Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Did you read the actual letter?

Yes, I read the letter. Did you read my post, and then think about what I wrote?

Because the 'its just a totally benign warning' makes no fething sense on any level, once you remember that telephones exist. Had the Republicans honestly been intending to remind the Iranians that whatever deal was made with Iran would need the approval of congress, then that can be achieved with a phone call. I know the senate is typically pretty old, but I think most of them are probably familiar with the telephone.

No, the Republicans put this in an open letter because they want to make a public show to their domestic audience of how they intend to stop Obama effecting an agreement with Iran. Which is just fething outrageous.

No. What's fething outrageous is some people are losing their fething minds over this.

It's like people forget that Congress is actually co-equal to the Executive Branch and the President is NOT. THE. FETHING. KING.

Just peruse the usual liberal/lefty sites... they're pushing the meme that this letter is actually treasonous.

IRAN: Really? Some chump is trying to force feed me some remedial US civics class now?

Yes, if it was actually intended for Iran then it would have been some incredibly patronising bs.

But it was, of course, not meant for Iran at all. The open letter, like all open letters, was meant for domestic public consumption.

It's meant for all parties involved, really it's meant to be a message to Obama by saying "hey dude, we're still here".

But, what's really going on here, is that there's a "separation of power" war. That's why there's a pissing match going on here...

Exactly, there's a pissing match. Not so much over seperation of power, but just a simple pissing match between Republicans and Democrats.

Except that one side has chosen to drag international negotiations in to that pissing match, and do it in the most public way possible. That you don't see that as extraordinary is kind of disappointing. Cheering for your team doesn't mean you have to cheer for everything they do.

Riiiiiiigt.

Look... I think it'd be politically wiser for Cotton to put it in the form of something like an op ed in the Washington Post, or NY Times... rather than a direct letter to IRAN. But Congress obviously felt the need to speak out stemming from Obama’s seemingly mindless pursuit of a deal at-all-costs... rather than allowing current sanctions to force a capitulation.

It has nothing to do with "cheering my team". It has everything to do with me opposing Obama's world view that Everything is Awesome!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Anyone paying attention would know that Obama probably woundn't be able to get Congress to ratify anything short of full-nuclear disarmament.

I sincerely doubt that anything Obama, or the Democrats, supported would garner significant conservative or GOP support.

Thank you for admitting, again, that you are part of the problem in the US.

I don't think addressing reality necessarily makes someone part of the problem, but hey- what do I know?

Wait a minute.

Just... wait...a... minute.

Are you implying that had Obama actually has a treaty on the table whereby Iran actually gives up it's nuclear ambition... that the GOP Congress won't ratify it? Because it simply came from Obama? Is that what you're really saying?

No. That's what 47 Senators are saying.

 whembly wrote:
No. What's fething outrageous is some people are losing their fething minds over this.

It's like people forget that Congress is actually co-equal to the Executive Branch and the President is NOT. THE. FETHING. KING.

US senators sent a letter to a hostile foreign power arguing that the President, current in negotiations, might not have the ability to honor any negotiations. Try removing the personalities and parties and just think about that sentence for a second.

Furthermore, "co-equal" doesn't mean they occupy the same spheres of power. I think you know this. At this point they went beyond the usual "lets piss on Obama", and actually hurt the country in my opinion, via the institution of the Presidency. They have undermined the sovereign ability of the Presidency to negotiate in good faith with other heads of state.

If they don't like a treaty, they are free to not ratify it, and they are also free to win a presidential election, or write a few op-eds. I think this is beyond the pale, especially in conjunction with Mr. Netanyahu's visit.

When somebody spends years going crazy over "optics" and "how stuff feels" and then complains that people are going crazy just because Senators place politics above country it is time to unsubscribe from the thread.

 d-usa wrote:
No. That's what 47 Senators are saying.

Prove it.

Okay... tell you what, you tell me what the GOP could propose that the Democrats/Obama would permit to pass.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
No. What's fething outrageous is some people are losing their fething minds over this.

