Why is this not treason? (1 Viewer)

[Christo]

Seems like even Iran knows the US Congress is just a bunch of clowns.

Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, also poured deirsion on the Republican letter in a statement expressing astonishment that members of Congress would seek to undermine a US administration by writing directly to a foreign power, and suggesting that the letter’s authors had much to learn about international and even US law.

Zarif, like President Hassan Rouhani and several other senior members of the Iranian government, holds an advanced degree from a western university, and appears to have taken umbrage at the condescending tone of the senators’ letter. He delivered his own lecture in response.

“I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law,” he wrote.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/10/obama-denounces-republican-letter-iran-nuclear-talks

Something the Iranians are very familiar with.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

It is funny to me that there are some on this thread who seem to think that the Iranians don't understand how international negotiations work. Like we're having talks with the first 5 shepards we come across in the desert.

 

[tommyboy]

Eere having talks with people that hate us and want obliterate one of our closest allies

 

[jonessed]

Seems like even Iran knows the US Congress is just a bunch of clowns.

Irans foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, also poured deirsion on the Republican letter in a statement expressing astonishment that members of Congress would seek to undermine a US administration by writing directly to a foreign power, and suggesting that the letters authors had much to learn about international and even US law.

Zarif, like President Hassan Rouhani and several other senior members of the Iranian government, holds an advanced degree from a western university, and appears to have taken umbrage at the condescending tone of the senators letter. He delivered his own lecture in response.

I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law, he wrote.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/10/obama-denounces-republican-letter-iran-nuclear-talks

Obama doesn't have the power to lift the sanctions implemented by Congress and any executive agreement he might reach with Iran won't supercede that.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

So what happens if these 47 senators are found to have broken the Logan Act? Can they get in any real trouble?

Seems like a huge stretch.

Yeah, but the irony would be spectacular.It's true at every level of government -- legislators always think they have some individual power when they generally don't. I've done work for governmental entities for a long time. Every time there's a newly-elected legislator there's a breaking-in period during which he/she has to learn that he/she is nothing more than a vote that has no meaning whatsoever unless it happens to be a tie-breaking vote. That sounds harsh, but it's true. The Constitution, for example, doesn't give a congressman or senator any authority to act on behalf of the U.S. at all. The majority of those bodies wield enormous power, but a Senator is at best a 1/51st say in the wielding of that power. A Representative is at best a 1/218th say.

Where did they negotiate with Iran?

I said someone negotiated with Iran?

Read everything you quoted.

Not trying to be a smartass, but I read it again. I don't see anything about negotiating with Iran. If you're referring to references to the Logan Act, it says nothing about negotiation. It deals with direct or indirect "correspondence" "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". Nothing about "negotiation" at all, just direct or indirect correspondence. No question it's correspondence, but it's probably ambiguous enough for a good defense attorney to defeat.

Is the letter subject to the Logan Act? Maybe, maybe not. Will anyone ever push it? Of course not.

Regardless, a douchey letter from 47 US lawmakers lecturing a foreign government about our laws that in and of itself arguably violates our laws is precisely the type of hypocrisy and irony I love to see in government. And you can bet your paycheck that out of those 47, not 15 of them even thought about the Logan Act before signing off on it. I bet there are a half dozen of them who never even heard of the Logan Act until some time today.

The political traction the Democrats will get out of not even mentioning the Logan Act (but letting everyone else talk about it) far outweighs the benefit of even a successful prosecution. Like my initial post in this threat pointed-out, the GOP is allowing the minority party (and one that is not run very well in its own right) stomp its guts out over stupid stuff. Did anyone even attempt a cost-benefit analysis on this thing before doing it? What's the upside gain, firing-up the base 2 years before the next election? Big whoop. I mean, Harry frigging Reid is whipping the GOP right now by doing basically nothing. Harry Reid for chrissakes.

And the Supreme Court interpreted the Logan Act as referring to negotiating on behalf of the U.S. Someone quoted it earlier.

Where?

Are you referring to the references to US v. Curtiss Wright? You do know that case has nothing to do with the Logan Act right?

 

[Aerial Assault]

It's not treason.

It doesn't likely violate the Logan Act either, because (a) they probably had the "authority of the United States" in writing their petulant little letter; (b) I think the Logan Act precedes the First Amendment, which is a problem for its constitutionality if it does; and (c ) the Logan Act has apparently never been successfully used to convict anyone, so it's subject to obsolescence or "desuetude," sort of the legal version of atrophy.

HOWEVER, the letter was incalculably stupid, misguided, childish, and shows just the sort of people that Republicans are electing these days. Amazing, really. Someone above said it all: even the Iranians understood immediately what abject clowns these senators are.

Kudos, by the way, to the seven GOP senators who had the smarts not to sign. Murkowski, Coats, Flake, Collins, and I forget the other three.

