The Republicans' letter to Iran

[Nice Squirrel]

Yes this letter will not have the effect they thought it would. Dumb move.

 

[KeepTalking]

Yes this letter will not have the effect they thought it would. Dumb move.

That implies that there was any thought to the letter other than, "Derp, Obummer's baaaad!"

 

[ksen]

*Obummer

 

[KeepTalking]

*Obummer

Fixed it, thanks!

 

[arkirk]

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?

It looks like blackness might be the issue though I feel there should be someone looking into the connection of these 47 Senators with the military industrial complex in terms of how they got into office. The republicans are definitely using Obama's blackness, but perhaps a greater motivation might be found elsewhere.

 

[marc]

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?

It looks like blackness might be the issue though I feel there should be someone looking into the connection of these 47 Senators with the military industrial complex in terms of how they got into office. The republicans are definitely using Obama's blackness, but perhaps a greater motivation might be found elsewhere.

well the guy who wrote the letter is already meeting with defense lobbyists. Raw Story

 

[arkirk]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/10/heres-a-list-of-the-gop-senators-who-signed-the-iran-letter/

It is just the usual cast of Republican warmongers.

 

[maxparrish]

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

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

The only delusion is the gullible and repeated mouthings of an old and debunked talking point; one originally made to serve other ends than honoring the truth. The "herbivorous" Ari Fleischer made a pretty innocuous comment, and when read in context is about as "threatening" as any reminder to mindful of uncivil and offense rhetoric - you know, the kind that Obama constantly lectures that we should not be doing and some find threatening: "The future must not belong to those who would slander the prophet Mohammed."

But, its not like we have not had REAL threats against those who express their opinion. Be reminded of:

- Obama White House officials who actually threatened Woodward for opposing the President, a "very senior person" at the White House who warned him in an email that he would "regret doing this," on the same day he criticized President Barack Obama over his role in the sequester.

- Jonathan Alter — who frequently appeared on MSNBC — noted "There is a kind of threatening tone that, from time to time — not all the time — comes out of these guys,” Alter has said that future White House press secretary Robert Gibbs (once) disinvited him from a dinner between Obama and the press corps. “I was told ‘Don’t come,’ in a fairly abusive e-mail,” he said. “[It] made what Gene Sperling wrote [to Woodward] look like patty-cake.”

- Lanny Davis, who served under President Bill Clinton as special counsel to the White House, who told Washington, D.C.’s WMAL that the Obama White House had threatened the Washington Times over his column, warning that the Times would suffer limited access to White House officials and might have its White House credentials revoked.

- The federal authorities who 'swept' the cellular, office and home telephone records of individual reporters and an editor; AP general office numbers in Washington, New York and Hartford, Conn.; and the main number for AP reporters covering Congress. AP called the Justice Department’s actions a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into newsgathering activities.

- The Justice Department spied extensively on Fox News reporter James Rosen in 2010, collecting his telephone records, tracking his movements in and out of the State Department and seizing two days of Rosen’s personal emails. And to do so, apparently Holder had to lie to a federal judge and falsely portray the issue.

- The new revelations of former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson, and the threats (and probably illegal intrusion) into her computer records.

Fortunately, we survived Ari Fleischer's Reign of Terror, no?

 

[arkirk]

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

The only delusion is the gullible and repeated mouthings of an old and debunked talking point; one originally made to serve other ends than honoring the truth. The "herbivorous" Ari Fleischer made a pretty innocuous comment, and when read in context is about as "threatening" as any reminder to mindful of uncivil and offense rhetoric - you know, the kind that Obama constantly lectures that we should not be doing and some find threatening: "The future must not belong to those who would slander the prophet Mohammed."

But, its not like we have not had REAL threats against those who express their opinion. Be reminded of:

- Obama White House officials who actually threatened Woodward for opposing the President, a "very senior person" at the White House who warned him in an email that he would "regret doing this," on the same day he criticized President Barack Obama over his role in the sequester.

- Jonathan Alter — who frequently appeared on MSNBC — noted "There is a kind of threatening tone that, from time to time — not all the time — comes out of these guys,” Alter has said that future White House press secretary Robert Gibbs (once) disinvited him from a dinner between Obama and the press corps. “I was told ‘Don’t come,’ in a fairly abusive e-mail,” he said. “[It] made what Gene Sperling wrote [to Woodward] look like patty-cake.”

