Page 7 of 83 FirstFirst ... 567891757 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 826

Thread: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership [W:251]

  1. #61
    Invictus


    Rogue Valley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,108

    Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

    Obama can negotiate what is known as a sole-executive agreement. Examples of such agreements would be Yalta, Potsdam, Vietnam, and the numerous SOFA agreements with other nations. Although there is nothing in the Constitution which addresses such agreements, they have flourished and the SCOTUS has upheld their validity mainly because there is no long-term commitment. Sole Executive Agreements are considered to be a legal treaty under international law, but not under US law. Successor presidents are not required to honor such agreements, but most do so.


    Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet. -- Marine Corps General James 'Chaos' Mattis

  2. #62
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,017

    Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

    Quote Originally Posted by laurcunningham View Post
    Was this letter sent with Obama's knowledge? Or was it done behind his back in an attempt to let Iran know that if they enter into an agreement with Obama that after he leaves office it's very possible that Congress will void the deal completely?
    It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution — the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices — which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.
    More In Iran

    First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

    Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics.

    For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then — perhaps decades.

    What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.
    Not especially subtle.

  3. #63
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

    Quote Originally Posted by laurcunningham View Post
    I'm just curious. Do you believe that Republicans have gone above and beyond, throughout Obama's entire presidency, to try to work with him?
    Above and beyond? No - no more than any other President from one party and a congress of the other party. I also do not see Obama going above and beyond to work with Republicans - actually he has gone out of his way to accuse and disparage them in one sentence, and then criticize them for not working with him in the very next sentence. That Republicans are now slapping him in the face shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by laurcunningham View Post
    Do you believe that the only reason why there is friction within his presidency is because he alone is refusing to be bipartisan?
    Yeah because only Obama is a partisan in Washington ... that will be the day. The issue isn't partisanship - America was born on partisanship. The issue is working with both sides to get common agreement on those things where common agreement exists and to give and take where agreement does not exist - where possible. Clinton seemed to be able to do that in his second term - however my "belief" since you are interested in it, is that Obama has neither the ability nor the want to work with anyone but those who agrees with him. He makes grand claims of transparency when everyone sees he and his administration is not. He lies to the American people about so very many things then blames those things on Republicans. Obama's problem is he is by nature an ideologue - and no matter what he cannot and will not compromise while claiming publicly, that's all he ever wants. Republicans in this case are irrelevant since Obama has a "pen and a phone" you see.

    Quote Originally Posted by laurcunningham View Post
    There haven't been any situations at all where Republicans have purposefully shown evidence of being 100% partisan and purposefully refusing to work with him to come to an agreement on an issue?
    Absolutely they have. You're argument would be much easier however if Obama and his administration were genuine in their view to compromise and seek partnership with Republicans - however the direct opposite is true. Given Obama's been the same since running for election in 2007, there is no surprise on my part at all that Republicans now, who control both Houses of Congress, will give him a taste of his own medicine to go along with his legacy. You see... it takes two to tango.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  4. #64
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,017

    Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

    Thanks to Samhain for finding this:

    WASHINGTON, April 19— Members of Congress are always writing ''Dear Colleague'' letters to other members, promoting a bill or noting an event. Now 10 Democratic lawmakers have written a ''Dear Comandante'' letter that is kicking up a fuss on Capitol Hill.

    The letter is addressed to Daniel Ortega Saavedra, the coordinator of the junta that rules Nicaragua. In it, the lawmakers commend his Government ''for taking steps to open up the political process in your country'' and urge greater efforts toward freer and more open elections.

    'At Best Unwise'

    After the letter came to light in a Congressional debate on Nicaragua last week, Representative Newt Gingrich, Republican of Georgia, flew into a letter-writing frenzy of his own. Mr. Gingrich is circulating the ''Dear Comandante'' missive to reporters around town, accompanied by a statement that accuses the authors of undercutting the Administration's foreign policy.

    ''This letter,'' Mr. Gingrich wrote, ''clearly violates the constitutional separation of powers. It's at best unwise, and at worst illegal.''
    Keep in mind the Democrats did not even directly undermine Reagan by saying he was only in office for a few years, they probably wouldn't ratify anything he agreed to with Saavedra, and besides, they'd probably just overturn it anyway. So the question is, was Gingrich right?

    *bump*

  5. #65
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,852
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

    Quote Originally Posted by laurcunningham View Post
    That's fine. I wasn't really trying to argue about it, I was just saying that I disagree with the statement you made. Even if we discussed it your opinion wouldn't change, so it's a moot point.
    Oh I dunno. I've been know to change my mind and my position with the advent of a new perspective and new information.
    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  6. #66
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,404

    Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership - Bloomberg Politics

    President Obama: "It's somewhat ironic seeing some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran..... It's an unlikely coalition."

    Interesting. Seems to me, the President distorts the issue for political gain and is subtly trying to claim that Republicans are fraternizing with the enemy or perhaps even treasonous. And yet no reaction or condemnation from Democrats or their friends in the media. Rudy Guilliani states that he believes that President Obama doesn't love his country and all hell breaks lose, the full force of the Democrat party and their media puppets attacking with all force. But when the shoe is on the other foot, again the attack is on the Republican party and the Democrat media protects their saviour and master.

    Interesting. Also, isn't President Obama trying to 'make common cause with the hardliners in Iran" through the deal negotiations he's involved in?


    I suggest the distorting of issues for personal gain has been his main card since taking office.

    This is his "run and gun" game. He is now being bombarded by congress when he used to have congress to kick around. They are scoring points and for him to stay above water, he simply has to keep taking shots.....'

    It's a headline a day....in an attempt to own the narrative. +Yesterday he sounded like he's planning to attack Venezuela, today it is congress daring to defy him on Iran to prevent nuclear proliferation. It too, like all of his initiatives, depends on the stupid voter remaining stupid, the design, as usual, is to devolve the issue into the simplest of forms: Me - good. Congress - bad.

    The details do not matter, he can alter them, lie about them, change them at will, all that matters, at least so far, is "Obama says....."

    Even here, much of the coverage of the Netanyahu affair focused on Obama's reaction to the speech and not the content of what Netanyahu said


    It has what got him into and has kept him in power, over simplification and lies.

    I wonder how long he would last if he had to face a Question Period ever day
    ""You know, when we sell to other countries, even if they're allies -- you never know about an ally. An ally can turn."
    Donald Trump, 11/23/17

  7. #67
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    So you accept this precedent then? If a Republican president is in difficult negotiations with a foreign leader you'll be perfectly happy if a Democrat-controlled congress writes that leader to say, "Oh, hey, by the way, no matter what you guys arrive at we're not going to ratify it because our president doesn't have the authority to negotiate with you...wacka wacka!"
    This last 8 years has been a myriad of precedents. A President legislating from the Executive offices, making changes to bills without Congress, forcing people to buy government backed insurance, announcing "I have a pen and a phone" to bully though whatever he wants without Congress and as the SCOTUS has identified now multiple times, exceeded his authority. All of that doesn't now stop but continues... so why then would Congress pushing the envelope and setting a precedent in this case be surprising? Do I accept it? I have no choice but to accept it as I cannot, as an individual, deny their ability or right to send a letter to anyone they choose, just like I could not stop the Senate from using the nuclear option to bypass a filibuster or to shelve bills on the Senate floor from ever going to committee or be discussed at all.

    Do I think that all these precedents are a good thing? No I do not.... but that's the world we now live in isn't it.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  8. #68
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,404

    Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    Indeed.

    My read of the negotiations is that Obama is desperate for a foreign policy win for his legacy. We can see this with Cuba and other, where he's failed pretty much on all of them.

    Check me if I'm wrong, but there's a long and strong history of bargaining, negotiation in the Bazaar in Persia. Being such, those negotiation skills are probably very sharp and well honed, unlike Obama's negotiating skills, as we've seen.

    When those skills and cultural background are presented with a desperate Obama negotiating, it's perceived as a sign of weakness, a sign of the easily exploited.

    Sure, the Iranians would like to have a deal where they are allowed nuclear arms and nuclear fuel refinement (precursor to nuclear weapon). Short of that, any delay in further economic sanctions being imposed or the lifting of existing economic sanctions in order to afford their covert nuclear refinement program is a win for them. They aren't losing anything in this process, they have only wins.

    It also come to question whether they will actually adhere and honor their commitments in the future. So far they've not. They've missed every deadline, delayed every sequence of steps, and haven't complied with the UN inspectors. So Obama sees fit to trust them?

    The GOP Senators, with their letter to Iranian leadership, are expressing their distrust of both the Iranian leadership and Obama.



    Nope. But I'm sure that Obama, in his narcissistic arrogance that's displayed from the beginning, finds this severely offensive. I'd hazard a guess that he sees this as little more than racist in it's motivation, where it's nothing of the sort. It's not racist. It's a distinct lack of trust in Obama that the GOP have. Obama has done nothing to earn any trust from the GOP, as all they get from him is a right cross instead of a hand shake. Obama's been spoiling for fighting with congress and the GOP from his very first day in office.

    At this point, with the 1967 borders issue, his fumbling at the G-20 in Paris, Libya's 'regime change', the troop withdrawal in Iraq, the stalled war in Afghanistan, the Crimean invasion, Ukraine, wars in seven countries, the Netanyahu speech and its consequences, the lies upon lies he has been caught in on foreign affairs [the world is watching stupid!], upheaval across the middle east, increasing strongholds for ISIS, the Keystone pipeline, naming
    Venezuela as a 'security threat' his ignorance of international affairs, "desperate" is much too soft a word.

    This guy is scrambling for one simple little win.....one where there is no contest
    ""You know, when we sell to other countries, even if they're allies -- you never know about an ally. An ally can turn."
    Donald Trump, 11/23/17

  9. #69
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,777

    Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

    Republicans undermine negotiations with Iran and the right wingers here fall all over themselves to defend it.

    because, to them, hurting Obama is more important than protecting America. Or Israel.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  10. #70
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,017

    Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Republicans undermine negotiations with Iran and the right wingers here fall all over themselves to defend it.

    because, to them, hurting Obama is more important than protecting America. Or Israel.
    Twenty to one if they've successfully shot down negotiations with Iran they'll blame Obama.

Page 7 of 83 FirstFirst ... 567891757 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •