Polis calls Cotton “Tehran Tom”
The Washington Times reports that Colorado Congressman Jared Polis took time out of his busy day to call Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton “Tehran Tom” for the letter that he authored along with 46 other Senators to explain to the mullahs of Iran the legislative process in regards to their deal with john Kerry
“Tehran Tom asks Iranian Revolutionary Guards for help in battle against US diplomats,” Mr. Polisadded, receiving 53 retweets.
The letter warned Tehran that any nuclear deal needs congressional approval in order to last beyond President Obama’s time in office. Vice President Joe Biden strongly denounced the missive as offensive and “beneath the dignity of an institution I revere.”
Mr. Cotton responded by saying Mr. Biden “has been wrong about nearly every foreign policy and national security decision in the last 40 years,” the Examiner reported.
I remembered Mr Polis’ name from somewhere and I remembered he was endorsed for Congress by phony Marine captain Rick Strandlof, so that made me less angry at him, since Polis, who has never served this country in uniform, can’t tell the difference between a phony gay Marine Captain with a reattached digit from a real veteran, like Tom Cotton, you know a real jump-qualified, Ranger-qualified infantry officer.
I’m not particularly fond of what those 47 Senators did, but I don’t remember the Democrat Congressmen being critical of Nancy Pelosi and of John Kerry when each went to Syria in spite of the Bush Administration’s warnings against it. And that one kind of blew up in our face, didn’t it? I don’t remember anyone complaining about the three Democrat congressmen who stood on the roof of Saddam Hussein’s palace and declared Hussein to be more trustworthy than the President.
Sorry, I was just expecting a little intellectual honesty and consistency from Congress and that probably won’t happen. On either side.
Category: Congress sucks
And don’t forget the trips to Nicarauga and the “Dear Commodante” letter. Or Kennedy and Andropov. Or Kerry and the Paris Peace Talks…
‘just expecting a little intellectual honesty and consistency from Congress’
Oh, you are such an optimist! I’m trying to remember the last time that happened. Was it during the Jackson administration? No, that wasn’t it. I’ll figure it out.
There will be no “intellectual honesty” by the obozo admin. Mostly because “intellectual” is far too high a standard for them. They can only try to be honest in the Alinsky narrow frame of knee jerk reactions to keep them aligned to the “transformation”.
Every time I see the name Kerry or his picture I can only think of two words that will be his history, even in his grave – Winter Soldier. He is the most effluent pile of dung to ever serve in any government position (including his military service) – and that considers the other contestants as well.
I can’t think of any other term beyond ‘despicable’ to describe any of this. Our foreign policy has been turned into a game show.
You are right about honesty sorely lacking on both sides.
The letter was a stupid continuation of the politics of partisanship run amok.
McGovern and Sparkman went to Cuba in 1975 against the wishes of the administration to talk to fucking Castro…they received little condemnation from their own party although they did get investigated by State for a Logan Act violation.
This has been going on for some time…but lately the stakes are larger it seems and the stupidity more of an affront.
Reid using the 51 vote to block the filibuster on appointments, I can’t wait to hear the poutrage from the Dems when Repubs use it, should be entertaining.
What purpose did the letter serve to advance anything in foreign policy? Not a fucking thing, it was just sent to chastise the president. The Iranians aren’t stupid, we can argue over whether or not they are evil but it would be seriously unwise to think they were stupid and unaware of how US Law works….so a condescending letter telling Iran that apparently the Republicans don’t want a deal at all because they’ll just change things with the stroke of a pen benefits whom? Certainly not the nation.
Maybe Cotton bounced his head off the ground one too many times if he thinks this letter was required to explain his position. Everybody with half a brain knows the difference between CEA/SEA and Treaties…only fools telegraph their end game in the opening moves.
VOV, if you really think most foreign governments actually understand how the United States government works then let me ask you this: How well does our own, supposedly much better informed, administration understand how THEIR governments work?
The critical level of understanding is entirely dependent upon the level of competence and EXPERIENCE of the assessing government and their willingness to listen to the lessons of the past. Ours possesses damned little of any of those.
I think Obama knows very well that he can avoid calling this a treaty and use an SEA to seal the deal.
I think Obama is well aware that only 6% of our 18,000 current foreign policy agreements are actually treaties and the remaining 94% are either CEAs or SEAs…
I also think that’s why Cotton fired this shot, but I still believe it was premature and in error. The Senate had a chance to pass more sanctions and some dems were working with McConnell well enough he felt a veto could be overridden. That appears to be broken now…which is too bad as that might have been a rare bi-partisan smack at the White House and one that would speak directly to the differences between true bipartisan work and BS lip service.
Cotton’s move being premature indicates to me he might not have been willing to see if the leadership was able to work bi partisan veto overrides. It’s indicative of an inexperienced freshman senator who thinks he knows more than he does.
