|
|
Treason and Congress letter to Iran - No one undermines the US like the Republicans
By fonewear 2015-03-11 08:18:37
Im jumping past all the back and forth and addressing the topic. Could someone tell me what Obama's deal is with Iran? I can't seem to find what he is proposing. Are we, as Americans, cool with him making deals that we dont know the specifics of? That Congress isn't getting a say in the matter? Should they (our representatives) get to vote on the deal he created?
I didn't get to keep my health insurance. I dont trust the guy to go make secret deals with Iran.
He is the dictator in chief put all your trust in him !
[+]
By Bloodrose 2015-03-11 08:28:31
Sounds more like shady insurance company politics than governmental politics.
***, people have been losing their insurance coverage since the institution of insurance companies.
"Oh, we don't cover people who eat bananas, COVERAGE DENIED!" kind of thing.
[+]
By fonewear 2015-03-11 08:29:49
I have a pro banana coverage. I demanded it !
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2015-03-11 08:37:09
Not at all, but it is racist to accuse someone with a distinguished military and political career of voting based on race.
You really can just look at the language people use to describe Obama and other blacks.
Newt called Obama a "successful food stamp president". There was a GOP newsletter referring to Michelle Obama as "Mrs. Yo Momma". A representative called Obama a "tar baby" in a radio interview... Dude, if you don't see plenty of blatant racism among congressmen, you're not looking.
What, only blacks get food stamps? You're such a racist for suggesting that.
But seriously, I acknowledge that there is real racism there. A lot of it is just taking comments out of context to make it racism when it really isn't, though.
Perfectly said, and we'd not have a problem if people weren't looking to be as offended and as much of a victim as humanly possible. This is what you get when you raise a generation of narcissists.
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2015-03-11 08:40:39
The majority of food stamp recipients are white.
So how exactly is it racist to call him the food stamp president because under his watch the number has skyrocketed?
Who Gets Food Stamps? White People, Mostly
[+]
By fonewear 2015-03-11 08:41:02
Cause white people have latent racism. It is in our DNA !
According to research the racism gene only exists in white people !
[+]
By maldini 2015-03-11 08:48:20
on topic, democrats grew a spine and responded. (Skip to 8 minutes and 40 seconds - the rest is just Genk kissing his own ***.
YouTube Video Placeholder
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 200
By Asura.Alexandero 2015-03-11 08:50:29
Fenrir.Candlejack said: »Im jumping past all the back and forth and addressing the topic. Could someone tell me what Obama's deal is with Iran? I can't seem to find what he is proposing. Are we, as Americans, cool with him making deals that we dont know the specifics of? That Congress isn't getting a say in the matter? Should they (our representatives) get to vote on the deal he created?
I didn't get to keep my health insurance. I dont trust the guy to go make secret deals with Iran. Are you authorized by the United States federal government to negotiate with the government of Iran? No? Then, you don't need to know the exact specifics of the deal yet. Those specifics are currently only available to secretary of state John Kerry and Obama, per the Logan Act of 1799, as they are the only two with such authorization. You should stop listening to your local radio talk show host. Nothing you just said is logical in anyway. Do we have the authority to pass laws? Do we have the right to know what the laws being considered are? The logan act does not prevent the president from discussing the iran deal with congress. They have to approve it anyway. Congress should know what deal the president is offering. I dont know where you got the idea that the Logan Act makes things secret for the president only. That's just goofy.
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 200
By Asura.Alexandero 2015-03-11 08:55:43
Im not pro-letter. No more than I think you should reprimand someone in front of their subordinates. However, Obama should still work with Congress to come up with a lasting deal. This back and forth undermining that is happening ON BOTH ends is ridiculous.
By maldini 2015-03-11 08:56:26
Fenrir.Candlejack said: »Im jumping past all the back and forth and addressing the topic. Could someone tell me what Obama's deal is with Iran? I can't seem to find what he is proposing. Are we, as Americans, cool with him making deals that we dont know the specifics of? That Congress isn't getting a say in the matter? Should they (our representatives) get to vote on the deal he created?
I didn't get to keep my health insurance. I dont trust the guy to go make secret deals with Iran. Are you authorized by the United States federal government to negotiate with the government of Iran? No? Then, you don't need to know the exact specifics of the deal yet. Those specifics are currently only available to secretary of state John Kerry and Obama, per the Logan Act of 1799, as they are the only two with such authorization. You should stop listening to your local radio talk show host. Nothing you just said is logical in anyway. Do we have the authority to pass laws? Do we have the right to know what the laws being considered are? The logan act does not prevent the president from discussing the iran deal with congress. They have to approve it anyway. Congress should know what deal the president is offering. I dont know where you got the idea that the Logan Act makes things secret for the president only. That's just goofy.
Congress will have their opportunity to act. Once all parties have something to bring back to their people... if you think you can negotiate on behalf of the US send a letter to the Ayatollah, I'm sure he will take you seriously.
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 200
By Asura.Alexandero 2015-03-11 08:57:48
Fenrir.Candlejack said: »Im jumping past all the back and forth and addressing the topic. Could someone tell me what Obama's deal is with Iran? I can't seem to find what he is proposing. Are we, as Americans, cool with him making deals that we dont know the specifics of? That Congress isn't getting a say in the matter? Should they (our representatives) get to vote on the deal he created?
I didn't get to keep my health insurance. I dont trust the guy to go make secret deals with Iran. Are you authorized by the United States federal government to negotiate with the government of Iran? No? Then, you don't need to know the exact specifics of the deal yet. Those specifics are currently only available to secretary of state John Kerry and Obama, per the Logan Act of 1799, as they are the only two with such authorization. You should stop listening to your local radio talk show host. Nothing you just said is logical in anyway. Do we have the authority to pass laws? Do we have the right to know what the laws being considered are? The logan act does not prevent the president from discussing the iran deal with congress. They have to approve it anyway. Congress should know what deal the president is offering. I dont know where you got the idea that the Logan Act makes things secret for the president only. That's just goofy.
Congress will have their opportunity to act. Once all parties have something to bring back to their people... if you think you can negotiate on behalf of the US send a letter to the Ayatollah, I'm sure he will take you seriously. You either have reading comprehension problems or you simply aren't reading at all. Where the hell did I say I should get to negotiate? Sheesh...
Why the hell would Obama first negotiate terms with Iran and then tell Congress!? Heres an idea, work with Congress to create the terms, then negotiate the deal. You Obama fanboys are... Wow...
By Bloodrose 2015-03-11 08:58:39
I think Australia should negotiate on Iran's behalf, and that Sweden should negotiate on the US's behalf.
Then we'd all get Swedish kangaroo meatballs.
[+]
By Bloodrose 2015-03-11 09:05:10
Fenrir.Candlejack said: »Im jumping past all the back and forth and addressing the topic. Could someone tell me what Obama's deal is with Iran? I can't seem to find what he is proposing. Are we, as Americans, cool with him making deals that we dont know the specifics of? That Congress isn't getting a say in the matter? Should they (our representatives) get to vote on the deal he created?
I didn't get to keep my health insurance. I dont trust the guy to go make secret deals with Iran. Are you authorized by the United States federal government to negotiate with the government of Iran? No? Then, you don't need to know the exact specifics of the deal yet. Those specifics are currently only available to secretary of state John Kerry and Obama, per the Logan Act of 1799, as they are the only two with such authorization. You should stop listening to your local radio talk show host. Nothing you just said is logical in anyway. Do we have the authority to pass laws? Do we have the right to know what the laws being considered are? The logan act does not prevent the president from discussing the iran deal with congress. They have to approve it anyway. Congress should know what deal the president is offering. I dont know where you got the idea that the Logan Act makes things secret for the president only. That's just goofy.
Congress will have their opportunity to act. Once all parties have something to bring back to their people... if you think you can negotiate on behalf of the US send a letter to the Ayatollah, I'm sure he will take you seriously. You either have reading comprehension problems or you simply aren't reading at all. Where the hell did I say I should get to negotiate? Sheesh...
Why the hell would Obama first negotiate terms with Iran and then tell Congress!? Heres an idea, work with Congress to create the terms, then negotiate the deal. You Obama fanboys are... Wow... The same, in a strange and spooky twist of fate (as I am aware you have already expressed) should also be working with the president for the good of the people.
Has not even attempted to do so since he took office. So, the one time Obama uses his presidential authority under the US Constitution to hammer out details of a deal, before getting congress to vote on it (which is part of the due process) is witchcraft!
Disclaimer: This was made primarily in jest - do not take it at face value, as it is laden with hyperbole.
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-03-11 09:35:11
Fenrir.Candlejack said: »The current argument would be all well and good, were this a mere matter of perception. It's not, however. It's a matter of United States federal law. Specifically, the Logan Act of 1799, which the 47 congressmen are all in violation of.
I quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
Quote: The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was intended to prohibit unauthorized United States citizens from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments.[2] The Act was passed following George Logan's unauthorized negotiations with France in 1798, and was signed into law by President John Adams on January 30, 1799. The Act was last amended in 1994, and violation of the Logan Act is a felony.
953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).
In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), however, Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion: "[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it." Sutherland also notes in his opinion the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of February 15, 1816:
The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution.[14]
The Southern District of New York in Waldron v. British Petroleum Co., 231 F. Supp. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1964), mentioned in passing that the Act was likely unconstitutional due to the vagueness of the terms "defeat" and "measures," but did not rule on the question.
In a memorandum dated September 29, 2006, and entitled "MEMORANDUM FOR ALL MEMBERS AND OFFICERS", from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the United States House of Representatives, regarding the subject of "Post-Employment and Related Restrictions for Members and Officers", members of the House who were leaving office were cautioned regarding activities that may implicate the Logan Act: "Members should further be aware of a permanent federal statutory restriction that prohibits any U.S. citizen acting without authority of the United States from: 'Directly or indirectly commencing or carrying on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government, or any officer or agent thereof, with the intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States.'"[15]
The House memo goes on to state that the Logan Act "has never been the basis of a prosecution, and this Committee has publicly questioned its constitutionality. House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Manual of Offenses and Procedures, Korean Influence Investigation, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 18-19 (Comm. Print 1977). Members should be aware, however, that the law remains on the books.
PRIVATE correspondence with foreign governments... these are public figures sending an open letter. It's a little nuanced, but they are riding the line, they haven't violated the logan act.
Ragnarok.Nausi
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2015-03-11 09:39:41
The Logan act has never been successfully prosecuted. It's pretty funny to watch everyone here salivate so hard over this.
サーバ: Balmung
Game: FFXIV
Posts: 314
By Cecilia Charl 2015-03-11 09:47:25
Not at all, but it is racist to accuse someone with a distinguished military and political career of voting based on race.
You really can just look at the language people use to describe Obama and other blacks.
Newt called Obama a "successful food stamp president". There was a GOP newsletter referring to Michelle Obama as "Mrs. Yo Momma". A representative called Obama a "tar baby" in a radio interview... Dude, if you don't see plenty of blatant racism among congressmen, you're not looking.
What, only blacks get food stamps? You're such a racist for suggesting that.
But seriously, I acknowledge that there is real racism there. A lot of it is just taking comments out of context to make it racism when it really isn't, though.
I'm a racist.
By Bloodrose 2015-03-11 10:01:02
Not at all, but it is racist to accuse someone with a distinguished military and political career of voting based on race.
You really can just look at the language people use to describe Obama and other blacks.
Newt called Obama a "successful food stamp president". There was a GOP newsletter referring to Michelle Obama as "Mrs. Yo Momma". A representative called Obama a "tar baby" in a radio interview... Dude, if you don't see plenty of blatant racism among congressmen, you're not looking.
What, only blacks get food stamps? You're such a racist for suggesting that.
But seriously, I acknowledge that there is real racism there. A lot of it is just taking comments out of context to make it racism when it really isn't, though.
I'm a racist. I've seen you run, you're not that fast! HEYO!
[+]
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 200
By Asura.Alexandero 2015-03-11 10:05:42
The Logan act has never been successfully prosecuted. It's pretty funny to watch everyone here salivate so hard over this. I agree. Which is why I wont dignify it anymore with a related response. Congress needs to be working with the president on this and the president should be working with congress. Both of them are being children. Im a libertarian so dont color me in red Candle. I dont like any of them. The difference between us is that I dont wear glasses with a certain tint. Your Logan point is moot.
