REPUBLICANS ADMIT: THAT IRAN LETTER WAS A DUMB IDEA

My favorite part is where Republican staffers tried to say this letter was just a joke. I'll tell you what is a joke, 47 Republican Senators and at least three Republican presidential wannabes. How do they allow a freshmen Senator in their ranks to embarrass them so thoroughly?

I told you the next two years were going to be fun. Please, by all means continue.


Jabin Botsford/The New York Times/Redux
HINDSIGHT
REPUBLICANS ADMIT: THAT IRAN LETTER WAS A DUMB IDEA
BY TIM MAK

03.11.15. Behind the scenes, Republicans are wondering if sending an open letter to Iran’s leaders was the best strategy to keep a bad nuclear deal from being negotiated.

Earlier this week, 47 Republican senators signed a letter warning the Iranian government that many of them would remain in office long after President Barack Obama’s second term was over, meaning any deal reached between the U.S. and Iran could be easily reversed by the next president.

But even among Republicans whose offices have signed the letter, there is some trepidation that the Iran letter injects partisanship into the Iran negotiations, shifting the narrative from the content of the deal to whether Republicans are unfairly trying to undercut the president.

“Before the letter, the national conversation was about Netanyahu’s speech and how Obama’s negotiations with Iran are leading to a terrible deal that could ultimately harm U.S. national security. Now, the Obama administration and its Capitol Hill partisans are cynically trying to push the conversation away from policy, and towards a deeply political pie fight over presidential and congressional prerogatives,” said a Senate Republican aide whose boss signed the letter.

However, while some on the Republican side are now rethinking the wisdom of sending a letter, none of the 47 Republican signatories are recanting their support for it or signaling an intent to do so.

Republican Sen. Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, did not sign the letter.

“I didn’t think it was going to further our efforts to get to a place where Congress would play the appropriate role that it should on Iran,” Corker told The Daily Beast. “I did not think that the letter was something that was going to help get us to an outcome that we’re all seeking, and that is Congress playing that appropriate role.”

The open letter, organized by freshman Sen. Tom Cotton, was first sent around by Senate staffers in early March. Last Wednesday, with a handful of senators already committed to the letter, Cotton brought up the issue in one of the Senate GOP’s regular weekly luncheons.

“I didn’t think it was going to further our efforts to get to a place where Congress would play the appropriate role that it should on Iran,” Sen. Bob Corker said.

“I immediately knew that it was not something that, for me anyway, in my particular role, was going to be constructive,” Corker said. “I didn’t realize until this weekend that it had the kind of momentum that it had.”

Sen. Jeff Flake was another Republican who declined to sign the letter, telling reporters Tuesday that there was already “a lot of animosity” between Congress and the White House, and that the Iranian nuclear threat was “too important to divide us among partisan lines.”

“I just didn’t feel that it was appropriate or productive at this point. These are tough enough negotiations as it stands, and introducing this kind of letter, I didn’t think would be helpful,” Flake said.

Republican aides were taken aback by the response to what what they thought was a lighthearted attempt to signal to Iran and the public that Congress should have a role in the ongoing nuclear discussions. Two GOP aides separately described their letter as a “cheeky” reminder of the congressional branch’s prerogatives.

“The administration has no sense of humor when it comes to how weakly they have been handling these negotiations,” said a top GOP Senate aide.

Added a Republican national security aide, “The Senate should have a role. It would make any agreement have some sort of consistency and perpetuity beyond the president. And it would also be buy-in for the American people. Right now it’s just an agreement between the President of the United States and whoever the final signatory to the agreement is.”

Supporters of the White House’s ongoing negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program pushed back hard against the letter, with some even citing a law written in the 18th century (and not applied since 1803) to say that the senators engaged in illegal conduct by communicating with a foreign government to undermine the U.S. government’s foreign policy.

Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson said he was “appalled and saddened” by the open letter.

“What it sends is a message to the rest of the world that we are not united,” Nelson said.

G.O.P. SENATORS’ LETTER TO IRAN ABOUT NUCLEAR DEAL ANGERS…
THE NEW YORK TIME

 

Sen. Cotton fires back at Clinton on Twitter over Iran nuke letter fallout

March 11, 2015

Republican Sen. Tom Cotton sparred Wednesday with Hillary Clinton on Twitter, after the former secretary of state slammed an open letter he and other GOP senators sent to Iran's leaders about ongoing nuclear talks.

