GOP letter to Iran patriotic - anything to neutralize Obama's ability to enter into a catastrophic deal is a good thing

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2015 9:55 PM GMT
    Consider why the deal needs to be neutralized, then thanks to RJ member, bobbobbob, see the examples of Democrats involving themselves in foreign policy.

    First, the administration, through the Joint Plan of Action interim deal, conceded that Iran can maintain its nuclear program, contravening decades of U.S. policy and multiple legally binding U.N. Security Council resolutions. We won’t be able to stop the proliferation cascade that will ensue in a region already rife with violence and instability.

    Second, the administration moved its stated red line from denying Iran nuclear weapons capacity to ensuring its nuclear breakout time is at least a year. But there’s really no way to guarantee that. The multitude of steps across multiple institutions that would have to be taken to detect, verify, and try to resolve diplomatically any Iranian attempt to sneak out or break out means a year would pass before a military strike could even be considered. In any case, prompt and thorough verification would be virtually unachievable because the deal won’t require full Iranian transparency on its past research into nuclear weapons technology.

    Third, with the latest U.S. offer reportedly allowing 6,500 operating centrifuges, Iran would have to verifiably export or eliminate almost all its enriched uranium stockpiles to push the breakout time to more than 12 months—something it won’t do. It would also have to verifiably dismantle the rest of its 19,000 centrifuges—something it won’t be required to do.

    Fourth, the deal will include a sunset clause whereby Iran eventually would become a normalized nuclear power operating as large an enrichment program as it likes. So in perhaps a decade, based on recent reports, Iran could be treated like Japan.

    Finally, the deal ignores Iran’s ballistic missile program—the largest in the Middle East—despite ongoing advances that could allow it to develop the capability to target the United States around the same time the agreement would expire.

    One could go on, but it’s clear that Obama is not trying to prevent a nuclear Iran and merely hoping to manage its approach to that point. This is an error of potentially catastrophic significance, representing in several ways a more unnecessary and unjustified betrayal than Munich.

    Above excerpts from:

    Appeasement in Our Time
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/appeasement-our-time_867729.html#

    Action not unprecedented:

    bobbobbob said.

    1983 Ted Kennedy proposed a secret alliance with the Soviet Union to defeat President Ronald Reagan.

    1984, 10 Democratic lawmakers — including the then majority leader and House Intelligence Committee chairman – sent a letter to Nicaraguan Communist leader Daniel Ortega known as the “Dear Comandante” letter. In it, the lawmakers criticized Reagan’s policy toward Nicaragua and whitewashed the record of violence by the Sandinista communists.

    2007 Nancy Pelosi visited Syrian dictator Bashar Assad

    2002 Democrats visited Iraq to trash Bush’s policy


    http://americanlibertypac.com/2015/03/here-are-5-times-democrats-undermined-republican-presidents-with-foreign-governments/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2015 10:55 PM GMT
    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/republicans-surprised-by-iran-letter-blowback-116003.html?ml=m_po

    Iran letter blowback startles GOP


    socalfitness, your "patriots" seem to realize they've been idiots.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2015 11:47 PM GMT
    SamRising saidhttp://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/republicans-surprised-by-iran-letter-blowback-116003.html?ml=m_po

    Iran letter blowback startles GOP


    socalfitness, your "patriots" seem to realize they've been idiots.

    The article doesn't state that at all. It states is some were surprised by the backlash. Similar to the misreporting of McCain's comments on Greta Van Sustern's show, which I exposed in another thread.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2015 11:59 PM GMT
    The following link provides detailed examples of Democrats involving themselves in foreign policy during Republican administrations.

    Excerpts:

    Politics long ago stopped at the water’s edge. Those who pretend otherwise are either ignorant or intellectually dishonest. Of course, the past behavior of Democrats doesn’t justify the Republican letter on Iran.

    The letter needs no justification.

    Forty-seven elected senators made a fact-based, substantive argument, in public, about a matter of critical importance to the national security of the United States. They did so after the Obama administration fought a bipartisan congressional push for triggered sanctions and restricted the ability of members of Congress to discuss in public the interim agreement with Iran, and after President Obama himself made clear that he would veto legislation intended to force the administration to include Congress. The administration’s position is this: Any agreement with Iran will be secret until it’s signed; congressional input is unwelcome and may be unpatriotic; and Congress will accept and abide by all terms of the deal whether its members approve or not.