 

[sho nuff]

I wouldn't have minded Pelosi being thrown in prison for negotiating with al-Assad against the Bush administration's wishes. Hell, she flew to Syria to do it in person. What's the statute of limitations on this thing?

Oh, Snap!

The progressives in here completely forgot about that. Can't wait to hear the reasons it was OK for Pelosi to do that.

It wasn't good for her to go.

HTH.

BTW...why does every political thread end up going like this?

GOP does something dumb...right leaning poster brings up something the left did to deflect.

Dem does something dumb...left leaning poster brings up something the right did to deflect.

Guess what...Pelosi has nothing to do with this situation.

Not everyone supported what she did back then...hell, I don't know of too many people that think all that highly of people like her and Harry Reid.

 

[Christo]

So what happens if these 47 senators are found to have broken the Logan Act? Can they get in any real trouble?

Seems like a huge stretch.

Yeah, but the irony would be spectacular.It's true at every level of government -- legislators always think they have some individual power when they generally don't. I've done work for governmental entities for a long time. Every time there's a newly-elected legislator there's a breaking-in period during which he/she has to learn that he/she is nothing more than a vote that has no meaning whatsoever unless it happens to be a tie-breaking vote. That sounds harsh, but it's true. The Constitution, for example, doesn't give a congressman or senator any authority to act on behalf of the U.S. at all. The majority of those bodies wield enormous power, but a Senator is at best a 1/51st say in the wielding of that power. A Representative is at best a 1/218th say.

Where did they negotiate with Iran?

I said someone negotiated with Iran?

Read everything you quoted.

Not trying to be a smartass, but I read it again. I don't see anything about negotiating with Iran. If you're referring to references to the Logan Act, it says nothing about negotiation. It deals with direct or indirect "correspondence" "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". Nothing about "negotiation" at all, just direct or indirect correspondence. No question it's correspondence, but it's probably ambiguous enough for a good defense attorney to defeat.

Is the letter subject to the Logan Act? Maybe, maybe not. Will anyone ever push it? Of course not.

Regardless, a douchey letter from 47 US lawmakers lecturing a foreign government about our laws that in and of itself arguably violates our laws is precisely the type of hypocrisy and irony I love to see in government. And you can bet your paycheck that out of those 47, not 15 of them even thought about the Logan Act before signing off on it. I bet there are a half dozen of them who never even heard of the Logan Act until some time today.

The political traction the Democrats will get out of not even mentioning the Logan Act (but letting everyone else talk about it) far outweighs the benefit of even a successful prosecution. Like my initial post in this threat pointed-out, the GOP is allowing the minority party (and one that is not run very well in its own right) stomp its guts out over stupid stuff. Did anyone even attempt a cost-benefit analysis on this thing before doing it? What's the upside gain, firing-up the base 2 years before the next election? Big whoop. I mean, Harry frigging Reid is whipping the GOP right now by doing basically nothing. Harry Reid for chrissakes.

And the Supreme Court interpreted the Logan Act as referring to negotiating on behalf of the U.S. Someone quoted it earlier.

Where?

Are you referring to the references to US v. Curtiss Wright? You do know that case has nothing to do with the Logan Act right?

No, I assumed that when someone mentioned the Logan Act and then quoted a Supreme Court case in the very next sentence it meant they had something to do with each other. My bad.

 

[Aerial Assault]

above said it all: even the Iranians understood immediately what abject clowns these senators are.
Kudos, by the way, to the seven GOP senators who had the smarts not to sign. Murkowski, Coats, Flake, Collins, and I forget the other three.

Sorry to quote my own post, but after checking, I see that the other three who did not sign were Alexander, Cochran, and Corker. And Corker's the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, so it's not like the Gang of 47 might have taken their cue from him or anything.

 

[mcintyre1]

I wouldn't have minded Pelosi being thrown in prison for negotiating with al-Assad against the Bush administration's wishes. Hell, she flew to Syria to do it in person. What's the statute of limitations on this thing?

Oh, Snap!

The progressives in here completely forgot about that. Can't wait to hear the reasons it was OK for Pelosi to do that.

It wasn't good for her to go.

HTH.

BTW...why does every political thread end up going like this?

GOP does something dumb...right leaning poster brings up something the left did to deflect.

Dem does something dumb...left leaning poster brings up something the right did to deflect.

Guess what...Pelosi has nothing to do with this situation.

Not everyone supported what she did back then...hell, I don't know of too many people that think all that highly of people like her and Harry Reid.

Bingo. The "progressives" I know (I use quotes because Max seems to think we're some modern version of the Hitler youth or something) have nothing but contempt for democratic leadership.

They're just so terrified of letting the GOP get the reins again that they choke down the tinge of vomit at the back of their throat and fill in the 'D' circle.

