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

Congratulations! You've earned the one and only spot on my ignore list.

 

This thread is not about your silly anti-gov't wet dreams, son. If you've got nothing else regarding the GOP 47 letter save to try and tie it into this oft topic nonsense of yours, then I'd say we're done.

 

Calling what they did "treason" is wrong, as I pointed out that the veiled threat in the letter is based on a PREMISE, nothing more. That being said, the GOP really bit the big one on this, and are not paying for it.

 

They tried to interfere in the President exercising his Constitutional option that didn't require their approval. Here, for your education: http://www.law.asu.edu/library/Ross...uides/TreatiesandInternationalAgreements.aspx

The GOP screwed up....and are now publicly admitting (in a half baked way) such: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...feeling-heat-over-iran-letter-express-regrets

- - - Updated - - -

the Constitutional myopia and penchant for Juxtaposition by libertarians is pathetic. Once again, for your education: http://www.law.asu.edu/library/RossBlakleyLawLibrary/ResearchNow/ResearchGuides/TreatiesandInternationalAgreements.aspx

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing is being repealed, genius.....it's a preliminary negotiation that is non-binding in it's agreements. Perfectly in tune with the President's Constitutional options. Pay attention: http://www.law.asu.edu/library/RossBlakleyLawLibrary/ResearchNow/ResearchGuides/TreatiesandInternationalAgreements.aspx

 

Since you formatted your response improperly, this is all that showed up in the quote box, wherefore it's all I'm bothering to respond to.

Believe me, I understand your determination to miss the point.

You're perhaps under the impression it will be binding as of its presentation to the Senate for ratification?

They did nothing of the sort, obviously. They merely clarified their own constitutional options; and clearly any agreement which is scuttled by that is questionable ipso facto.

I'm sure it does, from the perspective of the constitutionally illiterate and the treasonously inclined.

who the hell cares

 

Yes in your world Im sure the facts show Obama didn't trade 5 terrorists for a piece of crap deserter. In the world the rest of us live in, we watched it unfold on television right before our eyes.
Tell us about your 911 was an inside job facts? Those should be equally hilarious.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...to-iran-undermine-condemnation-of-gop-letter/

Sure do, Son. Your fearless leader is guilty of doing the same thing as 47 senators did when he was just a senator.

 

Against the wish of the President.

 

Right-Wing Hypocrites Demand Obama Secure Bergdahl’s Release… Until He Does

ou’ve got to hand it to American conservatives. They may not be rational, but at least they’re consistent. They can kick, scream and clamor for something with relentless fervor… until President Obama does it, in which case it becomes the epitome of evil and irresponsibility.

The recent release of the last known American prisoner of war, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, is no different. Conservatives who have been howling for five years that the president should stop dragging his feet and bring Bergdahl home no matter what the cost are now insisting that having done so, Obama has committed an impeachable offense. This despite the fact that the military has a very clear policy about never leaving a POW behind.


Read on to enjoy some fine examples of right-wing hypocrisy regarding Sgt. Bergdahl’s release: what they said before, and what they’re saying now.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/right-demands-obama-secure-bergdahls-release/

 

Unsupported BS.Shocking.

Without false premises, distortions and lies, WHAT would the right wing EVER have?

 

For one thing, Pelosi notified both the White House and the State Department in advance of her trip. She also received a policy briefing from Bush administration officials about developments in Syria, and Pelosi was told that the staff at the U.S. embassy in Damascus would be available if needed.

In other words, Pelosi honored U.S. protocols and worked with the executive branch instead of trying to circumvent it. Let's also not forget that the Bush administration was not actively involved in delicate negotiations with Syria at the time.
\


Pelosi was also accompanied on the trip by Ohio Republican Rep. David Hobson


"Before we left, we met with the State Department people and nobody told us not to go," Hobson said, adding that none of his Republican colleagues broached the subject, either. "Nobody ever called me to say, 'Why are you going to Syria with those people?' "

Why, indeed. Especially when a group of Republican lawmakers led by Rep. Frank R. Wolf (Va.) traveled to Syria days before Pelosi's group.





The Washington Post reported at the time that "Foreign policy experts generally agree that Pelosi's dealings with Middle East leaders have not strayed far, if at all, from those typical for a congressional trip."

The Bush White House strongly criticized Pelosi's trip since they were trying to isolate Syria at the time. Still, prior to her visit, three Republican congressmen -- Robert Aderholt (AL), Joe Pitts (PA), and Frank Wolf (VA) -- met with Assad. Following Pelosi's visit, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) met with President Assad and reportedly criticized the Bush administration after the meeting. The New York Times wrote on April 6, 2007, that there wasn't "much carping from" the Bush White House about the Republican visits. Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbrey also held talks in the country prior to Pelosi's visit.


http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/12/the-differences-between-the-47-gop-senators-ira/202872

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/23/AR2007042301764.html

 

yeah to stand trial for desertion mcfly not to trade for 5 terrorists and help our enemies then put a cold facecloth on bergcraps neck and take him to mcdonalds

 

"fact that the military has a very clear policy about never leaving a POW behind."

 

Fact he wasnt a pow. He deserted his post and got Americans killed

 

1) They didn’t interfere, the topic title which says, “Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last” is incorrect due to the bias of the opinion piece it is based on, the Senators in the letter said, “could” twice, not “would,” and that is significant and dependent upon the actual deal; obviously reading is fundamental.

2) Where did I say anything was being repealed? I quoted a Supreme Court text that has been used by others to claim the president has powers supreme, which indicated it was not within the power of the President to repeal a Joint Resolution, but it was within the power of a president to revoke an executive action. Again, reading is fundamental.

The Senators pissed in Obama’s kiddie pool, but his administration has taken a dump on the First Amendment in regard to the Benghazi YouTube video, which should concern all of us, and stomped all over the turf of Congress in his executive orders; “What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”:

Official Statecraft of the United States of America, the first one was posted on the State Department's website:

"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Clinton)

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Obama)

“Let me state very clearly that the United States has absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its contents.” (Clinton) http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...-pakistan-ad-denouncing-anti-muslim-film?lite

Contents:

“[Elder Woman] Source: LYBIO.net
My age has exceeded 120 years and in all my young life ‘I haven’t seen such a murderous thug as Muhammad’. He kills men, captures women and children, robs the caravans, breaches agreements and treaties. He sells the children as slaves after he and his men have used them. And what’s more, he does this all in the name of God. What God is this? That he’s such an oppressor and so unfair to the people.” http://lybio.net/tag/innocence-of-muslims-muhammad-movie-transcription/

Evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_raids


(3) Narrated 'Urwa on the authority of 'Aisha: On the days of Mina, (11th, 12th, and 13th of Dhul-Hijjah) Abu Bakr came to her while two young girls were beating the tambourine and the Prophet was lying covered with his clothes. Abu Bakr scolded them and the Prophet uncovered his face and said to Abu Bakr, "Leave them, for these days are the days of 'Id and the days of Mina." 'Aisha further said, "Once the Prophet was screening me and I was watching the display of black slaves in the Mosque and ('Umar) scolded them. The Prophet said, 'Leave them. O Bani Arfida! (carry on), you are safe (protected)'." (Book #15, Hadith #103)


"(3) Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection." (Book #62, Hadith #137)"

“‘We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video,’ said Hillary Clinton.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/331806/incredible-shrinking-president-mark-steyn

“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

"’[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. [485 U.S. 46, 56] For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.’ Id., at 745-746.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=485&invol=46

Since the video in question was legal speech, and “we absolutely reject its contents” was not legal statecraft, therefore, Obama and Clinton violated their oaths of office, consequently, their actions must be impeached.

 

You see the marked difference here don't you dad2three? The Bush administration consulted and interacted with Congress, treating them as equals and with the respect the Constitution demands the treatment of the peoples representatives.

