Mike Pompeo is a strident opponent of the Iran deal, and now that he's the head of the country's top intelligence agency, he'll have all the power to nullify the deal, effectively sending the U.S to war with Iran - so much for isolationism and disentangling the U.S from foreign conflicts.
Moreover, he was the top beneficiary of Koch industries during the 2010 midterm elections and built his aerospace technology company from seed money by the Koch brothers. He is known as "the congressman from Koch", and in 2012 he wrote an op-ed in Politico titled "stop harassing the Koch brothers" - so much for populism and "draining the swamp".
You'd have to be retarded to laud this appointment.
So basically you're arguing for an appeasement policy towards Iran in the name of avoiding war.
As history has shown, appeasement only leads to war. That regime in Tehran is an irredentist regime - they have not agreed to abandon their irredentist goals, and the nuclear agreement will only allow them to bide their time until they can break out in pursuit of an endgame on their terms.
Appeasement? Could you elaborate on that?
Good pick!!
If you aren't bombing them right now, it's appeasement.
Both of those people were lawyers and AG is a lawyer's position.
If they'd been appointed Secretary of Energy or some **** you'd have an equivalent example.
Iran has been violating the deal - look at their recent excess production of Heavy Water - and this was their intent all along - to nickle-and-dime along the way, until they could build up their ability to quickly break out on their terms.
The Iranians claim that the excess is up for imminent sale and transfer to a foreign country and that their heavy water stock at home will soon uphold the deal's limits. Nevertheless, I'm aware of the potential prevarication in that commitment and I wouldn't be surprised if Iran ended up irrevocably violating the deal.
Which brings me back to my view on the deal. It's not the be all end all when it comes to the world's approach to Iran; it's a preferred alternative to the last resort that is an all-out war. If Iran conclusively violates the deal , and if war emerges as the only recourse to stem Iran's nuclear aspirations and expansionist ambitions in the Middle East, then war it is.
You're groping around for anything now. Because you need the Iran Deal, you want to attack anyone who dares criticize it, and you'll scavenge around for anything to attack them on.
You misconstrued that part of my post; it had nothing to do with the Iran deal, as it was concerned with Trump's appointment of Mike Pompeo as the head of the CIA, and considering how outspoken of a proponent you are of Trump and his movement, let me ask you again: how do you feel about Mike Pompeo's appointment to the head of the CIA in light of his deep entanglement in the endemic political corruption against which Trump rallied in his campaign?
It doesn't sound good to me. He was on the Select Committee on Benghazi and the CIA kept a lid on the weapons operation. It implies that Pompeo must have been complicit in preventing the public release of the CIA operation. Smells bad.
You misconstrued that part of my post; it had nothing to do with the Iran deal, as it was concerned with Trump's appointment of Mike Pompeo as the head of the CIA, and considering how outspoken of a proponent you are of Trump and his movement, let me ask you again: how do you feel about Mike Pompeo's appointment to the head of the CIA in light of his deep entanglement in the endemic political corruption against which Trump rallied in his campaign?
That seems like a big contradiction coming from a man who is against torture.
You do know that Pompeo graduated from Harvard Law School don't you. He was also editor of the Harvard Law Review where he actually did work on the Review rather than being a figure head like Obama was.
He also graduated first in his class from West Point, not a trivial accomplishment.
Your confusion stems from a faulty sarcasm detector
I wasn't misconstruing - you're carping about the Koch money issue, because you're looking for extra reasons to attack Pompeo over his opposition to the Iran deal.
As for the Koch Bros money, they were against the outsider Trump, and won't be wielding any special influence in the Trump administration. They may get a chance to meet the new POTUS, just like Romney did, but I don't see them getting any special favors - and I don't see what special favors Pompeo could give them as CIA chief.
Trumponomics looks anything like Reaganomics, then even the Koch Bros won't have too many reasons to be unhappy, since a rising economic tide will lift all boats.
What political corruption???
If you didn't just misconstrue my post, then you must be purposefully doing so, as I already explained how that part of my post had nothing to do with the Iran deal; it was a commentary on Pompeo as Trump's appointment to the head of the CIA - the main subject of this topic.
More importantly, you don't think the benefactors of the head of the CIA in Trump's administration would have any influence in that administration? you're either deeply deluded or up to your knees in partisanship to be able to say that with a straight face.
Give me your scenario, where Koch Bros would benefit from Pompeo serving as head of CIA? As if Pompeo's the first guy to get campaign donations from big donors - give me a break - you make him sound like he was running the CLINTON FOUNDATION.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?