U.S. Senate GOP throws USA under bus and aligns with Iran

Nails It

"If this were reversed and Democrats were doing this to a Republican president, Fox News and the conservative media would be losing their damn minds. So to the conservatives reading this, spare your bull***** about how this isn’t underhanded and corrupt. You damn well know you would be calling for sitting members of Congress to be arrested if this were happening to a Republican in the White House.

Hell, when the Dixie Chicks simply criticized President Bush, conservatives threw a massive hissy fit. And that was just a country music band expressing an opinion about a president with which they disagreed.

Could you imagine if several congressional leaders from the Democratic party were deliberately trying to sabotage the foreign policy of a Republican president? It is unconscionable how pathetic many conservatives can act. And no, I’m not going to mince words with any of this. The childish invite of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was bad enough, but this letter is a whole other issue. Because what this letter does is it effectively says to Iran that you shouldn’t even listen to this president, because Republicans are going to do whatever they can to undermine his authority.

If that’s not treason, then what is? How is it not betraying your country to actively and willfully carry out such actions as to not only try to sabotage a sitting president’s foreign policy, but to try to embarrass him on an international stage? This showing of disrespect goes beyond the typical partisan politics we see all the time between Democrats and Republicans – this is a blatant betrayal of the office of the President of the United States by members of our Congress."

 

If only the Indigenous North American Indians received such a letter.

 

I'm sure that's what they'll call it, then there will be a legal battle and the argument will be made that this deal is actually a treaty instead of just an ordinary executive agreement. That case would take about 5 seconds and once it was deemed to be a treaty it would go to the congress where it would die instantly further pushing apart Iran and the US.

 

Waiting for conservative/Republican BBS members to come in here and acknowledge that this is not OK.

There has to be some of you out there willing to say it.

 

What Obama is doing is far worse. Obama should not be going around congress on this issue.

 

I've said from the moment this broke that this is not okay. Negotiating a treaty with an enemy nation that has zero chance of ever going into effect only serves to fuel anti American propaganda. We all know that the president was told this in private long before anything came out and he chose to pursue this dangerous action anyway. I honestly think he's been watching too much House of Cards.

 

So regarding the "DonnyMost" post,

either you're unable to read properly or you're unable to comprehend properly.

 

Divided government works fine except during periods of polarization. Both parties have changed their positions since Clinton years. The Republcan party have undergone the larger shift in polarization because they have been able o more successfully gerrymander and because we had a Democrat president who their base despised before he even took office.

Given that you have been nothing but partisan, I'll just follow in your lead and assert that Obama does a fine job as president and is negotiating in good faith. He sincerely believes that a deal is necessary for the good of the American people. He acknowledges that Republicans are full of bluster because they are scared of having to take a vote on anything which they know that Americans as a whole agree with but that don't sit well with their base. He believes that if they are forced to take a vote they will cave or continue to be labeled as the party of War at a time when Americans are sick of conflict.

It is a mark of a true leader to do the right things not just because they are easy, but even when they are hard. It would be easy to just give in to Republican pandering to their base, but is not the right thing to do. He is negotiating in good faith and I hope Iran will too, because it's clear as day that his critics such as yourself and the Republicans are not.

 

That's pretty good spin, but

1. The congress was not more against Obama than Clinton...yet Clinton managed to work with them.

2. When you've been told that the deal you are pursuing is unacceptable to the people who have to approve it, yet you press on anyway, you are not negotiating in good faith.....even if you think it's a good deal.

3. A good leader knows their limitations. Obama is basically pulling a Custer when he should be focusing on areas where he and the congress could find common cause.

 

And how do you know that the treaty isn't going to be approved when the final details haven't even been released? Is it perhaps that Republicans in Congress have already said that they won't vote for it?

You're blaming Obama for something that hasn't happened on the basis of a Congress that is saying already ahead of time they won't support it. Which branch isn't working with the other branch when only one has said that they won't accept something that is still being negotiated with a third party.

 

1. A Republican Congress impeached Clinton. A Democratic Congress actually defeated Clinton's signature policy of health care. I like Bill Clinton but Obama has actually gotten more significant legislation passed than Clinton.

Anyway this is ignoring the fact that both Clinton and GW Bush always used executive action quite abit. You remember something called the Unitary Executive? That was when the previous Admin. basically said when it came to war and foreign policy the Executive branch could do what ever it wanted. I seem to recall many of those blasting Obama now for doing an end run on Congress defending the idea of the Unitary Executive 10 years ago.

 

All you need to know to put thumbs on ignore for gross stupidity:

 

By more "significant" legislation you mean Obamacare right? I was talking only about positive legislation.

 

Do you think Iran would agree to a treaty that prevents them form getting nuclear weapons? No? then wtf are you talking about? Pretty much any treaty this Iranian government would agree to is awful and should not be supported.

 

I don't like these "imagine the uproar if the roles were reversed" arguments. If a Democratic senate did this to a Republican president, then of course a bunch of Republicans would be frothing at the mouth. But then, a bunch of Democrats would doing the he-started-it counters. So what difference does it make if both sides are hypocrites?

 

They have other ways within their power to kill the deal and I'm sure if there is one, they will try as hard as they can. Legal battle on if it's actually a treaty or not isn't one of them. So much willful ignorance.

 

I could explain it to you....but given your posting history, I doubt it would do any good. Have a nice day.

 

The fact that one side HAS NEVER done this at least to this extent.

 

1. Congress is more against Obama than they were against Clinton because the parties are more polarized than ever. You can use google scholar yourself to find the studies, I'm not going to even bother leading you to water.

2. You pursue the deal when it is the best course of action for your country and when you know that the people railing against it will cave and toe the line or vote against and then end up losing out in the long run and therefore allow you to do what is best for the country.

3. A good leader knows when to push limitations and when to ignore naysayers who are acting in bad faith. When you have a crisis, when you are acting in the good of your country, and when a non-majority of Senators "say" that they are against something you plan on doing without even knowing full details of what it is, you go ahead and do it rather than worrying about appeasing a minority of individuals who wish to hurt our country and wish to force our beleaguered troops into another conflict.

 

I'm a conservative and I'm not OK with it.

But then I've been drifting further and further way from the Republican party the more they let the tea party wing influence their actions.

I will vote democrat against Ted Cruz when he is up for re-election. As for any other election, I am firmly entrenched in the undecided column and will explore every third party candidate that I can. I can't imagine voting for any of the GOP Presidential candidates outside of two.