The Jew made sense.

[HairOfTheDog]

The fact that 47 Republican Senators would be so short-sighted and unprofessional as to draft and sign such an ill-advised and condescending open letter to foreign leaders -- a letter which undermines the credibility of the majority of US international agreements and compromises the integrity of our P5+1 allies -- is almost unbelievable to me. A dangerous new low, IMO.

Anyway, Iran's Foreign Minister responded publicly to the letter, explaining a little about international law, the US Constitution, foreign negotiations and diplomacy to our Senate.

The Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif, responded that "in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.

Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.

Foreign Minister Zarif added that "I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.

He emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.

Zarif expressed the hope that his comments "may enrich the knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement at any time as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations.

He reminded the Senators that "their letter in fact undermines the credibility of thousands of such mere executive agreements that have been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments.

Full response: http://en.mfa.ir/index.aspx?siteid=3&fke...iew=330948

[Midwest Spy]

Maybe congress doesn't trust Obama, BBH and HotD? Maybe they don't believe he's negotiating in the best interests of America?

I've stated here recently that I'm not convinced as to where his convictions lie. That's a sad thing to think that of our President.

This is all about nuclear weapons and the Islamic Republic of Iran, not a treaty with Bolivia.

I'm okay with our Congress being vigilant.

[HairOfTheDog]

Oh shit -- never mind then.

I thought it was a treaty with Bolivia we were discussing.

Thanks for setting us straight, MS!

[Midwest Spy]

Oh shit -- never mind then.

I thought it was a treaty with Bolivia we were discussing.

Thanks for setting us straight, MS!

Hey, Butch & Sundance bought Bolivia would be a pushover too.

[blueberryhill]

The fact that 47 Republican Senators would be so short-sighted and unprofessional as to draft and sign such an ill-advised and condescending open letter to foreign leaders -- a letter which undermines the credibility of the majority of US international agreements and compromises the integrity of our P5+1 allies -- is almost unbelievable to me. A dangerous new low, IMO.

Anyway, Iran's Foreign Minister responded publicly to the letter, explaining a little about international law, the US Constitution, foreign negotiations and diplomacy to our Senate.

The Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif, responded that "in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.

Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.

Foreign Minister Zarif added that "I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.

He emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.

Zarif expressed the hope that his comments "may enrich the knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement at any time as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations.

He reminded the Senators that "their letter in fact undermines the credibility of thousands of such mere executive agreements that have been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments.

Full response: http://en.mfa.ir/index.aspx?siteid=3&fke...iew=330948

I hope these Senate members are feeling somewhat foolish by now. I know it is embarrassing to me as a citizen of the U.S. Displays how far down the totem pole we are. The underhanded games (and overhanded) which are being played by the GOP are getting tiresome. This is not only childish, but undermines the credibility, honesty, and reputation of our country but then, I am just repeating what the PM of Iran said above. Holy Shit......

[blueberryhill]

P.S. I think these Senate members should be legally removed from the Senate for violation of something....but there are people out there who will be unable to comprehend the damage this letter as done and will actually praise the Senate because they hate Mr. Obama so much. When does "reason" turn to "crazy?"

[blueberryhill]

Apparently, the GOP Senators may have violated the Logan Act which states that no one person or group of people can contact a foreign Gov't re policy, etc or anything which might interfere or conflict with the Executive office of the Gov't. Their is currently a petition going around to sign (haven't visited the web site yet) but purpose is to enact the Logan Act. I tried to provide a link for the Logan Act, but my stupid browser says I am not connected to the internet.

[HairOfTheDog]

Shhh, blueberry.

In about 4 or 5 days (or maybe years), it's gonna dawn on MS that the idiotic move orchestrated by the Senators who signed that open letter helped exactly one party immensely: the hard-liners in Iran's leadership structure.

You know, the hard-liners who oppose the moderate Iranian leaders who are negotiating with the P5+1 now; the hard-liners who want nuclear bombing capabilities in Iran ASAP to counter what they perceive as the major national security threat posed by Israel's massive unmonitored nuclear stockpile (or for less defense-oriented reasons).

