Obama supporters, riddle me this...

That is not really an easy thing to do and is the same as dropping it yourself. I think essentially all the fear about Iran getting a bomb is just more American hyperbole about nothing. We love having boogiemen, even if we have to invent them.

 

No it's not. Death to Israel is nothing more than bluster so the government can exploit the common enemy narrative to stay in power. And at the end of the day that's what all leaders really want. Given that, why would they drop a nuke on Israel when it will certainly result in having one dropped on Iran?

I cannot even pretend this is a serious concern,

They can use it for both. What they won't use it for is actually, well, using it. Like North Korea. Basically, having the bomb means that the world's leading bully and invader, the US, will leave you alone (at least militarily).

 

Your ignorance again doesn't mean it didn't happen. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...xecutive-agreements-and-senate-disagreements/

Not sure any exist.

Nonsense of course......do you remember a President arming Iran? Bet you could figure out who if you ask someone nicely.

 

I believe that Iran is wanting the bomb for its strategic importance and that the Iranian leadership are not dumb enough to perform a direct attack themselves. On the other hand, I think they would be willing to share the technology and possibly some actual bombs with those who we absolutely do not want to have the technology.

 

Well the Constitution and the US State Dept. disagrees with you.



Foreign Policy Roles of the President and Congress
June 1, 1999

Richard F. Grimmett, Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division
June 1, 1999

Abstract


The United States Constitution divides foreign policy powers between the President and the Congress so that both share in the making of foreign policy. The executive and legislative branches each play important roles that are different but that often overlap. Both branches have continuing opportunities to initiate and change foreign policy, and the interaction between them continues indefinitely throughout the life of a policy. This report reviews and illustrates 12 basic ways that the United States can make foreign policy. The practices illustrated in this report indicate that making foreign policy is a complex process, and that the support of both branches is required for a strong and effective U.S. foreign policy. For a detailed discussion of how war-making powers are shared, see War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance.

Perhaps it's up to conservatives to point out to liberals that newspapers and online news sources do not dictate US foreign policy.

Reminds me of when democrat house leader Nancy Pelosi went to Syria in defiance of the Bush administration.

 

LOL! There is info out there on the deal Obama wants. I have read it....why are people that are uninformed even expressing an opinion on it? Lefties do not care about facts. They only blindly back dear leader. Sad.

Libs have proven themselves only uninformed lemmings. Once again.

 

None of this "info" has been confirmed.

 

I realize that the right wing sees this exclusively through the lens of domestic party politics, but this is an international issue involving negotiations amoung seven countries.

I realize that Lush Limpballs and the boys and girls at Fox Noise haven't bothered to mention that little detail.

I also realize that they are going to great lengths to deny or ignore the fact that in treaty negotiations, it's the President who proposes and the Senate who advises and consents after the negotiation.

Why quibble with pesky facts, after all??????

Cotton and 46 other Republican Senators have just made prize fools of themselves on a global stage.

They've capped a month of almost continuous GOP defeats in Congress with a reckless and irresponsible gambit that has the entire planet laughing at them or scratching their heads.

The entire world that is, except the little one inhabited by the Limbaugh loonies and the Fox crowd.

 

Yet you are guilty of doing exactly what you scream the Dems are doing. You do not know why you do not like the deal that has not even been made yet and have no idea what it covers, yet you go on and on about it. Expose Yourself Much?

 

And YOU believe what Iraq proclaims to keep their base happy? Oh right you're a conservative who probably cheered Putin too!

 

Tom Fitz: "I also realize that they are going to great lengths to deny or ignore the fact that in treaty negotiations, it's the President who proposes and the Senate who advises and consents after the negotiation."

Of course, the President has said he will rule without Congress and Sen. Kerry has said it isn't a treaty. By renaming it, the president can make an agreement with Iran without Senate approval. We have to remember we're dealing with lying, sneaky bastards but this time the lying, sneaky bastards are on both sides and hate our country.

 

Well, if you have found the details to this deal, then why not share it?

The reality is that you don't and you are being a smug partisan as usual.

The bottom line is this; the Iranian President wants to bolster his own clout with his people since the economic sanctions are hurting the Iranian economy, and to stave off his own country's hardliners. It is also apparent that the 47 signatories to "The Letter" also don't want peace, which puts them in the same league as the Iranian hardliners.

Once a nation has acquired nuclear ability, there is no way to turn the clock back. Negotiating a peaceful use of nuclear technology and international monitoring is the only viable method to achieve what we all want, which is peace....and time. We know there is conflict between the Iranian government and its people. By exerting a hardline stance, it only exacerbates the situation.

Then there is the ludicrous myth that Iran is actually a suicide state and would initiate a first strike should they acquire a nuclear weapon. Both the US and Israel have second strike capabilities and could completely annihilate Iran should such a thing occur. None of our generals believe that Iran is an irrational actor. North Korea is far more irrational and already has nuclear capability, but it too realizes the complete futility in initiating a nuclear first strike.

The goal here appears to be to not give Tehran anymore reasons to build a bomb that what currently exists for them already.

 

post it then.........oh wait a minute.......are you talking about the fiction written by the right wing noise machine......never mind that was only for the sheep.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh course even more so this is an Executive Agreement not a treaty so the Congress' role is even less and the 18,000 of them in the past didn't get the right wing lapdogs all a twitter.

 

As Bill Maher has observed, the GOPers are good at pushing a falsehood until it's accepted as conventional wisdom


President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.


Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/04/30/bush-claims-he-has-author_n_20085.html

 

The office of the House minority leader issued a scathing statement Wednesday night saying her meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad was part of a bipartisan effort — conducted through the Bush administration — to encourage peace in the region, and accusing Republicans of launching a "desperate" defense of their Iran letter to mask criticisms coming from both sides of the aisle.


While Pelosi was the most senior U.S. representative, Hammill also noted that she coordinated the visit with support from the administration.

"This visit was organized by the Bush State Department, executed by the Bush Defense Department, and officials from the Bush Administration's Embassy at the time in Damascus even sat in the meeting with President Assad," Hammill said. "As Republican Congressman David Hobson said at the time about the delegation's visit to Syria, 'I think we actually helped the administration's position by showing there's not dissension.'

"The comparison between the Republican Senator letter to Iran and Leader's Pelosi bipartisan delegation to the Middle East in 2007 does not stand up to any level of scrutiny," he charged.


http://thehill.com/homenews/house/2...o-syria-was-nothing-like-the-gops-iran-letter



three Republican congressmen — Robert Aderholt of Alabama, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania and Frank Wolf of Virginia — visited Syria separately and met with Mr. Assad on Sunday. And a senior American diplomat, Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbrey, held talks in Damascus last month with Syrian officials about an influx of Iraqi refugees. Mr. Bush did not mention those visits in his remarks yesterday.

Ms. Pelosi is traveling with a high-level group of lawmakers, included Representatives Henry A. Waxman and Tom Lantos of California, Louise M. Slaughter of New York, Nick J. Rahall II of West Virginia and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, all Democrats, as well as David L. Hobson, Republican of Ohio.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/world/middleeast/04cnd-pelosi.html?_r=1&

 

The Second World War. It was made public, no conditional surrender would be excepted. The American people knew about it before the German and Japanese governments were informed.

 

It is pretty much been discussed all over the place. If you were not too busy parroting liberal hate you would have noticed it.

It is hard to believe liberals are clueless about this agreement they keep defending.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure it has.

 

They don't need to be released to the public before negotiations are complete. But they DO need to be released to CONGRESS. Congress saw them and didn't like what they saw, hence the letter.

Iran: Even though you are a self-described "sworn enemy of the United States", you may still amazingly be able to get a personal sweetheart deal from your buddy, King Obama. Because he doesn't care (or is too dense to know?) that you celebrate "Death to America day" every Nov 4th. But know this: his unilateral sweetheart deals are only good as long as he remains ruler-in-chief. After that, all bets are off.

 

I will give you credit for knowing there are other nations involved but the rest of your post is just partisan drivel.

 

How about someone who isn't really an Obama supporter, the second best conservative Prez since Ik (only BJ Bill is better), but just thinks you right wingers are nuts? Can I give you the reason's???

Logan Act – enacted in 1799 – states:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

The Logan Act was named for Dr. George Logan, a Pennsylvania state legislator (and later US Senator) who engaged in semi-negotiations with France in 1798 during the Quasi-War.

In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion:

[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.

Sutherland also notes in his opinion the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of February 15, 1816:

The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution.


FROM THIS GUY:

I happen to think that Obama is a tyrant who – like Bush – should be impeached for trampling the Constitution. But two wrongs don’t make a right …

In inviting the leader of Israel to speak directly to the American Congress without the U.S. president’s assent, Congressional Republicans violated the Logan Act. See this, this and this.

Likewise, directly telling the leaders of Iran that America won’t honor Obama’s negotiated commitments is a violation of the Logan Act. Indeed, the Senator who organized the effort admitted that his intent was to sabotage negotiations with Iran.


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/republican-congressmen-violating-constitution.html

 

What is being negotiated is not a Treaty, and the Senate does not need to ratify it. What is being negotiated is and executive agreement between Iran, the United States, Russia, China, Great Britain Germany and France. The purpose of this agreement, if it can be reached is to limit Iran's development of it's ability to enrich Uranium to weapons grade with a strict on site inspection regime by outside inspectors in exchange for reducing the economic sanctions on Iran. Right now the 6 powers (not including Iran) are willing to uphold the sanction regime as they are in agreement that it's in no one's interest for Iran to have nuclear weapons capability. Getting China and Russia on board for these negotiations was a key achievement since they were pretty much indifferent to the sanctions and were trading with Iran by various means.

Now if these negotiations fail because Iran refuses to agree to the terms, then it will make further sanctions much more enforceable because China and Russia have agreed to maintain those sanctions themselves. If the negotiations fail because the Republicans refuse to abide by an agreement, then the sanctions regime will completely collapse and we will be in the position of having no leverage over Iran other than direct military action since at that point it's doubtful that China, Russia, Germany or France would join use in enforcing economic sanctions.

We've tried extreme sanctions for over since 2002 when they and about 100 or so centrifuges, to try to prevent them from building capacity to enrich uranium. Today they have about 19,000, those sanctions worked wonders didn't they?

 

And that right there is indeed the point.

 

so you can't good little sheep of the lying right wing noise machine shepherds. Do they give you a petting when they fleece you?