47 Senate Republicans Write Letter to Iran, Undermine US Foreign Policy

[BSM1]

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to have any sense if you really believe that. Either that, or you don't understand the circumstances. They aren't going to allow their entire Islamic state become a smoking crater to launch one nuclear missile...which could conceivably be shot down before it even reaches its target, or even before it's launched. Iran is heavily monitored via satellite and other forms of intelligence. It's not going to happen.

Can you tell us what makes you so sure? And are you willing to bet your life, or your children's lives on it?

 

[BSM1]

Personally, I think that is beside the point. Members of the government can argue the issue as much as they like, but stepping outside the bounds of their own government and directly negotiating with a foreign power is effectively stepping outside the democratic process they dwore to serve.

How is this negotiating with a foreign power?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

How is this negotiating with a foreign power?

You realise you quoted and responded to the same post I made twice, but not (yet) to my answer the first time you did so?

Anyways...are you suggesting they were not trying to influence Iranian policy via their communication?

 

[BSM1]

You realise you quoted and responded to the same post I made twice, but not (yet) to my answer the first time you did so?

Anyways...are you suggesting they were not trying to influence Iranian policy via their communication?

Maybe. But I feel they reflect the thinking of most Americans. Also, after reading the letter, it seems to be a statement of fact than threat.

 

[metis]

Yes, actually, she did. She made it clear that the United States is weak, because the leadership is divided, and whatever image President Bush attempted to put forward, she single-handedly destroyed, because it was more important to play politics and make Bush look bad than to do what was right to make the United States strong in the eyes of its enemies.


I'm not going to go through everything that President Obama has done wrong and gone against the Constitution.

However, Congress was clearly moved at what Netanyahu had to say when he addressed them. The idea that it is bad for the free world for Iran to have nuclear capabilities was made very clear. I'm not sure what Obama is playing at, but he knew that what he is doing with setting up a ten-year time limit is against the will of the Congress.

What Obama did may not have expressly violated the Constitution (this time), but it is clear that he isn't interested in doing what is good for the country, again, so that he can play politics.

The 47 people made clear that Obama doesn't have the right or the consent to do what he's doing. Obama seems to have forgotten that there are three branches of government, and the one that holds the power to declare war or make sanctions is the one he is set on ignoring because they are the wrong party for his tastes.

First of all, you avoided the question on unconstitutionality, so please try and address that.

Secondly, Pelosi's visit had to do with trying to set up negotiations between Syria and Israel, and the reason why the Bush administration opposed her doing that was because we had no diplomatic relations with Assad. Therefore, the two simply do not compare as she was not advocating a policy that would undermine Bush nor any negotiations we were involved in.

 

[Marisa]

Fourty-seven US Senate Republicans sign a letter drafted by Tom Cotton which was explicitly intended to undermine negotiations with Iran. This was made very clear in a speech by Cotton, referencing the letter:

"The end of these negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of congressional action. It is very much an intended consequence. A feature; not a bug, so to speak."

Many are suggesting that the letter breaks Logan's law...which it probably does. Some say it's treason, which may be true depending on the definition, but I've seen almost no one disagree that the letter was completely unacceptable.

The letter written by congressional Republicans can be found here:
http://go.bloomberg.com/assets/cont...309-Cotton-Open-Letter-to-Iranian-Leaders.pdf

Article here:
Senator Who Organized Letter To Iran Has Said He Wants To Sabotage Negotiations

Congressional behavior, particularly that of the Republicans, no longer ceases to amaze me. I have long since washed my hands of any affiliation with either party. Their behavior is completely insane.

There's always been arguing and a fair amount of mudslinging which I've always had a problem with. But the levels of outright disrespectfulness we've risen to simply astound me. From shouting "you lie" from the senate floor to a speaking POTUS, to this letter and all the things in between (like thinking it's a good idea to hold the country hostage because you don't like a law), I'm simply flabbergasted.

 

[philbo]

I'm not going to go through everything that President Obama has done wrong and gone against the Constitution.

..because there isn't anything, it's all rumour, hearsay and something someone said on Facebook so it must be correct? But deep down, you know that if you were to list everything you believe he has done wrong, each point would be knocked down one by one? Not that that would stop you from repeating the canard as though you did believe it, I guess.

Look, I'm an outsider, a Brit, who doesn't have an axe to grind in US politics, but more and more over the past few years I have seen these sorts of statements made by Republicans and there is never anything to back them up when challenged. When I asked (on another forum) on what grounds a chap was calling for Obama to be impeached, his list of reasons for impeachment were at best policies he didn't agree with, and most were simply untrue (and disprovable with about 20 seconds googling).

One has to be worried when 47 senators show a desire to so openly display their basic ignorance and/or disregard of their proper role just to fall into greater sympathies among their most immature voters.

That really indicates a very fragile state of the political institutions of the USA.

QFT

 

[Revoltingest]

Can you tell us what makes you so sure? And are you willing to bet your life, or your children's lives on it?

I'll bet mine on it.
It's a better bet than preemptive attack, which might inspire massive retaliation....potentially nuclear some day.
I wouldn't bet my or anyone else's life on that.

