Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on March 09, 2015, 07:57:35 PM
-
Iran Letter Backlash Grows As Bernie Sanders Accuses Senate Republicans Of Sabotage
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/09/iran-letter-backlash-grows-bernie-sanders-accuses-senate-republicans-sabotage.html
Iran Letter Backlash Grows As Bernie Sanders Accuses Senate Republicans Of Sabotage
By: Jason Easley
Monday, March, 9th, 2015, 6:29 pm
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) hit Senate Republicans right between the eyes by accusing them of an act sabotage in an attempt to start a new war in Iran.
In a statement, Sen. Sanders said:
It appears that for most of my Republican colleagues in the Senate, a war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq were not enough. They now apparently want a war in Iran as well. President Obama is working with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China to try to negotiate a peaceful means to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. These negotiations must be allowed to continue and, hopefully, will succeed. It is an outrage that my Republican colleagues are trying to sabotage that effort.
Sen. Sanders’s statement came after White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest accused Senate Republicans of trying to undermine President Obama, “I think the other thing that is notable here is that when you have a letter that is signed by forty-seven senators of the same party being sent to a leader of a foreign country, it raises some legitimate questions about the intent of the letter…It’s surprising to me there are some Republican senators who are seeking to establish a backchannel with hardliners in Iran to undermine an agreement with Iran and the international community.”
The Republicans have so grossly miscalculated the public reaction to their letter that even Iran’s Foreign Minister called it propaganda. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said, “In our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history.”
The Senate Republican letter revealed how far they are willing to go in order to sabotage their own government. Republicans may have crossed the line into treasonous territory with their letter, but Sen. Sanders was correct. The letter was a definite act of sabotage.
Senate Republicans demonstrated that they were unwilling to support this president in foreign or domestic affairs. Republicans went far beyond having a difference of opinion with the president. They are now actively trying to jeopardize the foreign policy of their own country.
This sort of behavior is unprecedented in American history. Republicans are sabotaging their own country because they despise the president and are lusting for a new war in the Middle East. Republicans have once again brought shame to their country and embarrassed every American on the world stage. The Senate Republican saboteurs deserve to be punished.
-
F obama. I hope this treason of his falls apart. Pos muslim homo he is.
-
Wow - Republicans totally clueless and tone deaf
that's unusual
-
Lol. Gaybama deal w the ayatollahs exposed for what it is - garbage
-
:D :D :D
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_sydpOWQAAAWSt.jpg)
-
Conducting negotiations with a THE major state sponsor of terrorism should get you fired. Causing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East should get you fired. Not listening to the common concerns of both Israel and Saudi Arabia...two countries that don't agree on the anything...should get you fired. Obama is out of his depth. The Repubs did the right thing. Fuck Obama...he's a traitor.
-
Iran Calls GOP Letter 'Propaganda Ploy,' Offers To 'Enlighten' Authors schooled by an Iranian, oh brother the party of stupid lives on
Republican senators' letter to Iran about ongoing nuclear talks has prompted a lengthy response from Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who delivered an overview of international law as he critiqued the letter.
Zarif said he was astonished by the letter, saying it suggests the U.S. lawmakers "not only do not understand international law" — a subject in which he is a professor — "but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy," according to Iran's Foreign Ministry.
The Iranian minister said, "in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy."
His response (we have more of it below) came after it was announced Monday that 47 Senate Republicans who oppose a potential deal with Iran over its nuclear program had signed a letter to the country's leaders.
Coming two weeks before the deadline to reach general terms with Iran, the signatories wrote that they had been observing the negotiations over potentially relaxing economic sanctions — and told Iran's leaders they were concerned "that you may not fully understand our constitutional system."
The letter seemed to strike a nerve for Zarif, who moved to the U.S. as a teenager and holds a doctorate and two other advanced degrees from American universities.
As NPR's It's All Politics blog noted, "The letter was written by freshman Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton and co-signed by 46 of his GOP colleagues, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell."
The senators cited the U.S. process of ratifying treaties in Congress and President Obama's term that expires in January of 2017, writing:
"What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time."
