Snoslinger Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 "Prince told lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee that he did not plan to meet Dmitriev in Seychelles but that once he was there discussing possible business deals with UAE officials, they unexpectedly suggested that he visit the hotel bar and meet Dmitriev." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 54 minutes ago, Highmark said: So what does this show Trump did that was illegal? MC you do realize its NORMAL for an incoming administration to communicate with foreign govts. Neither unprecedented nor illegal. But it has the word russia in it so snot and mc freak the fuck out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 17 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: "Prince told lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee that he did not plan to meet Dmitriev in Seychelles but that once he was there discussing possible business deals with UAE officials, they unexpectedly suggested that he visit the hotel bar and meet Dmitriev." I was a secret back channel to the Khomeini Regime in 1985. If you're interested in all the details, help yourself to the book I wrote about it. So when I read about the current crop of secret diplomats, and their dealings with (thus far unnamed) Iranians, I know what they went through. It's not always fun. We don't know how many secret back channels were used to lay the groundwork for the "interim agreement" between Iran and The Six (aka the 5+1, the United States, Germany, France, Britain, China and Russia). From time to time some journalist or another comes up with a name of one of our alleged secret diplomats (the most famous of which is that of top Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, a story I don't believe), and on other occasions we think we can see that secret diplomacy is going on, as with the American gift to Iran of an ancient Persian chalice that turned out to be a phony, or as with the hard-to-explain release of an Iranian convicted of violating the arms embargo. A lot of the coverage implies that the use of secret back channels is something new. It isn't. There have been secret talks with the leaders of the Islamic Republic ever since the Revolution of 1979, and they have continued ever since. In the case of Obama, the secret contacts began during the election campaign of 2008, when William Miller, a former diplomat and staff director of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, flew back and forth between Washington and Tehran. He was an ideal choice: an Obama loyalist, a believer in the possibility of a US-Iranian modus vivendi, and a trained diplomat, as he happily discussed his role with me a few years ago. Oddly, with all the current attention to the secret back channels, his name hasn't surfaced. Their mission isn't very glamorous: they are glorified couriers, carrying messages from the White House to the Iranian leaders, and returning with the Iranian responses. Given the long-standing conflict between us, and the many Americans killed by Iranians and their proxies in Iraq and Afghanistan, neither side can trust the other. Indeed, each side wants some evidence that they are really talking to a real representative, and not just some opportunist. In my case, specific words were put into speeches by President Reagan and Vice President Bush (whom the Iranians believed was the real powerhouse of the administration, given that he had run the CIA), and the same was done by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. It would not surprise me to learn that similar moves were made this time around. I've been told by Iranian friends who must remain anonymous that the principal Iranian interlocutor was Mohammad Javad Larijani, the eldest of five brothers who make up one of the most powerful families in the country. One is now Speaker of Parliament, another is Justice Minister. Mohammad Javad is in charge of human rights, and travels frequently to Geneva and New York, where some of the secret talks were held. I think he was an ideal choice for Ali KHamenei: a trusted loyalist, fluent in English, skilled in negotiation. The "Interim Agreement" came after nearly five years of secret diplomacy, and it doesn't seem to me that it was all that easy at the end. Obama and Kerry were quite confident that a deal was done at the time of the first meeting in Geneva -- there wasn't a national security journalist in Washington who hadn't been told that -- but it didn't happen. And the second time around, it looked for a while that a second failure was in the works. The Iranian press was running stories blaming The Six for the new fiasco. So all that secret diplomacy only got everyone to the table; it didn't seal a deal. Couriers can't make deals, after all. They just carry messages. It takes the big guys to get the seals and signatures on the page. And even then, you don't always get what you think you've paid for. After all, The Six and the Iranians are still haggling over some of the details. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/michael-ledeen/secret-life-in-iran_b_4381109.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 5 minutes ago, Snake said: I was a secret back channel to the Khomeini Regime in 1985. If you're interested in all the details, help yourself to the book I wrote about it. So when I read about the current crop of secret diplomats, and their dealings with (thus far unnamed) Iranians, I know what they went through. It's not always fun. We don't know how many secret back channels were used to lay the groundwork for the "interim agreement" between Iran and The Six (aka the 5+1, the United States, Germany, France, Britain, China and Russia). From time to time some journalist or another comes up with a name of one of our alleged secret diplomats (the most famous of which is that of top Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, a story I don't believe), and on other occasions we think we can see that secret diplomacy is going on, as with the American gift to Iran of an ancient Persian chalice that turned out to be a phony, or as with the hard-to-explain release of an Iranian convicted of violating the arms embargo. A lot of the coverage implies that the use of secret back channels is something new. It isn't. There have been secret talks with the leaders of the Islamic Republic ever since the Revolution of 1979, and they have continued ever since. In the case of Obama, the secret contacts began during the election campaign of 2008, when William Miller, a former diplomat and staff director of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, flew back and forth between Washington and Tehran. He was an ideal choice: an Obama loyalist, a believer in the possibility of a US-Iranian modus vivendi, and a trained diplomat, as he happily discussed his role with me a few years ago. Oddly, with all the current attention to the secret back channels, his name hasn't surfaced. Their mission isn't very glamorous: they are glorified couriers, carrying messages from the White House to the Iranian leaders, and returning with the Iranian responses. Given the long-standing conflict between us, and the many Americans killed by Iranians and their proxies in Iraq and Afghanistan, neither side can trust the other. Indeed, each side wants some evidence that they are really talking to a real representative, and not just some opportunist. In my case, specific words were put into speeches by President Reagan and Vice President Bush (whom the Iranians believed was the real powerhouse of the administration, given that he had run the CIA), and the same was done by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. It would not surprise me to learn that similar moves were made this time around. I've been told by Iranian