(Video) Rand Questions Sec Kerry on Iran Deal

[mit26chell]

Never thought this would be the case, but Kerry is throwing truth bombs at Rand.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q2ivCrY5WI

[Jan2017]

Never thought this would be the case, but Kerry is throwing truth bombs at Rand.


Secretary of State Kerry is under oath in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
he has to speak the truth here when questioned by Senator Paul.

Rand questions the chief US negotiator and points out that
among the "reasons this concerns us" is Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei statements.

As reported by the Wall Street Journal

Iran will uphold its anti-American policies and continue to support regional allies inimical to Western interests.
. . .
“Whether [the deal is] ratified or not, we will not give up on our friends in the region,” Mr. Khamenei said.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/irans-ayatollah-ali-khamenei-says-nuclear-deal-wont-change-u-s-ties-1437202111

Iran friends' like Putin . . . (?)
. . who right now has seemingly unlimited uranium hexafluoride in Russian reactors in Iran,
and with future unlimited uranium hexafluoride in Russian reactors in Iran promised - still - for the total of the 15 years of this agreement,
specified on Page 15 of Annex I of the deal?

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/putinslamdunk01a_zpsx3bg1ucv.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/putinslamdunk01a_zpsx3bg1ucv.jpg.html)

.

[jct74]

here is Politico's take on the exchange


Rand Paul the diplomat

By Burgess Everett
7/23/15 5:11 PM EDT

Some Republicans were clearly itching to mix it up with Secretary of State John Kerry at Thursday’s big Senate hearing on the Iran deal, accusing him of getting “bamboozled” and vowing to scuttle the agreement if they get the chance.

Then there was Rand Paul.

The Kentucky senator and 2016 presidential contender adopted a more dispassionate, even diplomatic stance as he pecked away at the agreement during the Foreign Relations Committee hearing with Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew Thursday. In doing so he contrasted himself not just with his more bombastic GOP colleagues but also with more hawkish rivals in the GOP presidential race, such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who are making their plans to undo the agreement a central plank of their foreign policy platforms.

Instead of launching into a monologue, Paul asked measured questions about why sanctions will be lifted so quickly under the agreement and whether Iran has any plans to create a nuclear bomb.

...

Paul came in and out of the hearing room as he calculated when his turn would come up. Nearly four hours after the hearing began he finally got his chance. He didn’t raise his voice, allowed Kerry to finish his thoughts and avoided the explosive rhetoric of his colleagues. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the committee chairman, told Kerry he was “fleeced” by Iran; Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) used the term “bamboozled.”

...

read more:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/rand-paul-the-diplomat-120550.html

[hells_unicorn]

By virtue of his seeking the GOP nomination for president, Rand Paul had to be somewhat confrontational, even if over trivial things such as being disagreeable about terminology. This approach moderates him in the eyes of the generally kooky GOP electorate and also cuts the legs off the Neo-cons that are just itching to call him a hippie. If the end result of this is that Rand Paul wins the nomination and is able to stop some fruitcake like Rubio or Bush from getting in there and starting another war, more power to him.

[nikcers]

By virtue of his seeking the GOP nomination for president, Rand Paul had to be somewhat confrontational, even if over trivial things such as being disagreeable about terminology. This approach moderates him in the eyes of the generally kooky GOP electorate and also cuts the legs off the Neo-cons that are just itching to call him a hippie. If the end result of this is that Rand Paul wins the nomination and is able to stop some fruitcake like Rubio or Bush from getting in there and starting another war, more power to him.

For me and my entire generation, we took on this kind of sarcastic, ironic, snarkiness because it seemed the most extreme reaction to the earnestness of hippies
-chuck palahniuk

[RabbitMan]

here is Politico's take on the exchange



read more:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/rand-paul-the-diplomat-120550.html

Oh thank god. His Iran crap-talk was pissing off my wife and other moderates, I'm glad he is trying to come off as intelligent again.

[cindy25]

http://news.antiwar.com/2015/07/23/sen-paul-bashes-iran-deal-says-us-must-prepare-military-force/

I understand he needs to please the base but he is becoming the most hawkish

[timosman]

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-war-is-peace-freedom-is-slavery-ignorance-is-strength-george-orwell-139777.jpg

[Brett85]

He just said that military force shouldn't be taken off the table, which is no different than what he's ever said. I take Ron Paul's position and oppose all U.S intervention in Iran, but I'm not in favor of distorting Rand's words and claiming that he said things that he didn't say.

[Chieppa1]

Very measured.

