 |
| It seemed like such a good idea at the time... |
Some Republican senators admitted Wednesday they were caught off guard by the backlash to a letter warning Iranian leaders against a nuclear agreement with President Barack Obama. And Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Republicans — many of whom blessed the missive during a brisk signing session at a Senate lunch a week ago, as senators prepared to flee a Washington snowstorm — should have given it closer consideration.
This was after Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) said,“I find it hard to believe that they understood the severity of what they were doing." Secretary of State John Kerry condemned the letter, as did former SoS Madeline Albright, and Maine's Independent Senator Angus King.
But it wasn't just Democrats who voiced objections. So did The Washington Post. The Wall Street Journal (!) questioned the wisdom of the letter, as did Fox "News" blonde Megyn Kelly.
Oh, and also, Germany.
[German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier], whose country is among the group of six nations negotiating with Iran, said the March 9 letter warning that a nuclear deal may not last beyond the Obama Administration injected a new element of distrust into the already difficult talks.Read that quote again. Notice: it is a group of six countries involved in these negotiations with Iran, including the entire UN Security council -- that includes Russia and China as well. It's not just President Obama going rogue and refusing to recognize the authori-tay of the Republican Party. Pretty much the entire planet wants these talks to work, and will be involved in enforcing any deal that is reached.
“It would have been difficult enough without the letter of the 47,” Mr. Steinmeier said in an appearance at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington. “Now it has become somewhat more difficult.”
Louisiana Governor Idiot Bobby Jindal said that every 2016 presidential hopeful should show support for the 47 Moron letter "to make clear to Iran that they are negotiating with a lame duck president," apparently to send the message that no president should be allowed to negotiate with any foreign country during a second term. Republican presidential Wannabe Idiot Jindal doesn't want to do anything meaningful if (Dog forbid) he should ever become president.
Most of the 47 Morons seem to be standing behind this idiocy. A willingness to violate the Logan Act should, one might think, make one ineligible to hold public office in America. We can do our best to make this an issue in the 2016 campaign -- "Have you ever intentionally attempted to interfere with a presidential negotiation with a foreign country?"
Some Republican idiots tried to back away from the letter. It was all a joke you see:
“The administration has no sense of humor,” one aide complained, after reports that the letter was likely a felony offense, and could amount to treason.Apparently, at least some Republicans are not interested in getting caught committing treason, so we're supposed to now imagine it was meant as gentle ribbing, rather than an attempt to side with Iranian hardliners in their effort to help Iran get a nuclear bomb, or at least to cause a major war.
Yeah, right.
More toxic diatribe. I think you're overcompensating for not having any intelligent thoughts.Just insult people like a common fool. Liberals keep sinking deeper into insanity.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, predictably your idiotic post and the idiotic media can only discuss whether it was mean to write a letter. The substance of the letter and the substance of negotiations just takes too much brain power, I guess. Face it, Obama has been rebuked by nearly 50% of the Senate....and the top Democrat on Foreign Relations has also trashed his negotiations. So I'm not surprised that idiot Democrats are left screaming "please, shut up!!"
RG, you have weird priorities.
ReplyDeleteThis letter from the 47 Morons was a toxic diatribe, intended to side with Iranian extremist hardliners, and to interfere with the constitutional duties of the President.
Please explain to us how an person with half a brain can discuss this insane letter in a reasonable tone.
You are unhappy that there is no discussion about the substance of the letter and the substance of the negotiations? Okay, correct that problem. Tell us about the substance of the letter and the substance of the negotiations. I dare you.
47 morons tried to scuttle negotiations between the UN Security Council and the government of Iran, negotiations meant both to avoid a war and to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.
Obama has not been "rebuked by nearly 50% of the Senate". What happened is that nearly 50% of the Senate has shown they are toxic morons, and they have likely committed treason.
Defend them. I dare you.
By the way, to drive home the point of the stupidity of the 47 Morons, go read about executive agreements. You an also read about them here. Or you can read about them here.
ReplyDeleteThe point is, not only didn't the 47 Morons understand the Constitution, and not only were they possibly committing treason by interfering with presidential negotiations and siding with enemies of the United States, but apparently they don't understand American and Constitutional law regarding the thousands of existing Executive Agreements that don't need Senate approval at all.
From past experience I bet you won't bother to read about then. You'll complain that I didn't pre-digest them for you and feed them to you like you were a baby bird, right? It is your pattern. You don't actually want to learn anything. You want to complain.
So explain to me how the stupidity and destructive lawlessness of the 47 Morons deserves anything more polite than a "toxic diatribe."
This summarizes the story."
ReplyDeleteBtw, that top Democrat I mentioned that was critical of Obama negotiations....he has recently been indicted for corruption. Whatta coincedence. Now idiot Democrats are talking treason for Senators writing letters. Liberals really want to make disagreeing with Obama a federal crime
ReplyDelete"Please explain to us how an person with half a brain can discuss this insane letter in a reasonable tone."
IDK. But when all you can do is call things "idiotic" and "insane", it makes for really uninteresting reading, not to mention ZERO potential debate.
Yes, it's clear that this blog is going to be unreadable.
ReplyDelete++but apparently they don't understand American and Constitutional law regarding the thousands of existing Executive Agreements that don't need Senate approval at all.++
You are wrong. No one is arguing that Executive Agreements can't be made, or anything of the like. They're arguing that future Congresses and/or Presidents can overturn prior Executive Agreements. Idiot Democrats can't seem to grasp something so simple.
Another thing idiot Democrats can't grasp is that Obama is trying to get Iran to agree to a deal which would remove certain sanctions - sanctions approved by the United States Congress. The President cannot go solo and do a Congressional runaround and lift sanctions imposed by Congress. We still live a country of laws.
Interesting that idiot Joe Biden has completely flip flopped on this issue. He used to think agreements of such important significance should be in the form of a treaty. Now the moron thinks the opposite. Shocking.
''With the exception of the SALT I agreement, every significant arms control agreement during the past three decades has been transmitted to the Senate pursuant to the Treaty Clause of the Constitution,'' the letter says. ''Mr. Secretary, we see no reason whatsoever to alter this practice.''
We need more people in this country who have the ability to think for themselves and less idiots, like most Democrats, who follow their president like idiotic lemmings.
Idiot Democrats and the foreign minister of Iran needed the letter because it told them what they didn't know - that Executive Agreements are NOT binding on subsequent Presidents. All but a couple Democrats seemed to not know that until the letter was written.
+++ They're arguing that future Congresses and/or Presidents can overturn prior Executive Agreements.+++
ReplyDeleteAnd future Congresses and Presidents can withdraw from Senate-approved treaties, as G. W. Bush did when he unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. That, too, was against the law. The 47 Morons are pretending that somehow Executive Agreements are less binding and less secure than other sorts of official international agreements, and they're doing so for the purpose of attempting to undermine he President.
+++ Obama is trying to get Iran to agree to a deal which would remove certain sanctions +++
Yup. That's what happens when the world community imposes sanctions on a rogue nation, and then the sanctions work and the targeted nation does what the world community wants it to do. The sanctions are removed. Duh.
+++ Joe Biden ... used to think agreements of such important significance should be in the form of a treaty.+++
But now we have a mindless congress with people like the 47 Morons in it that refuses to do anything at all. Shocking.
+++ We need more people in this country who have the ability to think for themselves and less idiots, ++
Yeah, 47 is far too many morons in the Senate.
So tell me Grog, why are you siding with Iran's hardliners against America?
++The 47 Morons are pretending that somehow Executive Agreements are less binding and less secure than other sorts of official international agreements,++
ReplyDeleteThey aren't pretending. They're trying to teach idiots (not an easy task) that Executive Agreements are less binding than treaties because subsequent presidents can easily revoke them.