The Republicans' message was quickly criticized by Vice President Joe Biden, a former senator who said it was "beneath the dignity of an institution I revere."
Seven Republicans did not sign the letter, as NPR's Ailsa Chang reported for Morning Edition today.
President Obama said, "I think it's somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran" who are also against making a deal over Iran's nuclear program.
Zarif, noting that negotiations are ongoing and haven't yielded an agreement, said the U.S. lawmakers' "unconventional methods" show that they "are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content."
Saying he hopes to "enrich the knowledge of the authors," Zarif said:
"I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfill the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations."
Zarif also noted that many previous international agreements the U.S. has been a party to have been "mere executive agreements," and not full treaties that received Senate ratification.
He also noted that any deal on sanctions and Iran's nuclear program would not be bilateral; would require approval by the U.N. and the U.N. Security Council; and would not be subject to modification by Congress.
He added, "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."
For a different perspective, Ailsa spoke to Richard Nephew, who was on U.S. teams negotiating with Iran during both the Bush and Obama administrations.
Nephew said, "the idea that a sitting group of senators of either party would write to the other side of a negotiation to say, 'Eh, don't sign a deal with these guys' — to me, it really smacks of a misplaced understanding of how the international system is supposed to work."
-
If thedeal is so great - why cant we know about it until its done
-
Ah.....yeah. Any treaty needs to be ratified and it won't. Any deal can easily be overturned by the next President...as stated by the letter. You libs are defending a horrible regime and a bad deal. But as usual you defend Obama and his band of idiots to the bitter end.
-
Ah.....yeah. Any treaty needs to be ratified and it won't. Any deal can easily be overturned by the next President...as stated by the letter. You libs are defending a horrible regime and a bad deal. But as usual you defend Obama and his band of idiots to the bitter end.
that letter they wrote isn't worth the paper its on :D :D keep on dumbing down
-
It was just that...a letter. I have to laugh...international law/UN. Who gives a fuck about the UN..only you libs do. These are the same people who put human rights violators on the Human Rights commission. Oddly enough Iran hangs homnosexuals and represses all sorts of human rights...but your supporting them?
-
that letter they wrote isn't worth the paper its on :D :D keep on dumbing down
And neither does Obama's BJ to Iran. ;)
-
Ok Libs..why is this a good idea...please articulate. Thats really the issue here..a deal with Iran...not a letter to Iran.
-
Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith describes the letter as "embarrassing," because it's technically wrong:
The letter states that “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.” But as the Senate’s own web page makes clear: “The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” (my emphasis). Or, as this outstanding 2001 CRS Report on the Senate’s role in treaty-making states (at 117): “It is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States, but only if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent.” Ratification is the formal act of the nation’s consent to be bound by the treaty on the international plane. Senate consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification for the United States. As the CRS Report notes: “When a treaty to which the Senate has advised and consented … is returned to the President,” he may “simply decide not to ratify the treaty.”
-
Yeah...Ok Blacken........keep dodging. First I'm gonna say that a bunch of right leaning professors are going to say that what they did is technically right...so enough already. Why is this treaty a good idea?
-
Yeah...Ok Blacken........keep dodging. First I'm gonna say that a bunch of right leaning professors are going to say that what they did is technically right...so enough already. Why is this treaty a good idea?
Good luck finding any right leaning professors
-
Yeah Archer....
This board is just like the MSM....completely ignore the meat and just concentrate on the bullshit angle of any story. Bernie Sanders is a commy hack...he has zero credibility here based on the dictators and regimes' he supports.
-
Yeah...Ok Blacken........keep dodging. First I'm gonna say that a bunch of right leaning professors are going to say that what they did is technically right...so enough already. Why is this treaty a good idea?
it has nothing to do with right or left it has to do with the law.as for the treaty we don't know what's in it yet,what's the other option a war, you for that?
-
Yeah.....lets appease Iran till they get the bomb right? We do know what's in the treaty...10 years of bullshit followed by a bomb...but what there's more folks.... Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are now working on a deal for bombs....who else needs nukes!