I wish Bernie Sanders would revive the Bull Moose Party if it meant anything other than Jeb Bush in the White House.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

It's not treason.

It doesn't likely violate the Logan Act either, because (a) they probably had the "authority of the United States" in writing their petulant little letter; (b) I think the Logan Act precedes the First Amendment, which is a problem for its constitutionality if it does; and (c ) the Logan Act has apparently never been successfully used to convict anyone, so it's subject to obsolescence or "desuetude," sort of the legal version of atrophy.

HOWEVER, the letter was incalculably stupid, misguided, childish, and shows just the sort of people that Republicans are electing these days. Amazing, really. Someone above said it all: even the Iranians understood immediately what abject clowns these senators are.

Kudos, by the way, to the seven GOP senators who had the smarts not to sign. Murkowski, Coats, Flake, Collins, and I forget the other three.

Logan Act post-dates Bill of Rights by 8 years.

No way Obama gave those guys authority to act.

True, it's never been used to convict, just as a political tool. It's probably unconstitutional but because it's vague and basically a poorly written statute. It may be subject to desuetude, but that's somewhat academic. No one wants it repealed or enforced -- it's a handy thing to whip out in political battles by whichever side is in the White House.

I agree with everything you said about the decision-making of those 47. Making Harry Reid look good is an impressive feat. We really should appreciate the 1st 2 months of this congressional term for that reason alone. The GOP couldn't even get one of its signature pieces of legislation to Obama's desk (selective enforcement of immigration laws).

 

[cstu]

Not treason, but no one who signed that should be re-elected.

 

[mcintyre1]

Many people in this thread have referenced the "trustworthyness" of Iran. I don't give that argument much weight because, frankly, I find Iran more trustworthy than Saudi Arabia, our "best friends" in the region. Iran has reasons to hate us. We've meddled very seriously in their internal affairs in the past. They don't pretend that there isn't friction between us. Saudi Arabia treats us like a besty at the monarch level while actively recruiting and funding terrorist groups against us at the religious leader and intelligence service level, all while maintaining worse cultural laws than Iran.

I think Iran has the potential to become our best ally and the most functional democracy in the Middle East, but that path lies at the end of a fairly long, murky trail after improved relations with the West, the death of Khamenei, social and political reforms in Iran driven by youth, and acknowledgement of past errors by the USA.

I'm probably wrong, and all of that will probably never happen, but I've met young Iranians and gone to college with them. Much like most young people in most countries in the Internet era, we're really not all that different. I'm not yet willing to give up all hope that we can bridge those differences in the future. This treaty on Nuclear energy can be a first piece in normalizing relations, so I have no issue with the President negotiating for it.

When do you think they will stop funding Hezbollah? 2016?

Whenever the bolded happens, if it ever does.

 

[FlapJacks]

A true act of treason would be giving these religious fanatics the bomb.

Even during the Cold War, I always thought that some nut from the ME, was a bigger threat to start a nuclear war than the Soviets or the US....

Why does the left always find itself siding with tryanical despots...

 

[jon_mx]

Not treason, but no one who signed that should be re-elected.

Shocker a partisan Democrat would say that.

 

[tommyboy]

I wouldn't have minded Pelosi being thrown in prison for negotiating with al-Assad against the Bush administration's wishes. Hell, she flew to Syria to do it in person. What's the statute of limitations on this thing?

Oh, Snap!

The progressives in here completely forgot about that. Can't wait to hear the reasons it was OK for Pelosi to do that.

It wasn't good for her to go.

HTH.

BTW...why does every political thread end up going like this?

GOP does something dumb...right leaning poster brings up something the left did to deflect.

Dem does something dumb...left leaning poster brings up something the right did to deflect.

Guess what...Pelosi has nothing to do with this situation.

Not everyone supported what she did back then...hell, I don't know of too many people that think all that highly of people like her and Harry Reid.

Bingo. The "progressives" I know (I use quotes because Max seems to think we're some modern version of the Hitler youth or something) have nothing but contempt for democratic leadership.

They're just so terrified of letting the GOP get the reins again that they choke down the tinge of vomit at the back of their throat and fill in the 'D' circle.

I wish Bernie Sanders would revive the Bull Moose Party if it meant anything other than Jeb Bush in the White House.

Functionally no difference between GOP and Democrats. What you should fear is actual Conservatives and Libertarians taking control of the GOP

 

[tommyboy]

Not treason, but no one who signed that should be re-elected.

Explain?

 

[Christo]

Not treason, but no one who signed that should be re-elected.

Explain?

Childishness should not be rewarded.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Why does the left always find itself siding with tryanical despots...

Huh?

That's a bipartisan phenomenon.

 

[FlapJacks]

Not treason, but no one who signed that should be re-elected.

Explain?

Childishness should not be rewarded.

If that were the case, we'd have no elected officials left...

 

[bear]

A true act of treason would be giving these religious fanatics the bomb.