++Yup. That's what happens when the world community imposes sanctions on a rogue nation, and then the sanctions work and the targeted nation does what the world community wants it to do. The sanctions are removed. Duh.++
Yes, but unfortunately for Obama and idiot Democrats, laws must be followed. Inconvenient, I know. Republicans need to give more civic lessons to idiot Democrats. An idiot, renegade President cannot wave a magic wand and undo Congressional sanctions. Maybe in a liberal fantasy land, but not in The United States.
++But now we have a mindless congress with people like the 47 Morons in it that refuses to do anything at all. Shocking.++
Unfortunately for idiot liberals, we have a system of government in which poeple are allowed to vote (we had a recent election if you recall) and we have what we call "seperation of powers". Just because a far leftwing radical extremist believes that members of Congress who were elected by "We the People" are mindless, doesn't make it look any less silly to throw yourself on the ground, kicking and screaming and throwing a temper tantrum because those elected officials don't agree with your radical agenda.
++So tell me Grog, why are you siding with Iran's hardliners against America?++
Why do you beat your wife?
Grog, at least you and RG have stopped pretending that the 47 Morons letter was intended for any purpose other than to undermine this President and to scuttle an agreement meant to deprive Iran of nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteYou are presenting America as a lawless nation that can't be relied upon to keep its international agreements and treaties. Not a very flattering picture you're painting of America. Why are you trying to undermine America?
+++ we have a system of government in which poeple are allowed to vote (we had a recent election if you recall) +++
Indeed yes. President Obama was elected, and then re-elected, rather overwhelmingly. Inconveniently for idiot Republicans, that means he is the President, and he gets to exercise his lawful Presidential authority -- which includes entering into binding agreements with other nations. Why are you trying to undermine that?
You didn't answer my question, but instead you tried to deflect. The 47 Morons are siding with Iranian hardliners who also want to scuttle the international agreement being negotiated between Iran and six other nations, including the entire UN Security Council. Why are you siding with these anti-American hardliners? Please don't deflect. Please answer that question.
From the New York Times:
ReplyDeleteRepublican Idiocy on Iran
From the linked article:
The letter was an attempt to scare the Iranians from making a deal that would limit their nuclear program for at least a decade by issuing a warning that the next president could simply reverse any agreement. It was a blatant, dangerous effort to undercut the president on a grave national security issue by communicating directly with a foreign government.
The letter was not only disrespectful and insulting, it was dangerously stupid. No president has been subjected to this level of mindless vitriol and disrespect by such a clownage of elected idiots.
++++ They're trying to teach idiots (not an easy task) that Executive Agreements are less binding than treaties because subsequent presidents can easily revoke them. ++++
ReplyDeleteLet's consider this statement carefully. There are thousands of Executive Agreements that past Presidents have entered into. You are advocating that other nations should never enter into such an agreement, because, according to you, America can't be trusted to keep its word.
Any nation can decide to ignore agreements and treaties it has previously entered into. Doing so makes that country a rogue nation. Doing so invites the disrespect and contempt of the rest of the world. You are advising the world preemptively to view America as precisely one such rogue nation.
This is the sort of propaganda I would expect from enemies of America. This is the kind of anti-American rhetoric that ISIL or North Korea would be happy to see become common. It plays into the hands of every nation that wants to weaken America on the world stage, reduce our influence, and make the rest of the world distrust us.
I cannot imagine why anyone would support the efforts of the 47 Morons to harm America in this way -- particularly when our President is working with the rest of the world's great powers to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb, What possible productive purpose could be served by promulgating the image of America as a nation that could ignore its international responsibilities?
I seriously don't get the mindset of Americans who are so blinded by their hatred of this President that they are willing to harm America just to express their hatred. Come on. Think about the damage you are so desperate to cause.
A petition on whitehouse.gov
ReplyDeleteAs of this writing, it already has over 270,000 signatures -- nearly three times the 100,000 needed to obtain an official response.
File charges against the 47 U.S. Senators in violation of The Logan Act in attempting to undermine a nuclear agreement.
On March 9th, 2015, forty-seven United States Senators committed a treasonous offense when they decided to violate the Logan Act, a 1799 law which forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.
At a time when the United States government is attempting to reach a potential nuclear agreement with the Iranian government, 47 Senators saw fit to instead issue a condescending letter to the Iranian government stating that any agreement brokered by our President would not be upheld once the president leaves office.
This is a clear violation of federal law. In attempting to undermine our own nation, these 47 senators have committed treason.
++There are thousands of Executive Agreements that past Presidents have entered into.++
ReplyDeleteHow many of them have involved the nuclear capabilities of THE most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world? How many of those thousands?
++Any nation can decide to ignore agreements and treaties it has previously entered into. Doing so makes that country a rogue nation. Doing so invites the disrespect and contempt of the rest of the world. You are advising the world preemptively to view America as precisely one such rogue nation.++
No, because non-idiots know going in that, by law, executive agreements can be revoked by subsequent Presidents or by Congress. That's why agreements regarding matters as important as nuclear capabilities for untrustworthy nations that support terrorism and are ruled by lunatics should be done with Congressional approval.
++Why are you siding with these anti-American hardliners?++
I'm siding with the pro-American patriots who want to ban Iranian uranium enrichment.
Why do you beat your wife?
Grog, let's cut out the nonsense and go right to the heart of it.
ReplyDeleteThe letter was intended to interfere with the multinational negotiations intended to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Do you deny that? Yes or no.
++Irrelevant++
ReplyDeleteNo, very relevant.
++By interfering with the negotiations that are intended to do exactly that?++
Wrong. Obama's negotiations will allow Iran to enrich plutonium. Republicans are trying to stop that. You see, if you can't enrich plutonium, you can't make a nuclear bomb.
ReplyDelete"A group of far-right senators interfered with sensitive international diplomacy"
Thats some serious idiocy from some idiot MSNBC producer. When you're left with calling 47 of 100 senators "far-right"....that an indication of just how crazy left the Obama idiotic psychophants really are. Thats the problem for the Left, 47 senators agreeing on a letter is a serious smack in the face to Obama. Why the hell do you think the Left is so pissed? Because its painful to see the idiot Obama being humiliated like this.
Don't forget. Bob Menedez has also torched Obama. Is he "far right" too.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/03/03/democrat-sen-menendez-blasts-obamas-iran-policy-at-aipac/
The GOP is pounding the idiot Democrats on foreign policy. Republicans now have their biggest advantage in 20 years on foreign policy. This will hurt Dems in 2016, no doubt. Republicans are making bold ploys to highlight Obama's failures....and Democrats keep taking the bait by throwing tantrums which make the stories even bigger!! Already, the cankled idiot Hillary is being baited into supporting Obama failures. She will own it all and there will be nowhere to hide,
rgb,
ReplyDeleteRemember when the idiots assured us that ISIS was the JV team? Now the idiots expect us to trust them with their nuclear weapon negotiations with a nations that sponsors terrorism.
Oh yes Grog.
DeleteThats what I mean....the idiocy is piling up for Democrats Republicans are merely playing smart politics-expose your opponents weak issues. Every day that the news is focused on Iran or ISIS is a bad day for idiot Democrats. Frankly, If the GOP can't rip on a lame duck president on his worst issue, they should just go home. Hell, they already caved on immigration, so its the least they should do.
So the strategy should be to make Obama own all his idiotic foreign policy failures and then make idiot Hillary have to support or disown his policies, so that she can't weasel out of positions and then Gov Walker can beat her up for it. Again, the more Democrats squeel like idiotic stuck pigs....the more you know how they so wish the Iran negotiations/failures would get less attention (unless Obama scores some awesome victory, of course). Believe me, 47 senators would not go out on a limb to write a letter if they seriously thought Obama was headed for a big negotiation win..