- Lanny Davis, who served under President Bill Clinton as special counsel to the White House, who told Washington, D.C.’s WMAL that the Obama White House had threatened the Washington Times over his column, warning that the Times would suffer limited access to White House officials and might have its White House credentials revoked.

- The federal authorities who 'swept' the cellular, office and home telephone records of individual reporters and an editor; AP general office numbers in Washington, New York and Hartford, Conn.; and the main number for AP reporters covering Congress. AP called the Justice Department’s actions a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into newsgathering activities.

- The Justice Department spied extensively on Fox News reporter James Rosen in 2010, collecting his telephone records, tracking his movements in and out of the State Department and seizing two days of Rosen’s personal emails. And to do so, apparently Holder had to lie to a federal judge and falsely portray the issue.

- The new revelations of former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson, and the threats (and probably illegal intrusion) into her computer records.

Fortunately, we survived Ari Fleischer's Reign of Terror, no?

Se, Axulus, even you and me....we have some areas on which we agree. This white house is sneaky and so self defensive...I can take the self defense, but the sneakiness sucks in a country that is supposed to be a "democracy." Trying to maintain secrecy while prying into every critic's personal life is using position to defend cheating. They aren't taking down the fusion centers. If I weren't so insignificant, I would worry.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

The only delusion is the gullible and repeated mouthings of an old and debunked talking point; one originally made to serve other ends than honoring the truth. The "herbivorous" Ari Fleischer made a pretty innocuous comment, and when read in context is about as "threatening" as any reminder to mindful of uncivil and offense rhetoric - you know, the kind that Obama constantly lectures that we should not be doing and some find threatening: "The future must not belong to those who would slander the prophet Mohammed."

But, its not like we have not had REAL threats against those who express their opinion. Be reminded of:

- Obama White House officials who actually threatened Woodward for opposing the President, a "very senior person" at the White House who warned him in an email that he would "regret doing this," on the same day he criticized President Barack Obama over his role in the sequester.

- Jonathan Alter — who frequently appeared on MSNBC — noted "There is a kind of threatening tone that, from time to time — not all the time — comes out of these guys,” Alter has said that future White House press secretary Robert Gibbs (once) disinvited him from a dinner between Obama and the press corps. “I was told ‘Don’t come,’ in a fairly abusive e-mail,” he said. “[It] made what Gene Sperling wrote [to Woodward] look like patty-cake.”

- Lanny Davis, who served under President Bill Clinton as special counsel to the White House, who told Washington, D.C.’s WMAL that the Obama White House had threatened the Washington Times over his column, warning that the Times would suffer limited access to White House officials and might have its White House credentials revoked.

- The federal authorities who 'swept' the cellular, office and home telephone records of individual reporters and an editor; AP general office numbers in Washington, New York and Hartford, Conn.; and the main number for AP reporters covering Congress. AP called the Justice Department’s actions a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into newsgathering activities.

- The Justice Department spied extensively on Fox News reporter James Rosen in 2010, collecting his telephone records, tracking his movements in and out of the State Department and seizing two days of Rosen’s personal emails. And to do so, apparently Holder had to lie to a federal judge and falsely portray the issue.

- The new revelations of former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson, and the threats (and probably illegal intrusion) into her computer records.

Fortunately, we survived Ari Fleischer's Reign of Terror, no?

Goalpost Shifting on Orwellian Quotes for $1200 Alex.

The W Adminstration lied the nation in to a $750 billion war, that maimed/killed 10,000 American Troops, killed over 100,000 Iraqis, and has created many problems now days in the Middle East. They fed lies directly to reporters about their propaganda. Leaked the identity of NOC-List CIA Agent in response to criticism of their propaganda, and with their media attacked anyone as anti-American for questioning the Administration...

...and you want to whine about what?

 

[jonatha]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/10/heres-a-list-of-the-gop-senators-who-signed-the-iran-letter/

It is just the usual cast of Republican warmongers.