Even during the Cold War, I always thought that some nut from the ME, was a bigger threat to start a nuclear war than the Soviets or the US....

Why does the left always find itself siding with tryanical despots...

You do understand the purpose of these negotiations is to prevent Iran from getting nukes, right? If you do understand that (big if apparently) then who is giving who the bomb?

 

[mcintyre1]

I wouldn't have minded Pelosi being thrown in prison for negotiating with al-Assad against the Bush administration's wishes. Hell, she flew to Syria to do it in person. What's the statute of limitations on this thing?

Oh, Snap!

The progressives in here completely forgot about that. Can't wait to hear the reasons it was OK for Pelosi to do that.

It wasn't good for her to go.

HTH.

BTW...why does every political thread end up going like this?

GOP does something dumb...right leaning poster brings up something the left did to deflect.

Dem does something dumb...left leaning poster brings up something the right did to deflect.

Guess what...Pelosi has nothing to do with this situation.

Not everyone supported what she did back then...hell, I don't know of too many people that think all that highly of people like her and Harry Reid.

Bingo. The "progressives" I know (I use quotes because Max seems to think we're some modern version of the Hitler youth or something) have nothing but contempt for democratic leadership.

They're just so terrified of letting the GOP get the reins again that they choke down the tinge of vomit at the back of their throat and fill in the 'D' circle.

I wish Bernie Sanders would revive the Bull Moose Party if it meant anything other than Jeb Bush in the White House.

Functionally no difference between GOP and Democrats. What you should fear is actual Conservatives and Libertarians taking control of the GOP

You're not wrong. If I could choose anything it'd be a rework of our representative government focused on eliminating special interests influence on policy. Publicly funded elections (with no corporate or non-individual contributions and sensible overall spending caps) would go a long way, along with ranked choice voting and proportional representation.

 

[tommyboy]

A true act of treason would be giving these religious fanatics the bomb.

Even during the Cold War, I always thought that some nut from the ME, was a bigger threat to start a nuclear war than the Soviets or the US....

Why does the left always find itself siding with tryanical despots...

You do understand the purpose of these negotiations is to prevent Iran from getting nukes, right? If you do understand that (big if apparently) then who is giving who the bomb?

and what do you suppose the odds of that happening is, even with a treaty?

 

[bear]

A true act of treason would be giving these religious fanatics the bomb.

Even during the Cold War, I always thought that some nut from the ME, was a bigger threat to start a nuclear war than the Soviets or the US....

Why does the left always find itself siding with tryanical despots...

You do understand the purpose of these negotiations is to prevent Iran from getting nukes, right? If you do understand that (big if apparently) then who is giving who the bomb?

and what do you suppose the odds of that happening is, even with a treaty?

I suppose the odds are substantially better with an agreement than without as I believe If Iran really wants nukes they will get them. If you believe differently do you propose the US goes to war with Iran? Are you signing up for this war? Do you have kids you want to send off for this war? Do you or any of the other right wing idiots in this country have a better plan? If so, what is it?

 

[tommyboy]

Iran’s foreign minister and chief negotiator in nuclear talks with the West declared victory for his country, stating that no matter how the negotiations end, Tehran has come out “the winner,” according to remarks made on Tuesday and presented in the country’s state-run press. Javad Zarif, the Islamic Republic’s foreign minister, stated in remarks before the country’s powerful Assembly of Experts, which recently installed a hardline new cleric as its leader, that the nuclear negotiations have established Tehran as a global power broker. “We are the winner whether the [nuclear] negotiations yield results or not,” Zarif was quoted as saying before the assembly by the Tasnim News Agency. “The capital we have obtained over the years is dignity and self-esteem, a capital that could not be retaken.” Zarif’s comments were accompanied by a host of bold military displays by Tehran in recent weeks, including the announcement of one new weapon that Iranian military leaders have described as a “very special” missile. - See more at: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-declares-pre-emptive-victory-in-nuke-talks/#sthash.CWlIeIHi.dpuf

 

[Apple Jack]

Just wish Iran had a Public Information Officer like that wicked awesome guy from Iraq. Is that too much to ask?

 

[Clifford]

Not treason, but no one who signed that should be re-elected.

Explain?

We shouldn't elect people who directly undermine our President in his dealings with foreign nations? Or who show such stunning lack of judgment, knowledge of international law, and condescension towards leaders of other nations?

 

[ichris]

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-09/republicans-warn-iran-and-obama-that-deal-won-t-last

A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration wont last after Obama leaves office.

Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.

Seems pretty treasony to me. But since conservative republicans are doing it there must be some angle where its the most patriot act in history.

Don't really care what you think about the deal per se. But I can't think of an similar analogous action in my adult life.

Can you imagine if Dems did something like this? The outrage would be cataclysmic sounding.

