The Republicans' letter to Iran

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Jon Stewart comments on this issue.

It gets very good at the 4 minute mark, and then really very good at the 4:45 mark.

 

[Frikki]

What are they delaying? Are you saying the time to start a war with them and drop the bombs on them was yesterday?

They're trying to drag out the efforts to stop their bomb program until they have a bomb.

So Loren are you going to sign up for this latest war that you are cheer leading?

 

[arkirk]

Jon Stewart comments on this issue.

It gets very good at the 4 minute mark, and then really very good at the 4:45 mark.

I think the closing remark was best....

 

[arkirk]

They're trying to drag out the efforts to stop their bomb program until they have a bomb.

So Loren are you going to sign up for this latest war that you are cheer leading?

And Loren: Considering how spiteful and narcissistic Netanyahu is, wouldn't it perhaps be best if we bargained with Iran with Israel's nuclear program. Now there's something that is DANGEROUS. In other words we could say, " Please don't make a bomb, Iran, and we will make Israel turn over theirs."

 

[laughing dog]

If you mean that under international law an agreement is considered binding, you may be correct. And while the 'norms' of international law in the real world is that they are constantly being violated by many nations (including by Iran) I am unclear if you are 'disgusted' because they threaten to violate international law, or if it is because you believe it to be offensive to the President's constitutional role.

I'm disgusted that the Republicans are threatening to make the US a non-credible actor in international negotiations by violating international norms and precedents, norms of which have been established over thousands of past agreements entered into by the United States over the past two centuries. The Republicans say they they can completely dismantle the agreement when a new president is elected - something that is unheard of in US foreign relations. This severely damages the US' credibility to negotiate and therefore damages our future ability to obtain international cooperation and agreements.

I'm also disgusted that, by making such a threat, they are confirming what the Iranian hardliners suspect: the US can not be trusted and will violate its agreements, and therefore a country should not make an agreement with the US. This move pushes some that are on the fence into the hardliner camp, and for legitimate reasons stated right on the letter signed by the Republicans.

Again, I am unaware that US habits of usually letting agreements stand ties the nation to inviolable 'norms and precedents', especially when we have often failed to meet the terms of such agreements, and give fair notice that the nation reserves the right to change its mind. More importantly, one or both of you seem to be trapped in a rhetorical characterization of the law and the players that has mangled your understanding of the issue, and badly crippled a reasoned perspective - so much so that while fuming against the Senators possibly giving comfort to hardliners out of power, you are blinded to other perspective, that Obama may actually be giving aid and comfort to the hardliners in power.

SimpleDon's statement, and Ksen's rhetoric about 'precedent' and 'norm' is similar to the view of the Iranian hardliner enemy in power; that if the next administration revokes any agreement it will be binding and ignoring it would be a violation of international law. But as international law legal experts, Goldsmith and Lederman, recently wrote it pre-judges whether any Executive agreement will, in fact, be binding under I.Law. http://justsecurity.org/20963/case-...ikely-nonbinding-agreement-international-law/

Both they, and Kerry says it will not be binding. Kerry recently testified to that effect, and it was confirmed by Jen Psaki - the deal with Iran wouldn’t be legally binding. It will be a “political commitment,” and she described the prospective deal as “a nonbinding international arrangement, to be signed (if it is signed) by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, Russia, Germany, and Iran,” in which Iran will make “verifiable and enforceable commitments to adhere to . . . limits.” In short, it is a non-binding political commitment between Obama and Khamenei.

And as a political commitment a deal with Iran is no more binding than the Paris Peace Accords was binding on the Democratic Senators and House of 1975. When Congress cut all aid to the South Vietnamese government to encourage their collapse, it reminded Ford that the executive agreement reached by Nixon to protect South Vietnam was not binding on them. The same for the unconsented Kyoto Protocols (whose goals the US did not meet) or the recent agreement with China to cut emissions by a certain amount.

So Congress was spot on, and unlike what the Democrats did to South Vietnam, the open letter is very upfront in preventing any misunderstandings (which apparently they have).

You two have faith that this is going to be a great deal and look upon any opposition as 'disgusting' - I don't. I consider the prospect of a weak and misleading deal far more disgusting.

