The Republicans' letter to Iran

[dismal]

Yes, I certainly don't recall any of the Democrats ever criticizing Bush's Iraq war policies.

did they write letter's to saddam telling him not to worry because the next president could reverse everything?

So the big problem was it was an open letter instead of an editorial in the New York Times? One is dissent at its most noble, free speech and apple pie while the other is treason?

If they had addressed their open letter to "To Whom it May Concern" instead of "The Mullahs in Iran" would you still want to lock them up for treason?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, I certainly don't recall any of the Democrats ever criticizing Bush's Iraq war policies.

No words... should have sent a poet.

 

[maxparrish]

Yes, I certainly don't recall any of the Democrats ever criticizing Bush's Iraq war policies.

did they write letter's to saddam telling him not to worry because the next president could reverse everything?

And how would anyone know what Pelosi was saying about Bush's war policies? According to Higgins "Pelosi spoke with Syria, behind closed doors." Therefore we would only have her word "she did not contradict the W Administration" or say "you can't trust the US Government". But you can say that when it comes to "not stopping at the waters edge" she did "substantially the same thing.", except rather than writing an open letter she carried on with her own secret talks.

Arguable, secret talks by the house leader is worse violation of the Logan act (not better) than a letter. In fact, it sounds a lot worse...

Pelosi's actions from an Arab perspective (Amir Taheri):

Pelosi, the speaker of the US House of Representatives, describes her tour as a fact-finding exercise. But, judging by the substantial negotiations she engaged in, hers was a full-fledged diplomatic mission. At least, this is how most Arabs see it.

“She is the friendly face of America,” says a senior Syrian official. “Where Condi frowns, Nancy smiles.”

Ms. Pelosi was specially feted in Damascus, capital of Syria, the oldest member of the club of “nations sponsoring international terrorism”, according to Washington.

“Her visit was a godsend to an isolated and beleaguered regime,” says a Lebanese minister. “The Syrian regime, which had been thinking of bowing to international pressure, is now reassured. All it has to do is to wait until Pelosi’s party takes over the White House in 2009.”

The Pelosi mission confirms the analysis made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic that the United States is incapable of developing and implementing a long-term strategy. According to this analysis, the US is like a fickle monarch who might wake up one morning and decide to do the exact opposite of what he had been doing for years.

http://www.arabnews.com/node/296893

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

did they write letter's to saddam telling him not to worry because the next president could reverse everything?

How would anyone know? According to Higgins "Pelosi spoke with Syria, behind closed doors." Therefore we would only have her word "she did not contradict the W Administration" or "you can't trust the US Government". But you can say that when it comes to "not stopping at the waters edge" she did "substantially the same thing.", except rather than writing an open letter she carried on with her own secret talks.

Great point! We don't know what she said, so you know what she said.

Arguable, secret talks by the house leader is worse violation of the Logan act (not better) than a letter. In fact, it sounds a lot worse...

Were we in talks with Syria over a deal or Treaty at the time? I mean other than using Syria as a place to torture people.

Pelosi's actions from an Arab perspective (Amir Taheri):

Pelosi, the speaker of the US House of Representatives, describes her tour as a fact-finding exercise. But, judging by the substantial negotiations she engaged in, hers was a full-fledged diplomatic mission. At least, this is how most Arabs see it.

“She is the friendly face of America,” says a senior Syrian official. “Where Condi frowns, Nancy smiles.”

Ms. Pelosi was specially feted in Damascus, capital of Syria, the oldest member of the club of “nations sponsoring international terrorism”, according to Washington.

“Her visit was a godsend to an isolated and beleaguered regime,” says a Lebanese minister. “The Syrian regime, which had been thinking of bowing to international pressure, is now reassured. All it has to do is to wait until Pelosi’s party takes over the White House in 2009.”

The Pelosi mission confirms the analysis made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic that the United States is incapable of developing and implementing a long-term strategy. According to this analysis, the US is like a fickle monarch who might wake up one morning and decide to do the exact opposite of what he had been doing for years.

http://www.arabnews.com/node/296893

Yup! When the right-wing needs a source, they'll go straight to Ahmadinejad.

 

[ksen]

@max, I can't imagine you were ok with Pelosi doing that or the "Dear Commandate" letter but maybe you were ok with them and so are ok with the Iran letter too. But I suspect you weren't ok with them and you are ok with the Republicans doing this as some sort of schoolyard get even scheme.

