Reply With Quote
the reputation of the GOP depends on undermining Obama, damn the consequences.
wow, it is one thing to diss Obama at home, but to actively undermine a sitting president when it comes to relations with other governments, that is a bit crass.
http://news.yahoo.com/undermining-pr...-politics.html
Undermining Obama's Plans for Iran
Full letter here:It used to be said that politics stopped at the water's edge. Increasingly, that doesn't seem to be the case.
The latest indication: a letter from 47 Republican senators, most of the GOP caucus, to the supreme leader of Iran. The letter, organized by Arkansas's Tom Cotton and first reported by Josh Rogin, notes that any deal President Obama makes with Iranian negotiators about nuclear enrichment is not a duly ratified treaty and could be reversed once Obama leaves office in less than two years. That comes a week after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to a joint session of Congress—a speech arranged by House Speaker John Boehner without first consulting the White House.
http://go.bloomberg.com/assets/conte...an-Leaders.pdf
It used to be that the US would honor our commitments from previous administrations, or even re-negotiate occasionally, but I can't remember another case where an opposition party would take this rather baggy step.
the reputation of the GOP depends on undermining Obama, damn the consequences.
Repugs/Nixon pulled this treason on Johnson and the VN Peace talks, and Repugs/St Ronnie on Carter in the Tehran Embassy hostage talks.
I'm sure that if the Democrats had done such a thing during the latest incarnation of the Bush Dynasty, there would have been absolutely no carping about their patriotism or devotion to the Cons ution. None whatsoever.
Repugs/Nixon/Kissinger by scuttling the Paris peace talks, promising NVN it would get a better deal from Repugs, prolonged the war and wasted 10Ks more US military lives, a parallel to the Repugs wasting 6000+ (and counting) military lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don't see the big deal, tbh. They've made it pretty clear they don't like and will actively pursue to block and undo any agreement that the executive might reach, regardless of any merits. They basically put that on a letter and shipped it out. Sure, there's some condescending tone in there, but well, whatever.
I'm fairly sure Iran is already aware of all this and I suspect they don't really care.
The Repugs are saying: nobody should trust America's word, agreement, contract, etc., because the next administration can ignore, annul, violate all of it.
eg, Repugs violating Geneva conventions by torturing at Gitmo, black sites, etc, etc.
Obama wants to undermine Congress by removing them from the process.
The president is only one branch of the government and his word alone is not America's word.
If the Exec makes a treaty that is approved by Congress, Repugs are saying the next administration can ignore, violate it.
Even if the Iran deal is EXCELLENT "enough", the Repugs will not approve it, because it would be a win for Obama, which Repugs MUST obstruct.
Repug governance, what's not to adore?
it would never get approved unless Obama decides to make a better deal.
(shrill cries of "treason!")
Mark Knoller ✔ @markknoller
Follow
WH says if nuke deal is reached with Iran it won't be a treaty subject to Senate ratification.
11:46 AM - 9 Mar 2015
Seems to think he has more power than he really does.
Why do you hate America, Wine?
The GOP can't be all that happy with the consequences of an Imperial Presidency being carried out by a guy from the other team.
Not fair!! That's NOT what we meant!
If there's no commitment by USA, it's not a treaty requiring Senate approval.
AFAIK, the West, not just USA, is looking for serious inspections of Irans' nuke stuff as being enough to keep Iran honest.
This really is the thick of it. If anything, it's being vocal about their disdain for the President, and a complete lack of respect for the office he holds.
Which really isn't anything new to certain current Congressmen, even if deplorable from a decorum standpoint.
the letter suggests that the US cannot be relied on to keep its side of any negotiated deal that Congress disagrees with.
it's a bad precedent to set. weakens the President, makes the USA look unreliable. and I can hardly imagine the GOP will like it when the shoe is on the other foot.
not everything that is legal and cons utional to do is a good idea. this is very short sighted, and may lead to war.
Clearly, the Kenyan Neggar is selling 'Murica to the terrerists.
Eh, the last three president have been making deals with North Korea without Congress.
See it as you will, when it comes to nuclear, there should be no ambiguity.
If Obama is portraying himself as an equal to dictators, to them they might think he has equal power!
Our cons ution does not allow him to make such deals without the senate ratifying it.
What do you think would happen if Obama made a deal not backed by the senate, and then it fell apart? Isn't that worse than making sure the other sides knows this part of our cons ution?
This is probably the more accurate truth.
If 47 senators are going to warm that Obama cannot make a treaty without their consensus, then maybe Obama is trying to lie to Iran, saying he can?
Besides...
Saying "congress" implies both the house and senate. A treaty does not require a house vote. It does require 2/3rds the senate.
Your thinking is way too simple minded and ignorant of the way things actually work.
Presidents have been entering into agreements with other nations without Congress all long.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
