Congressional Republicans conducting their own foreign policy

[RandomGuy]

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-presidents-plans-iran-164008737--politics.html

Undermining Obama's Plans for Iran

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.


Full letter here:
http://go.bloomberg.com/assets/content/uploads/sites/2/150309-Cotton-Open-Letter-to-Iranian-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 douchebaggy step.

[Winehole23]

the reputation of the GOP depends on undermining Obama, damn the consequences.

[boutons_deux]

Repugs/Nixon pulled this treason on Johnson and the VN Peace talks, and Repugs/St Ronnie on Carter in the Tehran Embassy hostage talks.

[FromWayDowntown]

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 Constitution. None whatsoever.

[boutons_deux]

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.

[ElNono]

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.

[boutons_deux]

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.

[Aztecfan03]

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.


Obama wants to undermine Congress by removing them from the process.

[Aztecfan03]

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.

The president is only one branch of the government and his word alone is not America's word.

[boutons_deux]

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?

[Aztecfan03]

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.

[Winehole23]

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 Constitution. None whatsoever.




(shrill cries of "treason!")

[Aztecfan03]

Mark Knoller ✔ @markknoller (https://twitter.com/markknoller)
Follow (https://twitter.com/markknoller)
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 (https://twitter.com/markknoller/status/575004632746967040)


Seems to think he has more power than he really does.

[baseline bum]

(shrill cries of "treason!")

Why do you hate America, Wine?

[FromWayDowntown]

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!

[boutons_deux]

Mark Knoller ✔ @markknoller (https://twitter.com/markknoller)
Follow (https://twitter.com/markknoller)
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 (https://twitter.com/markknoller/status/575004632746967040)

Seems to think he has more power than he really does.


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.

[ElNono]

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!

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.

[Winehole23]

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.

[Winehole23]

not everything that is legal and constitutional to do is a good idea. this is very short sighted, and may lead to war.

[ElNono]

(shrill cries of "treason!")

Clearly, the Kenyan Neggar is selling 'Murica to the terrerists.

[ChumpDumper]

Mark Knoller ✔ @markknoller (https://twitter.com/markknoller)
Follow (https://twitter.com/markknoller)
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 (https://twitter.com/markknoller/status/575004632746967040)


Seems to think he has more power than he really does.Eh, the last three president have been making deals with North Korea without Congress.

[Wild Cobra]

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 douchebaggy step.
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 constitution 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 constitution?

[Wild Cobra]

Obama wants to undermine Congress by removing them from the process.

This is probably the more accurate truth.

[Wild Cobra]

If the Exec makes a treaty that is approved by Congress, Repugs are saying the next administration can ignore, violate it.

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.

[ChumpDumper]

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 constitution 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 constitution?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.

[Wild Cobra]

Mark Knoller ✔ @markknoller (https://twitter.com/markknoller)
Follow (https://twitter.com/markknoller)
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 (https://twitter.com/markknoller/status/575004632746967040)


Seems to think he has more power than he really does.

Worse yet, most libtards believe it too.

[Wild Cobra]

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.

The treaties signed with the Indian nations didn't require senate approval either.

Look what happened.

[ChumpDumper]

Worse yet, most libtards believe it too.Well, Bushy did too -- where were you constitutional scholars then?

[Wild Cobra]

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.
What if it is a matter of disagreement with what Obama plans to sign, and simply pointing out the US constitutionality of it?

Do you want the president to sign an unenforceable treaty?

That can and likely will lead to war.

[Wild Cobra]

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.
There are reasons why we have the government we have rather than a monarchy.

[ChumpDumper]

The treaties signed with the Indian nations didn't require senate approval either.

Look what happened.You sure about that?

[Wild Cobra]

Eh, the last three president have been making deals with North Korea without Congress.

Were they treaties?

[ChumpDumper]

What if it is a matter of disagreement with what Obama plans to sign, and simply pointing out the US constitutionality of it?

Do you want the president to sign an unenforceable treaty?

That can and likely will lead to war.Probably don't even need to sign anything tbh.

[ChumpDumper]

Were they treaties?Nope. That's the point. The agreements don't have to be treaties.

[ElNono]

What if it is a matter of disagreement with what Obama plans to sign, and simply pointing out the US constitutionality of it?

Do you want the president to sign an unenforceable treaty?

That can and likely will lead to war.

It's not a treaty. lol war

[Wild Cobra]

You sure about that?
Not absolutely, but to my knowledge there never has been a treaty with the Indian Nations prior to wiping them out, that was ratified by the senate. Best I know, 63% was the highest vote achieved.

[Wild Cobra]

Nope. That's the point. The agreements don't have to be treaties.

Then don't call them treaties.

A treaty has a specific meaning, as addressed in our constitution.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii


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;

[ElNono]

They can call it whatever they want. Treaties are still called treaties even before the Senate ratify them, even if the Senate never does. They simply don't have the force of law in the US if not ratified by the US Senate.

There's plenty of treaties that the US never ratified, but other countries did and enforce amongst themselves.

[Wild Cobra]

They can call it whatever they want. Treaties are still called treaties even before the Senate ratify them, even if the Senate never does. They simply don't have the force of law in the US if not ratified by the US Senate.

There's plenty of treaties that the US never ratified, but other countries did and enforce amongst themselves.

So, question...

Do you think it's wise having an unratified treaty on the books involving nuclear arms?

[ElNono]

The letter itself is a bunch of condescending paragraphs about a well know situation. Even the US has reneged from past ratified treaties and modified them unilaterally (ie: jurisdiction under the International Court of Justice).

Which is why the letter itself is more about melodrama than substance.

[ElNono]

So, question...

Do you think it's wise having an unratified treaty on the books involving nuclear arms?

In what books? Do you even know what you're talking about?

[ChumpDumper]

Then don't call them treaties.I never did, genius.

[ChumpDumper]

So, question...

Do you think it's wise having an unratified treaty on the books involving nuclear arms?:cry Don't call it a treaty! :cry

[Winehole23]

another angle: the group negotiating the deal includes the five permanent members of the UN security council, of which the UK and France are NATO allies. it's one thing for adversaries like Iran to question our commitment and reliability because of the GOP letter, the UN Security council and NATO allies doing so would be a tad more serious.

[ChumpDumper]

Obviously the GOP does not care about the special relationships we share with our allies.

[Wild Cobra]

In what books?

It's an expression.

[Wild Cobra]

I never did, genius.

Then you are arguing outside the OP.

Goodbye.

[Winehole23]

Obviously the GOP does not care about the special relationships we share with our allies.or, they've deemed it to be electorally expedient to make a big show of pretending not to while the other party holds the presidency.

[Wild Cobra]

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.

The president's word is not the word of America!

Do you think he's a dictator or king?

[ChumpDumper]

Then you are arguing outside the OP.

Goodbye.Actually, the OP clearly states it is not a treaty and even boutons said a treaty would have to be ratified.

What are you trying to argue with this definition that everyone has already agreed upon?

[ChumpDumper]

The president's word is not the word of America!

Do you think he's a dictator or king?I think the executive has made many, many agreements without Congress.

So yeah, its word is the word of America in those cases.

[ElNono]

another angle: the group negotiating the deal includes the five permanent members of the UN security council, of which the UK and France are NATO allies. it's one thing for adversaries like Iran to question our commitment and reliability because of the GOP letter, the UN Security council and NATO allies doing so would be a tad more serious.

That's the endgame all along. If, say, France does ratify the agreement and enforces it, the US would be hard pressed to intervene (even if it was not ratified by the US) unless they present their case with the rest of the NATO allies and/or UN.
Which is why, while there are no visible inaccuracies legally speaking on the content of the letter, the situation is generally much more complex than that.

[Wild Cobra]

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.

Might be, but most of us leaning right of center hate this obamanation [abomination] of a president.

Have you read the full text, or being swayed by what the pundits say?

An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Republic of Iran:

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand out constitutuional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of Constitution--the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices--which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

Second, the offices of our Constitution have difference characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then--perhaps decades.

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. 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.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

[boutons_deux]

If USA obtains the agreement, I'm sure the Repug assholes will block any funding the USA would need to finance the inspections.

[Wild Cobra]

If USA obtains the agreement, I'm sure the Repug assholes will block any funding the USA would need to finance the inspections.

That would be contrary to republican concerns of nukes. I could see the democrats blocking funds to inspect.

[Winehole23]

:lol

[Nbadan]

The president's word is not the word of America!

..but in Congress, Bibi speaks for all Jews....

:lol

[ElNono]

Might be, but most of us leaning right of center hate this obamanation [abomination] of a president.

Nobody cares how you feel. One expects public servants (which you are not), to show a modicum of respect and decorum towards the other, peer powers.

Yes I read the letter before commenting.