So we allow a nuclear armed Middle East because they're sooooo stable there right. Oh and before 240 jumps in about the NKs...look at your geography please. NK is surrounded by either China who controls a huge chunk of their cash/weapons/food and a bunch of US allies.
There won't be much of a war if Israel leaves their nuke sites a smoking crater. These people are not rational, they don't like you..they really hate us and israel and would like us to all die so they can go about killing all the rest of the muslims they really hate.
-
Yeah.....lets appease Iran till they get the bomb right? We do know what's in the treaty...10 years of bullshit followed by a bomb...but what there's more folks.... Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are now working on a deal for bombs....who else needs nukes!
So we allow a nuclear armed Middle East because they're sooooo stable there right. Oh and before 240 jumps in about the NKs...look at your geography please. NK is surrounded by either China who controls a huge chunk of their cash/weapons/food and a bunch of US allies.
There won't be much of a war if Israel leaves their nuke sites a smoking crater. These people are not rational, they don't like you..they really hate us and israel and would like us to all die so they can go about killing all the rest of the muslims they really hate.
How do we stop a nuclear ME without straight up invading all those countries?
Nukes in the hands of the ME countries is inevitable.
-
No its not.....Israel should be green lit and supported on its strike. You guys are insane to allow these people to get nukes. You don't need to invade shit.
-
If one can agree that these people should not have nukes....a strategy can to ensure they don't can be found. It may not be easy, it may not be clean...but if both Israel and Saudi Arabia can agree this is A BAD FUCKING IDEA....Obama the community organizer ought to listen. And yes I'd go to war with Iran to ensure they don't get a bomb. We're not invading.....
-
It's strange that there would even be a debate about Iran developing nuclear weapons.
-
No its not.....Israel should be green lit and supported on its strike. You guys are insane to allow these people to get nukes. You don't need to invade shit.
So you are Israel should strike Iran with nukes?
-
Remember the last time we trusted this asshole in the WH to pass something without people seeing what was in it first?
F Obama - fng loser and fraud
-
I must have missed where anyone said they wanted them to have nukes ::)
-
I must have missed where anyone said they wanted them to have nukes ::)
O-FAGS deal allows them to get nukes.
-
I must have missed where anyone said they wanted them to have nukes ::)
The deal pretty much allows them to weaponzie nuclear materials eventually.
-
Yes because the UN did such a bang up job with North Korea, the sanctions, the UN monitors......... And they still developed a nuke. Treaties are worth about as much as the paper they are written on.
-
The deal pretty much allows them to weaponzie nuclear materials eventually.
There are going to anyway. treaty or not.
-
There are going to anyway. treaty or not.
So then why be a party to such bullshit?
-
There are going to anyway. treaty or not.
Not necessarily. I'm not resigned to that outcome.
-
lets face it if this deal goes though,and they don't abide by the treaty and start trying to go nuclear than we all know Israel is going to take out their capabilities anyway
-
Not necessarily. I'm not resigned to that outcome.
How so?
Short of invading and replacing governments, what's to stop sovereign countries from developing nukes?
NK has em right?
-
How so?
Short of invading and replacing governments, what's to stop sovereign countries from developing nukes?
NK has em right?
Iran has exploitable global economic ties that NK does not. More severe economic sanctions and restrictions. Its easier to prevent Iran from getting nukes than it is to stop global warming.
-
copy of the official letter sent to iran by the repubs
(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b362/WPitt/Letter_zpsktotstci.jpg)
-
copy of the official letter sent to iran by the repubs
(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b362/WPitt/Letter_zpsktotstci.jpg)
Obama is not my boss - he is a public servant
-
Iran has exploitable global economic ties that NK does not. More severe economic sanctions and restrictions. Its easier to prevent Iran from getting nukes than it is to stop global warming.
Another reason this ain't NK.
As far as Ozmo and his nuke question. I think it may end up being neccesary to use low yield nuclear tipped bunker busters to get at their facilities. Every day we don't do something makes a kinetic strike with nukes unfortunately more neccesary. I don't know where they are with hardning their sites. We all appear to be in agreement that they shouldn't have them. No piece of paper is stopping that...so you have few other options. We don't have time to try and destabilize their gov...Obama could have helped instead he golfed. We aren't gonna invade.....sanctions are being undermined by the Russians...a whole other issue. You do have a highly compatant AF ready to do the job. Aid them with intell, CSAR, SOF spotting on the ground, refueling, combat air coordination in the air etc etc etc.....and let them take care of things.
-
Pretty good response to the lib outrage over the letter........in other words eat a bag of dicks Barry!
The White House and some Democrats are livid over congressional Republican attempts to circumvent President Obama's authority to make a nuclear arms deal with Iran. They have a right to be angry — but not to be surprised.
There's a war going on between the executive and legislative branches in which Obama has shown contempt for Congress' constitutional powers, and now, in response, Congress is showing contempt for the president's constitutional powers. It's an unfortunate situation, but it's what Obama has wrought.
The latest development is an open letter to Iranian leaders written by GOP Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and signed by 46 other Senate Republicans. Released Monday morning, the letter reminds Iran that Obama is negotiating with them on his own, without the formal approval or support of Congress. Obama is not pursuing a treaty, which would have to be agreed to by the Senate, or a joint executive-congressional agreement, which would also require Congress' approval.
"We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei," the Republican senators write. "The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time."
Just in case there's any confusion, the Republicans remind Iran that the next U.S. president will be inaugurated in January 2017, about 22 months from now, while at least some of the GOP senators who signed the letter will remain in office for many years to come.
The Cotton letter comes on the heels of House Speaker John Boehner's decision to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress in what amounted to an extended attack on Obama's Iran negotiations.
It should go without saying that the reason Republicans are doing these things is because they are deeply concerned about a possible Iran deal. But another reason they're acting is because they can. On Iran and before that on immigration, healthcare, and other matters, Obama has pushed his executive authority beyond its proper limits, on the flimsy pretense that he is entitled to act unilaterally if Congress does not pass bills he wants. Could anyone fail to anticipate that in response Congress would stretch its own authority, too?
White House spokesman Josh Earnest quickly condemned the Cotton letter, calling it "a partisan strategy to undermine the president's ability to conduct foreign policy." Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., undoubtedly speaking for others in her party, called the letter "bizarre" and "a desperate ploy to scuttle a comprehensive agreement and the chance for a peaceful resolution."
Remember what preceded the Republicans' action. A number of senators, led by Republican Sen. Bob Corker, have been working on legislation to require congressional approval for any Iran deal. "The legislation is a response to the administration's intention not to seek approval or review from Congress for the agreement with Iran, despite a long history of Congress playing a role in international agreements, which has provided added legitimacy and longevity to many of these accords," notes one GOP aide.
The White House response to Corker's initiative was swift. "If this bill is sent to the president, he will veto it," said a National Security Council spokeswoman.
Now, the president's supporters interpret Cotton's letter as the latest in a long line of Republican outrages directed against Obama. "It's safe to say that no president in modern times has had his legitimacy questioned by the opposition party as much as Barack Obama," says the liberal writer Paul Waldman. "But as his term in office enters its final phase, Republicans are embarking on an entirely new enterprise: They have decided that as long as he holds the office of the presidency, it's no longer necessary to respect the office itself."
Actually, things are much simpler than that. Time after time, Obama has told Congress to go to hell. Now Congress is telling Obama to go to hell. It's an entirely predictable development.
Of course, it is still a bad thing. It is not good to invite a foreign leader to address Congress in a campaign against the U.S. president. It is not good to undermine the president's authority to conduct foreign policy. But it's not a good thing to undermine Congress' authority to make laws, either. And to threaten even more undermining in the future, as Obama has done.
It's too bad for Obama that he couldn't persuade Congress to do everything he wanted. That did not give him the right to encroach on Congress's constitutional authority.
Now Congress is pushing back. It's a shame it's come to this, but that's the way things work.