|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Besides the letter, more old-hand Republican Senators are trying to build a 67-vote (veto-proof) majority to force President Obama to put any Iran deals to a vote in Congress.
Source
Not every Senate Republican signed on to Sen. Tom Cotton’s extraordinary letter to Iran’s leaders, and several of those who didn’t are fuming about the freshman senator’s Monday-morning foray into nuclear diplomacy.
Some of the seven dissenters told POLITICO they have doubts about Cotton’s move, saying there are more effective means to force President Barack Obama to address Congress’ concerns about the deal.
With Republicans needing significant Democratic support to achieve their goal of derailing the talks — or at least altering the emerging deal — some senators said Cotton’s effort could backfire by injecting excessive partisanship into the debate over how best to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker said he was approached to sign the letter by Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, but he concluded it might set back his ultimate goal: veto-proof support for a bill he has sponsored requiring a congressional vote to approve or reject an Iran deal.
Meanwhile some Democrats warned that Republicans risked alienating some of the dozen or so Democrats who have pledged support for two GOP measures that could blow up the fragile talks. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, who has not signed on to either a sanctions bill or to one allowing Congress to reject a deal with Iran, shook his head and sighed audibly when asked about the letter.
“It really makes it difficult. There was a time in Congress where politics stopped at the water’s edge on foreign policy. We gave the president whatever he needed to do his best. We could debate it, disagree with it,” said Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat. “Now I’m afraid we’ve reached a level here with that letter. It’s just, I could not think of a more overt effort to jeopardize peace negotiations.”
Worth noting that there is wide disagreement with the way negotiations have gone and Congress wants to take a much harder line on Iran than the president:
Corker’s bill would require an up-or-down vote by Congress on any deal that Obama strikes with Iran — and although a “no” vote would not bind Obama and bring down a nuclear deal, it would restrict Obama’s ability to waive economic sanctions on Iran.
The other measure, sponsored by Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), would require new sanctions on Iran should Tehran leave the negotiations or violate its current agreements with the U.S. and its five negotiating partners: Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain.
Both measures are close to the 67 Senate votes needed to override the vetoes President Obama has threatened. The White House has warned that congressional interference could blow up the talks and lead to a possible military confrontation with Iran.
But the Senate is its own worst enemy. Democrats will absolutely not vote for a bill that they think Republicans will cheer gleefully as a partisan victory over Obama, and the Republicans seem demure about getting behind bills written and supported by Democrats.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
congress hasn't been involved in the quite lengthy negotiation process. it's backseat driving apart from the choice of politics.
|
On March 11 2015 10:43 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 10:15 hannahbelle wrote:On March 11 2015 10:04 ticklishmusic wrote:
I was doing some reading yesterday, and in the US treason falls under 3 categories, stuff like aiding and abetting enemies, levying war, etc.
The Logan act is separate from that stuff, but it does expressly prohibit unauthorized citizens from conducting diplomacy with foreign governments. Whether the citizen is a cafeteria worker or senator is largely irrelevant, what matters is that diplomacy is the purview of the executive branch and those it authorizes.
The interesting point is that no one has actually been tried under the act, but hey there's a first one for everything. It's been considered a few times though. So is it that the senators talked to a foreign government that has you all upset or that they dared to speak out against the Emperor? As far as I know, Congressman have been visiting foreign leaders and countries for ages and not always under the auspices of the President. Should we line them up against the wall as well? Or is it just their politics that motivates the left to beat this drum? Hah, you called Obama the emperor. Go home kid, come back when you've taken a basic civics course. Here's some extra credit reading though: http://thehill.com/homenews/news/12355-house-republican-wants-to-restrict-pelosis-travel
Lol wut? Is that all you have? Petty insults? You'll have to do better than that, especially if you want to get away with the nonsensical posts you have been throwing out.
|
On March 11 2015 11:00 oneofthem wrote:
congress hasn't been involved in the quite lengthy negotiation process. it's backseat driving apart from the choice of politics.
Not backseat driving. Advise and consent.
|
On March 11 2015 10:48 coverpunch wrote:Besides the letter, more old-hand Republican Senators are trying to build a 67-vote (veto-proof) majority to force President Obama to put any Iran deals to a vote in Congress. SourceShow nested quote +Not every Senate Republican signed on to Sen. Tom Cotton’s extraordinary letter to Iran’s leaders, and several of those who didn’t are fuming about the freshman senator’s Monday-morning foray into nuclear diplomacy.