[ChumpDumper]

That would be contrary to republic concerns of nukes. I could see the democrats blocking funds to inspect.Do you actively try to state the most stupid thing you can possibly think of in any discussion?

You're worse than boutons.

[Wild Cobra]

Nobody cares how you feel. One expects public servants (which you are not), to show a modicum of respect and decorum towards the other, peer powers.

Yes I read the letter before commenting.

What disrespect was there in that letter?

[Nbadan]

Criticizing the President's policy is one thing...but reaching out to foreign leaders and undermining active negotiations borders treason...

[Nbadan]

Luckly, Iranian leaders probably know how the game works better than most of the GOP knucklheads in Congress..

Guess where the Iranian leadership was educated...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bz7JgGtCIAEAEbL.jpg

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/does-it-matter-if-irans-leaders-are-us-educated-2014-10

[Wild Cobra]

Criticizing the President's policy is one thing...but reaching out to foreign leaders and undermining active negotiations borders treason...

Snob!

[ElNono]

What disrespect was there in that letter?

There's no disrespect in the letter content, AFAIK, even if it does sound somewhat condescending. There's simply no reason for Congress to write that letter on an agreement that's currently being negotiated by a different branch of government and it's not yet under Congress' scrutiny. Attempting to play interloper can easily be deemed disrespectful.

[Wild Cobra]

There's no disrespect in the letter content, AFAIK, even if it does sound somewhat condescending. There's simply no reason for Congress to write that letter on an agreement that's currently being negotiated by a different branch of government and it's not yet under Congress' scrutiny. Attempting to play interloper can easily be deemed disrespectful.

There are usually peer talks going on at the same time. If Obama is only talking to their president, without some committee at the congressional level talking with their Iranian peers, then this is a waste of time.

[ElNono]

There are usually peer talks going on at the same time. If Obama is only talking to their president, without some committee at the congressional level talking with their Iranian peers, then this is a waste of time.

It doesn't matter if you think it's a waste of time or not. The Executive is conducting negotiations towards building an agreement and Congress is fully aware of that. Playing interloper in those negotiations, whether for theatrics or otherwise, simply displays a disdain and lack of respect for the Executive.

It's ok for you to call the prez whatever you want: an abomination, a monkey, a n!gger, or as some other poster mentioned, a king!... However, more is expected of public servants, especially on a peer power that has to govern.

[Wild Cobra]

It doesn't matter if you think it's a waste of time or not. The Executive is conducting negotiations towards building an agreement and Congress is fully aware of that. Playing interloper in those negotiations, whether for theatrics or otherwise, simply displays a disdain and lack of respect for the Executive.

We don't know why congress did this, outside of either trusting or not, the intent in their letter.

By the tone of the letter, I suspect the president is not negotiating in good faith. I.e., he knows congress will not agree with what he is saying. Could it be this is an attempt for him to make the republicans look bad, knowing they will not ratify his work?

Could it be that the republicans are making a preemptive strike against this?

Again, we really don't know the underlying intent. We can only speculate. Politics is a dirty game.



It's ok for you to call the prez whatever you want: an abomination, a monkey, a n!gger, or as some other poster mentioned, a king!...

He is a disgrace to the office. However, your interjecting racism as a reason is appalling.



However, more is expected of public servants, especially on a peer power that has to govern.
Even though you see through their tact, doesn't mean it is only one sided.

Do you also count the times democrats do this?

[ChumpDumper]

There are usually peer talks going on at the same time. If Obama is only talking to their president, without some committee at the congressional level talking with their Iranian peers, then this is a waste of time.lol no

You're just talking straight out of your ass now.

[Wild Cobra]

lol no

You're just talking straight out of your ass now.
Are you speaking from experience and because of that, think it applies to me?

[ElNono]

We don't know why congress did this

:lol of course we do. It only takes a cursory look at the signatories of the letter, along with their party affiliation.


He is a disgrace to the office. However, your interjecting racism as a reason is appalling.

You're free to call the president whatever you want, including racist terms. It's your 1st amendment right.


Even though you see through their tact, doesn't mean it is only one sided.

Do you also count the times democrats do this?

Never claimed it's one sided.

[ChumpDumper]

Are you speaking from experience and because of that, think it applies to me?I have experienced your talking out of your ass many times.

[Wild Cobra]

I have experienced your talking out of your ass many times.
Why is your ear so close?

[Winehole23]

former GWB Assistant AG (of the OLC) Jack Goldsmith throws cold water on the consitutional argument in the letter:


Here (http://go.bloomberg.com/assets/content/uploads/sites/2/150309-Cotton-Open-Letter-to-Iranian-Leaders.pdf) is the letter. Its premise is that Iran’s leaders “may not fully understand our constitutional system,” and in particular may not understand the nature of the “power to make binding international agreements.” It appears from the letter that the Senators do not understand our constitutional system or the power to make binding agreements.

The letter states that “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.” But as the Senate’s own web page makes clear (https://www.senate.gov/general/Features/Treaties_display.htm): “The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” (my emphasis). Or, as this outstanding 2001 CRS Report (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-106SPRT66922/pdf/CPRT-106SPRT66922.pdf) on the Senate’s role in treaty-making states (at 117): “It is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States, but only if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent.” Ratification is the formal act of the nation’s consent to be bound by the treaty on the international plane. Senate consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification for the United States. As the CRS Report notes: “When a treaty to which the Senate has advised and consented … is returned to the President,” he may “simply decide not to ratify the treaty.”


This is a technical point that does not detract from the letter’s message that any administration deal with Iran might not last beyond this presidency. (I analyzed this point here (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/10/some-implications-of-president-obamas-plans-to-sidestep-congress-on-iranian-sanctions/) last year.) But in a letter purporting to teach a constitutional lesson, the error is embarrassing.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/the-error-in-the-senators-letter-to-the-leaders-of-iran/

[Winehole23]

Why is your ear so close?it needn't be: you broadcast your emissions

[ChumpDumper]

Why is your ear so close?We're about 2000 miles apart, Cliffy.

[TeyshaBlue]

Dick move by the Bagger-Friendly. Fuck 'em.

[boutons_deux]

former GWB Assistant AG (of the OLC) Jack Goldsmith throws cold water on the consitutional argument in the letter:

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/the-error-in-the-senators-letter-to-the-leaders-of-iran/

ha ha, Congress is full of lawyers!

[The Reckoning]

Luckly, Iranian leaders probably know how the game works better than most of the GOP knucklheads in Congress..

Guess where the Iranian leadership was educated...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bz7JgGtCIAEAEbL.jpg

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/does-it-matter-if-irans-leaders-are-us-educated-2014-10



lol at the guy who went to a party school

[Winehole23]

despite the gaffe, Goldsmith thinks the Senators have a leg to stand on regarding Senatorial privilege:


In other words, under international law a nation can invoke its internal law to invalidate consent to a treaty (including a treaty made by Executive agreement) if consent to the treaty was a “violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties” and “that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance.” This qualification of the rule of Article 27 points to a line of argument – at least under domestic law, though probably not under international law – against the impending agreement with Iran that I am surprised the Senate letter did not take.


That argument, in a nutshell, is that the President lacks the authority under the U.S. Constitution to negotiate a pure Executive agreement in this context. Almost all major arms control agreements have been made as treaties that needed Senate consent, and the one major exception, the Salt I treaty, was a congressional-executive agreement. Past presidents surely must have made minor arms control agreements pursuant to Executive agreement at some point (I have not researched the point), but at a minimum the scope of the President’s domestic constitutional authority to make a binding executive agreement with Iran on control of its nuclear weapons is an open question. It is also true that the Senate has long taken the view that at least major arms control treaties must pass through the Senate for its consent. A good statement of this view can be seen in a letter (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/17/world/senators-insist-on-role-in-nuclear-arms-deals.html), co-written in 2002 by Senator Biden to Secretary of State Powell, outlining “Senate prerogative regarding international arms control agreements” in a context similar (though not identical) to the current one. (The context was President Bush’s nuclear arms reduction agreement with Russia, which Biden, a lion of Senate prerogatives, insisted be approved via the treaty process.)


I am not saying that the President lacks the power to make a pure Executive agreement in this context (or to claim delegated authority from Congress to make such an agreement). The question of what must go to the Senate for approval as a treaty is contested. Nor am I saying that this domestic constitutional question is adequately manifest to be invoked as a reason to abrogate President Obama’s consent under international law — it almost certainly is not. But with those important caveats, it does seem to me that focusing on Senatorial prerogatives in the domestic constitutional context is a more fruitful direction for Senators who oppose the impending deal, especially since they are sure to find many, many statements about Senatorial prerogative in this context from now-VP and former Senator Biden.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/more-on-the-senates-role-in-the-impending-iran-deal/

[boutons_deux]

Dick move by the Bagger-Friendly. Fuck 'em.

All Repugs are dicks, all their moves are dick moves.

