Iran Situation REALLY Heating Up

[Townsend]

I have been LOVING this story develop over the past 24 hours. Never before have I seen so many people calling the 47 senators "treasonous", but apparently being completely oblivious that our president is negotiating a nuclear deal with a state sponsor of terror. A country that kidnapped Americans for more than one year, and was implicated in helping the Taliban fight Americans. And I will spare the lengthy recitation of its involvement in international terrorism.

I didn't read treasonous.  Is that what your websites are saying?  "THE LIBERAL MEDIA IS CALLING THEM TREASONOUS!"

Explain the nuclear deal being negotiated and why it's being negotiated please.

In your opinion, should all diplomacy be cut off with Iran?  Should attempts at peaceful headway be made or should it be stopped?

[guido911]

I didn't read treasonous.  Is that what your websites are saying?  "THE LIBERAL MEDIA IS CALLING THEM TREASONOUS!"

Explain the nuclear deal being negotiated and why it's being negotiated please.

In your opinion, should all diplomacy be cut off with Iran?  Should attempts at peaceful headway be made or should it be stopped?

Come on. You seriously have not seen this hilarity?



Or read stuff like this:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/iran-letter-tom-cotton-gop/2015/03/10/id/629267/

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/10/chris-matthews-this-republican-senate-letter-to-iran-feels-seditious-to-me/

[Hoss]

I think 'treasonous' is notching up the rhetoric a little, in true Republican form...which is a little ironic and uncomfortable.

However, there has been talk about how this letter could be consistent with a violation of the Logan Act.

[Townsend]

Come on. You seriously have not seen this hilarity?


Or read stuff like this:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/iran-letter-tom-cotton-gop/2015/03/10/id/629267/

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/10/chris-matthews-this-republican-senate-letter-to-iran-feels-seditious-to-me/

What the Hell are you reading?

[guido911]

What the Hell are you reading?

NPR. That's what revived this thread.

[Townsend]

NPR. That's what revived this thread.

Oh good...for a minute there I thought you were damaging your brain.

Well read on, McDuff

[Ed W]

So is it better to negotiate with Iran before they acquire nukes, or should we wait until later?  There's  an interim agreement in place since 2013 limiting their enrichment capability and if we reach agreement on a new one, most of their stockpile will be sent to Russia. Or should we forego any attempt at negotiation and simply have another war in the Gulf? I'd  prefer that a treaty emerge from the talks, forcing Senate Republicans into a put up or shut up situation. That could still happen, but it's unlikely.

[guido911]

So is it better to negotiate with Iran before they acquire nukes, or should we wait until later?  There's  an interim agreement in place since 2013 limiting their enrichment capability and if we reach agreement on a new one, most of their stockpile will be sent to Russia. Or should we forego any attempt at negotiation and simply have another war in the Gulf? I'd  prefer that a treaty emerge from the talks, forcing Senate Republicans into a put up or shut up situation. That could still happen, but it's unlikely.

Ah. the "bad deal" is better than "no deal". Nice way to carry out a foreign policy with a country that wants to destroy Israel. And kills its opposition in the streets. And hangs gays. Hell, even stupid polling on the subject shows distrust. Iran is the number one world sponsor of terror, and you want to play "tee hee, let's corner the repubs" with a nuclear deal?

No way am I willing to bet the safety of my kids on trusting Iran, or for that matter this president's negotiations. Are you? 

[guido911]

Oh good...for a minute there I thought you were damaging your brain.

Well read on, McDuff

I get all my news from NPR. Obviously it is the most trustworthy and independent. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

I have been LOVING this story develop over the past 24 hours. Never before have I seen so many people calling the 47 senators "treasonous", but apparently being completely oblivious that our president is negotiating a nuclear deal with a state sponsor of terror. A country that kidnapped Americans for more than one year, and was implicated in helping the Taliban fight Americans. And I will spare the lengthy recitation of its involvement in international terrorism.

You mean like Japan.  And China.  And Russia.  All our good buddies now...

Would love to see the rationalization your people use to condemn the kidnapping of Americans as response to the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government that spawned that response - without condemning the overthrow that started it all.  Maybe there is a white paper on that??  

Just gotta wonder why the RWRE hates democratically elected governments so bad??  What is it their distorted world view sees that is so horrible in self-determination, liberty, and freedom??


And not just in Iran, but in many countries around the world.  I can provide a list, if you really want to go down that path...

[Ed W]

Guido, where does "no deal" lead other than to Iran developing nukes and delivery ststems sooner? In case you've  forgotten, the IAEA monitors and inspections actually prevented Iraq from developing nukes. They were effective and after the invasion and occupation of that country, we didn't  find any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Should we believe they'd  be less effective in Iran? And yes, I trust the safety of my family and every other American to this president. He's the commander-in-chief, and any rational person would want someone in that position who's reluctant to go to war.

[guido911]

Guido, where does "no deal" lead other than to Iran developing nukes and delivery ststems sooner? In case you've  forgotten, the IAEA monitors and inspections actually prevented Iraq from developing nukes. They were effective and after the invasion and occupation of that country, we didn't  find any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Should we believe they'd  be less effective in Iran? And yes, I trust the safety of my family and every other American to this president. He's the commander-in-chief, and any rational person would want someone in that position who's reluctant to go to war.

Oh that's right, the failure of this nuclear deal is going to be the straw that leads to war with Iran. Your hair is way on fire over that. As for Obama. He was right about the Arab spring, right about the JV ISIS, so I am sure he is right about a deal with Iran. And as a country, I think North Korea's nuclear program certainly was halted by Clinton's go-at-it-alone strategy.

Your trust in the IAEA seriously weakens your position on this. Here is some info from a very quick search on the reliability of IAEA. You can google "IAEA failures" as well as I can.

Finally, I support Israel's position on this, primarily because it has more than us to lose. Plus, they are far more familiar with the region than a community organizer from Chicago.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-27/iaea-refusal-to-visit-iran-site-flags-intelligence-doubts

[guido911]

Here's a different take on the 47 treasonous senators and whether their letter was correct...


http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/03/09/the-senators-are-right-on-iran/

It is despicable to listen to all the hand wringing and shouts of congressional interference with Obama's negotiations with Iran. I cannot think of a more anti-presidential congress than Reid and Pelosi while GWB was trying to carry out the Iraq war.

Here is an article from Greenwald, who gives a fairly balanced history of the "treason" accusations by both parties.

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

[Hoss]

I'll just leave this right here:

---------------------------------

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 US 304 - Supreme Court 1936

Not only, as we have shown, is the federal power over external affairs in origin and essential character different from that over internal affairs, but participation in the exercise of the power is significantly limited. In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude; and Congress itself is powerless to invade it. As Marshall said in his great argument of March 7, 1800, in the House of Representatives, "The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations." Annals, 6th Cong., col. 613. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations at a very early day in our history (February 15, 1816), reported to the Senate, among other things, as follows

"The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct he is responsible to the Constitution. The committee consider this responsibility the surest pledge for the faithful discharge of his duty. They think the interference of the Senate in the direction of foreign negotiations calculated to diminish that responsibility and thereby to impair the best security for the national safety. The nature of transactions with foreign nations, moreover, requires caution and unity of design, and their success frequently depends on secrecy and dispatch." U.S. Senate, Reports, Committee on Foreign Relations, vol. 8, p. 24."

So, while it may not be treasonous, the Logan Act (IMO) may still be in play here.

But let's not be foolish.  This will continue to be the do-nothing Congress v 2.0.  They (the majority party) care nothing of governance and everything about obstructionism as a weapon of partisanship.  Them inviting Bibi to a Joint Session of Congress didn't surprise me in the least.  Protocol means nothing to them.

Welcome to the fall of the Republican Party that I grew up with.  Unless they pull their heads out of their backsides.  Which I don't see happening.  I mean, didn't Governor Jindal say they needed to stop being the 'stupid party'?

The Governor evidently signed this letter this evening.  So much for that, I guess.

[guido911]

^^^Thanks again F. Lee.

And I just do not know how the GOP will ever get past not being the the party Hoss knew way back when-freakin-ever. Was it the party of Nixon he is pining for? The party of Reagan? And does anyone in this forum believe for a moment that Hoss has the slightest concern about the republicans, or that some event would prompt him to ever vote for one?

I digress. Maybe someone that speaks Whine-ese can help Hoss understand how what is happening right now with this letter is NOT freakin new:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/stewart-rips-fcking-cuckoo-republicans-dem-hypocrites-over-iran-letter/

Finally, I may be wrong, but John McCain signed this letter. So I guess he violated the Logan Act, and is a traitor to Obama just like veterans Tom Cotton, Lindsay Graham, Joni Ernst, Roger Wicker. And who knew our own senators were violators of the statute. That said, good to know these folks that wore the country's uniform are LESS loyal to this country than Obama. I mean, nothing demonstrates being more American than being a community organizer.

And as for the do-nothing Congress...

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/01/23/do-nothing-congress-no-more-2015-senate-amendments-pass-2014