Browse By

George Pataki Puts Politics Above People By Linking Hillary Clinton and Iran To September 11 Terrorism

George Pataki, a Republican who has recently come out of retirement to run for his party’s 2016 presidential election, is running under the slogan People Over Politics. That sounds nice, but how does George Pataki’s campaign embody that ideal?

pataki mistake on iran and september 11Most recently, George Pataki published a statement on Twitter reading, “It’s clear by her support of the #IranDeal that @HillaryClinton has forgotten the lessons of September 11th.”

Exactly how is it clear by her support of diplomatic a deal that prevents Iran from developing a nuclear weapon that Hillary Clinton has forgotten the lessons of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001?

Precisely what diplomatic agreement to prevent a country from developing weapons of mass destruction led to the attacks of September 11?

Does George Pataki really think that the lesson of September 11, 2001 is that diplomatic agreements with Iran are a mistake?

It seems more likely that the lesson of September 11, 2001 that George Pataki learned is that when a Republican politician can’t come up with a reasonable justification for disagreeing with someone else’s foreign policy, saying something vague about “lessons of September 11th” is an effective alternative.

That’s not people over politics. It’s politics over people.

George Pataki is rejecting a solid diplomatic deal simply because it’s a piece of work created by a political opponent. That’s the kind of self-interested vision that leads the United States into failed foreign policies. It has no place in the White House.

9 thoughts on “George Pataki Puts Politics Above People By Linking Hillary Clinton and Iran To September 11 Terrorism”

  1. frank says:

    ..solid diplomatic deal. You liberals have thrown objectivity down the toilet. No matter what king Obama or queen Hillary do, they do everything right.

  2. J Clifford says:

    Frank, Irregular Times has thrown ample criticism at Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over the years – as our older readers will attest. We were on Obama’s case well before his inauguration.

    What I want to see is criticism with substance. So, what exactly do you find so repellant about the diplomatic agreement with Iran?

    Do you agree with George Pataki that diplomatic agreements to limit weapons of mass destruction led to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001?

  3. ella says:

    From 1925 until 1979 Iran was friendly toward the United States. In 1977, Islamic forces began to foment revolution in Iran to overthrow the American friendly government, which succeeded in 1979. It was a relatively peaceful jihad and expansion of the Islamic faith and lifestyle. Islam is an active force that does little if any evangelism. It simply kills those who do not agree with them. They do have an extensive legal system, or laws, and some legal scholars to interpret laws and pass down opinions on contracts. In this case a “diplomatic agreement”. I am not entirely certain that, even though a great deal of time was spent on it, this agreement does prevent Iran from developing WMD’s. Even Obama said it was only good for 15 years – before Iran could legally develop their own atomic weapons. I do not know if it precludes Iran from purchasing the needed parts and supplies to do so, as that sanction is now lifted and Iran may purchase weapons again. That piece of information was released on a FOX news segment. And even if they must wait 15 years, what is that to Islamist’s? Do you have a site that provides the agreement which I understand is to be reviewed before Congress – in its’ entirety?

  4. J Clifford says:

    Ella, in your summary of Iranian history in the 20th century, you’re leaving out a huge event: The military coup d’etat of 1953, in which the President was overthrown with the help of the CIA, and the Shah, the nation’s monarch, was given expanded dictatorial powers. (See: From the perspective of many Iranians, that wasn’t a “friendly” interference, and it provided the rationale behind the 1977 revolution, which wasn’t just about Islam.

    Ella, you haven’t provided any information to support George Pataki’s attempt to link diplomacy with Iran and the September 11 attacks fourteen years ago.

    I wonder if Pataki even understands that the Muslims who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001 were from a completely separate branch of Islam, politically and religiously, from the Iranians.

    Anyway, if you want to understand the nuclear deal in more depth than the superficial treatment by Fox News, here are a couple of resources:

    First, the White House’s summary of the Iran deal:

    Second, the full text of the agreement with Iran as provided by the Washington Post:

  5. ella says:

    My thoughts became sidetracked. The contract signed between the United States and Iran in 2015 relates to the September 11 attack in a simplistic way. Iran became an ethical enemy of the United States in 1979, and by association a sponsor of Islamic expansion. Iran invaded Iraq on September 22, 1980 after prolonged border disputes. The Iranians used chemical weapons including Mustard Gas. The United States intervened in 1983 with sanctions and has maintained sanctions against Iranian aggression ever since.
    Syria and Iran are strong allies. Iran is currently supporting Bashar al-Assad and involved in smuggling weapons to Syria. Iran is not hiding the fact that it opposes Israel and the United States. They do acknowledge and appreciate law. They live by it and study all ramifications, nuances, and meaning within speech. If for no other reason, that Iranian leadership is in ethical opposition to the United States, any contract should be thoroughly scrutinized to be sure it is of benefit to the United States in perpetuity. I seriously doubt Iranian lawyers allowed that.

    1. J Clifford says:

      Ella, how does any of what you say relate, even in a simplistic way, to the attacks of September 11, 2001?

      The only solid connection you have drawn to the diplomatic deal with Iran and the attacks of September 11, 2001 are that Iranians are Muslim and the attacks of September 11, 2001 were perpetrated by Muslims.

      Should we also conclude, by this logic, that we should support the diplomatic deal with Iran on mathematical grounds, because Iranians are Muslim, and Muslims introduced to us our system of numerals and the concept of zero?

      This is the equivalent of saying that the diplomatic deal with Iran will bring America better carpets, because everyone knows how good the Persians are at making rugs.

  6. ella says:

    Do the words ‘wishy/washy” mean anything to you? Bless Iran if it keeps the Americans asked for wishes of than contract. I guess what Pataki was saying is that, even someone you thought was ‘a friend is able to turn on you’. And the middle east is full of that type of intrigue. What’s more they are very good at it – long millinia of practice you know. The bin Laden’s were friendly Arabs, but one among the family became an Islamic militant.Iran deserves the chance to prove they won’t do what they have repeatedly said they will. Now they will have all of the advantages and resources that have been missing.

    1. J Clifford says:

      Hold on here a minute – are you seriously arguing that the United States should not make friends around the world because friends can turn into enemies?

      Your solution is to keep other countries as enemies just to make things simple, perhaps?

  7. ella says:

    You are being obtuse or unable to grasp subtleties. But they do make fantastic carpets, last forever. And the middle east is not the rest of the world. I am very much for allowing Iran the right to develop nuclear power plants and develop their own economy. You asked why Pataki rhetorically related a lesson of the past to a possible future. I took one view of it. What is yours?
    J. Clifford, What is that term? Frenemy? I am trying to realize what you are asking. And I guess it is I that am missing some subtlety, but it seems simply that the whole world is now embroiled in one contract or another to maintain peace. Of course there are trade agreements which enforce peace in a way. If you want what we trade for … But then political ‘disputes’ and ‘dust ups’ happen all the time among frenemies who have a good phone chat and never watch the news. Well, maybe get reviews.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!