[boutons_deux]

Iran's Foreign Minister responds to the letter from 47 Republican Senators (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/09/1369700/-BREAKING-Iran-s-Foreign-Minister-responds-to-the-letter-from-47-Republican-Senators)



Asked about the open letter of 47 US Senators to Iranian leaders, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif, responded that "in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. 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. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.


Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.


The Iranian Foreign Minister added that "change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Iran's peaceful nuclear program." He continued "I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.


He emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.


Zarif expressed the hope that his comments "may enrich the knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement at any time as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations.


The Foreign Minister also informed the authors that majority of US international agreements in recent decades are in fact what the signatories describe as "mere executive agreements" and not treaties ratified by the Senate.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/09/1369700/-BREAKING-Iran-s-Foreign-Minister-responds-to-the-letter-from-47-Republican-Senators

It looks like Iran wants an agreement, probably because NON-MILITARY moves, aka sanctions, are hurting Iran seriously. The Sunni Saudis are also happy to pump oil and shit on Iran Shiites.

:lol Repugs, and their lead asshole Tom Cotton

=================

Maher also had choice words for Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR), calling him “an asshole” for his statement that while “five jihadists have reached their targets” during President Barack Obama’s administration, none did so during Bush’s two terms — after the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.“I love the way they count terrorism with Bush after 9-11,” Maher said. “‘Except for that one horrible thing.’”
Robert Traynham, dean of the school of continuing studies at Georgetown University, quickly agreed with Maher, calling Cotton’s attack ridiculous.


http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/29942/large/tom-cotton.jpg?1367035600
“What he’s insinuating is that President Obama’s soft on terror, as opposed to President Bush,” Traynham said of Cotton. “This doesn’t even pass the smell test. I mean, every president, obviously, wakes up every single day, looks at the threat assessment, says ‘What can I do to protect all of us?’”But Cotton’s statements were especially troubling, Avlon said, seeing as how he is a Harvard Law School graduate, a military veteran and Rhodes Scholar.
“Hyper-partisanship makes you stupid,” he told Maher. “You start playing to the cheap seats.” - Raw Story, 4/26/13

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/27/1205180/-AR-Sen-Bill-Maher-Tom-Cotton-s-R-an-asshole

=================

Tom Cotton Is Now the Perfect Republican

(called out for his lies, and dropping his "principles")

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/09/tom-cotton-is-now-the-perfect-republican.html

[Spurminator]

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 Constitution. None whatsoever.

Relevant: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/10/gop-2007-attacks-pelosi-interfering-bushs-syria-policy-v-todays-similar-dem-attacks-iran/


To see how thoroughly Democrats have adopted the GOP’s Bush-era authoritarian rhetoric about not “undermining the commander-in-chief,” and to see how craven is GOP behavior now on Iran, just look at what was being said in 2007 when then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria and met with President Bashar Assad (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/world/middleeast/04cnd-pelosi.html?_r=0). The Bush administration was furious about that meeting because its strategy at the time was to isolate Assad as punishment for his alleged aid to Iraqi insurgents fighting against U.S. occupying forces, and the right-wing media and even mainstream media precincts attacked Pelosi in ways quite redolent of today’s attacks on the Senate Republicans over Iran.In April, 2007, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB117582330980561775) by right-wing law professor Robert Turner, headlined “Illegal Diplomacy,” declaring that “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad.”

Dick Cheney called (http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/05/us-syria-usa-pelosi-idUSN0522207920070405) Pelosi’s trip “bad behavior” and said in an interview with Rush Limbaugh: “The president is the one who conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House.” Writing in National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/220559/assads-speaker-eric-cantor), then-Minority Whip Eric Cantor complained that “Mrs. Pelosi usurped the executive branch’s time-honored foreign-policy authority”; “at such a critical moment in the volatile Middle East,” he inveighed, “this is no time for the United States to be sending out mixed signals to our enemies.” The right-wing extremist Congressman Steve King actually introduced legislation (http://votesmart.org/public-statement/275313/king-seeks-to-block-pelosi-travel-to-terrorist-states#.VP7of1XF9D8) to bar Pelosi from traveling to “terrorist states,” arguing:

The Speaker of the House is not the President of the United States. Nancy Pelosi does not represent the Administration. In fact, her policy positions seek to contravene the foreign policy of the United States. Nancy Pelosi, by defying the specific request of the administration to refrain from traveling to Syria, blatantly infringed upon the Constitutional duties of the President. Additionally, I believe her trip was the most blatant violation of the Logan Act by a top elected official in the history of our country. . . . Nancy Pelosi thinks it’s her job to conduct foreign policy in defiance of the President. She is wrong on the Constitution and wrong on the law.


National Review‘sAndrew McCarthy pronounced that (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/220551/dont-investigate-pelosi-debate-her-andrew-c-mccarthy) “there isn’t much question that Speaker Pelosi has committed a felony violation of the Logan Act,” and that “it is settled beyond peradventure that the authority of the United States over the conduct of foreign relations rests exclusively with the executive branch.” He added:

So the Bush administration is in charge of foreign relations. It has a policy of attempting to isolate the rogue Syrian regime of Bashar Assad. Far from authorizing Speaker Pelosi’s visit with Assad, the president asked her not to go. Pelosi went anyway, and proceeded to embarrass herself and our nation by meddling ineptly in the Syrian/Israeli conflict, concurrently giving the despicable Assad just the lifeline our policy has sought to deny him. As the Logan Act goes, it doesn’t get more black-and-white than that.


The New York Post concluded its scathing editorial attack on Pelosi’s trip, entitled “Nancy’s Nonsense,” by declaring: “Negotiating with world leaders – particularly those at odds with the United States – should be left to the president, or those authorized by him to do so.” USA Today headlined its editorial (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2007-04-05-our-view_N.htm) “Pelosi Steps Out of Bounds,” arguing that “she violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad — even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home,” and accused the Speaker of knowingly undermining Bush’s right to run U.S. foreign policy:

Pelosi surely knew that as speaker — third in the succession line to the presidency — her high-profile presence in Damascus would be read as a contradiction of Bush’s no-talkpolicy. No matter that she claimed to have stuck closely to administration positions in her conversations with Assad, smiling photos of Pelosi and the Syrian president convey the unspoken message that while the U.S. president is unwilling to talk with Syria, another wing of the government is. Assad made good use of the moment.


Even the New York Times editorial page, by then constant critics of Bush’s foreign policy, wrote (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/opinion/07sat1.html): “there is at least one point on which we and the critics of Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Damascus can agree: It is the White House, not the speaker of the House, that should be taking the diplomatic lead.” They added: “Her job is to spur the Bush administration to pursue active diplomacy, not to attempt to conduct that diplomacy herself.”
More broadly, it became conventional wisdom that Pelosi’s trip was really about undermining Bush’s legitimate authority as president and creating a “shadow foreign policy” run by the Democrats. Sound familiar?

[boutons_deux]

"The Bush administration was furious about that meeting because its strategy at the time was to isolate Assad"

Yet another Repug strategy that worked wonderfully in the context the Repugs destabilizing the Middle East for oil.

While Pelosi didn't really hurt Repug strategy (women count for even less shit in Muslim world than they do in Repug world), and she shouldn't have done it, the Tom Cotton Klown Kar assholes are trying to destroy a very important diplomatic objective, which could reduce the horrendous shitpile the Repugs created next door to Iran.

[DarrinS]

Pretty dickish move, I have to admit.

[boutons_deux]

Iran Offers to Mediate Talks Between Republicans and Obama

http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Borowitz-Can-They-Get-Along-690.jpg

Stating that “their continuing hostilities are a threat to world peace,” Iran has offered to mediate talks between congressional Republicans and President Obama.

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, made the offer one day after Iran received what he called a “worrisome letter” from Republican leaders, which suggested to him that “the relationship between Republicans and Obama has deteriorated dangerously.”


“Tensions between these two historic enemies have been high in recent years, but we believe they are now at a boiling point,” Khamenei said. “As a result, Iran feels it must offer itself as a peacemaker.”

He said that his nation was the “logical choice” to jumpstart negotiations between Obama and the Republicans because “it has become clear that both sides currently talk more to Iran than to each other.”

He invited Obama and the Republicans to meet in Tehran to hash out their differences and called on world powers to force the two bitter foes to the bargaining table, adding, “It is time to stop the madness.”

Hours after Iran made its offer,

President Obama said that he was willing to meet with his congressional adversaries under the auspices of Tehran, but questioned whether “any deal reached with Republicans is worth the paper it’s written on.”

For their part, the Republicans said they would only agree to talks if there were no preconditions, such as recognizing President Obama’s existence.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/iran-offers-to-mediate-talks-between-republicans-and-obama?mbid=nl_031015_Borowitz&CNDID=&spMailingID=7569735&spUserID=MjczNzc0Njk0NDAS1&spJobID=640862121&spReportId=NjQwODYyMTIxS0

[RandomGuy]

The president is only one branch of the government and his word alone is not America's word.

