|Filed Under:||US Politics / Conservative|
|Posts on Regator:||4061|
|Posts / Week:||12.7|
|Archived Since:||June 16, 2009|
The "best reason" to reject the deal isn't even a good reason.
The conceit that Iran hawks don't want war with Iran is an empty one.
There is no attempt to weigh the costs of this extremely confrontational policy.
If these members of Congress had their way, the U.S. would have walked away without any of the gains from this deal.
Many of the deal's critics in the Senate are asking useless questions.
Hawks insist on an impossible goal and then condemn the significant progress that was achieved through compromise.
The Saudis and their allies are starving the country to death with the support of our government.
The GOP is on the wrong side of public opinion on the deal.
Huckabee is accusing the administration and supporters of the nuclear deal of abetting a future genocide.
Voters should understand that candidates that promote the "martyr-state" myth are seeking to deceive them.
Faith in diplomacy. Gracy Olmstead reviews the career and foreign policy views …
Walker has a fanciful view of how alliance management works.
Republicans shouldn't want 2016 to be an election with a heavy emphasis on foreign policy issues.
Iran hawks are most confident about Iran's "march of conquest" when it isn't happening, and they were heedless of Iranian gains when they were most likely to occur.
Most Iranian dissidents welcome the deal.
These are the horrific consequences of ill-conceived and reckless military intervention.
Romney's op-ed is also a reminder of the shoddy, half-baked foreign policy arguments that he made as a candidate.
Paul is endorsing preventive--and therefore unnecessary--war as an acceptable and appropriate policy.
Friedman is still intent on making preventive war seem acceptable.
Today starting at 2:00 Eastern I’ll be taking questions on TAC‘s Facebook …