Ted Kennedy says hi.

This is hardly the first time something like this has been done. The question I have is whether this is the first time Republicans have done it.

 

[FlapJacks]

How dare our elected representatives interfere with the business of government...who do they think they are?

 

[FlapJacks]

Not treason, but no one who signed that should be re-elected.

Explain?

We shouldn't elect people who directly undermine our President in his dealings with foreign nations? Or who show such stunning lack of judgment, knowledge of international law, and condescension towards leaders of other nations?

It's like you slept through the entire Bush and Reagan administrations....

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Not treason, but no one who signed that should be re-elected.

Explain?

We shouldn't elect people who directly undermine our President in his dealings with foreign nations? Or who show such stunning lack of judgment, knowledge of international law, and condescension towards leaders of other nations?

It's like you slept through the entire Bush and Reagan administrations....

That's rich. The biggest gripe about the Democrats during Bush's 1st 6 years is that they were as non-resistant as they could be on anything remotely related to foreign affairs. Bush got a pass for a huge chunk of his presidency.

 

[Koya]

How dare our elected representatives interfere with the business of government...who do they think they are?

This post lacks anything resembling context and reality. This shameful act is below the office of Senator and it's sad that so many feel it is more important to grandstand - even at the expense of our nations well being - rather than govern.

Pathetic.

 

[Clifford]

There is no amount of spin or deflection that can change what this is and how it will be viewed.

 

[Koya]

There is no amount of spin or deflection that can change what this is and how it will be viewed.

As is clear from reading right leaning media.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

I'm just happy that for once in recent memory, elected GOP officials from Tennessee were given the chance to do something really, really partisan and declined.

 

[FlapJacks]

Not treason, but no one who signed that should be re-elected.

Explain?

We shouldn't elect people who directly undermine our President in his dealings with foreign nations? Or who show such stunning lack of judgment, knowledge of international law, and condescension towards leaders of other nations?

It's like you slept through the entire Bush and Reagan administrations....

That's rich. The biggest gripe about the Democrats during Bush's 1st 6 years is that they were as non-resistant as they could be on anything remotely related to foreign affairs. Bush got a pass for a huge chunk of his presidency.

they spent almost the entire period of the war in Iraq trying to undermine it, the president, the administration, the terms of engagement, etc

 

[Fennis]

Not treason, but no one who signed that should be re-elected.

Explain?

We shouldn't elect people who directly undermine our President in his dealings with foreign nations? Or who show such stunning lack of judgment, knowledge of international law, and condescension towards leaders of other nations?

It's like you slept through the entire Bush and Reagan administrations....

That's rich. The biggest gripe about the Democrats during Bush's 1st 6 years is that they were as non-resistant as they could be on anything remotely related to foreign affairs. Bush got a pass for a huge chunk of his presidency.

they spent almost the entire period of the war in Iraq trying to undermine it, the president, the administration, the terms of engagement, etc

looks like we found the guy who jumps off bridges because he thought his friends did.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Not treason, but no one who signed that should be re-elected.

Explain?

We shouldn't elect people who directly undermine our President in his dealings with foreign nations? Or who show such stunning lack of judgment, knowledge of international law, and condescension towards leaders of other nations?

It's like you slept through the entire Bush and Reagan administrations....

That's rich. The biggest gripe about the Democrats during Bush's 1st 6 years is that they were as non-resistant as they could be on anything remotely related to foreign affairs. Bush got a pass for a huge chunk of his presidency.

they spent almost the entire period of the war in Iraq trying to undermine it, the president, the administration, the terms of engagement, etc

looks like we found the guy who jumps off bridges because he thought his friends did.

When they, in fact, didn't actually jump off it.

George W. Bush actually used the Jedi Mind Trick on Democrats in Congress to get an overwhelming blessing to invade Iraq. "These are the weapons of mass destruction you are looking for." "Those are the weapons of mass destruction we are looking for." Boom -- done. No meaningful inquiry or even the most cursory effort to do their job on the part of the Democrats.

On the funding side, sure the majority of the Democrats voted against most of the appropriations, but it was little more than a naked majority -- everything Bush asked for, he got with generally 40+% of the Democrats voting to give it to him (at times a majority). Bush was largely unfettered on all things foreign affairs until the Democrats won the Senate in the 2006 election cycle, the last 2 years of his office.

Regardless, none of that actually matters. Even my 5 year old understands that the "yeah, but so-and-so did it" defense and the even worse "yeah, but so-and-so would have done it" defense are stupid, without merit, and are invalid. These 47 Senators made a dumb decision. I actually don't blame Cotton that much -- he is who he is, a loud-mouthed, act first, think second guy who basically ran on that campaign. He's just being who he is. Someone a little higher-up on the GOP committee appointment list should have counseled him about it instead of encouraging him to do it.

