Rand talks about why he signed the letter to Iran

[Brett85]

It's at about the 2:20 mark of this video on his Facebook page. The interview is on the Today Show. It's the top post on his page.

https://www.facebook.com/SenatorRandPaul

Updated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muoAYm12504

[Sam I am]

For those of us who can't watch videos with sound because we're at work, can you tell us what he said?

[William Tell]

[The Gold Standard]

I can't watch it either, but I'm going to guess he'll say something about reigning in the executive branch to try to settle down his base.

[Brett85]

For those of us who can't watch videos with sound because we're at work, can you tell us what he said?

He said that he supports the negotiations and wants there to be a peaceful outcome, but that he wanted to strengthen President Obama's hand and get him to negotiate from a position of strength by requiring Congressional approval by the deal. He also said that President Obama doesn't have the Constitutional authority to unilaterally repeal sanctions passed by Congress, and that Constitutionally he needs Congressional approval in order to lift the sanctions.

[Chieppa1]

He said that he supports the negotiations and wants there to be a peaceful outcome, but that he wanted to strengthen President Obama's hand and get him to negotiate from a position of strength by requiring Congressional approval by the deal. He also said that President Obama doesn't have the Constitutional authority to unilaterally repeal sanctions passed by Congress, and that Constitutionally he needs Congressional approval in order to lift the sanctions.

I actually like this response. Damn it Mr. Paul.

[Sam I am]

He said that he supports the negotiations and wants there to be a peaceful outcome, but that he wanted to strengthen President Obama's hand and get him to negotiate from a position of strength by requiring Congressional approval by the deal. He also said that President Obama doesn't have the Constitutional authority to unilaterally repeal sanctions passed by Congress, and that Constitutionally he needs Congressional approval in order to lift the sanctions.

That letter was mostly written by people who do not want a deal with Iran and who are trying to stifle a deal with Iran, and what it's essentially communicating to the world is that there will be no deal with Iran. Rand should know this.

Even if Rand knows that the letter is technically accurate, Rand doesn't have to put his name on it. All putting his name on it did was make it appear to Iran and to the rest of the world that there is 1 more senator who is opposed to a deal with Iran. The lack of his signature imply simply that he doesn't agree with the spirit of the letter, it does not mean that he disagrees with it's technical correctness.

If he didn't sign the letter and explained it with something like "I didn't sign that letter because I support the negotiations, but they are right. It does have to be congress who approves any agreement." I would respect on this issue him a lot more.

[specsaregood]

If he didn't sign the letter and explained it with something like "I didn't sign that letter because I support the negotiations, but they are right. It does have to be congress who approves any agreement." I would respect on this issue him a lot more.

And his enemies would spin it as Randal being in favor of executive power and lack of congressional oversight.

[Sam I am]

And his enemies would spin it as Randal being in favor of executive power and lack of congressional oversight.

At least that's better than warmongering.

[asurfaholic]

Constitutional > everything else.

Just like most everyone here, I am ready for dear leaders to GTFO of Iran's business and chill out before they start the next world war while we are still broke from fighting the endless war on terrorism.

But despite who wrote the letter or what their personal problems are with Iran, Rand did the right thing for standing up for the constitutionally correct stance that the executive cannot on a whim change laws that were enacted by congress. This is absolutely the right stance to take on the issue.

[specsaregood]

At least that's better than warmongering.

LOL, no it is not. Actually that problem is one of the greatest reasons we have been warring! you guys should be happy all these neocons signed this statement.

[mosquitobite]

At least that's better than warmongering.

Not really. Most of the warmongering is accomplished with an over-reaching, all-too-powerful POTUS.

[Sam I am]

And his enemies would spin it as Randal being in favor of executive power and lack of congressional oversight.

Yeah, you had better sell out or else your enemies might spin it against you.

This has been a theme with Rand. He's been caving to pressure from the neocons here an there throughout his term. When push comes to shove, he really hasn't done anything that would make me expect him not to do that in a presidential term.

And remember, It's not unconstitutional for Obama to have negotiations. He just has to get to get approval from congress in order to finalize a deal.

[Brian4Liberty]

The only Matt Lauer interview I have ever enjoyed:

[Chieppa1]

LOL, no it is not. Actually that problem is one of the greatest reasons we have been warring! you guys should be happy all these neocons signed this statement.

Why? Is it some statement that is bidding that means moving forward they won't support a Republican (or Democrat) president who wants to make unconstitutional deals with foreign leaders?

Rand not signing it, going to FOX and explaining he does not want to screw up negotiations and scolding his fellow Republicans for their hypocrisy would get him loads of more face time.

I know, but the mindless masses of brown-skin-hating Republican voters might disagree with him for the next week. Until they forget all about this letter.

[Chieppa1]

And remember, It's not unconstitutional for Obama to have negotiations. He just has to get to get approval from congress in order to finalize a deal.

And this. I actually have enjoyed watching the Israel-first crowd freak over the idea of "peace".

[robert68]

He said that he supports the negotiations and wants there to be a peaceful outcome, but that he wanted to strengthen President Obama's hand and get him to negotiate from a position of strength by requiring Congressional approval by the deal. He also said that President Obama doesn't have the Constitutional authority to unilaterally repeal sanctions passed by Congress, and that Constitutionally he needs Congressional approval in order to lift the sanctions.

From the article "Some Implications of President Obama’s Plans to Sidestep Congress on Iranian Sanctions":

There are many different statutory sanctions against Iran, and Congress’s most recent word – from 2012 – tightens and narrows the President’s authority to waive the sanctions. Without getting into the details, it nonetheless appears that the President can waive most if not all sanctions against Iran for the remaining two years of his term if he is willing to make the requisite findings.

