47 Senators signed an open letter to Iran

CW2 Joseph Evans — Tue, 10 Mar 2015 22:23:38 -0400

Two days ago, Senator Tom Cotton drafted a letter to the leaders of Iran, claiming that any deal struck with President Obama had a shelf life of only two years.
Do you think this was appropriate under the current situation, both domestically as well as internationally? Was there a better way to handle this?

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-09/republicans-warn-iran-and-obama-that-deal-won-t-last

RepublicansWarn Iran-- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last

47 Republican senators have written anopen letterto Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign won’t last after Obama leaves office.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2015 1:07 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:07:33 -0400

at least 47 republicans care about this country.and our nation security about damn time

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2015 4:45 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 04:45:16 -0400

So much for the "United" States of America...

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Mar 11 at 2015 5:19 AM

SGT Jim Z. — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 05:19:01 -0400

Although their tactics were flawed the United State Constitution Article II Section II clearly states:
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors...

So they are correct in that they can kill any agreement made by the President. Once again this is another blatant example of the current administration's disregard for the United States Constitution.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2015 5:21 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 05:21:36 -0400

Does this POTUS ever consult congress on anything? Any deal the president makes with Iran needs to be ratified by the senate.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2015 6:07 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 06:07:04 -0400

Eh....

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2015 6:11 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 06:11:51 -0400

eh...

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2015 6:34 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 06:34:21 -0400

The president is NOT a dictator and Congressional approval is not an option but mandated. All these wins he is compiling are in the face of Congress and Republicans are merely political grandstanding and arrogant as all get-out. Then media that is corrupt. Williams, Glass, etc.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Mar 11 at 2015 7:02 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 07:02:01 -0400

This entire episode would not be happening had the President stated he was going alone and had the authority to negotiate a treaty with a foreign power and bypass the Senate. His spokesman even said that Congressional approval was a hurdle they did not want to clear. I think he said they did not have the time.

Had the President said I am negotiating this deal and will bring the treaty before the Senate for the Constitutional vote required at the appropriate time none of this would be happening.

This "going it alone" with a phone and a pen strategy is creating the disunity. All of us should be highly concerned when any president tries to sieze this much authority and power. Our oath is to the US Constitution, not the president.

This is basic root cause resolution. The Senators are only acting because of the threat of the president not to get the required vote on a treaty with a foreign government and this could be a very bad deal that gives Iran a path to a nuclear weapon.

Unfortunately, this is justified. I wish it was not necessary but we have a president that has little regard for the oath he took.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2015 7:59 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 07:59:29 -0400

Just more politicking.

Democrat dominated Congresses have done the same under Republican Presidents so it's nothing new. Though it's still shameful to see the need to public deface the leader and showboat. But I'm not mad about it because it's the sort of thing one expects from Congress.

If pro is the opposite of con . . . you know the rest.

Response by MSG David Chappell made Mar 11 at 2015 8:26 AM

MSG David Chappell — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:26:33 -0400

Jimmy carter after he left office undermined the president by negotiating with a hostile country. Nancy pelosi has done the same but now it's an issue?

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Mar 11 at 2015 10:38 AM

LTC Paul Labrador — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:38:50 -0400

Havind political and policy disagreements are OK, and can even be healthy......BUT we should keep that stuff in house. When we deal with foreign nations, we need to provide a singular message, regardless of the divisions and arguements we have internally. The POTUS is head of state and it's HIS job to deal with foreign powers through the State Dept, NOT the Congress's. Congress's job is to ratify/approve treaties that the POTUS makes with foreign nations, and the POTUS needs to understand that any deals he strikes is by no means a done deal until Congress agrees. Both sides need to work together to get thet treaties that benefits the country and can be palatable for all sides.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Mar 11 at 2015 10:44 AM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:44:18 -0400

I'm not saying either way that what they did either way was right or wrong, but we do see a history of this being done on both sides. The hypocrisy is real and shows why neither party should be voted for anymore. Extracted from an article elsewhere that gives seven instances of the Democrat Party doing similar to the above during a Republican President's time in office. I assume the Republican Congress members whined and complained then as well.

Senators John Sparkman (D-AL) and George McGovern (D-SD). The two Senators visited Cuba and met with government actors there in 1975. They said that they did not act on behalf of the United States, so the State Department ignored their activity.

Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA). In 1983, Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy. According to a memo finally released in 1991 from head of the KGB Victor Chebrikov to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov:

On 9-10 May of this year, Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

What was the message? That Teddy would help stifle Reagan’s anti-Soviet foreign policy if the Soviets would help Teddy run against Reagan in 1984. Kennedy offered to visit Moscow to “arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Then he said that he would set up interviews with Andropov in the United States. “Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews…Like other rational people, [Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations,” the letter explained. The memo concluded:

Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.

House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX). In 1984, 10 Democrats sent a letter to Daniel Ortega Saavedra, the head of the military dictatorship in Nicaragua, praising Saavedra for “taking steps to open up the political process in your country.” House Speaker Jim Wright signed the letter.

In 1987, Wright worked out a deal to bring Ortega to the United States to visit with lawmakers. As The New York Times reported:

There were times when the White House seemed left out of the peace process, uninformed, irritated. ”We don’t have any idea what’s going on,” an Administration official said Thursday. And there was a bizarre atmosphere to the motion and commotion: the leftist Mr. Ortega, one of President Reagan’s arch enemies, heads a Government that the Administration has been trying to overthrow by helping to finance a war that has killed thousands of Nicaraguans on both sides. Yet he was freely moving around Washington, visiting Mr. Wright in his Capitol Hill office, arguing his case in Congress and at heavily covered televised news conferences. He criticized President Reagan; he recalled that the United States, whose troops intervened in Nicaragua several times between 1909 and 1933, had supported the Somoza family dictatorship which lasted for 43 years until the Sandinistas overthrew it in 1979.

Ortega then sat next to Wright as he presented a “detailed cease-fire proposal.” The New York Times said, “Mr. Ortega seemed delighted to turn to Mr. Wright.”

Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn’t alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators “brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels…That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow.” Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government:

We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It’s beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them [the Sandinistas], they want to throw them out, they don’t want to talk to them.

Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein’s regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party’s later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, “the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war.” McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime “due process” and “take the Iraqis on their face value.” Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government:

The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we–the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that’s what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern–that and looking at the humanitarian situation.

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News’ Chris Wallace, “I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.” That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two “discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel.” Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, ‘There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy – even if it’s being led by the opposition.”

Response by MSG David Chappell made Mar 11 at 2015 12:18 PM

MSG David Chappell — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 12:18:47 -0400

The true question is can Iran be trusted to honor its agreement. You must remember that ISLAM does not allow muslims to agree to terms of subversion with infidels. In short muslims are required to convert or kill the nonr believers or impose a tax against them. The caliphate is to be established and islamthe only religon allowed for the workd. All aspects of ISLAM not just approve of but demand taqiyya, lying or deceit of the infidel to conceal ISLAMs true intent. With this in mind can we trust Iran to honor a deal with us?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2015 3:31 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:31:33 -0400

Separate but equal branches. Traditionally it is up the executive branch to conduct diplomacy. On the other hand the executive branch traditionally works with congress to make laws not make them unilaterally.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2015 4:14 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 16:14:25 -0400

When the suitcase nuke goes off in one of our cities, can "We The People" arrest the idiot who allowed the deal to go through? These dealings with the Persian Empire (Iran) have some history repeating issues associated with it I think? Did we not learn anything from 1979?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 11 at 2015 4:52 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 16:52:59 -0400

I'm going with a violation of the Logan act. Three years in prison.
But to be fair we have to go back and get pelosi for her trip to syria under the Bush administration

Response by SGT Tyler G. made Mar 11 at 2015 10:06 PM

SGT Tyler G. — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 22:06:00 -0400

It is both counter-productive to the ultimate goals of not allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons, and restoring peaceful relations with Iran. On top of this inviting a foreign head of state and the letter are both extremely poor form, though I don't think they are actually illegal. I will say that them trying to drag us into an unnecessary war is absolutely abhorrent, and that they should all be condemned for their actions. Especially when this is the first somewhat promising opportunity for peace in decades after they deposed the Shah we installed.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Mar 12 at 2015 2:06 AM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 02:06:11 -0400

I am not a lawyer or Constitutionalist, but I would say this, along with Boehner inviting Netanyahu to speak border on treason. Certainly greatly overstepping the bounds of the Legislative branch...