Ragnarok.Nausi
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2015-03-11 10:46:34
The Logan act has never been successfully prosecuted. It's pretty funny to watch everyone here salivate so hard over this. I agree. Which is why I wont dignify it anymore with a related response. Congress needs to be working with the president on this and the president should be working with congress. Both of them are being children. Im a libertarian so dont color me in red Candle. I dont like any of them. The difference between us is that I dont wear glasses with a certain tint. Your Logan point is moot.
Eh, The president has thrust his own "my way or the highway" edict for the last 6 years now. He does not compromise, and given that Obama is a much larger threat to libertarianism (to which I also identify) than congress is, I hope the GOP grows a pair and freezes (nearly) everything he does.
[+]
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 200
By Asura.Alexandero 2015-03-11 11:05:22
Fenrir.Candlejack said: »The Logan act has never been successfully prosecuted. It's pretty funny to watch everyone here salivate so hard over this. I agree. Which is why I wont dignify it anymore with a related response. Congress needs to be working with the president on this and the president should be working with congress. Both of them are being children. Im a libertarian so dont color me in red Candle. I dont like any of them. The difference between us is that I dont wear glasses with a certain tint. Your Logan point is moot. You need consent from the State Department in order to take part in negotiations with foreign countries. The 47 congressmen involved, however, do not have consent. Therefore, not authorized to partake in the negotiations until the time the U.S constitution deems appropriate, at the end of negotiations, to ratify any deals or treaties the president may wish to make with foreign countries. They are not to intervene or interfere with said negotiations, as per the Logan act of 1799.
By the way, "I'm a libertarian" is only a dressed up way of saying you're a teabagger terrorist. Don't deny what you truly are.
I'm sorry. Could you re-quote me where I said that Congress had the authority to partake in negotiations without the president? I'm loving how you are taking what I say and twisting it so that you can make some imaginary point in which a dispute never existed. Also how you resort to the emotional response of name calling, which I can only assume, is via your knowledge that you are throwing up strawmen and actually have no point.
Congress and the President are both needed to execute a long lasting, standing treaty with a foreign body. The president can exercise his role in two ways. He can bypass Congress and go create what amounts to a short term simple agreement. Or, he can work with Congress to come up with an agreement everyone likes. Are you really that absorbed with this president and naive enough to think that by keeping Congress in the dark and coming up with "his own thing", that he will get support from them when it's time?
If they are crucial to a long standing agreement, and they are, he is gone in two years, then he needs their support to make any deals that are worth a ***. He can't even remove the sanctions without congressional approval, wtf is he going to offer Iran? A golf trip and a weekend in Hawaii? He can suspend some of the sanctions, but only while he is president, and thankfully, his *** is on the way out the door.
What you are saying is unreasonable, irrational and illogical. I think you know that though since you've now resorted to name calling. You can call me anything you want, I really don't care. I don't think that there is any reasonable person here that would argue against the importance of the coordination and cooperation of both branches in order to successfully pull this Iran thing off. Except you, of course.
By Bloodrose 2015-03-11 11:06:03
Define compromise.
(Note: We pass the budget if you gut out X, X, X and X isn't a compromise) You're asking Nausi to define compromise? Might as well be asking for Jesus to bring Christmas presents to you in the middle of a July snowstorm.
By Bloodrose 2015-03-11 11:09:54
Fenrir.Candlejack said: »The Logan act has never been successfully prosecuted. It's pretty funny to watch everyone here salivate so hard over this. I agree. Which is why I wont dignify it anymore with a related response. Congress needs to be working with the president on this and the president should be working with congress. Both of them are being children. Im a libertarian so dont color me in red Candle. I dont like any of them. The difference between us is that I dont wear glasses with a certain tint. Your Logan point is moot. You need consent from the State Department in order to take part in negotiations with foreign countries. The 47 congressmen involved, however, do not have consent. Therefore, not authorized to partake in the negotiations until the time the U.S constitution deems appropriate, at the end of negotiations, to ratify any deals or treaties the president may wish to make with foreign countries. They are not to intervene or interfere with said negotiations, as per the Logan act of 1799.
By the way, "I'm a libertarian" is only a dressed up way of saying you're a teabagger terrorist. Don't deny what you truly are.