    ...

    Let’s be clear about what’s happening here. The feigned outrage from the White House and its supporters is just the latest of several attempts (a) to distract from the evident shift in the Obama administration’s position on Iran—from blocking Iran’s development of nuclear weapons to managing it, (b) to silence opposition to the deal, and (c) to blame Congress for any diplomatic failure. (Obama said back in mid-January that Congress would “own” any diplomatic failure.)

    A final point. The Cotton letter has already achieved its goal. We are, finally, engaged in a serious national debate about the threat from Iran. That is something the Obama administration has avoided for six years. No more.

    Unlike, say, John Kerry or Ted Kennedy, and unlike David Bonior and Nancy Pelosi, these senators gave no succor to dictators and despots. Instead, these 47 patriotic senators merely told the enemy a hard truth about American government. A serious administration intent on stopping Iran’s progress toward nuclear weapons would use the letter and the concern it conveys as leverage in negotiations.

    Instead, they’ve given us a contrived controversy and an emboldened Iran.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/contrived-controversy-and-emboldened-iran_884237.html

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2015 12:09 AM GMT
    That Time John Kerry Tried To Negotiate With A Hostile Government Behind A President's Back

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/12/kissinger-slammed-kerry-for-negotiating-with-sandinistas-in-1985-video/
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Mar 13, 2015 1:09 AM GMT
    Ex president Jimmy Carter secretly sending a letter to the UN Security Council to get them to vote against the President, House and Senate on sending troops to Iraq.

    http://origin.tampabays10.com/news/article/146840/0/Jimmy-Carter-My-presidency-was-a-success

    "And when George H. W. Bush was in office, Carter wrote a secret letter to the U.N. calling on the Security Council to vote against the resolution to go to war against Saddam Hussein.

    "To write and ask the UN Security Council members to vote against the United States," Stahl said.

    "I also sent a copy of the same letter to President Bush," Carter pointed out. Asked if he went too far, Carter said, "I felt very deeply about the fact that the war was not necessary."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2015 3:20 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidGOP letter to Iran patriotic - anything to neutralize Obama's ability to enter into a catastrophic deal is a good thing
    Yep. I agree on that point.

    From the media, it appears more people are agreeing. The hysterical response from Obama supporters is an attempt to deflect attention away from a horrible deal.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Mar 13, 2015 3:37 PM GMT
    I have mixed feelings about this letter. It sets a dangerous precedent. A letter to the American people stating their case signed by all in congress who supported that view would have probably been more appropriate. I don't like the idea of members of our congress going behind the back of the executive branch of the US to try and circumvent negotiations with another country. Just doesn't seem right to me.
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4433

    Mar 13, 2015 3:51 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI have mixed feelings about this letter. It sets a dangerous precedent. A letter to the American people stating their case signed by all in congress who supported that view would have probably been more appropriate. I don't like the idea of members of our congress going behind the back of the executive branch of the US to try and circumvent negotiations with another country. Just doesn't seem right to me.

    It isn't right. It's pathetic and nothing more than grandstanding because they've gone so far down the rabbit hole with the right wing crazies that they've lost all sense of proportion or propriety. All this irrational justification about stopping a catastrophic deal is less than bogus because there is no deal. And besides, the only alternative they propose is to bomb and kill. Which would only set Iran back two years and further galvanize their desire to get a bomb. And I can understand why they'd think they need it-- the Republicans are crazy and love to kill. And all to keep their power on Capitol Hill. Pitiful excuses for legislators. And the American people recognize it now. They're 2-1 against this letter. So go make up some more pretend justifications.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2015 5:08 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI have mixed feelings about this letter. It sets a dangerous precedent. A letter to the American people stating their case signed by all in congress who supported that view would have probably been more appropriate. I don't like the idea of members of our congress going behind the back of the executive branch of the US to try and circumvent negotiations with another country. Just doesn't seem right to me.