I'm not a Democrat nor a Republican. I've voted almost equally for both parties for lack of alternatives. I don't love or hate Obama. And, I'm very rarely shocked. After today, I can't imagine voting Republican again as long as any of those who signed the letter are still in office. It's not treason -- we're not at war with Iran. Yet. But, it sure seems that's what they'd prefer over an Obama-negotiated deal (which would later require Congressional approval to become a binding treaty anyway); a deal which would slow down and subject Iran's nuclear development to international inspections for 10 years and leave a window of 1 year after its expiration before bombing capabilities could be realized.

The Senate could have let the President exercise his Executive authority for negotiating foreign policy and reviewed the deal, ultimately rejecting it if it was against America's interests. Or, if they believe their own claim that the agreement could be revoked with the "stroke of a pen" with the next administration, they could have worked their magic then. So, if the Senators' motivation was "vigilance" in regards to America's best interests instead of partisan spite, why write an open letter undermining the US President to the leaders of Iran?

I don't see how any rational American of any or no party affiliation can support this amateur narcissistic global showing of ass by a branch of the American government.

^ In my opinion.

P.s. I would have felt the same way if a bunch of Democratic Senators had sent such an open letter to Hussein in Iraq under the Bush administration -- and I strongly opposed what we did there.

[Duchess]

I'm okay with our Congress being vigilant.

That's not vigilant, that's fucking retarded. If you think they did that with your best interests in mind then you are retarded too.

[Duchess]

I'm trying to get my apathetic on.

Hey Cars, Congress is making a laughing stock out of America again.

[Duchess]

MS, retarded may have been too strong a word to use with you but just you, not Congress.

[Midwest Spy]

When HotD says things like 'Iran needs to counter Israel's massive unchecked nuclear arsenal', then I know exactly what I'm dealing with.

BTW, I've been watching too much House of Cards lately (as has much of congress I suspect) which leads me to supporting these latest congressional antics.

Sue me.

[Maggot]

Iran should just be left alone they only want nuclear power like everyone else dammit! They are trustworthy and are responsible enough to know what their doing. MS you will be much happier if you just agree with everything and spread love, love, love. soon we will have one world government and everyone will be happy. That is if the world lasts that long. soon the world will be so hot that matches and lighters will be obsolete. We really need to devote our time, energy and as much money as possible to the EPA they will know what to do with the funds.

[HairOfTheDog]

Yeah Maggot, whole lotta people in here just agree with everything we hear in hopes of being rained upon by cotton-candy clouds filled with love, love, love.

I don't agree with Mr. Netanyahu on this one, or you, or MS, or 47 Republican Senators, or a sizable portion of the Israeli and Iranian populations, etc... By default, that means I agree with those who disagree with you all on the same topics. And still, no love raining down on me.

I think your theory is seriously flawed.

Ive explained my positions. I'd like to understand your rationale for concluding that it would be strategically smarter to do nothing or to further penalize Iran than it is to work towards a tight highly-enforceable deal for at least the next decade to slow down Iran's nuclear development and subject it to international inspections, with a window of time built-in before a bomb could be ready if/when the agreement expired. Sure, we could continue to rely on Netanyahu to tell us about Iran's nuclear capacity and intentions, he's only been 20 years off the mark for 20 years now, after all.

And, if you think that open letter to Iran from the US Senate was an effective and appropriate move, I'd like to understand your reasoning there too.

You don't have to share any logic you might have to back up your strong feelings on the matters, of course. You could instead keep insisting that anyone who isn't wholly resistant to change and progress, and who supports diplomacy over war where possible, and who doesn't personally despise the President -- essentially anyone who disagrees with your take on the topics at hand -- is some kind of airheaded tree-hugging hippie. That's interesting too.

[Maggot]

I think that the President has done a wonderful job with foreign relations. People just do not understand his complex ideology. If they would just give him a chance to do what he wants to do and if they would just accept his goodwill and go by his guidelines they would find that his ideas are brilliant like the shinning star of the North. like the dazzling moon on a clear quiet night. How come these world leaders don't understand this? They are all wrong I tell you!!!

just look at the bad things they say!!!


