• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

OK, blame Obama, all his fault. Really lame.
Yeah, The buck stops elsewhere. That's been Obama's mantra since he first took office. He can't handle the responsibility and his sycophants don't expect him to.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

On the contrary, they are correct. Iranians have a hard time understanding that other executives are not Supreme Leaders, but in this country, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, not Executive Branch writ.


Really, if they are wise (deeply questionable, I know), the administration will clue in that Republican have just strengthened their negotiating position.

Mind you, that would require that they see Diplomacy as a means to an end, rather than an end in and of itself....

Judging from your post it appears that some Americans have a hard time understanding that "the world is not the United States". Too funny. LOL
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership


A WORTHLESS Hack Progressive Blog thats charging the Bush administration with War Crimes ????

LOL !!! :lamo :lamo :lamo Is that the best you can do ?

Your'e the one that needs help, desperate help. For some reason your BLOG doesn't mention any of the Democrats I listed in my last post. You remember ? The PROMINENT Democrats that said Saddam HAD WMD, and had been hiding them throughout IRAQ ? The same democrats that gave Bush LEGAL Authorization to use force ??

Iraq Resolution...
https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-joint-resolution/114


If your'e going to devolve down into Conspiracy theories then quit wasting my time and others. We have a section in this forum explicitly for Conspiracy theories.

Go peddle your nonsense over there. This section of the Forum is reserved for adults.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Judging from your post it appears that some Americans have a hard time understanding that "the world is not the United States". Too funny. LOL

Not at all. But for the United States, the Constitution is Supreme. :) Meaning that, yes, one POTUS can overturn what a previous POTUS has done solely on Executive Authority.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

A WORTHLESS Hack Progressive Blog thats charging the Bush administration with War Crimes ????

LOL !!! :lamo :lamo :lamo Is that the best you can do ?

Your'e the one that needs help, desperate help. For some reason your BLOG doesn't mention any of the Democrats I listed in my last post. You remember ? The PROMINENT Democrats that said Saddam HAD WMD, and had been hiding them throughout IRAQ ? The same democrats that gave Bush LEGAL Authorization to use force ??

Iraq Resolution...
https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-joint-resolution/114


If your'e going to devolve down into Conspiracy theories then quit wasting my time and others. We have a section in this forum explicitly for Conspiracy theories.

Go peddle your nonsense over there. This section of the Forum is reserved for adults.


The "prominent Democrats" were misinformed since they were LIED to by the Bush Administration.....but these are the GOP's war crimes of the past ....now we have an unprecedented and treasonous letter to Iran as well....The GOP has caused more destruction and pursued more reckless tactics than Bin Laden could have ever imagined.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Not at all. But for the United States, the Constitution is Supreme. :) Meaning that, yes, one POTUS can overturn what a previous POTUS has done solely on Executive Authority.

Outside US borders the constitution is not the supreme law of the land and since the agreement was made by legal US representative outside US borders it's not subject or bound by the constitution or US law, but it is bound by international law that says two or more countries can arbitrate and negotiate to form binding agreements independent of their domestic legislature and laws. .
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

The agreement was made under international law by a legal representative outside US borders and where US law is not the supreme law of the land.

In the US, the treaty power is a coordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it. Once a treaty is ratified, it becomes binding on all the states under the Supremacy Clause. While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democratic republics to rally enough political support for international treaties. Also, if implementation of the treaty requires the expenditure of funds, the House of Representatives may be able to block, or at least impede, such implementation by refusing to vote for the appropriation of the necessary funds.
In the US, the President usually submits a treaty to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) along with an accompanying resolution of ratification or accession. If the treaty and resolution receive favorable committee consideration (a committee vote in favor of ratification or accession) the treaty is then forwarded to the floor of the full U.S. Senate for such a vote. The treaty or legislation does not apply until it has been ratified. A multilateral agreement may provide that it will take effect upon its ratification by less than all of the signatories.[SUP][2][/SUP] Even though such a treaty takes effect, it does not apply to signatories that have not ratified it. Accession has the same legal effect as ratification. Accession is a synonym for ratification for treaties already negotiated and signed by other states.[SUP][3][/SUP] An example of a treaty to which the U.S. Senate did not advise and consent to ratification is the Treaty of Versailles, which failed to garner support due to inclusion of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
The U.S. can also enter into international agreements by way of executive agreements. These are not made under the Treaty Clause, and do not require ratification of two thirds of the Senate. "Congressional-executive agreements" are passed by a majority of both houses of Congress as a regular law. If the agreement is completely within the President's constitutional powers, it can be made by the President alone without Congressional approval; however, it will have the force of an executive order and can be unilaterally revoked by a future President. All of these types of agreements are treated internationally as "treaties". See Foreign policy of the United States#Law.
[h=3][/h]
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

No. Not all his fault, but more his fault than anyone else's. I actually agree with you up to a point.

And that was what we were discussing. Thank you for the answer.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

I don't know about "harming" the office of the presidency. It's a very odd action that was taken, and certainly harms credibility and standing for the US in general. First the humiliation of the congress bringing in Netanyahu to prove a point to the executive, and now this ****. I'm surprised really, but suppose I shouldn't be, that it's worth this to so many here to get a poke at Obama.

2 way street- this can set a precedent that may/ will repeat. My opinion is it has harmed the reputation of the Office and the US.
 
Yes, and they're our fools, Americans, willing to bring shame and embarrassment, to score political points.

As mentioned, the Democrats are far from being Angles as well.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

The agreement was made under international law by a legal representative outside US borders and where US law is not the supreme law of the land.

Sure. And for the United States, if the next POTUS decides not to follow an Executive Agreement, then he doesn't have to :) international law does not trump the Constitution.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Yeah, The buck stops elsewhere. That's been Obama's mantra since he first took office. He can't handle the responsibility and his sycophants don't expect him to.

That is a partisan answer. 2 way street.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

LOL !! Your'e Progressive amateur nonsense is so easy to debunk...

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002





"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm


Hey, please keep posting OK. I'm literally begging you to continue parroting this Progressive nonsense you equate to intelligent discussion. There's no better way than to expose the fallacies of the Progressive agenda than to keep one of it's members talking.


Do you realize that those in 1998 were about hitting Iraq and the Republicans were against it, calling it Wag the Dog after the movie and some of those quotes were taken out of context. Al Gore is an example:

Moreover, if we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation as President Bush has abandoned Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth rate military there, the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.


Read more at snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

On Tuesday, the day after his letter to Hezbollah’s masters became public, Cotton provided a clue about his motives: He’d had a breakfast date with the National Defense Industrial Association — a trade group for Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and the like.

You’re not allowed to know what Cotton said to the defense contractors. The event was “off the record and strictly non-attribution.” But you can bet it was what Dwight Eisenhower meant when he warned of the military-industrial complex.

The defense industry contributed more than $25 million in the 2014 election cycle and spent more than $250 million lobbying over that time period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. For the defense industry, this is a good investment: If Senate Republicans blow up nuclear talks, it makes war with Iran that much more likely — and nobody would benefit as much from that war as military contractors.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

On Tuesday, the day after his letter to Hezbollah’s masters became public, Cotton provided a clue about his motives: He’d had a breakfast date with the National Defense Industrial Association — a trade group for Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and the like.

You’re not allowed to know what Cotton said to the defense contractors. The event was “off the record and strictly non-attribution.” But you can bet it was what Dwight Eisenhower meant when he warned of the military-industrial complex.

The defense industry contributed more than $25 million in the 2014 election cycle and spent more than $250 million lobbying over that time period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. For the defense industry, this is a good investment: If Senate Republicans blow up nuclear talks, it makes war with Iran that much more likely — and nobody would benefit as much from that war as military contractors.

A war with Iran (as opposed to a few air strikes) would require a multi-year build-up and probably reinstitution of the draft before we began. It will never happen, but you'd have plenty of warning if it did.
 
The "prominent Democrats" were misinformed since they were LIED to by the Bush Administration.....but these are the GOP's war crimes of the past ....now we have an unprecedented and treasonous letter to Iran as well....The GOP has caused more destruction and pursued more reckless tactics than Bin Laden could have ever imagined.

Lol !!!

Bush lied to the Democrats in the late 90s ? Check the date on those quotes. Half of them were made during the Clinton administration.

But apparently George Bush, as Governor of Texas was " lying " to the Democrats back in the late 90s....Lol !

Fantastic. Like I said keep posting.

Progressives marginalize themselves and their agenda just by opening their mouths.

Hey, did you know that Bill Clinton gave Halliburton theI first " no bid " contract ?

Yep, during his Kosovo redirect.

So what else do you have ? What tired and warmed over 10 year old talking points are you going to offer up next ??
 
Do you realize that those in 1998 were about hitting Iraq and the Republicans were against it, calling it Wag the Dog after the movie and some of those quotes were taken out of context. Al Gore is an example:

Moreover, if we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation as President Bush has abandoned Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth rate military there, the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.


Read more at snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

Lol !!

Yes, the quotes from prominent Democrats concerning Saddams possesion of Weapons of mass destruction were " taken out of context " in reference to Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction....

Unbelievable.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

A war with Iran (as opposed to a few air strikes) would require a multi-year build-up and probably reinstitution of the draft before we began.
It will never happen, but you'd have plenty of warning if it did.

Cotton point blank stated the case for war.
Pretty tough talk for a JAG who sat on his ass in Iraq for his service.

Today's GOP is exactly what President Eisenhower warned us of and you know it .
 
Lol !!

Yes, the quotes from prominent Democrats concerning Saddams possesion of Weapons of mass destruction were " taken out of context " in reference to Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction....

Unbelievable.

Especially since they were lied to by the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Condi war machine.
Or have you forgotten the way they lied to General Powell before he spoke to the UN ?
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Cotton point blank stated the case for war.
Pretty tough talk for a JAG who sat on his ass in Iraq for his service.

Today's GOP is exactly what President Eisenhower warned us of and you know it .

Everyone who served in Iraq was in harm's way. I've been there. You?
Over the top irrationality does not deserve a response.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

A war with Iran (as opposed to a few air strikes) would require a multi-year build-up and probably reinstitution of the draft before we began. It will never happen, but you'd have plenty of warning if it did.

Re-institution of the draft for a war with Iran? No.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

That is an outstanding contribution SenorXmSirius.
There's a real good reason why the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee CORKER didn't sign GOP President Bibi's letter.
While sensible veteran Senator Collins reminds us that the role of the Senate is advice and consent .

On Tuesday, the day after his letter to Hezbollah’s masters became public, Cotton provided a clue about his motives: He’d had a breakfast date with the National Defense Industrial Association — a trade group for Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and the like.

You’re not allowed to know what Cotton said to the defense contractors. The event was “off the record and strictly non-attribution.” But you can bet it was what Dwight Eisenhower meant when he warned of the military-industrial complex.

The defense industry contributed more than $25 million in the 2014 election cycle and spent more than $250 million lobbying over that time period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. For the defense industry, this is a good investment: If Senate Republicans blow up nuclear talks, it makes war with Iran that much more likely — and nobody would benefit as much from that war as military contractors.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Re-institution of the draft for a war with Iran? No.

That's why it will never happen. Our army would need to be at least twice as large as at present, maybe three times larger. Can't get there without conscription.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

That's why it will never happen. Our army would need to be at least twice as large as at present, maybe three times larger. Can't get there without conscription.

My no was we wouldn't need a draft to fight a war with Iran.

I'm not sure why you are saying for certain there will not be a war with Iran. There most certainly can be.

Besides our MIC, Israel and Saudi Arabia would love nothing better then for us to go to war with Iran. That's a lot of money, and that's a lot of lobbying on the side of war.
 
Back
Top Bottom