Boutons satire above is not serious... this is:
Iran says GOP letter suggests US is 'not trustworthy'


TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's foreign minister said Tuesday a letter from U.S. Republican lawmakers warning that any nuclear deal could be scrapped once President Barack Obama leaves office suggests the United States is "not trustworthy."

"This kind of communication is unprecedented and undiplomatic," Mohammed Javad Zarif was quoted as saying by a state-run TV website. "In fact it implies that the United States is not trustworthy," he added.

Zarif linked the letter to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress last week, in which the Israeli leader argued against the emerging agreement. "A propaganda campaign has begun with Netanyahu's speech before Congress and this is their second ploy," Zarif said. "While there is still no agreement, a group is commenting on its nature."

"It is unfortunate that a group is opposed to reaching an agreement. We insist that a possible deal should be one where our people's rights are observed and we are certain that there are measures to achieve such a deal," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-says-gop-letter-suggests-us-not-trustworthy-112417036.html

One of the least credible regimes on the planet, can now point to the US as not being trustworthy.

Fucking Republicans, placing party above country, yet again. The only thing missing is a government shutdown temper tantrum.

Between this, and the Bush era morass of torture, detainment and Gitmo, the US has suffered a few black eyes. Obama for his part and the "red line" that didn't actually get red... oi vey.

[boutons_deux]

Fucking Republicans, placing party above country, yet again. The only thing missing is a government shutdown temper tantrum.


ve haf vaiss:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245235&p=7863223#post7863223

[Spurminator]

STOP CALLING TOM COTTON A TRAITOR
By Brian Beutler (http://www.newrepublic.com/authors/brian-beutler) @brianbeutler (https://twitter.com/brianbeutler)

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121264/tom-cotton-iran-letter-reckless-not-treason




The 47 Republican signatories (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121255/republican-letter-iran-sabotage-nuclear-talks-could-backfire) to an open letter discouraging the Iranian government from striking a nuclear deal with the Obama administration have been denounced for committing a broad spectrum of infractions: from the conceptual misdemeanor of embarrassing the president as he conducts U.S. foreign policy to genuine felonies like violating the Logan Act—which prohibits individuals from conducting freelance diplomacy with foreign governments—and outright treason.
http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/u185946/screen_shot_2015-03-10_at_12.52.44_pm.png
These critics are so fixated on the form of the action these senators took that they’ve drowned out most substantive criticisms of its inept strategy and the GOP’s unspoken foreign policy objective—regime change in Iran. With respect to both the merits of the accusations, and the direction of their focus, they’re also wrong.

To see why, consider these two thought experiments.

First, imagine that Senator Tom Cotton, who wrote the offending document, had written it as an opinion column rather than an open letter. Senate Republicans didn’t send the Iranian government any private correspondence as far as we know. They didn’t “send” anything at all, really, except perhaps to select reporters. They issued a press release, and then slapped the equivalent of “Dear Sirs” on top of it. If 47 Republican senators had instead co-bylined an op-ed containing all of the same factual information that appears in the letter, and with Iranian officials as its intended audience, nobody would’ve doubted its legality or legitimacy.

The letter begins, “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution.” This is a genuinely preposterous supposition (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121255/republican-letter-iran-sabotage-nuclear-talks-could-backfire). But imagine it appeared in the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section rendered as, “It has come to our attention while observing nuclear negotiations between our government and the government of Iran that some of the parties may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to raise awareness of two features of our Constitution.”

This would have been a terrible, tedious op-ed. Its subversiveness might have caused a stir. But I can’t imagine anyone would have called it treasonous.

Cotton’s execution here was reckless and feckless in equal measure. And yes, it’s unconventional for a partisan congressional caucus to undermine a sitting president’s foreign policy like this. But you can’t untangle his tactics from his goals unless you’re willing to accept a certain level of congressional abdication from foreign policy under all circumstances. What makes Cotton reckless isn’t so much that he’s willing to go to extraordinary lengths to achieve his purpose. Its that his purpose is extremely unwise.

Not everyone in Congress has such bad ideas. In 2003, too many Democrats voted to grant President George W. Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq. This was a generational error. We’d all be better off today if they’d refused, and that wouldn’t have violated any vaunted foreign policy norms. But what if convincing fellow Senate Democrats to resist the Bush administration required extraordinary interference? If a Democrat had read conflicting weapons of mass destruction intelligence into the record on the Senate floor and warned the British government and other allies that Bush was manipulating them into war. This would’ve ruptured the normative foundations of foreign policy like an earthquake. It also would have been protected by the Constitution, and worth the damage.

An alternate history in which a meddling Democrat derails (or merely disrupts) war with Iraq must also include the fact that Republicans like Tom Cotton would have called him a traitor. And that they’d probably have destroyed his political career—especially if the effort had been successful, and thus never vindicated by a disastrous war. But hypocrisy is beside the point. What matters is whether Republicans today are acting out of a sense of public duty, and whether their objectives are wise and achievable.

I think scuttling a deal to clear the path to regime change is both irresponsible and far-fetched. I also think the atmospherics surrounding the letter itself—that it was written by an ambitious Republican freshman, that GOP presidential hopefuls signed the letter but moderates and experienced foreign policy hands did not, that Cotton is hoping to recruit (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/10/morning-plum-tom-cotton-hands-dems-an-easy-way-of-siding-with-obama-on-iran) Republican signatories outside the Senate—suggests Cotton is engaging in intra-coalition politics, rather than solely advancing his substantive foreign policy goals.

But that’s what makes his actions reckless. The point isn't to trivialize procedural objections but that the goals you pursue and meet when you take a step like this should determine how it's judged. If the answer to these same above questions was yes, it would put Cotton's unorthodox tactics in a much different light.

-------

Pretty good take, imo.

[boutons_deux]

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Republicans Blame Obama For Tom Cotton Letter

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/10/gop-obama-cotton-letter_n_6843204.html?ncid=newsltushpmg00000003

"We have, and will continue to OBSTRUCT, DESTROY EVERYTHING n!gg@ boy has done or tried, BUT we expect you to co-operate (masta says: "know yer place, n!gg@ boy") with us Repugs."

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

[Winehole23]

Indeed, according to a 2007 study by political scientists (http://prq.sagepub.com/content/60/4/631.refs) Kiki Caruson and Victoria Farrar-Myers in Political Research Quarterly, between 1977 and 1996, presidents negotiated nearly 4,000 executive agreements but only 300 treaties, making agreements 92.9 percent of the whole.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/03/10/executive-agreements-and-senate-disagreements/

[Winehole23]

http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/tias/index.htm

[Winehole23]

Executive Agreements follow much of the same process as treaties. They are initiated at the Executive level of government and are negotiated by a representative. When the parties agree on the terms, the Secretary of State authorizes the negotiator to sign the agreement and the agreement will enter into force. Executive agreements do not go to the Senate for consideration and approval. However, the Senate does need to be notified by the Executive Branch within 60 days of signing the agreement [Case-Zablocki Act ( (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf)1 U.S.C. § 112b (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf))].http://www.law.asu.edu/library/RossBlakleyLawLibrary/ResearchNow/ResearchGuides/TreatiesandInternationalAgreements.aspx

[DarrinS]

lol

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/file-charges-against-47-us-senators-violation-logan-act-attempting-undermine-nuclear-agreement/NKQnpJS9

[Winehole23]

not too different from Republicans wanting to charge Nancy Pelosi and and Jesse Jackson with Logan Act violations, tbh. was silly then, is silly now.

[RandomGuy]

STOP CALLING TOM COTTON A TRAITOR
By Brian Beutler (http://www.newrepublic.com/authors/brian-beutler) @brianbeutler (https://twitter.com/brianbeutler)

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121264/tom-cotton-iran-letter-reckless-not-treason




The 47 Republican signatories (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121255/republican-letter-iran-sabotage-nuclear-talks-could-backfire) to an open letter discouraging the Iranian government from striking a nuclear deal with the Obama administration have been denounced for committing a broad spectrum of infractions: from the conceptual misdemeanor of embarrassing the president as he conducts U.S. foreign policy to genuine felonies like violating the Logan Act—which prohibits individuals from conducting freelance diplomacy with foreign governments—and outright treason.
http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/u185946/screen_shot_2015-03-10_at_12.52.44_pm.png
These critics are so fixated on the form of the action these senators took that they’ve drowned out most substantive criticisms of its inept strategy and the GOP’s unspoken foreign policy objective—regime change in Iran. With respect to both the merits of the accusations, and the direction of their focus, they’re also wrong.

To see why, consider these two thought experiments.