friends who must remain anonymous that the principal Iranian interlocutor was Mohammad Javad Larijani, the eldest of five brothers who make up one of the most powerful families in the country. One is now Speaker of Parliament, another is Justice Minister. Mohammad Javad is in charge of human rights, and travels frequently to Geneva and New York, where some of the secret talks were held. I think he was an ideal choice for Ali KHamenei: a trusted loyalist, fluent in English, skilled in negotiation. The "Interim Agreement" came after nearly five years of secret diplomacy, and it doesn't seem to me that it was all that easy at the end. Obain additionma and Kerry were quite confident that a deal was done at the time of the first meeting in Geneva -- there wasn't a national security journalist in Washington who hadn't been told that -- but it didn't happen. And the second time around, it looked for a while that a second failure was in the works. The Iranian press was running stories blaming The Six for the new fiasco. So all that secret diplomacy only got everyone to the table; it didn't seal a deal. Couriers can't make deals, after all. They just carry messages. It takes the big guys to get the seals and signatures on the page. And even then, you don't always get what you think you've paid for. After all, The Six and the Iranians are still haggling over some of the details. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/michael-ledeen/secret-life-in-iran_b_4381109.html http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/jun/02/kimberley-strassel/did-obama-seek-back-channel-talks-iran-during-his-/ in addition...were previous "back channels" done with foreign foes, using their suggestions, outside of our intel agencies? i predict you'll laugh off the politifact source and deflect from the question Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmo Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 Why would they need to open a “back channel” if they were in bed with the Russians? When narratives collide! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 9 minutes ago, Edmo said: Why would they need to open a “back channel” if they were in bed with the Russians? When narratives collide! good god Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 Just when you think snot can’t get any dumber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 22 minutes ago, Edmo said: When narratives collide! It's a hard life keeping up the dem narratives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 30 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/jun/02/kimberley-strassel/did-obama-seek-back-channel-talks-iran-during-his-/ in addition...were previous "back channels" done with foreign foes, using their suggestions, outside of our intel agencies? i predict you'll laugh off the politifact source and deflect from the question This is a case of he-said-she-said. A single conservative scholar says Miller told him about his secret ‘08 campaign mission to Iran. Independent journalists who have covered U.S.-Iran relations extensively haven’t been able to confirm the account. There is no corroborating evidence, and Miller says it’s not true; he says he never worked on behalf of the Obama campaign, and he didn’t travel to Iran in 2008. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 29 minutes ago, Snake said: This is a case of he-said-she-said. A single conservative scholar says Miller told him about his secret ‘08 campaign mission to Iran. Independent journalists who have covered U.S.-Iran relations extensively haven’t been able to confirm the account. There is no corroborating evidence, and Miller says it’s not true; he says he never worked on behalf of the Obama campaign, and he didn’t travel to Iran in 2008. ok, so what about the other questions? nobody is denying "secret channels" existed before, but these are unique. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 24 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: ok, so what about the other questions? nobody is denying "secret channels" existed before, but these are unique. Why are they unique? Because he is a republican? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 8 minutes ago, Snake said: Why are they unique? Because he is a republican? https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/06/how-to-understand-kushners-back-channel-215232 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 I wonder if snot ever gets sick of going all in on the flop with this nonsense and getting fucked on the river every time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted March 8, 2018 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 8, 2018 1 hour ago, Edmo said: Why would they need to open a “back channel” if they were in bed with the Russians? When narratives collide! They needed a back channel to the back channel to the back channel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKIQPilot Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 On 3/8/2018 at 8:44 AM, Rod Johnson said: I wonder if snot ever gets sick of going all in on the flop with this nonsense and getting fucked on the river every time Hahahaha. Perfect analogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted March 10, 2018 Author Share Posted March 10, 2018 On 3/8/2018 at 9:36 AM, Highmark said: So what does this show Trump did that was illegal? MC you do realize its NORMAL for an incoming administration to communicate with foreign govts. When there legal yes. You are aware back channel is illegal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, Mainecat said: When there legal yes. You are aware back channel is illegal? *they’re ...and no, they aren’t. tard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hwytohell Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 dempolitifact and the lying alt lefty puffinstuffingtonpost Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teamgreen02 Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 Poor MC, another nothingburger. Wonder how he is going to take it when Trump gets reelected in 2020. Him and Kneel will be crying themselves to sleep with Madcow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted March 10, 2018 Author Share Posted March 10, 2018 13 minutes ago, teamgreen02 said: Poor MC, another nothingburger. Wonder how he is going to take it when Trump gets reelected in 2020. Him and Kneel will be crying themselves to sleep with Madcow. He won’t make it through next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 13 hours ago, Mainecat said: When there legal yes. You are aware back channel is illegal? Show the class where it is illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted March 10, 2018 Author Share Posted March 10, 2018 6 minutes ago, Snake said: Show the class where it is illegal. When your SIL tries to set up a back channel with an enemy of the state without any US security agencies knowing about it. Thats illegal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 5 minutes ago, Mainecat said: When your SIL tries to set up a back channel with an enemy of the state without any US security agencies knowing about it. Thats illegal How is russia an enemy of the state Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 7 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said: How is russia an enemy of the state Oh...you know. Because Hillary didn't win and they don't want to blame Americans to their face at the risk of even losing more votes. "Deplorables". "Crumbs." Can somebody please hire the DNC a public relations firm? ThanX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 about 1.5 years ago russia was considered one of our biggest threats according to the rwws.....my how things change Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.