Rand Paul (KY) signed it, and foreign interventions aren't really his schtick.

Thad Cochran (MS) didn't, and he nabbed a $220M helicopter contract last month.

 

[maxparrish]

#47Traitors

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.

What a load of hyperbolic nonsense. This 'terrible' letter laid out two simple facts that no one substantively disputes:

a) A reminder that only Congress can approve a treaty that is durable beyond the remainder of Obama's term. b) After Obama leaves, many members of Congress will remain in place.

In other words, the message is that Congress needs to be a part of the process.

Exactly what the Senators thought they would accomplish, other than expressing their unhappiness, is unclear. The letter's effect (even without the controversy) would be as likely to prompt a quick deal with Obama (to avoid the chances of a more hostile new administration and Congress) as it would to derail negotiations. Perhaps they thought Iran might actually demand a treaty version of the agreement?

But a dumb idea is not necessarily a 'traitorous' or 'evil' idea. And it certainly is not unprecedented or a violation of the Logan act (which, by the way, has nothing to do with treason).

By the way, 'the hardliners' are not our enemy, all of Iran is our enemy...which are those who currently run its government.

 

[ksen]

#47Buffoons

 

[arkirk]

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.

What a load of hyperbolic nonsense. This 'terrible' letter laid out two simple facts that no one substantively disputes:

a) A reminder that only Congress can approve a treaty that is durable beyond the remainder of Obama's term. b) After Obama leaves, many members of Congress will remain in place.

In other words, the message is that Congress needs to be a part of the process.

Exactly what the Senators thought they would accomplish, other than expressing their unhappiness, is unclear. The letter's effect (even without the controversy) would be as likely to prompt a quick deal with Obama (to avoid the chances of a more hostile new administration and Congress) as it would to derail negotiations. Perhaps they thought Iran might actually demand a treaty version of the agreement?

But a dumb idea is not necessarily a 'traitorous' or 'evil' idea. And it certainly is not unprecedented or a violation of the Logan act (which, by the way, has nothing to do with treason).

By the way, 'the hardliners' are not our enemy, all of Iran is our enemy...which are those who currently run its government.

I guess we don't actually agree very much. I have friends who live in Tehran. They are Armenians and that part of Tehran is Armenian. They have very little to do with the muslim bosses of the country and many feel terrible about what has happened to their country. Iran is a huge country with about 80 million people in it. When Americans visit Iran, they find that the people are generally warm and friendly...to Americans. There is repression in that country and periodically some of the repressed people escape from that country and relocate...usually to avoid their draft.

When you realize that all of this is going on in Iran, perhaps you can see that all of Iran is not our enemy...that in fact it is only a small fraction of the population that is as rigidly doctrinaire as the revolutionary guard and clergy are. We need to understand that Iran is a country sorely afflicted with a religious oligarchy and try our best to reduce Iranian fear of the west. I remind you that even Amadinajad made one of his first orders of business visiting the U.S. and the UN. While he was here he was ridiculed intensely and while much of the ridicule was aimed at beliefs that were his, we got nowhere bringing up things he would not or could not change. Now we have another approach from the leadership of this country seeking some sort of assurance we don't blow up all their cities. We need to do our best to make peace with these people and let their internal affairs work themselves out without violence...or at least with as little violence as possible. If we do the right thing with these people, perhaps we can avoid still another Iraq or Syria or Lebanon or etc. etc. etc. It does no good to fragment a population into fanatical factions and encourage things like ISIS from forming in still another country.

That is what I find wrong with this letter. It is the basis of considerations on the Iranian side that we cannot be trusted. This is no good for anybody. I would be profoundly pleased if all 47 signatories on this letter leave our government.

 

[maxparrish]

... We need to understand that Iran is a country sorely afflicted with a religious oligarchy and try our best to reduce Iranian fear of the west. ... It does no good to fragment a population into fanatical factions and encourage things like ISIS from forming in still another country.

That is what I find wrong with this letter. It is the basis of considerations on the Iranian side that we cannot be trusted. This is no good for anybody. I would be profoundly pleased if all 47 signatories on this letter leave our government.

You mean an honest letter that is factually correct, causes mistrust? Why, because the Obama administration has been making promises that it cannot keep? In other words, they have been lied to by Obama?