First, imagine that Senator Tom Cotton, who wrote the offending document, had written it as an opinion column rather than an open letter. Senate Republicans didn’t send the Iranian government any private correspondence as far as we know. They didn’t “send” anything at all, really, except perhaps to select reporters. They issued a press release, and then slapped the equivalent of “Dear Sirs” on top of it. If 47 Republican senators had instead co-bylined an op-ed containing all of the same factual information that appears in the letter, and with Iranian officials as its intended audience, nobody would’ve doubted its legality or legitimacy.

The letter begins, “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution.” This is a genuinely preposterous supposition (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121255/republican-letter-iran-sabotage-nuclear-talks-could-backfire). But imagine it appeared in the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section rendered as, “It has come to our attention while observing nuclear negotiations between our government and the government of Iran that some of the parties may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to raise awareness of two features of our Constitution.”

This would have been a terrible, tedious op-ed. Its subversiveness might have caused a stir. But I can’t imagine anyone would have called it treasonous.

Cotton’s execution here was reckless and feckless in equal measure. And yes, it’s unconventional for a partisan congressional caucus to undermine a sitting president’s foreign policy like this. But you can’t untangle his tactics from his goals unless you’re willing to accept a certain level of congressional abdication from foreign policy under all circumstances. What makes Cotton reckless isn’t so much that he’s willing to go to extraordinary lengths to achieve his purpose. Its that his purpose is extremely unwise.

Not everyone in Congress has such bad ideas. In 2003, too many Democrats voted to grant President George W. Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq. This was a generational error. We’d all be better off today if they’d refused, and that wouldn’t have violated any vaunted foreign policy norms. But what if convincing fellow Senate Democrats to resist the Bush administration required extraordinary interference? If a Democrat had read conflicting weapons of mass destruction intelligence into the record on the Senate floor and warned the British government and other allies that Bush was manipulating them into war. This would’ve ruptured the normative foundations of foreign policy like an earthquake. It also would have been protected by the Constitution, and worth the damage.

An alternate history in which a meddling Democrat derails (or merely disrupts) war with Iraq must also include the fact that Republicans like Tom Cotton would have called him a traitor. And that they’d probably have destroyed his political career—especially if the effort had been successful, and thus never vindicated by a disastrous war. But hypocrisy is beside the point. What matters is whether Republicans today are acting out of a sense of public duty, and whether their objectives are wise and achievable.

I think scuttling a deal to clear the path to regime change is both irresponsible and far-fetched. I also think the atmospherics surrounding the letter itself—that it was written by an ambitious Republican freshman, that GOP presidential hopefuls signed the letter but moderates and experienced foreign policy hands did not, that Cotton is hoping to recruit (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/10/morning-plum-tom-cotton-hands-dems-an-easy-way-of-siding-with-obama-on-iran) Republican signatories outside the Senate—suggests Cotton is engaging in intra-coalition politics, rather than solely advancing his substantive foreign policy goals.

But that’s what makes his actions reckless. The point isn't to trivialize procedural objections but that the goals you pursue and meet when you take a step like this should determine how it's judged. If the answer to these same above questions was yes, it would put Cotton's unorthodox tactics in a much different light.

-------

Pretty good take, imo.
Pretty much. I agree.

Cotton and the other Senators aren't traitors. Idiots and hyper-partisan, but not traitors.

[RandomGuy]

not too different from Republicans wanting to charge Nancy Pelosi and and Jesse Jackson with Logan Act violations, tbh. was silly then, is silly now.

Agreed.

[DarrinS]

Hillary tweets

"GOP letter to Iranian clerics undermines American leadership. No one considering running for commander-in-chief should be signing on."

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/575735894386216960


Lol @ some of the people responding to her

[boutons_deux]

straight from the asshole of the Unitary Executive himself:

Cheney: Congress must not interfere with the president's Iran policy (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/09/1369673/-Cheney-Congress-must-not-interfere-with-the-President-s-Iran-policy)

Cheney didn't just denounce (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/themes/ownwords.html#1) the majority's findings (https://archive.org/stream/reportofcongress87unit#page/n17/mode/2up) as "clearly cast in such a partisan tone," but insisted President Reagan had the constitutional authority to ignore the congressional ban on aid to the Nicaraguan Contras:


"Judgments about the Iran-Contra Affair ultimately must rest upon one's views about the proper roles of Congress and the President in foreign policy. ... [T]hroughout the Nation's history, Congress has accepted substantial exercises of Presidential power -- in the conduct of diplomacy, the use of force and covert action -- which had no basis in statute and only a general basis in the Constitution itself. ... [M]uch of what President Reagan did in his actions toward Nicaragua and Iran were constitutionally protected exercises of inherent Presidential powers. ... [T]he power of the purse ... is not and was never intended to be a license for Congress to usurp Presidential powers and functions."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/09/1369673/-Cheney-Congress-must-not-interfere-with-the-President-s-Iran-policy?detail=email#

[Nbadan]

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/KeefeM/2015/KeefeM20150311_low.jpg

[Winehole23]

Sen. Tom Cotton, a very ambitious man:


While in the House in 2013, Cotton introduced an amendment (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/tom-cotton-corruption-of-blood_n_3322251.html) to prosecute the relatives of those who violated sanctions on Iran, saying that his proposed penalties of up to 20 years in prison would “include a spouse and any relative to the third degree,” including “parents, children, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, grandparents, great grandparents, grandkids, great grandkids.” Forget about the fact that the Constitution expressly prohibits “corruption of blood” penalties — just consider that Cotton wanted to take someone who had violated sanctions and imprison their grandchildren.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/11/for-tom-cotton-letter-to-iran-is-anything-but-a-fiasco/

[boutons_deux]

Sen. Tom Cotton, a very ambitious man:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/11/for-tom-cotton-letter-to-iran-is-anything-but-a-fiasco/

Tom Cotton, the PERFECT Kockenstein/tea baggin CONFEDERATE Repug politician

Thanks, Arkansas!

[boutons_deux]

AR-Sen: Bill Maher, "Tom Cotton's (R) an asshole" (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/27/1205180/-AR-Sen-Bill-Maher-Tom-Cotton-s-R-an-asshole)

Maher also had choice words for Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR), calling him “an asshole” for his statement that while “five jihadists have reached their targets” during President Barack Obama’s administration, none did so during Bush’s two terms — after the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

“I love the way they count terrorism with Bush after 9-11,” Maher said. “‘Except for that one horrible thing.’”

Robert Traynham, dean of the school of continuing studies at Georgetown University, quickly agreed with Maher, calling Cotton’s attack ridiculous.

“What he’s insinuating is that President Obama’s soft on terror, as opposed to President Bush,” Traynham said of Cotton. “This doesn’t even pass the smell test. I mean, every president, obviously, wakes up every single day, looks at the threat assessment, says ‘What can I do to protect all of us?’”But Cotton’s statements were especially troubling, Avlon said, seeing as how he is a Harvard Law School graduate, a military veteran and Rhodes Scholar. :lol

“Hyper-partisanship makes you stupid,” he told Maher. “You start playing to the cheap seats.” - Raw Story, 4/26/13

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/27/1205180/-AR-Sen-Bill-Maher-Tom-Cotton-s-R-an-asshole

[boutons_deux]

Everything You Need to Know About Tom Cotton, the Man Behind the GOP's Insane Letter to Iran

Cotton, a Harvard-educated lawyer, got his US Constitution wrong (an “embarrassing” error (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/the-error-in-the-senators-letter-to-the-leaders-of-iran/), wrote one Harvard law professor and former George W. Bush administration lawyer) and failed to even mention that his threat to withdraw from an agreement would be a violation of international law (http://justsecurity.org/20867/constitution-international-law-republican-senators-letter-to-iran-nuclear/)—something Iran’s foreign minister, in an epic bit of trolling (https://twitter.com/JZarif/status/575133535528427520), brought to his attention.

His army service was no doubt a noble pursuit, but it was during this time that Cotton’s particular brand of politics began to shine through a little bit. From Iraq, Cotton published an open letter—apparently he’s a fan of the format—in the right-wing blog Power Line calling for two journalists and the then–executive editor of The New York Times to be jailed and prosecuted (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/tom-cotton-arkansas-new-york-times) for publishing an investigative piece about how the United States tracks terrorist finances. (Jim Lobe pointed out yesterday (http://www.lobelog.com/republican-overreach-part-deux/) that those who would defend Cotton’s latest open letter to the Iranians on free-speech grounds may want to check this episode out first.)

The Power Line item made a big splash, and, according to The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/09/the-making-of-a-conservative-superstar/380307/), he struck up a correspondence with neocon don Bill Kristol. :lol

The Atlantic characterized (http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/09/the-making-of-a-conservative-superstar/380307/) his domestic record in the House as “conservative absolutism,” as he voted, for instance, against emergency disaster relief.