 

[maxparrish]

How would anyone know? According to Higgins "Pelosi spoke with Syria, behind closed doors." Therefore we would only have her word "she did not contradict the W Administration" or "you can't trust the US Government". But you can say that when it comes to "not stopping at the waters edge" she did "substantially the same thing.", except rather than writing an open letter she carried on with her own secret talks.

Great point! We don't know what she said, so you know what she said.

Arguable, secret talks by the house leader is worse violation of the Logan act (not better) than a letter. In fact, it sounds a lot worse...

Were we in talks with Syria over a deal or Treaty at the time? I mean other than using Syria as a place to torture people.

No, we were in the midst of a bitter national debate over the war in Iraq AND Pelosi trying to direct foreign policy by sponsoring her withdrawal bill, with Bush vowing to veto it. Do you honestly think she went there to convey (as she later claimed) to “President Assad that even though we have our differences in the United States, there is no division between the president and the Congress and the Democrats on the message we wanted him to receive.”

LOL...

 

[laughing dog]

Criticizing a deal without knowing the specifics and expecting to be taken seriously is amazingly arrogant.

 

[SimpleDon]

I do think that this act applies to Republicans. The most balant violation of it in my memory was when Reagan's campaign people negotiated with the Iranians to keep the embassy hostages until he was elected to prevent an October surprise that might get Carter re-elected. In return the Iranians got arms for the hostages. Without question the start of our problems with terrorism, when they realized that we would negotiate with terrorists and they could gain something from us.

Historically it doesn't apply to anybody.

Unfortunately for the wise and benevolent left, we just don't have much history of locking up opposition leaders for engaging in speech not sanctioned by the Dear Leader.

We are talking about opposition leaders negotiating with terrorists to keep American hostages locked up for longer so that they can be traded for arms, a reversal of our previous stance that we don't negotiate with terrorists. And you believe that this is acceptable because it somehow fits into the narrow right-left, conservative-liberal balance that you use to judge the actions of people. Because it is an action by a right-conservative it is alright to violate the law?

Or is this truly a principled stand, that it is okay for people to violate laws that are not enforced? In which case I am sure that you were at the front of the line arguing that Clinton shouldn't be impeached for lying in a deposition?

 

[dismal]

Historically it doesn't apply to anybody.

Unfortunately for the wise and benevolent left, we just don't have much history of locking up opposition leaders for engaging in speech not sanctioned by the Dear Leader.

We are talking about opposition leaders negotiating with terrorists to keep American hostages locked up for longer so that they can be traded for arms, a reversal of our previous stance that we don't negotiate with terrorists. And you believe that this is acceptable because it somehow fits into the narrow right-left, conservative-liberal balance that you use to judge the actions of people. Because it is an action by a right-conservative it is alright to violate the law?

Or is this truly a principled stand, that it is okay for people to violate laws that are not enforced? In which case I am sure that you were at the front of the line arguing that Clinton shouldn't be impeached for lying in a deposition?

I thought we were talking about roughly half of our sitting senators expressing their opinion in an open letter.

And this law is not enforced because is blatantly unconstitutional and creepily fascist.

We don't lock up opposition leaders for speech that disagrees with the Dear Leader in this country. As much as Progressives wish they could.

 

[Underseer]

1. The policy favored by Republicans is also the policy favored by Iranian hardliners. If this surprises you, then you haven't been paying attention.
2. Can you imagine the mainstream media uproar if Democrats did this to a Republican president?

 

[maxparrish]

@max, I can't imagine you were ok with Pelosi doing that or the "Dear Commandate" letter but maybe you were ok with them and so are ok with the Iran letter too. But I suspect you weren't ok with them and you are ok with the Republicans doing this as some sort of schoolyard get even scheme.

To the contrary, I'd prefer both partys respect the Constitution. None the less, you can't play keep playing by the rules of baseball when the opposition plays football. At some point you realize that you are a patsy if you think that the President and his agencies are going to respect the separation of powers, and they will continue to grow more egregious as long as there is no pushback.