[thoughtomator]

it's merely the cost of maintaining the camouflage

[dillo]

he did it to appease the neo cons

[dannno]

he did it to appease the neo cons

Nah actually he did it to send a message to the Exec branch that they are not following the Constitution.

[juleswin]

I think it was on Greta where he said he the said sort of excuse and added that he signed it so that the president gets a good deal.

I was wondering what constitutes a good deal and is there any reason why he thinks the POTUS wasn't going to get a good deal? He had sanctioned Iran more than any president I know. When he says a "good deal" he is talking about a deal where the U.S. gains 100% and Iran 0.%

[phill4paul]

From the article "Some Implications of President Obama’s Plans to Sidestep Congress on Iranian Sanctions":

There are many different statutory sanctions against Iran, and Congress’s most recent word – from 2012 – tightens and narrows the President’s authority to waive the sanctions. Without getting into the details, it nonetheless appears that the President can waive most if not all sanctions against Iran for the remaining two years of his term if he is willing to make the requisite findings.

These forums would have applauded if Ron Paul had used his executive position to lift or ease sanctions against a foreign nation. But, it would be wrong if this president did it because...Obama.

[Peace&Freedom]

Over at Antiiwar.com Justin wrote a strongly hostile column about Rand's signing the letter, followed by similar negativity in most of the comments:

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2...-pauls-munich/

I made the case for it being harm reduction (to appease the neocons) to protect him from being tarred as "weak on Iran" later like so:

To be a kind of undercover agent inside the enemy camp, you do actually have to appear to agree with the enemy at key points. Based on his previous pattern, Rand's co-signing the letter does NOT reflect a betrayal of the liberty and non-intervention side. It's another instance of him making a gesture that lacks real policy substance or consequence, in order to practically position himself in such a way as to not be attacked by the neo-cons. It's insurance against being marginalized as an appeaser, AKA, a Neville Chamberlain.

If Justin could figure out the letter lacked substance, and that the agreement is going to happen regardless of the war hawks pounding sand, SO CAN RAND. By signing the worthless letter he defuses interventionist critics who would have otherwise painted him as "unconcerned about Iran." Later, as the agreement yields stability, and Iran complies with it, he can change his position about the letter in light of those developments.

[ifthenwouldi]

These forums would have applauded if Ron Paul had used his executive position to lift or ease sanctions against a foreign nation. But, it would be wrong if this president did it because...Obama.

I've been thinking this exact thought over the past few days, and I think you're right.

[dillo]

Nah actually he did it to send a message to the Exec branch that they are not following the Constitution.

yea foreign policy is totally a senate thing

[helmuth_hubener]

These forums would have applauded if Ron Paul had used his executive position to lift or ease sanctions against a foreign nation. But, it would be wrong if this president did it because...Obama.

Hey, I don't know anything about all this, but if Obama lifts or eases sanctions on Iran: that's great, Obama! I'll applaud it like crazy. Three cheers for Obama!, if he does that.

[Matt Collins]

I dont have a problem with Rand signing the Senate letter and I am one of the most hardcore libertarian-Republicans around.
Obama openly said he was going to ignore the Constitution by bypassing the advice and consultation of the Senate. This letter was the Senate's reasonable response to Obama's action.
The issue at hand (Iran) doesn't matter. This is about reigning in the President who is acting in a unilateral, lawless manner and they called him on it as they should have.

[ClydeCoulter]

And if Obama negotiates a deal with Iran, in spite of the idiots that signed that letter, it's only going to make the Republicans look like...idiots. But...maybe Rand wanted to take a hit to help Obama in negotiations, he has been playing it sly, no?

And, I kind of agree with portions of a comment made on FB concerning Rand's "I don't regret it"...see a post I made earler about it.

[Peace&Freedom]

I dont have a problem with Rand signing the Senate letter and I am one of the most hardcore libertarian-Republicans around.
Obama openly said he was going to ignore the Constitution by bypassing the advice and consultation of the Senate. This letter was the Senate's reasonable response to Obama's action.
The issue at hand (Iran) doesn't matter. This is about reigning in the President who is acting in a unilateral, lawless manner and they called him on it as they should have.

I agree this is a reasonable way for the GOP to score partisan points against Obama, who of course set the table for ignoring the Constitution by way of his EOs and unilateral actions. It can be countered, however, that the Executive branch negotiating a short term agreement does not amount to a permanent treaty, thus does not require Senate approval.

In that context, the letter is another nothing burger, as Congress cannot stop the agreement from happening (and thus conferring international legitimacy to the five nation deal). That allows Rand to make an empty endorsement of a hard line by co-signing it, and so position himself as being "strong on Iran" to the hawks.

[twomp]

I dont have a problem with Rand signing the Senate letter and I am one of the most hardcore libertarian-Republicans around.
Obama openly said he was going to ignore the Constitution by bypassing the advice and consultation of the Senate. This letter was the Senate's reasonable response to Obama's action.
The issue at hand (Iran) doesn't matter. This is about reigning in the President who is acting in a unilateral, lawless manner and they called him on it as they should have.

Oh please Collins. If Rand Paul didn't sign that letter, you wouldn't have a problem with it either. Have you disagreed with anything Rand Paul has done at all? If he pissed on your head, you would be like, please give me some more.

The issue here is NOT about Executive Power and you know that. IT was the GOP's way of saying FU Iran. We don't care what the President does. Plain and simple. The fact that you somehow spin this into an "executive power" issue makes you no different than Tom Cotton or Lindsey Graham. All they want is to see no peace deal with Iran. They will lie and spin anything they can as long as the result is the same. No peace with Iran. That is the goal. Spin and lie about it as much as you want.