I'm sorry. Could you re-quote me where I said that Congress had the authority to partake in negotiations without the president? I'm loving how you are taking what I say and twisting it so that you can make some imaginary point in which a dispute never existed. Also how you resort to the emotional response of name calling, which I can only assume, is via your knowledge that you are throwing up strawmen and actually have no point.
Congress and the President are both needed to execute a long lasting, standing treaty with a foreign body. The president can exercise his role in two ways. He can bypass Congress and go create what amounts to a short term simple agreement. Or, he can work with Congress to come up with an agreement everyone likes. Are you really that absorbed with this president and naive enough to think that by keeping Congress in the dark and coming up with "his own thing", that he will get support from them when it's time?
If they are crucial to a long standing agreement, and they are, he is gone in two years, then he needs their support to make any deals that are worth a ***. He can't even remove the sanctions without congressional approval, wtf is he going to offer Iran? A golf trip and a weekend in Hawaii? He can suspend some of the sanctions, but only while he is president, and thankfully, his *** is on the way out the door.
What you are saying is unreasonable, irrational and illogical. I think you know that though since you've now resorted to name calling. You can call me anything you want, I really don't care. I don't think that there is any reasonable person here that would argue against the importance of the coordination and cooperation of both branches in order to successfully pull this Iran thing off. Except you, of course. You must be under the delusional assumption that Congress has ever made any effort to actually compromise with the President, or that they had offered any kind of support since... ever.
That aside, I am sure the Ayatolla would appreciate a round of golf that isn't in the middle of the world's largest sand trap.
Also, if we're resorting to name calling, can I call you Billy Jim-bob McDuff?
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2015-03-11 11:20:50
If Obama has 47 republican senators arrested, forgot what they did for a moment, and realize the shitstorm that will cause though.
[+]
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2015-03-11 11:24:18
I would not want to be around for it. Glad I'm not.
[+]
Ridiculous - Republicans send Iran a letter that undermines and contradicts their own president. Perhaps the severest blow to American international standing since ever?
EDIT: Below is the NYT's article on the subject. I chose the NYT despite the fact that I think they went soft on the issue to try and be objective.
Quote: WASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran about making an agreement with President Obama, and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.
In a rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans signed an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement without legislative approval could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”
Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE
Obama Says Nuclear Deal Offered to Iran Tests Whether It Is SeriousMARCH 8, 2015
After Talks, Nuclear Deal on Iran Is Seen as CloseMARCH 7, 2015
Netanyahu Speech Has Eager Audience in IranMARCH 3, 2015
The letter appeared aimed at unraveling a framework agreement even as negotiators grew close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the pact would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. But critics from both parties say that such a deal would be a dangerous charade that would leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could be used against Israel or other foes.
Continue reading the main story
Document: Letter From Senate Republicans to the Leaders of Iran
While the possible agreement has drawn bipartisan criticism, the letter, signed only by Republicans, underscored the increasingly party-line flavor of the clash. Just last week, the Republican House speaker, John A. Boehner, gave Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel the platform of a joint meeting of Congress to denounce the developing deal, and Senate Republicans briefly tried to advance legislation aimed at forcing Mr. Obama to submit it to Congress, alienating Democratic allies.
The letter came as Secretary of State John Kerry’s office announced that he would return to Switzerland on Sunday in hopes of completing the framework agreement before an end-of-March deadline. Under the terms being discussed, Iran would pare back its nuclear program enough so that it would be unable to produce enough fuel for a bomb in less than a year if it tried to break out of the agreement. The pact would last at least 10 years; in exchange the world powers would lift sanctions.
Whether the Republican letter might undercut Iran’s willingness to strike a deal was not clear. Iran reacted with scorn. “In our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy,” Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, said in a statement. “It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history.”
A senior American official said the letter probably would not stop an agreement from being reached, but could make it harder to blame Iran if the talks fail. “The problem is if there is not an agreement, the perception of who is at fault is critically important to our ability to maintain pressure, and this type of thing would likely be used by the Iranians in that scenario,” said the official, who spoke anonymously to discuss the negotiations.
The White House and congressional Democrats expressed outrage, calling the letter an unprecedented violation of the tradition of leaving politics at the water’s edge. Republicans said that by styling it as an “open letter,” it was akin to a statement, not an overt intervention in the talks.