Some of the seven dissenters told POLITICO they have doubts about Cotton’s move, saying there are more effective means to force President Barack Obama to address Congress’ concerns about the deal.
With Republicans needing significant Democratic support to achieve their goal of derailing the talks — or at least altering the emerging deal — some senators said Cotton’s effort could backfire by injecting excessive partisanship into the debate over how best to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker said he was approached to sign the letter by Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, but he concluded it might set back his ultimate goal: veto-proof support for a bill he has sponsored requiring a congressional vote to approve or reject an Iran deal. Show nested quote +Meanwhile some Democrats warned that Republicans risked alienating some of the dozen or so Democrats who have pledged support for two GOP measures that could blow up the fragile talks. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, who has not signed on to either a sanctions bill or to one allowing Congress to reject a deal with Iran, shook his head and sighed audibly when asked about the letter.
“It really makes it difficult. There was a time in Congress where politics stopped at the water’s edge on foreign policy. We gave the president whatever he needed to do his best. We could debate it, disagree with it,” said Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat. “Now I’m afraid we’ve reached a level here with that letter. It’s just, I could not think of a more overt effort to jeopardize peace negotiations.” Worth noting that there is wide disagreement with the way negotiations have gone and Congress wants to take a much harder line on Iran than the president: Show nested quote +Corker’s bill would require an up-or-down vote by Congress on any deal that Obama strikes with Iran — and although a “no” vote would not bind Obama and bring down a nuclear deal, it would restrict Obama’s ability to waive economic sanctions on Iran.
The other measure, sponsored by Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), would require new sanctions on Iran should Tehran leave the negotiations or violate its current agreements with the U.S. and its five negotiating partners: Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain.
Both measures are close to the 67 Senate votes needed to override the vetoes President Obama has threatened. The White House has warned that congressional interference could blow up the talks and lead to a possible military confrontation with Iran. But the Senate is its own worst enemy. Democrats will absolutely not vote for a bill that they think Republicans will cheer gleefully as a partisan victory over Obama, and the Republicans seem demure about getting behind bills written and supported by Democrats.
Too bad people like Corker weren't voted out years ago.
|
Canada11363 Posts
Hey hannahbelle
There is an 'edit' feature on TL which you can use if you have additional thoughts and other people have not yet posted after you. Do not spam with double and triple posts.
|
On March 11 2015 11:54 Falling wrote:
Hey hannahbelle
There is an 'edit' feature on TL which you can use if you have additional thoughts and other people have not yet posted after you. Do not spam with double and triple posts.
Sorry. 
|
I dont think Obama's foreign policy is weak unless we have boots on the ground, it would be so tiring to elaborate my aspect on mid-east case but in short, i believe there are not many cards left to play, or any options to bring to the desk. Iran is dominant simply because they are closer, you cant control a continent away area more than 30 years even if you destroy every opposition or tighten your partnership with your allies. Iran will get those weapons and nuke Israel, or at least, will threaten Israel sooner or later.
On March 11 2015 03:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 03:37 oneofthem wrote:
daunt you realize iran is under the threat of israeli nukes much more than vice versa. That's fine with me. Israel is an ally. Iran is not. I'm also much more confident in Israel being rationale with nuclear weapons than Iran.
You can bet there is a russian who thinks exactly the same when you said Israel is ally, he says Iran is ally, who cares your Israel if its nuked. However, iran may stop uranium enrichment and make that deal and therefore you can think Iran can be a stronger ally in the region but it wont be.
Reason 1 : Iran does not like United States. You cant be ally when your partner does not see you as an ally.
Reason 2 : Israel does not like Iran and vice versa. They have plans for each other. And you lose one if you become an ally with the other.
Reason 3 : Iran is Shiite and your powerful allies are Sunnis. You can say this has nothing to do with relations but mind Iraq and Maliki. AND, United States and its allies in region, e.g Turkey are supporting FSA, Iran and Russia are backing up Baath regime. Will you reshape your entire policy / position over Syria and plus, Iraq, where Turks openly support Northern side (kurds) while Iran has complete dominance over central government? You can pick Jordan, Saudis, Egypt, Israel or any allied group instead of Turkey for reasoning why we cant be allies and why we will always remain enemies.