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2015 12:05 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:05:45 -0400

I personally believe this contact by Sen. Cotton and his colleagues is a Constitutional violation as POTUS is our countries' sole POC and face of our foreign policy. It crosses a huge line. Regardless of how you feel about our POTUS, as a member of our Armed Forces, I am disappointed by the utter lack of respect for his office and his position as our Comander in Chief. It is a devisive trend in this Congress and this Nation. The article in this link gives much detail about what kind of precident this action takes. http://www.vox.com/2015/3/12/8191209/tom-cotton-treason-logan-act-iran-letter

No, Tom Cotton did not commit treason

But did he violate the Logan Act, or even possibly the Constitution?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 12 at 2015 7:03 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 19:03:27 -0400

A good example why I have taken a severe withdrawal from watching politics. The two sides of the aisle have become so extreme in their division that I think they are polarized to vehemently support anything opposing the other party. That being said, I am glad that someone is discouraging the evolving stance on Iran. We drew, now violated, red lines years ago of what we would accept. You don't need above 5-7% enrichment of uranium for a peaceful nuclear energy program. So why would the IAEA continuously find 28%+ enrichment levels at their nuclear facilities. It's not weapons-grade yet, but I believe it's clear that it's heading towards that direction. If it weren't for Stuxnet they may have had enriched uranium above 60-70% now.

Response by CW5 Jim Steddum made Mar 12 at 2015 8:48 PM

CW5 Jim Steddum — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:48:32 -0400

Iran offers to be the peacemaker between Republicans and President Obama:

(yes, I know it is satire).

Iran Offers to Mediate Talks Between Republicans and Obama - The New Yorker

Stating that “their continuing hostilities are a threat to world peace,” Iran offered to host talks between congressional Republicans and President Obama.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Mar 12 at 2015 10:36 PM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 22:36:04 -0400

I think Congress was making a point to Obummer that any deals he makes have to be approved by Congress before it becomes law. Right now Obummer is running ramped with power and thinks he is above the Constitution.

Response by CPO Emmett (Bud) Carpenter made Mar 13 at 2015 1:29 AM

CPO Emmett (Bud) Carpenter — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:29:28 -0400

The congress voted for and the POTUS signed into law the sanctions. How can the POTUS override this on his own? If he did an end run around congress would any such deal carry any legal weight?

Response by CPO David Rocke made Mar 13 at 2015 4:51 AM

CPO David Rocke — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 04:51:18 -0400

Sen. Cotton knows what the next POUTS will decide in two years?

A lot of things can change in two years and the decisions that are delayed today, for reasons unknown to the public, may have reason to be delayed.

47 Senators is also not a majority of the Senate.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Mar 13 at 2015 7:43 AM

SSG Gerhard S. — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 07:43:53 -0400

What's the point of signing a non-binding "executive agreement" between the two leaders, particularly when the leadership of Iran has proven itself a sponsor of terrorism, AND has declared the destruction if Israel, all the while supplying insurgents with high end explosive devices to kill American soldiers in Iraq.

That being said, I think the letter would have been more effective had it been released as an "open" letter published in a few major newspapers. The message would have gotten to the Iranian Leaders. The Senators could have then avoided the criticism associated with the perception of getting involved in foreign affairs. (An action many on the other side of the aisle have engaged in regularly under Republican Presidents.)

It is also important to note that were this an official binding "agreement", it would be known as a Treaty, and would then require a 2/3 approval of the Senate, AND, should it cost any money to enforce the treaty, OR the agreement, the House of Representatives is the body that would have to approve the spending.

What's missing in all this is the idea that the Congress is a Co-equal branch of government, that was consciously and deliberately put in place to act as a check, and a balance to the powers of the Executive. A concept our President seems to want to ignore on an ever more regular basis.

Response by SFC Walt Littleton made Mar 13 at 2015 9:13 AM

SFC Walt Littleton — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 09:13:31 -0400

Our laws have checks and balances for a reason and that is each branch of government in check. If POTUS acts without Congress he has violated the law. Does that make it alright for them to write a letter? We can debate that for years and never get a straight answer.

Bottom line is POTUS should have brought the Plan to Congress for approval. POTUS is operating outside the Law and therefore has been illegally signing with his pen laws that have not even been brought forward for review before implementing them. That makes him a dictator and therefore treasonist.

With POTUS's FAILURES over the last years of his term he is desperate to push through his plan with Iran to get a WIN! Do you know what POTUS has in this plan? Is Itan going to get Nuclear capabilities? No one knows and there lies the problem.

So by sending the letter to inform Iran that the proposed plan the POTUS is laying out doesn't mean that it will be adhered to in the future.

Never allow a politician to operate without scrutiny. I don't care if it is Republican or Democrat or whatever.

Before you climb all over this, I voted for POTUS! I'm also very disappointed in his lack of Leadership, Patriotism and his Moral guidance.

Stop the Madness! Reach ACCROSS the isles and get the train back on track.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Mar 13 at 2015 11:20 AM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:20:10 -0400

Those who excuse their actions should be willing to do the same if it is applied to a future Republican President.

Response by Sgt Mark Ramos made Mar 13 at 2015 11:35 AM

Sgt Mark Ramos — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 11:35:06 -0400

Whether pro or con, President Obama brings out strong feelings and opinions with almost every speech or action. So I guess we can credit him for raising the passion for politics in the USA. But, along with that passion, people tend to get a little crazy, on both sides. Calling the signatories to Senator Cotton's open letter to the Islamic Republic of Iran treasonous is a bit of a stretch. Senator Cotton didn't go to Iran, didn't call up Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and didn't drop a letter to be delivered to someone's secretary. He posted an open letter.

Senators don't give up their First Amendment rights when they take office, and they aren't in the military chain of command thereby abrogating their right to criticize the president. The USA has a long and rich history of congressmen and senators disagreeing with the president. Senator Cotton was well within his right to post his feelings about being left out of the agreement process and possible results of that exclusion. During Secretary Kerry's testimony to Congress the other day he claimed that the letter would undermine faith in the trustworthiness of the US. Then he went on to claim that the agreement was not a legal document and is non-binding. In other words we wouldn't have to wait for a new president as Senator Cotton claims, we could change it at any time. What a statesman!

The alternative to the agreement is not a US war with Iran, as many claim. We are already in a state of war with Iran. It's just a "soft war". They are speaking of an invasion type of war. The USA and Israel already admitted to sabotaging a centrifuge facility and it didn't result in a direct war. Israel recently killed some Iranian generals in Syria and bombed a reactor, no invasion ensued. We can continue with sanctions and destroy specific targets to keep Iran from developing a bomb. We can use that time for a propaganda campaign to re-kindle and strengthen a moderate, secular change in government.

I don't think Senator Cotton’s letter was effective. It was similar to repeatedly putting an opponent in check without the pieces or strategy for mate, it can be fun for a rookie, but annoying to an experienced player. But it wasn't illegal or unprecedented. I really can't fault him. He was a captain in the Army and went to Airborne and Ranger School. So he will take action when faced with a situation that he deems as dangerous to the country. But, he lacks the experience to choose the most effective action.

Response by Capt Whitney Davis made Mar 13 at 2015 12:00 PM

Capt Whitney Davis — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:00:37 -0400

It would be a stretch to prosecute these Congress people under the Logan Act. They simply published an open letter addressed to a head of state laying out the limitations of an executive agreement between two heads of state.

That said, the letter was not a great idea. Firstly, their point (that a Republican president will simply cancel the agreement) is possible but very unlikely. It is rather difficult, politically and as a matter of foreign policy to simply back out of an international agreement. Should these negotiations bear fruit and lead to an agreement it will have been in place for nearly 2 years when the Republicans take office (assuming they win the next presidential election). Backing out on it would mean abandoning a deal that multiple parties have agreed to and will harm the perceived integrity of our country. President Obama is aware of this, and it is why he (I imagine) feels comfortably doing things this way. I'm sure he is just as aware of the limitations of executive agreements verse treaties as Sen Cotton is.

Additionally, it is important that, should this deal fall through, it not appear that the US scuttled negotiations. This is important because, if we cannot come to an agreement, we will want to maintain tight sanctions on Iran. The rest of the world is not necessarily behind that. If Iran backs out of the negotiations we will be in a strong position to return to full sanctions. If we back out of the negotiations we will not be, and sanctions will likely be lightened with no agreements from Iran to limit nuclear capabilities.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 13 at 2015 12:19 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:19:38 -0400

As we are not at war with Iran it foes not rise to the level of a criminal offense.