Cotton introduced an amendment that would “automatically” punish family members of sanctions violators. “There would be no investigation,” Cotton explained during the mark-up (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/tom-cotton-corruption-of-blood_n_3322251.html). “It’d be very hard to demonstrate and investigate to conclusive proof.”

Cotton wanted to punish innocent people; he called it “corruption of blood,” and extended the category to include “parents, children, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, grandparents, great grandparents, grandkids, great grandkids.”

Cotton said that the United States should allow the sale to Israel of the bombers (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Tom-Cotton-B-52-bombers-nuclear/2014/12/03/id/610960/) and advanced bombs it would need to make an attack on Iran more feasible.

In February, at the CPAC summit, hereportedly called for (http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/26/forget-scott-walkers-isisunions-comments) not just regime change in Tehran, but "replacement with a pro-Western regime." The New Republic’s David Ramsey remarked that (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120756/tom-cotton-2016-arkansas-senator-could-disrupt-gop-primary), on almost any foreign policy issue, “Cotton can be found at the hawkish outer edge of the debate.”

the Intercept’s Lee Fang reported today (https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/09/upon-launching-effort-scuttle-iran-deal-senator-tom-cotton-meets-defense-contractors/) that Cotton will appear tomorrow at an event hosted by a defense industry lobbying association—an audience sure to be receptive to his über-hawkishness, a boon to their bottom lines


http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/everything-you-need-know-about-tom-cotton-man-behind-gops-insane-letter-iran?akid=12883.187590.fmtAv8&rd=1&src=newsletter1033146&t=6

[boutons_deux]

One of The Most Important Journalists in USA chimes in, actually destroys, as usual:

http://www.nationalmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2015-03-11-late-night-roundup-daily-show-jon-stewart-senate-republican-letter-iran-tom-cotton-480-668x501.jpg

http://www.nationalmemo.com/late-night-roundup-from-senate-diplomacy-to-fraternity-racism/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=MM_frequency_six&utm_campaign=Morning%20Memo%20-%202015-03-11

[Winehole23]

Seven Republican senators did not sign the letter, including Bob Corker of Tennessee, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The others were: Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Dan Coates of Indiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Jeff Flake of Arizona and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/03/10/259257/precedent-for-gops-iran-letter.html#storylink=cpy

[DarrinS]

One of The Most Important Journalists in USA chimes in, actually destroys, as usual:


lol

[Nbadan]

Neocon meteor Sen. Cotton is funded by Abrams, Adelson and Kristol and loves war a little too much


The liberal Zionist group J Street says that Cotton was scripted by neoconservative Bill Kristol. Street is reveling in the letter because it is sure to drag the neoconservative rightwing Israel lobby down politically, marginalize the greater-Israel lobby in the far right wing of the Republican Party. Just as the Netanyahu speech has hurt Netanyahu and the Likud wing of the lobby, the Cotton letter is turning out to be an own-goal, scored by the neoconservatives.

The neoconservatives reached out and groomed Tom Cotton when they saw him coming down the pike. The Harvard College and Harvard Law grad spent just one term in the Congress before challenging and defeating Mark Pryor last fall. And he got tons of money then from the Israel lobby.

Neoconservative Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin embraced Cotton back in 2012. She was worried then that with Joe Lieberman leaving the Senate, we were losing national security hawks.

Hawks are nervous that, with the retirement of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and the demands of a fiscal crisis, fewer lawmakers will be interested in and devoted to national security.

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/militaristic-adelson-kristol

Kristol’s Emergency Committee for Israel gave Tom Cotton nearly $1 million in his race for the Senate just five months ago, Eli Clifton reported. “Cotton received $960,250 in supportive campaign advertising in the last month". Cotton also got $165,000 from Elliott ManagementPaul Singer’s hedge fund. Singer is the billionaire who is trying to stop Obama’s Iran talks (Clifton’s reporting again).

[boutons_deux]

http://www.nationalmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Lieutenant-Cotton-at-war-668x501.jpg

[boutons_deux]

http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/cartoonuploads/[email protected]

[boutons_deux]

Cotton Collapse: Iran Letter Author Gets Constitution And Geography Wrong In Same Interview

Sen. Tom Cotton wasn’t satisfied with mangling the Constitution on CBS’s Face The Nation. Cotton revealed how little he knows by also not appearing to be aware that Tehran is the capital of Iran.

Sen. Cotton (R-AR) first claimed that Constitution states that the Senate has to vote on any agreement with Iran in order for it to last, “It’s — well, as a simple fact that our Constitution that, if Congress doesn’t approve that deal, then it may not last.”

The Constitution says nothing of the sort.

Via Article II Sec. 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; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/15/cotton-collapse-iran-letter-author-constitution-geography-wrong-interview.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

TC, the perfect Repug politician, blinded by ideology, guided by ignorance, just like all y'all Repug voters.

[boutons_deux]

Vast majority of Americans favor Obama administration's diplomatic talks with Iran (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/17/1371492/-Vast-majority-of-Americans-favor-Obama-administration-s-diplomatic-talks-with-Iran)


A CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/03/16/iran.poll.pdf) showed that 68 percent of Americans favor the Obama administration's diplomatic efforts to keep Iran from achieving nuclear capabilities. Here's the breakdown (http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/17/politics/iran-negotiations-gop-letter-poll/index.html):


Direct diplomatic negotiations with Iran are broadly popular, 68% favor them, while 29% oppose them. That support cuts across party lines, with 77% of Democrats, 65% of Republicans and 64% of independents in favor of diplomacy between the U.S. and Iran in an attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, a plurality of Americans disapproved of the effort by 47 Republican senators to scuttle the talks by sending a letter to the leaders of Iran: 49 percent said it went too far, 39 percent thought it was appropriate, and 12 percent had no opinion.



Opinions on the letter were divided along partisan lines, with 67% of Democrats saying it went too far while 52% of Republicans called it appropriate. Among independents, 47% thought it went too far, 42% that it was appropriate.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/17/1371492/-Vast-majority-of-Americans-favor-Obama-administration-s-diplomatic-talks-with-Iran?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

Repugs ALWAYS wrong

Repugs ALWAYS against The American People

[boutons_deux]

Tom Cotton Dedicates First Senate Speech To Hitler

“The world is growing ever more dangerous, and our defense spending is wholly inadequate to confront the danger. To be exact, during the last four or five years, the world has grown gravely darker. We have steadily disarmed, partly with a sincere desire to give a lead to other countries and partly due to the severe financial pressure of the time. But a change must now be made. We must not continue longer on a course in which we alone are growing weaker while every other nation is growing stronger.”

I wish I could take credit for those eloquent but ominous words, but I cannot. Winston Churchill sounded that warning in 1933 as Adolf Hitler had taken power in Germany.

Tragically, Great Britain and the West didn’t heed this warning, when they might have strangled that monster in his crib. Rather they let the locusts continue to eat away at the common defense.

Read more at http://wonkette.com/579921/tom-cotton-dedicates-first-senate-speech-to-hitler#RE5D7d3BVqgeDStV.99

FUD

LIES

SLANDER

WAR MONGERING

Thanks, Repug voters!

yes, Muslims, etc gonna destroy America, esp the ones TERRORIZED, RADICALIZED by Repugs invading, destroying the Middle East.

[Winehole23]

actually boutons, the GOP had a lot of help in that area, and damn little resistance when it counted.

[boutons_deux]

actually boutons, the GOP had a lot of help in that area, and damn little resistance when it counted.

bullshit, the Repugs LIED about EVERYTHING to get into Iraq for oil, exploited the fear post-9/11.

[Winehole23]

too bad the Dems were too spineless to stand up to them and even joined in the fear-fapping. they voted for the AUMF, they get partial credit.

[boutons_deux]

too bad the Dems were too spineless to stand up to them and even joined in the fear-fapping. they voted for the AUMF, they get partial credit.

yep, Dems don't stand up to, don't out-crazy the fucking crazy Repugs. About the only redeeming quality of Dems is that they aren't Repugs.

But, you're wrong again, if the Repugs hadn't bullied, lied their way into Iraq, the Dems wouldn't have done it. So the Repugs are miles ahead in Who Raped The Middle East.

[Winehole23]

But, you're wrong again, if the Repugs hadn't bullied, lied their way into Iraq, the Dems wouldn't have done it. you don't know that. counterfactuals can't be proved or disproved.

[Winehole23]

your mania for blaming everything on Republicans makes you look very very silly. why don't you give it a rest and try thinking before you speak?

[boutons_deux]

your mania for blaming everything on Republicans makes you look very very silly. why don't you give it a rest and try thinking before you speak?

bullshit. What is fucked up in America and the world America has touched that ISN'T the fault of the Repugs, VRWC, conservatives?

And whatever you say the Dems have fucked up, wil be minuscule compared to the Repugs fuckups.

Americans have polled 4 months in a row, IIRC,the Congress is America's biggest problem. What the "even handed" poll didn't say that GRIDLOCK, govt shutdowns, no progress is primarily, increasingly the fault of the Repugs, who have shown NO INTEREST in actually governing or solving real problems.

perfect example: BOTH parties want the Child Trafficking Act done, but Repugs have, per usual, poisoned it, held it and a new Obama US AG hostage, to their pandering to Bible humpers with more anti-abortion crap.

[Winehole23]

perfect example: BOTH parties want the Child Trafficking Act done, but Repugs have, per usual, poisoned it, held it hostage and a new US AG, to their pandering to Bible humpers with more anti-abortion crap.Credit where credit is due: GOP added the poison pill, Dems are holding it up, i.e., filibustering.

[boutons_deux]

Credit where credit is due: GOP added the poison pill, Dems are holding it up, i.e., filibustering.

bullshit, Dems are filibusting the "secret" abortion amendment, NOT the entire bill which the Repugs are willing to kill.

[Winehole23]

functionally equivalent to holding up the bill. formally, the Dems are holding it up, not the other way around.

[Winehole23]

poison pill to the GOP for sure, but from the standpoint of process, Dems erected the roadblock.

[boutons_deux]

poison pill to the GOP for sure, but from the standpoint of process, Dems erected the roadblock.

you're wrong, as usual.

The Repugs KNEW the Dems would filibuster the abortion amendment, so they really don't care if the Trafficking Act dies.

I read where the Dems asked if this was the same Act as last time and the Repugs LIED "yes", lying by not saying they added the abortion poison pill amendment. But the Dems caught it.

As we see, the Repugs sucker their fetus-loving base by obsessing on anti-abortion tactics ALL THE TIME, but after the kids are born, child trafficking is OK, cutting $100Bs from SNAP, CHIP, school lunches, etc, says clearly that they and their "Christians" are pro-life exclusively before birth.

[TeyshaBlue]

I read where the Dems asked if this was the same Act as last time


The Dems asked? :lmao :lmao :lmao

:cry. Its too hard to read!

:lol simpleton

[boutons_deux]

I read where the Dems asked if this was the same Act as last time


The Dems asked? :lmao :lmao :lmao

:cry. Its too hard to read!

:lol simpleton

yes, they asked for confirmation that the Act was the same as last year. You could look it if you didn't already know everything, stalker

[TeyshaBlue]

Poor Dems...who knew they couldnt read. Its not like that's part of their job. :rolleyes

[hater]

looks like Eyeran will sign the deal to spite Israel and obama will sign the deal to spite the reps :lol

good trolling IMO

[Wild Cobra]

Poor Dems...who knew they couldnt read. Its not like that's part of their job. :rolleyes

Why should they be able to read at that level? Most their constituency writes letters and emails at 8th grade level or lower.

[Winehole23]

Israel spied on talks and shared the info with Congress:



Israel obtained sensitive information about the nuclear talks between Iran and the United States and turned it over to members of Congress, the Wall Street Journal is reporting (http://www.wsj.com/articles/israel-spied-on-iran-talks-1427164201?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories). The insider details came from “confidential” briefings from U.S. officials as well as from “informants, diplomatic contacts in Europe and eavesdropping,” the paper said.


Citing “current and former officials,” the paper said the “spying operation was part of a broader campaign by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to penetrate the negotiations and then help build a case against the emerging terms of the deal.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/24/report-israel-spied-on-iran-u-s-talks-and-shared-information-with-lawmakers/

[Winehole23]

of course, we only found out because we were spying on Israel, but it's hard to imagine there wouldn't be loud, aggrieved cries of treason if say, France was sharing sensitive material with Congressional Democrats to derail a sitting Republican's foreign policy to France's benefit.

[Winehole23]

if sensitive info was "played back" to Republicans as suggested by one official, one wonders if any of them notified the US government about the leak.

[Winehole23]

does loyalty to country trump hatred of Obama? hard to tell sometimes.

[boutons_deux]

does loyalty to country trump hatred of Obama? hard to tell sometimes.

All Bad-faith Politics All The Time, obstructing Obama certainly trumps the health care, iow LIVES, of uninsured, poor red-state citizens.

[Winehole23]

please try to stay on topic. this thread is about the open letter to Iran from the US Senate and Bibi lobbying Congress to undermine US foreign policy, not your global and frankly unhinged hatred of the GOP.

[Winehole23]

goddam hedgehog

[Winehole23]

let's try again:

ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...ith-lawmakers/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/24/report-israel-spied-on-iran-u-s-talks-and-shared-information-with-lawmakers/)

[boutons_deux]

please try to stay on topic. this thread is about the open letter to Iran from the US Senate and Bibi lobbying Congress to undermine US foreign policy, not your global and frankly unhinged hatred of the GOP.

fuck you. Repugs will fuck up anything, healthcare, any bills, international agreements, ANYTHING, for blind ideolgy, to serve their paymaster, and just for the fun of fucking stuff up.

[DarrinS]

fuck you. Repugs will fuck up anything, healthcare, any bills, international agreements, ANYTHING, for blind ideolgy, to serve their paymaster, and just for the fun of fucking stuff up.


irony alert

[boutons_deux]

irony alert

:lol what's The Great Bitch-Slapping Boutons ideology, not they we're expecting more than two words from the autistic Darrin.

[Winehole23]

red team silence is deafening on the recent WSJ bombshell. no defenders?

[boutons_deux]

How GOP threats against Iran have Guaranteed end of European Sanctions

The US sanction regime on Iran has a unilateral dimension. That is, there are sanctions only the US applies. Then there is a European dimension, which involves using the clout of the Department of Treasury as well as the persuasiveness of the Department of State’s diplomats to get European Union buy-in regarding their own sanctions. There is another, international dimension, which, however, is not nearly as robust as the US and the EU sanctions. Indeed, Iranian trade with India, China and Turkey, e.g., has substantially expanded since 2005, even as Iran’s trade with Europe and the US has plummeted.

Jonathan Tirone at Bloomberg Business, (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-26/europe-s-lost-iran-trade-may-signal-u-s-sanctions-split)however, quotes Richard Dalton, the Britain’s former ambassador to Iran, on why, if the talks fail, Europe might well refuse to sanction Iran further and might, instead, blame the United States:
“As things are shaping up now, it doesn’t seem like it would be easy to say the fault or the failure comes fully down to the Iranians … if the failure happens now, it may be because of something which the U.S. either does or is incapable of doing.”

If the talks, fail, they can be blamed on the Republican Party, not the Islamic Republic. And many European countries will be unable to see why they should punish Iran (and themselves) for the sake of GOP orneriness.


Iran-Europe trade in 2005 was $32 billion. Today it is $9 billion. There isn’t any fat in the latter figure, and it may well be about as low as Europe is willing to go. Tirone also points out that European trade with Iran has probably fallen as low as is possible, and that those who dream of further turning the screws on Tehran to bring it to its knees are full of mere bluster.


http://www.juancole.com/2015/03/guaranteed-european-sanctions.html

Just another example of how your Repugs fuck up everything they touch.

Why would a backwoods Arkansas hick and 46 other Repugs assholes fuck up Iran negotiations? Because they absolutely must deny Obama every ounce of solutions and progress.

[boutons_deux]

John Boehner Outs Himself As He Calls Obama An 'Anti-War' President (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/29/1374090/-House-Speaker-John-Boehner-Outs-Himself-As-He-Calls-Barack-Obama-An-Anti-War-President)


“The world is starving for American leadership. But America has an anti-war president,” Boehner said during a Capitol Hill press conference (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/237073-boehner-rips-obama-as-an-anti-war-president) on Thursday.

Yes, by labeling Barack Obama an 'anti-war' president, our House Speaker John Boehner admits he wants war, he's good with it, he's DOWN with it. Let's get this party started! Because the Iraq war, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War) of innocent civilians and approximately 5,000 American troops - wasn't enough. No, let's send more of our young men and women into battle to kill and be killed. It's what we do! We'll show those terrorists. We'll show the world who's boss, just like Bush did with his inglorious 'War on Terror.' What a deciding victory that was.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/29/1374090/-House-Speaker-John-Boehner-Outs-Himself-As-He-Calls-Barack-Obama-An-Anti-War-President?detail=email#

[boutons_deux]

Letting a Warmonger Rant
https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/john-bolton-300x198.jpg?55ac53

Just as the New York Times promoted fake facts to rationalize invading Iraq, it has just published a deceptive op-ed to justify bombing Iran, the ranting of one of America’s most notorious warmongers, John Bolton,

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/30/letting-a-warmonger-rant/

[boutons_deux]

Iran, U.S. Agree On Outlines Of Nuclear Deal (http://link.huffingtonpost.com/4cb49acab61807701f9bf35e2gasd.bu22/VR1jWEmOj1io4TU-B2f43)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/iran-us-nuclear-deal_n_6993104.html?ir=World&utm_campaign=040215&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-world&utm_content=FullStory&ncid=newsltushpmg00000003

not over til June, but it's progress.

eat shit, neocons, Bibi, Repugs, MIC

[boutons_deux]

Peace with Iran Could Limit Ability to Bomb It, Warns McCain


http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Borowitz-Mccain-Bombing-Iran-690.jpg


WASHINGTON — Shortly after world powers successfully negotiated a nuclear-framework agreement with Iran, Sen. John McCain warned that a lasting peace with the Middle Eastern nation “could greatly limit our ability to bomb it.”

