Backstabbing Republicans Publish Open Letter To Iran Undermining Negotiations

[paleocon1]

Any action which mocks, belittles, undercuts Obama is Good for America.

 

[ChiefJustice]

Apparently there were some crystal balls on sale somewhere and I missed out on the deal. But those who were lucky enough to have scored one know that everything will return to normal once Rand is elected. This pandering business is only something he loathes to do while trying to secure the nomination. Once he has it in hand, he will turn back into Liberty Champion Rand....just watch and see, it will all work out in the end! At least that's what I heard. I didn't get a crystal ball of my own.

Fine takeaway the opinions. I can't predict the future.

The reason I give flak to Rand Paul is that this was a bill pushed forward by neocons whose obvious goal is torpedo the negotiations. Rand knows this. It goes directly against the notion that he supports the talks. Rand can certainly make a case for congressional approval and present it to the public in an honest way

Instead Rand signed this letter to a foreign leader and supposed arch enemy, basically thrashing half of America's political spectrum and displaying how divided we are. It also had a clear aim that it wanted to undermine ongoing negotiations which is disgraceful. Why did he need to sign this stupid and unnecessary neocon endorsed letter instead of just presenting his case to the public. I saw a couple Senators had the balls to say no to signing the letter. Particularly Jeff Flake. It showed that Rand didn't have the guts to do the right thing.

This argument that he voted for it because it was technically correct isn't equivalent to Ron Paul's reasons for voting to impeach Clinton (ie. unapproved military intervention).

I don't understand how people can defend Rand on this one.

 

[UWDude]

well, the video makes me feel a bit better. thanks. :/

 

[rpfocus]

He may try to win brownie points with the establishment that libertarians want gone, but he has lost many people who would have supported him fully instead of a bunch of GOP hacks who, in the end, don't give a shit about him.

He'll have to learn the hard way. When it comes down to Rand and Jeb and Rand gets the slap in the face while Jeb gets the nomination, then the light will come on.
The MIC/Chickenhawks/CockBrothers/WallSt have already decided who will get the nomination. Rand may brown nose, but a Bush is a no brainer for them. It seems as if Rand learned absolutely nothing even after seeing the dirty tricks they pulled on Ron.

"The Ayes Have It!"

 

[Cabal]

If Rand Paul has to cozy up so much with the Republican establishment, who is to say he won't do their bidding if he ever did become President?

For the sake of argument, let's pretend you are all as psychic and all-knowing as you imagine yourselves to be regarding Rand's "true" self, since apparently we can't take his word as a representation of that. If Rand has to lie his way to the WH, how does this qualify as a victory for liberty? Great, he's in the WH, now what? What do you imagine will happen next? He'll suddenly flip script and undergo a transformation that hasn't been seen since Clark Kent walked through a revolving door?

If he wins this way, he will have won by appealing to the established thought, not by appealing to the philosophy of liberty, and thus he will be expected to toe the line. So why isn't that exactly what he'll do? You think if he drastically changes rhetoric they'll support him? That he'll be able to get anything done? He'll be stuck playing political gridlock for however many terms he's able to squeeze out, and in the meantime what will actually change. Probably not much, if anything. Why? Because nothing has actually changed. Winning elections doesn't change thought unless you won the election by changing thought. Ron tried to change thought; and he did, but it wasn't enough--it was just the wind up. Rand's not picking up where Ron left off though. He's not trying to change thought, he's seemingly just trying to win a popularity contest by conforming to established thought. And if he wins by conforming to established thought, he'll continue to be beholden to that established thought.

So, even if you're right about Rand just 'playing the game' and being such a 'masterful strategist' the victory will be entirely hollow, because the people haven't been enlightened, they've just been conned. And after all is said and done, it'll be business as usual, one way or another.

Cancer doesn't cure itself.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The White House Petition has reached 136,300, I'm curious to hear Obama's response.


https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...tempting-undermine-nuclear-agreement/NKQnpJS9

The letter wasn't the violation. It was Boehner's invitation to the foreign leader that was clearly a violation of the Logan Act. A couple of other no nos in there as well but the Logan Act violation is the major one. Well...for the moment. Heh...

