Tom Cotton interview at The Atlantic

[ksen]

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...ama-iran-deal-may-lead-to-nuclear-war/390327/

Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic sat down and interviewed Senator Cotton. This is the transcript.

Probably the scariest quote of the interview:

I've become more moderate with age.

This is more moderate? Ok.

The worst thing Obama ever did was enable the Tea Party to get going.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I find this worse.

I think that Americans—and this is not true just now, but over the years—are not fundamentally opposed to war. They're fundamentally opposed to losing wars. And that's one reason why President Bush lost support for the Iraq War in the period of 2004 to 2006.

The W Admin wouldn't have disagreed with that. The problem isn't going to war, it is a bunch of people in charge thinking it isn't going to be a losing war to start with.

Well you never know these things for sure, but I think history provides me precedents. I mean not just, for instance, [the Israeli attack on the Iraqi reactor at] Osirak or the [Syrian nuclear reactor], but also, for instance, in the tanker operations in '87 and '88, when we helped secure free transit in the Persian Gulf. Iran did ultimately pull in its horns to some degree because they realized that Ronald Reagan was serious when he made those promises, when we flagged those vessels. And we do have amazing capability gaps over a country like Iran, as Israel does. We also have the support of allies throughout the region that traditionally have not been as supportive as we might like for operations like these.

See... attacking Iran will be safe because historically, when we didn't attack Iran we were safe.

And regarding instability in the Middle East and our ability to control it...

I think we can exercise a greater degree of control than we have, although that's not to say that it's simply within our control, of course.

??? So we can control it better, but it may not be in our control? Got it!

Tom Cotton says W losing the war in '06.

But I did know that we were losing. I had no doubt about that. I felt it. And I would say almost everyone on the front lines—by which I'd say battalion level or below, most of the people who were really out patrolling—knew it. You know, we didn't have enough troops, we didn't have the right strategy, and we weren't making any progress, which meant we were losing.

Regarding Iran, we shouldn't make a deal, because they'd just get a bomb eventually. But if we don't delay them, they'd get one quicker. But we'll have the military as a threat, but he says they aren't viewed by Iran as a threat. That'd mean we'd have to use the military, but he says he doesn't want to exactly. Sounds like Cotton lives in the Right-Wing Bubble.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Tom Cotton sat down for an interview with The Atlantic??

The magazine that I read??

Let me see this.



.............


OK, I'm back

I just kept seeing Jeff Goldberg sitting across from Cotton with his mouth open in total disbelief.

 

[ksen]

OK, I'm back

I just kept seeing Jeff Goldberg sitting across from Cotton with his mouth open in total disbelief.

lol, I pictured Goldberg doing that too! :fistbump:

 

[AthenaAwakened]

OK, I'm back

I just kept seeing Jeff Goldberg sitting across from Cotton with his mouth open in total disbelief.

lol, I pictured Goldberg doing that too! :fistbump:

:fistbump:

And there were a couple of times when I could just see Goldberg waving his hands like he was flagging down a truck and saying

HOLD IT! HOLD IT! HOOOOOLD IT! WTF!!!!

 

[SimpleDon]

I find this worse.
The W Admin wouldn't have disagreed with that. The problem isn't going to war, it is a bunch of people in charge thinking it isn't going to be a losing war to start with.

Well you never know these things for sure, but I think history provides me precedents. I mean not just, for instance, [the Israeli attack on the Iraqi reactor at] Osirak or the [Syrian nuclear reactor], but also, for instance, in the tanker operations in '87 and '88, when we helped secure free transit in the Persian Gulf. Iran did ultimately pull in its horns to some degree because they realized that Ronald Reagan was serious when he made those promises, when we flagged those vessels. And we do have amazing capability gaps over a country like Iran, as Israel does. We also have the support of allies throughout the region that traditionally have not been as supportive as we might like for operations like these.

See... attacking Iran will be safe because historically, when we didn't attack Iran we were safe.

And regarding instability in the Middle East and our ability to control it...

I think we can exercise a greater degree of control than we have, although that's not to say that it's simply within our control, of course.

??? So we can control it better, but it may not be in our control? Got it!

Tom Cotton says W losing the war in '06.

But I did know that we were losing. I had no doubt about that. I felt it. And I would say almost everyone on the front lines—by which I'd say battalion level or below, most of the people who were really out patrolling—knew it. You know, we didn't have enough troops, we didn't have the right strategy, and we weren't making any progress, which meant we were losing.

Regarding Iran, we shouldn't make a deal, because they'd just get a bomb eventually. But if we don't delay them, they'd get one quicker. But we'll have the military as a threat, but he says they aren't viewed by Iran as a threat. That'd mean we'd have to use the military, but he says he doesn't want to exactly. Sounds like Cotton lives in the Right-Wing Bubble.

I think that is amazing that Republicans want to emulate Ronald Reagan's policies toward Iran! Don't these idiots know any history? What do they want to eliminate from Reagan's policies, the exchange of arms for hostages, destroying the previous US policy of not negotiating with terrorists in order to violate US law against arming anti-government terrorists in the Americas? Or getting 247 marines killed by Iranian sponsored terrorists and not retaliating, unless you count invading a tiny island 6 thousand miles away from the nearest Iranian sponsored terrorist as sufficient.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Goldberg: ... Or let me put this another way: Do you believe that the country is tired of these sorts of wars and of this kind of engagement?

Tired? Tired is the vet with one leg. Tired is the spouse who has to dress, feed, and wipe the ass of her husband. Tired are the mothers that lost their sons.

Cotton: I think that Americans—and this is not true just now, but over the years—are not fundamentally opposed to war. They're fundamentally opposed to losing wars.

Start showing the R rated version on the evening news. Not just a roll call of the dead with sorrowful music. Or to spin my favorite record, bring back the draft. They'll be fundamentally opposed in a big hurry.

 

[SimpleDon]

Tired? Tired is the vet with one leg. Tired is the spouse who has to dress, feed, and wipe the ass of her husband. Tired are the mothers that lost their sons.

Cotton: I think that Americans—and this is not true just now, but over the years—are not fundamentally opposed to war. They're fundamentally opposed to losing wars.

Start showing the R rated version on the evening news. Not just a roll call of the dead with sorrowful music. Or to spin my favorite record, bring back the draft. They'll be fundamentally opposed in a big hurry.

Not only reinstate the draft but arrange it so that this time the sons and daughters of the wealthy are the first ones drafted this time around. Then we will see this country turned into the largest pacifist, bend over backwards to employ any and every means to avoid war country in the world.