He may yet prove to be the man you hope he is, but this first move looks a lot more like a butter bar than a birdie…
CEAs and SEAs between the Executive Branch and a foreign nation that are not (1) necessary to implement a Treaty previously ratified by the Senate or which (2) are not explicitly authorized in existing Federal law in general do not have the force of US law. Both the Constitution and Federal courts have been relatively clear on that point.
CEA by definition is a congressionally approved agreement acting through the executive.
An SEA with an expiration date has been considered to carry the force of law…I have no doubt that this White House has seriously considered that option.
I also believe that they will consider any previous or existing discussion in Congress regarding Iran as to be the legal basis for SEA…the force of law in the SEA can’t supersede the powers of the federal government but foreign policy is a direct function of the executive branch.
This White House would be most certainly open to exploring their options under an SEA using the foreign policy powers of the executive to justify the legality and force of law behind any such agreement.
Veritas Omnia Vincit “…only fools telegraph their end game in the opening moves.” Well said and a great summation of our entire government when it comes to foreign policy and the military. Obama, through the Pentagon gives ISIS a heads up about our plans for Mosul, now this. Agreed, whatever the Iranian leaders are, they are not unaware and stupid. They see this simply as more internal divisiveness in our government. A great advantage if I were reading the letter on their end and my thought would be, “As long as America keeps this up, we keep getting one step and one day closer to our ultimate goal…a deliverable nuclear weapon.”
Thanks, hope you are feeling much, much better these days my friend!!
Satisfy my curiosity, Sparks: how much of that disclosure would you speculate was accidental (unintentional) and how much was planned?
OK, I admit to reading far too much Ludlum and Follett, but this actually smacks of something le Carre could put together. It has seemed like a devious move that might have been planned right from the beginning to me, but to what purpose? To throw Iran off the scent?
On the other hand, the egotism in it sticks out rather badly. It seems like a massive mistake… but what if it was intentional?
No surprise here. Polis made his millions from his family’s greeting card company and represents The People’s Republic of Boulder.
He’s also involved in lots of underhanded shenanigans with the anti-fracking morons, supposedly because a neighbor wants to allow fracking on property within view of his “vacation home”, i.e. shed a mile across the road.
He’s also known as a clown who can’t dress respectfully in Congress:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25236572/jared-polis-accepts-gq-makeover-after-sporting-polo
Yes a vacation home in Weld County. Having lived in Northern Colorado since 1978 everyone knows that Weld is agriculture and oil wells. It is also doing quite well in the number of jobs created and is solidly a conservative area. Polis had to drop the law suit and the neighbor fracked away and probably made some money in the process. Polis probably doesn’t own the mineral rights and would be fracking himself seeing how much he loves money.
Sorry, but Ol Poe’s gonna have to take issue with a few folks here who don’t appear to him to be thinking this thing through. First of all, as others have pointed out, it is the Democrats who have a past history of congressional interference in foreign policy as above examples demonstrate. Second, it is not a Republican president, but the least qualified Democrat ever elected to that office, who has ignored our constitution and declared himself to possess unique powers of executive transformation never before seen in this country except during states of declared war. And third, it is well and good that Republican members of Congress should remind the Iranians, as well as all the other predator states out there, that power is not totally one-sided under our form of government and therefore it behooves the predators to think beyond Barry and his exclusionary and transformative ways. The mullahs need well to know that if they take advantage of the resident fool and continue to build their bombs unimpeded, that they may not be facing such bumbling and incompetent negotiators as Obama and Kerry just two years from now when the situation will likely be more critical and much more militarily dangerous for the Iran than now. The Iranians need to ask themselves how secure and sure of themselves they will feel when America is led once again by a pragmatist who will likely align with and reinforce the Israeli right to survive instead of making a juvenile show to the Muslim world of disrespecting both the country and its leader. There are plenty of you who write here frequently complaining about RINO inaction in the face of Democrat aggression. I think it’s well past the time when our Republican legislators say, “Enough!” and chop this smug asshole of a president, and his Democrat enablers, off at the knees. Tom Cotton is my senator. I voted for him here in this still half-Democrat state, suspecting that this is the kind of leader he would be. I’m damned proud of him standing up and showing the world that the… Read more »
I bite your ass, and you bite my ass and round and round we go…
I think this was not an example of leadership and direction, instead it represents to me a failure of leadership. It remains to be seen what the next move from the Republicans will be, but for now it looks like the letter has actually galvanized the Democrats into deciding they won’t work with McConnell to override a veto of more sanctions should the senate propose them. That means currently this is a net loss and not a net gain.
There were enough democrats willing to override a veto a week ago that McConnell was thinking they would be able to box Obama in with additional sanctions. That no longer seems possible.
Perhaps you are right this is a well timed shot that will reverberate throughout the land. I don’t see that outcome at the moment in quite the same light although it won’t be the first or last time my assessment was more than slightly off center.
VOV, you, sir, appear to be playing chess. At this point, I think this situation is more like a game of checkers.
And you are right about the lieutenant not having the entire battlefield perspective yet but he is doing SOMETHING, which is what so many of us have been wanting to see happen for a long time now. Our problem is while our lieutenants may be a bit impetuous, as is the norm, our legislative colonels and generals are as equally aggressive as their Pentagon counterparts.
Gotta go off the air for now…
our legislative colonels and generals are as equally aggressive as their Pentagon counterparts.
Thank you for that I am sitting here at my desk laughing my ass off….like an idiot because your comment is spot on…risk adverse is the new normal apparently.
You keep talking about a “veto”, VOV.
A veto is not appropriate. An agreement negotiated by the Executive Branch with a foreign government does not have the force of law unless it is either (1) a treaty ratified by the Senate, (2) is necessary to implement a previously-ratified treaty, or (3) implements existing US law. All the Congress need do to block them is refuse to appropriate funds for same – or forbid the use of funding appropriated to be used in execution thereof.
Treaties do not become effective unless ratified by the Senate. That requires 67 votes for ratification (technically, 2/3 of the Senators present for the vote) – not 60.
Actually in context it’s quite appropriate. The Mitch McConnell reference apparently not as clear as I had hoped.
However McConnell was attempting to work legislation to force additional sanctions.That legislation was most likely to be vetoed by the president in advance of any treaty or SEA agreements. Consequently the word veto is totally appropriate when used in a discussion regarding legislation.
I will put in my two cents’ worth about two years from now.
With Clinton being on the receiving end of ‘bad girl, naughty, naughty’ PR and sKerry running around in foreign ports, it may be that the democrats are looking at Lurch as the next candidate for president.
I’m saying this because of this mess with Clinton’s e-mails and the denial/yes, I knew/denial/I sent her some coming out of the White House.
Kerry is going to a lot of trouble to get his ticket punched in all the right places. Clinton tried to do that as SecState, and I will give her credit for getting foreign rulers to like her.
But she has has too many incidents in which she looks bad and those will be dredged up by the media in the next campaign, particularly that one with her waving her hands over her head about Benghazi, and now the e-mail mess.
Now I could be wrong about this, but what has Kerry done, other than annoy and offend the veterans’ community, that makes him look that bad? I haven’t seen anything that would be comparable to wee Willie Wanker’s clodpole behavior, but I may have missed something.
Politicians lie all the time, you know. They’ve been doing it for millenia. I don’t dispute sKerry’s faux pas, especially those most recent ones, e.g., Paris, but that only makes him a social moron, whom I would not invite to my Thanksgiving dinner.
If someone can come up with something as heinous as Williewanker’s behavior, please do so. Otherwise, I see him as being groomed for the next election, and if he gets it, that means a continuing run of stupid stuff coming out of Washington.
What has sKerry done that makes him look that bad, you ask. One name and one city, James Taylor and Paris. That should be enough to permanently disqualify him from consideration for dog catcher, much less POTUS.
This dude seems to disagree:
http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politics/did-democrats-send-a-letter-to-an-american-adversary-undermining-a-president-not-quite-image/
I do not think the constantly recycling “two wrongs” argument about Pelosi is particularly helpful and is really just the same partisanship that make the congressman think what they are doing is OK. Pelosi was wrong (though ironically Assad is much more popular among Republicans now that that ISIS is a major pain in the ass). I am not defending Assad. I would like to see him dead.
Inviting Netanyahu was pretty bad. And I am generally a fan of Netanyahu.
This letter was absolutely appalling. It was not just a violation of decorum, and of procedure, but it was substantively and strategically wrong. We NEED a working relationship with Iran moving forward. They are vital to handling an entire front in the fight against ISIS.
Contacting a foreign power and threatening to not honor agreements reached by our President with the specific intent of undermining the negotiations at a time when the outcome of negotiations is critical for national security is one of the most appalling partisan acts I have ever heard of congress doing.
There is zero defense for it, zero excuse, and there should be zero forgiveness.
This radicalized party that you guys are so fond of is a damn suicide pact.
The GoP needs to return to being the party of wisdom is once was.
Do you think Iran will actually fight ISIS, or simply beat them down enough to control their actions in Iran and not care what they do elsewhere?
Iran has long supported the Shia in southern Iraq, with weapons, sanctuary, training, and funds. They did when I was there against us, and they still do today against ISIS.
Iran is no friend but if we are going to solve the problem we need to develop a cooperative working relationship.
Iran will do whatever it takes to make sure the Shia areas in Iraq do not fall under Suni ISIS control. Which, is exactly what we want them to do.