    CJ - please look at links in some of the above posts in this thread to see all the examples of more direct actions by Democrats during Republican administrations. You might argue that one set of actions doesn't excuse another. You might also argue that a different tactic would have been preferable. However, read the OP to see the disastrous framework of the deal that has been reported. Also note Obama's secrecy and stated desire to go around Congress, which has a constitutional right to ratify treaties.

    You might also note the shrill, nonsensical comments of Obama supporters, both in this thread as well as in the media. Don't you think much of that is motivated by an attempt to deflect attention away from a terrible deal? If Obama were really interested in a strong negotiation, he would have used that letter as a lever against the Iranians. But his motives and ego strongly suggest otherwise.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Mar 13, 2015 8:05 PM GMT
    +100 ^

    and take into the consideration the brief but consistent history of every other deal he's initiated in secret, "away from the fog of controversy."

    SECOND STIMULUS BILL - Remember it was never released to the public as promised to be read before ti was passed. All the "shovel ready" money went to cronies of whom most started businesses that have since closed - money gone. He came back and said the money "wasn't so shovel ready." BTW, the 2nd stimulus bill was already written before he took office. One thing in it shined was the even $1 million that went to the Chicago River dinner cruise ship industry to fight terrorism. Hard to forget that one after i read it.

    ACA - inadvertently exposed thanks to Jonathan Gruber as an intentional deception of the public.

    FCC - voted itself power to regulate the internet and we are just now finding out why the rules were not published first.

    CAP & TRADE - (proposed by candidate Obama) exposed for being a means to make the upper 1% wealthier under the pretense of limiting carbon emissions. Gore, and a cast of mega billionaires would have made billions the first year. Goldman Sachs would have made trillions.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2015 10:03 PM GMT
    bobbobbob said+100 ^

    and take into the consideration the brief but consistent history of every other deal he's initiated in secret, "away from the fog of controversy."

    SECOND STIMULUS BILL - Remember it was never released to the public as promised to be read before ti was passed. All the "shovel ready" money went to cronies of whom most started businesses that have since closed - money gone. He came back and said the money "wasn't so shovel ready." BTW, the 2nd stimulus bill was already written before he took office. One thing in it shined was the even $1 million that went to the Chicago River dinner cruise ship industry to fight terrorism. Hard to forget that one after i read it.

    ACA - inadvertently exposed thanks to Jonathan Gruber as an intentional deception of the public.

    FCC - voted itself power to regulate the internet and we are just now finding out why the rules were not published first.

    CAP & TRADE - (proposed by candidate Obama) exposed for being a means to make the upper 1% wealthier under the pretense of limiting carbon emissions. Gore, and a cast of mega billionaires would have made billions the first year. Goldman Sachs would have made trillions.

    He is a rabid ideologue + huge ego. He doesn't care about openness, integrity, or the Constitution. More people are starting to realize it. He has lost the middle and has only fellow ideologues whose main belief is the end justifies the means.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Mar 14, 2015 12:09 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    bobbobbob said+100 ^

    and take into the consideration the brief but consistent history of every other deal he's initiated in secret, "away from the fog of controversy."

    SECOND STIMULUS BILL - Remember it was never released to the public as promised to be read before ti was passed. All the "shovel ready" money went to cronies of whom most started businesses that have since closed - money gone. He came back and said the money "wasn't so shovel ready." BTW, the 2nd stimulus bill was already written before he took office. One thing in it shined was the even $1 million that went to the Chicago River dinner cruise ship industry to fight terrorism. Hard to forget that one after i read it.

    ACA - inadvertently exposed thanks to Jonathan Gruber as an intentional deception of the public.

    FCC - voted itself power to regulate the internet and we are just now finding out why the rules were not published first.

    CAP & TRADE - (proposed by candidate Obama) exposed for being a means to make the upper 1% wealthier under the pretense of limiting carbon emissions. Gore, and a cast of mega billionaires would have made billions the first year. Goldman Sachs would have made trillions.

    He is a rabid ideologue + huge ego. He doesn't care about openness, integrity, or the Constitution. More people are starting to realize it. He has lost the middle and has only fellow ideologues whose main belief is the end justifies the means.


    I would have never guessed all that. Thanks for giving me a heads up.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2015 12:40 AM GMT
    bobbobbob said
    socalfitness said
    bobbobbob said+100 ^

    and take into the consideration the brief but consistent history of every other deal he's initiated in secret, "away from the fog of controversy."