 

[FlapJacks]

Not treason, but no one who signed that should be re-elected.

Explain?

We shouldn't elect people who directly undermine our President in his dealings with foreign nations? Or who show such stunning lack of judgment, knowledge of international law, and condescension towards leaders of other nations?

It's like you slept through the entire Bush and Reagan administrations....

That's rich. The biggest gripe about the Democrats during Bush's 1st 6 years is that they were as non-resistant as they could be on anything remotely related to foreign affairs. Bush got a pass for a huge chunk of his presidency.

they spent almost the entire period of the war in Iraq trying to undermine it, the president, the administration, the terms of engagement, etc

looks like we found the guy who jumps off bridges because he thought his friends did.

When they, in fact, didn't actually jump off it.

George W. Bush actually used the Jedi Mind Trick on Democrats in Congress to get an overwhelming blessing to invade Iraq. "These are the weapons of mass destruction you are looking for." "Those are the weapons of mass destruction we are looking for." Boom -- done. No meaningful inquiry or even the most cursory effort to do their job on the part of the Democrats.

On the funding side, sure the majority of the Democrats voted against most of the appropriations, but it was little more than a naked majority -- everything Bush asked for, he got with generally 40+% of the Democrats voting to give it to him (at times a majority). Bush was largely unfettered on all things foreign affairs until the Democrats won the Senate in the 2006 election cycle, the last 2 years of his office.

Regardless, none of that actually matters. Even my 5 year old understands that the "yeah, but so-and-so did it" defense and the even worse "yeah, but so-and-so would have done it" defense are stupid, without merit, and are invalid. These 47 Senators made a dumb decision. I actually don't blame Cotton that much -- he is who he is, a loud-mouthed, act first, think second guy who basically ran on that campaign. He's just being who he is. Someone a little higher-up on the GOP committee appointment list should have counseled him about it instead of encouraging him to do it.

first point, who said it was a defense? I just asked if Clifford had slept through the entire Iraq war, where despite approving the war, the rhetoric was very anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-Rumsfeld, anti-Powell, anti-Rice, anti-Cheney.

A great deal of effort was spent undermining the war effort. A lot of the rhetoric of the 2004 campaign...the media propagandists trying to put out a meme that Bush won't admit it was a mistake...the constant comparisons to Vietnam, the word Quagmire being thrown around....all of this in 2003-2004...but whatever, you guys forgot your own threads that you spent posting here every day for six years...you slept through it too. Regardless if it was a mistake or not, evene though they voted for it, they quickly shifted direction and undermined the very war effort that they voted for as representatives of the people. Now that is shameful and treasonous.

 

[Willie Neslon]

This has obviously backfired and senators are already running from it, some have called it an attempt at humor which is ridiculous. It's so obviously a political ploy because what else could it be? What would be the point of sabotaging an agreement like this? If the deal does fall through and there is a war there will be blood on these people's hands. That can't be good for the party.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Not treason, but no one who signed that should be re-elected.

Explain?

We shouldn't elect people who directly undermine our President in his dealings with foreign nations? Or who show such stunning lack of judgment, knowledge of international law, and condescension towards leaders of other nations?

It's like you slept through the entire Bush and Reagan administrations....

That's rich. The biggest gripe about the Democrats during Bush's 1st 6 years is that they were as non-resistant as they could be on anything remotely related to foreign affairs. Bush got a pass for a huge chunk of his presidency.

they spent almost the entire period of the war in Iraq trying to undermine it, the president, the administration, the terms of engagement, etc

looks like we found the guy who jumps off bridges because he thought his friends did.

When they, in fact, didn't actually jump off it.

George W. Bush actually used the Jedi Mind Trick on Democrats in Congress to get an overwhelming blessing to invade Iraq. "These are the weapons of mass destruction you are looking for." "Those are the weapons of mass destruction we are looking for." Boom -- done. No meaningful inquiry or even the most cursory effort to do their job on the part of the Democrats.

On the funding side, sure the majority of the Democrats voted against most of the appropriations, but it was little more than a naked majority -- everything Bush asked for, he got with generally 40+% of the Democrats voting to give it to him (at times a majority). Bush was largely unfettered on all things foreign affairs until the Democrats won the Senate in the 2006 election cycle, the last 2 years of his office.

Regardless, none of that actually matters. Even my 5 year old understands that the "yeah, but so-and-so did it" defense and the even worse "yeah, but so-and-so would have done it" defense are stupid, without merit, and are invalid. These 47 Senators made a dumb decision. I actually don't blame Cotton that much -- he is who he is, a loud-mouthed, act first, think second guy who basically ran on that campaign. He's just being who he is. Someone a little higher-up on the GOP committee appointment list should have counseled him about it instead of encouraging him to do it.

first point, who said it was a defense? I just asked if Clifford had slept through the entire Iraq war, where despite approving the war, the rhetoric was very anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-Rumsfeld, anti-Powell, anti-Rice, anti-Cheney.