Cooperation with Iran is a force multiplier for both the US and Iran. Which is part of the reason there is a good chance we will reach a positive agreement with respect to those things complicating our ability to cooperate – like Iran’s nuclear agenda.
‘One day more for you is one day less for your enemy.’
The above is an oriental saying. The first time I ever heard of a modern theocratic political rule was when Iran came under the control of the Ayatollah Khomeini, in the 1970’s. He authored something like 40 books on Islam; he was the first one to call us “The Great Satan”; it was under his rule I first heard of a fatwa being issued by a government. He was responsible for the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and I have read works that blame him and his writings, personally, for the current terrorist jihadists operating in the world today. My point is, we are never going to be allies or even simple working partners. They will always hate us more than they do each other, and it appears to me that Iran is simply buying time to complete their nuclear program. I don’t think that we can trust that leopard to change its spots no matter what they say, and that attempting to bargain or ally will them is the worst sort of political fantasy — one our troops, if not some American state, will eventually pay for in blood.
Iran has one of the youngest populations in the entire world. And while fiercely nationalistic Iranian younger generations want a change in Iranian government. I feel it is absurd to say “we are never going to be allies or even simple working partners.” You seem to support this almost entirely with the opinions and writings of Khomeini. Who died 35 years ago. Sure Iran has not been an ally since the coup of 1979, but prior to that they were a very close ally of the United States. So the notion that they “never” will be is not supported by history. This comment makes little sense either: “They will always hate us more than they do each other.” While the majority of Iranians overall do not support improving relationship with the US, most educated Iranians do. And since Iranian public opinion, particularly for the uneducated demographics, is strongly influenced by state controlled media we can expect that their opinion will shift quite readily once the media starts selling the benefits of cooperation to the Iranians. And the “hate us more than they do each other.” part is particularly confusing. Who is the “each other” Iranians hate? You seem to be conflating Iranians (Persians) with Arabs. And projecting your perception of Inter-arab relationships onto Iran. Iranians do not hate each other (at least no more than Americans hate each other). Like the US, Iran is fiercely nationalistic and there is absolutely unity in nationalism as a social value. Or is it that you are saying they hate each other as Muslims? Muslims have hated each other no more than Christians historically. Shias and Sunnis had waged war on each other in the middle east, Persia, and Northern Africa, just as Protestants and Catholics have waged war on each other in Europe. And despite the conventional wisdom actual violence in the middle east between people and nations is no higher than it was been for most of the rest of the world over the last 60 years.http://www.ourworldindata.org/roser/presentation/online/RiseOfPoliticalFreedomAndTheDecreaseOfViolence/Static_Images/Number-of-annual-war-battle-deaths-by-world-region-19462007_Max-Roser.png Currently, the middle east is a much less stable region than many though, but a… Read more »
Ya know, I just don’t understand you. “Iran has one of the youngest populations in the entire world. And while fiercely nationalistic Iranian younger generations want a change in Iranian government.” And they either don’t have the power or the interest to make it happen so … so what? “Sure Iran has not been an ally since the coup of 1979, but prior to that they were a very close ally of the United States. So the notion that they “never” will be is not supported by history.” I think that you misunderstand the relationship. The US and Iran were not allies, the US and the Shah were allies. The Iranian people were terrorized by the the Shah’s government. When the iatollya (sic on purpose) showed up, the Iranian people were pretty happy to be rid of the Shah. so … so what? “While the majority of Iranians overall do not support improving relationship with the US, most educated Iranians do.” In 2012 I worked for a year with a man from Pakistan and woman from Iran. The Pakistani kept his own council, bright hard-working very respectable. The Iranian woman was … “boisterous” doesn’t quite cover it and she was very clear that there could be NO reason that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. In order to keep my cleaning bill under control and avoid time in Boston jail, I just avoided her. Young Iranian people (she was about 35) don’t seem all that accommodating to me. “Muslims have hated each other no more than Christians historically. Shias and Sunnis had waged war on each other in the middle east, Persia, and Northern Africa, ” Maybe my history needs tuning up. The term, “middle east” includes Iran. I see Shia people in Iran and southern and eastern Iraq. I see Hezbollah and a few other people in Lebanon on the Iranian payroll. The battles in the Maghreb are and were Sunni v Sunni. When Islam rule left western Saudi, it went to Baghdad and Persia was still the enemy. I just don’t see this world wide battle between the… Read more »
Well, Lars – seems you’ve forgotten the last half of this clause:
“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; . . . .”
Unless and until an agreement with the US and another nation is ratified by the Senate, it’s not a valid Treaty. And unless I’ve missed something in the Constitution, other non-treaty international agreements negotiated by the Executive Branch don’t carry the force of law unless they’re (1) authorized by an existing Federal law, or (2) are necessary to implement an existing Treaty previously ratified by the Senate. Plus, implementing anything but a self-executing Treaty requires Congress to appropriate the necessary funding.
Last time I checked, 100-47 is considerably less than 67. I think the message being sent here was intended for people much closer to the US Capitol than Teheran.
I know how it works. And, no, the senate does not ratify treaties. They approve them by a 2/3 majority. The President, acting as the chief diplomat of the United States, is responsible for treaty negotiations and only the President has the authority to ratify a treaty.
Treaty negotiations under Presidential direction —> Treaty terms —-> Senate approval —–> Presidential ratification.
It is the senate’s job to approve the terms of the treaty. Attempting to directly intervene and undermine treaty negotiations before terms are even reached is absolutely outside their authority and is not justifiable under any circumstances.
Cotton knows this. He carefully worded the letter undermine negotiations under the pretext of informing Iran of constitutional authority. He knew he was well outside the authority of his office to intervene in treaty negotiation and undermine the President.
And of course it was a message for people much closer to the US than Iran. It was a political clownshow for the American audience under the false assumption that this will win them votes.
It will backfire.
Think you are ignoring that part that says ” by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties”. Does not say “unilaterally despite Congressional opposition” unless my reading comprehension has deteriorated?
Yes, I agree that it would be much better if the senate and the president could get along. These negotiations are vital to national and international security and politics should be set aside by both parties. That being said, the GoP in congress made it explicitly clear it would be obstinate and hardline with respect to agreements with Iran and not approve any agreement. Since negotiations are vital and some form of agreement with Iran is necessary the president went forward with his foreign policy agenda which is precisely what he was supposed to do. Lets expand the logic of the current senate to all diplomatic arenas: Imagine a senate that despised a President. And because of their opposition to the president they decided to not approve any treaty or agreement the president made with any nation or organization in the world for any reason whatsoever. Then when the president or his ambassadors tried to conduct any foreign policy anywhere in the world that senate then contacted that power and explained to them that they would not approve any agreements or honor any negotiations with that power. If this were the outcome than congress would literally be destroying the authority of the office of the president and tearing apart the constitutional divisions of power. It would be an obscene level of overreach and be a completely illegitimate violation of the constitution and congressional power. Yet this extreme case is NO DIFFERENT. If congresses behavior with respect to Iran is OK then the case above is also OK since it is just countless repetition of the precedent established by the senate’s actions on Iran. Now say that the case above were to happen. Wouldn’t the president still have the constitutional authority to try? Wouldn’t he have the constitutional obligation to try? Shouldn’t he still be trying to conduct foreign policy and negotiate with foreign power and try to make tentative agreements with foreign powers? The president is doing exactly what he should be doing what you would expect him to do, and what he has the constitutional authority to do and… Read more »
Lars…”If this were the outcome than congress would literally be destroying the authority of the office of the president and tearing apart the constitutional divisions of power.”
So, what is your take then on Obama using his all powerful pen for Executive Orders, which sidestep the law and circumvent the processes and powers of Congress? For the one, Congress, it is bad for their actions but for the other, the President, he’s good to go with his. That about it?
I have heard the “Emperor Obama” executive order narrative constantly over the last few years. Since there are so many executive orders by so many presidents and many are fairly complicated to parse trying to really decide which presidents were more or less authoritarian with respect to the substance of their executive orders is truly a PhD doctoral thesis (note to self to check google scholar later to see if someone has not already done this and read it if they have) Here is the facts: Obama has issued executive orders at a rate that is less than any President since Grover Cleveland. So it has been more than 120 years since we have had a president issue them at a lower rate. The “rate” they issue executive orders is simply the number of executive orders issued divided by the number of days in office (to normalize for variances in term lengths). So the lower rate in which he issues orders is interesting. But more interesting still is that wartime presidents historically have issued them at a much higher rate than average and Obama, a wartime president for his entire time in office, has issue them at a much lower rate than average. So with respect to how OFTEN he uses executive orders it is absolutely false that he is acting like an emperor. So that leaves the substance of the orders. This is an overwhelming amount of work to parse. And would take more time than I have. But in the past I have Googled phrases like “Obama’s executive order abuses” or “King Obama’s executive orders” to try to figure out what people are so upset about. One is the viral email that went around claiming Obama issued 923 executive orders in 40 months. Which was false (he issued 147 by that time). And that he has issued some really awful and authoritarian orders and it gave a list of those orders. The problem was when you actually checked the order numbers against the list of most egregious orders included in the viral letter (each order has a unique… Read more »
Lars, if the president and congress are not getting along why do you think that this is Congress’ fault? Isn’t compromise the essence of politics? Where is the President’s compromise? I have been treated worse than a second class citizen for the past 6 years so I think that this is all on Obama. I think that it is a scandal that the population of the US is not holding the president responsible for being arrogant, self-serving and power-seizing. He is not being Presidential, he is being imperial. In my opinion he is damaging the country that he is supposed to be president of, he is damaging our interests abroad, he is putting out people in jeopardy, and by over-taxing and over-regulating the country he is killing the economy. Now why exactly should the Congress go along with shit like that? I WANT the Congress to oppose what Obama is doing because he is hurting MY country and he is using the guise of the Office of the President to do it.