“It’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran,” Mr. Obama told reporters. “It’s an unusual coalition.”
Other Democrats were sharper. Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, called it “just the latest in an ongoing strategy, a partisan strategy, to undermine the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy.” Senator Harry M. Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, said the “Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs.”
Continue reading the main story
GRAPHIC
The Nuclear Talks With Iran, Explained
What the United States and Iran want out of discussions over Iran’s nuclear development.
OPEN GRAPHIC
The letter, drafted by Senator Tom Cotton, a freshman from Arkansas, and signed by all but seven members of the Senate Republican majority, warned Iran that a deal with Mr. Obama might not stick. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen, and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time,” said the letter, whose existence was reported earlier by Bloomberg News.
Mr. Cotton said he drafted the letter because Iran’s leaders might not understand America’s constitutional system. He also said the terms of the emerging deal were dangerous because they would not be permanent and would leave Iran with nuclear infrastructure. He noted that four Republican senators who may run for president signed his letter and added that he tried without success to get Democrats to sign.
Continue reading the main story
RECENT COMMENTS
Eugene Gorrin 27 minutes ago
Disgraceful.The Republican/Tea Party has made no secret of its desire to sabotage negotiations over Iran's nuclear capabilities. That was...
Sonny Pitchumani 28 minutes ago
As usual, many liberal commenters in this forum are happy to throw around the word TREASON and to suggest that the Senators who sent the...
horatio fisk 28 minutes ago
It is highly amusing that the GOP does not realize that no one in this country takes them seriously so why should anyone in Iran. Well you...
SEE ALL COMMENTS
“The only thing unprecedented is an American president negotiating a nuclear deal with the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism without submitting it to Congress,” he said on CNN.
The letter revived an old debate about what role Congress should have in diplomacy.
Jim Wright, the Democratic House speaker during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, was accused of interfering when he met with opposing leaders in Nicaragua’s contra war. Three House Democrats went to Iraq in 2002 before President George W. Bush’s invasion to try to head off war. And Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, went to Syria in 2007 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad against the wishes of the Bush administration, which was trying to isolate him.
An agreement with Iran would not require immediate congressional action because Mr. Obama has the power to lift sanctions he imposed under his executive authority and to suspend others imposed by Congress. But permanently lifting those imposed by Congress, as Iran has sought, would eventually require a vote.
Rather than wait, Republicans, joined by several Democrats, drafted legislation aimed at forcing Mr. Obama to submit the agreement to Congress. But when Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader, moved to advance that legislation for a vote, Democrats who support it balked at taking action before the talks with Iran concluded. Mr. McConnell backed off, but the bill may be revived if a deal is reached.
Among the Republicans who declined to sign Mr. Cotton’s letter was Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, who has been working with Democrats on Iran legislation. “We’ve got a bipartisan effort that’s underway that has a chance of being successful, and while I understand all kinds of people want to weigh in,” he said, he concluded that it would not “be helpful in that effort for me to be involved in it.”
Some Democrats, like Representative Brad Sherman of California, said the letter and other moves risked making it a party-line issue, in which case it would be impossible to muster a two-thirds vote to override a presidential veto. “The number of Democrats not willing to follow the president’s lead is reduced when it becomes a personal or political issue,” he said.
Correction: March 9, 2015
A previous version of this article misstated the given name of the senator who drafted the letter from American lawmakers to Iranian leaders. He is Tom Cotton, not Tim Cotton. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/asia/white-house-faults-gop-senators-letter-to-irans-leaders.html?_r=0
The Republicans first undermine their democratically elected president AND Nation by inviting a foreign leader to address them in a televised event, effectively turning the American people's house of representatives into a political brothel.
They then openly contradict the commander in chief of the nation and more or less say the US presidency is a lame duck office not worthy of taking seriously.
At best, the American political system is the greatest threat to American foreign policy.
At worst, America is so deeply entrenched in racism - made apparent by how the election of a black american has polarized the country's population - that its foreign policy be damned.
Republicans might as well have just said "Burn this house down".
I can't wait to see how the GOP goons on this forum try to deflect from the issue and/or demonstrate just how retarded their demographic is.
|
|