• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mike Pompeo Accepts Job as CIA Director

Gaztopian said:
Mike Pompeo is a strident opponent of the Iran deal, and now that he's the head of the country's top intelligence agency, he'll have all the power to nullify the deal, effectively sending the U.S to war with Iran - so much for isolationism and disentangling the U.S from foreign conflicts.

Moreover, he was the top beneficiary of Koch industries during the 2010 midterm elections and built his aerospace technology company from seed money by the Koch brothers. He is known as "the congressman from Koch", and in 2012 he wrote an op-ed in Politico titled "stop harassing the Koch brothers" - so much for populism and "draining the swamp".

You'd have to be retarded to laud this appointment.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily retarded, just very much in favor of torture. Not necessarily retarded, just barbaric with no functioning moral compass. Not necessarily retarded, just not knowing the difference between right and wrong.
 
sanman said:
So basically you're arguing for an appeasement policy towards Iran in the name of avoiding war.

As history has shown, appeasement only leads to war. That regime in Tehran is an irredentist regime - they have not agreed to abandon their irredentist goals, and the nuclear agreement will only allow them to bide their time until they can break out in pursuit of an endgame on their terms.
Click to expand...

Appeasement? Could you elaborate on that?
 
Deuce said:
If you aren't bombing them right now, it's appeasement.
Click to expand...

That seems like a big contradiction coming from a man who is against torture. :confused:
 
Deuce said:
Both of those people were lawyers and AG is a lawyer's position.

If they'd been appointed Secretary of Energy or some **** you'd have an equivalent example.
Click to expand...

You do know that Pompeo graduated from Harvard Law School don't you. He was also editor of the Harvard Law Review where he actually did work on the Review rather than being a figure head like Obama was.

He also graduated first in his class from West Point, not a trivial accomplishment.
 
sanman said:
Iran has been violating the deal - look at their recent excess production of Heavy Water - and this was their intent all along - to nickle-and-dime along the way, until they could build up their ability to quickly break out on their terms.

The Iranians claim that the excess is up for imminent sale and transfer to a foreign country and that their heavy water stock at home will soon uphold the deal's limits. Nevertheless, I'm aware of the potential prevarication in that commitment and I wouldn't be surprised if Iran ended up irrevocably violating the deal.

Which brings me back to my view on the deal. It's not the be all end all when it comes to the world's approach to Iran; it's a preferred alternative to the last resort that is an all-out war. If Iran conclusively violates the deal , and if war emerges as the only recourse to stem Iran's nuclear aspirations and expansionist ambitions in the Middle East, then war it is.

You're groping around for anything now. Because you need the Iran Deal, you want to attack anyone who dares criticize it, and you'll scavenge around for anything to attack them on.
Click to expand...

You misconstrued that part of my post; it had nothing to do with the Iran deal, as it was concerned with Trump's appointment of Mike Pompeo as the head of the CIA, and considering how outspoken of a proponent you are of Trump and his movement, let me ask you again: how do you feel about Mike Pompeo's appointment to the head of the CIA in light of his deep entanglement in the endemic political corruption against which Trump rallied in his campaign?
 
Gaztopian said:
You misconstrued that part of my post; it had nothing to do with the Iran deal, as it was concerned with Trump's appointment of Mike Pompeo as the head of the CIA, and considering how outspoken of a proponent you are of Trump and his movement, let me ask you again: how do you feel about Mike Pompeo's appointment to the head of the CIA in light of his deep entanglement in the endemic political corruption against which Trump rallied in his campaign?
Click to expand...

What political corruption???
 
DaveFagan said:
It doesn't sound good to me. He was on the Select Committee on Benghazi and the CIA kept a lid on the weapons operation. It implies that Pompeo must have been complicit in preventing the public release of the CIA operation. Smells bad.
Click to expand...

Your logic doesn't flow. If the CIA kept a lid on the weapons operation then how would Pompeo, who was not part of the CIA at the time, be implemented?
 
