Obama: Sanction Israel Not Iran

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
161

I would also argue that this is clearly an example of partisan politics. There are several possibilities here:

A) the letter was sent because the Senators involved had no clue that this was clearly outside the bounds of their enumerated powers.
B) the letter was sent because the Senators involved set aside their otherwise strict adherence to the Constitution in order to advance what they feel is a more worthy cause. That would still reveal partisanship. This isn’t a life-or-death matter for the U.S. that needs to be acted on so quickly as to justify stepping outside the bounds of the Constitution. And this wouldn’t be much of a response if the Senators really felt that this was just such a dire situation, anyways.
C) the letter was sent because the Senators involved are willing to gamble on the issue, knowing that only one person has ever been tried and convicted under the Logan Act. Again, another obvious example of partisanship.

There is no way to justify the action. It is outside the bounds of the Senate’s powers, they clearly know it, and they acted anyways on a matter that, important as it is, is not of such immediate importance as to warrant such a maneuver. Why they’re doing it, I don’t know. But I know they aren’t doing it in adherence to the Constitution.

The only real debate is how serious a violation of their powers this is. Like I said before, I tend to disregard the Logan Act on this matter and head straight to the Constitution itself. In terms of the wider context here, it’s about on par with a wide array of moves from the executive branch that these very same Senators have lambasted the President for.

162

The other thing that seems to have been forgotten here is the actual content of the letter. Not only is the letter itself outside of the Senate’s boundaries, the statements themselves openly and blatantly interfere with the direction of the negotiations. There is simply no other way to put it. This is not advice sent to the President; it is a message from the legislative to a foreign power saying that any negotiations entered into with the branch responsible for such negotiations will be ignored or reversed at the first opportunity.

That in itself is significant. This isn’t Hanoi Jane sitting on a fucking cannon with a bunch of giggling NVA around her and it isn’t some lone Senator privately engaging in some sort of talks with a foreign dignitary in pursuit of opening up a dialogue with the appropriate channels.

163

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The other thing that seems to have been forgotten here is the actual content of the letter. Not only is the letter itself outside of the Senate’s boundaries, the statements themselves openly and blatantly interfere with the direction of the negotiations. There is simply no other way to put it. This is not advice sent to the President; it is a message from the legislative to a foreign power saying that any negotiations entered into with the branch responsible for such negotiations will be ignored or reversed at the first opportunity.

That in itself is significant. This isn’t Hanoi Jane sitting on a fucking cannon with a bunch of giggling NVA around her and it isn’t some lone Senator privately engaging in some sort of talks with a foreign dignitary in pursuit of opening up a dialogue with the appropriate channels.[/quote]

But certainly you must concede that this is in the same ballpark as, and in fact far less egregious than, a candidate for the presidency secretly communicating with the leadership of a nation we WERE at the time at war with, encouraging them to reject the terms of the sitting president’s peace negotiations, because he (the candidate) would offer a better deal when he took power.

164

lol

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The other thing that seems to have been forgotten here is the actual content of the letter. Not only is the letter itself outside of the Senate’s boundaries, the statements themselves openly and blatantly interfere with the direction of the negotiations. There is simply no other way to put it. This is not advice sent to the President; it is a message from the legislative to a foreign power saying that any negotiations entered into with the branch responsible for such negotiations will be ignored or reversed at the first opportunity.

That in itself is significant. This isn’t Hanoi Jane sitting on a fucking cannon with a bunch of giggling NVA around her and it isn’t some lone Senator privately engaging in some sort of talks with a foreign dignitary in pursuit of opening up a dialogue with the appropriate channels.[/quote]

But certainly you must concede that this is in the same ballpark as, and in fact far less egregious than, a candidate for the presidency secretly communicating with the leadership of a nation we WERE at the time at war with, encouraging them to reject the terms of the sitting president’s peace negotiations, because he (the candidate) would offer a better deal when he took power.[/quote]

165

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The other thing that seems to have been forgotten here is the actual content of the letter. Not only is the letter itself outside of the Senate’s boundaries, the statements themselves openly and blatantly interfere with the direction of the negotiations. There is simply no other way to put it. This is not advice sent to the President; it is a message from the legislative to a foreign power saying that any negotiations entered into with the branch responsible for such negotiations will be ignored or reversed at the first opportunity.

