Stuff Republicans say.

[Dirty Penguin]

Hmm, guess some of you have very short memories. By any chance do you recall Nancy Pelosi talking with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in 2007. Probably not since she is a Democrat and only Republicans can be in the wrong.
Pelosi meets with Syria’s Assad - World news - Mideast/N. Africa | NBC News

Is this anything like when McCain met with Syrian rebels? How is what she did remotely similar to what these 47senators did.They don't dictate foreign policy...at least not at this point in the discussions....so how is it that they didn't violate the Logan Act? They actually told the Iranian government something that is totally opposite as to what the administration is trying to do. Esmith..be honest...had 47 Democratic senators did this to a sitting Republican president you can't tell me you guys would have ignored this. You guys would be screaming "treason", calling for investigations and for them to resign. Just look at Benghazi. Nothing there but they're keeping it going hoping to find something...just one smoking gun....but this obvious breach of the seperation of powers you're willing to dismiss? Oh, and these guys aren't even ashamed at what they did. Marco Rubio double downed on it today and said he would do it again tomorrow if he had to....come one now...!!!!

 

[sun rise]

Hmm, guess some of you have very short memories. By any chance do you recall Nancy Pelosi talking with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in 2007. Probably not since she is a Democrat and only Republicans can be in the wrong.
Pelosi meets with Syria’s Assad - World news - Mideast/N. Africa | NBC News

Congressional delegations meet with people all the time and no one says anything Trade Delegation Arrives in Tokyo, Meets with Prime Minister Abe | House Committee on Ways & Means for example.

So, contrary to your "it's only republicans" we complain about, you should be able to see that what those 47 Senators did was qualitatively different and in fact gave aid and comfort to the Iranian hard liners. Discussing matters of mutual interest or reinforcing American policy is something quite different than first making a stupid and ignorant statement and second acting as if you are empowered to negotiate for the US which they are not by law and by the Constitution.

 

[sun rise]

Is this anything like when McCain met with Syrian rebels? How what she did remotely similar to what these 47senators did.They don't dictate foreign policy...at least not at this point in the discussions....so how is it that they didn't violate the Logan Act? They actually told the Iranian government something that is totally opposite as to what the administration is trying to do. Esmith..be honest...had 47 Democratic senators did this to a sitting Republican president you can't tell me you guys would have ignored this. You guys would be screaming "treason", calling for investigations and for them to resign. Just look at Benghazi. Nothing there but they're keeping it going hoping to find something...just one smoking gun....but this obvious breach of the seperation of powers you're willing to dismiss? Oh, and these guys aren't even ashamed at what they did. Marco Rubio double downed on it today and said he would do it again tomorrow if he had to....come one now...!!!!

Good point about McCain. And yes you're 100% correct about what would happen were the shoe on the other foot. These guys are making America look like a clown car circus and thus weakening the US. But given how much they hate President Obama, they'd rather see America go down the tubes in the eyes of the world.

 

[sun rise]

More commentary about the Republican idiocy. Of course some of them are now doubling down on their accomplishment to make the United States look like a failed state to the rest of the world, but that won't stop them. They've hated President Obama since day one. They made it their only goal to make him a one term President and failed. They tried to blackmail him with government shutdowns and so forth. Failure after failure except to turn me from someone who considered voting Republican to someone who is convinced that a Republican government would be an utter disaster for the United States which make take decades to recover from.

I do acknowledge that there are a few sensible Republicans as shown in the comments below. Not all of them have gone off the deep end. But too many have.

In wake of GOP letter to Iran, battle erupts over blame for dysfunction - The Washington Post

“If you are a country in the Middle East or Asia relying on Washington, this raises questions about America’s predictability,” said Richard Haass, who is president of the Council on Foreign Relations and served in the George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush administrations. “I hear this all the time. I just know it makes others around the world more uncomfortable and contributes to a more dangerous and disorderly world.”
...
Former senator Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), who previously served as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, described Cotton’s letter as “an unfortunate venture” and said he would have advised the freshman senator and Army veteran not to send it.

Others suggested that the belief that politics and partisanship “stop at the water’s edge” has always been more myth than reality but questioned the wisdom of the GOP letter.