+++Wrong. Obama's negotiations will allow Iran to enrich plutonium. Republicans are trying to stop that. You see, if you can't enrich plutonium, you can't make a nuclear bomb. +++
ReplyDeleteSo you are not denying that the intent of the letter was to interfere with these multinational negotiations, right?
Grog and RG, I get that you are trying to offer distractions, but I think you've already given away the store.
ReplyDeleteWe have established that the letter was intended as an attempt to disrupt the multinational negotiations with Iran. Otherwise, you'd have no reason to offer your objections to the negotiations, and to the American negotiator (i.e., the President).
I will await your acknowledgement before we move on. The purpose of the letter was to disrupt the multinational negotiations with Iran.
The Logan Act:
ReplyDelete"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.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the 'Treaty Clause,' which empowers the President of the United States to propose and negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a 2/3 majority of the United States Senate. Note that the power to negotiate lies with the President, NOT the Congress.
In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, Supreme Court Justice Sutherland, writing for the Court, made this exact point: "[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude; and Congress itself is powerless to invade it. As Marshall said in his great argument of March 7, 1800, in the House of Representatives, 'The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations."
By signing the Open Letter, 47 senators clearly both violated the Logan Act and attempted to gainsay a Supreme Court decision regarding the negotiation of treaties for the United States. Their interference, if effective, can lead to only one logical conclusion:
a) the Iranians - believing the letter and that the United States will not keep its agreements - break off the talks.
b) because the talks are halted, the world does not lift the sanctions imposed on Iran
c) with no reason to stop their research into enriching uranium and other fissionable materials, the Iranians do just that
d) within a very short period of time (If Netanyahu is to be believed), Iran has a nuclear bomb
e) BOOM!
On the other hand, if the Iranians ignore the Open Letter as being nothing more than "American hard-liner propaganda", and continue to negotiate in good faith, we have
a) there is an agreement reached which provides for verifiable and inspected research into nuclear power for domestic use ONLY for a period of ten years
b) the sanctions are lifted, which gives the Iranians incentive to keep their word - because, yes, the sanctions worked so Iran doesn't want to have them imposed again
c) Iranian research is verified and inspected for the next ten years, with sanctions being re-imposed if it is found Iran is making weapons-grade fissionable materials
d) no BOOM! for at least the next ten years, at least from Iran.
What is to be gained from encouraging the Iranians to break off talks? What did the 47 senators really want - if not to interfere with the President's ability to negotiate this treaty - which, coming full circle, is a violation of the Logan Act and an attempt to gainsay a Supreme Court decision regarding the negotiation of treaties for the United States?
Valjiir, excellent analysis. Brilliant, even.
ReplyDeleteIt remains to be answered exactly WHY the 47 Morons wanted to convince the Iranians (and the world) that America can't keep its word, so that the talks fail. As you note, this will inevitably lead Iran to continue -- even to hasten -- its development of a nuclear bomb. Netanyahu wants us to believe Iran is maybe a year away from having nukes.
Perhaps Grog and RG can tell us why 47 US Senators want Iran to move more quickly toward having a nuclear bomb -- instead of having international inspections for AT LEAST 10 years that will PREVENT them from getting a bomb.
And why these same 47 US Senators were willing to violate the Logan Act, and the Supreme Court, in order to help bring about this result.
I expect Grog and RG to continue to deflect and evade. They've both admitted that the 47 Republican Senators were trying to stop the international talks. Let's have them explain why they wanted to make sure Iran moves faster to develop nuclear weapons.
The letter was written to try to stop Iran from getting a nuclear deal and the Senators feel that Congress should have a say in the matter. We have a system of gumit in this country that still matters to most people. There has never been an Executive Agreement made without Congressional support that even approaches the importance of this. We're talking about allowing the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world to enrich uranium and plutonium. A nation that openly trains Hamas and Taliban militants and has friendly arrangements with Al Qaida. But we're going allow them to have enriched uranium and plutonium and do it without Congressional support.
ReplyDeleteBut at any rate, it's a damn good think the Senators wrote the letter because there's a lot of idiots out there who didn't understand how our government works, including the Foreign Minister and a good number of American citizens. After the civics lesson, now they do. (Hopefully, as there are a lot of idiots in this world.)
++ Let's have them explain why they wanted to make sure Iran moves faster to develop nuclear weapons.++
(You continue your logical fallacy. Do you still beat your wife?)
Republicans don't want the biggest state sponsor or terrorism in the world and who are friends with the Taliban, Hamas, and Al Qaida to obtain enriched uranium and plutonium. As I explained to you earlier, a nuclear bomb cannot be made if they don't have enriched uranium and plutonium, therefore they don't "want to make sure Iran moves faster to develop nuclear weapons."
Grog said:
ReplyDeleteThe letter was written to try to stop Iran from getting a nuclear deal and the Senators feel that Congress should have a say in the matter. We have a system of gumit in this country that still matters to most people. There has never been an Executive Agreement made without Congressional support that even approaches the importance of this. We're talking about allowing the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world to enrich uranium and plutonium. A nation that openly trains Hamas and Taliban militants and has friendly arrangements with Al Qaida. But we're going allow them to have enriched uranium and plutonium and do it without Congressional support.
Yes, we do have a system of government that matters to most people. And yes, the Congress should have input into treaties and Executive Agreements - AFTER those agreements have been negotiated by the President, during the "advise and consent" phase of ratification - NOT DURING those negotiations. As I explained above, the Logan Act and the Supreme Court decision in U.S v. Curtiss-Wright Export Company forbid Congress from attempting to interfere with those kind of negotiations.
Since you seem to think that there was a 'civics lesson' which explains why this is not true, would you explain the finer points of that 'lesson' and how it refutes the Logan Act and the Supreme Court's decision?
As to your statement regarding Republicans not wanting "the biggest state sponsor of terrorism" to obtain the fissionable materials needed to make a nuclear bomb - you do understand that there is a difference between weapons-grade material and that which is used in nuclear power plants, do you not? And that the agreement currently being negotiated would prevent Iran from developing weapons-grade material for at least 10 years - verifiably and with regular inspections to ensure that? Which means, Iran would not move AT ALL toward developing nuclear weapons.
++Since you seem to think that there was a 'civics lesson' which explains why this is not true, would you explain the finer points of that 'lesson' and how it refutes the Logan Act and the Supreme Court's decision?++
ReplyDeleteThe simple answer is that the Logan Act applies to private citizens. A group of 47 Unites States' Senators acting together are not private citizens. Although many Democrats have been accused of violating the Logan Act, no prosecution has ever taken place based on a violation of it. There are other reasons as well.
As far as the civics lesson, the Senators merely educated Iran and many American citizens and elected leaders on how our government works. The President does have the power to negotiate treaties, but he needs Congress to enact them. Furthermore, Executive Agreements are only good for as long as the President who agreed to them is in office. The President also does not have the power to lift sanctions imposed by Congress. It's shocking that leaders of foreign countries with whom Obama is negotiating were not aware of these facts. Rather than being deceived, at least they now know going in.
Grog,
ReplyDelete1) Thank you for admitting the purpose of the letter was to blow up the multinational talks. You can stop pretending the letter was about "educating" anyone, or was merely expressing a concern over whether an agreement would be enforced. You (and the authors) are afraid and agreement WOULD be enforced, which is why you want to stop the talks. So stop pretending otherwise. No one is tupid enough to beleive you're afraid an agreement would NOT be enforced.