    SECOND STIMULUS BILL - Remember it was never released to the public as promised to be read before ti was passed. All the "shovel ready" money went to cronies of whom most started businesses that have since closed - money gone. He came back and said the money "wasn't so shovel ready." BTW, the 2nd stimulus bill was already written before he took office. One thing in it shined was the even $1 million that went to the Chicago River dinner cruise ship industry to fight terrorism. Hard to forget that one after i read it.

    ACA - inadvertently exposed thanks to Jonathan Gruber as an intentional deception of the public.

    FCC - voted itself power to regulate the internet and we are just now finding out why the rules were not published first.

    CAP & TRADE - (proposed by candidate Obama) exposed for being a means to make the upper 1% wealthier under the pretense of limiting carbon emissions. Gore, and a cast of mega billionaires would have made billions the first year. Goldman Sachs would have made trillions.

    He is a rabid ideologue + huge ego. He doesn't care about openness, integrity, or the Constitution. More people are starting to realize it. He has lost the middle and has only fellow ideologues whose main belief is the end justifies the means.


    I would have never guessed all that. Thanks for giving me a heads up.

    LOL You're too kind for not chiding me for being Master of the Obvious when I state Obama is working against the interests of this country and our allies.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Mar 14, 2015 12:46 AM GMT
    Oooo! I need to add that to my list of things to remember! Thanks for clarifying!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2015 7:54 PM GMT
    This should come as no surprise, and not to suggest the UN should be excluded, but Obama's whole vision has been for a diminished US in favor of the UN. It goes against the grain of most Americans. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/03/09/259103/poll-americans-are-down-on-obamas.html


    WH Confirms: UN to Play Key Role in Iran Deal

    Excerpts:

    In a Saturday night letter from President Obama's chief of staff Denis McDonough to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Bob Corker, the White House confirmed that in fact the United Nations will play a key role in any nuclear deal that may be reached with Iran.

    "The United Nations Security Council will also have a role to play in any deal with Iran," McDonough writes, after urging Congress not to pass a bill related to the nuclear negotiations.

    The White House insists Congress will play a role, but that the coequal branch of government should only act how and when it's told to act.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wh-confirms-un-play-key-role-iran-deal_887395.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2015 8:13 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    You might also note the shrill, nonsensical comments of Obama supporters, both in this thread as well as in the media. Don't you think much of that is motivated by an attempt to deflect attention away from a terrible deal? If Obama were really interested in a strong negotiation, he would have used that letter as a lever against the Iranians. But his motives and ego strongly suggest otherwise.


    Destinharbor's comments were neither shrill nor nonsensical. In fact, he made a very good argument for why the senators ought not to have done what they did. Yet, instead of addressing his points, you just carry on barreling through the thread like a freight train, as usual.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2015 8:24 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    socalfitness said
    You might also note the shrill, nonsensical comments of Obama supporters, both in this thread as well as in the media. Don't you think much of that is motivated by an attempt to deflect attention away from a terrible deal? If Obama were really interested in a strong negotiation, he would have used that letter as a lever against the Iranians. But his motives and ego strongly suggest otherwise.


    Destinharbor's comments were neither shrill nor nonsensical. In fact, he made a very good argument for why the senators ought not to have done what they did. Yet, instead of addressing his points, you just carry on barreling through the thread like a freight train, as usual.

    Disagree. The only factual and substantive thing he stated was there was no [specific] deal announced. However the general framework has been public, the major points of which are in the OP. Outside of that one point, the rest of his reply is exactly how I characterized the general responses.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2015 8:49 PM GMT
    The hardliners in the GOP and the hardliners in Iran have a lot in common (apart from their general intransigence). It is in the selfish political interests of both to scupper a groundbreaking deal to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2015 8:49 PM GMT
    Seems the GOP letter is not looking like such a good Idea!

