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

[fskimospy]

I think this is a better analysis: http://opiniojuris.org/2015/03/09/4...-leader-a-primer-on-us-foreign-relations-law/

I'm short the letter is borderline unconstitutional, but probably ends up just on the right side of the constitution as it doesn't actually put forth a policy. It is undeniably foolish though. Congress has no business attempting to actively undermine US foreign policy in this way.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[senseamp]

GOP Congress, conducting diplomacy with a foreign power on behalf of another foreign power. Tom Cotton should be Israel's ambassador to Iran and not a US Senator.

 

[cubby1223]

Let's imagine it's the year 2007 and George W. Bush, influenced heavily by Vice President Dick Cheney, is putting together an international agreement with Middle-East leaders, not involving congress in the matters at all, keeping them completely out of the loop.

Suddenly it's no longer undermining sabotage, it's the Democrats' patriotic duty to ensure any arrangement is in the best interests of the U.S.

Republicans are only stating what everyone already knows is true. No foreign leader prior to this letter had been under the impression a deal with the President of the United States today is permanent forever. No foreign citizen prior to this letter had been under the impression either.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

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.

If 47 GOP senators get sent to jail for three years maybe Democrats can win back the senate.

 

[Jhhnn]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

If 47 GOP senators get sent to jail for three years maybe Democrats can win back the senate.

Plenty of room at Guantanamo.

 

[cubby1223]

Is the act of Obama publicly stating he'll veto a specific piece of legislation undermining the legislative process? No. Is the act of Obama vetoing a specific piece of legislation undermining the legislative process? No.

Is a new President changing the terms of a foreign agreement in the future undermining foreign policy? No. Is stating the fact that a future president can change the terms of a foreign agreement undermining foreign policy? No.


If you're pissed off, just vote Democrat next election cycle. Stop the partisan dramatizations. You guys sound so childish.

 

[werepossum]

I think this is a better analysis: http://opiniojuris.org/2015/03/09/4...-leader-a-primer-on-us-foreign-relations-law/

I'm short the letter is borderline unconstitutional, but probably ends up just on the right side of the constitution as it doesn't actually put forth a policy. It is undeniably foolish though. Congress has no business attempting to actively undermine US foreign policy in this way.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

Of course, Democrat Congresscritters visiting brutal dictators who shred their political enemies in industrial plastic shredders, that's different. That's, like, heroic and stuff. 'Cause they got the magic "D".

 

[ivwshane]

Let's imagine it's the year 2007 and George W. Bush, influenced heavily by Vice President Dick Cheney, is putting together an international agreement with Middle-East leaders, not involving congress in the matters at all, keeping them completely out of the loop.

Suddenly it's no longer undermining sabotage, it's the Democrats' patriotic duty to ensure any arrangement is in the best interests of the U.S.

Republicans are only stating what everyone already knows is true. No foreign leader prior to this letter had been under the impression a deal with the President of the United States today is permanent forever. No foreign citizen prior to this letter had been under the impression either.

Well I guess since you say so. Maybe you could come up with another 1000 hypotheticals that prove your point using your circular logic.

 

[touchstone]

this congress is bordering on treason with the way they are doing nothing but obstructing every facet of government they possibly can. they seem to have no ideas for what to do otherwise, but they are happy to make our president look like a total idiot on the world stage. if this was russia every last one of those 46 senators would be dead, and rightfully so.

 

[schmuckley]

All I see is a liberal shill circle-jerk.
Yes we should back Israel.
That is what the constituents want.
Wah.

 

[Jhhnn]

Is the act of Obama publicly stating he'll veto a specific piece of legislation undermining the legislative process? No. Is the act of Obama vetoing a specific piece of legislation undermining the legislative process? No.

Is a new President changing the terms of a foreign agreement in the future undermining foreign policy? No. Is stating the fact that a future president can change the terms of a foreign agreement undermining foreign policy? No.


If you're pissed off, just vote Democrat next election cycle. Stop the partisan dramatizations. You guys sound so childish.

Is stuffing that into ongoing diplomatic efforts an attempt to undermine those negotiations? Obviously, and therein lies the problem.

 

[schmuckley]

Jhhnn wants to give Iran nukes to bring on the apacolypse.
Just say it, dude.
Cuz if they get it..It will happen.

 

[schmuckley]

They will nuke Israel..make no mistake about it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Jhhnn wants to give Iran nukes to bring on the apacolypse.
Just say it, dude.
Cuz if they get it..It will happen.

They will nuke Israel..make no mistake about it.

Let me get this straight. You contend that Iran will bypass all the IAEA safeguards that any agreement would have in order to nuke Israel & assure their own destruction, correct?

 

[feralkid]

Jhhnn wants to give Iran nukes to bring on the apacolypse.
Just say it, dude.
Cuz if they get it..It will happen.

 

[Fern]

Absolutely disgusting.

The legislature attempting to deliberately undermine our negotiations with a foreign power while articulating a separate foreign policy is incredibly shitty. They should be ashamed of themselves.