[Jan2017]

I understand he needs to please the base but he is becoming the most hawkish
What a bullsheeet interpretation by antiwar.com/Jason Ditz of yesterday's
Senate Foreign Relations Committee questioning -bashing (?) - by Kentucky GOP Senator Rand Paul of Secretary of State John Kerry.

quite a different perspective from politico
Rand Paul the diplomat
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/rand-paul-the-diplomat-120550.html

but . . . any of my critiques I might see with Rand's questions or Kerry's responses to him - aside for a minute and another post -
see the 6 and a half minutes for yourselves . . .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q2ivCrY5WI

.

[cindy25]

antiwar.com has been harsh, maybe unfairly harsh, but there has to be pressure from the libertarian side to counter the pressure from aipac and the other war mongers.

[Occam's Banana]

He just said that military force shouldn't be taken off the table, which is no different than what he's ever said. I take Ron Paul's position and oppose all U.S intervention in Iran, but I'm not in favor of distorting Rand's words and claiming that he said things that he didn't say.

Then Rand should stop using the words of others in order to imply that they meant things that they obviously did not mean. He doesn't get to have it both ways.

Rand cited (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q2ivCrY5WI) Ayatollah Khamenei as saying, "The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They know it's not true." This was clearly an attempt by Rand to bolster his "Iran is not trustworthy" claim by implying that Khamenei meant that Iran really *is* (or at the very least, may be) trying to acquire nuclear weapons and that America has not stopped them from doing so.

But that is not at all what Khamenei meant - as is obvious when one looks at what Khamenei actually said (without conveniently chopping off the end of his statement). What Khamenei actually said was, "The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They know it's not true. We had a fatwa [i.e., a religious ruling] declaring nuclear weapons to be religiously forbidden under Islamic law. It had nothing to do with nuclear talks."

IOW: Khamenei clearly meant to be understood as saying that Iran is not trying to acquire nuclear weapons - but that the reason for that is NOT because America has stopped them from doing so. If Rand doesn't want others to infer from his words things that he did not mean, then he shouldn't imply that there are things in others' words that they did not mean ...

[Jan2017]

antiwar.com has been harsh, maybe unfairly harsh, but there has to be pressure from the libertarian side to counter the pressure from aipac and the other war mongers.

Great point - any overly hawkish stance is gonna be a bit of a real tip-toe dance for Rand
at both the upcoming Faux News GOP debate and on Sunday Fox News with idiot Chris Wallace this July 26 broadcast.

AIPAC doesn't even want anyone to even know that Israel has NEVER signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty that led to Iran sanctions,
because they (Iran) were an original signatory state in 1968, albeit under a different regime. Israel went nuclear in what, 1949 (?) - Holy sheeet.

I had to say politico seems much fairer in their interpretation of yesterday at the SFRC.

Some excerpts . . .

Some Republicans were clearly itching to mix it up with Secretary of State John Kerry at Thursday’s big Senate hearing on the Iran deal.

Then there was Rand Paul.
. . .
In doing so he contrasted himself not just with his more bombastic GOP colleagues (in the US Senate)
but also with more hawkish rivals in the GOP presidential race, such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.),
who are making their plans to undo the agreement a central plank of their foreign policy platforms.
Peace.

[hells_unicorn]

http://news.antiwar.com/2015/07/23/sen-paul-bashes-iran-deal-says-us-must-prepare-military-force/

I understand he needs to please the base but he is becoming the most hawkish

Uh, no he isn't. Are you listening to any of the other candidates other than Donald Trump, or anybody else in congress. Go easy on the hyperbole, too much of it can cause brain damage.


antiwar.com has been harsh, maybe unfairly harsh, but there has to be pressure from the libertarian side to counter the pressure from aipac and the other war mongers.

Unfairly harsh doesn't quite say it, crazy would be a more appropriate description. There's wanting to counter the pressure of AIPAC, and then there is scuttling the warship because your pissed off at the captain not firing both tubes every time an enemy vessel MIGHT be present.

[mit26chell]

But that is not at all what Khamenei meant - as is obvious when one looks at what Khamenei actually said (without conveniently chopping off the end of his statement). What Khamenei actually said was, "The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They know it's not true. We had a fatwa [i.e., a religious ruling] declaring nuclear weapons to be religiously forbidden under Islamic law. It had nothing to do with nuclear talks."

IOW: Khamenei clearly meant to be understood as saying that Iran is not trying to acquire nuclear weapons - but that the reason for that is NOT because America has stopped them from doing so. If Rand doesn't want others to infer from his words things that he did not mean, then he shouldn't imply that there are things in others' words that they did not mean ...

This x 100. Rand is lying through his teeth and saying/acting no differently than someone like a Bill Kristol. It is also no different than what Israel does when they claim Khamenei said he wants to wipe Israel off the map. It's nothing but a lie. I'm glad Kerry put him in his place by offering the entirety of the quote. Kerry knew what Rand was trying to do. And I'm no fan of Kerry.