Obama pledged that he is not going to let the Senate to play their constitutional role in consenting to a major international agreement, he has refused to faithfully execute immigration law, he did not comply with the law on the Bergdahl trade, dodged the AUMF in Libya, and essentially rewritten portions of ACA, forcing the Republicans to file suit. And when Congress did not pass legislation for climate change, he ordered the EPA to 'create' law (rules) to impose without Congressional approval (and over their opposition).

And all the while he has bullied "independent agencies" (FCC), demeaned SCOTUS in SOU speech, and constantly threatened he "has a phone and pen" that will, essentially, make law for Congress when it does not do as he pleases.

His constant threats, jabs, and expressed ill-will to Congress and others who oppose him has sown the immense desire for pushback - and now that Congress does so with a little letter all you hear is "traitors" and other such nonsense. Obama's provocations and lack of respect have reached a limit for some, and he has only himself to blame.

 

[ksen]

@max, I can't imagine you were ok with Pelosi doing that or the "Dear Commandate" letter but maybe you were ok with them and so are ok with the Iran letter too. But I suspect you weren't ok with them and you are ok with the Republicans doing this as some sort of schoolyard get even scheme.

To the contrary, I'd prefer both partys respect the Constitution. None the less, you can't play keep playing by the rules of baseball when the opposition plays football. At some point you realize that you are a patsy if you think that the President and his agencies are going to respect the separation of powers, and will continue to grow more egregious as long as there is no pushback.

Obama pledged that he is not going to let the Senate to play their constitutional role in consenting to a major international agreement, he has refused to faithfully execute immigration law, he did not comply with the law on the Bergdahl trade, dodged the AUMF in Libya, and essentially rewritten portions of ACA, forcing the Republicans to file suit. And when Congress did not pass legislation for climate change, he ordered the EPA do 'create' law (rules) to impose without Congressional approval.

And all the while he has bullied "independent agencies" (FCC), demeaned SCOTUS, and constantly threatened he "has a phone and pen" that can, essentially, make law when Congress does not do as he pleases.

His constant threats, jabs, and expressed ill-will to Congress and others who oppose him has sown the immense desire for pushback - and now that Congress does so with a letter you hear "traitors" and other such nonsense. Obama's provocations and lack of respect have reached a limit for some, and he has only himself to blame for this development.

A principled conservative would care that the constitution was being followed by his side and not resort to schoolyard payback. A constitutionalist would call his own party out if they did something unconstitutional.

At least you admit you are neither.

 

[dismal]

To the contrary, I'd prefer both partys respect the Constitution. None the less, you can't play keep playing by the rules of baseball when the opposition plays football. At some point you realize that you are a patsy if you think that the President and his agencies are going to respect the separation of powers, and will continue to grow more egregious as long as there is no pushback.

Obama pledged that he is not going to let the Senate to play their constitutional role in consenting to a major international agreement, he has refused to faithfully execute immigration law, he did not comply with the law on the Bergdahl trade, dodged the AUMF in Libya, and essentially rewritten portions of ACA, forcing the Republicans to file suit. And when Congress did not pass legislation for climate change, he ordered the EPA do 'create' law (rules) to impose without Congressional approval.

And all the while he has bullied "independent agencies" (FCC), demeaned SCOTUS, and constantly threatened he "has a phone and pen" that can, essentially, make law when Congress does not do as he pleases.

His constant threats, jabs, and expressed ill-will to Congress and others who oppose him has sown the immense desire for pushback - and now that Congress does so with a letter you hear "traitors" and other such nonsense. Obama's provocations and lack of respect have reached a limit for some, and he has only himself to blame for this development.

A principled conservative would care that the constitution was being followed by his side and not resort to schoolyard payback. A constitutionalist would call his own party out if they did something unconstitutional.

At least you admit you are neither.

What are you suggesting was done that was unconstitutional here?

I mean other than the voices who want to arrest sitting senators for speech.

 

[ksen]

A principled conservative would care that the constitution was being followed by his side and not resort to schoolyard payback. A constitutionalist would call his own party out if they did something unconstitutional.

At least you admit you are neither.

What are you suggesting was done that was unconstitutional here?

Congressmen interfering in foreign policy; an area where the president has plenary power.

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp

It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations -- a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress but which, of course, like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution. It is quite apparent that if, in the maintenance of our international relations, embarrassment -- perhaps serious embarrassment -- is to be avoided and success for our aims achieved, congressional legislation which is to be made effective through negotiation and inquiry within the international field must often accord to the President a degree of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction which would not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved.

