I posted a text snippet of his comments so that you don't have to watch a video. The point seems pretty clear, GOP politicians are kinda pieces of human garbage when they have to ask themselves about our political relationship with a country before deciding if we should be
- gravely sad (lol, not for Iranians apparently)
- a little sad but also you kinda deserved it (Trump)
- outright ecstatic (Rohrabacher)
that a country was attacked by terrorists.
No offense but I have seen how you quote stuff in the past so I'd rather read it myself.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA):
ďWe have recently seen an attack on Iran, and the Iranian government, the mullahs, believe that Sunni forces have attacked them. This may signal a ratcheting up of certain commitments by the United States of America. As far as Iím concerned, I just want to make this point and see what you think, isnít it a good thing for us to have the United States finally backing up Sunnis who will attack Hezbollah and the Shiite threat to us? Isnít that a good thing? And if so, maybe this is a Trump ó maybe itís a Trump strategy of actually supporting one group against another, considering that you have two terrorist organizations.Ē
We grieve and pray for the innocent victims of the terrorist attacks in Iran, and for the Iranian people, who are going through such challenging times. We underscore that states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote.
Here is the response by Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif:
lol, what is this? This article basically boils down to:
- UK officials say the invitation has not been rescinded (which is great, because I never said it was and the NYT article never said it was)
- Sean Spicer said it's not being cancelled (again, the claim was just that it's likely to be delayed), which like every word that comes out of Sean Spicer's mouth is...basically meaningless
Go read the NYT article again and tell me which part of it is wrong.
But most of all, I am just shocked that Sushy - who claims to hold news articles to the highest scrutiny - reflexively dropped a "lol goofy" without reading or having any idea what he was talking about.
Downing Street says there has been "no change" to plans for a UK state visit by US President Donald Trump, amid reports the trip could be delayed.
It comes after the Guardian reported Mr Trump called Prime Minister Theresa May to say he did not want to visit until he had support from the British public.
A Downing Street spokesman said: "We aren't going to comment on speculation about the contents of private phone conversations.
"The Queen extended an invitation to President Trump to visit the UK and there is no change to those plans."
The Guardian reported that, according to a Downing Street adviser who was in the room, Mr Trump made a call in recent weeks in which he stated his reservations about the visit.
Mrs May is reported to have been surprised by Mr Trump's position.
A senior official in the White House told the BBC that "the president has tremendous respect for Prime Minister May" and that the subject of the state visit "never came up on the call".
That's generally consistent with the Guardian story being true and it's not the sort of paper just to make it up. Doesn't mean that what trump says on a phone call means anything much and yeah maybe it never came up.
My guess is that it did come up but trump was just saying words like he does.
So the US should become a state-sponsor of terror. I vaguely remember that being a bad thing. Besides, isn't supporting a terrorist organization a criminal offense?
It sounds like a fool-proof plan though as long as ISIS pinkie-swears to not use any resources they received in the streets of London, Paris or Berlin.
That's why I quoted the important part for you. You not reading posts and you not understanding how things work seems to be a recurring theme.
It's so weird how even when you quote sources that would be trivially easy to detect alterations to (thanks to this thing called "Google" or even "clicking links"), adios just doesn't want to believe that they said those things!
Did Dana Rohrabacher (for whom a Google search will bring up several news results about his recent comments, at the top of the page) say the words in that quote box, in the video included in the same post? I dunno, man, who can really say? It's just this unknowable mystery to adios, who's interested enough in the topic to chime in to defend his conservative heroes on the internet but apparently not interested enough to do even the most basic amount of research.
Sushy will be happy to know that he should no longer trust anything they put out ever again, as that is how he treats all purveyors of fake news.
In a related article, NYT looks at how a right-wing blogger spread fake news about James Comey, claiming that Comey swore under oath that Trump never asked him to stop an investigation (spoiler: didn't happen, fake news!) and getting it uncritically repeated by tons of sources to millions of eagerly listening conservatives, including Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.
To give the administration some credit, the injunction against travel ban 2.0 prevented some of this review:
But as the rules for admitting people from the six countries covered by the latest travel ban have remained almost entirely unchanged, officials have blamed a ruling by a federal judge who, in blocking the revised order, also prohibited the government from evaluating the risks of letting people enter from the affected countries.
In a legal brief on March 17, government lawyers asked the judge, Derrick K. Watson of United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, if he had meant to stop them from proceeding with the vetting review. In a reply two days later, the judge said yes.
...but the injunction against ban 1.0 didn't do that, and the administration didn't seem to give much of a **** about reviewing vetting procedures back then either:
Critics note that the administration faced no such judicial restrictions after the first travel ban order was issued, and that it could have completed the 30-day review of vetting procedures for the seven countries that had been called for in that initial order. Officials said they began the review but did not finish it.
You tell me, conservatives: did Trump lie about needing changes to vetting, or does he just not give a **** about protecting Americans?
“I know many of you are saying, ‘I wonder if the U.S. even welcomes me anymore,’ ” Roger Dow, chief executive of the U.S. Travel Association, said to more than 1,300 foreign travel writers, tour operators and wholesale travel providers. “And on behalf of the U.S. travel industry, I’d like to give you an answer: We want you here. We want you to send your friends here. We all welcome you.”
The hospitality industry, once optimistic that a hotelier would be leading the country, has in recent months slipped into quiet desperation at the prospect of dwindling revenue.
“We think it’s about two-and-a-half million jobs in the U.S. [that are] directly dependent on foreign tourists arriving to the United States,” Arne Sorenson, the chief executive of Marriott International, said on CNBC last week.
But now came the difficult part: Encouraging foreigners to visit the United States at a time when the country’s president seemed to be doing the opposite.
“None of us doubts the feelings of Americans in general,” said Jen Savedra, editor of Travel Industry Today, an online publication based in Toronto. “But when the president is tweeting about how people aren’t welcome in the country, a lot of people are saying, ‘Why? We’ll go to Mexico or the Dominican Republic instead.’ ”