As conservatives seem to like the intent of the founders a lot, they should know that they would have thought Congress trying to sabotage the president's interactions with foreign nations by running a separate foreign policy was beyond the pale.

Yes, quite a bit is disgusting here.

But let's check the Constitution, shall we?

Article 2 Section 2

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

Since sanctions are also involved let us acknowledge Art 1 Section 8:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations

So here again we have an example of Obama as Emperor, acting unilaterally and overstepping constitutional boundaries.

So the Constitution says he must pursue treaties with foreign countries with the advice and consent of the Senate and they must vote to approve it; Obama doesn't like that? OK, let's just call it something other than a "treaty" (another Exec Order?) and we can completely skirt the Constitution. Holder told him so.

If Obama's 'deal', as he has so far leaked it, allows Iran to have nuke weapon capability; there's your war right there. The other countries in the M.E. cannot allow it. Israel won't allow it. Israel unilaterally moved to terminate Egypt's program. Israel unilaterally moved to stop Syria's program.

Israel has an official policy of preventing its neighbors of attaining nuke weapon capability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begin_Doctrine

The one who is starting a war here is Obama. It's as if he's pushing Israel to it.

This letter isn't directed at Iran. It's directed at the other parties in the M.E. Israel is not the only country deeply concerned about Iran and nukes. If Obama thinks he can negotiate a treaty without Congress, Constitution be damned, fine. Impeachment doesn't seem an option for this Congress. But they can let the other parties in the region know that we will NOT allow Iran to get nukes, thus they need not act unilaterally and cause a war trying to destroy Iran's facilities.
--------------

Here's an article from a French news agency in English. You might to read it to get an idea of where other countries stand as regards Obama's 'deal':

When Benjamin Netanyahu stood before the US Congress on Tuesday and denounced President Barack Obama's efforts to broker a deal on Iran’s nuclear programme, the spectacle – on the surface at least – raised an unlikely paradox.

The leader of Israel had, for all intents and purposes, become a spokesperson for the Arab world.

From Cairo to Riyadh and throughout the Gulf states, the idea that Iran could one day cross the threshold that separates the elite club of nuclear powers from the rest of the world sends shudders down the spine.

It would, in the current context of the open warfare between the two major branches of Islam – Sunni and Shiite – be a development with incalculable consequences that could profoundly upset the delicate strategic balance of the Middle East.

But even if Arab leaders remain silent (as has Europe, including France) on the Obama administration’s unabated pursuit of a deal with Iran, feathers have nevertheless been ruffled in the Arab world.

(Re: Above bolded. We have seen several here claim that Europe etc support Obama's plan. None have ever offered evidence of it. This Euro site says there is silence on the matter.)

Ahmad Al Faraj, columnist for the Saudi daily Al Jazirah (no relation to the Qatari television network) said he was “very glad of Netanyahu’s firm stance” which will “serve our interests, the people of the Gulf, much more than the foolish behavior of one of the worst American presidents”.

Farj’s comments only highlight what is already a well-established political reality in the region: the existence of a de facto alliance between Israel and Sunni Arab countries.

Entire article here: http://www.france24.com/en/20150304-nuclear-iran-how-netanyahu-became-advocate-arab-world/

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Fern, you are clueless as to how international agreements work. Go read about executive agreements on Wikipedia.

 

[VRAMdemon]

In an earlier time (i.e. anytime before Obama) a senior GOP elder would have stepped in and stopped Cotton from committing a blatant act of sedition. But in the Obama era nothing is sacred for the GOP. They will do and say anything to discredit this President. You can bet that if this were a republican president negotiating with foreign powers and the democrats would have created such a "letter", the republicans would be shouting treason.

 

[emperus]

Yes, quite a bit is disgusting here.

But let's check the Constitution, shall we?



Since sanctions are also involved let us acknowledge Art 1 Section 8:



So here again we have an example of Obama as Emperor, acting unilaterally and overstepping constitutional boundaries.

So the Constitution says he must pursue treaties with foreign countries with the advice and consent of the Senate and they must vote to approve it; Obama doesn't like that? OK, let's just call it something other than a "treaty" (another Exec Order?) and we can completely skirt the Constitution. Holder told him so.

If Obama's 'deal', as he has so far leaked it, allows Iran to have nuke weapon capability; there's your war right there. The other countries in the M.E. cannot allow it. Israel won't allow it. Israel unilaterally moved to terminate Egypt's program. Israel unilaterally moved to stop Syria's program.

Israel has an official policy of preventing its neighbors of attaining nuke weapon capability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begin_Doctrine

The one who is starting a war here is Obama. It's as if he's pushing Israel to it.

This letter isn't directed at Iran. It's directed at the other parties in the M.E. Israel is not the only country deeply concerned about Iran and nukes. If Obama thinks he can negotiate a treaty without Congress, Constitution be damned, fine. Impeachment doesn't seem an option for this Congress. But they can let the other parties in the region know that we will NOT allow Iran to get nukes, thus they need not act unilaterally and cause a war trying to destroy Iran's facilities.
--------------

Here's an article from a French news agency in English. You might to read it to get an idea of where other countries stand as regards Obama's 'deal':



Entire article here: http://www.france24.com/en/20150304-nuclear-iran-how-netanyahu-became-advocate-arab-world/

Fern

So basically the GOP did something stupid and you're trying your hardest to defend it no matter how ridiculous ur defense sounds.