[T.hill]

This x 100. Rand is lying through his teeth and saying/acting no differently than someone like a Bill Kristol. It is also no different than what Israel does when they claim Khamenei said he wants to wipe Israel off the map. It's nothing but a lie. I'm glad Kerry put him in his place by offering the entirety of the quote. Kerry knew what Rand was trying to do. And I'm no fan of Kerry.

What was Rand was trying to do? Cause if you're saying he was trying to score political points in order to seem less dovish to the Republican primary voters, you'd probably be right. However, if you think he's quoting Khamenei out of context in order to demonize Iran and further an interventionist narrative, then you'd probably be wrong.

The way that politico wrote about Rand during the hearings is almost exactly the way I perceived it, as a measured and diplomatic response that dramatically contrasted him against his other Republican colleagues on the foreign relations committee. Outside of that one isolated moment where he prob is lying about Khamenei's words he was civil with John Kerry throughout and was, for the most part, only trying to get more feedback about the agreement and giving recommendations that he believes would strengthen it. The way that Rand presented himself made it appear that he was sympathetic with the administration and their attempts to negotiate a deal with Iran, which by and large he probably is.

[pao]

... "Outside of that one isolated moment where he prob is lying about Khamenei's words" ...

Sorry, but if Rand intentionally lied in an attempt to present a known falsehood--and I don't see how it could have been accidental as anyone reading the full quote could see Khamenei's meaning--he completely negates any praise his relatively civil discourse w/ Kerry deserved. Now are Khamenei's actual words truthful? That may not be as clear.

[Peace&Freedom]

Sorry, but if Rand intentionally lied in an attempt to present a known falsehood--and I don't see how it could have been accidental as anyone reading the full quote could see Khamenei's meaning--he completely negates any praise his relatively civil discourse w/ Kerry deserved. Now are Khamenei's actual words truthful? That may not be as clear.

Or, Rand was mouthing the normal hawkish interpretation of Khamenei's intentions, precisely in order for Kerry to swat it down. A disguised softball question, posed as a hardball exchange. Paul gets cover for being tough on Iran, while intending for the truth to get out indirectly through Kerry.

[pao]

Or, Rand was mouthing the normal hawkish interpretation of Khamenei's intentions, precisely in order for Kerry to swat it down. A disguised softball question, posed as a hardball exchange. Paul gets cover for being tough on Iran, while intending for the truth to get out indirectly through Kerry.

If that is what is happening I'd have to admit that chess is Rand's game. But, if from now on and throughout the debates he continues to push this false meaning rather than correct it on this issue he is no better than the other hawks manipulating the public toward conflict. However, despite all that, I still feel he would be less aggressive than most of the others.

[timosman]

Or, Rand was mouthing the normal hawkish interpretation of Khamenei's intentions, precisely in order for Kerry to swat it down. A disguised softball question, posed as a hardball exchange. Paul gets cover for being tough on Iran, while intending for the truth to get out indirectly through Kerry.

OMG, Rand is so smart !

[Jan2017]

I would have hoped Senator Rand Paul's questioning could have been even more about any continued concerns - he and others could have -
in light of any remaining, possible, continued military dimensions of the Iran nuclear program.

The compliance part has always been a bit of a non-starter issue imo, so Rand can finally give up on his reason #1

Kerry in response to Rand's interpretations is : "I urge you to connect with the intelligence community."

Well, it seems the administration doesn't need any GOP Senators convinced anymore because it is all assumed to be veto proof -
unless enough Democrats could thumb their noses at a stinky deal.

Kerry's response to a question from Senator Rubio in March before a deal was for up for approval was
"I am not at liberty to discuss . . . in a classified session (of the SFRC) I could."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp6sTe1cNqs

Senator Paul likely won't get any explanation from the administration of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei statements like . . .

“It must absolutely not be allowed for them (EU/UN/USA) to infiltrate into the country’s defense and security domain under the pretext of inspections,”

“Military officials must not allow strangers into this private domain under the pretext of supervision and inspection, or stop the defensive development of the country.”

Kerry is content at disregarding comments by The Supreme Leader of Iran as just idle rhetoric, and maybe enuf Dims will agree.

At least one major military site, Parchin, is suspected of being used to conduct nuclear weapons research.
Tehran has repeatedly denied the IAEA access to the facility.
It is not mentioned in the deal . . . is that right (?)
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/nuclear-deal-silent-on-irans-parchin-military-plant-bushehr/

.

[RabbitMan]

Or, Rand was mouthing the normal hawkish interpretation of Khamenei's intentions, precisely in order for Kerry to swat it down. A disguised softball question, posed as a hardball exchange. Paul gets cover for being tough on Iran, while intending for the truth to get out indirectly through Kerry.

That is some insane martial arts right there. I would love for that to be true but it's complex enough almost to be silly.