...Except that is not what they did...
Au contraire - that is exactly what they did - they threw a monkey wrench into the works.
...They put the NATION in a weaker position and possibly secured an even worse deal...
Any move to derail a Munich Accords in-the-making cannot be all bad.
...It takes on the president IN THE INCORRECT THEATER...
Your point has a great deal of merit, although I can see how extraordinary circumstances might lead to extraordinary actions on the part of the Ratifying Body to intervene before the deal is closed.
...Fail.They achieve nothing and yet get to take the blame. Republicans are really bad politicians at times...
1. We do not yet know whether this was a 'Fail'.
2. There are times when it is better to be an American than it is to be a politician.
...As I stated, that is fine and would have been the favorable outcome. Let Obama be an idiot and take the blame for being one. Force him BACK to the table to negotiate again when the deal does not pass congress or make it a moot point...
This isn't about laying blame.
This is about squashing a dangerous and flawed arrangement before it can materialize. Other countries do not have our same post-signing ratification process and will begin operating under its aegis the moment it's signed.
It's far more difficult to go back to the table and tell the others to tear-up the treaty once the object (Iran) and our so-called non-Iranian 'partners' begin operating under its terms, than it is to simply say 'No' at the outset. Use your head about that aspect of it, fer Crissakes.
...Instead, they had to insert themselves in a process they do not belong in and, mark my words, this is going to be the RIGHT'S fault at the end of the day in the eyes of the public. Poorly played...
This isn't a game.
This is about stopping a highly dangerous and dogmatic theocratic autocracy from obtaining nuclear weapons to mount on top of their ballistic missile delivery systems.
...This move looks bad on the republicans...
This isn't about looking good or bad.
This is about stopping a highly dangerous and dogmatic theocratic autocracy from obtaining nuclear weapons to mount on top of their ballistic missile delivery systems.
...ya, no. That did not actually happen...
If you believe that, then you may have failed to draw the proper conclusions from the message to the White House, which was implicit in the Congressional message to the Iranians.
...it highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of international politics...
Goes to my comment about others not having our same ratification process, and about how much more difficult it is to reverse and repudiate a horrible treaty once signed than it is to torpedo the thing before it goes into effect.
...If that was the point then the left is correct in asserting they are traitors...
Hardly. Their actions do not meet the Constitutional definition of Treason. Nothing else signifies.
...There is simply no other way to describe anyone that would intentionally damage our negotiating power with an adversary. There is no way around that no matter what you think of the deal or the president...
Nonsense.
If the British Parliament and the French Parliament had sent messages to Adolf Hitler in 1938, telling him that no matter what Neville Chamberlain said or did, that Britain and France would declare war against Germany, if it dared to defile Czechoslovakia, then Western history might have taken a very different turn.
Many in Congress appear to believe that we have the Ghost of Neville Chamberlain negotiating this deal.
Many in Congress appear to believe that a bad deal is worse than no deal.
Many in Congress appear to believe that a bad deal will prove to be
irreversible if normal protocols are observed.
Many in Congress appear to believe that the (nuclear) stakes are far too high to be trusted to the Ghost of Neville Chamberlain.
Many in Congress appear to believe that the (nuclear) stakes are
SO high, that
extraordinary measures are required, in order to kill the deal altogether.
Many in Congress appear to believe that their extraordinary measure was an action within a completely legal and permissible framework.
Many in Congress appear to believe that it is best to be seen as
Obstructionists to a Bad Deal than it is to be seen as flacid
Enablers of a Bad Deal.
Are they right?
I dunno.
I don't have a crystal ball.
But I understand why they did it.
...I do not. Weather or not I trust the president to execute his office properly is utterly irrelevant. Congress only exacerbated the problem. You are grasping for straws here in an attempt to defend this asinine move.
Yes, I understand your point, although I disagree with it.
Congress did, indeed, exacerbate the situation.
I am not convinced that that is a bad thing, nor are a great many others, I suspect.
