Tom Cotton is a freshman Senator from Arkansas. He has an awesome pedigree. Cotton was born in Arkansas. His father served in Vietnam. He graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard and went on to Harvard Law School. After law school Cotton joined the Army and served two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and was awarded the Bronze Star.
Cotton actually wrote something on the record while at Harvard, something Obama, despite being on the Law Review, really never did.
And he ain’t afraid. Not of the press, not of democrats and not afraid of dictators in Iran or the US.
Cotton authored a letter informing Iran that the Congress would have to approve any formal agreements or treaties. The letter can be seen here.
Cotton has taken a lot of fire for that letter, with the New York Daily News calling him a traitor. democrats (democrat being defined as someone with absolutely zero long term memory) conveniently forget a lot, some of which I’ve already covered, but there’s even more. In 1984 demcorats wrote to Daniel Noriega, undermining Ronald Reagan.
Cotton made clear the intention of the letter:
“We’re making sure that Iran’s leaders understand if Congress doesn’t approve a deal, Congress won’t accept a deal,” Cotton, 38, whose letter evoked a sharp rebuke from the White House, said Tuesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program. “Because we’re committing to stopping Iran from getting a weapon.”
Joe Biden laced into Cotton:
“This letter, in the guise of a constitutional lesson, ignores two centuries of precedent and threatens to undermine the ability of any future American president, whether Democrat or Republican, to negotiate with other nations on behalf of the United States.”
You can see already that Biden is wrong, but Biden is seldom anything other than wrong. If you leave out being a pervert, that is.
Cotton doesn’t suffer fools well and shot right back.
“Joe Biden, as [President] Barack Obama’s own secretary of defense has said, has been wrong about nearly every foreign policy and national security decision in the last 40 years,” Cotton said Tuesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” in a reference to former Pentagon chief Robert Gates, who ripped Biden in a tell-all memoir after leaving office.
“Moreover, if Joe Biden respects the dignity of the institution of the Senate he should be insisting that the president submit any deal to approval of the Senate, which is exactly what he did on numerous deals during his time in Senate,” Cotton said.
Barack Obama is a liar. He guaranteed that Iran would not get a nuke and of course, that guarantee was no better than any other Obama assurances.
Cotton is doing us all a big favor questioning Obama. Cotton is a hero. He’s got balls. I could see him as President one day.
I love this guy.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@Greg:
I do imagine that efforts to describe you in normal terms would be a waste of time.
@Redteam, #200:
How, then, do we explain that when the same polling company asked about the least trusted news outlet using the same survey methodology, FOX News was once again at the top of the list?
This tells us something about the nature of public opinion surveys. If you hang your hat on the results, your hat may wind up on the floor.
@Greg:
Well, well, well, Gullible Greggie. It seems while you have been busy soiling your Hanes over the fact that 47 Republicans sent an open letter to the Iranians explaining our system of government (to a totalitarian nation) and screaming how those Repubicans broke the law, others have been busy digging into the actions of Democrats. One Democrat, in particular.
Michael Ledeen writes:
“During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.”
And William G. Miller is not just some lackey that Obama chose; he’s a member of the “one world/no borders” bunch.
Oh, but he was going to be president, you say? Nope, happened before the election. But wait, we can go back and look at other actions of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. when it comes to trying to thwart negotiations between a sitting president and a foreign nation:
“WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.
“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.
Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops – and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its “state of weakness and political confusion.”
“However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open.” Zebari says.
Though Obama claims the US presence is “illegal,” he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the “weakened Bush administration,” Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.
While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a “realistic withdrawal date.” They declined.
Date of that little informative article from the New York Post? September 15, 2008, six weeks before Obama was elected.
http://nypost.com/2008/09/15/obama-tried-to-stall-gis-iraq-withdrawal/
So not only did Obama try to negotiate with a foreign nation outside of his authority, following in the footsteps of Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry, he actually went to Iraq in person without Presidential approval, just as Nancy Pelosi went to meet with Baby Assad without Presidential approval.
How do you square your stance on those 47 Republicans now, Gullible Greggie?
Just more proof that if the Democrats, and useful idiots like you, are whining about something, you can bet they have already done it themselves.
Now, I know you do not have the courage, or the intellect, to admit that you were wrong.
Oh, I fully understand that my comments, or those of any who show you the folly of your ideas, have little effect on you. You would have to be an open minded person, and frankly, that label just doesn’t fit you. As to telling you who are what you are? I don’t know who you are, but I damn sure know WHAT you are. And making you look like the useful idiot you are gives me immense pleasure.