“It is never a good idea for elected leaders to give foreigners, and especially foreign enemies, a formal invitation to join our domestic arguments,” said Phil Zelikow, who was a senior adviser to former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice. “It is not the conduct one would ordinarily expect from leaders of a great power.”
...
Democrats, meanwhile, pointed to the Cuban Missile Crisis, warning that it would have been unfathomable for Republicans to try to undercut President John F. Kennedy’s negotiations with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. “I cannot imagine the Congress writing a letter . . . in the midst of those discussions and saying: ‘Don’t worry about this guy Kennedy. He doesn’t speak for the country,’ ” said Sen. Angus King (I-Maine). “And yet that’s essentially what happened.”

 

[sun rise]

I just noticed that there's a White House Petition asking that the 47 Republicans be charged with violation of the Logan act. It already has many more signatures than it needs but you too can add yours if you so wish. After all, given how the Republicans wanted to impeach President Obama for something, it's only fair to put, as they say, the shoe on the other foot. I expect the President to say that there are no strong grounds to charge them but push has come to shove.

File charges against the 47 U.S. Senators in violation of The Logan Act in attempting to undermine a nuclear agreement. | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government

 

[Sunstone]

Hmm, guess some of you have very short memories. By any chance do you recall Nancy Pelosi talking with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in 2007. Probably not since she is a Democrat and only Republicans can be in the wrong.
Pelosi meets with Syria’s Assad - World news - Mideast/N. Africa | NBC News

I think you might be underestimating the effect this could have. Just like when you conservatives thought Romney would win while the rest of the country was clearly preparing to vote against him. Your little conservative bubble might blindside you yet again.

Or, perhaps you're right, and 47 senators nowadays can break the law without repercussions.

Time will tell.

 

[Revoltingest]

I just noticed that there's a White House Petition asking that the 47 Republicans be charged with violation of the Logan act. It already has many more signatures than it needs but you too can add yours if you so wish. After all, given how the Republicans wanted to impeach President Obama for something, it's only fair to put, as they say, the shoe on the other foot. I expect the President to say that there are no strong grounds to charge them but push has come to shove.
File charges against the 47 U.S. Senators in violation of The Logan Act in attempting to undermine a nuclear agreement. | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government

Tis mere posturing. Since the Logan act was made law (1799), there has been only one indictment (1803), & no prosecutions. There have been many opportunities (Hanoi Jane, George McGovern, Jesse Jackson, etc), but nothing of substance ever happens. Everyone knows this. Both parties will use it to make hay, but it's all just for show.

Note: I favor peaceful negotiations with Iran.

 

[metis]

The Logan Act, which has never been enforced in terms of a conviction, only applies when we're in a state of war, which technically we're not. However, the action of the 47 is truly despicable and will likely have ramifications that go well beyond just this event.

 

[Revoltingest]

The actual text....

§ 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.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What do you think about their latest stunt...?

It won't become the controversy that these laws Hilary allegedly broke over her email has become.

 

[sun rise]

Tis mere posturing. Since the Logan act was made law (1799), there has been only one indictment (1803), & no prosecutions. There have been many opportunities (Hanoi Jane, George McGovern, Jesse Jackson, etc), but nothing of substance ever happens. Everyone knows this. Both parties will use it to make hay, but it's all just for show.

Note: I favor peaceful negotiations with Iran.

Sure, there will no prosecution over this. And as I found out today, there was a serious issue between President Washington and Congress (Jefferson) over a treaty way back when.

But given how successful we've been stopping North Korea with sanctions, to think that we can stop Iran is lunacy at best. We can drop nukes on Iran, to be sure, and lose the rest of the world. Or we can send a million soldiers over there. Or start a total war between Iran and Israel. But unless we're willing to turn the world into a pyre, that's about it outside of an unsatisfactory deal. And to me, the Iranian Ayatollahs are no worse than the communist rulers and we dealt with the USSR and we should deal with Iran.

 

[sun rise]

It won't become the controversy that these laws Hilary allegedly broke over her email has become.

I'm not happy with Hillary and would love another choice.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, there will no prosecution over this. And as I found out today, there was a serious issue between President Washington and Congress (Jefferson) over a treaty way back when.

But given how successful we've been stopping North Korea with sanctions, to think that we can stop Iran is lunacy at best. We can drop nukes on Iran, to be sure, and lose the rest of the world. Or we can send a million soldiers over there. Or start a total war between Iran and Israel. But unless we're willing to turn the world into a pyre, that's about it outside of an unsatisfactory deal. And to me, the Iranian Ayatollahs are no worse than the communist rulers and we dealt with the USSR and we should deal with Iran.