“President Obama is hailing this framework as something that could enhance the prospects for peace in the Middle East,” McCain told reporters at the United States Senate.

“For those of us who have looked forward to bombing Iran for some time now, that would be a doomsday scenario.”

“The Iranians know well and good that if they abandon their nuclear program exactly the way we’ve asked them to, we can kiss bombing them goodbye,” he said, shaking his head ruefully.

“It’s a damn shame.”

As for President Obama, McCain added, “Sometimes I think the President cares more about making the Iranians happy than about making the people who want to bomb the Iranians happy.”


With the deadline for finalizing a nuclear treaty with Iran set for June 30th, McCain said that there was still a chance that talks could break down and allow the United States to bomb it, but added, “I’m not getting my hopes up.”

“If we all wake up on July 1st and we’re at peace with Iran, don’t say I didn’t warn you,” he said.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/peace-with-iran-could-limit-ability-to-bomb-it-warns-mccain?mbid=nl_Borowitz%20(11)&cndid=&mbid=nl_Borowitz%20(11)&CNDID=&spMailingID=7635569&spUserID=MjczNzc0Njk0NDAS1&spJobID=660213248&spReportId=NjYwMjEzMjQ4S0

[boutons_deux]

Confused Republican Senator Continues To Insist He’s President of America

A certain newbie senator is still running his mouth off (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/237895-sen-cotton-vows-to-block-iran-deal) about how he is not going to allow the president to act in his authority as president because he’s suffering the delusion that “freshman senator” is the most powerful gig in government:

http://wonkette.com/581907/confused-republican-senator-continues-to-insist-hes-president-of-america

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who has emerged as a key critic of the Obama administration’s moves to secure a nuclear deal with Iran, vowed Friday to keep a framework agreement from materializing.

“I’m going to do everything I can to stop these terms from becoming a final deal,” Cotton said Friday on CNN’s “The Lead,” noting it is unclear when the deal would attempt to lift international sanctions.


Nothing like announcing to the world that you’re going to try your very best to undermine the president’s administration from making a deal, years in the making, to avoid a war with Iran. But hey, that’s exactly what newbie Sen. Cotton is all about, because after a few months in the Senate, he definitely knows best.

“It was not a framework, it was just a detailed list of American concessions that is going to put Iran on the path to a nuclear weapon, whether they followed the terms…or they violate the terms,” Cotton said.

“Iran may not accept them in the first place because Iran has continued to string along our negotiators,” Cotton added, noting Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei would have input on the deal.

Asked if taking military action would be preferable to the deal, Cotton said there are “lots of kinds of military action,” citing military bombardment in the 1990s under then-President Clinton.


http://wonkette.com/581907/confused-republican-senator-continues-to-insist-hes-president-of-america#EG5Bcf405khiKi0u.99 (http://wonkette.com/581907/confused-republican-senator-continues-to-insist-hes-president-of-america#EG5Bcf405khiKi0u.99)

Cotton ought to become a Jew, joining the Israeli Army, becaue there's no risk there. He's agitating for Americans to pay for bombing Iran and for Americans to die there.

[MultiTroll]

^^^ why do i get the impression Cotton takes it up the arse for some weapons related companies? Thus wants the profits.
Ie Dickhead-Bush Oil-n-War Co.

[boutons_deux]

^^^ why do i get the impression Cotton takes it up the arse for some weapons related companies? Thus wants the profits.
Ie Dickhead-Bush Oil-n-War Co.

read above, the Jews own him.

[boutons_deux]

this motherfucker is totally nuts, but par for course for Confederate red-state assholes

Tom Cotton: Put Iraq out of your mind. Bombing Iran would take just 'several days' (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/08/1376366/-Tom-Cotton-Put-Iraq-out-of-your-mind-Bombing-Iran-would-take-just-several-days)

Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton: losing his grip on reality, or lying shamelessly? It's not clear which conclusion would be more unflattering to Cotton in light of his claim that bombing Iran's nuclear facilities would be just like when (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/tom-cotton-bombing-iran-would-take-several-days-be-nothing-l?utm_term=.vh525kE45#.khle80zq9) then-President Bill Clinton bombed Iraq for four days in the late 1990s.

It's just silly to think about the Iraq War of the 2000s, according to Cotton—silly, or a lie pushed by President Obama—"the president is trying to make you think it would be 150,000 heavy mechanized troops on the ground in the Middle East again as we saw in Iraq and that’s simply not the case." Simply not the case!


“It would be something more along the lines of what President Clinton did in December 1998 during Operation Desert Fox. Several days air and naval bombing against Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction facilities for exactly the same kind of behavior. For interfering with weapons inspectors and for disobeying Security Council resolutions. All we’re asking is that the president simply be as tough as in the protection of America’s national security interest as Bill Clinton was.”


In short, Tom Cotton, 2015: "Several days air and naval bombing ... "

Donald Rumsfeld, 2003 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2738089.stm), on the prospect of war with Iraq: "It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Uh-huh. About that ...

If the war in Iraq had ended after the six months that Rumsfeld thought was so unlikely, maybe Cotton could fool Americans into thinking that bombing Iran now wouldn't have broader implications.

But we know how Iraq went, and it'll probably be at least a few more years before voters are ready to once again be sold the idea that war in the Middle East will be a breeze.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/08/1376366/-Tom-Cotton-Put-Iraq-out-of-your-mind-Bombing-Iran-would-take-just-several-days?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

Air Power! Highly overrated, for many, many decades, but keep building them $1T fighters planes, gotta git them ragheads with AK47, RPGs.

[boutons_deux]

fuck these BigCarbon-sucking assholes

Senate Republicans Plan New Treasonous Sabotage Of Obama On Global Climate Change Talks

Not content with undercutting the President and sabotaging America’s foreign policy, Senate Republicans are planning a new treasonous act of sabotage against an Obama led potential global change agreement.The Wall Street Journal reported, “The White House considers the agreement with nearly 200 nations a historic opportunity to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions world-wide. But some GOP senators view it as executive overreach, and they are quietly considering ways to warn other countries that the president doesn’t speak for them and may not be able to deliver on his promises to slash emissions.

”The only lesson that Senate Republicans appear to have taken away from their letter to Iran is that they need to keep their plots to undercut the President quiet. Look for the Senate Republicans to avoid releasing a public letter. They may use the same strategy and issue a letter, but they will try to sneak it a bit more under the radar.


Senate Republicans are setting themselves up for an even stronger backlash since they will be not only sabotaging President Obama, but also defying the global scientific consensus.As if it wasn’t bad enough that climate change denying Republicans embarrass their fellow Americans at home, they are now considering humiliating the entire nation on a global scale.

Opposing an international agreement on climate change has nothing to do with the actual science.

The Republican opposition is rooting in protecting corporate polluters who are destroying the planet combined with a desire to politically damage and embarrass a president that they irrationally despise.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/27/senate-republicans-plan-treasonous-sabotage-obama-global-climate-change-deal.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29 (http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/27/senate-republicans-plan-treasonous-sabotage-obama-global-climate-change-deal.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29)

Here's hoping Hillary wins BIG and has long coattails to emasculate these Repug Congresscritters.

[boutons_deux]

:lol

New Amendments Imperil Measure on Iran in Congress

A bill to give Congress a voice in the nuclear deal with Iran (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) is now endangered by Republican amendments that would peel away bipartisan support for a measure begrudgingly accepted by the White House this month.

Amendments filed by lawmakers last week include one that would require Iran to recognize Israel and another that would give any final nuclear deal the status of a treaty, which would require ratification by two-thirds of the Senate. Another proposal would require the release of American citizens detained in Iran as part of an agreement.

For Republican sponsors of the Iran measure, these amendments threaten to break the rare bipartisan spirit that pushed the bill unanimously out of the Foreign Relations Committee and even overcame White House objections. The bill’s unraveling would undermine the approach of Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, and upset its many supporters.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/us/politics/proposed-amendments-imperil-measure-on-iran.html?_r=0

Repug "governance"! :lol showing us they can get things done! :lol

[Winehole23]

bad leadership. inviting amendments opened the door to the rush to get dicks caught in the narrowest ideological cracks.