That is our disagreement.

You're right. It is not a treaty. It is just a political agreement like Reagan's nuclear executive agreement with China and his hostage deal with Iran. Back then, the partisan bullshit was flung from the Democrats. Now, it is flung from the Republicans. But make no mistake: it is partisan bullshit.

 

[semiopen]

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't actually study this link, but

Lt. Col. Joni Ernst broke the law by signing the seditious letter to Iran.

Be thankful that you did not, it does not even pass the laugh test. It's just an old lefty rhetorical ploy ("you're insulting our President"...your speaking sedation, yada yada); its the reemergence of a variation of the histrionic "how dare you question our patriotism" ritual. Give them a week, they will be disinterring Murtha and wheeling the corpse around, protesting 'the war heroes demeaning' treatment by Bush.

Maybe its time they organize a second funeral pep rally for Wellstone?

Here is another person who apparently doesn't have your "nothing to see here" outlook.

Retired Army Major General Picks Apart Tom Cotton and His Letter

“I would use the word mutinous. I do not believe these senators were trying to sell out America. I do believe they defied the chain of command in what could be construed as an illegal act”.

Eaton, who trained Iraqi forces from 2003 to 2004, and is now a senior advisor to VoteVets.org said this in closing: “I expect better from the men and women who wore the uniform”.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They're trying to drag out the efforts to stop their bomb program until they have a bomb.

And what would stop them from getting the bomb if we were not engaged in such efforts?

I'm not sure what it will take.

- - - Updated - - -

They're trying to drag out the efforts to stop their bomb program until they have a bomb.

So Loren are you going to sign up for this latest war that you are cheer leading?

Fighting the fire is risky so you favor letting the city burn?

 

[arkirk]

And what would stop them from getting the bomb if we were not engaged in such efforts?

I'm not sure what it will take.

- - - Updated - - -

They're trying to drag out the efforts to stop their bomb program until they have a bomb.

So Loren are you going to sign up for this latest war that you are cheer leading?

Fighting the fire is risky so you favor letting the city burn?

What on earth are you talking about. This is a multi-national effort and YOU don't know the details before they are lined out in negotiations. There's a lot wrong with Iran. There is at least that much wrong with us, but we need to settle this nuclear threat problem with a diplomatic solution or accept that all people will always be threatened with nuclear bombs. Even Reagan wanted to see this threat end. You seem to be a nuclear power advocate too. As long as there is going to be nuclear power, there is going to have to be agreement on nuclear weapons or we will perennially live in the shadow of nuclear war. Does it irk you that even black people and Persian clerical dictators can recognize that this threat needs to be ended? Deciding to end it does not mean deciding to "let the city burn."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not sure what it will take.

- - - Updated - - -

They're trying to drag out the efforts to stop their bomb program until they have a bomb.

So Loren are you going to sign up for this latest war that you are cheer leading?

Fighting the fire is risky so you favor letting the city burn?

What on earth are you talking about. This is a multi-national effort and YOU don't know the details before they are lined out in negotiations. There's a lot wrong with Iran. There is at least that much wrong with us, but we need to settle this nuclear threat problem with a diplomatic solution or accept that all people will always be threatened with nuclear bombs. Even Reagan wanted to see this threat end. You seem to be a nuclear power advocate too. As long as there is going to be nuclear power, there is going to have to be agreement on nuclear weapons or we will perennially live in the shadow of nuclear war. Does it irk you that even black people and Persian clerical dictators can recognize that this threat needs to be ended? Deciding to end it does not mean deciding to "let the city burn."

You're arguing that because stopping them is hazardous we shouldn't--while totally ignoring the risks of not stopping them.

 

[arkirk]

I'm not sure what it will take.

- - - Updated - - -

They're trying to drag out the efforts to stop their bomb program until they have a bomb.

So Loren are you going to sign up for this latest war that you are cheer leading?

Fighting the fire is risky so you favor letting the city burn?