He should be trusted with the Iranian negotiations without any interruptions. Congress should have no say at all on anything he decides. Who the hell are they anyways and why do we even need them?

[HairOfTheDog]

I was more interested in your thoughts, but thanks for the link anyway.

So, do you think the US Constitution needs to be amended to make Congressional approval of foreign agreements a requirement then, Maggot?

That would be a huge change in foreign policy protocol, that's for sure. Up until the mid 1800s, just over half of foreign agreements were in the form of Treaties negotiated by the Executive branch WITH Senate approval.

But, by 1990, the percentage of foreign agreements made via Executive Agreement WITHOUT Congressional approval had reached about 95%.

Executive Agreements without Congressional approval are far and away the rule, not the exception, in terms of foreign negotiations. That's been the case for decades, under dozens of US Presidents.

So, President Obama isn't violating the Constitution or breaking protocol by not seeking Congressional approval during his foreign negotiations with Iran and P5+1. There's not even a deal on the table yet, in any case. And, since sanctions approved by the Congress can't be lifted without the approval of the Congress, Congress will ultimately have a say when it comes to this particular foreign deal, if a deal is even reached.

[HairOfTheDog]

I hope these Senate members are feeling somewhat foolish by now.

The two signatures that surprised me most on that Senate letter to Iran were those of John McCain and Rand Paul.



^ John McCain has had such a long high-profile political career, is often consulted on matters of foreign policy, touts his time as a POW and patriotism often, was a 2008 Presidential Candidate...

So, no matter how much he opposes diplomacy with Iran, puts Israel on a pedestal, and disapproves of Obama/Dems, how could Senator McCain sign a letter drafted by a young freshman senator from Alabama (Cotton) whose key supporters are defense/military contractors (big shock, right?) -- a letter which smacks of constitutional and diplomatic ignorance and paints the United States as anything but united?

Here's what McCain had to say about it yesterday and today:
“It was kind of a very rapid process. Everybody was looking forward to getting out of town because of the snowstorm,” McCain said. “I think we probably should have had more discussion about it"... "I saw the letter, I saw that it looked reasonable to me and I signed it, that’s all. I sign lots of letters." Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/re...z3U8Jz2lw8

Yeah, pretty clear to me that McCain has regrets. Does he feel foolish? Well, the man did choose Sarah Palin as a running mate, so that may well be beyond his capacity.



^ Rand Paul is a potential 2016 GOP candidate. He too is very high-profile (as was his dad Ron) and is often front-and-center in the media on most political issues. Sometimes he irritates the hell outta me with his bulldog demeanor and I disagree with his take on certain issues. But, I really like and support some of his stances, like the bi-partisan marijuana bill that he co-sponsored and submitted this week. He was one of the few members of the GOP that I thought really had a reasonable understanding and rational mindset when it comes to balancing Israel's position, Iran's position, and Kerry/Obama/P5's negotiation goals.

Back in January, Paul disagreed openly with his potential presidential rivals, Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, over whether the Obama administration's diplomacy with Iran should be given a chance before further sanctions are put in place. Paul asked, “Are you ready to send ground troops into Iran? Are you ready to bomb them? Are you ready to send in 100,000 troops?” “I’m a big fan of trying to exert and trying the diplomatic option as long as we can. If it fails, I will vote to resume sanctions and I would vote to have new sanctions. But if you do it in the middle of negotiations, you’re ruining it.” <-- that was right-on, bi-partisan strategy, IMO.

WTF is Rand Paul's signature doing on that letter then? I honestly don't think Mr. Paul has an effin' clue himself. In attempting to explain it to Matt Lauer this morning, Rand Paul explained: "I'm kinda one of the Senators who's in favor of negotiations with Iran, I want there to be a peaceful outcome. But I want to strengthen the president's hand. I want to strengthen his hand by saying, you know what, we've got a lot of hardliners, and we're going to have to get this agreement by Congress and by doing so maybe the president will negotiate a more appropriate deal..."

Lauer then incredulously asked exactly what I was wondering: "You really think by signing that letter you STRENGTHEN the president's hand?" Paul continued to sputter out contradictory and incoherent sentences before the segment quickly ended. Source/interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muoAYm12504

So, does Paul feel foolish? I think he's smart enough that he must. But, even if he doesn't, he likely regrets signing that letter knowing that he lost some respect and credibility (and potential votes) from independents like me.


