-dont-always-slap-*******-but-when-i-do-i-*****-slap-them-to-kingdom-come.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140806013417​

 

[Badcat]

Your balls must be all wrinkly and sore from Elfie gagging on them. Do us a favor and dont pull them out next time. just end the suffering.