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

[Bowfinger]

Hate makes some folks do some really really stupid things, as the hate becomes the driving force for impulsive myopic action, where calm headed reasoning should be THE motivator.

The primary mission of denying Obama of anything and everything he wants and taking everything they could from him of which the Repubs clearly stated was JOB #1 upon Obama's election is still in play and the driving force behind the kind of manic impulsive behavior the Repubs up on the Hill have been shooting themselves in the feet with ever since.

The pressure on all of those Repub legislators to outdo each other on how to accomplish JOB #1 must be so intense as to have them perpetrate such boneheaded stunts.

You'd think after having so many of their ploys backfire on themselves they'd learn a lesson or two. ...

Ah, but that's the benefit of cognitive dissonance. They mostly don't recognize their buffoonery backfired. They remain in blissful denial, oblivious to the fact that the great majority see them as fools. To the limited extent they sometimes recognize their plans didn't work out exactly as expected, they always have someone else to blame. It's the fault of the "liberal" media, or activist judges, or some sort of "proggie" conspiracy. Or, they revise history and pretend it was their intent all along. It's never their own ill-considered or irrational behavior, because that would require accepting accountability. Personal accountability is kyptonite to the so-called values party.

 

[FerrelGeek]

There have been a few instances of dem congresscritters going directly to leaders of foreign countries in an attempt to end-run around a rep admin. I was discussing that with my BIL last night and he's FAR more politically connected / knowledgeable than you'll ever be, sparky. There's a big difference between posting a letter to someone in a foreign country than actually going to said country and trying to potentially subvert the admin of the opposing party. I will admit that the letter would have come across better if it had been an open letter to Obama.

But you really don't care. All you care about is that there are people that have the temerity to question our precious president. The president of the US is an elected official, just like other elected officials. Yes, it's the highest office in the land and as such comes with great power and responsibility. But we are allowed to question his actions and voice disapproval. The congress is a co-equal branch of the government so get over yourself. I stand behind my statement that if the parties were reversed, you'd be bending over backwards to defend the actions of said senators.

Nothing more to be said as you're pathologically incapable of recognizing your own bias.

Who ever said that? It's odd that you would bring that one up though as he turned out to be right, haha.

As for it being borderline illegal and unconstitutional, I'm just saying what's true. You might not like the facts because the people involved have the magic 'R', but that's just life I guess.

 

[feralkid]

Republican aides were taken aback by the response to what what they thought was a lighthearted attempt to signal to Iran and the public that Congress should have a role in the ongoing nuclear discussions.


I knew they were joking before it was cool to think that.

"Hilarious, ROFLMAO, this new Republican Majority will have you in stitches with their light hearted, cheeky take on the hysterical nuclear proliferation talks with the Islamic Republic of Iran."

"Five Stars"

 

[blankslate]

There is no question that removing the sanctions empowers Iran and therefore threatens Israel. I'm willing to accept that Obama has some end game, but so far we've only seen him remove the sanctions, Iran's major goal, as a condition to begin negotiations. If he has some end game beyond that point, then surely we'll see evidence of it soon, eh?

IMO, sanctions were the tool to bring Iran to the table. Whether we like it or not Iran has the knowledge within its borders to develop a Nuclear program... despite the fact that a couple of their prominent scientists have been assassinated
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-pushing-israel-to-stop-assassinating-iranian-nuclear-scientists/
Justified or not, I don't think I'm wrong in imagining the hawks in this country being quite vocal if Israeli or American citizens were targeted...


Another thing that people may not like is that U.S. foreign policy decisions in the M.E. may have contributed to Iran wanting to have this knowledge.


http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46434250/...uld-happen-if-iran-did-get-bomb/#.VQGhDY7F_sw

Yet analysts and diplomats note that Iran does have many reasons to develop at least a "breakout" capability – the ability to assemble a bomb quickly should it want to. Tehran has watched modern history unfold around it and no doubt has drawn its own conclusions. Acquiring nuclear weapons helped preserve regimes in North Korea and Pakistan, for instance. But in Iraq and Libya, two nonnuclear countries, Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi were deposed. The Iranian media, in fact, tut-tutted last year that Mr. Qaddafi's fatal error was relinquishing his secret nuclear weapons program in 2004.

"If I was an Iranian national security planner, I would want nuclear weapons," Bruce Riedel, a 30-year veteran of the CIA now at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said in January.

"Look at the neighborhood that I live in: Everyone else has nuclear weapons who matters; and those who don't, don't matter, and get invaded by the United States of America," Mr. Riedel said on a panel hosted by the Atlantic Council, a Washington think tank.

Given the volatility of the M.E., we also know that using military force in the M.E. let alone any covert operations is risky...