@retire05, #203:
No one seems to have checked the particulars with Miller himself. That would be the obvious thing to do, wouldn’t it? Assuming one really wanted to know the facts. Maybe they’ll do so as part of their Next Big Investigation.
The article appears to have been dredged up for that single paragraph, in an effort to roll out some sort of Tu Quoque argument to make 47 Republican Senators look a bit less like a pack of dangerous goofballs.
@Greg:
Elementary, There are a lot of unreliable news outlets that all the libs love because they all bash Fox. That’s their whole gig, bashing the only source of truth, the very thing the libs can’t stand to see the light of day. So all these places tell the few lib watchers they have how to wipe their butts and, coincidentally, how to say they hate Fox News. All these libs combined make a fairly big number of people that don’t know if they’re voting for their butt or a hole in the ground so they vote the way the Lib sites tell them to.
See how simple it is. Seems as if you should have been able to add two plus two, but you’re a lib and not much is expected of you. When you need guidance, you can rely on me, not on PMSNBC.
@Greg:
Oh Lord, spare us from dumbasses. The quote is from Mr Miller. They checked with him and quoted him. Where the hell you think the quote came from. Go back to watching PMSNBC
@retire05 #203:
Per Obama’s and Pelosi’s “unauthorized” “diplomacy”… your comment:
“How do you square your stance on those 47 Republicans now, Gullible Greggie? Just more proof that if the Democrats, and useful idiots like you, are whining about something, you can bet they have already done it themselves.”
is I think a valid question, and it certainly raises a larger one:
When, if ever, IS unauthorized “diplomacy” justified?
As long as I have been watching the conduct of foreign affairs, I have been aware of various politicians of both stripes venturing abroad for the apparent purpose of meddling in affairs of state that they have no business interfering with. Even when the apparent purpose is to secure the release of a hostage being held by an enemy country that the United States has no proper diplomatic channel through which negotiations may proceed, the “help” of a Jimmy Carter or a Dennis Rodman is usually not appreciated by the administration that shoulders the ultimate responsibility.
So-called “congressional fact-finding missions” are rarely just that, either. They are more frequently opportunities for ambitious politicians to get publicity, to make politically useful contacts with foreign politicians and to finally develop some measure of confidence in the voting public that they are not entirely ignorant on the subject of foreign policy. However, they never “learn” enough to justify the expense of the trip, and they never keep their traps shut and just absorb what they are selectively shown. Instead, they speak as if they are representing the United States, which they are not. They may be representing their individual constituencies, but unless they have been expressly designated to represent the United States for a specific purpose, they don’t. And if they don’t, which ever administration DOES have the responsibility of conducting foreign policy doesn’t appreciate the interference.
You are right that SENATOR Obama was interfering with matters above his pay grade, and so was Pelosi. So were the 47 senators who did an “end-run” maneuver around PRESIDENT Obama for the OBVIOUS purpose of interfering with a negotiation he was conducting. Two wrongs – or a hundred wrongs – don’t make a right.
If those senators believed that Obama was doing something unlawful, there was an appropriate way to address their concerns WITHIN THE SYSTEM. Taking the law into their own hands may have been the way of the Wild West, but it is not the proper way for a civilized nation to conduct its business.
@Greg:
“Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.”
Did that part just fly right over your head?
And I see that you avoided commenting on the New York Post article from September 15, 2008. Ummmm, could that have been intentional? Why do I think the answer to that is “YES”?
So as is your m.o., you continue to try to make lame excuses and then ignore that you cannot defend.
Yep, you’re still an idiot.
@George Wells:
When it is approved, or requested, by the Office of the Presidency. Any other time, such as in Pelosi’s case when President Bush asked her not to go to Syria, it is illegal.
“Fact finding” missions are a different game. A Congressional member may travel to another country for different reasons, i.e. finding out how our foreign aid is being spent as just one example (since Congress alone is responsible for the spending of taxpayer dollars). In those instances, they have no negotiating authority to cut any deal.
What law did they take into their own hands? Explaining our Constitutional system (our laws) to a regime that doesn’t understand it is NOT a violation of any law. No where in that letter did any member of Congress offer to negotiate with the Iranian regime. By your standard, if you go to get a driver’s license and the clerk explains the rules (laws) by which you may obtain a driver’s license, they would be take the law into their own hands.
