Pig F**king Traitors: the GOP

[NowhereInTime]

You have got to be kidding me:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-09/republicans-warn-iran-and-obama-that-deal-won-t-last

47 douchebags from the Senate trying to do an end-around on the administration to convince Iran that the deal won't stand?!? To what consequence??

Traitors.

[VegasI15]

Err...so let me get this straight.  Obama is making a bad deal for the world with Iran.  And our elected officials are trying to salvage it.  Whats traitorous about that? 

The truth is Netenyahu and the whole Middle East warned us.  But Obama stuck his head in the sand and pretends like he knows more than them.   Choosing to not even listen to our supposed Israeli allies.  Something seems a bit fishy about Obama's thought process..... 

[VtaGeezer]

War with Iran is the Conservative Wet Dream II.  The first was the invasion of Iraq and we know how well that turned out.  I won't be surprised to awake some morning to news of a military coup, or an attack of Iran by rogue military right winger to speed up the process.

[Who]

It's not just the Obama administration doing the negotiating - it's the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (US, UK, France, Russia, China) plus Germany.  You may hear them referred to as the P5 +1.

Congress ratifies treaties - they don't negotiate them.  The 47 Republican Senators may very well have violated the Logan Act.  What they did was unprecedented and most definitely under-handed and stupid.

[albrecht]

Congress ratifies treaties - they don't negotiate them.  The 47 Republican Senators may very well have violated the Logan Act.  What they did was unprecedented and most definitely under-handed and stupid.

People always bring this up but never goes anywhere except in one case, in 1803, which was only an indictment and went no where. It would be interesting if Obama did pursue this because it would seem to apply in many cases and there is also conflicting court interpretations of the Act and even constitutional questions. The other question is also is that it seems Obama is not trying to actual put a treaty to the Senate but use some other methods to arrange an understanding with Iran (similar to his attempts like global warming, the UN Small Arms treaty, Law of the Sea treaty, etc.) Which is why these Senators wrote their letter I suspect. I would like the Logan Act to be invoked just to see where it stands. Also invoked on others for past actions in humanitarian missions, protests, politicking for foreign governments, or attending secret meeting.)

[RealCool Daddio]

It's not just the Obama administration doing the negotiating - it's the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (US, UK, France, Russia, China) plus Germany.  You may hear them referred to as the P5 +1.

Congress ratifies treaties - they don't negotiate them.  The 47 Republican Senators may very well have violated the Logan Act.  What they did was unprecedented and most definitely under-handed and stupid.

Seems cut and dried - they should be charged immediately:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/953

[MV/Liberace!]

You have got to be kidding me:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-09/republicans-warn-iran-and-obama-that-deal-won-t-last

47 douchebags from the Senate trying to do an end-around on the administration to convince Iran that the deal won't stand?!? To what consequence??

Traitors.

my world view has changed a lot in the last ten years.  i think we need to be trading with the iranians.  we need to be allowing them easy access to our products and culture.  we need to be inviting their leaders to the white house.  we need to make friends of them.  the westernization of iran will follow, and it won't require a single bullet.

[PB the Deplorable]

You have got to be kidding me:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-09/republicans-warn-iran-and-obama-that-deal-won-t-last

47 douchebags from the Senate trying to do an end-around on the administration to convince Iran that the deal won't stand?!? To what consequence??

Traitors.

It's called the US Constitution.  Separation of powers.

Not to mention this is supposed to be a Representative Republic with officials operating on behalf of and under the consent of the governed.


Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 (quote):  "He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advise and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..." (end quote)

In other words some dangerous destructive jerk, who manages to get himself elected president, cannot legally do grave damage to this Republic on his own through in agreement with a foreign entity.

So not exactly an 'en-around' by he Senate, it's the consequence of Obama's 'end-around' the Constitution.

This person is not a dictator, no matter how much he would like to be one, no matter how much he despises our form of government.  Issuing one of his Unconstitutional 'Executive Orders', and not calling an agreement with Iran a treaty as a way around the US Senate should be revoked, and apparently will be.

You want to see a Traitor, look no further than the current occupant in the Oval Office


That's the answer to Part One of your post

[Gd5150]

You have got to be kidding me:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-09/republicans-warn-iran-and-obama-that-deal-won-t-last

47 douchebags from the Senate trying to do an end-around on the administration to convince Iran that the deal won't stand?!? To what consequence??

Traitors.

Those traitors!  They should all be impeached and have their personal email servers confiscated.

[onan]

But, the borders and Benghazi.

[Yorkshire pud]

But, the borders and Benghazi.

..and and Alinskyskysky.

[VtaGeezer]

...Obama is not trying to actual put a treaty to the Senate but use some other methods to arrange an understanding with Iran (similar to his attempts like global warming, the UN Small Arms treaty, Law of the Sea treaty, etc.) Which is why these Senators wrote their letter I suspect. I would like the Logan Act to be invoked just to see where it stands. Also invoked on others for past actions in humanitarian missions, protests, politicking for foreign governments, or attending secret meeting.)

The examples you mention have been kicked about for years if not decades.  This is precisely why it must be resolved with an agreement, not a treaty; which also supersedes US law once ratified.  We don't have ten years to piss around with the AIPAC and oil lobby trying to rewrite the fine print.  If you think McConnell would let a formal treaty with Iran get to a committee, let alone ratified, in under 22 months, you're nut. This ultra-conservative Congress is bent on war with the ayatollahs.  This one won't be another cakewalk against a 3rd-rate conscript army.

[PB the Deplorable]

You have got to be kidding me:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-09/republicans-warn-iran-and-obama-that-deal-won-t-last

47 douchebags from the Senate trying to do an end-around on the administration to convince Iran that the deal won't stand?!? To what consequence??

Traitors.

The answer to Part Two of your post, the why of it:

Iran is the fount of Shia terror.  There is now a power vacuum in the region (thanks to Bush invading and deposing Saddam, followed by Obama cutting and running).  Iran is a second caliphate, in competition with ISIS for control over the region - certainly anywhere with a significant Shiite population.  They are openly on the move in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and now Yemen. 

Obama's fecklessness, weakness, and cluelessness in negotiating an agreement that will remove sanctions and remove the threat that we will destroy their nuclear sites, in exchange for very little, is a lousy deal, period.

If Persian Iran is allowed to continue their quest to join the nuclear bomb club, then the Arab Saudi's are going to want one as a counter balance.  As are the Egyptians.  As are the Turks.  Every two-bit tin-horn dictator watching the world deal with Iran, and also North Korea, will wonder why they shouldn't start building one. 

Is that what we want?  There is a reason US policy over the years is non-proliferation, and especially Iran,  And one jerk in the White House can overturn that with an 'Executive Order'?  This president is dangerous and needs to go.

[The General]

my world view has changed a lot in the last ten years.  i think we need to be trading with the iranians.  we need to be allowing them easy access to our products and culture.  we need to be inviting their leaders to the white house.  we need to make friends of them.  the westernization of iran will follow, and it won't require a single bullet.

That would probably be a great strategy for pre-revolution Iran.
Now, I'm not so sure it will work.  The Islamists don't want to be our friend.
It's our very culture and products and westernization in general that they despise.

[albrecht]

The examples you mention have been kicked about for years if not decades.  This is precisely why it must be resolved with an agreement, not a treaty; which also supersedes US law once ratified.  We don't have ten years to piss around with the AIPAC and oil lobby trying to rewrite the fine print.  If you think McConnell would let a formal treaty with Iran get to a committee, let alone ratified, in under 22 months, you're nut. This ultra-conservative Congress is bent on war with the ayatollahs.  This one won't be another cakewalk against a 3rd-rate conscript army.

I don't think secret agreements should be made or agreements that should be made that supersede US law (whether so-called "free trade agreements", international organizations, etc.) And also that treaties should be ratified and no secret treaties and no "fast-track" authority for the President (any president.) If people really want the global warming treaty, the Law of the Sea, the UN Small Arms Treaty, or even a treaty with Iran then submit it to the Senate and get it ratified. Or elect new Senators who wish to join international agreements over US law and them get them ratified.

There is a segment who always wants war (McCain especially it always seems) or at least wars-by-proxy (Brzezinski, Kissinger, etc) which is crazy but there is money to be made, I guess. But I don't think there is any hope of us not meddling in the affairs of the Middle East, Russia, Africa, Central and Eastern Europe, etc. So we should be smart about it and only intervene when our direct interest is involved and hopefully not by war, which should be declared by Congress.

If we really cared about how women, homosexuals, poor people, minorities etc were being treated by evil governments or criminal organizations- or really cared about beheadings, immolations, destruction of ancient landmarks, and corruption- we would be focusing our forces along our border and in countries far, far closer to home!

[MV/Liberace!]

That would probably be a great strategy for pre-revolution Iran.
Now, I'm not so sure it will work.  The Islamists don't want to be our friend.
It's our very culture and products and westernization in general that they despise.

older iranians, i think you're right.  younger iranians, not so much.  i think younger iranians are largely ready to join the modern family of man.

[onan]

It's our very culture and products and westernization in general that they despise.

I work with two people born in Iran. My wife is close friends with an Iranian that grew up while the Shah of Iran was in power; she became a translator, working for the FBI. Granted this a small sample, but none of them hates our way of life.

[The General]

I work with two people born in Iran. My wife is close friends with an Iranian that grew up while the Shah of Iran was in power; she became a translator, working for the FBI. Granted this a small sample, but none of them hates our way of life.

Right.  I should clarify that I'm referring to their leaders, not the citizens.  The good people of Iran deserve so much better than the government they currently have.  The Iranians I've known were some of the smartest and nicest people I've ever met. 

[PB the Deplorable]

my world view has changed a lot in the last ten years.  i think we need to be trading with the iranians.  we need to be allowing them easy access to our products and culture.  we need to be inviting their leaders to the white house.  we need to make friends of them.  the westernization of iran will follow, and it won't require a single bullet.

None of that has a thing to do with this present treaty.

Many Iranians are well educated.  They despise the mullah dictators who control their country.  The power base of the government there is the rural poor and uneducated.  And the ideological police and military.  The rest of them are with us - they are educated and already Westernized.

What needs to happen in Iran - for their sake - is regime change.  The sanctions were working, even more so with the recent drop in oil prices.  The sanctions are what forced them to the bargaining table in the first place.  Unfortunately they, and the rest of the world, have taken their measure of our president and know he is weak and clueless, so they offer nothing.

Continuing to squeeze and isolate the Iranian government is the best alternative.  Propping the leaders up by inviting them to the White House would be counter-productive.  Giving them access to additional foreign exchange by opening trade with them would be counter-productive. 

Maybe back in 2009 when the protestors in Tehran kicked off the 'Arab Spring', Obama could have come out in support of them - as they asked - instead of ignoring them and heading off to the golf course.

[albrecht]

I work with two people born in Iran. My wife is close friends with an Iranian that grew up while the Shah of Iran was in power; she became a translator, working for the FBI. Granted this a small sample, but none of them hates our way of life.

The Iranians I've known were usually educated and polite and nice folks. Granted I've only met a handful (and most of these were ones who left and/or were relatives to the Shah living in DC area or London.) But I would rather deal with Iranians than the various Arabs we have aligned ourselves with. Iran had a long culture- even more Islam. And the "arabs" we are allied have no real culture or history (except violence) and just became "royal" because of oil and European, and then Cold War, politics. They spread the most virulent version of Islam and fund extremism and terrorism around the world but they are our "friends" so....even now Iran is more tolerate of religious minorities and women compared to some of our "friends" or rebel groups that we once supported but now want to fight. And, of course, because of their Russian links we must be against them.

Obviously the mullahs etc are bad and crazy but since when is that not acceptable if fits our foreign policy agenda?

[ONeill]

It's not just the Obama administration doing the negotiating - it's the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (US, UK, France, Russia, China) plus Germany.  You may hear them referred to as the P5 +1.

Congress ratifies treaties - they don't negotiate them.  The 47 Republican Senators may very well have violated the Logan Act.  What they did was unprecedented and most definitely under-handed and stupid.

Will this treaty require Senate approval? Or is it just like the China carbon deal and other stuff that usually has to go through the legislative branch of government first like amnesty? Well it's not how this administration does it, is it? "I already signed it, could you boys & girls just STFU and fund it?"

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Regardless of the right or wrong approach to Iran, the problems the GOP perceive with the administration are internal.  Any problems they have with the structure of government or interpretation of the constitution must be dealt with internally.  And regardless of what they think, a united front must be presented in international dealings.  Going behind the President's back to a foreign power and attempting to countermand him is mutiny.  It's treason, and presenting a divided front is plain stupid and a selfish way to achieve partison agenda.

[MV/Liberace!]

None of that has a thing to do with this present treaty.

i don't mean to suggest it necessarily does.  i'm only speaking to our overall philosophy in dealing with these types of countries... iran, north korea, etc..  i know next to nothing about this treaty.

What needs to happen in Iran - for their sake - is regime change.

regime change will be great if it's from within, but a meddling outside force tends not to work very well based on what history, both recent and distant, has shown us.  the bigger question is, why can't we seem to learn from our mistakes?

Continuing to squeeze and isolate the Iranian government is the best alternative.

this is the arrogance of modern american foreign policy.  the US government should always be willing to talk with other regimes if those regimes are willing to talk with us.  we can't be so proud as to cut off communication with another government because... god forbid... it might give them legitimacy.  that's just playground cave-man thinking.  their government is in power, regardless of our opinion on the matter, so let's deal with them.  let's make friends of them.  let's change their culture through peaceful trade and transparency.  we've been trying it your way for a long time, and i'm not impressed by the results.

Giving them access to additional foreign exchange by opening trade with them would be counter-productive.

countries that trade with one another usually don't bomb one another.  it establishes lines of communication that might not otherwise exist, which creates new opportunities to resolve conflict through peaceful means.  if you plug the iranians into the world economy, they will have easier access to our media, our products, our money, our culture, our educational approach, mcdonalds... all of which makes them more likely to westernize. 

Maybe back in 2009 when the protestors in Tehran kicked off the 'Arab Spring', Obama could have come out in support of them - as they asked - instead of ignoring them and heading off to the golf course.

define support.

[VtaGeezer]

Regardless of the right or wrong approach to Iran, the problems the GOP perceive with the administration are internal.  Any problems they have with the structure of government or interpretation of the constitution must be dealt with internally.  And regardless of what they think, a united front must be presented in international dealings.  Going behind the President's back to a foreign power and attempting to countermand him is mutiny.  It's treason, and presenting a divided front is plain stupid and a selfish way to achieve partison agenda.

I wouldn't call it treason unless they sent Iran the plans for an ICBM.  It is treachery, it is cheap, and it disgraces the generations of US Senators who, regardless how much they opposed a President, understood that they're role was not to openly undermine the elected US President involved in critical foreign negotiations.  This Congress' shabby hackery is going to severely damage the US government effectiveness in foreign affairs long into the future, especially in the Middle East.   This over-achieving Tea Partier Cotton from Arkansas has been a Senator for all of two months, and is way out of line initiating this kind of thing, but he undoubtedly did under direction from and to provide cover for the Chief Hack McConnell and to get his name on the VP short list next year.

[MV/Liberace!]

Traitors.

and by the way, everybody does it.

www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2561314

[Gd5150]

and by the way, everybody does it.

www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2561314

Did we really have any doubts? No. Today's leftwing outrage is priceless. I do kinda miss the liberal lion "old Kennedy!"

[attachimg=1]

[Jnthn932]

It's called the US Constitution.  Separation of powers.

Not to mention this is supposed to be a Representative Republic with officials operating on behalf of and under the consent of the governed.


Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 (quote):  "He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advise and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..." (end quote)

In other words some dangerous destructive jerk, who manages to get himself elected president, cannot legally do grave damage to this Republic on his own through in agreement with a foreign entity.

So not exactly an 'en-around' by he Senate, it's the consequence of Obama's 'end-around' the Constitution.

This person is not a dictator, no matter how much he would like to be one, no matter how much he despises our form of government.  Issuing one of his Unconstitutional 'Executive Orders', and not calling an agreement with Iran a treaty as a way around the US Senate should be revoked, and apparently will be.

You want to see a Traitor, look no further than the current occupant in the Oval Office


That's the answer to Part One of your post

As always PB, you beat me to the punch! There's nothing wrong with what they said or did. The libs and our current administration loves to circumvent the constitution and ignore what the majority of the country wants to further their own ideals. The constitution be damned. What's telling to me is the reaction of the Iranian Prime Minister. He seems to think our government is Obama and what he says goes.

[FightTheFuture]

The Iranians are the world's all-time leaders in exporting state-funded terrorism around the globe. They are involved in a number of proxy wars through their terrorist organizations. They are responsible for  most American deaths during our time in the Middle East. They refer to the U.S. as "The Great Satan" and speak openly about wiping our closest ally in the Middle East (despite Dear Leader's best efforts) off the planet. They have no intention whatsoever of ever telling us the truth about anything, or agreeing to any treaties when it does not benefit them, or, if they can get away with secretly reneging on it. And they have said as much!

For anybody to rationally come to the conclusion that this regime is not interested in acquiring a nuclear Arsenal, and wouldn't' do ANYTHING to achieve that, is either profoundly naive or absence of the facts.You CAN NOT negotiate with these people in any normal manner. And you certainly DO NOT have the Executive branch involved in face-to-face direct negotiations. No, what you do is merely inform them of what horror will visit them if they do not give the UN absolute unfettered access to every square inch of their nuclear development and industrial facilities ...and MEAN it. THAT is how you negotiate with those clowns.

[ManiacMatt]

The Iranians are the world's all-time leaders in exporting state-funded terrorism around the globe. They are involved in a number of proxy wars through their terrorist organizations. They are responsible for  most American deaths during our time in the Middle East. They refer to the U.S. as "The Great Satan" and speak openly about wiping our closest ally in the Middle East (despite Dear Leader's best efforts) off the planet. They have no intention whatsoever of ever telling us the truth about anything, or agreeing to any treaties when it does not benefit them, or, if they can get away with secretly reneging on it. And they have said as much!

For anybody to rationally come to the conclusion that this regime is not interested in acquiring a nuclear Arsenal, and wouldn't' do ANYTHING to achieve that, is either profoundly naive or absence of the facts.You CAN NOT negotiate with these people in any normal manner. And you certainly DO NOT have the Executive branch involved in face-to-face direct negotiations. No, what you do is merely inform them of what horror will visit them if they do not give the UN absolute unfettered access to every square inch of their nuclear development and industrial facilities ...and MEAN it. THAT is how you negotiate with those clowns.

I wish it wasn't true, but you are correct.  They want to develop ICBMs.  You don't need an ICBM to defend against Israel.  The ICBM is for the USA and it's allies.  When Iran gets the nukes, any nuclear proliferation treaties between us and any other country is out the window and the clock ticks a bit closer to midnight.

[qaddisin]

I wish it wasn't true, but you are correct.  They want to develop ICBMs.  You don't need an ICBM to defend against Israel.  The ICBM is for the USA and it's allies.  When Iran gets the nukes, any nuclear proliferation treaties between us and any other country is out the window and the clock ticks a bit closer to midnight.

I'm a fan of the rationale that Iran will absolute, positively, without a doubt use nuclear weapons against other countries if they get them. If there are any experts on this, it would be the countries that have used nuclear weapons against their enemies in the past.