It's like people forget that Congress is actually co-equal to the Executive Branch and the President is NOT. THE. FETHING. KING.

US senators sent a letter to a hostile foreign power arguing that the President, current in negotiations, might not have the ability to honor any negotiations. Try removing the personalities and parties and just think about that sentence for a second.

Furthermore, "co-equal" doesn't mean they occupy the same spheres of power. I think you know this. At this point they went beyond the usual "lets piss on Obama", and actually hurt the country in my opinion, via the institution of the Presidency. They have undermined the sovereign ability of the Presidency to negotiate in good faith with other heads of state.

If they don't like a treaty, they are free to not ratify it, and they are also free to win a presidential election, or write a few op-eds. I think this is beyond the pale, especially in conjunction with Mr. Netanyahu's visit.

 d-usa wrote:
When somebody spends years going crazy over "optics" and "how stuff feels" and then complains that people are going crazy just because Senators place politics above country it is time to unsubscribe from the thread.

Ah...

So, you have the same problem when 3 Democrats FLEW to Baghdad to chum up with Iraqi officials and to criticize Bush about trusting Saddam's regime?

Right?

So, it's sorta getting idiotic to argue that this "letter" is beyond the pale... especially with the long precedents set by Democrats and progressives in Congress.

gak man, fething Presidential nominees would campaign on foreign soil to build up their "foreign policy cache" in direct opposition to sitting Presidents.

Dude, you're a lost cause.

The only thing you've been saying is just repeated tu quoque arguments and cries for everyone to "Prove it!"

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Dude, you're a lost cause.

The only thing you've been saying is just repeated tu quoque arguments and cries for everyone to "Prove it!"

How about addressing my posts directly then? I did ask you some questions... here, I'll remind you:

 whembly wrote:

Wait a minute.

Just... wait...a... minute.

Are you implying that had Obama actually has a treaty on the table whereby Iran actually gives up it's nuclear ambition... that the GOP Congress won't ratify it? Because it simply came from Obama? Is that what you're really saying?

There's no point trying to address a lost causes posts to that person.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
The only thing you've been saying is just repeated tu quoque arguments and cries for everyone to "Prove it!"

I don't think that it's a matter of tu quoque. If it were then it should have been invoked much earlier in the thread when some of the responses to Hilary's private email server was pointing out that others have done the same.
People have been saying that this is beyond the pale, and that they do not remember similar events happening before. Pointing out these similar events from previous administrations should not be unreasonable.

For the record I do believe that this letter was ill advised, but it is a symptom of the hyper-partisan politics that both sides have willingly engaged in.

 whembly wrote:
So, you have the same problem when 3 Democrats FLEW to Baghdad to chum up with Iraqi officials and to criticize Bush about trusting Saddam's regime?

Yes.


Where is your argument now?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
People have been saying that this is beyond the pale, and that they do not remember similar events happening before. Pointing out these similar events from previous administrations should not be unreasonable.

If you're going to reference my posts I'd prefer you do it directly, not obliquely like Voldemort

What I said was:

 Ouze wrote:
I can't remember a precedent for an opposition party inviting a foreign head of state to denounce their own country's foreign policy to thunderous applause.

I don't think any events of parity have been provided for that, unless those three congressmen were invited to speak before the Iraqi government to oppose Saddam Hussein's foreign policy.*


*they did not.

 Ouze wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
People have been saying that this is beyond the pale, and that they do not remember similar events happening before. Pointing out these similar events from previous administrations should not be unreasonable.

If you're going to reference my posts I'd prefer you do it directly, not obliquely like Voldemort

What I said was:

 Ouze wrote:
I can't remember a precedent for an opposition party inviting a foreign head of state to denounce their own country's foreign policy to thunderous applause.

I don't think any events of parity have been provided for that, unless those three congressmen were invited to speak before the Iraqi government to oppose Saddam Hussein's foreign policy.*
*they did not.

I was not referring solely to you. Had I been I would have quoted you directly

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So, you have the same problem when 3 Democrats FLEW to Baghdad to chum up with Iraqi officials and to criticize Bush about trusting Saddam's regime?