2) By interfering with the authority of the President to negotiate international agreements, the authors of the letter thus violated the Logan Act, and are possibly guilty of treason. They deserve to be jailed under US law. Thank you again for confirming that.
3) As Valjiir pointed out, if there is no agreement, Iran will continue its enrichment of nuclear material. Netanyahu has claimed Iran will then have a nuclear bomb within an year. Without an agreement, Iran WILL develop nuclear weapons. That is the result of the course you and the 47 authors of the letter want us to follow. Why?
4) "Enriched" uranium (or plutonium) is not an on/off thing, like a light switch. There are levels of enrichment. Uranium or plutonium enriched to the point of being used to produce power is NOT enriched enough to be used in a bomb. It cannot be used in a bomb. If there is an agreement, there will be international inspectors in Iran who will make sure Iran does not produce nuclear material that can be used in a bomb.
5) The level of enrichment that makes nuclear material usable in a bomb requires a level of technology and sophistication that Iran currently does not possess. If there is an agreement, the international inspectors will be able to make certain Iran does not develop that level of technology for at least ten years.
6) As you point out, Iran has been a state sponsor of terrorism. By.preventing an agreement, you are ensuring that a state sponsor of terrorism develops nuclear weapons. I think you should think this through a little more carefully.
Iranian hardliners -- precisely the people who want Iran to continue sponsoring terrorism -- also want to stop an agreement, just like the 47 senators who violated the Logan Act. Those 47 senators are siding with Iranian hardliners who want to develop a nuclear bomb, against American interests. Why do you want to help these sponsors of terrorism?
Grog said:
ReplyDeleteThe simple answer is that the Logan Act applies to private citizens. A group of 47 Unites States' Senators acting together are not private citizens. Although many Democrats have been accused of violating the Logan Act, no prosecution has ever taken place based on a violation of it. There are other reasons as well.
Can you provide the Supreme Court decision that made this distinction between "private citizens" and members of Congress? The Logan Act states quite clearly "Any citizen (emphasis mine) of the United States, wherever he may be..." It does NOT exempt citizens who may be holding office. The Supreme Court decision I referenced states quite clearly that this INCLUDES members of Congress.
If others have violated the Logan Act and were not prosecuted for it, that's on those who were in charge of such prosecutorial discretion at the time. It DOES NOT excuse further violations.
What "other reasons" do you refer to?
And finally, what makes you think that foreign countries with whom the President is negotiating are unaware of the facts of such negotiations? What evidence do you have that they were being deceived?
++Can you provide the Supreme Court decision that made this distinction between "private citizens" and members of Congress?++
ReplyDeleteI'm taking the word of the Congressional Research Service:
"The Logan Act, designed to cover relations between private citizens of the
United States and foreign governments, has prompted much controversy as to its
scope and effect in its more than 200 years."
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33265.pdf#12
But hey, if Democrats think they can get a prosecution, I would strongly recommend them to go for it.
++And finally, what makes you think that foreign countries with whom the President is negotiating are unaware of the facts of such negotiations? What evidence do you have that they were being deceived?++
The foreign minister obviously was unaware of that executive agreements are not binding to subsequent presidents or Congresses.
+++ The foreign minister obviously was unaware of that executive agreements are not binding to subsequent presidents or Congresses. +++
ReplyDeleteExcept that they ARE binding on subsequent presidents and Congresses, which is why they are usually honored (just as treaties that have been approved by the Senate are also only "usually" honored).
Executive Agreements are NOT between a president and a foreign leader. Executive Agreements are agreements BETWEEN NATIONS which are approved by the executives of those nations.
Clearly, neither your not the 47 Morons understand this point.
But none of that is relevant anyway. The relevant point is that the 47 Morons are siding with Iranian hardliners in an effort to pre-scuttle a deal that would prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Why?
Grog said:
ReplyDeleteI'm taking the word of the Congressional Research Service:
"The Logan Act, designed to cover relations between private citizens of the
United States and foreign governments, has prompted much controversy as to its
scope and effect in its more than 200 years."
I read through the report you cited. While it does go into some detail about the controversies regarding whether or not the Logan Act should be repealed, and how it should be enforced, and why certain cases were deemed not enforceable under the Logan Act, there is no reference I can find that exempts members of Congress. If I missed this part, perhaps you could quote it for me?
Your reiterating that the Iranian foreign minister was not aware of the facts of negotiations with the United States does not make it so. Please provide me with evidence backing up your claim that he was "unaware (sic) that executive agreements are not binding to subsequent presidents or Congresses." And if you could also cite the law or Supreme Court decision or something else which proves that Executive Agreements (as opposed to domestic Executive Actions) are not binding on subsequent presidents or Congresses, I would appreciate that.
++Except that they ARE binding on subsequent presidents and Congresses++
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty basic knowledge that they are not binding.
"Interestingly, executive agreements not authorized by Congress are not binding on subsequent presidents, because they are entered into only by the power of the president that enters into them."
http://study.com/academy/lesson/executive-agreement-definition-examples.html
"it only takes a subsequent president to come along and reverse course with a new executive agreement."
https://books.google.com/books?id=_pD0RCAmHM4C&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=executive+agreements+subsequent+presidents&source=bl&ots=ulGE7xUAxs&sig=17Olx_J5Fr--lCcZtCLjU58_H0U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xmcEVcydCcypgwSV5YKACA&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=executive%20agreements%20subsequent%20presidents&f=false
John Kerry has even admitted they are not negotiating a legally binding agreement.
Grog, we are discussing the difference between "legally binding" and "binding as a practical matter" -- but it's a deflection and a distraction.
ReplyDeleteIn conjunction with the Iranian hardliners who are state sponsors of terrorism, you and the 47 Morons want to pre-scuttle an agreement that would prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon for at least ten years. Instead, you want Iran to have no restrictions, so they can develop a nuclear weapon as quickly as possible. Why?
So here's the real question. What is the real goal of the Republicans who signed The Letter, and who are violating the Constitution and American law in their zeal to prevent a multinational agreement with Iran? And how about the people who have been conned into supporting them?
ReplyDeleteAre the 47 Morons so stupid that they don't understand they are doing precisely what the hardliner sponsors of terrorism in Iran want them to do? After all, the Iranian sponsors of terrorism also want to avoid an agreement, so they would be free to continue nuclear weapons development.
Or do the 47 honestly feel that Iran is less likely to develop a nuclear bomb if they don't have international inspectors crawling all over the Iranian nuclear facilities? Do they think the Iranians are less likely to develop a nuclear bomb if there are no restrictions on what Iran does?
Or is their hatred of the Black Guy so great that denying him yet another in his long string of foreign policies victories is worth allowing Iran to get a nuclear bomb? They would, after all, blame Obama for allowing it. Are they that into obstructionism?
Or are they really convinced President Obama is a sekret Muzlin terrier from West Kanye, and he is going to somehow bribe the international inspectors to allow Iran to develop a bomb, in his dastardly plot to destroy Murrika?
Or are they afraid the negotiations will work, and Iran will be prevented from getting a bomb -- and then their excuse for launching yet another middle-eastern war is gone? Are they afraid of losing Iran as a boogeyman?
I suspect its some combination of these things. Some of the 47 Morons are paranoid, some are idiots, some don't give a damn about America.
Grog, RG, what do you think? Which of these motives is more common among the nutty right?
"What is the real goal of the Republicans who signed The Letter, and who are violating the Constitution and American law in their zeal to prevent a multinational agreement with Iran? And how about the people who have been conned into supporting them?"
