Senators try sabotage: Republicans Warn Iran Against Nuclear Deal With Obama

[Moonbeam]

This subject matter is actually getting quite comical to follow 😀

The Republicans have pretty much just written a set of facts onto a piece of paper, facts that already are a part of the public knowledge.

"This is treasonous sabotage against U.S. foreign policy! Why? Because Republican, that's why!"

😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀


Here's the dirty little secret - both parties engage in the same behavior. You cannot stop the behavior by elevating one party up as morally superior to the other party, and have one side shamed into submission. The only solution is to break the party system. I'm not holding my breath for that to happen. So, in the meantime, if Republicans want to state known facts on a piece of paper, I'm not getting my panties in a bunch over this situation.

I myself agree with you on this. I don't mind at all writing down known facts on paper. I do that here on our virtual paper all the time. What I fucking hate is treason and that's what this really is, psychopaths fucking the country to fuck Obama. Worthless scum.

 

[fskimospy]

This subject matter is actually getting quite comical to follow 😀

The Republicans have pretty much just written a set of facts onto a piece of paper, facts that already are a part of the public knowledge.

"This is treasonous sabotage against U.S. foreign policy! Why? Because Republican, that's why!"

😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀

Here's the dirty little secret - both parties engage in the same behavior. You cannot stop the behavior by elevating one party up as morally superior to the other party, and have one side shamed into submission. The only solution is to break the party system. I'm not holding my breath for that to happen. So, in the meantime, if Republicans want to state known facts on a piece of paper, I'm not getting my panties in a bunch over this situation.

You're allowing your partisanship to get in the way of reality. They wrote a letter to a foreign nation the executive was in negotiations with to tell them in effect that they could not trust the US as a negotiating partner. This was done for the explicit purpose of damaging the prospects of reaching an agreement and you know it.

But yeah, when the mob comes by your store and says "hey you have a beautiful shop here, it would be a shame if something happened to it" they are just stating facts, right? I don't know why people get so mad at them for doing that, just stating facts and all.

 

[ivwshane]

They didn't shout treason but did create a political storm at the time and it's happened more than once. Both sides should knock off this type of behavior, starting with the GOP who I blame more since theirs is the more recent and relatively blatant.

Good post! Thanks! I'll have to look into those incidences. Pretty alarming if true.

 

[blankslate]

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/...senator-tom-cotton-meets-defense-contractors/

In an open letter organized by freshman Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., 47 Senate Republicans today warned the leaders of Iran that any nuclear deal reached with President Barack Obama could expire as soon as he leaves office.

Tomorrow, 24 hours later, Cotton will appear at an “Off the Record and strictly Non-Attribution” event with the National Defense Industrial Association, a lobbying and professional group for defense contractors.

The NDIA is composed of executives from major military businesses such as Northrop Grumman, L-3 Communications, ManTech International, Boeing, Oshkosh Defense and Booz Allen Hamilton, among other firms.

So... based on one source I'm not willing to say that this will happen but if it's confirmed and does happen it's obviously a motive for stirring up trouble with diplomatic efforts in foreign policy that is largely under the purview of the Executive Office in addition to the Legislative Branch having a say...


As a hypothetical... what if the Democratic Legislature of the 80's did similar things to scuttle President Reagan's nuclear treaties with Russia?


....

 

[kage69]

They didn't shout treason but did create a political storm at the time and it's happened more than once. Both sides should knock off this type of behavior, starting with the GOP who I blame more since theirs is the more recent and relatively blatant.

The Kennedy affair has been the only real Dem analog to this sad news IMO, and it was every bit as wrong as what the GOP is doing now. Maybe not as potentially damaging, but just as wrong. Doesn't exactly give the GOP a pass to do what they are doing now of course, and if Dems ever resort to the same thing they deserve any and all of what they get.

Agreed. We need more sane people in DC.

In the spirit of bipartisanship I propose the two sides compromise. The 47 Bonehead and a dug up Kennedy get to report to prison for 3 years. That way everyone's happy.

 

[Fern]

The convoluted logic in that is astounding.

First off, it's important to realize that the Netanyahu govt has "leaked" whatever they thought the faithful would buy in an effort to scuttle an agreement. That doesn't mean there's any truth to it.

I'm referring to what the Obama admin leaked. It was being discussed on Sunday political shows well before Netanyahu ever showed up here.

Second, it's important to remember that the negotiations are held under UN mandate, with the Security Council obviously having the final say. The notion that they're willing to agree to anything that allows nuclear weapons for Iran is absurd.

Really? We're supposed to trust that everything will be "OK" because the UN is involved? LOLOLO

Iran is already not cooperating with UN inspectors.