On March 10 2015 08:07 Nyxisto wrote:
Turkey's standpoint when it comes to ISIS is far from clear and at times very disturbing given all the reports about alleged cooperation to diminish the Kurds. Also it's not a "core" country in the region like Iran with the power to project or create political stability. Turkey is on it's way to turn into the light version of Saudi-Arabia, at least from a religious ideological perspective.
If we say Iran is a "core" country being powerful enough to create political stability etc. by your sayings, can you name another country in the region who is also core? You cant. Bush did not wanted any allied country to reach that level. I believe this answers why Turkey's standpoint was unclear, they know they are not as powerful as they were in Ottoboys era and they seek ways to regain that power, they backed FSA to weaken Assad and Iran, they still deny entire Armenia as a nation, this limits Russia's playground on Black Sea, they wont leave the lands they invaded in Cyprus, they control Greece and Israel both in the Mediterranean since its the only powerful naval force who can block oil ways in the region. They did not move a muscle when ISIS was slapping Kurds, but then instead of pure hatred against Turkey, suddenly PKK decided to double-time peace process, Northern Iraq is increasingly enlarging its trade volume with Turks, and guess what, Turkish construction companies are the ones who rebuilds destroyed countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt plus Turkish food export is beyond imagine with this stupid fact: http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news/sections/culture/2014/10/27/show-turkey-worlds-2nd-highest-tv-series-exporter-after-us_fa235949-f7b5-4681-8040-35c67948b8f5.html. LMAO (they broadcast mostly a series like GOT but this one is about Ottoboyz and how great they were.) They are getting powerful, in fact, their pacing up with Iran on Middle East. - WHY IS THIS HAPPENING? THEY ARE ALSO CLOSER. -
I also dont agree when someone says Turkey is reliable, they are ally with US as every move US does benefits them and stacks with their goals. But in the end they are not light version of Saudi-Arabia with religious ideological terms, they will stay secular, yet they may still become hostile to anyone, firstly and surely, Israel, lol. Imo, its time to leave Middle East and let them play. Israel can defend itself and Turkey can fight Iran.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 11 2015 09:12 dAPhREAk wrote:i think i found the handbook. Show nested quote +All Government employees and contractors are required by law to make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency (Federal Records Act, or “FRA,” 44 U.S.C. 3101 et seq). In addition, Federal regulations govern the life cycle of these records: they must be properly stored and preserved, available for retrieval, and subject to appropriate approved disposition schedules. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/85696.pdf
"properly" is not exactly saying they have to be under the government system. as long as the retrieval and security processes are deemed ok. it's more of an internal department violation or something
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 11 2015 11:34 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:00 oneofthem wrote:
congress hasn't been involved in the quite lengthy negotiation process. it's backseat driving apart from the choice of politics. Not backseat driving. Advise and consent.
to do that they should have been involved in the process, or it's akin to trying to drive without seeing the road.
|
I might have missed it in the thread already but I was wondering if anybody had thoughts on Venezuela?
|
|
|
Pretty sure the Columbia-Venezuela cocaine industry has something to do with it. If something happened and suddenly the US's supply of cocaine was significantly interrupted all hell would break loose in this country.
EDIT: would probably make an interesting movie/series.
|
On March 11 2015 10:48 coverpunch wrote:Besides the letter, more old-hand Republican Senators are trying to build a 67-vote (veto-proof) majority to force President Obama to put any Iran deals to a vote in Congress. SourceShow nested quote +Not every Senate Republican signed on to Sen. Tom Cotton’s extraordinary letter to Iran’s leaders, and several of those who didn’t are fuming about the freshman senator’s Monday-morning foray into nuclear diplomacy.
Some of the seven dissenters told POLITICO they have doubts about Cotton’s move, saying there are more effective means to force President Barack Obama to address Congress’ concerns about the deal.
With Republicans needing significant Democratic support to achieve their goal of derailing the talks — or at least altering the emerging deal — some senators said Cotton’s effort could backfire by injecting excessive partisanship into the debate over how best to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker said he was approached to sign the letter by Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, but he concluded it might set back his ultimate goal: veto-proof support for a bill he has sponsored requiring a congressional vote to approve or reject an Iran deal. Show nested quote +Meanwhile some Democrats warned that Republicans risked alienating some of the dozen or so Democrats who have pledged support for two GOP measures that could blow up the fragile talks. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, who has not signed on to either a sanctions bill or to one allowing Congress to reject a deal with Iran, shook his head and sighed audibly when asked about the letter.