I’m not making this up because he is black. I could care less what color he is. I just want him to be competent – a good president. In my opinion he is failing at that. I am a citizen so I am required to have an opinion. I have given this quite a lot of thought and your representations that this is Congress’ fault strike me as deflection – “don’t look at our hero over here, look at those idiots over there” or “Our president a hero, it cannot be his fault”. Take a look at your hero and tell me why Congress should agree with what he is doing. Allowing the Iranians to have the bomb is a VERY VERY bad idea. Forcing the Israelis into a corner is another VERY VERY bad idea. They have nukes, that is no secret. Do you understand how close Damascus and Riyadh and Cairo are to Israel?
Technically, you are correct – I used the term imprecisely. Though I’ve often heard the entire process of getting a treaty that has been signed formally approved referred to, colloquially, as “treaty ratification”, technically that term refers only to the formal implementation of a treaty by the POTUS after the Senate has approved same.
Regardless, I think the message here was intended for a place far closer to the Capitol than the average voter – e.g., a location approximately 1 mile to the WNW. A few folks at that location seem to have difficulty discerning between the terms “rule by decree” and “the process specified by the Constitution”.
A last point. It is not the Senate’s role merely “to approve the terms” of a prospective treaty. It is the Senate’s role to consider those prospective treaties negotiated by the POTUS, and – if and only if 2/3 of those present agree that the prospective treaty is sound US policy – to approve same. If the POTUS cannot convince 2/3 of those Senators weighing the prospective treaty that it’s a good idea, it’s “back to the drawing board” time. The Constitution gives the Senate – not the POTUS – final say.
“I do not think the constantly recycling “two wrongs” argument about Pelosi is particularly helpful and is really just the same partisanship that make the congressman think what they are doing is OK. Pelosi was wrong (though ironically Assad is much more popular among Republicans now that that ISIS is a major pain in the ass). I am not defending Assad. I would like to see him dead.” “Shias and Sunnis had waged war on each other in the middle east, Persia, and Northern Africa, just as Protestants and Catholics have waged war on each other in Europe.” Lars, you shame us for not chastising our Republican representatives for their emulating the bad behavior of their Democrat colleagues and then you turn right around and use the, “They all do it,” argument to buttress your case about religious intolerance and destruction. As far as the Senate letter goes, it is not what it says to the Persians that matters, it is the very fact that it was sent. Those 47 Republicans have put Iran as well as all the nations of the world on notice that America is not yet run by a dictator as much as that would-be tyrant wishes the world to perceive him as our total ruler. They have shaken up the status quo and that is long overdue. You fault the Senate Republicans for obstructing the path of the president when it is well and widely known that this president consults with NO ONE outside his immediate advisers and there have been numerous reports that his high opinion of his own intellect is such that he rarely listens even to them. I think your reasoning in this regard is, as it is too-frequently, ass-backwards. Please tell me how much you trust the Persians to negotiate in good faith when they are a theocracy whose religious tenets permit them to negotiate in bad faith as long as it furthers the goals of the theocracy, one of which is apocalyptic destruction of their own world as well as that of the infidels? Tell us, Lars, where is the… Read more »
Poetrooper, what if the original announcement about negotiations with Iran was done with the sole purpose of creating exactly the kind of political schism we see here?
I can’t think of any other reason to do something like that, than to cause a rift in two groups that were beginning to align in even a vaguely united way.
It’s the same thing with the Clinton e-mail dustup: why bring it up, lie about it, then admit to knowing and using it, unless the intent is to make her look as bad as possible while Kerry only looks like a social moron?
It does sound like the plot for a cheap thriller novel, but stranger things have happened.
I’m not sure I follow. Do you mean the administration’s announcement? If so, I don’t believe they are that smart. They are scheming bastards to be sure but I think the predicament they’re in is of their own doing and a result in their cluelessness when it comes to geopolitics and diplomacy.
Obama has shown nothing but weakness in dealing with foreign leaders and we are seeing the results of the contempt in which he is held by the rest of the world’s leadership.
In fact, I suspect that one thing that is holding back some of the would-be bad-boys is their fear of a diplomatically and militarily resurgent America under much more aggressive Republican leadership in just two years.
Yes, I did mean the administration’s announcement.
Your point that a Republican administration may behave considerably less like a whipped cur than this one was on my mind as well. But what better way to make the GOP look overly aggressive about foreign relations, especially Iran, than to do something like that, and wait until someone like Tom Cotton overreacts and does so in haste?
OK, maybe I’m giving bodaprez and his cronies too much credit for being clever. But if I wanted to discredit someone and at the same time, split up what appears to be a consensus by both parties, I’d make Clinton look as bad as possible for starters, because she is more popular than Lurch. And then I’d find some way to generate a growing crack between GOPs and Dems who were in agreement on a lot of issues, especially on White House policies.
However, you’re right: I probably am giving them far too much credit in thinking they’d be that clever. It was just an idea.
Ex-PH2, I think Kerry is done with anything that would result in a renewed call for his records. After all the investigations done during his 2004 run, I came away with a very strong feeling that he had received a bad but discreet Navy discharge for his Paris antics that had been commuted by Carter in the general amnesty.
That’s why he never sued any of the Swiftees as he vowed because his records would then have become available for discovery and entry into the case records and therefore public.
As narcissistic as Lurch is, he’ll never risk that embarrassment.
As to whether the Obama folks would sabotage Hillary, that’s a whole ‘nother topic of discussion.
I agree with you about Lurch, but he seems to be getting his ticket punched toward that end. Or I may be reading more into what he does than is really there.
In regard to Clinton, several other people have pointed out that what is going on with her, e.g., the e-mail dustup, may be nothing more than petty revenge, but it can also be seen as a way of making her too embarrassing to be a candidate.
It does make for a great plot for one of those breathless corrupt politician novels, doesn’t it?
I was shaming the partisan act of justifying a wrong by giving an example of dems also being wrong. Both were wrong. My example of Islam and Christianity is to highlight that the west is no different with respect to “getting along.” I was not justifying the acts of Muslims killing Muslims or Christians killing Christians. So on the the substance of you post: Because of my role in Iraq I negotiated with stakeholders in the area of which I was responsible far more than the vast majority of those that served in Iraq. It was literally my job to do so. Since it was a Shia area, Iran backed Shia militias and agents controlled the political offices, and the police. To this day my blood pressure rises when I think of some of them. One in particular I often regret not at least punching in the mouth before I left. However, many Shia stake holders in the area were honorable and many went well beyond what could reasonably be expected of them to uphold their agreements with us. So I have a decidedly mixed opinion of how “trustworthy” people are in the area. I wish I could give details but lets just say some in the area I worked have good reason not to trust the word of the US as well. There is two sides to a cooperative relationship (again not justifying either side breaking agreements). That is the nature of agreements between powers. Neither side has reason to trust the other until sufficient cooperation and repeated agreements with consistent compliance establishes trust. It starts with negotiations and over time and repeated reinforcement of compliance, trust develops. The 2007 NIE assessed that Iran fully halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003; subsequent U.S. assessments have consistently reiterated that Tehran has not yet decided to build nuclear weapons. According to a recent Rand study, while the Iranian population overwhelmingly supports a nuclear energy program the Iranian population is opposed to a nuclear weapons program (though the least educated demographic favors it). We do not know the nature of the… Read more »
Taylor, I meant no disrespect for your service but if you are in fact Lars, then you have presented yourself here at TAH in the recent past as a troll, seemingly hell-bent on proving the regulars here wrong, and in that case I don’t mind in the least if I diss those of your opinions that I find ill-founded.
As to the mullahs not developing nuclear arms because they weren’t interested, I’d attribute that lack of progress to Iran’s being preoccupied by a long, costly war for the first decade or more of their reign that had shut down nuclear development already under way since the 1950’s.
It then took them less than half a decade to get the program up and running in the mid-90’s and their first plant went on line 15 years later, not too bad a timeline for that or any other region.
So, they haven’t been sitting on their hands nuclear-wise as you imply. It’s true that the early mullahs wanted no part of nuclear weapons but that thinking has morphed over time with the realization that Israel has an extensive nuclear retaliatory force so that the only way to accomplish the goal of destroying the Little Satan is with nuclear weapons on Islam’s side.
So, once again, I think your trust is misplaced and typical wishful thinking by those who believe in the inherent goodness of mankind.
Here you go, Poetrooper. I thought this was an abominable thing for taylor to say about anyone.
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=58649&cpage=1#comment-2490657
Using the phrase ‘mob rule’ when someone simply asks if anyone else has anything to say is the kind of crap taylor is cranking out when he can’t get past someone.
The nice thing is that he can’t take it back or pretend he didn’t say it or didn’t mean what he said, but it’s pretty blunt: ‘mob rule’.
The complete lack of respect on his part is more than objectionable. He can just go fuck himself sideways. Nothing he says has any value.
I never said “mob rule”. I said “appeal to mob sentiment”
‘Appeal to mob’ is the name for a kind of logical fallacy.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AppealtotheMob
I was referring to the comment where instead of disputing what I had to say a poster essentially just dismissed my credibility entirely with the sentiment ‘everyone thinks you are a know it all douche’ or something to that effect.