The notion that Israel would engage in pre-emptive strikes against Iran should an agreement be reached is equally absurd. The consequences for Israel vis a vis the US would be profound, with them essentially knifing us in the back.

Oh really?

It's "absurd" to think Israel would Iran's facilities should it believe Iran is getting close to nuke weapons?

History demonstrates what is absurd. Every previous time another country in the region has attempted, Israel struck militarily. Furthermore, Israel has an official govt policy of doing so: the Begin Doctrine.

We're going to do exactly what we did the last times Israel struck: Nothing.

And Israel will do so with the tacit approval of their neighbors. They'll have a clear flight path this time IMO.

Fern

 

[Jaskalas]

This is a peace deal to allow nukes, it is the best alternative to war.
If we wanted to stop the nukes, war is the only solution.

The alternatives being continued sanctions that other nations will ignore, putting American business at an extreme disadvantage, or War with incalculable consequences. I really don't think that our allies will support war at all because they depend on Persian Gulf oil. It'd be a war zone, & nobody will insure ships in a war zone.

So long as there is no war, then I have already backed Obama's peace deal as the best alternative.

Just stop lying about it. NOTHING short of war stops nuclear proliferation. Never has. Never will.

 

[Fern]

Bullshit. What the Republicans are doing here is not just irresponsible, it is potentially illegal/unconstitutional. When the situation is reversed in the future do you want Democratic congressmen attempting to sabotage international agreements like this?

This is bad behavior no matter who is in the White House. The mockery these clowns are getting for their stunt is richly deserved.

Meh. Just about every news site I've seen has an article similar to the one linked below that recounts many similar examples of the President and Congress sparing over foreign policy and the Logan Act being invoked.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/gop-iran-letter-115943.html

Obama wants to circumvent Congress and poke them in the eye, then cry foul when they poke back.

The Senate, including some Dems, have already filed a bill requiring their approval of any Iran deal, among some other conditions. Obama threatened to veto it. (Then the DoJ promptly announced plans to charge the top Dem participating). http://www.jpost.com/International/...legislation-ensuring-vote-on-Iran-deal-392509

They're trying to scare up enough to overturn a veto.

I've never seen a President go it so alone. He's never really bothered to cultivate relationships in his own party or among foreign leaders, much less the opposition party. He's going full on 'Emperor Mode'.


Fern

 

[ivwshane]

Meh. Just about every news site I've seen has an article similar to the one linked below that recounts many similar examples of the President and Congress sparing over foreign policy and the Logan Act being invoked.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/gop-iran-letter-115943.html

Obama wants to circumvent Congress and poke them in the eye, then cry foul when they poke back.

The Senate, including some Dems, have already filed a bill requiring their approval of any Iran deal, among some other conditions. Obama threatened to veto it. (Then the DoJ promptly announced plans to charge the top Dem participating). http://www.jpost.com/International/...legislation-ensuring-vote-on-Iran-deal-392509

They're trying to scare up enough to overturn a veto.

I've never seen a President go it so alone. He's never really bothered to cultivate relationships in his own party or among foreign leaders, much less the opposition party. He's going full on 'Emperor Mode'.


Fern

Did the president say he won't be going to congress for any deal that is made?

There has never been a president who negotiated anything with any foreign power who went to congress first?

Those are some pretty big claims fern, do you have the evidence to back it up though?

 

[Fern]

Did the president say he won't be going to congress for any deal that is made?

I linked an article in the post of mine of you quoted. That should be sufficient.

There has never been a president who negotiated anything with any foreign power who went to congress first?

I don't understand your sentence. Can you rephrase it?

Fern

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Meh. Just about every news site I've seen has an article similar to the one linked below that recounts many similar examples of the President and Congress sparing over foreign policy and the Logan Act being invoked.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/gop-iran-letter-115943.html

Obama wants to circumvent Congress and poke them in the eye, then cry foul when they poke back.

The Senate, including some Dems, have already filed a bill requiring their approval of any Iran deal, among some other conditions. Obama threatened to veto it. (Then the DoJ promptly announced plans to charge the top Dem participating). http://www.jpost.com/International/...legislation-ensuring-vote-on-Iran-deal-392509

They're trying to scare up enough to overturn a veto.

I've never seen a President go it so alone. He's never really bothered to cultivate relationships in his own party or among foreign leaders, much less the opposition party. He's going full on 'Emperor Mode'.


Fern

Circumvent congress? Have you not been paying attention to the repeated posts that explain that this is the authority of the office of President? Congress has nothing to do with it. They never have. Are you willfully ignoring this fact, have you missed it repeatedly or just trolling?

 

[Fern]

Circumvent congress? Have you not been paying attention to the repeated posts that explain that this is the authority of the office of President? Congress has nothing to do with it. They never have. Are you willfully ignoring this fact, have you missed it repeatedly or just trolling?