You even quoted a French article.. Lol. Did the Gop ever change Freedom Fries back to French Fries in their mess hall?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries

 

[Fern]

Short of preemptively using strategic nuclear weapons on them or a full scale ground invasion there is no tenable option to keep Iran from getting a weapon outside diplomacy, which at best will probably keep them at the breakout threshold.

How do you like to the options?

Netanyahu laid it out in his speech:

Do not take a bad deal. Keep the pressure up, using sanctions and pressure from the UN. Be persistent, be tenacious. Agree to no deal that allows Iran nuke capability.

Obama's plan seems to allow exactly that: Permit Iranian nuclear capability in approx 10 yrs. The Obama admin itself leaked the parameters of their proposed deal. Numerous experts/analysts have been on every cable news channel saying the leaked Obama details allow Iranian nuke capability in 10 yrs. How invasive are UN inspections and details such as how many centrifuges will be allowed during this time are unknown, but pale in comparison to the 10 yrs deadline.

AFAIK, no one from Obama admin has denied that the proposed deal will permit this to Iran. It has been noted on the Sunday news programs that the Obama admin hasn't tried to denied it.

Obama's proposed deal guarantees preemptive strikes, not by us but by Israel and other players in the region. This is why it should not be tolerated.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

Link to Obama/Iran deal please!


Oh you don't have it? Then shut the fuck up with your stupidity and, again, hypotheticals.

Netanyahu laid it out in his speech:

Do not take a bad deal. Keep the pressure up, using sanctions and pressure from the UN. Be persistent, be tenacious. Agree to no deal that allows Iran nuke capability.

Obama's plan seems to allow exactly that: Permit Iranian nuclear capability in approx 10 yrs. The Obama admin itself leaked the parameters of their proposed deal. Numerous experts/analysts have been on every cable news channel saying the leaked Obama details allow Iranian nuke capability in 10 yrs. How invasive are UN inspections and details such as how many centrifuges will be allowed during this time are unknown, but pale in comparison to the 10 yrs deadline.

AFAIK, no one from Obama admin has denied that the proposed deal will permit this to Iran. It has been noted on the Sunday news programs that the Obama admin hasn't tried to denied it.

Obama's proposed deal guarantees preemptive strikes, not by us but by Israel and other players in the region. This is why it should not be tolerated.

Fern

 

[nyker96]

If im not mistake the republicans are gearing up for another war, sabotage any negotiations, leaves war the only option. when 2016 comes, they hold all 3 branches of government, boom, a brand new war to kick off the new republicans era.

 

[fskimospy]

Netanyahu laid it out in his speech:

Do not take a bad deal. Keep the pressure up, using sanctions and pressure from the UN. Be persistent, be tenacious. Agree to no deal that allows Iran nuke capability.

Obama's plan seems to allow exactly that: Permit Iranian nuclear capability in approx 10 yrs. The Obama admin itself leaked the parameters of their proposed deal. Numerous experts/analysts have been on every cable news channel saying the leaked Obama details allow Iranian nuke capability in 10 yrs. How invasive are UN inspections and details such as how many centrifuges will be allowed during this time are unknown, but pale in comparison to the 10 yrs deadline.

AFAIK, no one from Obama admin has denied that the proposed deal will permit this to Iran. It has been noted on the Sunday news programs that the Obama admin hasn't tried to denied it.

Obama's proposed deal guarantees preemptive strikes, not by us but by Israel and other players in the region. This is why it should not be tolerated.

Fern

This is Fern's position:

https://mobile.twitter.com/mattduss/status/572799224787689472

Nobody who knows anything about the Middle East believes this stupidity.

 

[Jhhnn]

Netanyahu laid it out in his speech:

Do not take a bad deal. Keep the pressure up, using sanctions and pressure from the UN. Be persistent, be tenacious. Agree to no deal that allows Iran nuke capability.

Obama's plan seems to allow exactly that: Permit Iranian nuclear capability in approx 10 yrs. The Obama admin itself leaked the parameters of their proposed deal. Numerous experts/analysts have been on every cable news channel saying the leaked Obama details allow Iranian nuke capability in 10 yrs. How invasive are UN inspections and details such as how many centrifuges will be allowed during this time are unknown, but pale in comparison to the 10 yrs deadline.

AFAIK, no one from Obama admin has denied that the proposed deal will permit this to Iran. It has been noted on the Sunday news programs that the Obama admin hasn't tried to denied it.

Obama's proposed deal guarantees preemptive strikes, not by us but by Israel and other players in the region. This is why it should not be tolerated.

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.

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.

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.

 

[kage69]

I'm surprised there are people being obtuse to defend this.

If you're pissed off, just vote Democrat next election cycle. Stop the partisan dramatizations. You guys sound so childish.

A republican voter moaning about drama and people looking childish, holy fucking shit.

That is some haaardcore irony right there.