Wednesday, March 11, 2015

47 Treasonous American Imbeciles Part 2...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor o Truth


Republican Sen. Bob Corker, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

“I didn’t think it was going to further our efforts to get to a place where Congress would play the appropriate role that it should on Iran,” Corker told The Daily Beast. “I did not think that the letter was something that was going to help get us to an outcome that we’re all seeking, and that is Congress playing that appropriate role.”

Text continues BELOW THE FOLD.

Representing the other 47 treasonous idiots.



Of course everybody who has read accurate data, (see 47 American Imbeciles... and click on links), can make a solid case that they in fact did.

This from McClatchy Washington Bureau:

The U.S. Senate Historian’s Office has so far been unable to find another example in the chamber’s history where one political party openly tried to deal with a foreign power against a presidential policy, as Republicans have attempted in their open letter to Iran this week

Continue reading full article BELOW THE FOLD.

Just out from the The Boston Globe. Article is spot on and is being reproduced here in full.

Winning sympathy for the renegade Islamic Republic of Iran is no easy trick. But Republicans in the US Senate seem to be accomplishing it with their breathtakingly reckless intrusion into international diplomacy.

Under the guise of an American civics lesson pointedly but also pointlessly aimed at Iran’s already isolated, mistrustful, hostile-to-the-United States leadership, Senate Republicans may sabotage highly delicate negotiations to persuade Tehran to curb its nuclear development program in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.

An open letter signed by 47 Republican senators, including New Hampshire’s Kelly Ayotte, warns that any diplomatic deal struck by President Obama could be overturned by the next administration “with the stroke of a pen.’’

That’s correct; aspects of an international deal between the US and Iran — such as lifting economic sanctions – would need approval by the Senate or might be vetoed by Obama’s successor. But for Obama’s opponents to hurl their political slings now is dangerously wrongheaded. At the very least, it’s an infringement on a sensitive process that involves not only the United States and Iran but five other powers: Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia. By offering up the nattering little lesson on the American political process — a process well understood by Iran’s elite nuclear negotiators — the Senate majority party is blatantly trying to upset the apple cart before the fruit of diplomacy can even be put out for inspection. No deal has been struck. No nation, yet, has agreed to any tangible terms on coming to grips with Iran’s nuclear ambitions, although talks in Switzerland appear to be gaining ground.

The letter not only undercuts the president’s traditional authority to oversee the shaping of foreign policy but badly undermines America’s credibility in the international community.

It speaks to the toxic levels of partisanship in Washington that not a single Senate Democrat was willing to sign the poison pen letter, although more than a few are skeptical of Iran’s long-term intentions and are fearful of what it might portend for Israel — Iran’s blood enemy. But common sense dictates that the hard shape of a potential agreement be hammered out before Congress charges in. Such an outline is expected later this month, and a detailed document should be done by June. It may well be, as Israel has warned, that nothing can come from Iran but a devil’s deal — but now is surely not the time to decide.

The Obama administration is rightfully incensed by the Senate’s blundering campaign. Said Vice President Joe Biden: “In 36 years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which senators wrote directly to advise another country — much less a longtime foreign adversary — that the president does not have constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them.’’

It would be calamitous for America’s long-term policy goals in the Middle East if a workable Iran deal falls through solely because of mistrust sown by the president’s knee-jerk political foes.

Drum Roll please.

A banner for 47 A-holes

15 comments:

  1. These fools don't understand that to build a coalition against Iran one of the steps must be the attempt to negotiate first. The 47 idiots virtually guaranteed only Israel and the USA will be doing the dirty work when the time comes. Every other nation will be able to wash the hands of it. Negotiation was a no lose proposition. Now because of the 47 idiots the matter has become far more complicated. Decades of sanctions and Iran is still there under the ayatollahs. What is the right's obsession with war?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm not a major supporter of Obama, but on this one I think that he's essentially correct (choosing the best of a cartload of bad options) in that sanctions tend not to work (a reference to Cuba, South Africa, Iraq, etc.) and a war with Iran would be absolutely cataclysmic....That, and I certainly don't want Netanyahu dictating U.S. foreign policy.

