We now know why Thad Cochran did not sign the Senate letter to Iran and it’s not good

Ryan S. Walters | @ryanswalters73

This week 47 Republican Senators sent a letter to the leaders of Iran in regards to President Obama’s deal on that terrorist nation’s nuclear weapons program. Those Senators, representing the majority party, sought to remind Iran that any deal struck with Obama would likely be a treaty, requiring 2/3s of the Senate to ratify it, a vote that is highly unlikely. Furthermore, any other type of agreement would only be temporary and could be revoked under a new President in just a few short years.

Aside from Obama’s unacceptable appeasement mentality, why did they take such an unusual, although not unprecedented, action? Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who conservatives have come to loathe in recent years, said it best. The President had essentially told Congress “to go to hell.” So they decided to take some action to counter the dangerous path of President Neville Chamberlain Obama.ChrisMatthewsComparesObamaToNeville

One of the few Republican Senators who did not sign the bill was Thad Cochran, who thinks the administration should use a more cautious approach in dealing with Iran. “I think taking one step at a time and making one decision at a time is a better policy than trying in one sentence to describe what the policy is or ought to be,” he said.

He even believes Obama, someone he thought would make a good President, understands the threat Iran poses: “I think everybody understands we’re not going to just sit back and let potential adversaries put us in a position where we can’t defend ourselves and protect our country’s interests.” So Cochran is obviously siding with Obama on this issue, as dangerous is it is. We can now put him squarely in the Chamberlain camp on Iran.

But why would he do that? Today we found a major reason why Cochran did not join the defense hawks in the Senate who seek harsher measures against Iran.  As we all know, Cochran owes his Senate “victory” over Chris McDaniel to the despicable acts and dirty tricks of the Barbour machine. Now it’s time for Ole Thad to pay the piper!

According to a 2012 report in the Huffington Post and Business Insider, a client of Uncle Haley’s lobbying firm is tied to Iran and it’s nuclear program:

GOP power broker Haley Barbour’s lobby shop, BGR Group, represents a Russian bank that has financed a company that helped build Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant, according to corporate documents and lobbying disclosure records. The bank is owned by a secretive oligarch, Mikhail Fridman, who has met at least twice with White House officials in the last few years, according to visitor logs. 

As we said during the Senate campaign, Cochran will do Uncle Haley’s bidding, no matter the cost or sacrifice.  It seems the corruption never stops with the Barbours, and Cochran is tied up in it too, just as we assured people it would be. Last year we had a golden opportunity to replace Cochran with a true statesman and a patriot who would never have cut any backroom deals with any lobbying firm, let alone the Barbours, and who would never have sold out his country’s security in order to get re-elected.  This is truly despicable on Thad Cochran’s part.



  1. Anonymous says:

    Wow, this ultra conservative “true patriot” website is quoting a Huffington Post article as the gospel? Is this the same ultraliberal, cut every Republican you can down with any half truth story you can come up, Huffington Post? Oh yes, I think it is. Go to the Huffpo website and do a search on Chris McDaniel. I promise you, you won’t be loving them quite as much when you read what they have to say about McD. And really, get over it already. Whether you think he was cheated or wronged or whatever, Mcd LOST to Cochran. Period. Cochran is the Senator and McD will never have the opportunity to beat him. Never. That ship has sailed. It’s over. Cochran is there until he decides to leave or dies. For people that LOVE to quote Reagan so much you sure do ignore one of his most famous sayings.

  2. MichaelW says:

    Wow, you must really be in love with the establishment Republicans, no matter how stupid or non representative of their constituents they can be. Ole Thad didn’t even go along with his Republican Co-harts on this one, including Wicker. Maybe he ought to go ahead and switch to the Democratic party, he seems to vote along their lines anyway and in turn they vote for him. Oh by the way you forgot to mention the business Insider also has the story, I’m sure it just slipped your mind.

    • Anonymous says:

      Nope, not in love just happen to be a constituent that is glad that Cochran did not join in the stupidity. So that is one thing you are wrong about, buddy, he does represent at least some of his constituents. And oh yes, the Business Insider. I did leave that out. Sorry, but I don’t take much stock in a publication whose CEO and Editor in Chief is a thief and a crook. But hey, if you want to hang your hat on something so foolish, good for you.

    • Anonymous says:

      And Michael W. you might want to read that Business Insider article. It is a reprint of the Huffpo article. And Huffpo don’t like your boy either.

  3. William Smith says:

    Chamberlain? That’s, to put it midly, overwrought. Frankly I am not sure I like membrers of the Senate inserting themselves into negotiations between governments. I didn’t like it when the Democrats did it, and I am doubtful I should like it any better when Republicans do it.

    Are you absolutely sure you can make the connection of Cochran’s vote/Barbours lobbying firm/a Rusisian bank/Obama’s negotiations. That is, do you have proof? Or is this a hunch? Suspicion? Something you would like to be true? Perhaps, whether or not you of I like it or agree with it, Senator Cochran made what he thought was the right decision about the letter.

    Then, I understand that you continue to be agnry about the Cochran win over McDaniel and then over Childers, but the primary was 9 months ago and the general election 4 months ago. Isn’t there some point at which you come to terms with reality? Why do you constantly bring up what can’t be undone? It seems that once a week we hear about how MS had a chance to replace Cochran with McDaniel, but failed to do so. If I were your enemy, I would take a lot of pleasure is seeing you time and again bring all this up and use of language like “despicable acts and dirty tricks of the Barbour machine.” If I were Haley, I’d sit back have a little bourbon and a big chucklle.

    Finally do you really want to accomplish anything or just vent? All the attacks on Cochran, the Barbours, the establishemnt, etc. is not advancing your cause. There simply are not enough real McDaniel loyalists to win many of any battles. At some point bridges have to be built and as McDaniel has been saying lately people have to stop shooting at each other.

    • Anonymous says:

      William Smith, “clap, clap, clap!!!” Your post is spot on!! At some point one would think that McD would grow up and move on. And I imagine you are right about Haley chuckling at the foolishness.

    • If you don’t like it sir, then go elsewhere!!! Quite frankly, a lot of folks on this site are sick of your whining and complaining. If you don’t believe as we do then find some other site that suits you better. You are just a Barbour/Cochran troll trying to hijack this site!

      • William Smith says:

        I would be happy to see a list of what you consider whining on my part, if you are directing that at me. Now, if you would like me to point to some of yours, I need point no further than the post. Then you seem to get to the point of sputtering and then saying, “You troll!” No one tries to hijack your site. For my part I enter into discussion. and I don’t wear my chin on my sleeve. All of us who enter public discussion have to know that if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out. I have always thought this is the way big boys played on the playground.

    • But, on the subject at hand, explain then why Roger Wicker signed the letter but Thad didn’t. You don’t find that a little suspicious with Haley’s ties to Iran?

      • William Smith says:

        The answer to this is that they differered, as good men can and do. Does that make them enemies of each other? No. Does it mean they cannot and will not work togother for the good of MS and the country? No. A difference of opinion, even on something important to both, does not make require the two to be enemies.

      • Jane Green says:

        Why was Roger Whicker the only Senator, the ONLY Senator not to sign the climate change deal that every other one signed? did he go against his fellow Republicans? See how silly this can get?

      • Frank Walker says:

        wicker does have to run for re-election in four years , cochran probably will retire before this term is up and will never run for office again. I didn’t know of the barbour connection on this issue, at first I thought someone forgot to wake thad up. Both of them belong to haley and do his bidding but he recognizes that a Senator needs to get re-elected so wicker is appearing to be Conservative. In my fifty plus tears I thought I had never voted for a democrat, I was wrong, I’ve voted for many, they were camouflaged as “Conservative Republicans”.

    • As for Chamberlain Obama, do you think he’s anything but that? Who do you really believe when it comes to Iran, Obama or Netanyahu? The answer should be obvious!

      • William Smith says:

        When someone says, “The answer should be obvious” without argumentation, I find it usually is not obvious. I have read quite a bit about WW II. and Churchill is, I think, the great man of the last century. He is on my list of heroes. But, no I don think we are looking at a parallel to Munich.

      • So the answer is not obvious to you? I certainly stand with Netanyahu on Iran before Obama. But you must like Obama’s position, which is okay, it just tells us where you really stand. As for history, you have said in the past that my historical analysis is “hooey.” Sir, I am a historian. That’s what I do and what I’ve always done. You are a reverend, or so you claim. Why don’t you stick to that?

      • William Smith says:

        What is not clear to me is that negotiations with Iran is parallel to what Chamberlain and the French did to appease Hitler. I understand that you have studied history and written in the field of history. Presumably as a conservative, however, you are not an elitist. So I would think that you would acknowledge that others of us can also study history and write about historical matters. Also, when we have expertise in a field, usually it is better to let the work itself speak for our for how good we are at what we do. In your field you can point to your M.A. In my field I can point to my D.Div. But beyond that we either do good work or we don’t, and few of us do good work always. I have done what I think is very good work in my field. But I also have done some lousy work. Perhaps the same is true of you. In thre end analysis is just analysis. When we offer it to any public, we in a sense invite people to way it’s great or maybe it hooey. When ti comes to my Blog, I expect that, and I have never censored anyone because of what they said to me. If they write it, and it is not profane, then their comments, to which I may or may not respond, are welcome.

    • Mr. Feinman says:

      “Frankly I am not sure I like membrers of the Senate inserting themselves into negotiations between governments.”

      You mean like when John Kerry WENT TO PARIS TO MEET WITH THE VIET CONG to help them negotiate with us?

      Or how about how Obama just sent his 2012 campaign team to Tel Aviv to defeat Netanyahu?

      And even bigger picture, what s THE AMERICAN govt doing negotiating away Israel’s security without having them in the process?

      I don’t know whether Barbour’s old banking business affected Cochran’s not signing the letter, BUT HE SHOULD HAVE SIGNED IT.

      America has no business HELPING IRAN GO NUCLEAR. God bless those Senators standing up to Obama’s selling away Israel’s AND OUR SECURITY.

  4. Southern Belle says:

    Personally I think if William Smith can’t spell any better than he has apparently he should not be making comments about a subject he knows nothing about. The same goes for Anonymous. Apparently you have no idea what you are talking about either. You both need to wake up and quit listening to the damn liberals!

    • Amen! They are liberal trolls is all, just trying to stop our movement. They are part of the problem, not the solution.

      • William Smith says:

        To quote my other last century hero, “There you go again.” More resorting to “liberal” and “troll.” Again, do you want to accomplish something or vent? If you want to vent, then this kind of stuff is fine. If you want to accomplish something, then you have to make arguments, respect those who differ from you, and win over allies. That is what made William F. Buckley and his conservative movement a winning cause. Buckely was serious, but he had a sense of humor, including about himself,; he engaged people in discussion and published stuff that he did not agree with; he was mostly good natured though sharp of tongue and wit; and he bulit and held together a coalition.

      • Respect those that differ from you? When are you going to start doing that? You’ve had some nasty comments that I have deleted.

      • Jane Green says:

        What is “your movement”?? To constantly attack Republicans and conservatives that are not as conservative as YOU think they should be? I am waiting to see an article here attacking, Pelosi, Boxer, any extreme liberal, but yet you choose to attack a fellow Mississippi Republican because he beat your boy.(or are you actually the boy?)

    • Jane Green says:

      ok, Southern Belle, you suggest I (anonymous) do not know what I am talking about. so are you saying that Huffpo is NOT a liberal website? Laughable. The irony is MCD calls anybody that disagrees with him a liberal, troll yet the whole entire post is based on what a liberal website printed.

    • Southern Belle, your use of dangling prepositions is troubling for someone critiquing the spelling of others.

  5. Southern Belle says:

    May I add that Obama did a great job of keeping North Korea from getting a “Nuke”. Do you really want to wake up one morning and find Iran with Nuclear weapons? If so, WWWlll is imminent. Your cushy life (probably your welfare checks) will be over. And you will be saying to yourself “how did this happen?” But just look in the mirror and see one of the “useful idiots” that had a big part in the cause of it!

    • William Smith says:

      N. Korea had nukes long before Obama came along. No, I do not want Iran to have nukes, but didn’t want Russia, China, India, Pakistan, N Korea to have them either. Not on welfare. How about making a rational argument rather than resorting to meaningless insults?

  6. Thanks Ryan for providing a site where conservative contrarians of all backgrounds can speak out on the issues, even though by doing so you know that there will be times when we get “pissy” with one another. As I have said before, despite your blind faith in the The Anointed One, this is one of the few serious political web sites designed for conservative Mississippians that allows open debate. In the meantime, I can still remember when Nixon first reached out to the Soviets and to Communist China, there were senators from both parties who wanted to intervene and interfere with Kissinger’s negotiations. Thad was at Capitol Hill at the time and probably still remembers how Scoop Jackson and other legislators’ interference did nothing but create confusion among the American people and discord in the negotiations. At the time, there were some on the extreme right who condemned Nixon for being guilty of appeasing Russia, and for abandoning The Republic of China located on Taiwan. Of course, history clearly shows that Nixon was correct and his detractors were wrong. Thad saw then what he knows now, under the Constitution it is the job of the Executive branch to negotiate treaties, and it is the responsibility of the Senate to provide “advice and consent”. Thad believes that pursuant to a strict construction of the Constitution, the time for the Senate to perform its duty to conduct hearings, testimony, and investigation is only after the treaty has been finalized, not during If your concern about the Barbour connection is accurate to the point that the Administration is jeopardizing national security in order to protect crony foreign capitalism, then that is an issue which the Senate has a constitutional obligation to investigate. Remember, as Lord Acton once said that sometimes “the better part of valor is discretion.” Therefore, perhaps Thad’s decision to follow a strict construction of the Constitution and allow the Executive branch to negotiate, was in fact the action of a “true” Constitutional Patriot who was willing to stand alone from his fellow GOP senators in an effort to do what was right under the Constitution. If that is the case, that’s not a senator supporting appeasement. Rather, that is a profile in courage.

    • Ryan, don’t you agree with me on this one?

      • michaelw says:

        I don’t know about Mr. Walters, but I don’t believe that we have ever had a president who would allow such a rogue country to possibly put us in such danger. Therefore we could be entering into unknown territory. Desperate times call for desperate measures, just saying. Sad that nearly all republican senators can see it and agree and ours can’t find his way around the capital.

  7. Mr. Feinman says:

    “Therefore, perhaps Thad’s decision to follow a strict construction of the Constitution and allow the Executive branch to negotiate, was in fact the action of a “true” Constitutional Patriot…”

    It is not the Senate’s roll to allow the Executive Branch TO PUT THIS COUNTRY IN DANGER.

    Anyone who doesn’t see that a nuclear armed Iran will soon present A DANGER TO AMERICA as deep as to Israel is shortsighted, not paying attention to Iran’s own promises and threats, or perhaps IS still doing banking business with them.

  8. The Senate gets a “roll?” You see to be a very credible person, Mr. Feinman. I look forward to your expert analysis on whether or not the House gets pastries.

  9. Mr. Feinman says:


    … “roll” should have been “role”…
    just like your “see” should have been “seem”…or “appear”…

    …Glass houses and all that ( : >)


  1. […] We now know why Thad Cochran did not sign the Senate letter to Iran and it’s not good […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: