shooting themselves in the foot yet again.

[liberty]

Maybe North Korea can Co-Chair the negociations...

I have mixed feelings about this...

First of all, we can lay the whole hysterical 'traitor" and " this kind of attempt to undercut presidential control over foreign policy is really unprecedented" blah, blah, blah, BS aside; this is hardly the first time that members of Congress have attempted to interpose themselves in the conduct of foreign policy...

That picture I posted of then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi meeting with Syrian dictator Bashir Al-Assad,is from 2007...

She made that trip at a time when the Bush Administration was involved in intensive efforts to rally international support for increased pressure on the Assad regime. (If you look back over the past 30-40 years, you can find a number of additional examples; from both parties)

Second, I certainly share the concern that I believe motivated this letter:



Namely, that having seen one foreign policy miscalculation after another, after another, after another, blow up in their face, (from the "reset button" with Putin to the declaring of ISIS to be a "JV team", and many bad decisions in between) this Administration, (and Obama and Kerry in particular) is so desperate for a foreign policy "win" that they might well sign off on a deal that doesn't include sufficient safe guards against a "breakout" to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon...

I think that's a very legitimate concern...

But all of that having been said, I really don't think this letter was the best way to address that concern, primarily because of the affect it will have regarding this point from the article in the OP:

the letter might have undermined Republicans' effort by turning Iran into a partisan issue and making it harder for Democrats to buck Obama on it.
[NYT / Jennifer Steinhauser and Julie Hirschfeld Davis]

I think that's exactly right, and statements made in the Senate earlier this week by Democratic Senators Bill Nelson and Joe Manchin regarding this letter (two Democrats who have expressed public skepticism about a deal with Iran in the past) would seem to underscore that point...

I listened to some of the Senate hearing with Kerry at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, (the focus was mainly on the new AUMF being proposed for combating ISIS; I think the proposed resolution gives away far too much information to the enemy about what we are willing to do and how long we are willing to do it...but that's another discussion...)

But during the hearing, this letter was also discussed...

Rand Paul, (of all people) actually made a good point. While there are a number of errors about Constitutional procedures and prerogatives in the letter, (another reason it was probably ill advised) Paul pointed out, that if the President reaches an agreement which would require the lifting or suspension of Congressionally authorized sanctions, that would in fact require Congressional action; that could not be done simply by an Executive Order....

Even Obama, (who has recently demonstrated a robust and forward leaning interpretation of the purviews of Executive Orders ) seems to realize this. (If he didn't, when he decided to restore diplomatic relations with Cuba, he would have certainly have tried to nullify the Congressionally mandated embargo provisions under the Helms-Burton Act. Apparently even Obama sees that as a bridge too far.)

If the Administration comes back with an inadequate agreement, that is that battlefield to fight on. That is the play; refusing to change existing sanctions codified in law, even if the agreement requires that those legally codified sanctions be lifted....

And without this letter, if it comes to that, they would have been making this stand with substantial Democratic support...

They might still get it, but this letter makes it unnecessarily more problematic.

My lord, if this is not enough to make me change parties nothing is; what a hunch of hypocrites the democrats are. How many time in past years did democrats undermined republican presidents? Wasn’t there a time when Edward Kennedy sent a letter to the Soviet dictator?

[liberty]

There is absolutely no reason Iran has to be our enemy with regard to anything. Apart from Israel, it is the closest thing to a functioning democracy in the Middle East and the most stable government in the region.

Sue, you must have thought the Soviet Union was a kind of democracy too.

[liberty]

Doesn't anyone else see this letter as a warning that "whatever agreements the United States negotiates, our nation just might not follow through and obey the terms we agree to, for domestic political reasons"? Yes, the Republicans intended to send precisely this message to Iran...but don't they realize that they are sending the same message to the rest of the world, regarding whatever future negotiations we have with any other nation? Do we really want to advertise the premise that we're so politically screwed up that we can't be trusted to follow through on our international commitments?

The republicans are correct, no presidential agreement has the power of treaty unless it is approved by the senate. And, I would not trust the Iranian mullahs to abide by any treaty that did not give them the right to Nukes.


Someone referred to ISIS as terrorist, well that is true to the extreme , but if I was forced to choose between ISIS and Iran I would choose ISIS; they are much less of a threat to us at the moment. That would be like choosing between the Nazis and the Soviet Union during WWII; the Soviet Union was less of a threat at the time, not that they were any better.

[Lord Jim]

You might ridicule Iran's form of democracy as not democratic "enough," but the same criticism is easily directed at the United States by multi-party parliamentary democracies elsewhere in the world.

Now, I could respond to that...(it's an obviously preposterous comparison on so many levels one would scarcely know where to begin; but I'm sure I could find a starting point... )

But I've been around here long enough to know when somebody's just tryin' to "wind me up"...

[Econoline]

[liberty]

Good job if they happen to be fighting Saddam Hussein , because you want then both to lose. These missiles were not ICBM.

[Lord Jim]

Our objective during the Iran Iraq war, (and it was the correct objective) was to do whatever we could to make sure that neither side won a decisive victory and emerged as a dominant regional power. When it looked like one side was getting the upper hand, we helped the other. Seems like sound policy to me.

[dgs49]

There was nothing in The Letter that was either false or threatening. It was merely a clarification of the inherent limitations on any "agreement" signed by our lame-duck President.

Like the Declaration of Independence (addressed theoretically to King George III), its main audience was American citizens who may be concerned that our rogue President may do something permanently injurious to our interests and those of our only ally in that part of the world.

To imply that these Republicans are jeopardizing a potentially friendly relationship between the U.S. and Iran is...indescribably stupid. One can never forget that there is "no Christian reason" (as Billy Graham might say) for Iran to be pursuing nuclear power (which is their pretense), as they are sitting on an ocean of free oil and natural gas. Does anyone here suppose they are trying - in their own inimitable way - to combat "climate change"?

I realize that "democracy" is a word used loosely in these parts, but it is NO KIND OF DEMOCRACY when the supreme religious leader has absolute power to void any action by any branch of government (or the voters) at any time. Iran may be a modern, educated country in some ways, with lovely well-meaning people, but governmentally speaking, they are in a different century. At least Barry has the good sense to be negotiating directly with representatives of the Ayatollah.

The political fallout from The Letter is un-knowable - probably non-existent - and to use expressions like "shooting oneself in the foot" is the height of idiocy. But these negotiations, should they go badly, will certainly impact Barry's chances of being elected for a third term!

[Lord Jim]

Our objective during the Iran Iraq war, (and it was the correct objective) was to do whatever we could to make sure that neither side won a decisive victory and emerged as a dominant regional power. When it looked like one side was getting the upper hand, we helped the other. Seems like sound policy to me.

I was going to do this as an ETA, but as Dave has posted in the interim (BTW, welcome back Dave; though I frequently disagree with you, this board is definitely enriched by your participation; I hope you will start to post more frequently) I'll add this:

Not only was it a sound policy, it was a policy that worked quite effectively. The proof of this, is that at the end of the Iran-Iraq war despite all the blood and and treasure both sides had expended, neither emerged as a dominant regional power, both were militarily diminished, and the territorial situation on the ground between them was essentially unchanged.

[rubato]

This was a reward for Iran paying for the demolition of the US barracks in Lebanon. After that, Ron pussied out and fled Lebanon, the one act which inspired Osama Bin Laden to think the US could be beaten.

Way to go, Ron. Just as wrong as your economic 'theories'. And just as harmful.

And then, of course, he used the money to try to restore a brutal totalitarian dictatorship in Nicaragua.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

And then, of course, he used the money to try torestore overthrow a brutal totalitarian dictatorship in Nicaragua.

Though that's still not really accurate; since no proof was ever brought forward that Mr. Reagan had any knowledge that the monies that were raised were being used to aid the Nicaraguan Freedom Fighters...

But it's appropriate to bring this up in this thread since the infamous and wrong-headed "Boland Amendment" is an excellent example of Congressional efforts to undermine a President's conduct of foreign policy....

[Big RR]

And rightfully so IMHO.

[rubato]

And then, of course, he used the money to try torestore overthrow a brutal totalitarian dictatorship in Nicaragua.

Though that's still not really accurate; since no proof was ever brought forward that Mr. Reagan had any knowledge that the monies that were raised were being used to aid the Nicaraguan Freedom Fighters...

But it's appropriate to bring this up in this thread since the infamous and wrong-headed "Boland Amendment" is an excellent example of Congressional efforts to undermine a President's conduct of foreign policy....

It was notoriously difficult to prove that Ronny-boy knew <<anything>> by that point.

But then why lie to congress and hide the money flow to the Somosista murderers. The ones who murdered a journalist on camera? Shot him through the had while he was lying on the ground?

No brutal totalitarian dictator ever had a better and more loyal suckup friend than Ronny-boy Reagan.


http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/on- ... orter.html

Stewart was covering the Nicaraguan civil war, described as “one of the most dangerous assignments in journalism,” by Time magazine. For the previous 19 months, the corrupt and dictatorial regime of Anastasio Somoza Debayle had been battling the Sandinistas, a leftist rebel group.

The Somoza family, in power for over 40 years, had been accused by global watchdog organizations of human rights violations, such as usurping international aid intended for earthquake victims, reported findingDulcinea.

Bill Stewart was mindful of his environment. As he approached an outpost of the Nicaraguan National Guard, Stewart was holding a white flag and documentation of press credentials issued by the Nicaraguan government, Time reported.

Stewart fell to his knees after one of the soldiers on duty lifted his rifle. The officer on guard instructed the reporter to lie down, and shot Stewart behind his right ear. According to Time, the soldiers also killed Stewart’s interpreter, Juan Francisco Espinoza. ABC’s camera crew caught the gruesome scene on tape.

The assassination struck a final blow to the Somozas’ already waning international support.

The United States had supported the regime as a buffer against Communism in Central America, but after Stewart’s murder President Jimmy Carter formally withdrew support for Nicaragua’s ruling family.

On July 17, 1979, less than a month after Stewart’s death, Somoza resigned as president. The Sandinistas took over the country a day later. Somoza flew to Miami to seek refuge but was denied entry into the United States. He was assassinated in Paraguay in September 1980.
Later Developments: Somozas, Sandinistas and the Contras
Sources in this Story

Time: A Murder in Managua
findingDulcinea: On This Day: Roberto Clemente Dies in Plane Crash
findingDulcinea: On This Day: Reagan Gave CIA Authority to Establish the Contras
The American Presidency Project: Jimmy Carter: Bill Stewart Statement on the Death of the ABC News Correspondent.
Poynter Institute: Talk about Ethics: War Correspondents: Duty and Danger
Mediabistro: TV Newser: Woodruff: 'I Saw My Body Floating'

President Ronald Reagan authorized the CIA to fund and train guerrilla groups working to depose the leftist military government established by the Sandinistas in 1979, after the overthrow of the Somoza regime, reported findingDulcinea. The CIA-funded counterrevolutionary guerrillas were known as “Contras.” News of the CIA’s covert work with the Contras leaked to the media in 1982. In 1984, Congress adopted the Boland Amendment, banning further support of the Contras.
Opinion & Analysis: War correspondents give their all in the name of the news
President Jimmy Carter said of Stewart’s death, “Journalists seeking to report the news and inform the public are soldiers in no nation’s army. When they are made innocent victims of violence and war, all people who cherish the truth and believe in free debate pay a terrible price,” reported the American Presidency Project Web site.

Bob Steele, a journalism ethics scholar at the Poynter Institute, writes that every time he hears of war correspondents getting killed in the line of duty, that he is reminded of Stewart’s fate. “Let us honor those journalists who give the ultimate sacrifice for their profession and for the public they serve. They have shown their devotion to duty in the face of grave danger,” he writes.
Related Topics: Roberto Clemente, Bob Woodruff
All-star Pittsburgh Pirates outfielder Roberto Clemente was killed in a plane crash on Dec. 31, 1972, en route to delivering aid to earthquake victims in Nicaragua. The 6.5 magnitude tremor claimed between 5,000 and 10,000 lives. Reports that the Somoza regime was seizing international aid prompted Clemente to fly to the country to personally oversee relief efforts, according to findingDulcinea.

In 2006, Bob Woodruff, anchor for ABC’s “World News Tonight,” and cameraman Doug Vogt were traveling with the U.S. 4th Infantry Division as part of a convoy that was hit by an explosive device. According to Mediabistro, Woodruff underwent surgery and was in a coma for 36 days following the attack.

yrs,
rubato