“It really makes it difficult. There was a time in Congress where politics stopped at the water’s edge on foreign policy. We gave the president whatever he needed to do his best. We could debate it, disagree with it,” said Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat. “Now I’m afraid we’ve reached a level here with that letter. It’s just, I could not think of a more overt effort to jeopardize peace negotiations.” Worth noting that there is wide disagreement with the way negotiations have gone and Congress wants to take a much harder line on Iran than the president: Show nested quote +Corker’s bill would require an up-or-down vote by Congress on any deal that Obama strikes with Iran — and although a “no” vote would not bind Obama and bring down a nuclear deal, it would restrict Obama’s ability to waive economic sanctions on Iran.
The other measure, sponsored by Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), would require new sanctions on Iran should Tehran leave the negotiations or violate its current agreements with the U.S. and its five negotiating partners: Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain.
Both measures are close to the 67 Senate votes needed to override the vetoes President Obama has threatened. The White House has warned that congressional interference could blow up the talks and lead to a possible military confrontation with Iran. But the Senate is its own worst enemy. Democrats will absolutely not vote for a bill that they think Republicans will cheer gleefully as a partisan victory over Obama, and the Republicans seem demure about getting behind bills written and supported by Democrats.
I'm waiting for the old-hand Republicans to learn some new tricks. Specifically, suspend the veto rule in the face of such a lawless president.
|
WASHINGTON -- Republicans, under fire for a letter signed by 47 senators to the leadership of Iran, said Tuesday that complaints about violating foreign policy convention should be leveled not at them, but at President Barack Obama.
GOP lawmakers spent much of Tuesday being pressed on why Senate party leadership went around the White House with an open letter warning Iran that any nuclear agreement may be undercut in the future by Congress or Obama's successor. Several Republicans sought to distance themselves from the letter, saying that while they may not agree with the direction of nuclear talks with Iran, it was the purview of the president to conduct them.
But those who support the letter -- even some who didn't add their names -- deflected the blame. If it weren't for Obama's failure to consult lawmakers about the negotiations, or his threatened veto of a proposed bill to give Congress the final vote on a nuclear agreement, senators wouldn't have had to speak out in the first place, they argued.
“I think that, no doubt, the fact that the president, you know, issued a veto threat on a very common-sense piece of legislation, probably evoked, you know, a good deal of passion,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told The Huffington Post Tuesday. Corker, who is leading the push for a veto-proof majority on the bill to grant Congress oversight of a nuclear agreement, did not sign letter, which was organized by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). Nevertheless, he showed no signs of ill will toward his junior colleague.
“No, no, no,” Corker responded, when asked if he was concerned Cotton’s letter would cost the bill much-needed Democratic votes.
Corker's comments were more diplomatic than those offered by other Republicans on Tuesday. But they nevertheless reflected a defensiveness within the GOP, which is taking heat for the letter not just from Democrats, but from leading foreign policy analysts as well.
Source
|
On March 11 2015 15:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- Republicans, under fire for a letter signed by 47 senators to the leadership of Iran, said Tuesday that complaints about violating foreign policy convention should be leveled not at them, but at President Barack Obama.
GOP lawmakers spent much of Tuesday being pressed on why Senate party leadership went around the White House with an open letter warning Iran that any nuclear agreement may be undercut in the future by Congress or Obama's successor. Several Republicans sought to distance themselves from the letter, saying that while they may not agree with the direction of nuclear talks with Iran, it was the purview of the president to conduct them.
But those who support the letter -- even some who didn't add their names -- deflected the blame. If it weren't for Obama's failure to consult lawmakers about the negotiations, or his threatened veto of a proposed bill to give Congress the final vote on a nuclear agreement, senators wouldn't have had to speak out in the first place, they argued.
“I think that, no doubt, the fact that the president, you know, issued a veto threat on a very common-sense piece of legislation, probably evoked, you know, a good deal of passion,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told The Huffington Post Tuesday. Corker, who is leading the push for a veto-proof majority on the bill to grant Congress oversight of a nuclear agreement, did not sign letter, which was organized by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). Nevertheless, he showed no signs of ill will toward his junior colleague.