Yes.


Where is your argument now?

I'll acknowledge that you're being consistent.

My argument is this: The visceral reaction of these Senator's "crime" of defying Obama on this big foreign-policy showpiece, by writing a letter, is so over-the-top silly. It's just a letter reminding everyone that unless Obama comes to the Senate for the ratification process of his Iran deal, it’ll have no binding authority on his successor. Gee... whoop-de-do.

We have gridlock, and yes that's a problem. But, it's not the sole domain on the GOP or Democrats. It's the nature of the beast now.

Didn't the Democrats do something similar concerning Syria under Bush? Like Pelosi met Assard

2007 when then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria and met with President Bashar Assad. The Bush administration was furious about that meeting because its strategy at the time was to isolate Assad as punishment for his alleged aid to Iraqi insurgents fighting against U.S. occupying forces, and the right-wing media and even mainstream media precincts attacked Pelosi in ways quite redolent of today’s attacks on the Senate Republicans over Iran.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/10/gop-2007-attacks-pelosi-interfering-bushs-syria-policy-v-todays-similar-dem-attacks-iran/

That's a pretty good piece. I've always liked Glenn Greenwald's writing.

Whembly wrote: "Okay... tell you what, you tell me what the GOP could propose that the Democrats/Obama would permit to pass. "

Are you speaking about the Iran nuclear negotiations specifically or just in general?

If the former, I would bet good money that if the GOP could get the Iranians to sign the treaty that the GOP might want, short of declaring war on Iran, Obama and the dems would back it. It would be political suicide not to. The problem is that there is no way in hell Iran would sign that bill.

If you are speaking more generally, how about the entire premise behind the ACA?

 Ouze wrote:
I can't remember a precedent for an opposition party inviting a foreign head of state to denounce their own country's foreign policy to thunderous applause.

I mean, what can you even say to that?

Nancy Pelosi with Iraq?

 Frazzled wrote:
Nancy Pelosi with Iraq?

Do you mean Syria?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I can't remember a precedent for an opposition party inviting a foreign head of state to denounce their own country's foreign policy to thunderous applause.

I mean, what can you even say to that?

Nancy Pelosi with Iraq?

Pelosi was the "head of state"? And here I thought it was Chaney...I mean Bush.

Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria is actually a pretty close equivalent to what I had posted before, to be frank. I'd have to give Jihadin that one.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Nancy Pelosi with Iraq?

Do you mean Syria?

No meeting with Maliki while Bush was President.

 Frazzled wrote:
No meeting with Maliki while Bush was President.

I don't think that's as good an example. In 2007, Iraq was at least theoretically a US ally, and she wasn't essentially running policy contrary to the administration as I recall. Not every fact finding trip is analogous, to my thinking.

I also should admit that I don't remember that terribly well. If there was a row about it, it must have been a pretty minor one.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I can't remember a precedent for an opposition party inviting a foreign head of state to denounce their own country's foreign policy to thunderous applause.

I mean, what can you even say to that?

Nancy Pelosi with Iraq?

Pelosi was the "head of state"? And here I thought it was Chaney...I mean Bush.

She's not, thats the point.

 Ouze wrote:
Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria is actually a pretty close equivalent to what I had posted before, to be frank. I'd have to give Jihadin that one.

It was scummy, but it wasn't really a parallel. 1. Pelosi was not the "head of state." 2. Malaki's position was the foreign policy of Iraq at the time. He wasn't the opposition in Iraq. (Or do I have my timelines confused?)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I can't remember a precedent for an opposition party inviting a foreign head of state to denounce their own country's foreign policy to thunderous applause.

I mean, what can you even say to that?

Nancy Pelosi with Iraq?

Pelosi was the "head of state"? And here I thought it was Chaney...I mean Bush.

She's not, thats the point.

So you admit it wasn't a precedent to the stated comment?

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No meeting with Maliki while Bush was President.

I don't think that's as good an example. In 2007, Iraq was at least theoretically a US ally, and she wasn't essentially running policy contrary to the administration as I recall. Not every fact finding trip is analogous, to my thinking.

