Mike Thompson: I will support pact when it comes to vote
U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson has issued a statement in support of the Iran nuclear agreement recently reached by negotiators from six countries, saying, “A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable.”
Thompson, the Napa Democrat who is Benicia’s representative in the House, said, “There are only two ways to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon: diplomacy or military force. My first choice is diplomacy.”
A Vietnam veteran, Thompson is a former senior member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Before releasing his statement, he said, he reviewed intelligence and has read classified documents on the matter. He also has attended numerous meetings with experts both inside President Barack Obama’s administration as well as those outside the White House, including with Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for President George W. Bush.
Nor is this a new topic for Thompson.
“As a combat veteran and former member of the Intelligence Committee, I have been following this issue closely for many years,” he said, adding that the intelligence he studied “clearly points toward the fact that this deal is better than the status quo.”
Thompson called Iran a nuclear threshold state, and said without the agreement Iran is likely to make progress in developing a nuclear weapon.
The agreement would stop such activities for 10 to 15 years and would give the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) “enormous access” for inspections, and would obligate Iran to honor those inspections forever, he said.
In addition, the U.S. and its allies would “fully engage the regime to do everything possible to make sure Iran never develops a nuclear weapon,” he said.
Thompson stressed that he doesn’t trust or like Iran’s leaders, but said, “The president has correctly pointed out that you don’t negotiate peace agreements with those you know, like and trust.”
He said the agreement “is in the best interest of the United States and our allies, Israel included,” and promised to endorse the pact when it is presented to Congress for a vote.
“After a careful and detailed evaluation, I believe the deal struck by the Obama Administration is the best way forward,” he said.
Sharing is caring!
Rep. Mike I am shocked and very dissapointed. You do not trust them and I assume thinks its ok that they want to wipe Isreal off the fACE of the earth. Mike if you lived in another state like Texas or even Nevada you would never get elected again. I think Mike you want the Feinstein Senate seat and this is your first step. It could work but if it passes and it fails. Bye Bye Mike.. Mike you do not represent me. Your seat is safe but you will be limited going forward as the House will still be controlled by the Republicans. So you will get no help for your district. I thought you understood politics better than that. What about Planned Parenthood. Are you being controlled by Nancy? Miller was..
Beyond the war mongers—
” What is war good for, absolutely nothing.”
—- The late Edwin Starr
From the above article:
“Thompson, the Napa Democrat who is Benicia’s representative in the House, said, “There are only two ways to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon: diplomacy or military force. My first choice is diplomacy.”
“A Vietnam veteran, Thompson is a former senior member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.”
Bravo! Representative Thompson.
From the post below a brief analysis i.e. History lesson if you will, about more recent U.S. diplomatic efforts vs. past rivals – for the community and our appointed and elected officials to seriously consider…
“There are always good reasons to have a diplomatic channel, a way to relate to and deal with a hostile foreign government, if for no other reason, to allow discussion of contentious issues that may arise, including hostages, military and naval challenges, and providing for humanitarian interventions when there are natural disasters.”
“After all, even if governments do not get along, the people of the United States need not see other nations’ people as enemies!”
“And failure to recognize changes of government never works in our behalf, as witness our long diplomatic isolation of the Soviet Union from 1917-1933; of the People’s Republic of China from 1949 to 1979 (although Richard Nixon visited China in 1972 and started trade, cultural and tourism contacts); of Vietnam (from 1975 when the Vietnam War finally ended until 1995); and now of Cuba from 1961 to this month. ”
“It turns out the diplomatic isolation of Cuba lasted 54 years, way beyond the 16 years of the Soviet Union; the 30 years of China; and the 20 years of Vietnam.”
“Nothing was accomplished by the diplomatic isolation of Cuba, and while the government of that nation is a dictatorship, as with Russia, China, and Vietnam, we cannot decide that a dictatorship, as reprehensible as it is, can be, somehow, made to change by ignoring them and refusing to deal with them.”
http://www.theprogressiveprofessor.com/?p=24946
Sorry Will you will never understand.
Will believes: “What is war good for, absolutely nothing.”
So the Civil War and WWII were a colossal was of time, money and lives then Will?
Beyond the war mongers, Christian crazies ( Did you see the GOP fiasco/debate?) and the neo-cons —
” What is war good for, absolutely nothing.”
—- The late Edwin Starr
From the above article:
“Thompson, the Napa Democrat who is Benicia’s representative in the House, said, “There are only two ways to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon: diplomacy or military force. My first choice is diplomacy.”
Bravo! Representative Thompson..
What is interesting, as a side note, when you total the populations of the of the countries that negotiated the ” Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” they (China, Russia, U.S., U.K., France, Germany and Iran) represent over 2.1 Billion people ( or about one third of the world’s total population) who want a diplomatic solution. TheJ two primary countries that don’t want an agreement Israel and Saudi Arabia our purported allies have populations of 7.5 million and 28 million respectively.
From the post below more information and news for citizenry and our appointed and elected leaders to seriously consider…
‘US wins support from GCC, Asian allies for Iran nuclear deal”
“The Obama administration this week scored two major international endorsements for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), leaving Israel as an outlier among America’s allies in opposing the Iran nuclear deal.””
“The breadth of international support for the JCPOA now spans all of America’s close allies and vital international relationships, except one. With the backing of the European Union, the UN Security Council, the GCC and ASEAN member states India, Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand, US President Barack Obama was not engaging in hyperbole when he told an audience at the American University in Washington on Aug. 5 that “every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support.”
Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/08/iran-israel-nuclear-rafsanjani-russia-lobby-culture.html#ixzz3iBjoYJnG
Noted: You did not answer the question.
Dennis Will will never understand. At this moment he is googleing something to take up space that he does not understand. Look, it is good that he comments because we all now understand his shallow depth on all subjects. He ignores comments because he cannot respond unless he googles an answer. Guess what you Will you will not find one there. It must come from you. You are just not capable of doing that. i am not trying to be mean Will. But you have demonstrated your depth of knowledge.
Will what you google AND lift is very embarrassing. I do hope you understand that. I repeat Will you are clueless and may not even understand what you lift.
Will my intention is not to be mean to you, but I guess I am. So my advise to you is never try to go one on one with me. I will Arm Pit Flatulate you right out into fresh air..
Beyond the war mongers, and the neo-cons —
” Work For Peace ”
“If everyone believed in Peace the way they say they do,
we’d have Peace.
The only thing wrong with Peace,
is that you can’t make no money from it.”
— The late ,Gil Scot-Heron
From the above article:
“Thompson, the Napa Democrat who is Benicia’s representative in the House, said, “There are only two ways to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon: diplomacy or military force. My first choice is diplomacy.”
Bravo! Representative Thompson..
More news and information from some of the top U.S. military– Admirals and Generals in favor of diplomacy vs. war with Iran for our citizenry and appointed and elected officials to seriously ponder…
“In Open Letter, Retired Pentagon Brass Endorse Iran Deal
Call on Congress to Vote in Favor of the Pact ”
“In a new open letter, three dozen retired US generals and admirals have endorsed the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran as the “most effective means” to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and called on Congress to vote in favor of the pact.”
“The letter echoes sentiment from current Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, who said that resolving the dispute with Iran diplomatically “is superior than trying to do that militarily.”
“A military confrontation with Iran is very much the point for a lot of the Congressional opponents, however, and the letter also seemed aimed at them, saying that a US war with Iran would be much easier to sell internationally if the diplomatic deal had been tried first.”
http://news.antiwar.com/2015/08/11/in-open-letter-retired-pentagon-brass-endorse-iran-deal/
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33379.htm
I, too, am very disappointed in Rep. Thompson’s position.
Personally, I believe this is just party politics. Rep. Thompson views loyalty to the president more important than the well being of the country.
The administration and Rep. Thompson offer phony choices as reasons for supporting the plan: either accept the treaty or war will occur. The only way to prevent Iran from getting nuclear arms is this treaty.
Baloney!
There are many options besides war. If the administration didn’t give away the embargo at the outset of negotiations, Iran would be more pliable. We can still enforce embargoes but that would require the administration to do something it does not do well … Lead!
This treaty will not keep nuclear arms from Iran. By definition, all it does is delay, if that is even enforceable. The treaty stipulates that the IAEA is not fully empowered to inspect all sites, the Iranians are given notice in advance of inspections, and some sites are off limits! What hogwash!
For Rep. Thompson to support this agreement is sad and shows he values political party power over national security. Remember this at the next election.
Has Thompson Read the entire Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)? Or has he just listen to Obama’s political speeches? Will Thompson be around to fight off Iran’s spread f terrorism? Will Thompson be around in ten years to accept responsibility for Iran’s nuclear capabilities and its attack on the U.S. and others? Thompson is not standing up for his voters and should be removed from office for dereliction of his office.
Will all the hawks in Congress who think war with Iran is inevitable if we try to use diplomacy (because, after all, look at the shining successes in Iraq and Afganistan) be willing to re-instate the draft so that THEIR sons and daughters can be called up to go and become cannon fodder? I will give you three guesses as to the answer to that question and the first two don’t count. Unless and until those who think that war (bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran) is the only answer are willing to lay their own near and dear young people’s lives on the line, they had just better shut up and let this attempt at peace play out. The agreement has plenty of room for backlash if the Iranians don’t stick to their agreement.
Sorry J there will be no war. Iran is not willing and able to do that. They scared the hell out President Obama and Kerry. Sanctions have done the job so far and could very easily do it moving forward. Using war as a scare tactic will not work. What will is strong leadership from a Prersident that knows how to lead. That is one very good reason A Republican will be elcted President. That alone will scare both Iran and Putin right out their socks. You can also include China. We are the strongest country in the world lead by the weakest leader of the free world. Irsan scares no one. They are weak and rely on fea tacticsr and oil and both of those can be overcome very easily. Isreal will not stand for this agreement. Just watch them very closely..
should be fear tactics. Sorry for the typos but you got the message.
This is what happens when a Democrat and a Jew bucks Obama:
Fri Aug 07, 2015 at 06:53 PM PDT.
Chuck Schumer: Religious Extremist and Bigot
You cannot fight the dear leader without paying a price. There is no room for dissent in the party of peace. I bet Chuckie gets audited this year.
Jfurlong stated: hawks in Congress who think war with Iran is inevitable if we try to use diplomacy
There is nothing wrong with diplomacy, when one achieves that which they set out to attain. Obama has not done this. Compare his statement from 2013, with the agreement.
Sorry, but his pre negotiation goals that were established were not attained.
This is a bad deal. Period.
From December 2013:
THE PRESIDENT — “So let’s look at exactly what we’ve done. For the first time in over a decade, we have halted advances in the Iranian nuclear program. We have not only made sure that in Fordor and Natanz that they have to stop adding additional centrifuges, we’ve also said that they’ve got to roll back their 20 percent advanced enrichment. So we’re –“
MR. SABAN: To how much?
THE PRESIDENT: Down to zero. So you remember when Prime Minister Netanyahu made his presentation before the United Nations last year –“
Later:
But here is the bottom line. Ultimately, my goal as President of the United States — something that I’ve said publicly and privately and shared everywhere I’ve gone — is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. But what I’ve also said is the best way for us to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapons is for a comprehensive, verifiable, diplomatic resolution, without taking any other options off the table if we fail to achieve that.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/12/07/remarks-president-conversation-saban-forum
From the agreement:
NATANZ FACILITY
(Iran will only enrich uranium at the Natanz facility, with only 5,060 IR-1 first-generation centrifuges for 10 years)
—Iran has agreed to only enrich uranium using its first generation (IR-1 models) centrifuges at Natanz for 10 years, removing its more advanced centrifuges.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/04/02/us/ap-iran-nuclear-talks-text.html
Interesting facts about Iran:
The current Iranian regime has been in power for 36 years. There is a Jewish population of between 10,000 and 25,000. And, while Iran’s Jews are certainly not free, neither is their government trying to kill them. Nonetheless, Iran boasts functioning synagogues, along with multiple Jewish businesses and Jewish schools. There is actually a recently erected a monument to Jews who died fighting in the Iran-Iraq War. When Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust, the Jewish community publicly reprimanded him, without reprisal. Why is there a substantial Jewish community that remains in Iran, despite being allowed to leave? Perhaps it is because in these instances, as in life, what people do is a far better guide to their future actions than what they say.
I believe the actions of the Iran govenment answers that question. Even Mike says he does not trust them. That said no more should be said. There present and past actions says it all.
“I believe the actions of the Iran govenment answers that question.”
Precisely the point. While Iran’s rhetoric can sound genocidal, not only toward Israel but toward the United States, Iran’s actions have not come close.
Does Iran sponsor terrorism? Answer that one. It is to close to home. America even if it has to stand alone must stop Iran in its desire to get weapons. of mass destruction. Stop them now not a few years down the road. Remember all the folks in Iran do work for the country one way or the other. This Kerry/Obama deal is in their best interest. Not the USA or Isreal. Russia loves it and it appears so does Angela. It must be stopped now. Do you think this deal is worth the the desire of Kerry/Obama to trust Iran. Just put sanctions and block all passage for oil distribution. America should and will start shippimg crude to anyone that meets our standards of a free country. Even Germany and China will qualify in a turn your headf the other way. Ship the world crude and natural gas and at the same time cripple Irans oil industry. Maybe then they will get the message. Nothing better than a strong America. Scare Tactices by President Obama of war are not the answer. Cripple Iran. Iran and the rest of the world will get the picture and there will be no war. The EU will understand immediately that America means bussiness and get on board or miss the train and take your chances with Putin and China. They will scramble to get on board..
Actually, Iran’s actions clearly indicate their motivation to get nuclear weapons at any cost so far promised of them. Sanctions didn’t persuade them to change course. Diplomacy hasn’t persuaded them to change course. Where I think we can agree is that Iran’s goal isn’t to eradicate Israel, at least not first, or directly. Iran wants to lead the caliphate its Islamic revolution is meant to create. A nuclear attack on Israel would be met with Iran’s total destruction. So this is bluster, mostly, at least for now.
What Iran does want to do is to blunt the Saudi faction within Islam that seeks its own caliphate, one which would likely be used to destroy the Shia revolution. So nukes for Iran are far more about projecting power within the Islamic world, preventing USA or western threats of military force, and generally demonstrating it is militarily and culturally the region’s hegemon.
Read Mr. Obama’s or Mr. Kerry’s comments about this deal, but replace “North Korea” every time you see “Iran”, and you can just about hear Mr. Clinton telling us how his deal, the 1994 Agreed Framework, would prevent Kim Jong Il from getting nuclear weapons. Good call, Mr. Clinton. You and Kerry, too, Mr. Obama. Not.
The North Korea deal fell apart because W stopped abiding by our part of the agreement, which was to provide needed food, medical supplies, etc. There were working cameras and seals on the NK nuclear facilities from the time the agreement was signed until W stopped sending the agreed upon supplies. The NK government, being not stupid, waited until we were embroiled in the Iraqi fiasco, then started, in full view of the cameras, removing the seals which had, until that time, been intact. So, please stop blaming Clinton. The agreement was working until Mr. Bush decided to stop upholding it.
One cannot predict a regime’s behavior is by its most menacing words.
-Nikita Khrushchev once told Western diplomats, “We will bury you” (also translated as, “We will be present at your funeral”).
-Soviet officials openly boasted that they could win a nuclear war.
-Major General Zhu Chenghu warned that in the event of a conflict with the United States over Taiwan, “we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” and that “the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds … of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”
-North Korea’s National Defense Commission threatened the United States with the “most disastrous final doom on its mainland.”
All have been proven to be empty words.
Again, while Iran’s rhetoric can sound genocidal, not only toward Israel but toward the United States, Iran’s actions have not come close (including “sponsoring” terrorism; which Iran does not even have the balls to admit).
All of what you said is true. Except America stood up to these fools and they went away. Iran will push and push untill they see there is no alternative but to play ball. They will not go to war. If that is the case then destroy their oil capacity and it is over. We must not back down to this very terrorist nation. If the EU would only tell Putin to take a hike things could get much easier for the US and the Allies. If not we should go it alone and let the EU destroy themselves which at present they are doing a good job. It is about time America showed leadership. When we do the rest of the free world follows our leadership. Nothing wrong with being the leader of the free world. .
Are you attempting to state that Iran is friendly towards Jews and Israel?
Matter – I am presenting data. You are welcome to do with it what you will.
“Iran supports terrorist organizations like Hezbollah” — President Obama
Matter,
We know that being loose with the truth (that is putting it politely) is stock and trade for 0bama. So what are those who oppose 0bama to think, when statements made by his acolytes are completely at odds with statements made by the Dear Leader?
Either they are admitting his statements are false and thus they do not believe him. Or they are lying themselves and perfectly willing to do so.
I am not going to contend that they are simply ignorant of know facts as that would be taking a page out of their playbook.
Matter,
Now I’m unclear. Were you asking me this question as it specifically related to the information I posted concerning Jews that currently live in Iran? Or, was it directed toward someone else and concerning Hezbollah?
Three open questions to Congressman Thompson:
As a preface to the questions, the following quote from President Obama is offered:
“Sanctions relief will provide no benefit to Iran’s military. Let’s stipulate that some of that money will flow to activities we object to. We have no illusions about the Iranian government.”
“Iran supports terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. It supplies proxy groups that threaten our interests and those of our allies, including proxy troops who killed our troops in Iraq. But Iran has been engaged in these activities for decades”
One: Given the above fact that President Obama acknowledges the influx of cash to Iran will flow into the hands of terrorists, do you both agree that an indirect support of terrorist activities is a price that the US should be willing to pay to achieve, at best, a delay in the development of nuclear weapons by Iran and that Iran’s role in the deaths of American troops is one which should have been tabled during these negotiations?
Two: In February of this year James Clapper, acting on behalf of the Administration, removed Iran and Hezbollah from the list of terrorist countries or groups. Today the President acknowledges Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and admits that Iran enables their activities.
What actions since February 26 has Hezbollah taken to now make them a terrorist organization and do you support US funds being channeled in a manner that now benefits this terrorist group?
Lastly, can you advise which other terrorist groups Iran may be channeling funds to, which are you willing to ignore?
Source:
“Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Communities,” (released Feb 26, 2015)
Outstanding and right on target.
“I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power.”– Chuck Schumer
I wonder if the President is going to compare him to the Republicans and the Iranian hard liners.
Schumer is right on this one, and though he kisses up to Obama in his full statement, he has made the right decision. Let’s see if he sticks with it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-back-iran-nuclear-deal/2015/08/11/bd26f6ae-4045-11e5-bfe3-ff1d8549bfd2_story.html
Yes, these are people who have actually GONE to war or actually FOUGHT in a war (unlike that brave veteran Tom Cotton and his buddies), so what do they know about the ramifications of war? How much can they actually know about the implications of what Mr. Trump calls “boots on the ground?” (A description that should make anyone with half a brain’s blood boil because it implies that there are just boots, not our young people in those boots.)
Jfurlong stated: what Mr. Trump calls “boots on the ground?
You do realize that President Obama used that phrase, the one that makes your blood boil”, on numerous occasions regarding Syria? Stating there would be “no boots on the ground” in that effort. You do also realize that he then used it again when he sent those “boots on the ground” to Syria?
Which then begs the question: What really makes your blood boil, those words, or the person saying them?
ANYONE who uses that phrase – don’t care who. Trump was just the latest to use it as a solution to Middle Eastern problems. Again, I don’t care who uses it; just had the most blatant, recent example at my fingertips, as it were.
Jfurlong stated: ANYONE who uses that phrase – don’t care who.
Well good! Being consistent is important.
I well understand how certain phrases can grate on a person, more so when they convey a lack of respect for the armed forces. Such words tend to devalue human life.
“Boots on the ground” bothers you, just as “What difference at this point does it really matter” bothers a lot of others.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/world/middleeast/head-of-group-opposing-iran-accord-quits-post-saying-he-backs-deal.html
Pro-Iran Deal Lawmakers To Colleagues: Read The Intel, Dummies http://flip.it/QFycH
Just who are you HH to call me a dummie. It is all Progressives that you are talking about. Maybe you called the wrong folks dummies.
Are you one of the pro-Iran deal lawmakers’ colleagues?
What kind of answer was that.
All are Democrats and I assume you mean if a Republican did not read it or agree they are dummies? Which very simple put you are calling all Republican elected officials Dummies all because they are smarter and have more focus than thse len Progressives. Pure partisan politics Hank.
Nor am I a pro-Iran deal lawmaker. That was the headline on the piece I linked to. Try reading before you comment, it will cut down on the times when you make foolish mistakes and look silly, as you do right now.
Same old name calling HANK
You asked for it.
Hank I never asked for anything except polite answers without name calling. You are up to your old tricks. Try being nice for once.
I was being nice. You picked this fight. It’s all on you.
If dummie was not directed at Conservatives I will take your word that you were trying to be nice.
First, again, it wasn’t my words. It was the headline of the article I linked to.
Second, it actually wasn’t directed at “Conservatives,” it was directed at lawmakers who oppose the Iran deal, and if I’m not mistaken (I’m not) that includes some Democrats.
Then who are the dummies? My past expierence with you made me suspicious. I believe that woul;d be fair.
Read the story. I don’t expect an apology. My past experience with you, etc., etc.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/08/scowcroft-republican-endorses-iran-nuclear-deal.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/may/08/context-hillary-clintons-what-difference-does-it-m/
http://flip.it/cTzpW