Gaztopian said:
You misconstrued that part of my post; it had nothing to do with the Iran deal, as it was concerned with Trump's appointment of Mike Pompeo as the head of the CIA, and considering how outspoken of a proponent you are of Trump and his movement, let me ask you again: how do you feel about Mike Pompeo's appointment to the head of the CIA in light of his deep entanglement in the endemic political corruption against which Trump rallied in his campaign?
Click to expand...

I wasn't misconstruing - you're carping about the Koch money issue, because you're looking for extra reasons to attack Pompeo over his opposition to the Iran deal.

As for the Koch Bros money, they were against the outsider Trump, and won't be wielding any special influence in the Trump administration. They may get a chance to meet the new POTUS, just like Romney did, but I don't see them getting any special favors - and I don't see what special favors Pompeo could give them as CIA chief.

Trumponomics looks anything like Reaganomics, then even the Koch Bros won't have too many reasons to be unhappy, since a rising economic tide will lift all boats.
 
Thoreau72 said:
That seems like a big contradiction coming from a man who is against torture. :confused:
Click to expand...

Your confusion stems from a faulty sarcasm detector ;)
 
Gill said:
You do know that Pompeo graduated from Harvard Law School don't you. He was also editor of the Harvard Law Review where he actually did work on the Review rather than being a figure head like Obama was.

He also graduated first in his class from West Point, not a trivial accomplishment.
Click to expand...

....uhh, dude, Pompeo isn't up for AG.
 
sanman said:
I wasn't misconstruing - you're carping about the Koch money issue, because you're looking for extra reasons to attack Pompeo over his opposition to the Iran deal.

As for the Koch Bros money, they were against the outsider Trump, and won't be wielding any special influence in the Trump administration. They may get a chance to meet the new POTUS, just like Romney did, but I don't see them getting any special favors - and I don't see what special favors Pompeo could give them as CIA chief.

Trumponomics looks anything like Reaganomics, then even the Koch Bros won't have too many reasons to be unhappy, since a rising economic tide will lift all boats.
Click to expand...

If you didn't just misconstrue my post, then you must be purposefully doing so, as I already explained how that part of my post had nothing to do with the Iran deal; it was a commentary on Pompeo as Trump's appointment to the head of the CIA - the main subject of this topic.

More importantly, you don't think the benefactors of the head of the CIA in Trump's administration would have any influence in that administration? you're either deeply deluded or up to your knees in partisanship to be able to say that with a straight face.
 
Gill said:
What political corruption???
Click to expand...

The political corruption known as campaign contribution, and before you take to equivocation or denialism, it was Trump who ran on a platform that maligned established politicians for that status quo.
 
Gaztopian said:
If you didn't just misconstrue my post, then you must be purposefully doing so, as I already explained how that part of my post had nothing to do with the Iran deal; it was a commentary on Pompeo as Trump's appointment to the head of the CIA - the main subject of this topic.

More importantly, you don't think the benefactors of the head of the CIA in Trump's administration would have any influence in that administration? you're either deeply deluded or up to your knees in partisanship to be able to say that with a straight face.
Click to expand...

Give me your scenario, where Koch Bros would benefit from Pompeo serving as head of CIA? As if Pompeo's the first guy to get campaign donations from big donors - give me a break - you make him sound like he was running the CLINTON FOUNDATION.
 
sanman said:
Give me your scenario, where Koch Bros would benefit from Pompeo serving as head of CIA? As if Pompeo's the first guy to get campaign donations from big donors - give me a break - you make him sound like he was running the CLINTON FOUNDATION.
Click to expand...

Oh I see, you're in rationalization mode. No, Pompeo isn't the first guy to get campaign donations, but Trump is the candidate that rallied against political corruption and the status quo it created. He was the candidate that promised to eradicate it and reflect the will of the people that is overwhelmingly against the current campaign finance system.

Now to get back to your asinine point, the Koch brothers are moneymakers that built their empire on oil; you don't think that the head of the CIA, an unmatched intelligence agency whose sphere of influence is the world at large, would be able to benefit them?
 
I am still waiting for Trump to appoint his daughter Ivanka as Secretary of Loveliness.

And Billy Bush Secretary of Bootlicking.

And Chris Christie Secretary of Bridges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom