Backstabbing Republicans Publish Open Letter To Iran Undermining Negotiations

[juleswin]

I am once again shocked, but not surprised, at the lengths Republicans will go to to undermine the President of the United States while he is conducting negotiations with the government of a foreign country.

Bloomberg News reports on an open letter signed by 47 Republicans warning Iran that whatever they negotiate with President Obama can be undone in two years by the next President, who they presume will side with them.

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.”

Here are the traitorous Senators who serve Israel and their biillionaires over their own country:

Tom Cotton
David Perdue
Joni Ernst
James Inhofe
John Cornyn
Mitch McConnell
Marco Rubio
Roger Wicker
John Hoeven
Richard Shelby
Thom Tillis
Richard Burr
Steve Daines
Jeff Sessions
John Boozman
Cory Gardner
Shelley Moore Capito
Ron Johnson
Mark Kirk
James Lankford
Chuck Grassley
Roy Blunt
John Thune
Mike Enzi
Pat Toomey
Bill Cassidy
John Barrasso
Ted Cruz
Jim Risch
Mike Crapo
Deb Fischer
Ben Sasse
Orrin Hatch
Dean Heller
Pat Roberts
John McCain
Rand Paul
Rob Portman

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/03/ho...-do-diplomacy/

Someone please help me confirm that the dailybanter is not a satirical site

Lindsey Graham
Mike Rounds

[dillo]

[YesI'mALiberal]

Someone please help me confirm that the dailybanter is not a satirical site

Oh, this is true, alright. And yes, Rand Paul signed it: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...s-of-iran.html

[ZENemy]

Fun with words

Backstabbing Republicans Politicians., goverment..........wait...........Control freak scumbags


fixed.

[Suzanimal]

How Many GOP Neocons in the Federal Senate?

Now we know: 47. That’s the number of chickenhawks and other war criminals who signed a threatening letter to Iran. The 47 salivate at the prospect of mass murder. They, like their funders, want the subjugation and destruction of yet another anti-jihad Muslim power (like Iraq, Libya, and–they hope–Syria) so that the empire and its satrap can divide and conquer. Of course, the US has a special hate for Iran–a poor. threatened, and non-aggressive country–for tossing out the US shah. The list of US anti-Iranian crimes is a long one. Always remember, in this and other areas: GOP means Gathering of Predators.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/...ederal-senate/

[Sola_Fide]

“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.”

Hmm. I don't necessarily disagree with that.

[specsaregood]

Hmm. I don't necessarily disagree with that.

Yeah, seems fairly factual.

[Brett85]

There's nothing wrong with the letter. Apparently some here support unfettered executive power.

[69360]

I think we should negotiate with Iran.

But the letter signed by the senators is indeed factual and correct.

[Brian4Liberty]

The letter was written in such a way to make it seem like it could be a friendly informational letter. Probably helped to get more signers.

[rpfocus]

I am once again shocked, but not surprised, at the lengths Republicans will go to to undermine the President of the United States while he is conducting negotiations with the government of a foreign country.

And yet each and every single one of them would cry bloody murder if the shoe were on the other foot. This kind of idiocy is why I'm Lib and refuse to join either of the garbage parties. My smile only grows larger when I hear I'm "wasting my vote" if I don't vote Republican and instead write in Ron Paul. Heard on this very board, in fact. Given that 2016 is coming up, I'm sure I'll sure that will be all over the board again.

[Brett85]

And yet each and every single one of them would cry bloody murder if the shoe were on the other foot. This kind of idiocy is why I'm Lib and refuse to join either of the garbage parties. My smile only grows larger when I hear I'm "wasting my vote" if I don't vote Republican and instead write in Ron Paul. Heard on this very board, in fact. Given that 2016 is coming up, I'm sure I'll sure that will be all over the board again.

What problem in particular do you have with this letter? All it did was basically just explain our Constitutional system of government to Iran.

[green73]

If Rand had not signed it, say he'd not been a last-minute hold-out to sign it, I wonder how some of the above comments would be very different.

[juleswin]

What problem in particular do you have with this letter? All it did was basically just explain our Constitutional system of government to Iran.

It wouldn't be a problem if this letter was a routine letter to anyone that the president is in talks with. But I would bet my life savings that this is not the case. This is probably the order from the Israeli president and Tom "the motherfucking neocon" Cotton is the person behind it.

My biggest problem is that the letter is unnecessary and a silly move to undermine a good opportunity for peace. I also get that he has to pander every once in a while but he has been pandering a lot lately and this could have been his opportunity to show his supporters that he is still a non interventionist.

[Brett85]

I also get that he has to pander every once in a while but he has been pandering a lot lately and this could have been his opportunity to show his supporters that he is still a non interventionist.

He's never been a pure non interventionist. He's made that clear, and I've also criticized some of his past positions, such as his votes in favor of sanctions on Iran. But you can sign a letter like this and still be a non interventionist. All this letter says is that our Constitution requires Congress to authorize any deal with Iran that President Obama enters into. I would've signed it had I been in the Senate, and I support a non interventionist policy towards Iran.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

And yet these same Republicans would have happily endorsed the Bush administration's far more abusive/tyrannical executive overreaches (Iraq, Patriot Act, etc).

[specsaregood]

My biggest problem is that the letter is unnecessary and a silly move to undermine a good opportunity for peace. I also get that he has to pander every once in a while but he has been pandering a lot lately and this could have been his opportunity to show his supporters that he is still a non interventionist.

Well, really Iran should be thanking them for the letter and for clearly laying out that negotiations are a complete waste of time and the nature of US govt is so whimsical that no sane country on earth should ever bother to negotiate or enter into a treaty with it. And instead they should spend their time attempting negotiations with other more willing countries.

just saying...

[Brett85]

And yet these same Republicans would have happily endorsed the Bush administration's far more abusive/tyrannical executive overreaches (Iraq, Patriot Act, etc).

Except for Rand.

[Brian4Liberty]

Text of the letter:

An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution — the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices — which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics.

For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then — perhaps decades.

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. 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.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

Condescending, and basically is pushing for Congress to ratify any agreement.

[Rudeman]

If Rand had not signed it, say he'd not been a last-minute hold-out to sign it, I wonder how some of the above comments would be very different.

If a similar letter was directed towards Israel the responses would be different...

[69360]

If Rand had not signed it, say he'd not been a last-minute hold-out to sign it, I wonder how some of the above comments would be very different.

The same. This isn't a cheer leading squad.

[69360]

If a similar letter was directed towards Israel the responses would be different...

Not mine

[Rudeman]

Not mine

Your response would have been unnecessary.

[Brett85]

I don't know, this is really getting a lot of negative press. Rand signing on to letters like this helps him with GOP primary voters but hurts him among moderates, independents, and the liberty movement. I have no problem with the content of the letter but can see how it comes across to some as overly partisan.

[YesI'mALiberal]

Now on BenSwann.com:

Republican Senators Vow to Sabotage Iran Deal

by Jason Ditz, March 09, 2015


With progress having been made on the Iran negotiations, Republican Senators opposed to a deal have been threatening the administration left and right over it. Today, they took a different tack, issuing an open letter to Iran, warning them against the deal on the grounds that they’re just going to sabotage it in the future.

The letter was pushed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R – AR) and signed by 47 senators. Surprisingly, this included Sen. Rand Paul (R – KY), who had previously expressed opposition to Congressional attempts to sabotage the negotiations.

Just a month ago, Sen. Paul had admonished the Senate against standing in the way of negotiations in good faith. Now, with Iran a key issue in the upcoming presidential primaries, he seems to be wavering on the matter, and towing the party line.

The letter provoked a sharp criticism from the White House over the Senate’s attempt to interfere in diplomatic efforts, and a dismissal from Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif,who said Iran didn’t take the threat seriously.

Whether Zarif’s comments reflect the view of the entire Iranian government remains to be seen, however, and opposition from US hawks, and a threat to sabotage the deal, should only add to the calls from Iran’s own right-wing to ditch the negotiations on the grounds that the US can’t be trusted to keep its bargains.

The argument has been pushed for a long time by Iran’s Conservative parliamentarians, who have been averse to the deal. With US Republicans now confirming as much, and explicitly writing a letter saying they can’t be trusted to keep any deals reached by Obama, the talks will surely suffer at least somewhat.

image by Gage Skidmore via Creative Commons license.


Rand Paul Caves on Iran, Backs Move to Kill Deal

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't know, this is really getting a lot of negative press. Rand signing on to letters like this helps him with GOP primary voters but hurts him among moderates, independents, and the liberty movement. I have no problem with the content of the letter but can see how it comes across to some as overly partisan.

The press is just looking for any excuse. It helps not to give any to them, but if not this then something else. A little condescending, perhaps, mostly it demonstrates Congressional distrust in our President. It's pretty unprecedented. There is this little threat of war-ish at the end, but the target of this isn't Iran, it's Obama. I mean, Congress going directly to Iran to express a lack of faith in the President's power to negotiate? I can't imagine such a thing ever happening before.

Now Obama has to beg the Senate for 3/5 approval on something he will never get. They just said, "Hey Ayatollah, don't bother listening to this guy, he's a lame duck, and he doesn't speak for us." Whatever Obama was trying to accomplish it just ended right there like that. Now it's just a visit for old time's sake. Congress just chopped Obama off at the knees as he started walking into Iran. I am sure that was not by accident. The only thing the Republican Senate will accept now is capitulation, which Iran will never give. If they got wind of Obama planning to give up something considered horrible (who knows, just speculation) they may have broke this to stop something of an emergency matter. Honestly, with Obama's history I wouldn't be surprised. God knows what the man could do at any moment.

All I'm saying is doing this kind of thing is profound, unprecedented, and impossible to do by accident. Our own Senate just chopped our own President off at the knees, as he walked into negotiations with Iran. Good, bad, or indifferent, it's big. Imagine Congress telling China that Nixon didn't actually represent them. Imagine Congress telling Gorbachev that Reagan was not our guy. Whatever is going on here, it's not a joke.

[The Gold Standard]

Eh. I've never been shy about criticizing Rand's warmongering, but the letter reads like a lesson in American government. I wish he would get involved in sending these lessons to a lot of other people before bothering Iran, but whatever. I'm indifferent. Hell, when I saw the headline I expected much more in the way of direct threats and saber rattling, and I wouldn't have been surprised to see Rand sign a letter like that either.

[cindy25]

http://news.antiwar.com/2015/03/09/r...-to-kill-deal/

[UWDude]

Bleh. I have seen Rand get weak easily when it comes to foreign policy, he is becoming one of them. I have seen recent interviews with him. One false flag, and he would be just another neocon were he president.

[Anti Federalist]

What problem in particular do you have with this letter? All it did was basically just explain our Constitutional system of government to Iran.

Oh come on...stop.

You don't think they know what the basic system of power (at least on paper) is here in AmeriKa?

It was a veiled threat, simple as that.

"Hey, you might skate with this current moron, but let our plans come to fruition and we'll be stomping mud holes in your asses come next election."

And it was a disgusting, cheap, political whore of a move by Rand to sign on to this dreck.

Shame on him.