HAMAS holds secret talks with US Democratic Party

[SlowwHand]

For one thing, it proves the reference was there.
For another, it means it will be investigated, in all probability.

[DaShi]

Good, I hope Bush is investigated as well.

[SlowwHand]

Bush isn't Democrat, and Bush can meet with them.

[DaShi]

Um. . .helllo.

I heard that President Bush was walking around Mosul raping women and peeing on the Koran.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
For another, it means it will be investigated, in all probability.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DaShi
Um. . .helllo.

Jesus Christ. That's shocking.

[Ramo]

Iraq, if it is to have a govt that actually incorporates Sunni and other minority interests. wont be a reliable ally for Iran.

An Iraq that has a popularly elected gov't is probably going to be a reliable ally of Iran. As has been the case with the Maliki and Ja'afari gov't's.

Also its not clear that they see the only alt as chaos and regional war.

Something's gotta give. The Saudis are threatening to get involved if the Shia militias continue to consolidate control. The Turks have been raiding Iraqi Kurdistan. The Shia/Kurdish consensus seems to be heading towards partition, which IMO would immediately escalate the war. It's hard to see a regional war not break out if the current trends perpetuate.

maximizes the influence of the Sadrists, the group most reliably supportive of Iran in the country,

That'd be SCIRI. Remember that they switched sides to Sadr only when it became clear that the Mahdi Army had a clear advantage over the Badr Corps. Sadr might be too nationalistic and too interested in reconciliation with the Sunnis for Tehran's preferences.

Baker Hamilton tells the Shia to centralize control of oil, recreating a centralized state. Why should they want that?

Sadr does. Hakim doesn't, but his influence is on the wane. But that's one of the many reasons why we need to engage Tehran.

But Baker Hamilton seems to imply that US troops arent helping security anyway.

Our direct presence constitutes a short-term stabilizing and long-term destabilizing force. So removing them would be leverage, but also may be the optimal choice in the long-term.

Which has always had an AQ and Baathist element that doesnt care about the constitution, and now is fed by ethnic *** for tat that is also independent of constitutional provisions

Which is why we need to get a handle on the militias.

They seem to be counting on Iran to restrain Sadr for them, and I dont see Iran doing that.

The direct approach hasn't seemed to work so far. I haven't heard of any better ideas.

[Ramo]

Sully points to an interesting article:

Iran is also increasingly concerned about the need to stabilize Iraq, say TIME's sources, in contrast to U.S. charges that Tehran is fueling instability there. The sources indicate that Iranian officials essentially agree with the Baker-Hamilton conclusion that while Iran gains an advantage from having the U.S. mired in Iraq, its long-term interests are not served by Iraqi chaos and territorial disintegration. "Iran would love to see the situation stabilized in Iraq," says a source. "That is a very important concern for Iran. But Iran doesn't want to see the U.S. declare victory, in case the Americans would like to attack Iran next." The sources say that among the ways Iran could be helpful is to try to persuade groups representing the Shi'ite majority and Kurds in Iraq to be more conciliatory to the Sunni minority whose grievances fuel the insurgency.

As evidence of Iran's readiness, the sources say, Larijani earlier this year publicly accepted an offer made by U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad to hold talks with Iranian officials in Baghdad. But in Iran's view, the U.S. withdrew the offer and that undercut Larijani's standing inside the regime, strengthening the position of more hard-line elements, including Ahmadinejad. "It was a missed opportunity," contends the expert on U.S.-Iranian relations.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1568431,00.html

[Dr Strangelove]

Re: HAMAS holds secret talks with US Democratic Party

Originally posted by Ned
Yes, you heard that correctly. HAMAS has been holding secret meetings with the US Democratic Party. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

1) Doesn't this violate the law and the Constiution?

2) What could they be talking about?

But the mere facts of the meeting itself, its secrecy and who HAMAS leads me to suspect the worst -- a betrayal of the US and of Israel by the Democrats who will side with HAMAS and the Palestinian radicals in the future.

IIRC some representatives of the Republican party met with the Iranian government before Regan became president in 1980. Would that not have been just as illegal?

[SlowwHand]

IYRC, maybe.

[Dr Strangelove]

I'm not taking any flak from a stupid cat, ya hear?

[Ned]

Dr. Strangelove, the difference was that the people who met with the Iranians were the elected government of the US, the executive branch. The problem with the Dems is that they only hold Congress and do not have a right to conduct foreign policy.

[Darius871]

I'm assuming he's referring to alleged contacts before Reagan's inauguration...

[TCO]

The meeting never happened. This bruhaha was just a little Mossad trick to make sure that the new Congressional leaders don't sell out Israel.

[TCO]

Re: Re: HAMAS holds secret talks with US Democratic Party

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


IIRC some representatives of the Republican party met with the Iranian government before Regan became president in 1980. Would that not have been just as illegal?

Tin foil October Surprise crap that was investigated and found bogus. But of course if you looove you some pooosy Carter...then you can go believe it.