The Republicans' letter to Iran

[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.

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.

The problem is that he's aiming for the best agreement he can get out of them--never mind that it's not going to actually work. Iran has already made agreements with holes in them, they'll just keep playing such games.

 

[Ford]

The problem is that he's aiming for the best agreement he can get out of them--never mind that it's not going to actually work. Iran has already made agreements with holes in them, they'll just keep playing such games.

Help me out here, o sage of diplomacy...is there any agreement you'd accept with Iran?

My guess is your answer will be "no," because like the GOP Senators you don't grasp the fact that sometimes the best agreement you can get is the only agreement you can get.

Will Iran play games? Of course. We did this over and over again with a country that was actually a threat and actually had nuclear weapons rather than just a desire to eventually have them maybe someday.


Or are you telling me you've forgotten completely about the Soviet Union?


I mean, if we can come to an agreement with a nation that is pointing tens of thousands of very real nuclear weapons at us (that we know they'll try to circumvent so there's that whole 'trust but verify' thing), then it stands to reason that we can come to an agreement with a nation that has - at this point - completely imaginary nuclear weapons.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

The problem is that he's aiming for the best agreement he can get out of them--never mind that it's not going to actually work. Iran has already made agreements with holes in them...

You play this card all the time in the Israel-Palestine threads. But this is Iran, not Palestine; how many times has IRAN actually violated an international agreement with its neighbors or, for that matter, with the west?

Let's put that another way: exactly what part of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty has Iran violated?

You're claiming that Iran can't be trust and is negotiating in bad faith. Do you have any examples of them having actually done this or is this just another episode of "The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim?"

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

All those Republican assclowns should be recognized for their display of duty, honor and country. Give them all a medal with the likeness of Jane Fonda.

 

[RavenSky]

A correction, this is a deal, not a treaty, so Senate oversight isn't as structured. Regardless, the Republican Party seems to think the Executive Branch has no power unless a Republican is in charge.

Is there even a deal yet for the Republicans to disagree with? Or is this a preemptive move, assuming that Obama can't negotiate a reasonable deal because of his blackness?

^^^ that. And even if we all politely pretend there is no racism involved, allowing a Democratic President to negotiate such an important world agreement would not bode well for the 2016 Republican presidential candidates.

I do think thatany hope (however far-fetched) of Rick Perry or Bobby Jindal in 2016 just got squashed by their stupid jumping on the band-wagon. They aren't members of the Senate. Even if one agrees with the letter, those two look like desparate tag-a-longs, not presidential leaders.

Can anyone name any current intelligent Republican?

And why isn't what these 48 (if you include Jindal) people did not insurrection? Serious question, not trying to be hyperbolic. They took active steps to contermand and undermine the Commander in Chief, and they have harmed the world standing of the USA in the process.

 

[RavenSky]

Oh, so you're ok with the "Dear Commandante letter" and Pelosi's trip to Syria?

I had forgotten about those until you mentioned them but I remember thinking those things weren't right to do at the time either.

Where either letter sent to foreign heads of state in an effort to undermine or end an active negotiation by the respective US Presidents?

 

[RavenSky]

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

"arrogant" isn't the word I would use "ignorant" maybe... if I am trying to remain polite.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Remember when you would get called unamerican and a traitor if you didnt support the president (Bush)? With us or against us, right?

 

[RavenSky]

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

Funny way to conflate two very different meanins of the word "wrong" to create a false equivalency.

The letter is despicable and ethically wrong, possibly even illegal.

You disagree with Obama's approach to nuclear arms control with Iran

Not the same things.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Exactly and very well said

 

[ksen]

Oh, so you're ok with the "Dear Commandante letter" and Pelosi's trip to Syria?

I had forgotten about those until you mentioned them but I remember thinking those things weren't right to do at the time either.

Where either letter sent to foreign heads of state in an effort to undermine or end an active negotiation by the respective US Presidents?

I don't remember the particulars but I do remember thinking, "hey, it's the president's job to deal with things like this not congress'".

 

[Keith&Co.]

and they have harmed the world standing of the USA in the process.

Sadly, i doubt they've actually harmed our world standing.

When the world sees the US as 47 mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging lip-reading clowns stumbling out of a clown car, adding a 48th clown to the proceedings doesn't suddenly make the others look silly.

 

[Rhea]

and they have harmed the world standing of the USA in the process.

Sadly, i doubt they've actually harmed our world standing.

When the world sees the US as 47 mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging lip-reading clowns stumbling out of a clown car, adding a 48th clown to the proceedings doesn't suddenly make the others look silly.

"lip reading"?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Remember when you would get called unamerican and a traitor if you didnt support the president (Bush)? With us or against us, right?

You mean like being accused of being paid off by Hussein? Being asked why I didn't love America? Or the White House Press Secretary saying: "There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is." (in reference to Bill Maher's comments)

I don't recall that at all.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sadly, i doubt they've actually harmed our world standing.

When the world sees the US as 47 mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging lip-reading clowns stumbling out of a clown car, adding a 48th clown to the proceedings doesn't suddenly make the others look silly.

"lip reading"?

That isn't possible, they are wearing pants.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

The problem is that he's aiming for the best agreement he can get out of them--never mind that it's not going to actually work. Iran has already made agreements with holes in them, they'll just keep playing such games.

Even if that is true, so what? Do you think no agreement will stop Iran? No one but Bibi and his dupes thinks Iran is terribly close to getting a nuclear weapon. Hell, Bibi claimed they were close in 1996. Even his own intelligence sources disagree with his bluster.

 

[maxparrish]

Remember when you would get called unamerican and a traitor if you didnt support the president (Bush)? With us or against us, right?

You mean like being accused of being paid off by Hussein? Being asked why I didn't love America? Or the White House Press Secretary saying: "There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is." (in reference to Bill Maher's comments)

I don't recall that at all.

It does have a Obama-ian ring to it, does it not? Who knew...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You mean like being accused of being paid off by Hussein? Being asked why I didn't love America? Or the White House Press Secretary saying: "There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is." (in reference to Bill Maher's comments)

I don't recall that at all.

It does have a Obama-ian ring to it, does it not? Who knew...

Yeah, that isn't even Moore-Coulter. That is delusional.

 

[ksen]

#47Traitors

 

[marc]

It does have a Obama-ian ring to it, does it not? Who knew...

Yeah, that isn't even Moore-Coulter. That is delusional.

It is absolutely an accurate comparison to the imaginary Obama that exists in the minds of many conservatives. The question for each conservative is, is their imaginary Obama due to their own delusion, or due to the propaganda given to them by others? (the others being either delusional or knowingly lying to manipulate those that listen to their BS)

 

[Axulus]

Remember when you would get called unamerican and a traitor if you didnt support the president (Bush)? With us or against us, right?

The letter went well beyond not supporting the president. It was essentially providing advice to the Iranians, trying to help them out by urging them to reject any deal offered by Obama's administration by declaring the deal unenforceable, thereby implying the US can't be trusted.

As Obama pointed out, this is the view of the hardliners in Iran, that the US is untrustworthy and no deal should be made with a country that will break its agreements. The hardliners in Iran just gained much more legitimacy as a result of this letter. If the goal of the letter was to empower Iranian hardliners, mission accomplished. This is why it is considered borderline treasonous by some; these Iranian hardliners are our enemies, not our allies.