A great deal of effort was spent undermining the war effort. A lot of the rhetoric of the 2004 campaign...the media propagandists trying to put out a meme that Bush won't admit it was a mistake...the constant comparisons to Vietnam, the word Quagmire being thrown around....all of this in 2003-2004...but whatever, you guys forgot your own threads that you spent posting here every day for six years...you slept through it too. Regardless if it was a mistake or not, evene though they voted for it, they quickly shifted direction and undermined the very war effort that they voted for as representatives of the people. Now that is shameful and treasonous.

Huh, so this letter is just the GOP senators getting a jump on their next campaigns. Gotcha.

 

[FlapJacks]

Not treason, but no one who signed that should be re-elected.

Explain?

We shouldn't elect people who directly undermine our President in his dealings with foreign nations? Or who show such stunning lack of judgment, knowledge of international law, and condescension towards leaders of other nations?

It's like you slept through the entire Bush and Reagan administrations....

That's rich. The biggest gripe about the Democrats during Bush's 1st 6 years is that they were as non-resistant as they could be on anything remotely related to foreign affairs. Bush got a pass for a huge chunk of his presidency.

they spent almost the entire period of the war in Iraq trying to undermine it, the president, the administration, the terms of engagement, etc

looks like we found the guy who jumps off bridges because he thought his friends did.

When they, in fact, didn't actually jump off it.

George W. Bush actually used the Jedi Mind Trick on Democrats in Congress to get an overwhelming blessing to invade Iraq. "These are the weapons of mass destruction you are looking for." "Those are the weapons of mass destruction we are looking for." Boom -- done. No meaningful inquiry or even the most cursory effort to do their job on the part of the Democrats.

On the funding side, sure the majority of the Democrats voted against most of the appropriations, but it was little more than a naked majority -- everything Bush asked for, he got with generally 40+% of the Democrats voting to give it to him (at times a majority). Bush was largely unfettered on all things foreign affairs until the Democrats won the Senate in the 2006 election cycle, the last 2 years of his office.

Regardless, none of that actually matters. Even my 5 year old understands that the "yeah, but so-and-so did it" defense and the even worse "yeah, but so-and-so would have done it" defense are stupid, without merit, and are invalid. These 47 Senators made a dumb decision. I actually don't blame Cotton that much -- he is who he is, a loud-mouthed, act first, think second guy who basically ran on that campaign. He's just being who he is. Someone a little higher-up on the GOP committee appointment list should have counseled him about it instead of encouraging him to do it.

first point, who said it was a defense? I just asked if Clifford had slept through the entire Iraq war, where despite approving the war, the rhetoric was very anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-Rumsfeld, anti-Powell, anti-Rice, anti-Cheney.

A great deal of effort was spent undermining the war effort. A lot of the rhetoric of the 2004 campaign...the media propagandists trying to put out a meme that Bush won't admit it was a mistake...the constant comparisons to Vietnam, the word Quagmire being thrown around....all of this in 2003-2004...but whatever, you guys forgot your own threads that you spent posting here every day for six years...you slept through it too. Regardless if it was a mistake or not, evene though they voted for it, they quickly shifted direction and undermined the very war effort that they voted for as representatives of the people. Now that is shameful and treasonous.

Huh, so this letter is just the GOP senators getting a jump on their next campaigns. Gotcha.

you have a real talent for reading something and then making something up which was never stated or implied

 

[FlapJacks]

kerry-Iran deal "not legally binding..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/03/11/even-john-kerry-says-the-iran-deal-is-not-legally-binding/

what the hell?

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Probably doesn't belong here, but whatever. Welcome to real government, kids.

http://news.yahoo.com/kentucky-students-hard-lesson-politics-lawmakers-203831631--politics.html

 

[FlapJacks]

Probably doesn't belong here, but whatever. Welcome to real government, kids.

http://news.yahoo.com/kentucky-students-hard-lesson-politics-lawmakers-203831631--politics.html

A second amendment, similarly unpopular in the House, would let students "voluntarily express religious or political viewpoints" in schools without fear of discrimination.

[SIZE=15.0000009536743px]how horrible, we cant't have anybody freely expressing their ideas...these are institutions of learning! no thinking and expressing allowed![/SIZE]

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

looks like we found the guy who jumps off bridges because he thought his friends did.

When they, in fact, didn't actually jump off it.

George W. Bush actually used the Jedi Mind Trick on Democrats in Congress to get an overwhelming blessing to invade Iraq. "These are the weapons of mass destruction you are looking for." "Those are the weapons of mass destruction we are looking for." Boom -- done. No meaningful inquiry or even the most cursory effort to do their job on the part of the Democrats.

