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/how-not-to-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/...blicans-addressed-to-the-leaders-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/how-many-gop-neocons-in-the-federal-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...