 

[maxparrish]

To the contrary, I'd prefer both partys respect the Constitution. None the less, you can't play keep playing by the rules of baseball when the opposition plays football. At some point you realize that you are a patsy if you think that the President and his agencies are going to respect the separation of powers, and will continue to grow more egregious as long as there is no pushback.

Obama pledged that he is not going to let the Senate to play their constitutional role in consenting to a major international agreement, he has refused to faithfully execute immigration law, he did not comply with the law on the Bergdahl trade, dodged the AUMF in Libya, and essentially rewritten portions of ACA, forcing the Republicans to file suit. And when Congress did not pass legislation for climate change, he ordered the EPA do 'create' law (rules) to impose without Congressional approval.

And all the while he has bullied "independent agencies" (FCC), demeaned SCOTUS, and constantly threatened he "has a phone and pen" that can, essentially, make law when Congress does not do as he pleases.

His constant threats, jabs, and expressed ill-will to Congress and others who oppose him has sown the immense desire for pushback - and now that Congress does so with a letter you hear "traitors" and other such nonsense. Obama's provocations and lack of respect have reached a limit for some, and he has only himself to blame for this development.

A principled conservative would care that the constitution was being followed by his side and not resort to schoolyard payback. A constitutionalist would call his own party out if they did something unconstitutional.

At least you admit you are neither.

How telling - a principled anyone would care that the constitution was being followed by both sides, and not provoke a schoolyard fight that required pushback. At least you confirm your disinterest in folks being principled, unless they are conservative.

 

[arkirk]

Do you believe anybody in the history of the world has ever negotiated peace without betraying anybody. The way I see it, Obama is flying in the face of nuclear war advocates..and creepy republicans. How dare he care more about keeping the white house intact than the military industrial complex profits. When we get nuclear winter, they won't have anyplace nice to spend their ill gotten gains anyway. This shit from the Republicans needs to stop. Getting Obama is not that important. They seem to think a nice international conflict will help their side elect another incompetent Bush.

 

[SimpleDon]

I do think that this act applies to Republicans. The most balant violation of it in my memory was when Reagan's campaign people negotiated with the Iranians to keep the embassy hostages until he was elected to prevent an October surprise that might get Carter re-elected. In return the Iranians got arms for the hostages. Without question the start of our problems with terrorism, when they realized that we would negotiate with terrorists and they could gain something from us.

I think Nixon negotiating with N. Viet Nam behind Johnson's back and ending up prolonging the war by years is the topper.

Oh, that one hurts. I tried to avoid fighting in the Vietnam War by first, going into the Navy and second, letting the Navy send me to college "out of the fleet." It wasn't the Navy's war unless you were in the small boat navy, think Kerry, you were a medic for the Marines or you were a pilot or gib. And certainly the war couldn't last for four years more, could it? Well I ended up a pilot and I ended up fighting in it. Because of Nixon's search for peace with honor. His honor, my ass.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think Nixon negotiating with N. Viet Nam behind Johnson's back and ending up prolonging the war by years is the topper.

Oh, that one hurts. I tried to avoid fighting in the Vietnam War by first, going into the Navy and second, letting the Navy send me to college "out of the fleet." It wasn't the Navy's war unless you were in the small boat navy, think Kerry, you were a medic for the Marines or you were a pilot or gib. And certainly the war couldn't last for four years more, could it? Well I ended up a pilot and I ended up fighting in it. Because of Nixon's search for peace with honor. His honor, my ass.

Both my older brothers joined the navy thinking it would keep them out of the shit. One ended up as a medical corpsman in a marine unit and came home with a bullet hole in his leg. The other, I think, just got the clap a couple times.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Both sides are in the wrong here. This letter is despicable but Obama doesn't get it about the threat Iran poses, either.

 

[Ford]

Both sides are in the wrong here. This letter is despicable but Obama doesn't get it about the threat Iran poses, either.

No, Obama gets the threat, but has chosen to go with diplomacy rather than military confrontation.

The UK, Russia, China, France, and Germany apparently agree.

In fact I'd counter that Obama understands the threat far better than these grandstanding idiots and Bibi Netanyahu.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the threat has been wildly overblown.