We have a governmental system of three equal branches. This administration has assumed authority it does not have. The President is NOT more powerful than the Congress which is NOT more powerful than the judiciary.
@retire05 #209:
“What law did they take into their own hands? Explaining our Constitutional system (our laws) to a regime that doesn’t understand it is NOT a violation of any law.”
I would agree with you if I believed that The “letter” really intended to do nothing more than what you simplistically suggest.
But I DON’T believe that.
I DON’T have any reason to believe that Iran is ruled by a regime that doesn’t understand our constitutional system. Certainly nothing I’ve read has made that argument with any authority other than partisan speculation.
What law? I’m not qualified to speculate on that one, as I’ve read too many conflicting opinions both ways on that question. But from a plain-speaking perspective, it was a bald act of interference, and if I was refereeing this game, I’d have blown the whistle on that letter the instant it was put into play.
How about if the tables were turned around to where they were in your Pelosi example? If Obama had ASKED the 47 senators NOT to send the letter and they did it anyway, wouldn’t they be breaking the SAME law that Pelosi broke? Then, was the unauthorized letter “illegal” only because Obama asked that it not be sent, or was it intrinsically illegal?
Just wondering…
@Redteam, #206:
You’re dead wrong. There is no quote from Ambassador Miller. The words are those of Michael Ledeen alone, taken from an article he wrote that can be found here. Miller enters in only by way of Ledeen’s claim that he confirmed having spoken with the Iranians. Period. Ledeen is not even claiming that other details were confirmed. He’s basically name dropping, and leaving the reader to imagine more than he actually said. It apparently works as he intended.
@George Wells:
Did the Republicans that signed that letter suggest any alternatives, treaty conditions, et al? No. They simply explained our Constitutional system to a regime that doesn’t have the same thing.
I recall reading an article where John Kerry was lamenting that it was difficult to negotiate with Iran due to their lack of understanding of the American system. I’ll try to find that for you.
I don’t recall anyone ever saying that Obama requested the 47 Senators not send the letter. If he did, you need to give me documentation.
@Redteam:
“Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.”
Apparently English is Gullible Greggie’s second language.
@retire05, #208:
Nope. I understand exactly what the words mean, which would seem to be more than some people can say. Refer to the preceding post. What exactly did Miller confirm? Only that he talked with the Iranians. That’s all that Ledeen is actually saying. The rest is innuendo. Gullible, I am not.
@Greg:
Read it again, Gullible Greggie.
“Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.”
Ledeen did not say:
“Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me he had talks with the Iranians”
nor did he say:
“Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me he had conversations with the Iranians”
What he said, that you are not-so-artfully trying to dodge is that Miller confirmed THE conversations he had with the Iranians. i.e. Miller talked about the content of those conversations.
But thanks for, once again, showing you’re an idiot. And yes, anyone who has bought into the left wing Koolaid like you have is either gullible or stupid. Which is it?
@George Wells:
That’s quite humorous George. This country has a president and an administration that does not understand our constitutional system, why should Iran?
The letter, as written, was not a violation of any law, intrinsically or otherwise. only in the hopes and wishes of liberals.
@retire05:
yes, I had made it clear to him, but being the dumbass he is, he doesn’t understand English very well.
@Greg:
I might give you a little credence there. You have to have a functioning brain to be gullible. Sooooooo……..
@retire05, #215:
You’re reading far more into that sentence than what it actually says.
THE conversations? You act as if he divulged something about them. Did you read the article? He hasn’t told us a damn thing about them. He probably doesn’t actually know anything, or he would have provided a few details. All you’ve really got is his theory that Obama wants be good buddies with the Iranians—apparently evidenced by the fact that he thinks it best to avoid what could prove to be totally disastrous war—and a well-respected former ambassador’s apparent acknowledgement that he had a contact on Obama’s behalf. I suppose I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and take his word for that, but everything else is pure speculation.
Want to prove me wrong? Tell me what factual details you actually know about this conversation, and how you’ve come know them.
@retire05 #212:
“If Obama had ASKED the 47 senators NOT to send the letter and they did it anyway, wouldn’t they be breaking the SAME law that Pelosi broke?
I don’t recall anyone ever saying that Obama requested the 47 Senators not send the letter. If he did, you need to give me documentation.’
I asked you a question. The “If” that the question began with should have provided you with a clue that the question had a hypothetical premise. Nowhere did I suggest that Obama HAD made such a request, and you had no business assuming from what I said that I DID.
The question stands. HAD Obama made such a request to the 47 senators, in the same manner that Bush HAD asked Pelosi NOT to bother Syria, would those disobedient senators not have violated the same “law” that you are suggesting Pelosi violated?
@George Wells: Congratulations, George, on the selling of your soul for the sake of voting for this loss in order to get what you wanted in re-defining the institution of marriage, but (assuming you were truthful about being “conservative”) do you have to support EVERYTHING this President does, no matter how disruptive or destructive?
The point here is that the left is accusing Senators of “negotiating” or disrupting negotiations; they have done nothing of the sort. All they did was inform Iran that they had best consider making a deal that is acceptable to Congress if they actually desire a deal. Period.
@Greg:
Well, actually Greg, he has. See, “the conversation” is what he was talking about and so, in saying that Miller was the back channel, “the conversation” is what the story is about. Not talking about a suit or dinner or a new car… talking about disrupting Bush’s negotiations so Obama can give away the farm when he is President.
@Greg:
How about this detail?
“During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies.
That is obviously what Ledeen was told by Miller.
Yeah, Obama is a real Chamberlain.
Now, while your trying to redirect the fact that Obama did exactly what he, and his brain-dead VP, are accusing the 47 Republican Senators of doing, why don’t you address Obama’s July 2008 trip to Iraq where he tried to usurp a sitting president? You’ve conveniently tried to avoid discussing that trip. And there is a hellofa lot of difference between actually meeting, in person, with foreign leaders and sending an open letter.
Give it up, Gullible Greggie. I’m on to all your tricks. I understood a long time ago that when you can’t defend the actions of Obama, you just ignore them and change the subject and move on to something else.
@George Wells:
No. There is a huge difference between writing a letter outlining our Constitutional system and physically going to a foreign nation to negotiate with a foreign leader who is at odds with the U.S. Surely, you’re not that dumb.
@retire05 #223 & Bill #221:
Bill says: “All they did was inform Iran that they had best consider making a deal that is acceptable to Congress if they actually desire a deal.” which to me sounds a bit different than Retire05’s altruistic “writing a letter outlining our Constitutional system,” as if congress has more concern for Iran’s education than anything else going on in the Middle East.
Either way, what was it for if it wasn’t to spoil Obama’s misguided attempts to strike a deal with Iran? Congress didn’t want Iran to get its feelings hurt? Congress didn’t want Iran to be embarrassed if and when they discovered after the fact that Obama cannot ratify a treaty without Congress’ “advise and consent”? Wouldn’t it have been better to have written a letter to Obama and to have published it in the Wall Street Journal warning HIM of what to do and what not to do so that after Obama DIDN’T take the Senators’ advice and the thing failed anyway – as it will, no matter the letter or not – they could have at least gotten in a hearty “I TOLD YOU SO!”
I think that the senators simply played a bad card when they held better options that have now expired.
@George Wells:
What is the point of the negotiations other than to prevent Iran from ever developing a nuclear weapon? If this is not the result of the negotiation, then it will never get past Congress.
THAT is the point of the letter.
But, we now know that Obama and Kerry never intended to make the sort of deal that was to be put before Congress, don’t we? So, who was undercutting whom? Obama and Kerry are undercutting, not just Congress, but the entire nation. Perhaps the world. All Obama wants is a deal so he can say he made a deal. Nothing else matters; not the security of the region, not an Islamic arms race, not the security of Israel or a nation supporting terrorism having such a weapon. Nothing matters but Obama’s vanity.
@George Wells:
Why do you say the ‘options have now expired’? The Senate still has the option to approve any deal, or not. Obama doesn’t have the option to get a deal approved without the Senate.
both of them are saying that it was of more interest to get a valid deal than just a symbolic, toilet paper, agreement.
Bill: “All Obama wants is a deal so he can say he made a deal.” and of course, as you have pointed out, the ‘deal’ Obama is attempting to make is not a deal that can be made.
@Bill, #221:
Uh… What?
@retire05, #222:
That’s only what Ledeen claims. That’s his allegation about the discussion between the former ambassador and the Iranians. He has presented information so that uncritical readers predisposed to his way of thinking will conclude that this is what the former ambassador confirmed, but that is not what Ledeen has actually said. His article is a very devious presentation. If pressed on the point—which no one on the right is ever likely to do—he can honestly point out that he only said the ambassador had confirmed that a conversation took place.