If being honest and reminding them that an agreement with Obama is not a legally binding document means "we can't be trusted", it also means that Obama must have mislead them.

Sure you want to go there?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I don't think we can get any meaningful agreement without applying more pressure.

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.

And look at how many millions died because the Soviets used those nukes as a shield against retaliation for their puppet wars.

Just because we've seen it before doesn't mean it wasn't a very bad thing.

- - - Updated - - -

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?"

You're not aware of the games Iran was playing with inspections??

- - - Updated - - -

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.

The problem is that he's going to make a worthless agreement that interferes with efforts to actually deal with the issue. Bad agreements are often worse than no agreements. Look at Kyoto for an example--it did nothing but postpone an actual solution.

 

[Axulus]

... We need to understand that Iran is a country sorely afflicted with a religious oligarchy and try our best to reduce Iranian fear of the west. ... It does no good to fragment a population into fanatical factions and encourage things like ISIS from forming in still another country.

That is what I find wrong with this letter. It is the basis of considerations on the Iranian side that we cannot be trusted. This is no good for anybody. I would be profoundly pleased if all 47 signatories on this letter leave our government.

You mean an honest letter that is factually correct, causes mistrust? Why, because the Obama administration has been making promises that it cannot keep? In other words, they have been lied to by Obama?

If being honest and reminding them that an agreement with Obama is not a legally binding document means "we can't be trusted", it also means that Obama must have mislead them.

Sure you want to go there?

It violates the norms of international law and diplomacy and violates past precedent from thousands of past agreements entered into by the US in a similar manner - the Republicans are effectively threatening to violate such norms because they think they can get away with it under domestic law. Exactly like the Iranian hardliners have always suspected and now have had confirmed for them by this disgusting move.

 

[ksen]

You mean an honest letter that is factually correct, causes mistrust? Why, because the Obama administration has been making promises that it cannot keep? In other words, they have been lied to by Obama?

What promises has Obama made that he can't keep?

If being honest and reminding them that an agreement with Obama is not a legally binding document means "we can't be trusted", it also means that Obama must have mislead them.

Apparently you don't know how these kinds of international agreements work. There is no "agreement with Obama" being negotiated.

Sure you want to go there?

I'd rather go to reality instead of talking about rightist delusions about how the nuclear negotiations work and what role congress has in them before any agreement has been reached.

 

[Axulus]

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.

I don't think we can get any meaningful agreement without applying more pressure.

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.

And look at how many millions died because the Soviets used those nukes as a shield against retaliation for their puppet wars.

Just because we've seen it before doesn't mean it wasn't a very bad thing.

- - - Updated - - -

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?"

You're not aware of the games Iran was playing with inspections??

- - - Updated - - -

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.

The problem is that he's going to make a worthless agreement that interferes with efforts to actually deal with the issue. Bad agreements are often worse than no agreements. Look at Kyoto for an example--it did nothing but postpone an actual solution.

Loren - if the Iranians violate any agreement that is agreed upon and take steps to try to obtain a nuke - we still have the option of bombing them and putting the sanctions back on. This agreement is an attempt to stop it without resorting to that. Why not give it a try? The agreement will obviously demand inspections from an international team. What games can they play that they can't already play right now without such additional inspections?

 

[ksen]

You mean an honest letter that is factually correct, causes mistrust? Why, because the Obama administration has been making promises that it cannot keep? In other words, they have been lied to by Obama?

If being honest and reminding them that an agreement with Obama is not a legally binding document means "we can't be trusted", it also means that Obama must have mislead them.

Sure you want to go there?

It violates the norms of international law and diplomacy and violates past precedent from thousands of past agreements entered into by the US in a similar manner - the Republicans are effectively threatening to violate such norms because they think they can get away with it under domestic law. Exactly like the Iranian hardliners have always suspected and now have had confirmed for them by this disgusting move.

Axulus, you and I aren't on the same side of a lot of issues so I just wanted to say that I appreciate your thoughts on this topic. There are some things we just have to take off our partisan blinders for and international relations should be one of them.

You have always struck me as an honest debater and not just out to score "gotcha" points against your opponents.