On the funding side, sure the majority of the Democrats voted against most of the appropriations, but it was little more than a naked majority -- everything Bush asked for, he got with generally 40+% of the Democrats voting to give it to him (at times a majority). Bush was largely unfettered on all things foreign affairs until the Democrats won the Senate in the 2006 election cycle, the last 2 years of his office.

Regardless, none of that actually matters. Even my 5 year old understands that the "yeah, but so-and-so did it" defense and the even worse "yeah, but so-and-so would have done it" defense are stupid, without merit, and are invalid. These 47 Senators made a dumb decision. I actually don't blame Cotton that much -- he is who he is, a loud-mouthed, act first, think second guy who basically ran on that campaign. He's just being who he is. Someone a little higher-up on the GOP committee appointment list should have counseled him about it instead of encouraging him to do it.

first point, who said it was a defense? I just asked if Clifford had slept through the entire Iraq war, where despite approving the war, the rhetoric was very anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-Rumsfeld, anti-Powell, anti-Rice, anti-Cheney.

A great deal of effort was spent undermining the war effort. A lot of the rhetoric of the 2004 campaign...the media propagandists trying to put out a meme that Bush won't admit it was a mistake...the constant comparisons to Vietnam, the word Quagmire being thrown around....all of this in 2003-2004...but whatever, you guys forgot your own threads that you spent posting here every day for six years...you slept through it too. Regardless if it was a mistake or not, evene though they voted for it, they quickly shifted direction and undermined the very war effort that they voted for as representatives of the people. Now that is shameful and treasonous.

Huh, so this letter is just the GOP senators getting a jump on their next campaigns. Gotcha.

you have a real talent for reading something and then making something up which was never stated or implied

Your entire post was about "rhetoric" and "the 2004 campaign" and "media propagandists" (whatever those are) "trying to put out a meme" (whatever the hell that means) and "comparisons to Vietnam" and the "word Quagmire [sic] being thrown around". Nothing involving officials taking action by communicating directly with another foreign government in an effort to meddle in ongoing negotiations that everyone agrees the President has the right to do, for clearly 100% political reasons. Not even anything about rejection of requests for money. Why? Because it didn't happen.

No one has argued here that the GOP needs to sit quietly by and say nothing. They've just argued that the GOP shouldn't collectively engage a foreign government to actively try to undermine the President's authority as publicly as possible.

Probably doesn't belong here, but whatever. Welcome to real government, kids.

http://news.yahoo.com/kentucky-students-hard-lesson-politics-lawmakers-203831631--politics.html

A second amendment, similarly unpopular in the House, would let students "voluntarily express religious or political viewpoints" in schools without fear of discrimination.

[SIZE=15.0000009536743px]how horrible, we cant't have anybody freely expressing their ideas...these are institutions of learning! no thinking and expressing allowed![/SIZE]

I've got no idea what the bill says or does, although I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that its text isn't actually "let student voluntarily express religious or political viewpoints in schools without fear of discrimination".

The point of the article, and me posting it, was to point out how douchey politicians will trample all over a bill drummed up by kids that everyone views as a good idea to try to ramrod an unpopular bill (for whatever reason) through the legislature.

 

[Clifford]

This has obviously backfired and senators are already running from it, some have called it an attempt at humor which is ridiculous. It's so obviously a political ploy because what else could it be? What would be the point of sabotaging an agreement like this? If the deal does fall through and there is a war there will be blood on these people's hands. That can't be good for the party.

You lose Willie, you've lost the great wide middle mah friend.

 

[Shadowfax]

Huh, so this letter is just the GOP senators getting a jump on their next campaigns. Gotcha.

you have a real talent for reading something and then making something up which was never stated or implied

Where there's smoke, there's fire:

Linkhttps://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/09/upon-launching-effort-scuttle-iran-deal-senator-tom-cotton-meets-defense-contractors/

Another "fight the good fight" war hawking dip#### in Cotton. Pretty sure Cotton is going to see some good "additional" campaign funds from NDIA soon.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Huh, so this letter is just the GOP senators getting a jump on their next campaigns. Gotcha.

you have a real talent for reading something and then making something up which was never stated or implied

Where there's smoke, there's fire:

Linkhttps://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/09/upon-launching-effort-scuttle-iran-deal-senator-tom-cotton-meets-defense-contractors/

Another "fight the good fight" war hawking dip#### in Cotton. Pretty sure Cotton is going to see some good "additional" campaign funds from NDIA soon.

"During his senate campaign, he told a tele-townhall that ISIS and Mexican drug cartels joining forces to attack Arkansas was an urgent problem."Huh?

Personally I think if they just asked nicely the rest of the country might just let 'em have Arkansas, so long as they agreed to no backsies.

 

[Christo]

kerry-Iran deal "not legally binding..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/03/11/even-john-kerry-says-the-iran-deal-is-not-legally-binding/

what the hell?

It's not