US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9553

On December 18 2017 13:57 Aquanim wrote:
I don't think it's inherently wrong or a betrayal for Jones to make some concessions to his more conservative Alabama electorate in the hopes of getting re-elected. An Alabama senator voting with the Democrats sometimes is better than one that doesn't at all, and the notion that a generally conservative state can elect a Democrat and said Democrat won't immediately turn around and take a dump all over that red state's policy preferences doesn't seem like a bad notion to cultivate for any similar situations that occur in the future.

That being said, I don't feel like venturing an opinion on whether this tax bill is the time or place for such a thing. Just saying that I disagree with the absolute hardline approach which some here may or may not espouse.

The secret backstory of how Obama let Hezbollah off the hook

In its determination to secure a nuclear deal with Iran, the Obama administration derailed an ambitious law enforcement campaign targeting drug trafficking by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah, even as it was funneling cocaine into the United States, according to a POLITICO investigation.

The campaign, dubbed Project Cassandra, was launched in 2008 after the Drug Enforcement Administration amassed evidence that Hezbollah had transformed itself from a Middle East-focused military and political organization into an international crime syndicate that some investigators believed was collecting $1 billion a year from drug and weapons trafficking, money laundering and other criminal activities.

Over the next eight years, agents working out of a top-secret DEA facility in Chantilly, Virginia, used wiretaps, undercover operations and informants to map Hezbollah’s illicit networks, with the help of 30 U.S. and foreign security agencies.

They followed cocaine shipments, some from Latin America to West Africa and on to Europe and the Middle East, and others through Venezuela and Mexico to the United States. They tracked the river of dirty cash as it was laundered by, among other tactics, buying American used cars and shipping them to Africa. And with the help of some key cooperating witnesses, the agents traced the conspiracy, they believed, to the innermost circle of Hezbollah and its state sponsors in Iran.

But as Project Cassandra reached higher into the hierarchy of the conspiracy, Obama administration officials threw an increasingly insurmountable series of roadblocks in its way, according to interviews with dozens of participants who in many cases spoke for the first time about events shrouded in secrecy, and a review of government documents and court records. When Project Cassandra leaders sought approval for some significant investigations, prosecutions, arrests and financial sanctions, officials at the Justice and Treasury departments delayed, hindered or rejected their requests.

The Justice Department declined requests by Project Cassandra and other authorities to file criminal charges against major players such as Hezbollah’s high-profile envoy to Iran, a Lebanese bank that allegedly laundered billions in alleged drug profits, and a central player in a U.S.-based cell of the Iranian paramilitary Quds force. And the State Department rejected requests to lure high-value targets to countries where they could be arrested.

“This was a policy decision, it was a systematic decision,” said David Asher who helped establish and oversee Project Cassandra as a Defense Department illicit finance analyst. “They serially ripped apart this entire effort that was very well supported and resourced, and it was done from the top down.”
The untold story of Project Cassandra illustrates the immense difficulty in mapping and countering illicit networks in an age where global terrorism, drug trafficking and organized crime have merged, but also the extent to which competing agendas among government agencies — and shifting priorities at the highest levels — can set back years of progress.

And while the pursuit may be shadowed in secrecy, from Latin American luxury hotels to car parks in Africa to the banks and battlefields of the Middle East, the impact is not: In this case, multi-ton loads of cocaine entering the United States, and hundreds of millions of dollars going to a U.S.-designated terrorist organization with vast reach.

Obama had entered office in 2009 promising to improve relations with Iran as part of a broader rapprochement with the Muslim world. On the campaign trail, he had asserted repeatedly that the Bush administration’s policy of pressuring Iran to stop its illicit nuclear program wasn’t working, and that he would reach out to Tehran to reduce tensions.

The man who would become Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser and then CIA director, John Brennan
, went further. He recommended in a policy paper that “the next president has the opportunity to set a new course for relations between the two countries” through not only a direct dialogue, but “greater assimilation of Hezbollah into Lebanon’s political system.”

By May 2010, Brennan, then assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, confirmed in a speech that the administration was looking for ways to build up “moderate elements” within Hezbollah.

“Hezbollah is a very interesting organization,” Brennan told a Washington conference, saying it had evolved from “purely a terrorist organization” to a militia and, ultimately, a political party with representatives in the Lebanese Parliament and Cabinet, according to a Reuters report.