ReplyDeleteTo make clear to Iran and the public that the idiot Obama is only in office for a short time longer and senators are in office for much longer....so nobody should take all that seriously Obama's last ditch attempts to scrape a bad Iran deal together that some other president would have to deal with. The majority of senators, including the top Democrats and the American public and the leader of our top Mideast ally- are against Obama's capitulations....that fact matters more than any temporary legacy deal the idiot Obama put together.
Free speech is in the Constitution. Writing letters is hardly against the Constitution. Only the fascist Left thinks such idiocies. They'd already like to jail climate skeptics, now they're on to jailing Iran deal skeptics. Its sad that moderate liberals, after seeing the Democrat Party decimated across the country in recent elections, still allows its radical Left to push this insane and divisive rhetoric.
++In conjunction with the Iranian hardliners who are state sponsors of terrorism, you and the 47 Morons want to pre-scuttle an agreement that would prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon for at least ten years. Instead, you want Iran to have no restrictions, so they can develop a nuclear weapon as quickly as possible. Why?++
ReplyDeleteYes, that's the insane talking point from the idiot, radical left. There is no reasonable discourse left to be had among the idiot left.
Why do you want to allow Iran to keep all it's nuclear infrastructure so it can build all the nuclear bombs it wants in 10 years? Why do you want Iran to have nuclear weapons?
Grog-
DeleteCan you put together an actual informative piece on the current status of Iran's nuclear program rather that the uninformative "Republicans are being mean to Obama and need to go to jail" POS that DC and the MSM blather on about relentlessly. I honestly would like to learn more about the issue, but its difficult with the non stop gossip and propoganda that the Obama worshipping media and hard Left peddle as news.
This gives a good rundown:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/arabs/nukehistory.html
It details the history of Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions and includes facts about Iran lying about it's program and how it has a history of violating international agreements regarding it's nuclear program. Iran can't be trusted, they admit they can't be trusted, yet idiot Democrats think Iran can be trusted.
It talks about how an EU report concluded in 2007 that "At some stage we must expect that Iran will acquire the capacity to enrich uranium on the scale required for a weapons program” and that “the problems with Iran will not be resolved through economic sanctions alone”.
From the article:
"By January 2010, President Obama’s top advisers concluded that the 2007 NIE's conclusion that Iranian scientists ended all work on designing a nuclear warhead in late 2003 was inaccurate (New York Times, January 2, 2010). CIA director Leo Panetta said the United States suspected Iran had enough low-enriched uranium for two weapons (Washington Times, June 27, 2010). The CIA subsequently issued a public report indicating that Iran had installed centrifuges at the underground Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant near Qom and initiated production of near 20-percent enriched uranium there."
Interesting. Enough enriched uranium for twp weapons. Centrifuges.
RG is just reverting back to the original lie, that the 47 Morons were NOT trying to pre-scuttle the talks, they were merely exercising "free speech" by saying something with, RG would have us believe, no real purpose. ("I didn't know the gun was loaded and was pointing at my wife, honest!") RG, that doesn't pass the laugh test.
ReplyDeleteGrog, to your point -- you're again engaging in false equivalences. You DID admit the purpose of The Letter was to sabotage the talks, right? Which means Iran will have no international inspectors making sure they DON'T develop a bomb. That is also what Iranian hardliners and sponsors of terrorism want. Tell me the difference between your position and theirs.
+++ Interesting. Enough enriched uranium for twp weapons. Centrifuges. +++
And without international inspectors there, they will be able to make more of it. That is what you are recommending. Interesting. Why do you want that? Please answer the question. Why do you want to keep inspectors out of Iran, to ensure that they can continue their research toward nuclear weapons?
Answer. The. Damn. Question.
Even the New York Daily News -- a conservative, pro-Republican, pro-Likud paper -- disapproves of the 47 Moron letter, and calls its signers "traitors".
ReplyDelete++Answer. The. Damn. Question.++
ReplyDeleteI've answered the damn question several times. Read my responses for once.
Why do you want Iran to have nuclear bombs? Answer the question.
+++ I've answered the damn question several times. +++
ReplyDeleteNo, you haven't. Let's break it down. Why do you want to prevent international inspectors from making sure Iran doesn't develop a nuclear bomb?
+++ Why do you want Iran to have nuclear bombs? Answer the question. +++
I don't. Therefore, I am in favor an agreement that would prevent them from getting a bomb,
You are opposed to an agreement that would prevent Iran from getting a bomb.
Why do you oppose an agreement that would prevent Iran from getting a bomb? Answer the question.
"This gives a good rundown:"
ReplyDeleteThanks Grog. Exactly what I was looking for. Wow, some actual information! Yeah, media talk little of Iran's history of defiance on its nuclear program. I'll read up and hopefully have more to say.
"Even the New York Daily News -- a conservative, pro-Republican,"
God, you just can't get much right. NYDN is owned by Mort Zuckerman. Its moderate left, but generally not drone like for Democrats like most of the MSM They actually endorsed Romney. Zuckerman is a pro-defense Jewish liberal though. I'd have to research what they said about the Netanyahu speech.
http://www.eddyelmer.com/tools/pagestart.html?http://www.eddyelmer.com/tools/newspaper_editorial_positions.htm
RG, you can tell us why you object to international inspectors ensuring that Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. I guess you want them to be able to proceed without any limits also, right?
ReplyDeleteYou guys, I note, are offering no solutions, other than to make sure Iran has no restrictions on its nuclear program.
An for all your bleating about the Constitution and the law, you have no problems when Republicans violate the Constitution and the law. IDWARDI, right?
DC,
ReplyDeleteThe idiots' plan allows Iran to have a nuclear arsenal in 10 years. Why do you and the idiots want Iran to have nuclear bombs?
+++ The idiots' plan allows Iran to have a nuclear arsenal in 10 years.+++
ReplyDeleteNo, it does not. That is an outright lie. If an agreement is reached in the multinational negotiations it will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon for at least ten years.
In contrast, your plan (preventing an agreement that would put inspectors into Iran) would ensure Iran develops a nuclear weapon as soon as possible. Netanyahu says that would be in less than a year. Why do you want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon?
Since you are opposing the only plan on the table that will prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon, what is your alternative?
You don't have one. The only suggestion from the Party of No! is to not do what the President advises -- and to violate both the Constitution and federal law.
Show me where I'm wrong.
Grog, please answer the question. Stop evading. You are advising that we do NOT put inspectors into Iran. Yes or no? (The answer is Yes. That is exactly what you are advising.) Following your "plan" would allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon as soon as possible. Yes or no? (The answer is Yes. That is exactly what you are advising.) The question is: Why do you want that?
ReplyDeleteI suspect I know the answer. But I want you to say it. What is the alternative to a negotiated agreement that puts inspectors into Iran and prevents them from developing a nuclear weapon?
+++ If an agreement is reached in the multinational negotiations it will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon for at least ten years.+++
ReplyDeleteLet me expand on this a little. The nature of the agreement being negotiated is that if Iran moves closer to developing a nuclear weapon at any time during the next ten years, then the agreement is off and crippling sanctions are re-imposed. Iran most certainly does not want the re-imposition of the sanctions. This is a powerful incentive to behave.
So it is not -- "Wait ten years, and Iran will be able to develop a nuclear weapon in ten years and three days" or anything stoopid like that. No, the truth is, under a negotiated agreement, in ten years Iran will be no closer to developing a nuclear weapon than they are today -- and, if Iran behaves, they will have become a part of the world community, and have no more reason to possess a nuclear weapon than does, for instance, Switzerland.
(How close is Iran today? No one knows for sure, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO INSPECTORS IN IRAN. For twenty years, Netanyahu has been saying Iran is one year away from having a bomb. Either Iran has been showing remarkable restraint for twenty yeast, or Chicken Little is wrong.)