As for the other 45 Republican senators ^, none of them has admitted wrong-doing, but some of their aides have been answering to the blowback in the media -- claiming that the 47 senators meant the letter to be "cheeky" and that the Obama administration has no sense of humor when it comes to how weakly they have been handling the negotiations. <-- If that bullshit they're floating is senator-approved, those senators are either incredibly juvenile idiots or they think the American public is a bunch of morons -- maybe both.
Aide Source: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/...age-fiasco



So, what about ^ that Jew?...
The Congressional speech and the Iran letter don't appear to be helping Bibi Netanyahu at this point. He and his Likud party continue trailing in the polls -- with just 6 days til election. Source: http://www.timesofisrael.com/trailing-wi...le-defeat/

[blueberryhill]

I hope these Senate members are feeling somewhat foolish by now.

The two signatures that surprised me most on that Senate letter to Iran were those of John McCain and Rand Paul.



^ John McCain has had such a long high-profile political career, is often consulted on matters of foreign policy, touts his time as a POW and patriotism often, was a 2008 Presidential Candidate...

So, no matter how much he opposes diplomacy with Iran, puts Israel on a pedestal, and disapproves of Obama/Dems, how could Senator McCain sign a letter drafted by a young freshman senator from Alabama (Cotten) whose key supporters are defense/military contractors (big shock, right?) -- a letter which smacks of constitutional and diplomatic ignorance and paints the United States as anything but united?

Here's what McCain had to say about it yesterday and today:
“It was kind of a very rapid process. Everybody was looking forward to getting out of town because of the snowstorm,” McCain said. “I think we probably should have had more discussion about it"... "I saw the letter, I saw that it looked reasonable to me and I signed it, that’s all. I sign lots of letters." Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/re...z3U8Jz2lw8

Yeah, pretty clear to me that McCain has regrets. Does he feel foolish? Well, the man did choose Sarah Palin as a running mate, so that may well be beyond his capacity.



^ Rand Paul is a potential 2016 GOP candidate. He too is very high-profile (as was his dad Ron) and is often front-and-center in the media on most political issues. Sometimes he irritates the hell outta me with his bulldog demeanor and I disagree with his take on certain issues. But, I really like and support some of his stances, like the bi-partisan marijuana bill that he co-sponsored and submitted this week. He was one of the few members of the GOP that I thought really had a reasonable understanding and rational mindset when it comes to balancing Israel's position, Iran's position, and Kerry/Obama/P5's negotiation goals.

Back in January, Paul disagreed openly with his potential presidential rivals, Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, over whether the Obama administration's diplomacy with Iran should be given a chance before further sanctions are put in place. Paul asked, “Are you ready to send ground troops into Iran? Are you ready to bomb them? Are you ready to send in 100,000 troops?” “I’m a big fan of trying to exert and trying the diplomatic option as long as we can. If it fails, I will vote to resume sanctions and I would vote to have new sanctions. But if you do it in the middle of negotiations, you’re ruining it.” <-- that was right-on, bi-partisan strategy, IMO.

WTF is Rand Paul's signature doing on that letter then? I honestly don't think Mr. Paul has an effin' clue himself. In attempting to explain it to Matt Lauer this morning, Rand Paul explained: "I'm kinda one of the Senators who's in favor of negotiations with Iran, I want there to be a peaceful outcome. But I want to strengthen the president's hand. I want to strengthen his hand by saying, you know what, we've got a lot of hardliners, and we're going to have to get this agreement by Congress and by doing so maybe the president will negotiate a more appropriate deal..."

Lauer then incredulously asked exactly what I was wondering: "You really think by signing that letter you STRENGTHEN the president's hand?" Paul continued to sputter out contradictory and incoherent sentences before the segment quickly ended. Source/interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muoAYm12504

So, does Paul feel foolish? I think he's smart enough that he must. But, even if he doesn't, he likely regrets signing that letter knowing that he lost some respect and credibility (and potential votes) from independents like me.


