Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!

[Jroc]

The Senate approves treaties this would be a treaty plus anyone would put their complete confidence in Obama is seriously delusional

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes...the President's JOB is to negotiate....once that's been negotiated, the Senate's JOB is to ratify or not what he has negotiated.

The president's job is to negotiate ON BEHALF OF AMERICA - Obama is confused by this and continues to negotiate on behalf of the Caliphate.

 

[Penelope]

Interesting. I foresee Israel doing a false flag, and starting something, and the US will have to back them up. I for one think Iran has a right to do what it wants within the limits of the IAEA and P5+1 and if the Gops traitors don't like it too bad. No more sanctions either. I have never voted Dem. but I will vote a straight Dem ticket next time around I'm so sick of the Gop's behavior.

 

[blackhawk]

Given Iran"s history over the last 30 plus years what makes anyone think they will honor any deal they might sign?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View

A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.

Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.

“It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.

Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.

So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.

Back to the Bloomberg link:

It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.

The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.

Just to correct your ignorance, without Senate approval a treaty is not binding nor enforceable nor does it have the weight of the law. Again no Senate approval no treaty. Pretty simple concept, even for you to grasp.

[Art. 2, Sec. 2, Clause 2] "He shall have power, with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur". Of course no mention is made in the COTUS of crazy Ted Cruz, Rand Paul or Marco Rubio and their ambitions to out conservative each other.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Given Iran"s history over the last 30 plus years what makes anyone think they will honor any deal they might sign?

Given ours you can ask the very same...

 

[deltex1]

Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View

A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.

Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.

“It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.

Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.

So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.

Back to the Bloomberg link:

It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.

The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.

Da soupream chiken done come home to roost, bruh. Uppity president gets it uppity his ass.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Fortunately Congress can't force a war...

If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.

you have an error in your premise....well...more than one.

You are assuming the treaty is a good one...a treaty is a good one ONLY if both sides adhere to it. Exactly what gives you reason to believe Iran will adhere to it? Their past? Their open desire to destroy a sovereign nation? The fact that they fund terrorism? The fact that they moved quickly to meet the first deadline?

Secondly.....stricter sanctions...whats wrong with that?

I know..."sanctions don't work"...I get it.....but...."Iran adhering to a treaty will? Really?

They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.

First of all...these "talks" have been going on for a year. They ignored the first deadline. So they are one year closer to nuclear capability. By the time they no longer adhere to inspections...they will be that must closer to the objective...and if the objective was accomplished, military action will be hampered if not completely eliminated by the fear of them using that capability on an innocent country around them.

I don't think they have inspections now. That's what the treaty is for.

Exactly. What Obama is doing with the carrot and stick approach vis-a-vis Iran is a smart negotiating tactic, one I am quite sure Reagan, arguably the most anti-nuclear President we had, would use in this situation. Only, most Conservatives are either too stubborn, crazy or stupid to realize this.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.

you have an error in your premise....well...more than one.

You are assuming the treaty is a good one...a treaty is a good one ONLY if both sides adhere to it. Exactly what gives you reason to believe Iran will adhere to it? Their past? Their open desire to destroy a sovereign nation? The fact that they fund terrorism? The fact that they moved quickly to meet the first deadline?

Secondly.....stricter sanctions...whats wrong with that?

I know..."sanctions don't work"...I get it.....but...."Iran adhering to a treaty will? Really?

They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.

First of all...these "talks" have been going on for a year. They ignored the first deadline. So they are one year closer to nuclear capability. By the time they no longer adhere to inspections...they will be that must closer to the objective...and if the objective was accomplished, military action will be hampered if not completely eliminated by the fear of them using that capability on an innocent country around them.

I don't think they have inspections now. That's what the treaty is for.

it takes over a year to agree to inspections?

That in itself does not give you reason to believe Iran is intentionally delaying a treaty?

It took 3 years for Iraq to agree back in the day. ..

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

If the treaty is a good one it will be approved. If the treaty is a bad one obama won't let congress see it.

Iran saying that it either gets what they want or they will declare war isn't negotiation its extortion.

It's too complicated for democrats who just want to be told what to do and what will be done to them.

if he does not allow congress to see it, then the senate can not vote on it....and if they don't vote on it, it is meaningless and unconstitutional if he, the president, demands that the government and the people of the United States adhere to it.

And the next president can revoke it with a stroke of his pen. All sanctions are immediately reimposed plus whatever the new president wants.

Hillary is not going to do that.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Jarhead]

you have an error in your premise....well...more than one.

You are assuming the treaty is a good one...a treaty is a good one ONLY if both sides adhere to it. Exactly what gives you reason to believe Iran will adhere to it? Their past? Their open desire to destroy a sovereign nation? The fact that they fund terrorism? The fact that they moved quickly to meet the first deadline?

Secondly.....stricter sanctions...whats wrong with that?

I know..."sanctions don't work"...I get it.....but...."Iran adhering to a treaty will? Really?

They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.

First of all...these "talks" have been going on for a year. They ignored the first deadline. So they are one year closer to nuclear capability. By the time they no longer adhere to inspections...they will be that must closer to the objective...and if the objective was accomplished, military action will be hampered if not completely eliminated by the fear of them using that capability on an innocent country around them.

I don't think they have inspections now. That's what the treaty is for.

it takes over a year to agree to inspections?

That in itself does not give you reason to believe Iran is intentionally delaying a treaty?

It took 3 years for Iraq to agree back in the day. ..

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

back in the day we did not have Iran as close as they are to nuclear capabilities as they are now.

 

[Jarhead]

If the treaty is a good one it will be approved. If the treaty is a bad one obama won't let congress see it.

Iran saying that it either gets what they want or they will declare war isn't negotiation its extortion.

It's too complicated for democrats who just want to be told what to do and what will be done to them.

if he does not allow congress to see it, then the senate can not vote on it....and if they don't vote on it, it is meaningless and unconstitutional if he, the president, demands that the government and the people of the United States adhere to it.

And the next president can revoke it with a stroke of his pen. All sanctions are immediately reimposed plus whatever the new president wants.

Hillary is not going to do that.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

she wont have the opportunity to do so.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.

First of all...these "talks" have been going on for a year. They ignored the first deadline. So they are one year closer to nuclear capability. By the time they no longer adhere to inspections...they will be that must closer to the objective...and if the objective was accomplished, military action will be hampered if not completely eliminated by the fear of them using that capability on an innocent country around them.

I don't think they have inspections now. That's what the treaty is for.

it takes over a year to agree to inspections?

That in itself does not give you reason to believe Iran is intentionally delaying a treaty?

It took 3 years for Iraq to agree back in the day. ..

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

back in the day we did not have Iran as close as they are to nuclear capabilities as they are now.

So what? They have every right to build the bomb, or are nations not allowed to build weapons you don't approve of?

 

[deltex1]

As I recall, iran signed the non proliferation treaty. As such they cannot pursue nukes. If they drop out of the treaty, they can. And we can nuke them back to Mohammed.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Actually, n retrospect, I don't really understand the reason for the letter. House members have no say in a treaty (other than to voice their opinions), and what right do they have to speak on behalf of the next administration and the next senate? Heck, they don't even know who will be running.
Edited...I just realized it was senators that wrote the letter...and yes, they will be around for the next president....so they had valid reason....just don't know if it was a smart thing to do.

It was not. Partisan differences within the USA are SUPPOSED to end at the waters edge. That has been our policy for more than 200 years and now, within a space of just 7 days, both Houses of Congress, first the HOR and now the Senate, under incompetent GOP "leadership" have broken that protocol and proven themselves to be a disloyal party. If they are willing to go this far to fuck with the prez, what will they do next? Allow an enemy to smuggle a dirty bomb into the USA? Give our defense codes to El Quaida? Disclose the names of secret agents across the world? Only G-d knows the depths to which the current GOP will go. It's pretty damned disconcerting. And a disgrace to our Republic.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[PaintMyHouse]

As I recall, iran signed the non proliferation treaty. As such they cannot pursue nukes. If they drop out of the treaty, they can. And we can nuke them back to Mohammed.

Since several states, including Israel, never signed the thing I'm not too worried about what our puppet the Shah did, and neither are they.

 

[deltex1]

Nothing wrong with advising the iranian liars that they are wasting their time if they think they can get away with the usual duplicity. Who trust Obabble to hold the line?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View

A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.

Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.

“It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.

Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.

So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.

Back to the Bloomberg link:

It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.

The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.

Just to correct your ignorance, without Senate approval a treaty is not binding nor enforceable nor does it have the weight of the law. Again no Senate approval no treaty. Pretty simple concept, even for you to grasp.

What you say is very very true. However, these "senators" can't wait to do THEIR job, can they?

yeah...I am a little confused as to what their angle is with that letter. I can not come up with a single reason as to why it would be useful.

Nothing about it is useful. It is a major breach of protocol and an attempt to make foreign policy, which is the purview of the sitting President and not the Senate. They also have no idea what will be in the treaty since the details have not been released yet. They are also, like small children, trying to embarrass the President. It's disloyal and it's seditious. The current bunch of GOP fuckups are far more suited for the island of misfit toys than for Congress. And Tom Tee Potty Cotton initiated this to make a name for himself.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nothing wrong with advising the iranian liars that they are wasting their time if they think they can get away with the usual duplicity. Who trust Obabble to hold the line?

They have every right to build the bomb, and in that neighborhood they should if they haven't already.

 

[deltex1]

As I recall, iran signed the non proliferation treaty. As such they cannot pursue nukes. If they drop out of the treaty, they can. And we can nuke them back to Mohammed.

Since several states, including Israel, never signed the thing I'm not too worried about what our puppet the Shah did, and neither are they.

So treaties mean nothing to you. And they mean nothing to iran. So fuck iran. Nuke em.