 

[cindy25]

maybe Rand (and the others) have accepted Jeb as the nominee, and are auditioning for VP? not a totally bad idea, as that is how the progressives got Teddy into the White House.

still, if a 3rd party can work in France, and UK, and Canada it could work in the USA

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Rand is getting hit hard in comments on FB on a post about his interview with Glenn Beck on the letter to Iran from the Senators.

The following is one of the comments:

We should extend a heartfelt "Thank You" to the conservative Republicans. This is an early Christmas gift to the President; both domestically and internationally. If ever there were a catalyst for our allies and others to stick it to American hardliners, this letter ignited it. The President will secure a nuclear proliferation agreement with Iran despite Republican attempts at interference----perhaps specifically because of such interference. The Iranian foreign minister handed Republicans their asses in his response. Iran will work that much harder to achieve an agreement just to shove it in the face of both American hardliners and those in Israel. Iran will help reach a deal----any deal it can sell to the Ayatollahs---and later hold America's feet to the fire in the post-Obama era. If we back out on our word, Iran will publicly accuse us of being "liars," and enablers of the State of Israel. This "open letter" from the Republicans will be used as proof of America's subservience to Israeli interests, and make any attempt at avoiding the deal we reach with the P5+1 appear to be the "Benedict Arnold" moment of international nuclear proliferation diplomacy. As always, President Obama is three steps ahead of the Republicans.

President Obama will continue to do what he's always done in the face of Republican obstruction and sabotage: win. The ACA, executive action on immigration, protection of equality in the right to marry and the protection of LGBT citizens in the workplace and public sector, expansion of access to college education, and on and on. We are watching the beginning of The Boomerang Effect on the GOP. They have, at long last, taken that one step too far.

And another:

Keep saying you have "No Regrets " and later don't try to back track your words like you always do Rand Paul because I won't have "No Regrets " when you're reminded and watch you try to lie your way out of it.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

The letter wasn't the violation. It was Boehner's invitation to the foreign leader that was clearly a violation of the Logan Act. A couple of other no nos in there as well but the Logan Act violation is the major one. Well...for the moment. Heh...

Some are arguing it otherwise:

It's called the Logan Act, and it says, essentially, that a U.S. citizen can be fined or tossed in jail for trying to influence a foreign government's policy toward the U.S. in a way that would "defeat the measure of the United States."

So, could the 47 Republican senators who signed the letter to Iran, essentially trying to undermine President Obama's discussions with that country, be charged with a crime?

http://www.azcentral.com/story/ejmo...president-bush-iraq-maliki-logan-act/24710959

 

[enhanced_deficit]

This may be another smart move by Republicans. They are weakenening dDG team, Dems and Israel lobby at the same time. What is wrong with that? It is good for non-interventionism.


Brilliant move by Boehner to invite Netanyahu; Jewish lobby behind Dems is getting fractured


Soldier who stood with Michelle Obama at SOTU speech now serving in Israeli military


With zionists in charge of White House, Palestinian homes demolition palooza on going

SWC administration votes against Freedom for Palestinians


US blasts ICC war crimes probe of Israel as 'tragic irony'


As David Cohen becomes CIA’s No. 2, Jews appear to have smoother path at security agencies


CAUTION GRAPHIC-Obama WH: Attack on the Israeli soldiers "barbaric"; Israeli soldier captured


Wired: Two Israeli companies helping Obama admn's bugging of Americans

James Woods on Obama: He’s the ‘gift from hell’
The Washington Times Thursday, September 12, 2013
The latest came this week, in response to a report from British press that revealed the National Security Agency commonly provides Israel with intelligence data — without first stripping out private and personal information on American citizens. The Guardian in London reported the item, the latest in its coverage of document leaks from Edward Snowden.

Why Israeli settlements expansion surges when a democrat is in the White House?