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/10/1369771/-NY-Daily-News-Denounces-GOP-Senate-as-Traitors?detail=email
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2015 8:56 PM GMT
    Indeed, the backpedaling has already begun:

    Republicans Feeling Heat Over Iran Letter Express Regrets
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-13/republicans-feeling-heat-over-iran-letter-express-regrets
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 15, 2015 9:17 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 saidIndeed, the backpedaling has already begun:

    Republicans Feeling Heat Over Iran Letter Express Regrets
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-13/republicans-feeling-heat-over-iran-letter-express-regrets

    The gist is they might have addressed it to the public at large and the Iranians would certainly have seen it. Much of the same criticism would have been made, in my opinion, saying it should have not been written. It was also noted above how the Democrats engaged with foreign governments during Republican administrations. I also think the general framework of the deal, should be scrutinized by those willing to scrutinize the letter. I'm very glad the letter was written.

    From the same article:
    No Republican has stepped back from the content of the letter, which warned Iran that any agreement they struck with Obama to curb its nuclear program may be reversed by his successor or changed by U.S. lawmakers. McCain told reporters he was “glad” to have signed it.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Mar 15, 2015 10:47 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Ex_Mil8 saidIndeed, the backpedaling has already begun:

    Republicans Feeling Heat Over Iran Letter Express Regrets
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-13/republicans-feeling-heat-over-iran-letter-express-regrets

    The gist is they might have addressed it to the public at large and the Iranians would certainly have seen it. Much of the same criticism would have been made, in my opinion, saying it should have not been written. It was also noted above how the Democrats engaged with foreign governments during Republican administrations. I also think the general framework of the deal, should be scrutinized by those willing to scrutinize the letter. I'm very glad the letter was written.

    From the same article:
    No Republican has stepped back from the content of the letter, which warned Iran that any agreement they struck with Obama to curb its nuclear program may be reversed by his successor or changed by U.S. lawmakers. McCain told reporters he was “glad” to have signed it.


    When there is a deal, it will be widely scrutinized, I can assure you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2015 12:10 AM GMT
    Physiqueflex said
    socalfitness said
    Ex_Mil8 saidIndeed, the backpedaling has already begun:

    Republicans Feeling Heat Over Iran Letter Express Regrets
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-13/republicans-feeling-heat-over-iran-letter-express-regrets

    The gist is they might have addressed it to the public at large and the Iranians would certainly have seen it. Much of the same criticism would have been made, in my opinion, saying it should have not been written. It was also noted above how the Democrats engaged with foreign governments during Republican administrations. I also think the general framework of the deal, should be scrutinized by those willing to scrutinize the letter. I'm very glad the letter was written.

    From the same article:
    No Republican has stepped back from the content of the letter, which warned Iran that any agreement they struck with Obama to curb its nuclear program may be reversed by his successor or changed by U.S. lawmakers. McCain told reporters he was “glad” to have signed it.


    When there is a deal, it will be widely scrutinized, I can assure you.

    When there is a deal, the administration will say it's a "done deal" and not subject to debate or change.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Mar 16, 2015 1:50 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Physiqueflex said
    socalfitness said
    Ex_Mil8 saidIndeed, the backpedaling has already begun:

    Republicans Feeling Heat Over Iran Letter Express Regrets
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-13/republicans-feeling-heat-over-iran-letter-express-regrets

    The gist is they might have addressed it to the public at large and the Iranians would certainly have seen it. Much of the same criticism would have been made, in my opinion, saying it should have not been written. It was also noted above how the Democrats engaged with foreign governments during Republican administrations. I also think the general framework of the deal, should be scrutinized by those willing to scrutinize the letter. I'm very glad the letter was written.

    From the same article:
    No Republican has stepped back from the content of the letter, which warned Iran that any agreement they struck with Obama to curb its nuclear program may be reversed by his successor or changed by U.S. lawmakers. McCain told reporters he was “glad” to have signed it.


    When there is a deal, it will be widely scrutinized, I can assure you.

    When there is a deal, the administration will say it's a "done deal" and not subject to debate or change.


    Of course that will come only after a majority of the UN Security Counsel including the other four permanent members plus Germany (P5+1) have voted in favor of it. If that agreement is to lift sanctions, then it only applies to existing UN sanctions. The president won't be able to lift any of the sanctions that we've imposed unless congress approves.

    I would think that if the UN has agreed, the president will then have a strong case to make to the people, who will then put pressure on congress.