Compare this with the Obama Administration's contempt of the people and their Congressional representatives.

Cheers
Labour

 

I'll note the irony of YOU not knowing the GOP Congress refused to consult with Obama on that war hawks visit to Congress AND the 47 traitors who signed the letter to Iran, in their ADMITTED intent to stop a deal!

- - - Updated - - -

More right wing OPINION, yet the right wingers WERE calling Obama weak for not getting him, UNTIL he did!

 

Bowe walked off the job and the 47 Senators broke no laws...............

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/logan-act/

Although most assume that means without authority of the Executive Branch, the Logan Act itself does not specify what this term means, and the State Department told Congress in 1975 that “Nothing in section 953 . . . would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution.”

 

Your rhetorical style here matches Obama's: "war hawk", "47 traitors", and the lie "admitted attempt to stop a deal". We are countrymen dad2three, you however are sounding like an enemy. If you intend to be divisive, then continue on. Perhaps it is time to take sides.

Makes me wonder how Colonials spoke to each other prior to the Revolution.

Cheers
Labour

 

it is not my opinion. He was not captured during a battle....he simply walked off his post into the arms of our enemies. Some of the people who went searching for him were killed in the process. That is not my opinion that is a fact. It is my Opinion he deserted his post because he is a traitor. Further confirmed by his fathers radical beliefs. Looks like the apple didnt fall far from the tree.
We will have to wait for the investigation to conclude if he should be court martialed for his actions and if so see what findings of the court martial are. Until then it is my opinion he and his father are lowest firm of filth on the planet.

 

"We will have to wait for the investigation to conclude"

ONLY part of your posit that makes sense.


Right-Wing Hypocrites Demand Obama Secure Bergdahl’s Release… Until He Does


http://www.nationalmemo.com/right-demands-obama-secure-bergdahls-release/

 

Netanyahu Admits Sabotage Of Iran Talks His Primary Mission

https://www.popularresistance.org/netanyahu-admits-sabotage-of-iran-talks-his-primary-mission/

McCain admits open letter to Iran that he signed 'maybe' wasn't the greatest idea ever

“It’s also symptomatic between the total lack of trust that exists now between we Republicans and the president,” he said.

“This has established a poisoned environment here which sometimes causes us to react maybe in not the most effective fashion.”


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...he-signed-maybe-wasn-t-the-greatest-idea-ever


Republican Congressmen Violated Logan Act By Negotiating With Foreign Leaders

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/republican-congressmen-violating-constitution.html

 

Opinions

Republican Congressmen Violated Logan Act By Negotiating With Foreign Leaders

The latest example is Congressional violation of the Logan Act. Specifically, the Logan Act – enacted in 1799 – states:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

The Logan Act was named for Dr. George Logan, a Pennsylvania state legislator (and later US Senator) who engaged in semi-negotiations with France in 1798 during the Quasi-War.

In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion:

[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.

Sutherland also notes in his opinion the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of February 15, 1816:

The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution.

I happen to think that Obama is a tyrant who – like Bush – should be impeached for trampling the Constitution. But two wrongs don’t make a right …


In inviting the leader of Israel to speak directly to the American Congress without the U.S. president’s assent, Congressional Republicans violated the Logan Act. See this, this and this.

Likewise, directly telling the leaders of Iran that America won’t honor Obama’s negotiated commitments is a violation of the Logan Act. Indeed, the Senator who organized the effort admitted that his intent was to sabotage negotiations with Iran.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/republican-congressmen-violating-constitution.html

 

Insolent Iranians, thinking they have a say in their own internal politics. Don't they know that the US government owns the world?

 

It's funny. Here are people defending this idiotic letter while on another thread, the righties are attempting to say that this now and forever infamous letter debacle really did not happen (while some crazies in Congress still stand by the stupidity as others run away from it). Think that they are having trouble keeping their ducks in a row?