She’s right, Lars, you need to brush up on your people skills. who the hell do you think you are, an Iranian negotiator?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/20/javad-zarif-irans-foreign-minister-ordered-to-stop/
The use of an inflammatory word like ‘mob’ in a setting like this blog is grossly inappropriate.
taylor’s use of it plainly had no other purpose than to incite anger toward someone who done nothing to deserve it.
He was also told that if he could not accept criticism or being shown that his conclusions were incorrect, he should start his own blog. In addition, he refused to follow the subject matter of THAT thread, which was UofC-Irvine, and twisted it to suit his own needs. As this is not HIS blog, his behavior clearly shows that he’s nothing more than a disruptive, manipulative, controlling, egotistical, egocentric, attention whore with an inflated and decidedly weak ego. He is also a crashing bore.
The advice he was given was that he should start his own blog.
I think he should follow it.
You take issue with my use of the word “shadow economy” and ridicule it not only without having a clue what it means but also being too lazy to even look it up.
Then you take issue with my use of the term “appeal to mob” an established term for a kind of logical fallacy and then claim it is ‘inappropriate.’ Do you even understand what I mean when I say a “an established term for a kind of logical fallacy”? I provided a link to the definition in an effort to resolve you manufactured outrage over my use of the term. What the poster I used the term with did was literally “appeal to mob sentiment.”
Even if you do not agree with me perhaps you could stand to learn a few things in the process of disagreeing. Instead of dismissing things you do not understand like “appeal to mob” or “shadow economy.”
I don’t accept criticism? Have you seen the amount of criticism that has been thrown at me? Most completely non-constructive? I think I tolerate criticism fairly well. I also admit when I am wrong. The issue most people have here is that because my views are inconsistent with their conventional wisdom and world view they assume “LARS MUST BE WRONG but just refuses to accept it or is too stupid to see it”. Often I find myself falling into that same trap with respect to the views of others.
However, I spend a tremendous amount of time trying to learn, research, and understand things. And I am always willing to change my opinion when presented with adequate evidence.
If John wants to ban me that is on him. It is his blog. However, your chant of the obnoxious mantra that “anyone that does not agree with us should leave” does not reflect well on you.
You should see what I get called sometimes. Easy does it there big guy. The more I know, the more I know I dont know. Life is too short to be taken seriously.
I did not say anyone who does not agree with us should leave. I said you were advised to starty your own blog.
You refuse to acknowledge that you change the subject of any thread to get attention.
If you want to be the center of the universe so that your desperate need for attention, control and opportunities to engage in mental masturbation are satisfied, which IS what you want, starting your own blog will fill that need.
Unfortunately, blogs frequently take a long time to gain an audience and you’ve made it clear that you simply can’t take the chance that no one will be interested in sitting at your feet while you dispense all that half-baked memorized clutter in you brain.
It’s more laziness on your part to control the cirection some thread takes than it is to come up with an original idea, especially since you haven’t had an original idea since you were conceived.
too early not nearly enough caffeeeeeeine
‘cirection’ should be ‘direction’. My ad. Sorry, peeps.
Yes, I am “Lars.” I did not interpret anything you said as disrespect for my service.
I had been lurking on these forums and usually biting my tongue for a long time. So when I did jump into the fray I think I was already a bit primed for argument and combative. But it is from a place of honest disagreement not trolling. That is part of the reason I chose to use my real name instead of a screen name. I figured if I was going to jump into a community and be generally disagreeable to the overall political sentiment of the group I should be willing to do it with my real name. That was a gesture of respect to the veterans of this community. I sure as hell don’t use my real name on all forums in which I express my opinions.
The reason I do not consider it trolling is because trolls try to push buttons and cause others to expend time and emotional energy while the troll does not invest much of their own. It is to get others worked up and angry just for the entertainment value. The “u mad bro?” line to a long winded response from someone the troll antagonized is an example.
Since I was using my real name, and putting time, and energy, and even research into my responses I am a little surprised it was interpreted as trolling (other than my foul language).
OK, Lars, you won’t get any guff from me about expressing your real feelings and opinions if that is your true intent. I agree with your definition of trolling and from your last post I would have to agree that you should not be considered such when posting here.
In the next breath I will warn you that I most assuredly do not speak for this group (as if anyone possibly could) so you may find further and ongoing acceptance an uphill slog if you continue to tell people they are flat-out wrong rather than entering the discourse with a more conciliatory, “Well here’s another way to look at the issue…” or “Some of you may not like this, but…” or some other less troll-like manner. In fact that’s how I entered this too-damned long string to start with by defending my senator, Tom Cotton, by saying I might piss a few folks off.
Anyway, it’s time for Ol’ Poe to hit the rack so we’ll resume this discussion at another time.