“No, no, no,” Corker responded, when asked if he was concerned Cotton’s letter would cost the bill much-needed Democratic votes.
Corker's comments were more diplomatic than those offered by other Republicans on Tuesday. But they nevertheless reflected a defensiveness within the GOP, which is taking heat for the letter not just from Democrats, but from leading foreign policy analysts as well. Source
Typical huffingtonpost journalism.
|
On March 11 2015 15:50 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 15:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Republicans, under fire for a letter signed by 47 senators to the leadership of Iran, said Tuesday that complaints about violating foreign policy convention should be leveled not at them, but at President Barack Obama.
GOP lawmakers spent much of Tuesday being pressed on why Senate party leadership went around the White House with an open letter warning Iran that any nuclear agreement may be undercut in the future by Congress or Obama's successor. Several Republicans sought to distance themselves from the letter, saying that while they may not agree with the direction of nuclear talks with Iran, it was the purview of the president to conduct them.
But those who support the letter -- even some who didn't add their names -- deflected the blame. If it weren't for Obama's failure to consult lawmakers about the negotiations, or his threatened veto of a proposed bill to give Congress the final vote on a nuclear agreement, senators wouldn't have had to speak out in the first place, they argued.
“I think that, no doubt, the fact that the president, you know, issued a veto threat on a very common-sense piece of legislation, probably evoked, you know, a good deal of passion,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told The Huffington Post Tuesday. Corker, who is leading the push for a veto-proof majority on the bill to grant Congress oversight of a nuclear agreement, did not sign letter, which was organized by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). Nevertheless, he showed no signs of ill will toward his junior colleague.
“No, no, no,” Corker responded, when asked if he was concerned Cotton’s letter would cost the bill much-needed Democratic votes.
Corker's comments were more diplomatic than those offered by other Republicans on Tuesday. But they nevertheless reflected a defensiveness within the GOP, which is taking heat for the letter not just from Democrats, but from leading foreign policy analysts as well. Source Typical huffingtonpost journalism.
Typical ambiguous attack on the huffington post. Care to clarify what you think is wrong?
|
On March 11 2015 16:06 Sandvich wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 15:50 jellyjello wrote:On March 11 2015 15:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Republicans, under fire for a letter signed by 47 senators to the leadership of Iran, said Tuesday that complaints about violating foreign policy convention should be leveled not at them, but at President Barack Obama.
GOP lawmakers spent much of Tuesday being pressed on why Senate party leadership went around the White House with an open letter warning Iran that any nuclear agreement may be undercut in the future by Congress or Obama's successor. Several Republicans sought to distance themselves from the letter, saying that while they may not agree with the direction of nuclear talks with Iran, it was the purview of the president to conduct them.
But those who support the letter -- even some who didn't add their names -- deflected the blame. If it weren't for Obama's failure to consult lawmakers about the negotiations, or his threatened veto of a proposed bill to give Congress the final vote on a nuclear agreement, senators wouldn't have had to speak out in the first place, they argued.
“I think that, no doubt, the fact that the president, you know, issued a veto threat on a very common-sense piece of legislation, probably evoked, you know, a good deal of passion,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told The Huffington Post Tuesday. Corker, who is leading the push for a veto-proof majority on the bill to grant Congress oversight of a nuclear agreement, did not sign letter, which was organized by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). Nevertheless, he showed no signs of ill will toward his junior colleague.
“No, no, no,” Corker responded, when asked if he was concerned Cotton’s letter would cost the bill much-needed Democratic votes.
Corker's comments were more diplomatic than those offered by other Republicans on Tuesday. But they nevertheless reflected a defensiveness within the GOP, which is taking heat for the letter not just from Democrats, but from leading foreign policy analysts as well. Source Typical huffingtonpost journalism. Typical ambiguous attack on the huffington post. Care to clarify what you think is wrong?
Framing. Typical hackery.
On March 11 2015 13:03 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:34 hannahbelle wrote:On March 11 2015 11:00 oneofthem wrote:
congress hasn't been involved in the quite lengthy negotiation process. it's backseat driving apart from the choice of politics. Not backseat driving. Advise and consent. to do that they should have been involved in the process, or it's akin to trying to drive without seeing the road.
