Have you actually read the letter?

If the moderates among the American people stop voting for Republicans until they decide to compromise, along with the Democrats, to best govern the country, then the Republican behavior will change... rather quickly... and we can get back to working together.

My proposed solution is to vote against every incumbent every time until we get a group that gets the message

You 4 year olds who keep saying " it is all his fault!" against obvious evidence to the contrary annoy me. You are either stupid or you are lying....either way....

Let's start with the Patriot Act and Support for the Iraq war

In my opinion, there are some people in Congress who are reaching across the aisle to find solutions that are good for America. These people should not be punished for the obstructionism of others.

I am against collective punishment, even in government. The good should be rewarded (regardless of their party).

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

Giving the idiots a pass on this? nope.

I am not saying to give them a pass, I am saying that they did nothing criminal or treasonous.

I'm saying it is potentially worse than criminal or treasonous.

Seriously.

I must say, though, that I simply cannot believe they would write this.
We are are talking nuclear power in Iran.
Iran.
Iran!
Ir-*******-ran!

Demystifying decades of animosity with Iran
by Cesar Chelala

For several decades, relations between the United States and Iran and between Iran and the West have been shrouded in misconceptions and prejudices. Neither the U.S. nor the West has done anything to achieve a peaceful relationship with that country, and the current permanent state of distrust could lead to war at any moment.

Some basic facts need to be restated. The long-standing conflict can be traced largely to Aug. 19, 1953, when both the United Kingdom and the U.S. orchestrated a coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. The reason: Mossadegh was trying to audit the books of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), a British corporation, to change the terms of that company’s access to Iranian oil.

Following the refusal of AIOC to cooperate with the Iranian government, the Iranian parliament voted almost unanimously to nationalize AIOC and expel its representatives from Iran. The anti-government coup that ensued led to the formation of a military government under Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi.

That government allowed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to rule the country as an absolute and ruthless monarch. Sixty years after the coup, the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) finally admitted that it had been involved in both its planning and the execution of the coup that caused 300 to 800, mostly civilian, casualties.

That fateful coup was behind the anti-American sentiment not only in Iran but throughout the Middle East. I wonder how we in the U.S. would have reacted if China and Russia, for example, had plotted to overthrow a democratic American government, leaving a chaotic situation in its wake.

However, U.S. interference in Iranian affairs didn’t end there. In September 1980, Saddam Hussein started a war against Iran that would have devastating consequences for both countries. The war — the longest conventional war in the 20th century — was characterized by Iraq’s indiscriminate ballistic-missile attacks and extensive use of chemical weapons.

The war resulted in at least half a million and probably twice as many troops killed on both sides, and in at least half a million men who became permanently disabled.

The U.S. actively supported Saddam in his war efforts with billions of dollars in credits, advanced technology, weaponry, military intelligence and special ops training. Pentagon officials in Baghdad planned day-by-day bombing strikes for the Iraqi Air Force.

According to former U.S. Ambassador Peter W. Galbraith, Iraq used this data to target Iranian positions with chemical weapons. Despite the brutality of these attacks, Iran didn’t respond in kind.

In 1984, Iran presented a draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council condemning Saddam’s use of chemical weapons, based on the Geneva Protocol of 1925.

The U.S. instructed its delegate at the U.N. to lobby friendly representatives to support a motion to abstain on the vote on the use of chemical weapons by ⤢Iraq.Can we be surprised that Iranians harbor a deep resentment against the U.S.?

However, rather than following a policy of appeasement, U.S. Republican senators and some Democrats are intent on derailing an accord with Iran, contrary to the U.S.’ own political and economic interests in the region. And they have a faithful ally in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Where will these actions lead us?

Although U.S. President Barack Obama has said he will veto any new sanctions on Iran, there is the risk that by not reaching an agreement with Iran in the next few months, hardliners in both the U.S. and Israel will press for an attack on Iran. Such an outcome would spell disaster for the region and eventually for the whole world.

The U.S. should take advantage of the momentum created by the progress, slow as it is, in the negotiations and try to get Iran’s full cooperation on important problems such as Islamic State, Syria, Afghanistan and the Taliban.

Hossein Mousavian, a former spokesperson for Iran’s nuclear negotiation team recently noted that secret cooperation among Tehran,Washington and Moscow led to the destruction of chemical weapons in Syria.

Ron Dermer, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. recently said that, probably besides the people of Israel, the Iranian people are the most pro-American people in the region.

Iranians, frustrated by the continuous state of belligerence between Iran on one side and the U.S. and Israel on the other, are desperate for the normalization of relations, which would open up new economic and professional opportunities. The advantages of reaching an agreement are clear; so, regrettably, are the disadvantages of not reaching one.

Cesar Chelala, M.D. and Ph.D., is a winner of the Overseas Press Club of America award and a national journalism award from Argentina. He has written extensively on Iranian issues.

The Republican Party HAS become the American Taliban.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Criticism of 47 Republican senators' letter to Iranian leaders escalated Friday, and one of the lawmakers expressed misgivings about writing directly to an adversary to raise doubts about President Barack Obama's nuclear negotiations.

Several newspapers that had endorsed the senators' elections were harshly critical. A handful of conservative commentators and former GOP aides joined legions of liberals in calling the letter ill-advised.

Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who may face a tough re-election next year, defended the letter, but added, "If there was any regret, tactically, it probably would have been better just to have it be an open letter addressed to no one."

Another signer, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, expressed similar thoughts. The letter "could have been addressed to other folks and gotten the message out," Roberts said. "But I think the message is more important than who we send it to."

All but seven of the Senate's Republicans signed the letter, but no Democrats did. The letter warns Iran's leaders that any negotiated agreement on their nuclear program could expire when Obama leaves office.

Democrats and some academics say the letter undermines Obama's — and future presidents' — ability to set foreign policy.

Republicans defended the letter, saying they must take dramatic steps to demand a voice in negotiations, because they fear Obama will be too soft on Iran. Some of the 47 senators, however, are taking heat back home from editorial pages that have supported them.

In Ohio, the Cleveland Plain Dealer and Cincinnati Enquirer endorsed Sen. Rob Portman's 2010 campaign, but they berated him this week for signing the Iran letter.

"The magnitude of this disgraceful decision," a Plain Dealer editorial said, "shows the degree to which partisanship has gobbled up rationality on foreign policy."

The Cincinnati Enquirer's editorial said the letter "diminishes the dignity of the Senate by disparaging the president and presenting an amateur lesson on U.S. governance." It praised Portman in general, but said he erred because "now, facing re-election, he's nervous."

Portman, appearing in Columbus Friday, said the letter will strengthen Obama's hand in negotiations with Iran. But former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat hoping to unseat Portman next year, called the letter "disgraceful" in a fundraising letter.

In New Hampshire, The Telegraph of Nashua — which endorsed Sen. Kelly Ayotte in 2010 — chastised her for signing the letter.

"One wonders how loud and angry the Republican response would have been if a petty clan of Democratic senators had written an open letter to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev" during nuclear arms talks with Washington, the Telegraph editorial said.

In Illinois, the editorial page of the Peoria Journal Star, which endorsed Sen. Mark Kirk in 2010, said, "Our expectations were higher of Kirk."

The Salt Lake Tribune similarly criticized Utah's two senators — Republicans Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee — for signing the letter. The paper has endorsed Hatch's elections.

Some of the seven GOP senators who didn't sign the letter have gently questioned their colleagues' actions.

"I just didn't feel that it was appropriate or productive at this point," said Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said it's "more appropriate" to direct advice to the president than to leaders of adversarial nations.

Some former advisers to Republican presidents expressed similar views.

Michael Gerson — a Washington Post columnist who was chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush — said the letter's "true scandal" is the seemingly rushed way it was handled.

"It was signed by some members rushing off the Senate floor to catch airplanes," Gerson wrote. There was "no consultation with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who has studiously followed the nuclear talks (and who refused to sign)."

Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and an aide in both Bush administrations, said partisan overtures such as the GOP letter make the world more uncertain, dangerous and disorderly.

George Pataki, a former Republican governor of New York, said in an interview with ABC News' "Top Line": "Just imagine if, come 2017, there's a Republican president and a Democratic Congress. ... Would Republican senators want a Democratic Senate sending a letter to a country when the president is engaged in negotiations? I don't think so."

___

Let’s unpack this string of stupidity.

1. Kerry himself has said that what is being discussed with Iran is non-binding:

Secretary of State Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said “we are not negotiating a legally binding plan” with Iran in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday.

“With respect to the talks, we’ve been clear from the beginning. We’re not negotiating a ‘legally binding’ plan. We’re negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement. We don’t even have diplomatic relations with Iran right now. And the Senators’ letter erroneously asserts that this is a legally binding plan, it’s not” he stated.

If this is true, then it is difficult to see why Kerry cares. Senator Cotton’s letter only referred to legally binding agreements. There is no way a letter about requirements for Senate approval of binding agreements could interfere with the non-binding feel-good agreement being negotiated by Kerry.

2. Any senator or group of senators can write a letter to any head of state. They do it all the time.

3. The Constitution does not give the Executive an exclusive right to negotiate with foreign governments. The Constitution doesn’t even mention “non-binding” agreements. What the administration is doing is trying an end-run around the Constitution by negotiating an agreement that can never be approved.

4. Executive agreements can be changed. That Kerry would say this shows just how profoundly stupid the man is.

5.Senator Cotton never asserts that what Kerry is doing is legally binding. In fact, the letter makes just the opposite point:

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.

Kerry and the administration are reacting to this rather mundane letter in this way because Cotton has given away their game. Obama is dead set on giving Iran a nuclear weapon. He appears to be doing it because he has convinced himself that if he does this then Iran will become a major regional ally — I’m open, however, to believing he’s doing this from malice and stupidity. Cotton putting Iran on notice, in a public way, that Congress is not going to ratify anything Obama is negotiating and depriving Obama of a Potemkin treaty is what is driving them crazy.