As the republican house has found out over the past six years, just because you don't agree with something does not make it a crime. (Fast and Furious/Benghazi/Immigration)

The difference between treaties and executive agreements is pretty significant. However the central issue here is not our relationship with Iran but the relationship with Russia, China, UK, France and Germany. We are participating in a process with them and if we do not hold up our end it ill have long term repercussions.

The GOP has recently managed to out do the Far Far Left Progressives in attempting symbolic acts to appease their base. This is sorta like the students voting to remove the national colors from the student government building. Not the best way to get your point across.

However, the other option if we do not come to some kind of agreement is pretty serious for those of us with 'SM' after their name on this site. If we are unwilling to negotiate and unable to tolerate a nuclear Iran then we will have to take and hold the processing sites long enough to do enough damage that they are better abandoned than rebuilt.

This does not mean 75th Ranger holds the ground for eight hours, more like a multi-division plus massive air strike mission. Iran may be a second or third rate military but they are numerous, and have short supply lines.

My difficulty is that the GOP seems to have adopted an ideology that is against the president rather than found on independent principles. It makes it difficult to agree with them when I know that as soon as the president leaves office or changes his views so will they.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Mar 13 at 2015 2:46 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:46:55 -0400

I think people are confusing their hatred for the POTUS with wise foreign policy and Constitutional law. In 2 years, Obama will be gone, but the effects of this letter will be around for years to come and that effect is not a positive one. The Senate GOP overstepped the Constitutional bounds of its role in foreign policy while simultaneously announcing to the world that they can nullify HUNDREDS and THOUSANDS of international agreements going back to the founding fathers we are part of on a whim.

Not every international agreement is a treaty and treaties are the ONLY place the Senate has Constitutional authority with regards to foreign relations.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 13 at 2015 10:15 PM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 22:15:44 -0400

Usual nonsense from both sides. Pelosi flew to Syria and opened talks subversive to the Bush Administration's negotiations with that country and old Ted Kennedy actively tried to sabotage Reagan's nuclear talks with the USSR. It's stupid, but nothing new.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 13 at 2015 10:21 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 22:21:08 -0400

All these stupid senators did was just tell our enemies that our so called leaders are not United. We keep our disagreements here at home not out in the streets. SMH.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 13 at 2015 11:26 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 23:26:05 -0400

Blatant disrespect!!! The Senate's job is to ratify not to negotiate. They destroyed whatever "progress" that has been made in these talks

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Mar 14 at 2015 12:54 AM

Maj Mike Sciales — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 00:54:20 -0400

The US Congress enjoys a 9% approval rating for a reason. They can't do the jobs they were elected to do. Because they can't function as a team, they look to make others less efficient, so they threw a turd in the punchbowl with this moronic letter. All they did was give away intel to the Iranians. They sent a very clear signal that the Iranians can play rope-a-dope for two years while they continue to work on their capabilities. I don't know if it rises to treason, but maybe some prosecutor ought to have a look at it. I do know it is contemptible. The two Senators from Idaho signed and I think they are ill-advised. They do not have enough integrity to admit their mistake. None of the others will either.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 14 at 2015 4:18 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 04:18:16 -0400

Ill put my 2 cents in the jar..while many will see this as a form of mutiny, bordering on treason, I see it as solidarity, a small group of Senators have banded together as leaders letting the leaders of Iran know that while this current POTUS may be striking deals...they will be short lived. They can rival in the deal-making, short-term...this mirrors our policy on not bargaining with criminals, not paying ransom, nor making deals with terrorists...As I see it, Iran (and Syria) are the HQ of terrorist training camps. While we may never see eye-to-eye with their leaders -- I ask, it is fair that only 3rd world countries have Nukes? My American citizenship, my military ID, and my genuine love for country tells me we should do everything to keep any additional countries from getting their fingers on nukes...while nuclear energy is efficient, just look at what's happening in Japan, and what they are dealing with, which is quickly become the world's problem...we are not ready for Nuclear energy. I lost a great friend and doctor (to cancer) after he served 20 years in the Nuke field as a USN Officer. We are playing with Pandoras box...we have met the enemy, and it us. We are our own greatest enemies, I never understood that as a young man....boy is it making sense with age. I don't associate this letter with treason at all. Though, I have to ask myself, if Obama was a Republican and the 47 Senators were Democrats, how would I feel...I cannot say I would be feeling the same way.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 14 at 2015 9:48 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 09:48:12 -0400

The problem is is that legally congressional approval is only required on a treaty - not an executive agreements. Fine line but there's a difference. We've had exec agreements since the founding.

The statute that would make what the senators did treason comes from the alien and sedition act that were passed under john Adams. This statute is commonly acknowledged as unconstitutional and has never been enforced.

What they did was bad form, but not illegal.

Response by SSgt Thomas A Tullis Jr made Mar 14 at 2015 10:07 AM

SSgt Thomas A Tullis Jr — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 10:07:31 -0400

These men and women, who are elected to represent the People, aren't being professional. The fact they corresponded without proper permission isn't excusable. Unfortunately they are following the lead of our elected "president". He has, on many occasions, excluded Congress when dealing with countries and the PEOPLE. Charging the authors of this letter with anything SHOULD result in CHARGING the "president".

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 14 at 2015 11:46 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 11:46:04 -0400

Regardless of their "personal" feelings towards Pres. Obama, that was the wrong answer. As a team, we should ALWAYS present a united front. As Soldiers, if we had done something as unprofessional as this, we'd face some type of reprimand. Not understanding why Congress gets away with so much.

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Mar 14 at 2015 4:15 PM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 16:15:41 -0400

Food for thought . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/war-with-iran-is-probably-our-best-option/2015/03/13/fb112eb0-c725-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html?hpid=z5

War with Iran is probably our best option

It may be the only way to block Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.

Response by SSG Stephen Arnold made Mar 14 at 2015 4:40 PM

SSG Stephen Arnold — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 16:40:00 -0400

Frankly, I am appalled at the number of people who swore to uphold the Constitution who clearly do not understand it, both in the military and in public office.

Article II, Section 2 (Clause 2) should be reviewed by all who are considering this question.

The senators may not have used good form, but they clearly DID NOT exceed their Constitutional authority.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 14 at 2015 4:52 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 16:52:30 -0400

Never seen one party do so much to undermine a sitting President

Response by Sgt Jay Jones made Mar 14 at 2015 8:53 PM

Sgt Jay Jones — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 20:53:35 -0400

Clear violation of the Logan Act.

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made Mar 15 at 2015 8:46 AM

MAJ Matthew Arnold — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 08:46:22 -0400

Can we all just follow the US constitution. Executive branch, execute. Legislative branch, legislate. Judicial branch, adjudicate. I can only hope and pray that every official gets back in his/her own lane.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 15 at 2015 3:40 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 15:40:55 -0400

Absolutely justified. This administration has ignored congressional authority since January 20, 2009.

Response by SGT Rik Thibodeau made Mar 17 at 2015 9:59 AM

SGT Rik Thibodeau — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 09:59:17 -0400

It's definitely poor form but it's also hypocrisy for the president to complain since he basically did the same thing to the previous administration.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/03/11/senator-obamas-2008-message-to-iran-undermine-condemnation-of-gop-letter/

Politics as usual...

Senator Obama's 2008 Message to Iran Undermines Condemnation of GOP Letter - Breitbart

Just like the short-lived television program “Kids Say the Darndest Things,” so too does Vice President Joe Biden.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Mar 17 at 2015 10:04 AM

COL Charles Williams — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:04:31 -0400

Obviously I am tainted, but, drastic times call for drastic measures. The President (if you can believe any media source) appears to always be asleep at the wheel, absent, and/or refuses to the leader we need. While I have always tried to give him (the position) the benefit of the doubt, I believe his modi operandi when he took office, was not the best interests of this country. I now believe he could be a wolf in sheep's clothing, and more aligned with our enemies than the US.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 17 at 2015 10:15 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 22:15:14 -0400

Are we tracking that President Obama is a "constitutional" lawyer by trade? He has also used the "least" executive order when compared to the last TWENTY ONE presidents, democrats and republicans alike.