This is how the persuasion of propaganda works. You think you’re reading a straightforward presentation of facts when you read Ledeen’s article. You aren’t. Any astute student of journalism would recognize that in a single reading.
The only fact in the article is that a former ambassador confirmed he’d talked with the Iranians, and I’m giving Ledeen the benefit of the doubt in accepting even that—a highly experienced and respected ambassador who would fully understand the limits of propriety in such a situation. Ledeen is indirectly accusing him of being party to an effort to undermine the diplomatic negotiations being conducted by the Bush administration.
Do you really believe the former ambassador is stupid enough to not only have done such a thing in the first place, but then to have cheerfully told a right-wing writer all about it?
@Redteam, #226:
Is Congress intending to deny the validity of all executive agreements with the leaders of foreign nations, past, present, and future? If so, how do they imagine foreign relations will be conducted by the Executive Branch? Does anyone imagine the Senate can micromanage foreign policy by voting on each and every executive decision?
These jackasses can’t even get it together to effectively manage their own proper, Constitutionally defined area of domestic responsibilities. They turn every necessary item of the nation’s routine business into a major crisis. If allowed, they would paralyze the Executive Branch as well.
@Greg:
And at this point, you have nothing to use that says any differently. If you think Ledeen is lying, prove it. If you think Ledeen misconstrued the Ambassador’s retelling of his back-channel work for Obama, prove it. All your doing is throwing sh!te again thinking you can get by with it.
Ledeen is indirectly accusing him of being party to an effort to undermine the diplomatic negotiations being conducted by the Bush administration.
Ambassador Miller is a left winger who belongs to a number of open borders/elimination of arms policies. And don’t come back and say how I know that? People don’t get invited to join groups they differ with, especially left wing groups. Miller would not be the first leftist to undermine the diplomatic negotiations being conducted by a sitting president. But you refuse to talk about Paris peace talks Hanoi John Kerry and the Russians best friend, Teddy Kennedy.
Yes.
And why won’t you discuss Obama’s actions as outlined in the September 15, 2008 issue of the New York Post? Wassa matter, Gullible Greggie? Have you not figured out a way to spin that yet?
And that would be the absolutely best thing to happen to the United States since January 20, 2009.
@Greg:
there is no “validity of all executive agreements” if they are not ratified by the Senate. No treaty is binding without senate approval, no ‘executive agreement’ is binding without being a treaty. That is not up to the ‘senate’, that’s a US Constitutional requirement. I can’t figure out why the libs can’t understand that. And yes, it applies to Dimocrats, even if Obama is the President, as well as Republicans.
Un’*** believable question. Uh, well, maybe not, we’re talking Dimocrats here. Maybe you should read that letter the 47 senators wrote to Iran. And you thought I was kidding when I said the US president didn’t understand the system. Now you come along and prove it. Let me simplify it. Step 1. The President and his team negotiate with another country. After they reach agreement, they submit it to the US Senate for approval. If 67 Senators approve it and the foreign government approves it from their end. Then they have a treaty. Then it is up to the Executive branch to Execute. That’s what an Executive branch does, Execute laws and agreements that have been approved by the Senate. See, the Legislative branch legislates laws and the Executive branch ‘executes’ them.
By ‘jackasses’ you’re referring to Obama’s gang? They are the ones that are struggling with trying to figure out how the Constitution works. The ‘defined’ areas of responsibilities include approving treaties with foreign governments. See, the writers of the Constitution knew that the aroma of being a God would overwhelm some persons (as it clearly has Obama) and that they would be prone to let being a God go to their head, so they limited the power to approve or disapprove deals with foreign countries to the Senate, not with God, uh I mean Obama. And as has been clearly demonstrated, Obama still doesn’t seem to get that message. What ever he puts together IS NOT BINDING without Senate approval.
They don’t have to be concerned about that, the ineptness of Obama has pretty well paralyzed the executive branch since Jan 20, 2009. Not much chance of that changing til someone with sense takes over in 2017
That is not the way things work. When such allegations are made, the burden of proof is on the person who makes them. Particularly when there’s an obvious ulterior motive for making such a story up.
There’s no straightforward allegation that the former ambassador told a story of any sort. The only straightforward statement Ledeen makes is that the former ambassador acknowledged that there had been a meeting.
So? That is not evidence of anything Ledeen claims.
That’s either because you have minimal capacity for logic and critical thinking, or because you simply refuse to apply whatever capacity you do possess whenever the results might challenge your preconceived notions.
Or you might just be a right-wing moron, as a reply such as that strongly suggests. The word sedition also comes to mind. Patriots don’t strive to bring about the total dysfunction of their own government. That’s what enemies of America would do. You people need to be politically marginalized before you do serious, irreparable damage to the nation. You’ve already wrecked the Republican Party. You’re not the solution to anything. You’re the problem. If people who think as you do were to get control after 2016, the nation would be involved in another disastrous war having no clear and stable end point before we knew what hit us.
@Greg:
So you’re saying Obama is an enemy of America? He’s done all he can to destroy the country.
Greg, face it, you’re in denial.
@Greg:
That’s right, Gullible Greggie. You are making the allegations that what Ledeen wrote are only claims. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate those allegations.
Which has exactly what to do with anything?
Right wing, I am. A moron, I’m not as I continue to best you. Now are you going to take about John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy trying to usurp a sitting president or are you going to continue to play your petulant childish games?
Sedition? Gee, Gullible Greggie, when was the last time anybody was charged on sedition?
Oh, and the next time you want to bash someone as labeling them simply a “writer” I suggest you look up their bio.
Another day almost passed and you’re still an idiot.
Will there be televised award ceremonies and medals?
@Greg:
Nah, because you hold such little importance that no one outside of those here at FA would know who you are.
But I do love it when you refuse to talk about certain things because it just shows you have no pre-programed talking point to defend yourself.
Do you ever tire of being an idiot?
@Greg:
And that is what Ledeen has done. He says he interviewed the Ambassador and this is what he was told. If it was not, that should be pretty easy to determine. It is the way interviews and reporting is done.
Obama has instigated three governmental shut-downs. Does that fit your definition?
@Greg:
Yes, but I’m sure you won’t be able to find your way.
Retire,
No he doesn’t. He’s clueless.
@Redteam #230:
Your words:
“Step 1. The President and his team negotiate with another country. After they reach agreement, they submit it to the US Senate for approval. If 67 Senators approve it and the foreign government approves it from their end. Then they have a treaty.”
I think you have just about summed it up.
But I’m having trouble fitting your correct explanation with the facts in this case.
Where does “a partisan fraction of the US Senate then sends a letter to the other country” come in?
Your explanation (above) seems to suggest that the president and his team get to FINISH negotiations BEFORE the senate acts. Or am I reading your explanation wrong?
Aren’t individual citizens forbidden from communicating with foreign governments in matters of state when they are not authorized to do so?
Were the 47 senators acting as a collection of individuals, or were they acting on behalf of the US Senate, and thus on behalf of the legislative branch of the US Government? I think it was the former…
@George Wells: George, you seem to understand most of it well, on your followup:
the correct answer is no.
See that part that says “with intent to influence the measure or conduct of any foreign gov”. I’m gonna guess that ‘intent’ would be extremely difficult since the letter itself makes it very clear that is NOT the intent. Then there is article 2 section 2 clause 2 of the constitution which says:
So clearly there is a role of advice and consent for the Senate. This correspondence, on a US Senate letterhead was intended as a communication to the parties to the negotiations. Had it been from ‘individuals’ it would not have been on Senate letterhead. The letter was clearly written as an opportunity to communicate what is required for a valid agreement so neither side would be wasting their time negotiating something that may ultimately be printed on toilet paper.
@George Wells:
The president and his team may or may not include the Senate. I would say that since the constitution says ‘with the advice and consent of the Senate’ that the Senate ‘giving a letter of advice’ would be entirely appropriate. Assuming their ‘advice’ were correctly utilized then the ‘consent’ would likely follow.
All this talk about ‘treason’ (not by you) is inappropriate at any rate. The maximum sentence for violation of Logan Act is 3 years. Treason is death. Hardly comparable crimes.
@George Wells, #238:
That’s a very interesting observation.
They couldn’t have been acting on behalf of the Senate, since the signers comprised a minority of all Senators. No vote was taken authorizing the issuance of the letter to begin with.
They couldn’t have been officially acting on behalf of the United States, since individual Senators have no such Constitutional authority. The fact that they’re a group of like-minded individuals makes no absolutely difference.
I guess the only possibility remaining is that they were acting on behalf of the Republican Party, which they may view as some sort of alternate U.S. government that’s somehow authorized to deal with foreign governments as they see fit, even if their objectives run totally counter to those of the nation’s duly elected President.