Bottom line -- If there is an agreement, then at the worst, in ten years we have lost no ground. In fact, we'll be better off because there will be international arms inspectors crawling all over Iran. That's the worst than can happen. I think that's not a bad worst case.
Instead, the 47 Morons want NO agreement, and NO inspectors, which allows Iran to continue nuclear development at the fastest pace they can.
I suspect I know why the 47 Morons want this, but I want to hear Grog or RG say it.
++In contrast, your plan (preventing an agreement that would put inspectors into Iran) would ensure Iran develops a nuclear weapon as soon as possible. Netanyahu says that would be in less than a year.++
ReplyDeleteHere's where you're having trouble. Netanyahu did not say Iran will have a nuclear bomb in less than a year from today. He said the breakout time would be less than a year. He was talking about from the time the sanctions are lifted in 10 years to the time they have bomb. So in 11 years. Why do you want Iran to have a bomb in 11 years?
+++ Why do you want Iran to have a bomb in 11 years?+++
ReplyDeleteBecause that gives us 11 years to stop them, during which time we will have inspectors crawling all over Iran and we will know, for certain, if that is what they are planning.
Now you answer my question.
If there are no inspectors in Iran, they will be able to proceed as quickly as they are able, and according to Netanyahu, their "breakout time" means they will have a bomb very quickly. Why do you want that.?
What is your alternative method of stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb?
You don't have an alternative, do you?
ReplyDeleteWe can either 1) stop Iran for at least eleven years -- which gives us time to stop them permanently -- or 2) we can let them start their "breakout time" RIGHT NOW and have a nuclear weapon in a year.
You want Option 2). The reason you want Option 2) is that President Obama wants Option 1). You have no alternative, no logic, no reason behind it.
It does not bother you that the hardliner sponsors of terrorism in Iran also want Option 2). It does not bother you that Option 2) gives Iran a nuclear weapon within a year. It does not bother you that the 47 Morons violated federal law in their pursuit of Option 2). Your preferred path -- Option 2) gives NO ADVANTAGE over Option 1). The only important factor for you is that President Obama wants Option 1).
Tell me where I'm wrong. Tell me how NOT having an agreement prevents Iran from developing a bomb. I dare you.
"Because that gives us 11 years to stop them, during which time we will have inspectors crawling all over Iran and we will know, for certain, if that is what they are planning. "
ReplyDeleteIran has said they will not accept a 10 year ban on nuclear progress. So, you're just creating fantasy scenarios to argue against to deflect from the fact of whats actually possibly in a deal.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/03/iran-rejects-obama-10-year-nuclear-freeze-demand-150304052045255.html
The talks have gone on for 1.5 years. Little progress has been made and Iran has just been playing the Obama administration. Thats is why the 47 patriot senators wrote the letter. They know that the negotiations are a failure and the only possible deal at this point would be a terrible one. So they want to rub Obama's face in the failure. Thats why the idiot Obama is so damn pissed.
RG, Thanks for admitting the 47 Traitorous Morons letter was about interfering with the President's constitutional duty to conduct international negotiations. I'm happy you've abandoned the pretense that it was about anything else.
ReplyDeleteSo I will ask you what I asked Grog. What is your alternative to having an multinational agreement to put inspectors in Iran who will ensure that Iran does not move any closer to having a nuclear weapon? Without inspectors there, Iran will move as quickly as possible -- Netanyahu says it will take less than a year -- to develop a nuclear bomb. By preventing an agreement, you ensure Iran will do everything they can to match Netanhayu's expectations. So why do you want that? What is your alternative?
Answer. The. Damn. Question.
You're all full of strawmen.
ReplyDeleteDo you realize there are sanctions currently being imposed on Iran? Sanctions that are much more strict than what the idots' are now proposing?
We need to continue sanctions against Iran's oil, banking, and financial sectors - sanctions that have crippled their economy. We need to ban the supply of heavy weaponry and nuclear related technology, a block on arms exports, and continue to freeze assets on important individuals and companies. We need to restrict trade of equipment used for uranium enrichment and freeze assets of any individuals who are known to support Iran's nuclear program. We need to blacklist the known front companies controlled by the leaders of Iran who hide assets and generate billions of dollars of revenue.
++ we can let them start their "breakout time" RIGHT NOW and have a nuclear weapon in a year.++
You're still not grasping the obvious here. The current sanctions have crippled the Iranian's ability to build a nuclear bomb. Under current UN sanctions, they WILL NOT have a bomb in a year. Under current UN sanctions, inspectors have verified that Iran has kept to it's agreement and have NOT encriched uranium above 20%. Today they have LESS encriched uranium than they had previously. This has been verified by the inspectors.
++If there are no inspectors in Iran,++
There ARE inspectors in Iran.
The idiots' want to lift sanctions and give them a path to a bomb in 11 years. Why do you want them to have a bomb in 11 years?
+++ Do you realize there are sanctions currently being imposed on Iran? +++
ReplyDeleteEconomic sanctions, yes. That's what brought Iran to the bargaining table.
+++ The current sanctions have crippled the Iranian's ability to build a nuclear bomb.+++
No, those are economic sanctions. They don't affect what happens in a centrifuge.
+++ Today they have LESS encriched uranium than they had previously.+++
Good. Then the economic sanctions are showing Iran we are serious, and Iran is therefore showing that they can comply with world demands. That's good evidence to show an agreement is likely to work, because Iran will not want the sanctions to be re-imposed. It is time to stop punishing the Iranian people with these crippling economic sanctions.
So, your alternative is to simply continue economic sanctions forever, is that correct?
By the way, you admitted,
ReplyDelete+++Under current UN sanctions, inspectors have verified that Iran has kept to it's agreement and have NOT encriched uranium above 20%. +++
So, even you admit, a mere handful of UN inspectors can verify what Iran is doing. If Iran makes any moves during the course of an agreement to cheat on that agreement, the world will know, and sanctions can be re-imposed. Thank you for admitting and verifying that an agreement will work.
A ten-year agreement is far better than no agreement at all, and provides the time needed to get a permanent pact in place. Meanwhile, the people in Iran who are suffering because the Iranian economy is collapsing will be able to recover somewhat, trade and diplomatic relations can more toward a less-antagonistic footing, and Iran can be brought into the world community. This will reduce pressure on them to want a nuclear weapon in the first place, and will reward them for having moved away from that threatening posture. It's a win-win for the world.
Keeping sanctions in place, on the other hand, maintains the antagonism and encourages Iran to get ever-more belligerent and distrustful of the West -- which also encourages them to sponsor more terrorism, and to more desperately want a nuclear weapon so as to be able to make extortionist demands. Meanwhile, the Iranian people continue to suffer, and will became ever more desperate. This is a losing proposition for everyone.
That is your "solution"? Status quo? Bully the Iranians? Really?
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, after all the handwringing about that mean mean letter.....about a dozen Senate Democrats have signed onto Bob Corkers' bill to give Congress 60 days to override any insane Obama deal. Another bill from Senator Kirk to push sanctions should Iran walk away, also has 65+ supporters. Obama again may be in a position to have to veto a bipartisan bill. However, it looks like the Senate will enough votes to override him. Again, this is shaping up as a huge embarrasment for the 1.5 year long desperate attempt at making nice with Iran, by the idiot Obama.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/democrats-prepared-to-buck-white-house-on-iran-nuclear-deal-116088.html
RG, the "handwringing" isn't about the letter being "mean" (although the level of juvenile and condescending disrespect it exhibits is appalling, and should be beneath the US Senate). The problem is that the letter violated US law, and is an unconstitutional attempt by Republicans in the Senate to interfere in delicate negotiations which are the exclusive province of the President. Try to keep up.
ReplyDeleteAnd now answer my question. What is your alternative to an agreement? Permanent sanctions?
Grog-
ReplyDeleteAre you sure about these inspectors? My understanding is they aren't inspecting or at least not inspecting much. I see this a non-negotiable. Any country that wants more lenient inspectors, obviously has bad intentions, sooner or later.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-blocking-nuclear-inspections/
++That is your "solution"? Status quo? Bully the Iranians? Really?++
ReplyDeleteNo. Stricter sanctions including maintaining inspections, as opposed to the idiots' plan of lifting sanctions and a sunset clause creating a path to a nuclear arsenal in 11 years.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1881
The idiots in the White House have done everything in their power to stop the prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
Ok Grog, so your solution is permanent sanctions, leading to a collapse of the Iranian economy and dangerous instability. Thus also encouraging Iran to want a nuclear weapon so they can threaten to use it. Not very smart.
ReplyDeleteI get that Republicans object to negotiations of any sort on any issue with anyone, foreign or domestic. Their modus operandi is to make demands and bully everyone else to get their way. That really doesn't work, and it is sort of the definition of a "rogue state". Republicans are terrorists and extortionists.
You already said Iranians are keeping to their agreements. A negotiated and verified multinational pact that keeps tabs on Iranian nuclear facilities and prevents them from developing the capacity to produce nuclear weapons is clearly the smartest and best path. It's a lot better than having no agreement, no inspectors, ever-more-crippling sanctions with no way out that will encourage Iran to sponsor more terrorism and to develop nuclear weapons.
Here's a thought. Nominate a Republican for president with a better idea and get him elected.
rgb,
ReplyDeletehttp://www.vox.com/2014/11/13/7214191/iran-nuclear-program-guide
This is a good read. It discusses the inspectors in Iran.
++Republicans are terrorists and extortionists.++
ReplyDeleteI know you are but what am I? (You're a child. You deserve to be talked to like one.)
++You already said Iranians are keeping to their agreements.++
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily by their own accord. Current sanctions have crippled their ability to violate the agreement.
A negotiated and verified multinational pact that keeps tabs on Iranian nuclear facilities and prevents them from developing the capacity to produce nuclear weapons is clearly the smartest and best path. It's a lot better than having no agreement, no inspectors, ever-more-crippling sanctions with no way out that will encourage Iran to sponsor more terrorism and to develop nuclear weapons.
That's what we have now. There are inspectors. We need tougher sanctions. Their way out is to dismantle their nuclear program. What we don't need is an insane Obama plan that gives them a 10 year sunset path to nuclear weapons. That's an insane and idiotic plan.
As an example of quick-thinking Senator Tom Cotton, we found out over the weekend that he is frightened that Iran controls its own capital.
ReplyDeleteWait until he discovers that Iran is increasingly full of Iranians.
It is possible that he meant to refer to some other city that Iran controls since they are assisting in the pushback against ISIL, though I haven't found his office saying anything to suggest his remark was a misstatement. I suspect he wanted to say that the theocratic government of Iran is a danger simply because they are Muslim, and those scary Muslims already control an entire nation, i.e.. Iran. There is, however, no artful way to say that, and this was the best he could do off the cuff.
At any rate, this is the moron who wrote The Letter.
Okay, Grog, you object to a verifiable plan that prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons for more than a decade. You would prefer to keep heavy sanctions on them so they are encouraged to do something desperate, like developing a nuclear weapon sooner.
ReplyDeleteIt comes down to a disagreement on policy. Unfortunately for Republicans, the current President believes in the effectiveness of multinational negotiated solutions to reduce tensions and ensure American's interests. Elections have consequences, and 47 Morons in the Senate don't get to un-do the last two presidential elections.
I get that Republicans want to keep Iran as a scary boogeyman, because Republicans are all about using scare tactics to frighten voters. A negotiated and verifiable pact with Iran that prevents them from getting nuclear weapons and opens the way to a permanent solution would take away Republican talking points.
Since Republicans have screwed up every aspect of foreign policy they've had a hand in for the last few decades, I see no reason to believe their insane fear-mongering now. We need a different approach, which is the reason American resoundingly elected Obama, twice.
It took some teeth-pulling to get you and RG to admit the Moron Letter was about interfering in presidential negotiations. It took even more to get you to provide an alternative to a multinational verifiable agreement that prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I get that your position is based in fear of Iran, and I understand why -- fear is the driving motivation for modern conservatives.
I think we've explored this topic pretty thoroughly. It's my feeling (and apparently the President's) that the sanctions have served their purpose, which was to bring Iran to the bargaining table and allow the creation of a verifiable agreement that prevents the spread of nuclear weapons, reduces middle eastern tensions, and opens the way for even longer-lasting agreements and cooperation.
It seems to be your feeling (and you correct me if I'm wrong) that Iran cannot be trusted (even though they are currently, n your words, honoring present agreements) and so they must be permanently punished. Pressure and tensions must (in your view) be kept as high as possible, and it is less dangerous to be an international bully than to take a chance on multinational agreements.
I'll be working up a new blog post on a different topic. We've going around enough on this one I think, though feel free to add any new thoughts.
+++ We need tougher sanctions. +++
ReplyDeleteFor what purpose? The sanctions did what they were intended to do, which is to bring Iran to the bargaining table.
++ Their way out is to dismantle their nuclear program. +++
Yes. Step 1) is to have no weapons development for ten years.
Iran wants to be able to have nuclear reactors to generate electric power. They also want to export nuclear reactor fuel to other nations, because the oil industry is collapsing as the world weans itself from carbon fuels. Iran needs to have an economy, and exporting fuel for nuclear power stations is one element that Iran wants to replace their export of oil.
The multinational agreement currently being negotiated seems the best way to produce a win for everyone, while ratcheting down tensions in the middle east and ensuring Iran does not much toward nuclear weapons. Opposing that agreement is insane.
++Opposing that agreement is insane.++
ReplyDeleteWhat's insane is to commit to an agreement that will politically legitimize the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world (You shrug that off call them the "boogeyman". Maybe idiots don't take supporters of terrorism seriously, but I do.) It's insane to legitimize their ability to enrich uranium. It's insane to let them keep thousands of centrifuges. It's insane to forge a deal that does nothing to address their ballistic missile delivery system. It's insane to give them a sunset clause.
Such an agreement is the act of an idiot. And it's insane.
+++ What's insane is to commit to an agreement that will politically legitimize the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world+++
ReplyDeleteYou're going to pretend the government if Iran is not the government of Iran? That's insane.
+++ It's insane to legitimize their ability to enrich uranium. +++
Why? They can't enrich it enough to build a bomb. Your fear is insane.
+++ It's insane to let them keep thousands of centrifuges. +++
Why? That's an insane argument. Those centrifuges are incapable of building a weapon.
+++ It's insane to forge a deal that does nothing to address their ballistic missile delivery system.+++
Why? Not every deal has to hit every single concern. Trying to do that would be insane. This deal isn't about missiles. Striking a deal on nuclear power will make a deal on missiles easier to negotiate.
The deal being negotiated would prevent "the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world" from building a nuclear weapon. Only an idiot would oppose that deal. Such opposition is insane.
The idiots' plan would NOT prevent them from building a nuclear weapon. It would allow them to. It's completely insane. It's a surrender plan. It's moronic.
ReplyDeleteIf by "the idiots" you mean Republicans, you are correct.
ReplyDeleteI know you are but what am I?
ReplyDeleteHey, this is the style of blog of your choosing.
Well, we've established that the plan being negotiated would have inspectors in Iran that would prevent Iran from moving toward a nuclear weapon, so your continued repetition is simple reality-denial. There isn't much to say about that, other than point out the insanity of it.
