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

[CMike]

Kerry stated he is negotiating a non binding agreement, which means the US will keep to it and not Iran.

 

[YmirGF]

Kerry stated he is negotiating a non binding agreement, which means the US will keep to it and not Iran.

No, it's code speak for "If you like your Nuclear program, you can keep it. Period!"

The beauty of such an agreement (for the Obama regime) is that neither Obama or Kerry will be around to have to clean up the mess this thing will create... and they know it... and don't care...

 

[Akivah]

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

Well, Obama is President of the USA, not President of Israel nor the rest of the world. So his negotiations should be for his country.

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

I'm a Republican and dislike Obama. However, I'm not going to assign blame to him for things that every President does. All Presidents have disagreements with Congress to varying degrees.

 

[CMike]

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

Well, Obama is President of the USA, not President of Israel nor the rest of the world. So his negotiations should be for his country.
.

I mentioned that it sucks for the US as well.

Iran helps support Al Qaida.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

 

[CMike]

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

The Congress has the authority of the United States, it's a co equal branch of government.

It is not "Private Correspondence".

 

[YmirGF]

The Congress has the authority of the United States, it's a co equal branch of government.

It is not "Private Correspondence".

DIng!

 

[Revoltingest]

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

I'm not privy to original documents, so I go by what appears to be undisputed info in the media....
United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

The Congress has the authority of the United States, it's a co equal branch of government.

It is not "Private Correspondence".

Give me a break...this was a minority group of senators. There are 535 members of Congress. By no means does that constitute US authority.

 

[CMike]

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

I'm not privy to original documents, so I go by what appears to be undisputed info in the media....
United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Same comment as above.

 

[CMike]

Give me a break...this was a minority group of senators. There are 535 members of Congress. By no means does that constitute US authority.

They were acting in their official jobs as congressmen.

There are 100 senators, so almost have of them signed it.

This wasn't "private correspondence."

It also wasn't private. It was an open letter.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The Congress has the authority of the United States, it's a co equal branch of government.

It is not "Private Correspondence".

C'mon now. Cotton wrote the letter based on a Senate recommendation? Just because he made it look official via the use of Senate letterhead doesn't make it so.

Surely you're simply following party lines with this line of reasoning.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

They were acting in their official jobs as congressmen.

There are 100 senators, so almost have of them signed it.

This wasn't "private correspondence."

If this letter was authorized by congress, or at least by its senators, then it must represent the overall collective will of its members. Obviously that is not the case, either with Congress as a whole or with the Senate alone. The majority of senators did not sign it. The only level of consensus for publishing this letter was at the senate party-level. Ah! Now it's making sense...This letter was not a result of senate collaboration; it was a result of Republican collaboration. They should have stamped it as Republican party correspondence. The likely reason they didn't is because then there'd be no question at all that it was not authorized by the US, even to people who stretch the credibility of others to the breaking point.

It also wasn't private. It was an open letter.

The letter was drafted and released in private. The fact that it's available publicly doesn't mean anything.

 

[YmirGF]

If this letter was authorized by congress, or at least by its senators, then it must represent the overall collective will of its members. Obviously that is not the case, either with Congress as a whole or with the Senate alone. The majority of senators did not sign it. The only level of consensus for publishing this letter was at the senate party-level. Ah! Now it's making sense...This letter was not a result of senate collaboration; it was a result of Republican collaboration. They should have stamped it as Republican party correspondence. The likely reason they didn't is because then there'd be no question at all that it was not authorized by the US, even to people who stretch the credibility of others to the breaking point.



The letter was drafted and released in private. The fact that it's available publicly doesn't mean anything.

This strikes me as ludicrous, on steroids.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

This strikes me as ludicrous, on steroids.

You're right...I guess I can't argue with that.

 

[YmirGF]

You're right...I guess I can't argue with that.

Don't get me too wrong, TurkeyOR, I'm not convinced that this was the best way for them to play this hand, but given the Obama regimes ineptitude in the foreign policy area an agreement drafted between the Administration and the Mullah's of Iran does not bode well. Again, I doubt that the leaders in Iran can barely stop laughing... especially when dealing with a "feather weight" like John Kerry, as if Hillary was not bad enough.

 

[metis]

It's bizarre that some are criticizing an agreement that not only is not in place, but we don't even know what it entails.

Oh, wait a minute, how could I forget that some on the right believe that anything Obama agrees upon is "inept" and that Kerry and Hillary are "featherweights". I betcha that some of these same critics voted for Bush, who screwed up by invading Iraq; supported McCain, who has never seen a war he didn't want to get into; and voted for Romney, whose foreign policy experience is limited to hiding his money in Cayman Island accounts.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Don't get me too wrong, TurkeyOR, I'm not convinced that this was the best way for them to play this hand, but given the Obama regimes ineptitude in the foreign policy area an agreement drafted between the Administration and the Mullah's of Iran does not bode well. Again, I doubt that the leaders in Iran can barely stop laughing... especially when dealing with a "feather weight" like John Kerry, as if Hillary was not bad enough.

If you got the impression that I support the deal, you'd be mistaken. I don't even know what the exact terms are or would be, so I really can't comment. I have gleaned some details based on what a few in the thread have said, but that's the extent of it. That aside, although I don't consider Iran's nuclear capabilities as a significant threat, I do support non-proliferation. Having said all that, I just don't see how anyone could possibly consider this letter as having US authority. And that's all I was saying. The real problem is not what the letter does to the foreign relations equation; you're right, they're probably laughing. However, it does create a precedent in the political process. And it's definitely not a good one. You're right, they could have played a better hand. A much better hand, and perhaps one that could have garnered more support.

 

[YmirGF]

If you got the impression that I support the deal, you'd be mistaken. I don't even know what the exact terms are or would be, so I really can't comment. I have gleaned some details based on what a few in the thread have said, but that's the extent of it. That aside, although I don't consider Iran's nuclear capabilities as a significant threat, I do support non-proliferation. Having said all that, I just don't see how anyone could possibly consider this letter as having US authority. And that's all I was saying. The real problem is not what the letter does to the foreign relations equation; you're right, they're probably laughing. However, it does create a precedent in the political process. And it's definitely not a good one.

I disagree. I think it show significant disagreement to the Holy Rollers ruling in Iran and that they should be very wary of signing any document with a president who is quickly moving into the lame duck portion of his presidency.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

I disagree. I think it show significant disagreement to the Holy Rollers ruling in Iran and that they should be very wary of signing any document with a president who is quickly moving into the lame duck portion of his presidency.

So, you don't like the way this hand was delt, but you are nevertheless satisfied with the results of the game. Is that what you're saying?