Yes, they should have been involved. And who is to blame for their lack of involvement? You know, any experienced leader knows if you are involved in an important task, you should build consensus during every step of the project within your team. Obama has failed to do that. He has engaged in these negotiations with Iran, over a very controversial and longstanding issue, with zero involvement from the organization that is responsible for advising and consenting on foreign treaties. In short, Obama wants to do whatever he wants to do, and throws a fit like a petulant child, when he can't give a fancy speech and get everyone to drink the kool-aid.
You can disagree with the Republicans actions, but you have to acknowledge they have legitimate grievances here. It is absolutely the purview of the executive branch to conduct foreign diplomacy, but it is the Constitutional obligation of the Senate to advise and consent on these negotiations. The president has the responsibility to allow the Senate to perform its Constitutional duties.
But then again, he has shown only disdain for the Constitution, so I wouldn't expect him to change now.
|
On March 12 2015 00:45 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 16:06 Sandvich wrote:On March 11 2015 15:50 jellyjello wrote:On March 11 2015 15:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Republicans, under fire for a letter signed by 47 senators to the leadership of Iran, said Tuesday that complaints about violating foreign policy convention should be leveled not at them, but at President Barack Obama.
GOP lawmakers spent much of Tuesday being pressed on why Senate party leadership went around the White House with an open letter warning Iran that any nuclear agreement may be undercut in the future by Congress or Obama's successor. Several Republicans sought to distance themselves from the letter, saying that while they may not agree with the direction of nuclear talks with Iran, it was the purview of the president to conduct them.
But those who support the letter -- even some who didn't add their names -- deflected the blame. If it weren't for Obama's failure to consult lawmakers about the negotiations, or his threatened veto of a proposed bill to give Congress the final vote on a nuclear agreement, senators wouldn't have had to speak out in the first place, they argued.
“I think that, no doubt, the fact that the president, you know, issued a veto threat on a very common-sense piece of legislation, probably evoked, you know, a good deal of passion,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told The Huffington Post Tuesday. Corker, who is leading the push for a veto-proof majority on the bill to grant Congress oversight of a nuclear agreement, did not sign letter, which was organized by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). Nevertheless, he showed no signs of ill will toward his junior colleague.
“No, no, no,” Corker responded, when asked if he was concerned Cotton’s letter would cost the bill much-needed Democratic votes.
Corker's comments were more diplomatic than those offered by other Republicans on Tuesday. But they nevertheless reflected a defensiveness within the GOP, which is taking heat for the letter not just from Democrats, but from leading foreign policy analysts as well. Source Typical huffingtonpost journalism. Typical ambiguous attack on the huffington post. Care to clarify what you think is wrong? Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 13:03 oneofthem wrote:On March 11 2015 11:34 hannahbelle wrote:On March 11 2015 11:00 oneofthem wrote:
congress hasn't been involved in the quite lengthy negotiation process. it's backseat driving apart from the choice of politics. Not backseat driving. Advise and consent. to do that they should have been involved in the process, or it's akin to trying to drive without seeing the road. Yes, they should have been involved. And who is to blame for their lack of involvement? You know, any experienced leader knows if you are involved in an important task, you should build consensus during every step of the project within your team. Obama has failed to do that. He has engaged in these negotiations with Iran, over a very controversial and longstanding issue, with zero involvement from the organization that is responsible for advising and consenting on foreign treaties. In short, Obama wants to do whatever he wants to do, and throws a fit like a petulant child, when he can't give a fancy speech and get everyone to drink the kool-aid. You can disagree with the Republicans actions, but you have to acknowledge they have legitimate grievances here. It is absolutely the purview of the executive branch to conduct foreign diplomacy, but it is the Constitutional obligation of the Senate to advise and consent on these negotiations. The president has the responsibility to allow the Senate to perform its Constitutional duties. But then again, he has shown only disdain for the Constitution, so I wouldn't expect him to change now. Your rhetoric is so polarized and biased that you make it impossible to have any meaningful discussion. The frequent condescension doesn't help at all. You automatically assume the best possible intentions for Republican actions and the worst possible intentions for Obama. Putting all of the blame on him in the greater context of obstructionism is short-sighted and leads to people dismissing your opinion.
|
On March 12 2015 01:07 calgar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 00:45 hannahbelle wrote:On March 11 2015 16:06 Sandvich wrote:On March 11 2015 15:50 jellyjello wrote:On March 11 2015 15:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- Republicans, under fire for a letter signed by 47 senators to the leadership of Iran, said Tuesday that complaints about violating foreign policy convention should be leveled not at them, but at President Barack Obama.
GOP lawmakers spent much of Tuesday being pressed on why Senate party leadership went around the White House with an open letter warning Iran that any nuclear agreement may be undercut in the future by Congress or Obama's successor. Several Republicans sought to distance themselves from the letter, saying that while they may not agree with the direction of nuclear talks with Iran, it was the purview of the president to conduct them.
But those who support the letter -- even some who didn't add their names -- deflected the blame. If it weren't for Obama's failure to consult lawmakers about the negotiations, or his threatened veto of a proposed bill to give Congress the final vote on a nuclear agreement, senators wouldn't have had to speak out in the first place, they argued.
“I think that, no doubt, the fact that the president, you know, issued a veto threat on a very common-sense piece of legislation, probably evoked, you know, a good deal of passion,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told The Huffington Post Tuesday. Corker, who is leading the push for a veto-proof majority on the bill to grant Congress oversight of a nuclear agreement, did not sign letter, which was organized by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). Nevertheless, he showed no signs of ill will toward his junior colleague.
“No, no, no,” Corker responded, when asked if he was concerned Cotton’s letter would cost the bill much-needed Democratic votes.
Corker's comments were more diplomatic than those offered by other Republicans on Tuesday. But they nevertheless reflected a defensiveness within the GOP, which is taking heat for the letter not just from Democrats, but from leading foreign policy analysts as well. Source Typical huffingtonpost journalism. Typical ambiguous attack on the huffington post. Care to clarify what you think is wrong? On March 11 2015 13:03 oneofthem wrote:On March 11 2015 11:34 hannahbelle wrote:On March 11 2015 11:00 oneofthem wrote:
congress hasn't been involved in the quite lengthy negotiation process. it's backseat driving apart from the choice of politics. Not backseat driving. Advise and consent. to do that they should have been involved in the process, or it's akin to trying to drive without seeing the road. Yes, they should have been involved. And who is to blame for their lack of involvement? You know, any experienced leader knows if you are involved in an important task, you should build consensus during every step of the project within your team. Obama has failed to do that. He has engaged in these negotiations with Iran, over a very controversial and longstanding issue, with zero involvement from the organization that is responsible for advising and consenting on foreign treaties. In short, Obama wants to do whatever he wants to do, and throws a fit like a petulant child, when he can't give a fancy speech and get everyone to drink the kool-aid. You can disagree with the Republicans actions, but you have to acknowledge they have legitimate grievances here. It is absolutely the purview of the executive branch to conduct foreign diplomacy, but it is the Constitutional obligation of the Senate to advise and consent on these negotiations. The president has the responsibility to allow the Senate to perform its Constitutional duties. But then again, he has shown only disdain for the Constitution, so I wouldn't expect him to change now. Your rhetoric is so polarized and biased that you make it impossible to have any meaningful discussion. The frequent condescension doesn't help at all. You automatically assume the best possible intentions for Republican actions and the worst possible intentions for Obama. Putting all of the blame on him in the greater context of obstructionism is short-sighted and leads to people dismissing your opinion.
You obviously don't read my posts. I don't have anything but disdain for half the republican party either. But it's interesting that you object to my polarized rhetoric, but ignore the polarizing leftist rhetoric of the last few pages? This is why I dismiss your opinion. In itself, it is not balanced or objective, merely just a choosing of one side of the argument or the other that you support. Instead of addressing the post, you engage in the tactic of marginalizing the post for reasons not related to factual content.
Assuming the worse about motivations or intentions is a framing tactic. It does not change the underlying facts. Green Horizons and Oneofthem frame their discussion one way, I frame the discussion another way. In page after page on here of the Iranian debate and the Republican letter or the Republicans allowing Netanyahu to speak, I did not see one poster from the other side stop and consider that the Republicans might have legitimate concerns. Where we you then I wonder in your concern for polarizing rhetoric, bias, and condescension?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