“There is certainly the elements of Hezbollah that are truly a concern to us what they’re doing,” Brennan said. “And what we need to do is to find ways to diminish their influence within the organization and to try to build up the more moderate elements.”

In practice, the administration’s willingness to envision a new role for Hezbollah in the Middle East, combined with its desire for a negotiated settlement to Iran’s nuclear program, translated into a reluctance to move aggressively against the top Hezbollah operatives, according to Project Cassandra members and others.

Lebanese arms dealer Ali Fayad, a suspected top Hezbollah operative whom agents believed reported to Russian President Vladimir Putin as a key supplier of weapons to Syria and Iraq, was arrested in Prague in the spring of 2014. But for the nearly two years Fayad was in custody, top Obama administration officials declined to apply serious pressure on the Czech government to extradite him to the United States, even as Putin was lobbying aggressively against it.

Fayad, who had been indicted in U.S. courts on charges of planning the murders of U.S. government employees, attempting to provide material support to a terrorist organization and attempting to acquire, transfer and use anti-aircraft missiles, was ultimately sent to Beirut. He is now believed by U.S. officials to be back in business, and helping to arm militants in Syria and elsewhere with Russian heavy weapons.

On December 18 2017 13:59 GreenHorizons wrote:


I take the general point but find it pretty irrelevant to this situation.

It's not like either the sexual abuse or the tax scam is "taking a hard line" it's just being a remotely decent human being.

On December 18 2017 17:59 Liquid`Jinro wrote:

I don't see what positive impact taking a hard public stance on either of these things would have at this point. The accusations, as they stand right now, are not going to bring Trump out of office - he was elected with those very same accusations on full display.

I also can't really see what positive impact him saying "I'm a hard no on the tax bill" would have. If he actually ends up voting for the bill, or if there's a legitimate opportunity to get rid of Trump in the face of new evidence and he maintains this line of ambivalance, then yes there's a problem, but for now it just seems like a safe statement.

On December 18 2017 13:33 m4ini wrote:
The interesting question is, does that make him a smart or a weak politician?

Genuinely btw, i'm not sure what i think of that.

On December 18 2017 18:31 GreenHorizons wrote:


Thinking it's a "safe statement" is an important part of how we got Trump in the first place.

On December 18 2017 18:31 GreenHorizons wrote:


Thinking it's a "safe statement" is an important part of how we got Trump in the first place.

On December 18 2017 19:44 Liquid`Jinro wrote:

That makes no sense to me, could you explain what you mean? What I mean is it's a safe statement as in it's not going to antagonize anyone. The election was last year, what is there to be gained by pushing (futilely) for Trump to step down *right now*?

If there was an election going on right now I would agree with you completely, but especially for someone in such a red state, it seems much smarter to pick your battles carefully to maxmize your impact.

On December 18 2017 20:44 micronesia wrote:
He might behave in a way you see less objectionable once he's actually sworn into his job.

On December 18 2017 18:31 GreenHorizons wrote:


Thinking it's a "safe statement" is an important part of how we got Trump in the first place.

On December 18 2017 21:51 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:

I would agree with this if Republicans didn't take statements out of context and flood the air waves with propaganda about his abortion stance just a month ago. What you don't say actually is important in the fake news era.

On December 18 2017 13:33 m4ini wrote:
The interesting question is, does that make him a smart or a weak politician?

Genuinely btw, i'm not sure what i think of that.

On December 18 2017 13:57 Aquanim wrote:
I don't think it's inherently wrong or a betrayal for Jones to make some concessions to his more conservative Alabama electorate in the hopes of getting re-elected. An Alabama senator voting with the Democrats sometimes is better than one that doesn't at all, and the notion that a generally conservative state can elect a Democrat and said Democrat won't immediately turn around and take a dump all over that conservative state's policy preferences doesn't seem like a bad notion to cultivate for any similar situations that occur in the future.

That being said, I'm not venturing an opinion on whether this tax bill is the time or place for such a thing. Just saying that I disagree with the absolute hardline approach which some here may or may not espouse.

On December 18 2017 23:53 Gahlo wrote:

Meanwhile, people on the right complain about RINOs.

On December 19 2017 01:02 Trainrunnef wrote:


It's the hipster effect on politics. I hated Jones before you guys did.