The 47 GOP Senators and Iran.

[strigori]

I'm really surprised this has not shown up here yet. Tom Cotton and 46 other Senators, including both of Nebraska's, sent a letter to the leaders of Iran. Basically telling them that 'when' the GOP wins the White House in 2016, they will void any agreement made. This is a violation of the Constitution's power divisions, and actually a Federal crime.

 

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/9/8177815/republicans-foreign-policy-sabotage

 

 

 

The mere act of senators contacting the leaders of a foreign nation to undermine and contradict their own president is an enormous breach of protocol. But this went much further: Republicans are telling Iran, and, by extension the world, that the American president no longer has the power to conduct foreign policy, and that foreign leaders should assume Congress could revoke American pledges at any moment.

 

[zoogs]

Both sides.

[QMany]

Wow! I'm out of the loop and just seeing this.

[strigori]

Not surprising as the media is spending all their time obsessing over which email account Hilary Clinton used a few years ago. But I imagine their advertisers don't really want them focusing on almost half the Senate openly warmongering when there is money to be made from starting another pointless war.

[knapplc]

Not surprising as the media is spending all their time obsessing over which email account Hilary Clinton used a few years ago. But I imagine their advertisers don't really want them focusing on almost half the Senate openly warmongering when there is money to be made from starting another pointless war.

 

I've seen one or two tweets about this letter to Iran, and about 200 tweets about Hilary's emails.

[Whistlebritches]

There's a lot of deflection by both parties going on right now. The Iran letter and Hilary's emails should both be much bigger stories than they are.

[VectorVictor]

#47Traitors was the number one trending topic on Twitter yesterday, IIRC, and deservedly so.

 

Frankly, they're in clear violation of the Logan Act. The sooner they're tried and convicted, the sooner we can remove their stench from Capital Hill.

[knapplc]

#47Traitors was the number one trending topic on Twitter yesterday, IIRC, and deservedly so.

 

Frankly, they're in clear violation of the Logan Act. The sooner they're tried and convicted, the sooner we can remove their stench from Capital Hill.

 

They won't be tried. This has happened before and nobody's been prosecuted.

[VectorVictor]

 

#47Traitors was the number one trending topic on Twitter yesterday, IIRC, and deservedly so.

 

Frankly, they're in clear violation of the Logan Act. The sooner they're tried and convicted, the sooner we can remove their stench from Capital Hill.

 

They won't be tried. This has happened before and nobody's been prosecuted.

 

 

You're correct this has happened before, but I don't recall there being a number of malcontents this high trying to submarine a multi-national peace discussion regarding a rogue state that will be nuclear powered, whether we like it or not.

[Bigred_inSD]

Quick question.

 

Am I crazy for actually believing we would be a safer world with Iran having a nuclear weapon?

 

Hear me out, while their leaders may be unstable they aren't crazy enough to start a nuclear war. They know the US and Israel could outduel them easily and destroy their nation (the whole world) in moments.

 

Bit if Iran has a weapon you aren't going to touch them either. The US will hopefully leave them alone, Israel would as well. Groups such as ISIS who Iran doesnt approve of would also not wage a battle when they face that threat.

[strigori]

Quick question.

 

Am I crazy for actually believing we would be a safer world with Iran having a nuclear weapon?

 

Hear me out, while their leaders may be unstable they aren't crazy enough to start a nuclear war. They know the US and Israel could outduel them easily and destroy their nation (the whole world) in moments.

 

Bit if Iran has a weapon you aren't going to touch them either. The US will hopefully leave them alone, Israel would as well. Groups such as ISIS who Iran doesnt approve of would also not wage a battle when they face that threat.

I don't get where people come up with Iran being unstable. They have one of the most stable Middle East (they will take offense if you call them "Arab" they consider themselves Persian) countries, and they don't have a history of starting wars. The main issues they have with us is the endless meddling we have had in their internal affairs. If our 'leaders' would pull their heads out, they actually have some of the best potential to be an ally in the region.

[ZRod]

Quick question.

 

Am I crazy for actually believing we would be a safer world with Iran having a nuclear weapon?

 

Hear me out, while their leaders may be unstable they aren't crazy enough to start a nuclear war. They know the US and Israel could outduel them easily and destroy their nation (the whole world) in moments.

 

Bit if Iran has a weapon you aren't going to touch them either. The US will hopefully leave them alone, Israel would as well. Groups such as ISIS who Iran doesnt approve of would also not wage a battle when they face that threat.

Even though as Strigori said they're one of the most stable countries in the region, I still don't think you want a country in that region obtaining a nuke. What if they experience another revolution and their security force break down, that weapon just became free game for whoever can get their hands on it first. Granted it's more of a plot to a Tom Clancy story than reality, but I think that's the greatest worry with any country obtaining a nuke these days. I thinks it's a huge concern with Pakistan, and from time to time maybe with Russia.

[VectorVictor]

 

Quick question.

 

Am I crazy for actually believing we would be a safer world with Iran having a nuclear weapon?

 

Hear me out, while their leaders may be unstable they aren't crazy enough to start a nuclear war. They know the US and Israel could outduel them easily and destroy their nation (the whole world) in moments.

 

Bit if Iran has a weapon you aren't going to touch them either. The US will hopefully leave them alone, Israel would as well. Groups such as ISIS who Iran doesnt approve of would also not wage a battle when they face that threat.

I don't get where people come up with Iran being unstable. They have one of the most stable Middle East (they will take offense if you call them "Arab" they consider themselves Persian) countries, and they don't have a history of starting wars. The main issues they have with us is the endless meddling we have had in their internal affairs. If our 'leaders' would pull their heads out, they actually have some of the best potential to be an ally in the region.

 

 

I think there's still the bitter aftertaste of their uprising lingering in the mouths of those on Capital Hill old enough to remember it, and it's going to take a few generations before that well is no longer poisoned.

 

Frankly, any Theocracy is suspect and cannot be trusted, and while I think a nuclear-armed Iran will be a threat (moreso in that terrorists would gain access to nuclear weapons and byproducts over time), the best way to manage it is to have folks on the inside, which this agreement would provide.

 

Iran's gonna get nukes, regardless. Better we have people on the inside than be looking from the outside and guessing what's happening...

[TGHusker]

At this point, I'm ok wt Obama talking to Iran - which is a far cry from where I was 8 years ago. However, with a negotiation this important, I do believe that others need to be involved - besides several other countries in the MidEast, as I've mentioned in other posts, Congress should be involved.

Unfortunately, The US doesn't have a good history since the 1953 British/American sponsor over throw of the elected leader of Iran - who nationalized the oil industry. Constant 'war' talk doesn't help here.

 

Pat Buchanan had a good blog on the topic this week.

 

http://buchanan.org/blog/does-iran-really-want-a-bomb-15711

 

Going

As Knapp said, this has happened before. Here is an example of then Sen Kerry undermining Reagan not in a letter but by a personal visit - I guess he has a short memory of his own actions.

 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgreenfield/senator-kerry-undermined-reagan-in-utter-disbelief-gop-senators-would-undermine-obama/

 

Sen Kennedy underminds Reagan wt the Soviets. San Fran Nan underminded Bush in Syria

 

http://rare.us/story/remember-when-ted-kennedy-and-nancy-pelosi-undermined-the-foreign-policy-of-republican-presidents/

 

http://tomfernandez28.com/2015/03/11/5-times-democrats-undermined-republican-presidents-with-foreign-governments-but-sen-tom-cotton-is-the-bad-guy/

 

This link is summarizes - copied here:

 

Monday, 47 Republican senators led by Tom Cotton, R-Ark., released an “open letter” to Iran’s leaders noting that any deal the regime signs with President Obama without the approval of Congress could be revoked by a future president or changed by Congress. The White House went into a tizzy trying to portray the move as somehow “unprecedented” — a view that has found a friendly audience with the media.

Vice President Joe Biden claimed the letter “ignores two centuries of precedent and threatens to undermine the ability of any future American president, whether democrat or republican, to negotiate with other nations on behalf of the United States.” The New York Daily News featured an editorial blasting the letter on its front page, with photos of the senators and the bold-faced headline “TRAITORS.” A more muted NBC roundup called the move “extraordinary — if not unprecedented.” In reality, whatever one’s view of the letter, to call it “unprecedented” is to ignore history. The reality is that on many occasions, Democrats have reached out to foreign leaders to undermine the foreign policy of a sitting Republican president.

1. That time “liberal lion” Ted Kennedy proposed a secret alliance with the Soviet Union to defeat President Ronald Reagan
A 1983 KGB memo uncovered after the fall of the Soviet Union described a meeting between former KGB officials and former Democratic Sen. John Tunney (Sen. Kennedy’s confidant) in Moscow. Tunney asked the KGB to convey a message to Yuri Andropov, the Soviet leader, proposing a campaign in which Kennedy would visit Moscow to offer talking points to Andropov and Soviet officials on how to attack Reagan’s policies to U.S. audiences. According to the memo, Kennedy, through the intermediary, offered to help facilitate a media tour in a proposed visit by Andropov to the U.S. Kennedy’s hope, as conveyed by the letter, was to hurt Reagan politically on foreign policy at a time when the economic recovery was working in his favor.

2. “Dear Comandante”
In 1984, 10 Democratic lawmakers — including the then majority leader and House Intelligence Committee chairman – sent a letter to Nicaraguan Communist leader Daniel Ortega known as the “Dear Comandante” letter. In it, the lawmakers criticized Reagan’s policy toward Nicaragua and whitewashed the record of violence by the Sandinista communists.

3. Pelosi visited Syrian ruler Bashar Assad
In 2007, newly elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. As the Associated Press reported at the time, “The meeting was an attempt to push the Bush administration to open a direct dialogue with Syria, a step that the White House has rejected.”

4. Democrats visited Iraq to attack Bush’s policy
As Stephen Hayes recounts: “In September 2002, David Bonior, the second-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, flew to Baghdad in an attempt to undermine George W. Bush’s case for war in Iraq on a trip paid for by Saddam Hussein’s regime. Bonior, accompanied by Reps. Jim McDermott and Mike Thompson, actively propagandized for the Iraqi regime. McDermott, asked whether he found it acceptable to be used by the Iraqi regime, said he hoped the trip would end the suffering of children. ‘We don’t mind being used,’ he said.”

5. Jimmy Carter tried to sabotage George H.W. Bush at the U.N.
On Nov. 20, 1990, as President George H.W. Bush gathered support to oppose Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait, the former Democratic President Jimmy Carter wrote a letter to nations who were in the U.N. Security Council trying to kill the administration’s efforts. As Douglas Brinkley explained, Carter’s letter was an attempt “to thwart the Bush administration’s request for U.N. authorization of hostilities against Iraq. President Bush’s criterion for proceeding with a war was the exhaustion of ‘good faith talks,’ and Carter placed his interpretation of that standard above the administration’s.”

[strigori]

Note a the glaring difference between your listed points and what happened here. In your points, the people in question were trying to secure some manner of peace. This letter to Iran is trying to break off any talks, and is nothing but trying to start a war. The ring leader, Tom Cotton, is the featured speaker at a defense contractors convention. Wars are finally winding down in the Middle East and these defense contractors' gravy train is going to slow way the hell down. And their stock prices, and executive bonuses are in danger. So the good little lapdogs are off to try to get another war started.