Unlike Iran, which has learned from history (given its move to distribute its nuclear facilities and harden them against air strikes after Iraq's reactor was destroyed by a few F-16's), it seems that many people talking about this issue don't pay attention to recent or not so recent events.

We now have to deal with the realm of the possible. It is doubtful considering the fallout of past invasions that the U.S. can get a coalition of countries to invade Iran... notwithstanding that such an invasion would provide so much recruitment propaganda for extremists in the M.E. (if only there was a strongman to keep them out of Iraq... oh wait.... we killed him it's a good thing we stopped him from... oh wait... we didn't find modern WMD facilities there...)

What is possible is slowing down Iran's development of a breakout capability (to quickly assemble a Nuclear weapon), which they arguably would not have such a desire for except for Western intervention in the M.E., with the lifting of sanctions in exchange for Iran opening up their facilities for inspection. It seems logical that a condition of sanctions not being re-implemented is Iran allowing inspectors to go where ever they want when ever they want.

While it is possible to stop Iran's nuclear program given the U.S. military's arsenal of extremely large conventional munitions, the political fallout from taking such a course could in the long run harm Israel far more than Iran being on the verge of a break out capability....

It must also be noted that many young Iranians do hold a favorable view of the U.S. because of the cultural exports... they may not have political power yet but no one lives forever and as the old hard liners in Iran die perhaps some of those younger people will move into positions of political power.

People in Washington acting like fuckheads does nothing to help U.S. Foreign policy....


one last note....

https://twitter.com/JRehling/statuses/575698631811956736



TLDR: sanctions arguably brought Iran to the negotiation table and it seems logical that keeping sanctions lifted is the positive reinforcement for Iran behaving while sanctions being re-implemented is the negative reinforcement...

Of course we could take a path to be certain that Iran doesn't have any nuclear capability... but it's doubtful that there is any political will to do so... because ground invasions in that area have always worked sooo well.



.....

 

[fskimospy]

There have been a few instances of dem congresscritters going directly to leaders of foreign countries in an attempt to end-run around a rep admin. I was discussing that with my BIL last night and he's FAR more politically connected / knowledgeable than you'll ever be, sparky. There's a big difference between posting a letter to someone in a foreign country than actually going to said country and trying to potentially subvert the admin of the opposing party. I will admit that the letter would have come across better if it had been an open letter to Obama.

But you really don't care. All you care about is that there are people that have the temerity to question our precious president. The president of the US is an elected official, just like other elected officials. Yes, it's the highest office in the land and as such comes with great power and responsibility. But we are allowed to question his actions and voice disapproval. The congress is a co-equal branch of the government so get over yourself. I stand behind my statement that if the parties were reversed, you'd be bending over backwards to defend the actions of said senators.

Nothing more to be said as you're pathologically incapable of recognizing your own bias.

Of course what's funny is that years ago when Pelosi went to meet with Assad I specifically said it wouldn't be okay if she tried to articulate a contrary policy. (which she didn't, by the way) This letter was sent with the explicit purpose of doing so, as admitted by Cotten. I imagine you find it easier to dismiss contrary viewpoints if you can convince yourself that they come from a place of bias or whatever.

As for the rest of your post, I don't think you understand how our government works. Congress is not a co-equal branch when it comes to foreign policy. Period. If your incredibly knowledgeable and well connected brother in law told you otherwise, he may not be as knowledgeable or as well connected as you think.

 

[feralkid]

There have been a few instances of dem congresscritters going directly to leaders of foreign countries in an attempt to end-run around a rep admin. I was discussing that with my BIL last night and he's FAR more politically connected / knowledgeable than you'll ever be, sparky. There's a big difference between posting a letter to someone in a foreign country than actually going to said country and trying to potentially subvert the admin of the opposing party. I will admit that the letter would have come across better if it had been an open letter to Obama.

But you really don't care. All you care about is that there are people that have the temerity to question our precious president. The president of the US is an elected official, just like other elected officials. Yes, it's the highest office in the land and as such comes with great power and responsibility. But we are allowed to question his actions and voice disapproval. The congress is a co-equal branch of the government so get over yourself. I stand behind my statement that if the parties were reversed, you'd be bending over backwards to defend the actions of said senators.

Nothing more to be said as you're pathologically incapable of recognizing your own bias.

Really?


That's your retort?


"My brother-in-law says so, and he's smarter than you, besides, you'd think like me if the tables were turned."

 

[Sonikku]

Undermining the President is a smart political move. The end failure will be reflected on him, not anyone else. It isn't the first time the tactic has been used.

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/60446

Worse comes to worse you have rationalization for a bigger budget for the pentagon. win-win either way!

 

[trenchfoot]

A theocracy led by a bunch of clerics who would like some nukes to play with and of whom are being threatened and sanctioned by a bunch of infidel superpowers.

What could go wrong? Well, a freshman senator and some of his enablers could try to harmlessly have some fun with that.

So big deal.

 

[cubby1223]

Hey look!
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//p...tempting-undermine-nuclear-agreement/NKQnpJS9

You can sign a petition proving to the whole internet how much you guys hate Republicans!

 

[Jaskalas]

Republican aides were taken aback by the response to what what they thought was a lighthearted attempt to signal to Iran and the public that Congress should have a role in the ongoing nuclear discussions.

Maybe they need a line new of work.

 

[HomerJS]

Last time Republicans dealt with the number 47 it turned out badly.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hey look!
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//p...tempting-undermine-nuclear-agreement/NKQnpJS9

You can sign a petition proving to the whole internet how much you guys hate Republicans!

Let's hear it for the poor oppressed Republicans! Three Cheers-

Uhh-wah, Uhh-wah, uhh-wah!

Not that I'll be signing the petition, but they've brought this on themselves.

What the US really wants & what the public will accept is an agreement that effectively prevents the production of weapons grade material in Iran. Even the Obama Admin is trying for more than that.

What Repubs want is to maintain Iran as an "enemy" to distract the electorate from their miserable domestic policy of repetitive boom/bust wealth & income concentration in the "free market" financialized economy they love so well.

 

[werepossum]

IMO, sanctions were the tool to bring Iran to the table. Whether we like it or not Iran has the knowledge within its borders to develop a Nuclear program... despite the fact that a couple of their prominent scientists have been assassinated
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-pushing-israel-to-stop-assassinating-iranian-nuclear-scientists/
Justified or not, I don't think I'm wrong in imagining the hawks in this country being quite vocal if Israeli or American citizens were targeted...


Another thing that people may not like is that U.S. foreign policy decisions in the M.E. may have contributed to Iran wanting to have this knowledge.


http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46434250/...uld-happen-if-iran-did-get-bomb/#.VQGhDY7F_sw


Given the volatility of the M.E., we also know that using military force in the M.E. let alone any covert operations is risky...

Unlike Iran, which has learned from history (given its move to distribute its nuclear facilities and harden them against air strikes after Iraq's reactor was destroyed by a few F-16's), it seems that many people talking about this issue don't pay attention to recent or not so recent events.

We now have to deal with the realm of the possible. It is doubtful considering the fallout of past invasions that the U.S. can get a coalition of countries to invade Iran... notwithstanding that such an invasion would provide so much recruitment propaganda for extremists in the M.E. (if only there was a strongman to keep them out of Iraq... oh wait.... we killed him it's a good thing we stopped him from... oh wait... we didn't find modern WMD facilities there...)

What is possible is slowing down Iran's development of a breakout capability (to quickly assemble a Nuclear weapon), which they arguably would not have such a desire for except for Western intervention in the M.E., with the lifting of sanctions in exchange for Iran opening up their facilities for inspection. It seems logical that a condition of sanctions not being re-implemented is Iran allowing inspectors to go where ever they want when ever they want.

While it is possible to stop Iran's nuclear program given the U.S. military's arsenal of extremely large conventional munitions, the political fallout from taking such a course could in the long run harm Israel far more than Iran being on the verge of a break out capability....

It must also be noted that many young Iranians do hold a favorable view of the U.S. because of the cultural exports... they may not have political power yet but no one lives forever and as the old hard liners in Iran die perhaps some of those younger people will move into positions of political power.

People in Washington acting like fuckheads does nothing to help U.S. Foreign policy....


one last note....

https://twitter.com/JRehling/statuses/575698631811956736



TLDR: sanctions arguably brought Iran to the negotiation table and it seems logical that keeping sanctions lifted is the positive reinforcement for Iran behaving while sanctions being re-implemented is the negative reinforcement...

Of course we could take a path to be certain that Iran doesn't have any nuclear capability... but it's doubtful that there is any political will to do so... because ground invasions in that area have always worked sooo well.

.....

I think lifting sanctions is what brought Iran to the table. They had no real interest in negotiating - but if they could get what they wanted simply by negotiating, it's a win-win for them. The acid test will be whether Obama et al can get anything real in return. Iran is obviously going nuclear either way; hopefully by removing the pain from the process, we get something valuable in turn. We are not historically good at doing this, but hope springs eternal.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think lifting sanctions is what brought Iran to the table. They had no real interest in negotiating - but if they could get what they wanted simply by negotiating, it's a win-win for them. The acid test will be whether Obama et al can get anything real in return. Iran is obviously going nuclear either way; hopefully by removing the pain from the process, we get something valuable in turn. We are not historically good at doing this, but hope springs eternal.

"Going nuclear" means what, exactly?