BloggeRhythms

Rush spent considerable time yesterday, analyzing the friction building between the president and senate members regarding the pending agreement between the U.S. and Iran.

 

A critical factor in Rush’s opinion, is the letter sent by 47 Republican senators, warning the Iranian government that many of them would remain in office long after President Barack Obama’s second term was over. That action has deeply upset many Democrats, some in the administration calling it treasonous, anti-American and unpatriotic.

 

On the other hand, Rush believes there’s far more to the situation than simply the letter itself. In that regard, he referred to former permanent representative to the United Nations, John Bolton, who said, “Letter schmetter. I mean, a letter's fine, but that's not what the story is. The story is Obama, with this deal with Iran, is surrendering to Iran.”

 

Then, to establish the fact that on other occasions Democrats have done the same kind of things, Rush noted “all of the efforts by the Democrat Party, primarily in the House, but the Senate as well, back in the eighties where they were practically aligned in the mind and heart with the Soviets in Nicaragua.”

 

Rush then explained, what Ted Kennedy did in 1983, as follows: Kennedy, “sent his close friend and trusted confidant, a guy named J. Tunney, who was in Moscow, he charged Tunney to convey the following message through confidential contacts to Yuri Andropov. It was in 1983. This was the message to the Soviet leader...

 

"Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan's belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe. According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President's refusal to engage any modification on his politics.

"Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA."

Therefore, Rush concluded, “Kennedy wanted to coach Andropov on how to deal with Reagan. Kennedy wanted to assist the Soviets in prevailing against United States and Ronald Reagan in nuclear arms talks with Ronald Reagan. So the New York Daily News and these Democrats, they can run around and belly ache and whine and moan all they want about this letter that the Republicans have written the leaders of Iran and call it traitorous, while they conveniently forget all of the multiple occurrences of things worse than this by the Democrat Party. And remember, John Bolton called this Iran deal what it is: surrender.”

And then we have today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, whose email problems were further defined by the nytimes.com’s Scott Shane, who writes:

“A former senior State Department official who served before the Obama administration said that while it was hard to be certain, it seemed unlikely that classified information could be kept out of the more than 30,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton’s staff identified as involving government business.

“I would assume that more than 50 percent of what the secretary of state dealt with was classified,” said the former official, who would speak only on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to seem ungracious to Mrs. Clinton. “Was every single email of the secretary of state completely unclassified? Maybe, but it’s hard to imagine.” 

 

Thus, it seems the email abuses have the potential of becoming a major problem for Mrs. Clinton, who unlike her husband, isn’t exactly adored by the media. Especially so when one of the most biased organizations in the nation, the New York Times, publishes potentially harmful disclosures. 

Along the same lines, Craig Bannister in mrctv.org/blog quotes Darrell Issa, who certainly isn’t an unbiased source, but still knows more than most about the subject. 

Mr. Issa opines; “What we heard from Hillary Clinton today was a rehashing of the talking points we've heard from her defenders over the last couple of weeks. Unfortunately, her explanations are not plausible and her statement did little to answer the many legitimate questions about the mishandling of these emails, including the security risks involved with her use of a non-government server for official communications. She also did not explain why she believed she had the right, for two years, and over the course of multiple investigations, to keep these e-mails from Congress, from the press, and from the American people."

Which means that, as Ricky Ricardo said to Lucy, in I love Lucy, Bill’s wife’s still got lot's more “splainin' to do."

That’s it for today folks.

Adios