ReplyDeleteNo. The idiotic sunset clause removes any legal recourse that would prevent Iran from building nuclear bombs. It's absolutely insane.
ReplyDelete... except that "idiotic sunset clause" happens after the world has been working on Iran for TEN YEARS to move toward a different stance.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, at the best, that "idiotic sunset clause" gives the world plenty of time to drastically alter the situation in the Middle East.
At the worst, that "idiotic sunset clause" that is so "absolutely insane" would create precisely the situation we have today. Which is the situation you like. What does that say about the situation you like? (Answer: if A=B, and B=C, then A=C, and the situation you like is "absolutely insane". Your words.)
And no, it removes no "legal recourse", because if Iran moves toward a nuclear weapon at any time -- before or after the "idiotic sunset clause" kicks in -- crippling worldwide sanctions will again be in force.
...which has been said multiple times in this conversation. You are apparently missing a lot here, or are willfully ignoring reality, as conservatives are generally wont to do.
I get that you hate the possibility of a negotiated agreement that would prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, particularly if President Obama is partly responsible for that agreement. But come on, stop denying reality. It doesn't help your case. Just tell us why your way -- making life ever-more miserable for millions of people and continuing to ratchet up Middle Eastern tensions without actually changing anything -- is better.
Oh I forgot. Your way also pisses off the entire world community, including every member of the UN Security Council. It also relies on the machinations of the 47 Morons who are violating the Constitution and federal law. America will have no allies in this matter if it imposes stronger sanctions -- and in fact, many of the nations currently imposing sanctions would drop out. Plus, it would weaken American in the world community, and make future negotiations -- with any country at all -- more difficult. While doing absolutely nothing to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteTell me why your way is better.
"Alter the situation"? What do these weasel words mean? That the idiots will go back on their word.
ReplyDeleteOur way is better because it doesn't tolerate Iran building nuclear weapons. Your way does.
The Senators' letter called out the idiotic plan of Obama for what it is. They stopped it in its tracks now that the media has been forced to cover the story and the public has had a chance to learn about the insane plan. Iran wanted everything and Obama was going to give it to them. Now that he's been outed it appears that the agreement won't happen the way Obama and the terrorists wanted.
ReplyDeleteObama shows complete disregard for our system of gumit by shutting congress out of decisions of this magnitude. He thinks he's the Emperor.
+++ Our way is better because it doesn't tolerate Iran building nuclear weapons. Your way does. +++
ReplyDeleteDoes not.
We've been over this. You're just making up crap.
Your way also strengthens the hand of Iranian hardliners who are the worst state sponsors of terrorism in the world, while weakening the office of the Presidency of the United States.
I'm sticking with my way, despite the imagination of the wacky right.
"Does not."
ReplyDeleteDoes to.
Your way also strengthens the hand of Iranian hardliners who are the worst state sponsors of terrorism in the world, while weakening the system of government of the United States, showing complete disregard for Congress and separation of powers.
I'm sticking with my way, despite the imagination of the wacky left.
Good, we've got that settled. Let's move on.
ReplyDelete+++ He thinks he's the Emperor. +++
ReplyDeleteNow that's just nuts.
An emperor would have not allowed the 2014 elections. He would have disbanded Congress long ago. He would have jailed Tom Cotton. Limbaugh and Beck and Hannity would probably have been executed. The Supreme Court would never meet again. There would be no 2016 elections.
When you say over-the-top wacked-out things like that, it really hurts your case. You sound nutter than a bag of cashews. I know rightist blogs and Faux News are full of that sort of idiot rhetoric. But it really is kind of pathetic when rightists resort to such extreme and asinine hyperbole.
+++ The Senators' letter called out the idiotic plan of Obama for what it is. They stopped it in its tracks+++
It isn't "Obama's plan". The entire UN Security Council is behind it. You have yet to admit it is a multinational agreement being worked out -- yet another example of the right's inability to acknowledge reality. Are you aware that the Earth revolves around the Sun?
As far as being "stopped in its tracks", the negotiations are proceeding, and might still reach this valuable international accord. Republicans are still trying to kill it of course, with some moronic crap they're doing in Congress, but the fact that they're still trying shows that it's still moving forward. Once again, your grasp of reality seems tenuous at best.
And incidentally, I was waiting for the right moment to shatter your illusions that the president doesn't have the authority to life sanctions on Iran. He does.So says the Congressional Research Service.
ReplyDeleteThere are some preconditions, but as long as they're met, the President does not need Congressional authority to lift most of the sanctions.
++An emperor would have not allowed the 2014 elections. He would have disbanded Congress long ago. He would have jailed Tom Cotton. Limbaugh and Beck and Hannity would probably have been executed.++
ReplyDeleteThat's actually a good point. Cotton, Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity have all been publicly critical of Obama. I'm surprised they haven't been jailed or put to death. And Obama has no use for Congress.
++When you say over-the-top wacked-out things like that, it really hurts your case.++
Coming from you, that's rich. You're the master of saying "over-the-top wacked-out things".
++Republicans are still trying to kill it of course.++
Yes, of course they are. That's what they were elected to do. To stop Obama from implementing this type of of idiotic, reckless, and insane agenda.
++There are some preconditions, but as long as they're met, the President does not need Congressional authority to lift most of the sanctions.++
Yeah, you're probably talking about this:
"To lift the majority of the economic sanctions imposed by CISADA, the President must determine
and certify that the government of Iran:
1) has ceased providing support for acts of international
terrorism and no longer satisfies the requirements for designation as a state sponsor of
terrorism and
2) has ceased the pursuit, acquisition, and development of, and verifiably
dismantled its, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and ballistic missiles and
ballistic missile launch technology."
Good luck with that. And keep in mind that this does NOT apply to the Joint Plan of Action reached on November 24, 2013 between the P5+1 and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
+++ I'm surprised they haven't been jailed or put to death.+++
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to understand if a) President Obama isn't an emperor, and b) one isn't buying into right-wing nonsense rhetoric. Since he hasn't done these things, that should tell you something.
+++ Joint Plan of Action reached on November 24, 2013 between the P5+1 and the Islamic Republic of Iran.+++
Thank you for admitting the P5+1 are negotiating an agreement. This is not Emperor Obama acting alone. This is the President of the United States conducting US foreign policy in conjunction with the world's great powers, as he was elected to do, and as the Constitution of the united States empowers him to do.
And no, Republicans were not elected to oppose President Obama. The Constitutional duty of the House and the Senate is NOT to mindlessly oppose the President of the United States at every opportunity. Nor is it to interfere in the negotiation of agreements with other nations. Read the Constitution, for Dog's sake. Those items are not among the Constitutionally-mandated powers and duties of Congress.
++This is the President of the United States conducting US foreign policy in conjunction with the world's great powers, as he was elected to do, and as the Constitution of the united States empowers him to do.++
ReplyDeleteThis would be an historic flipping off and complete disregard of the United States Congress and the separation of powers. Never in the history of the nation has an issue of this importance been decided without Congress taking part in the decision making process.
++And no, Republicans were not elected to oppose President Obama.++
They were elected to oppose insanity.
+++ This would be an historic flipping off and complete disregard of the United States Congress and the separation of powers. +++
ReplyDeleteNonsense. Please, read some history. Yes, Congress has frequently complained that the President does things they don't like. Nothing new here. Move along.
+++ They were elected to oppose insanity. +++
Judging by people like Cruz and Cotton and Gomert, they may have been elected to promulgate insanity. I mean, come on. Between shutting down the government, violating the Logan Act, and saying nutty things, these people are like the also-rans for the cast of Dumb and Dumbest.