An already heated battle between the White House and Republicans over negotiations to curtail Iran’s nuclear program grew more tense Monday when 47 Republican senators sent a letter to Iran designed to kill any potential deal.
The White House responded by accusing the Republicans of conspiring with Iranian hard-liners, who oppose the delicate negotiations, and suggesting that their goal was to push the United States into a military conflict.
“I think it’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran,” President Obama said a few hours after the letter was made public. “It’s an unusual coalition.”
Vice President Biden blasted the letter as “beneath the dignity of an institution I revere.”
“In 36 years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country — much less a longtime foreign adversary — that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them,” Biden said in a statement.
What are these legislators thinking? Their behavior is unprecedented. Why would these senators cozy up to the Iran hardliners? Why would they assume that they are there to sit down along side the president and negotiate treaties?
I believe Hillary Clinton has it right. They either want to aid the rogue regime or they want to do anything they can to disrupt the President, regardless of what it does to the country. Apparently they chose war over peace.
I find their behavior despicable and treasonous. Perhaps they can go ride in a tank with the Iranian head-honchos, you know, sort of like Jane Fonda. I see almost no difference other than Fonda was a lot younger than most of them. In essence, 47 senators found common cause with terrorists. I find those that signed to be stupid, self-serving and impetuous.
@Ed Myers
Stick to undies and feminism, Ed. You are way over your head here.
@Scout
I hate to spoil your day, old timer; but the era of Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy are long gone. The landscape began to change big time after LBJ was run out of office. It has gotten so bad that we have elected to two terms a guy who wouldn’t even submit a complete resume. All bets are now off.
@Scout
“Any Senator with serious concerns on this probably could get a line open to the Secretary of State or the President to vent and, if they have better ideas, to persuade.”
Scout, lad, where the heck have you been hiding during the past 6-years? The universal book on this guy seems to be that he does not like to deal directly with people outside his tight inner circle and that he is very uncomfortable even in personal meets with key foreign leaders. You actually think that any Republican opponent is going to get through to this prima donna and be given license to vent or to persuade? I’ll wager that even Democratic Senator Bob Menendez has trouble with that. I would label that as one of his bigger faults. He thinks he can go it alone, even when he doesn’t know sh*t from shinola about what he’s doing. And then, when things backfire, he lies and lies until the cows come home and blames the problems on somebody else.
Who are you talking about? That seems to be a rather jaundiced opinion.
Middleman — “Treasonous action.” My God, what idiocy. Frankly, Middleman, I think you have no idea what you are talking about here. So, where were you? On the side of the Sandinistas and their Soviet backers so we could have a Cuban-style Marxist tyranny on the Central American mainland? Sounds like that must be your style, comrade? Vacationing in Venezuela this year? Don’t forget to bring toilet paper.
Reagan should have gone through proper channels. I don’t remember all the details but his actions certainly have had long term issues.
“Treasonous action.” Lord Almighty, the lame crap that comes out of the Left. I don’t even recall Ted Kennedy being accused of “treasonous action” when he was writing those secret letters to Andropov trying to undermine Reagan’s Soviet policy. Arrogant AH maybe. Traitor. Nah.
Anybody possibly consider that Obama really wants an agreement as opposed to a formal treaty because he knows that the final accords will likely not be able to pass the smell test with any of the other interested parties?
Cute, Blogmeister. Surely you recognized the book about your man Obama in all that.
I never read my man’s books. I keep hearing what he said in them…from Republicans.
I don’t regret voting for him either time and I do have some voting regrets…just not for him.
Extended a hand? As in what? Do as I want, and we’ll get along famously?
Obama has made many concessions to Republicans since he took office. In fact, he has made enough that it brought about the ire of his own party.
Vince Foster? How did he get in here?
Just another conspiracy theory I kept hearing during the Clinton years. It fit in so well with what I am hearing now.
don’t forget, I had lunch with a birther yesterday. Imagine my shock.
Day one after Obama was elected the first term – ‘We will do everything we can to make him a one term President’ – and who really expects the people who speak those words to then work with him?
The R’s have backed themselves into corners in order to disagree with Obama on every topic. They do not want an executive agreement in order to be able to claim that Obama did not get an agreement. What is their alternative? Crickets. The agenda of ignoring Iran is a failure, ignoring Cuba is a failure. Taking out Iraq allowed Iran to become stronger.
If we want to talk about Vince Foster we should also talk about Iran-Contra…..
You have brought up some excellent points, Pat.
I wish I remembered all the details of Iran-Contra. Crash course needed. My memory isn’t what it used to be.
Can anyone here tell me what the Agreement actually says? The answer is No.
Just watch this exchange with one of the letter signers – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca0L_gHrEiQ#action=share
@Moon-howler
My analysis (i.e. opinion) is that the push for an agreement with the Iranians derives more from economic rather than from security considerations. The Europeans do have some concern about Iran becoming a nuclear power, but their predominant focus is on ending the sanctions and allowing full resumption of robust trade. There is a lot of money to be made. So I think, if anything, Obama is pushing for a more restrictive agreement than the Europeans, and thus the other partners in the negotiation are not a check on him at all. That is what I mean about interests not coinciding.
The other issue is that we as Americans do not rely on the international community to act as a check and balance on our own executive branch. The checks and balances come from the other branches in OUR government. If I am correct about the economic motivations of the other partners (and we all know that many Europeans would trade their own mothers to make more money), then the only legal and practical oversight for this agreement would have to be exercised by Congress.
Everyone keeps mentioning that the Republicans automatically disagree with Obama does, and so he is justified in pursuing an executive agreement with the Iranians and using executive action to change immigration law. The level of disagreement may well be true, but that is an unacceptable justification used by tyrants worldwide. There are no exception clauses in the Constitution for dealing with a hostile Congress.
I think the main point is, executive agreements aren’t an anomaly. They are perfectly acceptable and happen far more frequently than actual treaties that have to be ratified by Congress.
I don’t disagree that Germany has a robust economy with Iran, or it has in the past. that should give everyone more incentive to start acting right. Europe is really screwed should something go wrong in the nuclear department. I would say your health and life should trump any monetary incentives.
I think the real issue here is the absolute gall and nerve of Congress to send that letter to Iran during negotiations. I am convinced Republicans would say or do anything to hurt Obama, even if it meant weakening our country in the eyes of the world.
@Ed Myers
Here’s the letter.
Please point out the “negotiations.”
@middleman
Point out the “treason.”
@Moon-howler
This was an open letter….it was not “sent” to the mullahs.
Please point out ANYTHING in this letter that contradicts the Constitutional powers and limits of Congress. Please point out ANYTHING in this letter that undermines our President, merely by pointing out the obvious.
You are all running on faux outrage.
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.
We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.
[Signed by the above senators. ]
@Cargosquid
How dare you bring the actual text of the letter into this discussion! You must be a racist!
I see you took your nonsense pill today.
“An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic Of Iran:”….
Nuff said. They DO have the internet in Iran….
@Pat.Herve
And the problem with this is…..
What part of the content in the letter was problematic?
Sorry, Blogmeister. That was meant to be something like “What’s the book on this guy.” Not his books.
Pat — I would posit that your first para represents the feeling and intentions in both parties when someone from the other side begins his first term in the Oval Office. That seems to be the way the cookie has crumbled since Nixon in 1968.
Just who brought the ghost of Vince Foster into this discussion??????
You can tell when Wolve gets caught in a load of B.S.- the name calling and claims of lack of knowledge come out.
B.S. #1: “The cap of this interference was the Boland Amendment banning US support for the Contras. Stupid, self-serving, impetuous, and underhanded Democrats throwing in with Marxist tyrants.” The Boland Amendment passed the House 411 to 0. Lots of self-serving, impetuous and underhanded Republicans in there…
B.S. #2: “Ortega was openly getting moral and monetary support from Cuba and the Soviets.” There’s no hard evidence that Ortega was getting support from Russia. On the other hand, the Contras were known to have tortured, kidnapped, raped, and killed women and children. Kind of like ISIS before ISIS. They were also known to be funding themselves by drug trafficking.
B.S. #3, and this is the big one: Somehow passing the Boland Amendment equates to the writing of the GOP letter. The Boland Amendment was a bi-partisan bill to deny funding to the Contras passed by congress that became law. The Reagan administration illegally set up a back-channel funding mechanism to continue to fund the raping, murdering Contras.
Your attempt to equate the Democratic effort to stop the Reagan Administration from funding torturing, rapist, killer drug dealers to a group of 47 GOP congresspersons trying to undermine a U.S. international agreement is ridiculous and the fact that you can’t see that is prime evidence of your partisan blindness. I don’t need to call you silly names, Wolve- the reality of the situation makes you look bad enough.
If this follows the pattern of past interactions, I don’t expect to see a reply from Wolve- after the name calling it’s usually change the subject time for our Wolvie.
@middleman
Listen up, Comrade. If you are going to debate, keep it honest. What was passed 411-0 was the Defense Appropriations Act with a revised version of the Boland Amendment, much watered down, included in that huge package.. It was passed and then signed by Reagan because he thought it was so narrowed down as to not preclude all US assistance to the Contras. Hence Iran-Contra. Do I have to repeat that for you?
From you a typically deceptive liberal half-answer. That amendment was still an effort to interfere directly in foreign policy, as were the Dem direct contacts with Ortega. When Kerry and Harkin came home carrying a so-called peace proposal from Ortega, Reagan was angry because he felt it was an underhanded attempt to put the kibosh on his support from the Contras.
And it remains that your classification of the Senate open letter to Iran as treasonous is liberal bullshit to the max.
Now, as to your statements about the Contras. Yes, some of them were not exactly upstanding citizens. But, as someone who was involved in shadow wars with Marxist terrorists aka “liberation” movements in South and Central America, I can assure you that they were way far from being angels in regard to either combat or drugs. So don’t you try to run out the usual lib claptrap of good guys and bad guys on me. I saw that nasty world. None of it is pretty. Especially when the Marxists were feeding their dirt into it. Welcome to Venezuela in 2015.
Wolve,
In the future, please make an effort to avoid redundant descriptors.
Thanks,
Your pal, Cato.
“There is no hard evidence that Ortega was getting support from Russia.”
Where do these libs come up with this stuff?!!!
US Department of State reported that, between 1980 and 1990, the USSR and its allies provided about 120,000 tons of military and military-related equipment to Ortega’s regime to the tune of circa $3.3 billion. A lot of it was used equipment more suitable for the Nicaraguan terrain. Lots of vehicles included.
2009 Oleg Nechiporenko, former Soviet military advisor to Nicaragua in 1984-1985: We sent our best intelligence agents into Nicaragua, along with $3 billion in military equipment.
2009 Yury Droydov, creator of the Special KGB Force “Vympel”: We deployed to Vietnam, Afghanistan, Laos, Angola, …………and Nicaragua.
Yeesh!
@Cato the Elder
Sorry about that, Cato. I just couldn’t resist it. Being in middleman’s “rabbit hole” just gets me all pissed off. It’s cramped down there
And do I disagree with everything Obama does? Nope. The Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) have grown increasingly concerned by events in Ukraine and by Putin’s continued remarks about Russian minorities in neighboring states. US Army armored units have now arrived in Latvia to bolster the NATO protective commitment and Baltic confidence…just in case. Good. Send more, Mr. President — if we still have them.
@Wolve
Heh….
I’ve personally talked with SEALs that conducted….. training….
out of El Salvador, intercepting infiltrators from Nicaragua. Funny…they were all using Soviet gear. Our guys were using German equipment, for training purposes. Those Germans….they make good stuff….
@Wolve
Ironic that just as the Air Force wants to mothball the A-10….again…… the Sovi…I mean, the Russians get uppity.
Wolve – There is a big difference in feelings and intentions of trying to win the game in the next election – and what was done after Obama was elected. The Republicans publicly stated that their number one job was to make Obama a one term President – and they have blocked all kinds of legislation and any progress on any and all issues – to the point of not even participating in the legislative process.
They are nearing their 100 days in charge of Congress – where is the ACA replacement (they have voted on repeal), where is immigration reform (to rid us of the executive orders), where is tax reform (to help home jobs). Just like the AUMF – Why don’t they want a time limit on it? Because they do not want to have to vote on it in three years and be accountable. They much prefer no time limit so that they can throw stones without being accountable – I think all AUMF’s should have a time limit of one year and let Congress voice their approval or disapproval every year. They are all crying do something about ISIS but they will not authorize any effort and are complaining that Obama is relying on previous AUMF to combat ISIS – VOTE. They want it both ways.
@Wolve
Now there you go again- more B.S. If the Boland Amendments (actually 3) were watered down and didn’t prevent arms sales to the terrorist Contras, why did the Reagan administration secretly fund them by selling arms to more terrorists in Iran? Why did Reagan apologize for it? If Boland didn’t prevent it, why didn’t Reagan fund the Contras with US funds? You can repeat it as many times as you like and it still won’t make sense.
@Wolve
So using your logic it was ok for the US to support the terrorist Contras because there were terrorist Marxist groups. I’m sure the families of those tortured and raped and killed would disagree.
Honestly, you’re the only person I’ve ever heard defend Reagan on Iran-Contra, and it’s pretty obvious why.
The definition of treason: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/treason?s=t
I think #2 pretty much covers what the GOP 47 letter accomplished. Should I repeat it for you, Wolve?
You really should have just tried to change the subject again this time, Wolve. When you’re gettin your butt kicked in a bar fight, sometimes you need to just stay down…
Really, middleman? You, admittedly like so many others these days, do not seem to know much about the real life nuances of this kind of thing — especially about the Cold War in the Third World or about Marxist terrorism. But still you zip right on by your own research errors and try to throw the usual lib accusations at a Cold War/Counter-terrorism veteran. Got some advice for you. Don’t try me on Amembassy Tehran in 1979 or on the Iran part of Iran-Contra.
You are going to convict 47 US Senators of treason for writing an open letter ? Based on an internet dictionary entry? I cannot recall anyone throwing such a term around like that even when liberal idol Ted Kennedy was contacting Soviet boss Andropov in secret (with John Tunney as the messenger) about negating the Soviet policy of the President of the United States. Will you then label the late “Lion of the Senate” as a traitor? Go ahead.
Juxtapositional soundbite alert.
What those 47 senators did was pretty bad and a national embarrassment.
I’m sorry…but the text is RIGHT THERE.
Again….point out the treason. Specifically.
@Pat.Herve
Pat — I see the points you are trying to make. But could it possibly be that the Republicans have blocked legislation because they believe it is wrong for the country — not just to “get” Obama? There is nothing in the Constitution that says that whatever the POTUS wants he must absolutely get. Because Obama was elected twice, do the rest of us have to toss our values and beliefs into the dumpster and follow him wherever he wants to go? If that is the case, we might as well move right on to strongman despotism.
Both sides have used legal legislative tools to fight back against a POTUS with whom they do not agree. I see nothing new here.
I agree with you about Republicans and the ACA. Also about border security and immigration, fiscal responsibility, military power, et al. I think the Republicans need tougher and smarter leadership to make a stand for their beliefs by going into a meaningful action posture — with appropriate compromises. At the same time, however, I think that the national landscape has become so murky that it is hard to know where to start. POTUS has rewritten the ACA so much on his own that, for the love of me, I couldn’t tell you how the program works at the moment even if I had the original legislation in front of me. And all those poor souls being told that they were led down the wrong path re ACA in filing their income taxes. It’s a madhouse. And my own premiums and deductibles have started to rise, even though I am not in ACA.
Please stop the deflections, middleman. Bar fight. My goodness. You ever see a real bar fight? As in being Shore Patrol or just a customer in old Olongapo?
Explain to all of us why you couldn’t find out something so easy as Soviet aid to the Sandinistas. Are you too young to remember Daniel Ortega’s official visit to Moscow where he announced that the Soviets had agreed to furnish most (80-90 % I think) of Nicaragua’s petroleum needs? Did you not remember, as Cargo so aptly remarked upon, the subsequent Sandinista attempt to infiltrate their Marxist ways into El Salvador? Better luck next time.
@Wolve
Wolve – it is one thing to disagree on a topic and it is another to not participate in legislating. The R’s have stopped participating. Just look at the recent DHS funding – they give it a stop gap measure, go out fund raising for a few weeks, come back with no plan, fund it for a week, then fund it till September. What was the plan exactly?
Saying No and not having a plan is not legislating. Letting us to get to a fiscal cliff because they go into negotiation with a firm No negotiating pledge is not legislating. Legislating is getting some of the pie – not the whole thing.
ACA – the R’s refused to participate – even though things like the individual mandate came out of places like the Heritage Foundation. Where is the alternative plan? They have had 6 years, one would think they would have released a plan already.
Insurance Premium – when did your insurance premium not go up? Mine has risen every year for as long as I can remember. I thought you were on Medicare (I could be wrong there).
Pat — No, not Medicare. And no really significant and disturbing raises until this year. Some of my kids, on private employer policies, are mad as hell about the sudden skyrocket of their premiums and deductibles. I’ve seen media warnings that we may be on the cusp of some very agonizing increases this year for many people who just cannot afford it.
I remember 2009-2010 and the big Tea Party protests and demonstrations. If any Repubs were offered actual participation in the ACA process and turned it down, I’ll wager it was because the deal involved just sitting in the corner and keeping their mouths shut or swearing silence and fealty to their liberal “betters.” Being told that we couldn’t know what was in the ACA bill until it was passed does not sound like there was any openness or offers of collaboration. And Prof. Gruber told us that the deal was to word the thing in a way that we, who allegedly fell off the proverbial turnip truck, wouldn’t catch the deceit. I don’t recall the offers for Repub participation. You have any specific names?
As far as that DHS funding goes, I, not being a legislative maven, can only guess that the Repub objective was to get their bill past the House and Senate and have it placed on Obama’s desk, making him either sign and accept a block of his unilateral immigration actions or veto it and accept responsibility for a DHS partial shutdown. In any case, make him come to the table. Like a chess game. The Dems blocked the Repubs by using the filibuster in the Senate, forcing the Repubs to go back to the drawing table. McConnell did not have the guts to beat the Senate Dems by invoking the so-called “nuclear option.” Boehner and McConnell panic and cave. Repubs lose the match and the confidence of a large part of their constituency. Pelosi and Reid prance around like cats who got the canary pretty easily.
If you were to take this same scenario and replace Repubs with Dems and McConnell with Reid, I have no doubt that Harry would have done anything to get the bill through, including the nuke option.
I say the Repubs lost for lack of guts and/or skill (or maybe because of covert influence from big money baggers out there who really want cheap labor, hmmmmmmm?) and the inability to get it across to the public that a DHS partial shutdown would not result in the counter-terrorist warriors sitting home.
@Wolve
Olongapo, heh.. Nothing like a good game of smiles.
@middleman
The last time I observed treachery in Congress was when senators and congressman proclaimed the Iraq war was lost and American soldiers were terrorizing Iraqis.
Unlike the secret, behind-the-scenes attempts to sabotage negotiations made by Kennedy, Biden and others, an open letter from a co-equal branch of government expressing opposition is not treason. It is raw, in-your-face dissent, which is usually considered to be patriotism (at least when it is done by Dems).
In addition, I gather that Wolve operated in Iran, Libya and other dark places during the late 70’s and 80’s. He must have been doing special ops before special ops was known to America. I am guessing he knows a lot more about key events than what actually made it into the history books. Maybe it’s just me, but I think this cold warrior is due a little respect.
I respect Wolve. I just don’t necessarily think that the people in the field have the best political analysis of any situation. He probably knows more about details and tactics than the average Joe. As for the politics…well, those things will always be debated.
@Cato the Elder
Heh…
@Pat.Herve
The GOP refused to participate because they knew it was a bad law.
Regardless of that….the Dems literally locked them out of any negotiations anyway. They didn’t need any GOP votes.
The DHS funding game was exactly as Wolve described.
Why is it that you support Obama’s illegal schemes instead of supporting Congress?
Exactly. Exactly like what they want to do with everything. All there efforts are to try and discredit Obama no matter what.
Even on things that they are ‘for’ they are against with Obama. Where is our Immigration Bill – any immigration bill? Where are any bills other than what is absolutely necessary?
Congress – they are a do nothing Congress. DHS funding in flux – they go home and fund raise. AUMF on the table – they go home. CR’s – they go home. They kick the can down the road more than any other entity and have created more self inflicted faux crisis’s than we know of.
@Pat.Herve
Riiiight…
The ACA is a bad bill. The DEMOCRATS refused ANY GOP participation, even physically locking them out of the room where some planning was occurring. The DEMS didn’t want to share credit. They were HAPPY to take the credit.
The GOP recognized that the ACA was crap. why SHOULD they assist with hurting America?
@Wolve
Well, it looks like I’m not going to get a response to my questions in post #104 and we’ve pretty much beat this to death already anyway, but I will address your issue with Soviet funding of Nicaragua.
Even if we assume you’re right about Soviet funding, it doesn’t change the fact that the Democrats (and Republicans) were right to pull back the funding of the terrorist Contras. And it was wrong for the Reagan Administration to illegally fund the Contras after that. And there is no comparison to be made between Democrats stopping funding of terrorists back then and Republicans trying to scuttle a presidential agreement that has the goal of preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and delivery system for at least ten years now.
I fully understand that we were competing for world domination with the Soviets in those years and the Reagan administration may have thought the end justified the means. That still doesn’t make what they did in that instance right, and it doesn’t make it right for either party to interfere directly with presidential negotiations with a foreign country, especially when nukes are at stake. Some folks just want war, and a guy like Tom Cotton, who is heavily influenced by the defense industry, is particularly suspect.
I don’t know you and you don’t know me, Wolve, and I give you the benefit of the doubt that you want the best for your country, as I do. That’s why I don’t call you names like you do with me, even though I might like to sometimes. And I take you at your word and respect and thank you for your service to our country whether or not we see eye to eye on much.
Oh, and I HAVE actually been in a few bar fights in my 60 years. Even lost some of them, and I’ve got the scars to prove it!
@Cargosquid
Regarding treason, the letter misrepresents the fact that 94% of the international agreements since 1939 have been executive agreements, and that there effectively really is no difference between a treaty and an executive agreement regarding enforceability or longevity. By insinuating that the executive agreement could be changed virtually at any time and diminishing it as a “mere” executive agreement (as 94% have been since 1939), they are clearly trying to undermine this negotiation by injecting doubt and division, which I consider “treachery” (definition #3).
Granted, this is one definition, and I have not read what the Constitution says about treason- I’m guessing that they never envisioned something like the GOP letter. And no, I wouldn’t attempt to prosecute the GOP 47 for treason, but I do think it’s close enough to that it’s at least arguable.
Middleman — If you go up to #38, you will find the origins of the personal mud slinging on this thread. That would be you and your reference to myself as being further down a rabbit hole than you thought. And I hadn’t even addressed a post to you.
I think I told you before in another thread that I tend not to respond on substance to posters who lack politesse. Usually I just smack ’em back and move on. An exemption was made on the last one because it was a Swiss cheese post full of informational holes and I just couldn’t resist it, as much as I tried. As for your #104, I will just let you research that history on your own. Time to move attention forward. ISIL may be losing Tikrit.
@middleman
None of what you stated is treason.
The letter is correct in content and in intent.
There is a great difference between an executive agreement and a treaty under law. ANY executive agreement can be nullified by a later President. Treaties, not so much.
Nothing in the letter undermines the President, and in fact, by forcing the Iranians to accept the fact that the Senate WILL be playing hardball, the Iranians cannot expect to have it all their way, even if Obama wants to give in.
Congress can also break their treaties. All you need is 51 (or maybe 60) idiots to break any deal or treaty. I bet I could go through there right now and find that number of people to make lots of reckless decisions.
Treason has a pretty high bar. I believe their behavior was little t treasonous.
@middleman
An executive agreement is legally non-binding, while a treaty is legally binding under international law. There are no legal requirements whatsoever for Iran to observe this agreement the instant it decides it is no longer in its national interest to do so.
Clinton created a similar agreement with N. Korea in 1994, which ended within a decade and failed to prevent N. Korea from exploding a nuclear bomb in 2006. An executive agreement with Iran is likely to produce a similar outcome. So the Senate’s demand for involvement this time is not unreasonable.
http://www.businessinsider.com/any-nuclear-deal-with-iran-is-going-to-have-this-one-huge-inherent-flaw-2015-3
The Clinton /N Korea agreement was bi lateral was it not?
The UN has the power to remove the sanctions now placed on Iran that are making mush of their economy.
@Cargosquid
even physically locking them out of the room where some planning was occurring
can you point me to any credible documentation on this?
with so many Republican and Conservative ideas in it, what is not to like?