SWCnomics: US debt nearly doubled under Obama, going up $2.38 Billion per day


Obama Requests Largest Amount of Military Aid to Israel Ever
NJDC — February 14, 2012


[SIZE=+3]U.S. N[/SIZE][SIZE=+2]ATIONAL[/SIZE] [SIZE=+3]D[/SIZE][SIZE=+2]EBT[/SIZE] [SIZE=+3]C[/SIZE][SIZE=+2]LOCK[/SIZE]

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 22 Feb 2015 at 08:48:47 PM GMT is:

[TABLE="class: cms_table"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The estimated population of the United States is 320,058,595
so each citizen's share of this debt is $56,694.22.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLIJc7YE_jw

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Fine takeaway the opinions. I can't predict the future.

The reason I give flak to Rand Paul is that this was a bill pushed forward by neocons.

It's not a bill. Get a grip.

 

[Weston White]

From what I am gathering, the core issue surrounds whether or not to permit Iran continue possessing nuclear technologies for internal use, such as to provide power, under a "breakout" timeline. Iran Talks Closer on One-Year Nuclear ‘Breakout’ Demand.

Also see flashback: G.O.P.’s Foreign Policy Hawks Wary of Paul’s Evolving Views.

The Logan Act would not really apply here, they are representatives of the United States writing in their official capacities, and the context appears to pertain to an covert and not a overt contact--not to mention there is no blatant means of negotiating made within their open letter. Still further, the Logan Act is legally desuetude:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

The Southern District of New York in Waldron v. British Petroleum Co., 231 F. Supp. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1964), mentioned in passing that the Act was likely unconstitutional due to the vagueness of the terms "defeat" and "measures," but did not rule on the question.

In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:

The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba, was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country.

Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn..." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975). Senator Sparkman’s contacts with Cuban officials were conducted on a similar basis. The specific issues raised by the Senators (e.g., the Southern Airways case; Luis Tiant’s desire to have his parents visit the United States) would, in any event, appear to fall within the second paragraph of Section 953.

Accordingly, the Department does not consider the activities of Senators Sparkman and McGovern to be inconsistent with the stipulations of Section 953.

Kevin Kearney, writing in the Emory Law Journal, described Dr. Logan's activities in France:

Upon his arrival in Paris, he met with various French officials, including Talleyrand. During these meetings, he identified himself as a private citizen, discussed matters of general interest to the French, and told his audience that anti-French sentiment was prevalent in the United States. Logan's conversation with Merlin de Douai, who occupied the highest political office in the French republic, was typical. Logan stated that he did not intend to explain the American government's position, nor to criticize that of France. Instead, he suggested ways in which France could improve relations with the United States, to the benefit of both countries. He also told Merlin that pro-British propagandists in the United States were portraying the French as corrupt and anxious for war, and were stating that any friend of French principles necessarily was an enemy of the United States. Within days of Logan's last meeting, the French took steps to relieve the tensions between the two nations; they lifted the trade embargo then in place, and released American seamen held captive in French jails. Even so, it seems that Logan's actions were not the primary cause of the Directory's actions; instead, Logan had merely provided convenient timing for the implementation of a decision that had already been made.

Despite the apparent success of Logan's mission, his activities aroused the opposition of the Federalist Party in Congress, who were resentful of the praise showered on Logan by oppositional Democratic-Republican newspapers. Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, also of Pennsylvania, responded by suggesting that Congress "act to curb the temerity and impudence of individuals affecting to interfere in public affairs between France and the United States." The result was the Logan Act, which was pushed through by the Federalist majority with a vote 58–36 in the House, and 18–2 in the Senate.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

Has the Senate even provided "Obama" with any such advice to date or is he again acting rogue?

U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

 

[jon_perez]

So what exactly about the letter did you disagree with? I'm thinking his father would agree pretty much everything in the letter.

You're "thinking" Ron Paul would agree with the letter, huh?

Why don't we let Dad Paul himself make a statement on that. By his silence alone it means he probably totally disagrees with his unprincipled, finger-in-the-wind son, Rand.

 

[paleocon1]

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

Thanks for the List of American Patriots in the Senate. Opposing that slimy usurper in the WH is always the Right Thing to do.