    March 11, 2015 at 4:14 PM




    ReplyDelete
  3. Predictably, FoxNews has leaped to the defense of the 'heroic 47'. As I watched nauseated by the
    ignorance, I pondered which was worse..a FoxNews....or viewers that believe them. There is a growing dichotomy which hinges on an electoral process which has been hijacked by rich special interests. allied with single interest minorities: a dichotomy, the denouement of which can only result in drastic changes to what has been a wonderful experiment in government 'of the people, by the people and for the people'. Our children and posterity deserve better.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I do not know what the right's obsession with war is. Nor do I understand it's obsession with obstructing and undermining the President at every turn. The 47 republicans that signed the Dear Tehran letter finally tipped the scales for me. They are despicable low life worthy of nothing but contempt.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've been critical of Obama over the years, and I did not vote for him either time. On this, whether any one THINKS the negotiations are being handled properly is irrelevant. What these jerks did is absolutely wrong. Ifanyone working for me acted that irresponsibly I would have fired them, regadless of whatever value they might have had in other ways.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. I am familiar with at least two people in the private sector who 'went around' company policy. One was warned before hand to keep his oddball views inside workplace and wrote to the corporate board, the other was fond of writing to the newspaper letters
      section. They were summarily terminated. Our system consists of three branches, bound
      constitutionally to specific areas. If you don't play by the rules, you suffer the punishment.
      (unless you are a GOP politician: signer David Vitter, for example, continues his singularly
      RW career despite being a customer in good standing with the 'DC Madame'- his Louisiana
      buddy Bobby Jindal (a governor with apparent broad international experience) signed, although not a member of the US congress and urged other GOP governors to as well.
      What keeps these idiots in office? Guns for all and abortions for none. Its that simple.

      Delete
  6. What the Republicans, led by Cotton, did was stupid, partisan, and ill-advised but I'm not entirely certain that I like this law. I mean, you write an open-letter (as John Maynard Keynes did in 1933 criticizing FDR's idiotic NRA), put it on your web-page and this can get you thrown in prison? Really and that's not fascism?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will: I am in complete agreement with you, and in complete opposition to those who go Kim Jong Un and call for the gulag for something which is not an official policy, is not an enactment of law. but is just saying something. To answer your last sentence, of course it is.

      Delete
    2. "(as John Maynard Keynes did in 1933 criticizing FDR's idiotic NRA)"

      Please note: Keynes was a British citizen and therefore under no obligation to be bound by the Logan Act, or Logan's Run for that matter. This is an irrelevant detail imbedded inside a rather silly comment.

      Delete
    3. Pelosi (who I do believe is an American, last time that I looked) meeting with Assad in 2007 (and the Republicans attacking her) is yet another example of how the roles have seemed to reverse and of how BOTH PARTIES are acting like total hypocrites - https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/10/gop-2007-attacks-pelosi-interfering-bushs-syria-policy-v-todays-similar-dem-attacks-iran/ - And my point you pompous ass was that I didn't like the law and felt that it was fascistic, not that anyone was or wasn't in violation of it. Yeah, I know, too many shiny objects.

      Delete
  7. In my view Will false equivalency.

    There is a reason for the 200 plus years of tradiation. The Constitution is pretty clear and the makes sense. Arguing and disagreeing over matters such as this in the offices, halls, or chambers of Congress; or writing and publishing a scathing article in a domestic new paper or website; or taking issue with the President on th nightly news uhh s one thing. What these seven bastards did goes way beyond what any truly logical person would ever even consider doing.

    I have no issue with the law and IMO these 47 mad dogs should serve the full three years imprisonment and be banned from running for ANY public office ever again. I can only imagine what the republicans reaction would have been if democrats were to have done this to GWB.

    Slime... every last one of these jackasses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ".....he republicans reaction would have been if democrats were to have done this to GWB."

      Democrats did this to Reagan, back in 1984 [source: New York Times, not Fox News].

      In his reaction, Gingrich calls it illegal, but the NY Times doesn't quote him as calling for prison terms.

      Delete
    2. Saw it, in my view, FALSE EQUIVALENCY.

      Delete
    3. I saw this when it happened in 1984. I would accept a case that the 47 "mad dogs" are not equivalent to the 10 "mad dogs" from before, since there are almost 5 times as many now as in the 1984 case. But there is an equivalence when it comes to not jailing people for this.

      Delete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.