Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last

You really should learn to read thoroughly before you cop a condescending attitude. From your link:


Indeed, Mr. Solarz said, the ''incredible irony'' about the whole incident is that the 10 authors were asked to send the letter by Alphonso Robello, whom the Congressman describes as a leader in one of the paramilitary groups now battling the Sandinista leadership in Managua.

''The whole thrust of the letter is to encourage the Government of Nicaragua to hold free and fair elections,'' the Brooklyn Democrat said. ''Presumably, that's what Newt Gingrich and the Reagan Administration is trying to do themselves.''


In a veiled reference to the Reagan Administration, the letter says that if the Sandinistas do hold genuine elections, those who are ''supporting violence'' against the Nicaraguan leaders would have ''far greater difficulty winning support for their policies than they do today.''

Big difference in trying to sabotage an attempt towards a peace treaty, as the GOP 47 directly did. Close, but no cigar.

 

First off, I stated that the GOP 47 APPROACHES treason because they base their veiled threat on the PREMISE that they COULD win in 2016. So they skate the condemnation by a whisker.

Secondly, Wright got his butt handed to him personally by Reagan, as he acted alone.

Third, since Bush was NOT negotiating with Syria, we weren't at war with them nor did the State Dept. ban US citizens from visiting, Peolsi was not infringing upon any legal ground.

Fourth, since the Shurb & company did NOT prosecute Bonior, that's was their problem. You conflate the other's public statements that were separate from the actual visits with the other examples. Nothing you present comes quite as direct as the GOP 47 letter. Nice try, though.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, as the Shrub was not negotiating with Syria, we weren't at war with them, and the State Dept. did not ban US citizens from meeting with them, nor was Pelosi acting as an official ambassador.

 

By meeting with Assad, she was what then, a private citizen?

How about Ted Kennedy that begged the KGB to interfere in a US election?

 

As you may be aware (since you appear to be one of them), there are a lot of crazy conspiracy theorists on this forum who are always ready to post a link to a 2 hour Youtube video that explains the entire thing, whatever that think has to be; whether it's how Cheney caused 9/11, or how the AMA is trying to cause autism with vaccines, or Kennedy was really killed by the same lizard people who run the FED. I'll be honest, I'm just not interested in wasting my time with such nonsense. If you can't bring legitimate sources to the table, then you've failed. I'm not going to parse your blogs. I've learned my lesson, and it NEVER pays off. If you are going to post conspiracy nonsense, there is an entire section on this forum that will welcome you with open arms. But don't insult my intelligence with nonsense.

"...facts never matter to fanatical beliefs and delusions." Yes you are teaching me that lesson all over again! Ha!

I don't think the law applies to a non binding agreement. It's not a treaty.

 

When I read things like "blathering,...parroting,...3rd rate,... RACIST!,....drivel,....supremacist..." I know I've hit a nerve.
And the other guy has run out of logic.

 

Yes, the flack is heaviest over the target.

Cheers
Labour

 

Here is the pertinent point in the law.

"... any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States..."

I take it that "...the United States" here would have to mean the united states government.
The president is part of the government, not the government in it's entirety.
I take it that "controversies" with the United States would have to be controversies with the United States government, that is with some agreed upon policy of the entire government, not a political position of just one branch.
Other wise we would have to say that one branch alone could make U.S. policy.
If we take it that Obama is the united states government then we have done away with the constitution.

 

Interestingly Kerry's disclosure here, stating that no Treaty is being negotiated or attempted, deflates ANY political argument made with respect to the 47 and their public letter to Iran. The administration is admitting that there are no substantive negotiations in progress. Executive agreements of this magnitude have only been allowed as part of a process that ultimately sees Congressional action. There are many areas where "Executive agreements" are considered binding and they are in the realm of trade, finance, postal agreements, fishing disputes, small border issues and other trivial day to day stuff and the like. Never has Congress given total control of foreign relations / agreements or treaties to the executives.

Obama now drags his search validity for his argument that he alone has the power to reach "agreements" that are binding on Congress and law to the United Nations. He's appealing to a lower power here. From prior Treaties congress has give the President power to negotiate accords that will later be formalized by approval of Congress.

Article 43 of the United Nations Charter provides: ''1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. 2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided. 3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. The y shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.''

he United Nations Participation Act of December 20, 1945, implements these provisions as follows: ''The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution, providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to the President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.'

Cheers
Labour

 

Typical ploy of the right wing pundit/sycophant: when they cannot logically, factually or rationally defend the actions of their leadership, they try to change the topic of discussion.....usually with a long disproved talking point....as seen here.

- - - Updated - - -

BOOM! THERE IT IS!

 

Pay attention: Reagan and company were NOT involved in negotiations, nor were we officially at war with Nicaragua, nor was Nicaragua on any "enemy's list" or "terrorist" list. All Kerry did was try to open peace negotiations and to get the USA to stop financing rebels who were trying to topple a government that was NO THREAT to our shores or it's neighbors. Here, for your education: http://web.stanford.edu/group/arts/nicaragua/discovery_eng/timeline/

What Kerry did is a BIG difference from the GOP 47 openly trying to sabotage an ON GOING ATTEMPT BY THE PRESIDENT TO SECURE A PEACE TREATY WITH A NATION NATION DEEMED HOSTILE TO USA AND IT'S REGIONAL INTEREST.

 

The GOP 47 sent a veiled threat: anything you agree to now with this President won't stand after the 2016 election, so don't waste your time.

Big difference....and it's amusing to watch you try and dance a fine line when your compadres tried to use Peolsi as a negative and then EXCUSE GOP leadership for the EXACT SAME ACTION.

 

Prove a negative? Don't be silly. Netanyahu has been squawking for over a decade now that Iran's capability to produce a nuclear weapon is "just around the corner"....and despite factual evidence to the contrary, the right wing cabal and the Israeli lobby in our country keeps giving him an audience. Now remember, and ICBM would allow a nuke to reach the USA....an adapted missile could only reach Israel. Given Israel's nuke arsenal and US backed/supplied/supported ABM program, even IF Iran launched a nuke, it wouldn't reach it's target. Subsequently, and ICBM construction is nearly as complicated as producing weapons grade plutonium (i.e., North Korean missiles test failures).

So when all is said and done, the GOP 47 are STILL skirting treason by trying to sabotage a peace treaty initiative.

 

Wrong again. Just because YOU favor an action doesn't automatically make it right. Bottom line: others have shown instances where members of Congress have gone to countries that the sitting administration did not like, and there was flack. The DIFFERENCE is that NO DEMOCRAT has tried to sabotage AN ONGOING NEGOTIATION FOR A PEACE TREATY BY THE PRESIDENT. What saved the GOP 47 from being actual traitors is that they base their letter on a PREMISE that their party will win in 2016. Add this stunt to the long list of non-governing garbage they've pulled in the last 8 years, and that premise is in serious doubt.

Your GOP leadership has screwed up again....the "plotz" is now firmly in your corner.

 

That's the best you've got? i click on the link and it worked perfectly. If you can't honestly concede a point, then please stop with these lame dodges. Here it is again: http://www.law.asu.edu/library/Ross...uides/TreatiesandInternationalAgreements.aspx

 

Spare me the Netanyahu regurgitation, as he's been playing that record since the 1990's! As for the prisoner trade, here's something for your education: http://www.factcheck.org/2014/06/sorting-murky-issues-on-the-pow-swap/

Do the FACTS really matter to you?

 

Again, your opinion....which means NOTHING in lieu of the historical documentation. You cannot prove one iota of your accusations, so essentially you're just blowing smoke to cover the blunder of the GOP 47. When you can come up with something other than a rehash of failed whining by the defeat GOP in 2008 and 2012, I'll respond. If not, I won't waste the time.

 

Unlike you I dont need a link to something I saw unfold in front of my eyes. He traded 5 terrorists for a traitor. One of those terrorists is again in contact with our enemies. He aided our enemies by this action. Period. My education...lol leftists are hilarious. Just like he didnt lie about keeping our doctors right? Obamaffection is deep with this one.

 

And they would LOSE! The GOP has been alluding to impeachment since 2009, but as Senator Boxer pointed out, they're just a bunch of hypocrits.

The GOP 47 skirted treason and sedition by using a PREMISE...and given this latest screw up, 2016 ain't in the bag for them.

- - - Updated - - -

real fantasy world you got there, son. typical libertarian silliness.

 

Thank you for admitting you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Yes, just as they would be if they merely voted against it. Right?

 

You seem to ignore what you don't like. Had you paid attention, I stated several times to you and others like you that the GOP 47 based their threat on a PREMISE.....that means that yes, if the GOP wins in 2016, then things would change.

IF, is a big word in politics, son.

My assessment stands, and all you've got are moot points. Carry on.

 

You wasted time and effort because NOTHING you posted is beyond opinions and punditry. FACT: the President can negotiate without immediate Congressional approval, as former SCOTUS O'Connor pointed out. FACT: The GOP 47 letter acts on a premise, not a certainty. FACT; the 2/3 vote has to be on an actual treaty proposal...so far, it's in the negotiating phase.

 

The document was crafted by a senator with two months of experience under his belt. It was signed by some members rushing off the Senate floor to catch airplanes, often with little close analysis. Many of the 47 signatories reasoned that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s endorsement was vetting enough. There was no caucus-wide debate about strategy; no consultation with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who has studiously followed the nuclear talks (and who refused to sign).

continued

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...f10b8e-c835-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html

 

interesting point. That pretty much gave him similar qualifications that our current president had when he was first elected

Some people claim that there are too many career politicians and that the longer they stay, the more corrupt they become or the more they lose touch. It seems to me that those same people then complain that the new blood doesn't have the experience needed to craft legislation or policy

Which is it?

 

They know the President of the next term will be Republican's. So said democratic election is not from people but an inside job.

 

Meaningless on several levels. Importantly, the Senators have the power to express themselves as individuals and as a body. Your assertion then, that they are sabotaging a peace treaty, is incorrect. The Secretary of State has emphatically expressed that they are not negotiating for anything legally binding. What ever that means. What it does not mean is working the legally prescribed process toward a treaty. That process is a special agreement then final approval from each country according to their rules or constitutions. Obama isn't going for an agreement with the intent of progressing toward a treaty.

“We’ve been clear from the beginning: We’re not negotiating a, quote, legally binding plan,” Mr. Kerry said

He's just having tea with his friends then? Time is of the essence and Obama and staff sip tea. WTF!

Cheers
Labour