The Republican senators' statement has become the subject of immense controversy, as it challenged President Obama's authority to strike a nuclear deal and cautioned Iran's leaders that any agreement would need congressional approval in order to necessarily last beyond Obama's term.

Clinton, who is widely expected to enter the presidential race in the coming months, tweeted a warning to those potential Republican candidates who have praised the letter.



Arkansas Sen. Cotton fired back.



Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal also entered the fray, tweeting:



Democrats have slammed the Republicans' letter as a diplomatic no-no, claiming they effectively undermined the U.S. president on the world stage. Vice President Biden said earlier this week that "the decision to undercut our President and circumvent our constitutional system offends me as a matter of principle."
Secretary of State John Kerry echoed those concerns during congressional testimony on Wednesday, while also disputing the senators' assertion that U.S. lawmakers could simply alter any nuclear agreement years later -- because, he said, it is not technically a "legally binding plan."

Rather, he described the pending deal as an executive agreement, which needs no congressional approval.

Republicans, though, have stood by their decision to fire off the letter -- part of a campaign to demand a vote in Congress on any nuclear deal. A bipartisan bill is pending in Congress that would do just that. The senators claimed in their original letter that while the administration is pushing an "executive agreement," the agreement would have more heft if it were approved by Congress.

Clinton, meanwhile, has weighed in on the letter controversy at the same time she's dealing with her own controversy about her use of personal email while secretary of state. She opened her press conference on Tuesday about the email issue by, first, condemning Republicans over the Iran letter.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...r-iran-nuke-letter-fallout/?intcmp=latestnews

 

You mean this Tom Cotton?

While in the House in 2013, Cotton introduced an amendment to prosecute the relatives of those who violated sanctions on Iran, saying that his proposed penalties of up to 20 years in prison would “include a spouse and any relative to the third degree,” including “parents, children, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, grandparents, great grandparents, grandkids, great grandkids.” Forget about the fact that the Constitution expressly prohibits “corruption of blood” penalties — just consider that Cotton wanted to take someone who had violated sanctions and imprison their grandchildren. Needless to say, this deranged piece of legislation was too much even for Republicans to stomach, and it went nowhere.

He seems just perfect. Another Right wing whack-a-doodle. You should be proud to defend him.

 

Excellent! Then-Rep. Cotton made clear to everyone why he was proposing the bill (assets can be transferred to family members). Foreign Affairs Committee members acknowledged that this can be a problem, but pointed out that provisions in the bill would ensnare family members who conspired with those who violate the sanctions. Cotton rightfully agreed to withdraw the amendment. End of story. Next!


Family members of people suspected to be political dissidents in North Korea frequently disappear or are punished by the North Korean government.

Cotton warned that some wrongdoers in Iran may shift financial assets to family members to avoid forfeiture under U.S. laws, so family members must automatically be guilty of sanction violations as well.

Several members of the Foreign Affairs Committee acknowledged that stashing assets with family members can be a problem. But they noted that other provisions in the bill would ensnare family members who conspired with those who violate the sanctions. Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) suggested that Cotton withdraw his amendment and narrow its language.

After some back-and-forth with Grayson and Royce, Cotton relented and withdrew the amendment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/tom-cotton-corruption-of-blood_n_3322251.html

 

Point is that he is another Right wing nut job leading the rest of the GOP to some crazy places where they seem more than willing to follow. What a bunch of freaks.

 

Washington Post Poll

User Poll Results: 7805 responses

By sending a letter to the government of Iran, did Republicans go too far?

Yes, the Republican senators crossed the line. They've undermined the White House and the nuclear talks.
93%
No, the Republican senators made a good point. Iran should know any deal needs Congressional support.
4%
Maybe. Perhaps the Republican senators could have gone about this a different way.
2%
I don't know.
1%

 

Well, duhhhhh...

Sounds like they have experience in such things...

It didn't occur to me, until this moment, that the 1% are Ozzy fans. I should have known, given their propensity to cause crazy, political-based train-wrecks.

 

Their hindsight isn't much better than their foresight. They chose McCain, a feeble-minded foreign-policy nightmare who would have had us involved in Wars with Iran, North Korea, AND Russia...while continuing the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. A War-monger like him is NOT what America needed.

Thankfully, Obama won.

Then there's Romney. That fool would have transferred more wealth and power to the top 1% while simultaneously slashing entitlements for the lower classes, creating the perfect storm for an economic crash; extreme poverty, no work available, and riots across the country.

Thankfully, Obama won.

In both cases, republican hindsight is pathetic, at best. They can't see how they lost, that their reliance on an economic model based on the trickle-down theory can only lead to economic and social disasters.

Thankfully, Hillary will win.

 

I can explain Tom Cotton. I think I count 47.

 

I looks to me like you lost your Hitler quote. Maybe the owner learned the truth that Hitler did not really say it and pulled it.

 

It's not really important what Hitler did or didn't say, he was a Right wing lunatic fascist Jew hating monster. It's what he did that is important. It is a matter of history not opinion that he persecuted union leaders and unions just as Republicans do today. They just haven't started murdering them yet. Give 'me time.

 

So that's what he cawed about.

Yet, I don't hear him cawing about images like this:


...and I don't remember any of us "liberals" whining about this type of political satire being inaccurate. Why? Because it's political satire.

 

But it is important that you lie about it.

Been down this road before. Summarize it to say he is/was not related to right wing.

Republicans "persecute" the unions? I guess when the liberals have disposed of the Constitution, teh Republican might be able to do a little persecution.

But the unions have been know to murder people.

 

The anti-unions have been known to murder much more often. A couple of them shot-up a house near where I live, putting a bullet hole through the pillows of two sleeping children. That's what union-busters used to do. Now, they elect fools like Walker to do it through "legal" means.

 

And the union killed my uncle - really!

And I will give you 1,000,000 to one odds and bet my house that the unions have killed more than the corporate execs have in the last 75 years.

 

Unlike you, I can admit to an error. The children were shot at by strikers, shooting at scabs living in a boarding house. The story I meant to mention was the Seeberville murders.

But, we've had this argument before, and we can argue 'till we die and not agree on anything. Unlike you, I understand that, back then, industry treated workers as slaves. Inevitably, the slaves revolted.

 

Just what killed my uncle.

100 years ago and back, you are right and unions definitely had a purpose. 100 years ago they were outlawing horses in cities because of the pollution (think about it). Problem is that was 100 years ago

 

Today, a significant portion of our jobs are in other countries, and the rate is increasing. The jobs that are here are unable to meet the necessities of life for a growing number of people. Unions are a means for many of us to have a decent living wage, but even that can't stop the inevitable decline of our economy, due to corporate interests above labor interests.

If you want unions busted, the right way, our jobs need to stop being outsourced to foreign-based labor. If that isn't done, our economy would continue to weaken to the point that unions wouldn't be an issue, survival would, and not just for the poor and middle-class. Even the wealthy would find it difficult to survive in a country where food is a luxury.

 

So long as 50% of the American populous is on some form of government support and we maintain the highest corporate tax rate in the world, we will not be able to sustain jobs in the US. PERIOD. In today's world society and world business, if we don't make it better , cheaper, more versatile, etc., THEY WILL. Until someone figures out that our government cannot support anything resembling 50% of our population, we will continue to lose jobs.

 

Want to hear something really weird. 8000 non-union workers located in a town just outside of where I live cross the border into Japan every day to work at one of the largest auto assembly plants in the world. And these are well paid middle class jobs. The Nissan plant in Smyrna, Tn is inside an international trade zone and is considered to be part of Japan in the same manner as an embassy. This was one of the first factories to operate in this manner. It has benefits both Nissan and the United States. We get the jobs and the factory creates spin-off businesses which supply it locally. Nissan get the benefit of being taxed only on the cars exiting the gate as if it were coming off a boat. They are not taxed for importing raw materials or machinery into the factory. The truly amazing thing I find, is that they assemble 500,000 with only 8,000 workers. Much of it is done robotic. If you truly want to look at job loss, you also have to look at how many jobs have been lost to machines. Gone are the day of 20,000 worker assembly plants. Good paying manufacturing jobs are on the out the same way farming jobs were on the way out during the last century. The real answer is in figuring out what's next in they way of meaningful employment. Hint: It's not fast food.