I also should admit that I don't remember that terribly well. If there was a row about it, it must have been a pretty minor one.

OH I agree with that.
What they're really saying is, if you want something permanent it has to be a good treaty. Something only approved by the President will only last as long as the President.
Again, I think Obama should welcome this. He can use it to play good cop to their bad cop and get a better deal.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No meeting with Maliki while Bush was President.

I don't think that's as good an example. In 2007, Iraq was at least theoretically a US ally, and she wasn't essentially running policy contrary to the administration as I recall. Not every fact finding trip is analogous, to my thinking.

I also should admit that I don't remember that terribly well. If there was a row about it, it must have been a pretty minor one.

OH I agree with that.
What they're really saying is, if you want something permanent it has to be a good treaty. Something only approved by the President will only last as long as the President.
Again, I think Obama should welcome this. He can use it to play good cop to their bad cop and get a better deal.

Good cop/bad cop really only works when both cops are are working together secretly, not when the bad cop is actually a bad cop trying to undermine the good cop. Had the letter actually been aimed at the Iranian govt. and not the American people (see the open quality of the letter) and had discussed the plan with the Adminstration first, you might be on to something. Hell, maybe they did plan this all along and our leaders are the geniuses we wished they were. As it is though, if you look at the response from Iran, they are laughing at the letter and pointing out how it doesn't really hold up in practice, especially when the G5+1 will have to agree to any deal. Not a good play by the bad cop.

If one is "cynical".....Congress kept the hot potato in Obama lap so whatever agreement comes up is between his Admin and Iran since Congress is quite against a Treaty

 Jihadin wrote:
If one is "cynical".....Congress kept the hot potato in Obama lap so whatever agreement comes up is between his Admin and Iran since Congress is quite against a Treaty

Except that's not really cynical, that's exactly what it does. If one wanted to be cynical, they might think the GOP isn't really concerned with Iranian nukes at all, they are just concerned that a treaty with Iran could make the Obama look good in the eyes of the public. How to fix it? Make the possible treaty look bad before it is even agreed upon so that when/if it is agreed upon, they can attack it without looking like sore losers.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No meeting with Maliki while Bush was President.

I don't think that's as good an example. In 2007, Iraq was at least theoretically a US ally, and she wasn't essentially running policy contrary to the administration as I recall. Not every fact finding trip is analogous, to my thinking.

I also should admit that I don't remember that terribly well. If there was a row about it, it must have been a pretty minor one.

OH I agree with that.
What they're really saying is, if you want something permanent it has to be a good treaty. Something only approved by the President will only last as long as the President.
Again, I think Obama should welcome this. He can use it to play good cop to their bad cop and get a better deal.

Or the Iranians could use the fact that such a treaty negotiated by Obama is not likely to last past his presidency as ammunition to support their own agenda and take the chance of renegotiating with the Republicans later.

Or if one wanted to be really cynical, they would see that Cotten just had a breakfast date with the National Defense Industrial Association — a trade group for Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing. Treaty negotiations fail, bomb Iranian nuclear infrastructure ever five years, money gets banked by the bomb makers, money gets banked by the lawmakers who set it all up. Laugh at election time.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No meeting with Maliki while Bush was President.

I don't think that's as good an example. In 2007, Iraq was at least theoretically a US ally, and she wasn't essentially running policy contrary to the administration as I recall. Not every fact finding trip is analogous, to my thinking.

I also should admit that I don't remember that terribly well. If there was a row about it, it must have been a pretty minor one.

OH I agree with that.
What they're really saying is, if you want something permanent it has to be a good treaty. Something only approved by the President will only last as long as the President.
Again, I think Obama should welcome this. He can use it to play good cop to their bad cop and get a better deal.

Or the Iranians could use the fact that such a treaty negotiated by Obama is not likely to last past his presidency as ammunition to support their own agenda and take the chance of renegotiating with the Republicans later.

Mmm don't care. We're not going to war with Iran and nothing else matters.