Looking at the 2 governments, I say Iran is more amenable to negotiation than N Korea.
Moreover, Iran has the greater need for nuclear weapons, since it's been subject to more overt & covert military action by its foes. This points to the inevitability of their acquiring them. The only issues are how soon, & what threats do they perceive from their traditional foes, primarily the US, but also including our proxies, Iraq & Israel. To try to manage the inevitable is better than vainly trying to prevent it in a fashion which would make them more likely to use nukes.

 

[sun rise]

Looking at the 2 governments, I say Iran is more amenable to negotiation than N Korea.
Moreover, Iran has the greater need for nuclear weapons, since it's been subject to more overt & covert military action by its foes. This points to the inevitability of their acquiring them. The only issues are how soon, & what threats do they perceive from their traditional foes, primarily the US, but also including our proxies, Iraq & Israel. To try to manage the inevitable is better than vainly trying to prevent it in a fashion which would make them more likely to use nukes.

You, sir, are much too sensible. If I were you, I'd never go into Washington, D.C. You might catch a mental disorder there.

 

[metis]

Thje short of it is that if Iran gets nukes, the mindset of the leaders there are as such that they well are likely to use them. Even if not, the Saudis would be compelled to follow suit to get them, and then the "fun" really begins.

 

[sun rise]

Thje short of it is that if Iran gets nukes, the mindset of the leaders there are as such that they well are likely to use them. Even if not, the Saudis would be compelled to follow suit to get them, and then the "fun" really begins.

I see Iran much like the Soviet Union was - happy to stir up trouble especially with proxies but not really crazy enough to commit what would be suicide. They know or should know that Israel could and would obliterate them if they attacked Israel with nukes.

 

[metis]

I see Iran much like the Soviet Union was - happy to stir up trouble especially with proxies but not really crazy enough to commit what would be suicide. They know or should know that Israel could and would obliterate them if they attacked Israel with nukes.

But there's a big difference, namely that Iran is controlled by Shi'i imams that believe in the "12th Imam", which is an "end of times" belief. You might want to check this out, and even the Wiki article would suffice.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But there's a big difference, namely that Iran is controlled by Shi'i imams that believe in the "12th Imam", which is an "end of times" belief. You might want to check this out, and even the Wiki article would suffice.

That one doesn't concern me quite so much. America has been run by nuts who believe they are going to see the second coming of Christ before they die, and while this mentality is to blame for some problems, it doesn't seem to have caused problems with war. I look forward to some 21st century term for mutually assured destruction entering the political and public arena should Iran obtain nuclear weapons. I don't think there is any state that is actually crazy enough to use them because it will only be your own destruction, and under today's circumstances of many states having them, I don't even think Hitler could have convinced his higher ups to use it, because they would have known it would mean getting at least one back in return.

 

[Revoltingest]

But there's a big difference, namely that Iran is controlled by Shi'i imams that believe in the "12th Imam", which is an "end of times" belief. You might want to check this out, and even the Wiki article would suffice.

All of a country's politics are distilled to a "they believe in the <insert threat here>"?
Oh, there is danger in that.
One could say that Americastanian politicians & people believe in Armageddon & would hasten the prediction.
Israelis believe that they're "God's Chosen People" doomed to perennial victimhood.
And Revoltistanians eat bacon, thereby causing global warming.
If one is committed to pre-emptively attacking, crushing & neutralizing a country, then any of the above can be used as a pretext.
Let's hope such people are kept from political power.

 

[sun rise]

But there's a big difference, namely that Iran is controlled by Shi'i imams that believe in the "12th Imam", which is an "end of times" belief. You might want to check this out, and even the Wiki article would suffice.

Well, I believe we're living in what might be called the "end times" but I'm not going to start a war over it even if somehow I become a grand exalted pooh-bah. Every religion has some sort of end times beliefs. My favorite Jewish story that touches on this area is "Joseph della Reyna Storms Heaven" Article « A Treasury Of Jewish Folklore Edited By Nathan Ausubel « Commentary Magazine

There's a lot of sludge on the internet about the implications of the Shi'a end times belief and what someone is or is not supposed to do about it, but the actions of the Iranian leaders are what counts to me.

And, after all, back in the day President George W. Bush was accused of trying to precipitate the second coming.