Have you not been paying attention to the other posts that quote the Constitution and where it authorizes and empowers Congress in matters of foreign policy?

Fern

 

[kage69]

He's never really bothered to cultivate relationships in his own party or among foreign leaders, much less the opposition party. He's going full on 'Emperor Mode'.


Fern

It takes a truly addled partisan mind to post that right after what Obama did in India. Those guys hit if off like college bros who hadn't seen each other in years.

The emperor fantasy is pretty good too, what with Obama's constant infuriating of the right with his overly humble greetings and deferential mannerisms when speaking to other leaders.

lol Did you hear? That brown bastard even had the nerve to compliment Putin on his judo prowess! Tried to engage Mr. KGB personally and showed interest in something old Vlad does for fun and is quite knowledge in, especially throwing in his sambo studies. Of course Putin would rebuff him like an asshole. He's Putin!

 

[Jhhnn]

So long as there is no war, then I have already backed Obama's peace deal as the best alternative.

Just stop lying about it. NOTHING short of war stops nuclear proliferation. Never has. Never will.

I'll agree with the first part.

OTOH, why is there no raving about Brazil's nuclear program, or Japan's? They have the same sort of centrifuges & Brazil has refused to sign the additional protocols, same as Iran.

I guess it's a Evil Mullahs sort of thing.

And there's the small matter where Iran offered to contract out plant operations to western concerns, as well. It was rebuffed by the Bush Admin.

There's more than just a whiff of Neocon regime change ambitions in all of this.

 

[Fern]

Unlike Repubs, Democrats haven't offered the opportunity for such criticism. What I might say under such circumstances is pure speculation on your part.

Reality. Deal with it.

Hey dumbass! Debating and disagreeing with the president about how to handle a foreign power is different than going around your opposition and talking to that foreign power. You'd understand this if you and the rest of the right wing morons had any intelligence at all.

You might want to check out some news sites. Didn't somebody already post that quote on here today about 'better to keep quiet and thought a fool than speak up and prove it'?

DAMASCUS, Syria, April 4 —Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, met here today with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel.

Her visit has been criticized by President Bush and other administration officials, who have sought to isolate Syria diplomatically.

The visit is being seen as a strong signal of reengagement with Syria by the United States, which in recent years has sought to isolate the country diplomatically, and appears to have raised the profile of Mr. Assad internationally.

Ms. Pelosi is traveling with a high-level group of lawmakers, included Representatives Henry A. Waxman and Tom Lantos of California, Louise M. Slaughter of New York, Nick J. Rahall II of West Virginia and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, all Democrats, as well as David L. Hobson, Republican of Ohio.

More on Pelosi's trip to Syria:

To see how thoroughly Democrats have adopted the GOP’s Bush-era authoritarian rhetoric about not “undermining the commander-in-chief,” and to see how craven is GOP behavior now on Iran, just look at what was being said in 2007 when then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria and met with President Bashar Assad. The Bush administration was furious about that meeting because its strategy at the time was to isolate Assad as punishment for his alleged aid to Iraqi insurgents fighting against U.S. occupying forces, and the right-wing media and even mainstream media precincts attacked Pelosi in ways quite redolent of today’s attacks on the Senate Republicans over Iran.

In April, 2007, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by right-wing law professor Robert Turner, headlined “Illegal Diplomacy,” declaring that “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad.”

In April, 2007, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by right-wing law professor Robert Turner, headlined “Illegal Diplomacy,” declaring that “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad.”

Dick Cheney called Pelosi’s trip “bad behavior” and said in an interview with Rush Limbaugh: “The president is the one who conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House.” Writing in National Review, then-Minority Whip Eric Cantor complained that “Mrs. Pelosi usurped the executive branch’s time-honored foreign-policy authority”; “at such a critical moment in the volatile Middle East,” he inveighed, “this is no time for the United States to be sending out mixed signals to our enemies.” The right-wing extremist Congressman Steve King actually introduced legislation to bar Pelosi from traveling to “terrorist states,”....

National Review‘s Andrew McCarthy pronounced that “there isn’t much question that Speaker Pelosi has committed a felony violation of the Logan Act,” and that “it is settled beyond peradventure that the authority of the United States over the conduct of foreign relations rests exclusively with the executive branch.”

The New York Post concluded its scathing editorial attack on Pelosi’s trip, entitled “Nancy’s Nonsense,” by declaring: “Negotiating with world leaders – particularly those at odds with the United States – should be left to the president, or those authorized by him to do so.” USA Today headlined its editorial “Pelosi Steps Out of Bounds,” arguing that “she violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad — even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home,” and accused the Speaker of knowingly undermining Bush’s right to run U.S. foreign policy:....