Perhaps one or more of our resident Constitutional experts will throw some light on how that works.
I wonder when the GOP began sending letters to foreign leaders on the U.S. Senate’s official letterhead?
@Redteam #239:
I think that the Constitution’s “advise and consent” provision means that the senate shall “advise” the president, not foreign countries, and that they shall “consent” (or not) to the treaty that the president has negotiated – AFTER the negotiated treaty is sent to them, not before. I really don’t think that the founding fathers intended for the senate to make a habit of giving good advice to our enemies.
“See that part that says “with intent to influence the measure or conduct of any foreign gov”. ”
Yes. I see it. And if the senate didn’t mean to influence Iran by sending it a letter, what DID it mean for the letter to do? Make them laugh?
I think that the part of the US Code that you pasted makes my point.
The 47 senators did NOT have authority from the US Government to send the letter.
They DID intend for the letter to influence Obama’s negotiations.
No, nothing is going to be done about it.
It’s just dirty politics as usual.
@Redteam:
Have you read the letter sent to Senator Corker, chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (who was not one of the 47), by Denis McDonough. Chief of Staff to President Obama. A lengthy bit of political posturing, McDonough could have summed it up in one sentence “These damn senators are messing with Obama’s right to cut a deal with Iran.”
Now Politico is reporting that although the Democrats are not happy about Tom Cotton’s letter, they still support the Senate having a larger part in any Iranian deal. It seems that Obama and Kerry have been deliberately trying to keep the Congress out of the loop.
The Democrats are in a precarious position; back Obama on any Iranian deal and lose the Jewish vote, or buck Obama and make Obama and Lurch look bad because of a bad deal with Iran.
@Redteam #240:
The senate republicans are part of Obama’s negotiating team?
You must be joking, right?
These are largely the exact same republicans who vowed to make Obama a one-term president, and the same ones who have tried endlessly to kill every piece of legislation he has proposed. That’s not the “team” any rational person would identify thus. Too much of a stretch, Redteam – don’t hurt your back.
You’re right that I haven’t talked about penalizing these senators. The “Logan Act” is a dead piece of waste paper, anyway – wouldn’t stand up to judicial scrutiny because it infringes on free speech. I just think that the letter was a perfect example of dirty politics. If you really think that the senators were trying to HELP the enemy, maybe YOU should be talking about their treason…
“Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the main reason he signed the GOP senators’ letter to Iranian leaders is because President Barack Obama threatened to veto a bill requiring congressional review of any Iran nuclear deal.
Graham said, “I’ve been working on bipartisan legislation with others that says Congress will not agree to lift the sanctions that we created unless we look at the deal and vote as to whether or not we want them lifted. The president of the United States does not have the authority, in my view, to tell the Congress that we cannot look at a deal that would lead to the lifting of the sanctions, that would create it. I did not sign the letter until the president threatened to veto the bipartisan legislation I just described. The moment he told Congress basically to go to hell, I want him and the Iranians and the world to know you can’t deal us out. If he’s contemplating a deal to give congressional sanction relief and not allow us to have a say, he’s flat wrong and that’s why I signed the letter.”
It seems that President Phone and Pen thinks that he was crowed, not sworn in. No wonder Obama taught Saul Alinsky in his law classes. What he knows of the U.S. Constitution could be put in the eye of a gnat.
@retire05, #243:
I don’t think they’re in such a position. Consider the following article that appeared last November in the Christian Science Monitor. Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu and the Tom Cotton letter probably haven’t been as well received as some people would like to think:
Going against Netanyahu, 84 percent of US Jews favor Iran nuclear deal
@George Wells:
I suggest you read Senator Graham’s reason for signing the letter. Obama was threatening to veto legislation that would guarantee the Congress have a part in any deal signed with Iran.
This president is out of control. He has violated so many Constitutional amendments I don’t know where to begin. But then, I’m sure you support him since he has flipped on same-sex marriage. Considering you’re a one issue voter, I’m a little surprised by your interest in the letter but not surprised that you are, seemingly, clueless as to how our government works.
@Greg:
There, fixed it for you..
Something seems to have gone wrong. My post appears exactly as it did before you “fixed it” for me.
I take it you have no comment on the fact that over 80 percent of Jewish Americans support Obama’s negotiations with Iran.
@Greg:
I just explained it to you.