 

[cindy25]

not when it helps Cotton, McCain, Graham. they are far worse than Obama. the letter is overblown, and sadly taking attention away from Hillary's e-mails. its not treason, but damn stupid.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Thanks for the List of American Patriots in the Senate. Opposing that slimy usurper in the WH is always the Right Thing to do.

Team Red would find a way to oppose Obama if he merely said the sky is blue.

 

[cindy25]

Team Red would find a way to oppose Obama if he merely said the sky is blue.

let's see if they vote down the ISIS war resolution.

 

[juleswin]

Thanks for the List of American Patriots in the Senate. Opposing that slimy usurper in the WH is always the Right Thing to do.

Patriots like McCain, Graham and Tom Cotton. Some of the same patriots who said nothing while Obama was spending $600m a month bombing Libya, or said nothing when the US was negotiating secret free trade agreements with multiple countries. But somehow his talking to Iran has somehow brought out the constition support in them? Don't buy it.

This is just their way on making sure the only deal Obama agrees to is a good deal for Israel and a horrible deal for Iran. This is what they want, they want any peace deal to fail so that bombing Iran would still be on the table. I am under no impression that Obama wants peace either but by signing up for this letter, he just shows everyone watching that he Rand Paul is one of them too.

Btw, can someone please get Rand Paul to answer what he means by a "good deal" when it comes to negotiations with Iran cos if its anything close to what Netanyahu said in his speech to congress, then we have a problem.

I also know that signing this maybe him playing the game his father did not play so as to get elected but this means that he has to do a lot more for people that believe in this theory that he is with us. Trying to decriminalize medical marijuana is one step forward but proposing to arm the Kurds and carve out a home land from Iraq and Syria is 2 steps backwards. This just means he has to work doubly hard to re convince me to not just to vote for him but to support his candidacy.

 

[specsaregood]

You're "thinking" Ron Paul would agree with the letter, huh?

Why don't we let Dad Paul himself make a statement on that. By his silence alone it means he probably totally disagrees with his unprincipled, finger-in-the-wind son, Rand.

And yet you can't even fulfill the simple request I laid out of quoting one thing from the letter that he would disagree with. pfft.

I absolutely think that Ron Paul would agree with nearly every word in that letter. He might think it bad diplomacy to send it right now, he definitely would not agree with the ulterior motives of some of the signatories; but I have no doubt if you asked him to sign that statement as true and factual he would do so. get over it.

 

[charrob]

You're "thinking" Ron Paul would agree with the letter, huh?

Why don't we let Dad Paul himself make a statement on that. By his silence alone it means he probably totally disagrees with his unprincipled, finger-in-the-wind son, Rand.

Ron said in a speech a long time ago he had no problem with Iran getting a nuclear weapon; he said something to the affect that: "why shouldn't they? They're surrounded by people who do have nuclear weapons and who have threatened Iran." Personally, I feel the same way; they could never win a war with the Israelis (and they know this) but at least it would somewhat re-balance some of the powers in the middle east -- which would be a good thing.

Although Ron didn't write this, it's from the 'Ron Paul Institute':

Take the rising star of neoconservatism, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR). By now many Americans are familiar with the letter he sent to his Iranian counterparts warning them that the current US president is an unreliable partner for negotiations: any deal reached would simply be overturned by a future president. The politics of this move are not within the portfolio of this Institute, but the Senator's rationale for sending the letter most certainly is.

Today the Senator was asked what Iran must do in order for an acceptable deal to be struck with the United States, and he responded:

“They can simply disarm their nuclear weapons program and allow complete intrusive inspections.”

Where is he getting his information? Neither the entire US Intelligence Community nor even the Mossad believe that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon or that it has even made a decision to start work on a nuclear weapon.

How can the Iranians disarm something they have never armed? It smacks of the neocon demand that Saddam Hussein give up the WMDs that we now know he never had.

Likewise, as signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has allowed its nuclear energy program to be under the eyes of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has never ruled Iran to be in violation of the treaty.