As for the other 45 Republican senators ^, none of them has admitted wrong-doing, but some of their aides have been answering to the blowback in the media -- claiming that the 47 senators meant the letter to be "cheeky" and that the Obama administration has no sense of humor when it comes to how weakly they have been handling the negotiations. <-- If that bullshit they're floating is senator-approved, those senators are either incredibly juvenile idiots or they think the American public is a bunch of morons -- maybe both.
Aide Source: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/...age-fiasco



So, what about ^ that Jew?...
The Congressional speech and the Iran letter don't appear to be helping Bibi Netanyahu at this point. He and his Linkud party continue trailing in the polls -- with just 6 days til election. Source: http://www.timesofisrael.com/trailing-wi...le-defeat/

I appreciate your research on this. Very good read and so interesting to see exactly who signed letter and their very weak reasons for doing so...It is kinda like they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, and now are making childish excuses or not and good for Matt for asking the obvious question....."you really think this helped the President." duh..........I think it is a sad that we have such bozos representing us in Congress and presenting such a negative image of our Government to the entire World. Men who act more like quarreling children. Maybe it is time for a woman to be President......hmmmmmm......

[HairOfTheDog]

He Who Would be King

The March 17^th Israeli election is reportedly a closer contest than any other in Israeli politics.

The way that ruling-power is decided in Israel is interesting to me.

Israelis elect what is the equivalent of our Congress (the Legislative branch of the government, called the Knesset there) during a national election held every 4 years. Unlike in the US, there is not a separate election for Prime Minister, who will have the Executive authority over Israel.

Next, the President of Israel (head of state, largely a ceremonial position) invites the leader of the party which got the most votes/seats to form a coalition government which encompasses all of the parties which won votes/seats in the election. If that leader -- in this month's Israeli elections, it will either be Netanyahu for right-wing Likud or Zerhog for center/left-wing Zionist Union -- can't get the required support from the various parties in 30 days, the President can extend the deadline by two weeks or invite the runner-up to form a coalition government under the same parameters.


Zionist Union leads Likud in 12 March 15 voter polls

Like the US -- and as reflected in above chart -- there are parties on the right (mostly aligned with Netanyahu), parties on the left (mostly aligned with Herzog), and some smaller central or narrower parties whose leaders aren't in the running for the PM role. Those smaller parties, however, can play a key role in deciding who will lead the country and how, when an election is really close and the winning party's leader needs to drum up support in order to meet the coalition requirements to become Prime Minister.

If the election were held today, the Zionist Union wold defeat Likud, and Herzog would be invited to form a governmental coalition. If enough Likud members and other right-wing party members refused to cooperate and join his proposed coalition (staying loyal to only Netanyahu, at all costs), Bibi could be invited to try to form a coalition instead and ultimately maintain his position as Prime Minister.

Netanyahu's campaign has focused heavily on national security -- primarily in relation to preventing a nuclear attack by Iran and continuing to keep Gaza and the West Bank Palestinians confined under current occupational restrictions. He told Israelis that his speech at the US Congressional meeting was only to secure their safety, and not a campaigning effort. But, when his party started slipping in the polls again, his campaign ads switched to him in front of the US Congress (his party's projected seats haven't increased as a result).

Herzog's campaign has focused on improving the domestic economy, resuming negotiations with Palestine for a two-state or alternate solution, scaling back on globally-condemned settlement construction in the West Bank, and improving tense existing relationships with the US, Europe and other western allies. Some members of Likud have expressed a willingness to work with Herzog under a united coalition if his party wins the election.

It'll be very interesting to see the election results after Israelis go to the polls on Tuesday. If Netanyahu loses his Prime Minister role, it will have a significant impact on international relations across the region and for several countries, IMO.

[Midwest Spy]

BBH, I'm glad we all kind of respect each other around here, because I couldn't disagree more with you, HotD and Duchess on this issue.

To me, Obama has zero equity built up when it comes to foreign policy in his 6+ years in office.

I actually would not trust him if he was dealing with Bolivia right now.

I'm not a hater though. I don't blame/fault him for much of what other Republicans do when it comes to domestic issues. Congress has cooperated with him very little.