Pelosi's earlier trip to Iraq:

A prior visit by Pelosi a few months earlier to Iraq led Associated Press to say that the trip “is a clear sign the newly empowered Democratic Congress is not going to abide by the notion that foreign policy is the sole province of the White House.” The headline of that article was “Pelosi visit to Baghdad signals Bush he’s not making foreign policy all alone,” and it recounted the numerous incidents in the past where members of Congress and others were accused of “interfering” in the President’s ability to conduct foreign policy in language similar to what Democrats are using now against Republicans:

-The Clinton administration chafed in 1999 at separate diplomatic efforts by civil rights leader Jesse Jackson and by a group of U.S. and Russian legislators led by then-Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., to strike a peace deal to end the conflict in Yugoslavia.

-Former President Carter’s freelance mission to North Korea in 1994 to nail down a nuclear deal with Pyongyang was praised by the Clinton White House at the time, but it helped complicate later U.S. dealings with North Korea.

Another Democrat 'event':

The GOP reaction was even more strident when then-Congressman Dennis Kucinich criticized the Iraq War on Middle East television in 2007 after meeting with Assad.

For their part, Democrats, needless to say, thought it was perfectly legitimate for members of Congress to act in opposition to Bush’s foreign policy. In Salon, Joe Conason mocked “the screaming critics of the speaker [who] charge her with undermining presidential power [and] freelancing Mideast diplomacy,” insisting that “those furious complaints were all false and, more important, beside the point.” He said that Republicans “can only smear those who, like Speaker Pelosi, are attempting to promote a bipartisan alternative” and concluded: “Let us hope she possesses the courage to continue that crucial mission.”

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/...ria-policy-v-todays-similar-dem-attacks-iran/

Unprecedented my butt.

And to claim that the Dems haven't engaged in similar stuff is laughable.

BTW: If you don't like those sites, find your own. The 'net is littered with such articles.

Fern

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Have you not been paying attention to the other posts that quote the Constitution and where it authorizes and empowers Congress in matters of foreign policy?

Fern

Again. You are wrong. This is an Executive Agreement. Not a treaty. It has no requirement for Congressional involvement. It is a power and authority of the Executive Branch. Do you not know what executive agreements are?

 

[WelshBloke]

This subject matter is actually getting quite comical to follow 😀

It's fucking hysterical.



As long as you're not American.

I'm not sure why you are laughing though.

 

[waggy]

This subject matter is actually getting quite comical to follow 😀

The Republicans have pretty much just written a set of facts onto a piece of paper, facts that already are a part of the public knowledge.

"This is treasonous sabotage against U.S. foreign policy! Why? Because Republican, that's why!"

😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀


Here's the dirty little secret - both parties engage in the same behavior. You cannot stop the behavior by elevating one party up as morally superior to the other party, and have one side shamed into submission. The only solution is to break the party system. I'm not holding my breath for that to happen. So, in the meantime, if Republicans want to state known facts on a piece of paper, I'm not getting my panties in a bunch over this situation.

/this

NOTHING is going to happen. why? politics.

This has been done before and will be done again. they don't want to stop it because if htey do then they can't do it latter!

oh and people are just pissed because no matter what it is (or been done before) people gotta bitch to make sure there "team" wins.

fuck it. it's tiresome. fuck both parties it's not helping the people. it is helping the corporations and politicians though.

 

[schmuckley]

I want to see what Jhhnn says after Iran launches that nuke..
They will ...it's just a matter of time.
We'll see what you say then.
It won't be long..2 yrs or less.
It will definitely make every one of your posts in this thread so far worthless.

 

[MrPickins]

I want to see what Jhhnn says after Iran launches that nuke..
They will ...it's just a matter of time.
We'll see what you say then.
It won't be long..2 yrs or less.

Quoted for posterity. 😀

 

[WelshBloke]

oh and people are just pissed because no matter what it is (or been done before) people gotta bitch to make sure there "team" wins.

This is making sure that their 'team' wins at the expense of their country.

 

[schmuckley]

Here's something about impeachment: https://www.facebook.com/ImpeachPresidentObama

 

[waggy]

This is making sure that their 'team' wins at the expense of their country.

yes.

In fact many would hurt the country IF it hurts the other side. pass something that will help the US? not if it also helps the dems/gop!

 

[waggy]

Here's something about impeachment: https://www.facebook.com/ImpeachPresidentObama

lol

yeah impeachment is not going to happen.

 

[WelshBloke]

Here's something about impeachment: https://www.facebook.com/ImpeachPresidentObama

:awe:

Excellent! I shall get at least 15 minutes of entertainment out of the equal mix of crazy, rage and stupid in that group.

Edit: Win!