That in itself is significant. This isn’t Hanoi Jane sitting on a fucking cannon with a bunch of giggling NVA around her and it isn’t some lone Senator privately engaging in some sort of talks with a foreign dignitary in pursuit of opening up a dialogue with the appropriate channels.[/quote]

But certainly you must concede that this is in the same ballpark as, and in fact far less egregious than, a candidate for the presidency secretly communicating with the leadership of a nation we WERE at the time at war with, encouraging them to reject the terms of the sitting president’s peace negotiations, because he (the candidate) would offer a better deal when he took power.[/quote]

Are you referring to Richard Nixon?

I won’t concede any point you’ve made in direct rebuttal to any point I’ve made. The actions of these 47 Senators is unconstitutional, they are acting in a manner that the Constitution clearly never provides for, they are also in what amounts to blatant violation of the Logan Act, and whether or not anyone else has been prosecuted under it doesn’t negate the unconstitutionality and outright illegality of this letter.

166

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The other thing that seems to have been forgotten here is the actual content of the letter. Not only is the letter itself outside of the Senate’s boundaries, the statements themselves openly and blatantly interfere with the direction of the negotiations. There is simply no other way to put it. This is not advice sent to the President; it is a message from the legislative to a foreign power saying that any negotiations entered into with the branch responsible for such negotiations will be ignored or reversed at the first opportunity.

That in itself is significant. This isn’t Hanoi Jane sitting on a fucking cannon with a bunch of giggling NVA around her and it isn’t some lone Senator privately engaging in some sort of talks with a foreign dignitary in pursuit of opening up a dialogue with the appropriate channels.[/quote]

But certainly you must concede that this is in the same ballpark as, and in fact far less egregious than, a candidate for the presidency secretly communicating with the leadership of a nation we WERE at the time at war with, encouraging them to reject the terms of the sitting president’s peace negotiations, because he (the candidate) would offer a better deal when he took power.[/quote]

Are you referring to Richard Nixon?

I won’t concede any point you’ve made in direct rebuttal to any point I’ve made. The actions of these 47 Senators is unconstitutional, they are acting in a manner that the Constitution clearly never provides for, they are also in what amounts to blatant violation of the Logan Act, and whether or not anyone else has been prosecuted under it doesn’t negate the unconstitutionality and outright illegality of this letter.[/quote]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I’m not rebutting anything you’ve said.

I’m asking you if you think that Nixon’s actions were not, in fact, a more egregious violation of the Logan Act, and a more direct undermining of a president’s authority, than this letter?

167

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I would also argue that this is clearly an example of partisan politics.[/quote]

Oh yes, I totally agree with this. 100%.

Possibly. I’m not convinced yet but you provided, as usual, a well thought out and well written first reply above so thank you. Also the civility ;).

This reeks of hypocrisy too, besides partisanship. I’m really sick of this stuff.

168

The letter’s contents are substantively correct and important. It was politically and strategically dumb to publish it to Iran. (Cotton didn’t actually send a letter to Iran.)

The letter should have been sent to Obama and addressed to him, and also calling him out on the responsibility of misleading the Iranian leadership, if that’s what he was doing.

But publishing it to Iran? Dumb as a bag of hair. There is currently momentum to get a bi-partisan bill through Congress stating that any deal must go through them. That is smart - it makes it an insinstitutional fight, not just a partisan one.

Cotton’s letter forces Democrats in support of that bill (and those under pressure to support it) to react and gives them a reason/need to back out of the deal.

Problem is, Cotton wants it partisan, for his own reasons.

Maybe there is some hope Corker can hold his coalition together. But one thing is clear - Cotton is terribly incompetent.

169

That said, Obama is just as partisan - and really more so - for intentionally refusing to get the Senate involved. Obsessed with his legacy now, he will refuse to have any policy he wants accomplished watered down by having it “advised and consented upon” by any sitting Senate - but especially a Republican one. That he will plunge the country into an unnecessary constitutional crisis is of no concern - far more important is his narcissistic desire to make sure history books - and the next liberal-ish president who wants to eclipse his accomplishents - don’t remember him as a trimming, triangulating Clinton figure.

But, one of these days opponents will learn - regardless of party - that partisan death spirals accomplish little,and sometimes despite the threadbare strategy of “fighting fire with fire!”, they might actually use the common sense application of fighting fire with water.

Americans are tired of partisanship. How wise would have been to form a fighting force that agreed on large, important principles and united above mere political partisanship?

Very wise. But this ambitious, dimwitted junior Senator is gifted with no such spark of wisdom, and instead has Tea Partiers to get foaming at the mouth, perhaps for his run at the presidency.

170

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The letter’s contents are substantively correct and important. It was politically and strategically dumb to publish it to Iran. (Cotton didn’t actually send a letter to Iran.)

The letter should have been sent to Obama and addressed to him, and also calling him out on the responsibility of misleading the Iranian leadership, if that’s what he was doing.

But publishing it to Iran? Dumb as a bag of hair. There is currently momentum to get a bi-partisan bill through Congress stating that any deal must go through them. That is smart - it makes it an insinstitutional fight, not just a partisan one.

Cotton’s letter forces Democrats in support of that bill (and those under pressure to support it) to react and gives them a reason/need to back out of the deal.

Problem is, Cotton wants it partisan, for his own reasons.

Maybe there is some hope Corker can hold his coalition together. But one thing is clear - Cotton is terribly incompetent.[/quote]

Yeah, I agree with your analysis. The more I think about it the more I see it this way, although my views on this are in flux since hearing about it so plenty of time to solidify yet.

The strategic blunder is worsened by the fact that I just read that Boehner had essentially told Republicans to surrender on immigration the day of the Netanyahu speech (making a change in direction and focus), and now this.

171

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
That said, Obama is just as partisan - and really more so - for intentionally refusing to get the Senate involved. Obsessed with his legacy now, he will refuse to have any policy he wants accomplished watered down by having it “advised and consented upon” by any sitting Senate - but especially a Republican one. That he will plunge the country into an unnecessary constitutional crisis is of no concern - far more important is his narcissistic desire to make sure history books - and the next liberal-ish president who wants to eclipse his accomplishents - don’t remember him as a trimming, triangulating Clinton figure.

But, one of these days opponents will learn - regardless of party - that partisan death spirals accomplish little,and sometimes despite the threadbare strategy of “fighting fire with fire!”, they might actually use the common sense application of fighting fire with water.

Americans are tired of partisanship. How wise would have been to form a fighting force that agreed on large, important principles and united above mere political partisanship?

Very wise. But this ambitious, dimwitted junior Senator is gifted with no such spark of wisdom, and instead has Tea Partiers to get foaming at the mouth, perhaps for his run at the presidency.[/quote]

All of this. All of it. Listening to Springsteen this morning gets me to thinking a lot about this sort of thing (in a good way. He’s a gifted storyteller in the best way). As I read this, Born in the USA came on my headphones, just followed American Land. Sure his politics leans left, but you get the sense listening to the songs about what it meant through the years to be an American both good and bad.

A somewhat rambling aside, but it puts this partisan bullshit in perspective when you listen. At least to me, but I’ve always been biased because I like his work so much lol

172

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
That said, Obama is just as partisan - and really more so - for intentionally refusing to get the Senate involved. Obsessed with his legacy now, he will refuse to have any policy he wants accomplished watered down by having it “advised and consented upon” by any sitting Senate - but especially a Republican one. That he will plunge the country into an unnecessary constitutional crisis is of no concern - far more important is his narcissistic desire to make sure history books - and the next liberal-ish president who wants to eclipse his accomplishents - don’t remember him as a trimming, triangulating Clinton figure.

But, one of these days opponents will learn - regardless of party - that partisan death spirals accomplish little,and sometimes despite the threadbare strategy of “fighting fire with fire!”, they might actually use the common sense application of fighting fire with water.

Americans are tired of partisanship. How wise would have been to form a fighting force that agreed on large, important principles and united above mere political partisanship?

Very wise. But this ambitious, dimwitted junior Senator is gifted with no such spark of wisdom, and instead has Tea Partiers to get foaming at the mouth, perhaps for his run at the presidency.[/quote]

All of this. All of it. Listening to Springsteen this morning gets me to thinking a lot about this sort of thing (in a good way. He’s a gifted storyteller in the best way). As I read this, Born in the USA came on my headphones, just followed American Land. Sure his politics leans left, but you get the sense listening to the songs about what it meant through the years to be an American both good and bad.

A somewhat rambling aside, but it puts this partisan bullshit in perspective when you listen. At least to me, but I’ve always been biased because I like his work so much lol[/quote]

I hear you. There has always been partisanship, and there always will be. The problem is current versions are so damn stupid.

Along with everyone else, I have grown weary of the era we’re in. Everything is about partisan tactics. Nothing is about building consensus. I don’t care if you want to nationalize everything or privatize everything, in our system, you have to build consensus.

I think that when history is written 100 years from now, it will be remarked on as a frivolous era whose problems were desperate for some statesmen to rise to the task, but there were no such statesmen, and the politicians were forgettable at best and at worst created more problems than they solved.

I think it will be similar to the 1850s but without the Lions of the Senate.

173

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The other thing that seems to have been forgotten here is the actual content of the letter. Not only is the letter itself outside of the Senate’s boundaries, the statements themselves openly and blatantly interfere with the direction of the negotiations. There is simply no other way to put it. This is not advice sent to the President; it is a message from the legislative to a foreign power saying that any negotiations entered into with the branch responsible for such negotiations will be ignored or reversed at the first opportunity.

That in itself is significant. This isn’t Hanoi Jane sitting on a fucking cannon with a bunch of giggling NVA around her and it isn’t some lone Senator privately engaging in some sort of talks with a foreign dignitary in pursuit of opening up a dialogue with the appropriate channels.[/quote]

But certainly you must concede that this is in the same ballpark as, and in fact far less egregious than, a candidate for the presidency secretly communicating with the leadership of a nation we WERE at the time at war with, encouraging them to reject the terms of the sitting president’s peace negotiations, because he (the candidate) would offer a better deal when he took power.[/quote]

Are you referring to Richard Nixon?

I won’t concede any point you’ve made in direct rebuttal to any point I’ve made. The actions of these 47 Senators is unconstitutional, they are acting in a manner that the Constitution clearly never provides for, they are also in what amounts to blatant violation of the Logan Act, and whether or not anyone else has been prosecuted under it doesn’t negate the unconstitutionality and outright illegality of this letter.[/quote]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I’m not rebutting anything you’ve said.

I’m asking you if you think that Nixon’s actions were not, in fact, a more egregious violation of the Logan Act, and a more direct undermining of a president’s authority, than this letter?
[/quote]

It’s irrelevant to the matter at hand.

174

It appears Cotton’s juvenile tactics won’t derail the adults in the room from pressing forward with Corker’s bipartisan bill. That’s good news.

175

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Presenting, the lion of Judah. Benjamin Netanyahu to Congress.

21:59 for start of speech.[/quote]

“Netanyahu enters never-never land”

An imperfect deal is far better than no deal at all. [/quote]

I would disagree with that statement. A deal is nothing more than an agreement to make a commitment. Entering into a deal in which you are now committed to an imperfection is not preferential to being free of such an obligation. [/quote]

While the informal term “deal” is used in media coverage of the P5+1 nuclear negotiations, an agreement resulting from them would constitute a binding instrument of international law. This is an understandable but fundmamental error for those whom international law is terra incognito. The validity of this treaty (and the rights and obligations conferred by it) would rest upon a principle of customary law, pacts sunt servanda, or treaties must be observed. Even if Iran continues to progress toward an actualized nuclear weapon capability, an Iranian nuclear treaty is preferable to none. Any such treaty will be contigent on the ratification and implementation of the IAEA Additional Protocol, along with numerous additional monitoring and enforcement mechanisms that would severely curtail a military weapons program. The result will be an Iranian nuclear program that is more transparent and limited than has existed in many years. The very detectable progression of an Iranian “breakout” or “sneak-out” to the bomb would be even more detectable within the framework of a nuclear treaty with Iran, giving military forces ample time and direction to conduct preventative operations against Iranian nuclear facilities.

176

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Presenting, the lion of Judah. Benjamin Netanyahu to Congress.

21:59 for start of speech.[/quote]

“Netanyahu enters never-never land”

An imperfect deal is far better than no deal at all. [/quote]

I would disagree with that statement. A deal is nothing more than an agreement to make a commitment. Entering into a deal in which you are now committed to an imperfection is preferential to being free of such an obligation. [/quote]

Bingo. Not to mention, I don’t trust them to actually follow through on their deal anyways, and that DOES leave Israel in a shit position.

[/quote]

Refer to my post on the previous page.

Also, Israel possesses approximately 80-100 nuclear warheads, with fissile material for up to 200. Israel also possesses a second-strike capability, something that China has yet to achieve. Israel fields professional, experienced, and well equipped military forces and has a superpower patron in the United States. Even if Iran is able to become a nuclear weapons states, it will be a long time before it’s nuclear weapons program can establish mutually assured destruction vis-a-vis Israel.

177

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Presenting, the lion of Judah. Benjamin Netanyahu to Congress.

21:59 for start of speech.[/quote]

“Netanyahu enters never-never land”

An imperfect deal is far better than no deal at all. [/quote]

I would disagree with that statement. A deal is nothing more than an agreement to make a commitment. Entering into a deal in which you are now committed to an imperfection is preferential to being free of such an obligation. [/quote]

Bingo. Not to mention, I don’t trust them to actually follow through on their deal anyways, and that DOES leave Israel in a shit position.

[/quote]

Refer to my post on the previous page.

Also, Israel possesses approximately 80-100 nuclear warheads, with fissile material for up to 200. Israel also possesses a second-strike capability, something that China has yet to achieve. Israel fields professional, experienced, and well equipped military forces and has a superpower patron in the United States. Even if Iran is able to become a nuclear weapons states, it will be a long time before it’s nuclear weapons program can establish mutually assured destruction vis-a-vis Israel.[/quote]

And as I mentioned earlier, Israel’s Jericho ICBM system has a maximum range of over 11,000 kilometers, according to some estimates. The ability to deliver a nuclear payload to every capital city of every country in the northern hemisphere, including Washington DC, should perhaps make one pause and ponder just where Israel imagines her enemies to be.

178

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Presenting, the lion of Judah. Benjamin Netanyahu to Congress.

21:59 for start of speech.[/quote]

“Netanyahu enters never-never land”

An imperfect deal is far better than no deal at all. [/quote]

I would disagree with that statement. A deal is nothing more than an agreement to make a commitment. Entering into a deal in which you are now committed to an imperfection is preferential to being free of such an obligation. [/quote]

Bingo. Not to mention, I don’t trust them to actually follow through on their deal anyways, and that DOES leave Israel in a shit position.

[/quote]

Refer to my post on the previous page.

Also, Israel possesses approximately 80-100 nuclear warheads, with fissile material for up to 200. Israel also possesses a second-strike capability, something that China has yet to achieve. Israel fields professional, experienced, and well equipped military forces and has a superpower patron in the United States. Even if Iran is able to become a nuclear weapons states, it will be a long time before it’s nuclear weapons program can establish mutually assured destruction vis-a-vis Israel.[/quote]

And as I mentioned earlier, Israel’s Jericho ICBM system has a maximum range of over 11,000 kilometers, according to some estimates. The ability to deliver a nuclear payload to every capital city of every country in the northern hemisphere, including Washington DC, should perhaps make one pause and ponder just where Israel imagines her enemies to be.[/quote]

Lord Palmerston’s admonition that “nations have no permanent friends, they have only permanent interests” comes to mind.

179

[quote] Bismark wrote:

…it will be a long time before it’s nuclear weapons program can establish mutually assured destruction vis-a-vis Israel.[/quote]

But that isn’t particularly important. With a regime like Iran, the threshold for danger or threatening mischief is well below the point of MAD.

In addition to wanting nukes to wipe Israel off the map - a stated goal - Iran wants nuclear weapons to function as a Sword of Damocles over the region to get what it wants. That can be accomplished well before they arm to the point of MAD.

180

[quote]Bismark wrote:

While the informal term “deal” is used in media coverage of the P5+1 nuclear negotiations, an agreement resulting from them would constitute a binding instrument of international law. This is an understandable but fundmamental error for those whom international law is terra incognito. [/quote]

It’s only binding if the US Congress gives its advice and consent. It may need to be administered through the UN as someone else said here, but the only people who need to give consent are the POTUS and the US Congress, not the P5+1. If one of the aforementioned US branches does not consent, the treaty is null and void.

What?? So wait, “even if Iran signs a treaty and completely ignores said treaty it’s better than no treaty”?? You’ve got to be kidding. There’s no fucking point to a treaty if one of the sides completely or mostly ignores it’s provisions. That and the UN is fucking ball-less. Let’s leave aside for the moment whether Iraq v2.0 was a good idea because I don’t want to derail the thread, but how many UN resolutions, binding and otherwise, did Hussein violate where nothing was done by the people making these supposed ‘binding’ resolutions except bloviate some more? And this isn’t just an Iraq thing, this happens all the time.

What you are essentially suggesting is that it’s better than no treaty to sign one, hamstring us in our response range, and give the oversight to a buch of peckerless cowards who won’t do anything if Iran breaks the agreement.

No.