What on earth are you talking about. This is a multi-national effort and YOU don't know the details before they are lined out in negotiations. There's a lot wrong with Iran. There is at least that much wrong with us, but we need to settle this nuclear threat problem with a diplomatic solution or accept that all people will always be threatened with nuclear bombs. Even Reagan wanted to see this threat end. You seem to be a nuclear power advocate too. As long as there is going to be nuclear power, there is going to have to be agreement on nuclear weapons or we will perennially live in the shadow of nuclear war. Does it irk you that even black people and Persian clerical dictators can recognize that this threat needs to be ended? Deciding to end it does not mean deciding to "let the city burn."

You're arguing that because stopping them is hazardous we shouldn't--while totally ignoring the risks of not stopping them.

How do you know they are doing anything anyway. Our CIA doesn't seem to know that. You are just assuming that because they are Persian Muslims, they are building a bomb to kill you. That is just plain crazy. We have no reports that bombs are even in the works in Iran. These talks and the subsequent agreement to come out of these talks could be the kind of stop we need to keep Netanyahu from starting a nuclear war in the region. The agreement talks will cover inspections etc. etc. in Iran. What do you want? The Ayatolah's head on a platter?

 

[Frikki]

I'm not sure what it will take.

- - - Updated - - -

They're trying to drag out the efforts to stop their bomb program until they have a bomb.

So Loren are you going to sign up for this latest war that you are cheer leading?

Fighting the fire is risky so you favor letting the city burn?

What on earth are you talking about. This is a multi-national effort and YOU don't know the details before they are lined out in negotiations. There's a lot wrong with Iran. There is at least that much wrong with us, but we need to settle this nuclear threat problem with a diplomatic solution or accept that all people will always be threatened with nuclear bombs. Even Reagan wanted to see this threat end. You seem to be a nuclear power advocate too. As long as there is going to be nuclear power, there is going to have to be agreement on nuclear weapons or we will perennially live in the shadow of nuclear war. Does it irk you that even black people and Persian clerical dictators can recognize that this threat needs to be ended? Deciding to end it does not mean deciding to "let the city burn."

You're arguing that because stopping them is hazardous we shouldn't--while totally ignoring the risks of not stopping them.

So are you going to be in the line of fire?

 

[Ford]

I'm not sure what it will take.

- - - Updated - - -

They're trying to drag out the efforts to stop their bomb program until they have a bomb.

So Loren are you going to sign up for this latest war that you are cheer leading?

Fighting the fire is risky so you favor letting the city burn?

What on earth are you talking about.

He's saying that if we don't do something now about Iraq's Iran's weapons of mass destruction, the result could be a mushroom cloud in New York Tel Aviv.

 

[arkirk]

I'm not sure what it will take.

- - - Updated - - -

They're trying to drag out the efforts to stop their bomb program until they have a bomb.

So Loren are you going to sign up for this latest war that you are cheer leading?

Fighting the fire is risky so you favor letting the city burn?

What on earth are you talking about.

He's saying that if we don't do something now about Iraq's Iran's weapons of mass destruction, the result could be a mushroom cloud in New York Tel Aviv.

Maybe he is Bush in disguise. It sounds like Loren wants war. Maybe he can clarify how to STOP THEM can mean anything but military intervention. It is strange because even the CIA says the Iranians are not doing the things necessary to make a bomb, yet here we have the same chorus of characters beating the drum for war...another war over nothing at all.

 

[maxparrish]

- - - Updated - - -

Be thankful that you did not, it does not even pass the laugh test. It's just an old lefty rhetorical ploy ("you're insulting our President"...your speaking sedation, yada yada); its the reemergence of a variation of the histrionic "how dare you question our patriotism" ritual. Give them a week, they will be disinterring Murtha and wheeling the corpse around, protesting 'the war heroes demeaning' treatment by Bush.

Maybe its time they organize a second funeral pep rally for Wellstone?

Here is another person who apparently doesn't have your "nothing to see here" outlook.

Retired Army Major General Picks Apart Tom Cotton and His Letter

“I would use the word mutinous. I do not believe these senators were trying to sell out America. I do believe they defied the chain of command in what could be construed as an illegal act”.

Eaton, who trained Iraqi forces from 2003 to 2004, and is now a senior advisor to VoteVets.org said this in closing: “I expect better from the men and women who wore the uniform”.

There are two kinds of pinheaded critics of the letter; one kind are those leftists who are offended that anyone would defy their Obama and openly fight the imposition his "plan"; the other are those dinosaurs that don't get that there 1940s and 50s view of unconditionally supporting the President in his international efforts is dead, it having expired somewhere between the Bay of Pigs and the end of the Vietnam war.

It seems Eaton is both, a well-known 'go-to' guy for a quote for the partisan left. Eaton, who freely criticized his "commander in Chief's" strategy on Iraq in 2007 (and asked Congress to do something about it) is labeling Tom Cotton as "mutinous" and violating the chain of command. Those comments are so stupid, one has to wonder if it is a case of a persona warped by too many years of saluting to rank or if it is just the thoughtless and mawkish emotions of an aged brain.

Eaton is oblivious to the fact that Senator Cotton and Senator McCain are, well, Senators. They are not in the military and sworn to obey a ranking "dear leader". Nor are they sworn to obey Mitch McConnell, by the way. If Eaton dreams of the Commander-in-Chief imposing military style "discipline" on those "mutinous" Senators the fellow needs a repeat of high school civics (or medical help).

This is the guy of 2007 (before joining Hillary's campaign): http://thinkprogress.org/security/2007/03/10/10969/eaton-military/

“We are in the midst of recovering right now from a constitutional crisis where you had the executive trump the other branches of government,” Eaton said. “Thank god” Congress changed hands in November, he said, giving us “a chance to unsort and figure out how to get out from under this.”

Eaton lamented that so many service members believe that conservatives “are good for the military.” “That is rarely the case. And we have got to get a message through to every soldier, every family member, every friend of soldier,” that the Bush administration and its allies in Congress have “absolutely been the worst thing that’s happened to the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps.”

Sounds like mutinous words (by Easton's definition) to me - wonder if he expects better from himself before lecturing John McCain?

 

[untermensche]

Maybe he is Bush in disguise. It sounds like Loren wants war. Maybe he can clarify how to STOP THEM can mean anything but military intervention. It is strange because even the CIA says the Iranians are not doing the things necessary to make a bomb, yet here we have the same chorus of characters beating the drum for war...another war over nothing at all.

The goal still should be to not have any more nations with nuclear weapons.

But threats and attacks will just make the Iranians seek a nuclear weapon harder.

Engagement, stopping the constant threats from the US and Israel, and helping Iran with nuclear power will make them seek one less.

 

[NobleSavage]

What is a good word for "something similar that happened before?" I'd like to say, "antecedent", but that implies relationship. For now, let's just go with "historical Déjà vu."

The historical Déjà vu this incident has kicked up around the internet is interesting. There is 16 pages here, has anyone mentioned Ted Kennedy?

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/te...eagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

 

[bilby]

What is a good word for "something similar that happened before?" I'd like to say, "antecedent", but that implies relationship.

Precedent?

 

[NobleSavage]

What is a good word for "something similar that happened before?" I'd like to say, "antecedent", but that implies relationship.

Precedent?

Makes me think of law, but yeah, that works if you say, "bad precedent."

 

[untermensche]

When President Reagan chose to confront the Soviet Union, calling it the evil empire that it was, Sen. Edward Kennedy chose to offer aid and comfort to General Secretary Andropov. On the Cold War, the greatest issue of his lifetime, Kennedy got it wrong.

Reagan was a dangerous moron. We are lucky we survived his stupidity.

His insane rhetoric about the Soviet Union could have easily resulted in a more hostile Soviet Union.

We can thank Gorbachev not Reagan it didn't happen.

The Soviet Union broke up in spite of Reagan's delusional ideas not because of them.

 

[bilby]

Precedent?

Makes me think of law, but yeah, that works if you say, "bad precedent."

The lawyers use the word more than most; but they do not own it.

F M Cornford's Principle of the Dangerous Precedent is that "You should not now do an admittedly right action, for fear that you, or your equally timid successors, should not have the courage to do right in some future case, which, ex hypothesi, is essentially different, but superficially resembles the present one. Every public action which is not customary, either is wrong, or, if it is right, is a dangerous precedent. It follows that nothing should ever be done for the first time". (From Microcosmographia Academica _[PDF])