Bear in mind that there is usefulness in having Iran see Americastan as becoming peaceful & reasonable. We already once deposed an elected leader there in a coup. And then we instigated Iraq's attack on them, & we even supplied Saddam with WMDs (chem & bio). Add to this our many covert operations, eg, Stuxnet. Our best bet is to stop acting in a manner which makes others feel the need for nuclear weapons.

 

[BSM1]

I'll bet mine on it.
It's a better bet than preemptive attack, which might inspire massive retaliation....potentially nuclear some day.
I wouldn't bet my or anyone else's life on that.

Bear in mind that there is usefulness in having Iran see Americastan as becoming peaceful & reasonable. We already once deposed an elected leader there in a coup. And then we instigated Iraq's attack on them, & we even supplied Saddam with WMDs (chem & bio). Add to this our many covert operations, eg, Stuxnet. Our best bet is to stop acting in a manner which makes others feel the need for nuclear weapons.

Old history, unfortunately. We have to take Iran at it's word. Have they or are they close to being invaded by anyone? If not, why would they need a nuclear weapon?

 

[Revoltingest]

Old history, unfortunately. We have to take Iran at it's word. Have they or are they close to being invaded by anyone? If not, why would they need a nuclear weapon?

This history is not so old in the minds of many...especially the Iranians.
A nuke would'a come in handy against Iraq's use of USA-supplied chemical weapons against them.
Such a threat might've given Iraq pause.

 

[BSM1]

This history is not so old in the minds of many...especially the Iranians.
A nuke would'a come in handy against Iraq's use of USA-supplied chemical weapons against them.
Such a threat might've given Iraq pause.

When were these chemical weapons used?

 

[Revoltingest]

When were these chemical weapons used?

1980-1988
Iran–Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BSM1]

This where I thought you were going. You saying the US supplied these weapons of mass destruction to Iraqi? If so, the mere fact that there are regimes in this area crazy enough to use these weapons preemptively offers a pretty good argument against them having them, IMO.

 

[Revoltingest]

This where I thought you were going. You saying the US supplied these weapons of mass destruction to Iraqi? If so, the mere fact that there are regimes in this area crazy enough to use these weapons preemptively offers a pretty good argument against them having them, IMO.

By that rationale, we should invade Israel to de-nuke them, eh?
But bear in mind that Americastan & Iraq were the aggressors crazy enuf to use them....Iran didn't.

 

[Akivah]

Not quite.

Sanctions are legislation passed by congress.

Obama isn't dictator.

If he just wants to bypass congress and play dictator he shouldn't be surprised if there is push back.

Besides it's a lousy deal that will endanger the world.

Also, they wrote an open letter. How is that illegal? Dictator Obama doesn't approve of the content of the speech?

I think it is bad policy for members of Congress to deal directly with foreign entities. No matter who is occupying the White House, we don't need 535 separate voices talking to foreign governments. It should be one voice, the President or his direct representatives (e.g. Sec of State) that talks to foreign governments. Afterwards, Congress can weigh in on the deal that the President brings back.

 

[columbus]

Old history, unfortunately. We have to take Iran at it's word. Have they or are they close to being invaded by anyone? If not, why would they need a nuclear weapon?

I sincerely doubt that Iran is so cavalier about the existential threat posed by the USA. We've been attacking them for 50 years.
And as the 47 just pointed out, Obama won't be President in a couple of years. He could very well be replaced by Jeb, brother of George "axis of evil" Bush.

Not everybody is a blinders-on Republican.

Tom

 

[CMike]

I think it is bad policy for members of Congress to deal directly with foreign entities. No matter who is occupying the White House, we don't need 535 separate voices talking to foreign governments. It should be one voice, the President or his direct representatives (e.g. Sec of State) that talks to foreign governments. Afterwards, Congress can weigh in on the deal that the President brings back.

The problem is the White House is negotiating something that sucks for the US, Israel, and the rest of the world.

Obama is not a dictator. He has continuously bypassed Congress, yet cries like a little girl when Congress decides to get involved anyway.

 

[CMike]

1980-1988
Iran–Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can't show that the US gave Iraq chemical weapons. The reason for that is because they didn't.

 

[CMike]

Negotiating with Iran isn't bypassing Congress. Refusing to place said negotiations in front of the Senate for advice on ratification would be, and at that point I'd be on the side of these Republicans, but not before.

They should be working within their own government, not outside it.

As for an open letter being illegal, I'd refer you to the Logan Act. I don't see it being invoked in this case (or any other) but it does suggest there are some legal issues with their actions.

(Hence I said 'at worst illegal' rather than straight out lawbreaking.)

Show what part says that Congress can't send a letter to Iran please?

 

[CMike]

Iran getting their hands on that sweet sweet nuke is part of a deterrent strategy, nothing more. This is even recognized by the pentagon. No Iranian with half an ounce of sense would be stupid enough to threaten, let alone use, a nuclear weapon on anyone. It's not hard to imagine the consequences.

What about the people who flew into the twin towers? Is that rational? They died too.

I think the bigger danger is that Iran will give a nuke to one of it's proxies such as Al Qaida to use against the US, the great Satan.