Obama mocks Republican letter to Iran over nuclear talks

[steve2470]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31796235

US President Barack Obama has criticised a letter from Republican senators to Iran, accusing them of "interfering" in ongoing nuclear talks.

He said the 47 senators made an "unusual coalition" with Iran's hard-line religious leaders.

The letter reminds Iran that any deal is just an executive agreement unless it gets congressional approval.

Talks on Iran's nuclear programme are at a critical stage, with an outline agreement due on 31 March.

[gordianot]

1. Given Republican covert actions in 1979 delaying freeing of American hostages not exactly a joke.

This may actually be collusion between factions in two governments to prolong potential conflict for their own purposes.

[guillaumeb]

2. ignorance is the GOP's greatest weapon

what percentage of Americans know any of the truth about Reagan/Bush and the Iran/Contra connection?

[Cha]

3. Mahalo steve.. here's another report from what an Iranian official had to say about this "letter"..

Obama, Iranian official slam GOP letter on deal

snip//

But a top Iranian negotiator and Democrats slammed the letter, calling it a purposeful attempt to undermine the delicate negotiations as they reach a pivotal deadline later this month.

"We believe this letter has no legal value and is indeed just a propaganda ploy," said Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, in a statement provided to and translated by CNN. "Whats more, while the negotiations have not yet borne fruit and there no agreement yet, pressure groups in the U.S. are so worried that they are using extraordinary measures to prove that they, just like Netanyahu oppose any kind of agreement."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/09/politics/gop-senators-letter-to-iran/index.html

[JonLP24]

4. If life made sense

The Republican party in its current form should be laughed out of office, become extinct & a different party would emerge. I could get behind the Whig Party coming back.

[Fred Sanders]

5. The headline is inaccurate, Obama does not mock, he educates the children spewing propaganda.

Anything to help Netanyahu to win re-election is what the GOP is doing, spreading propaganda and lies just for and for their beloved Judeo-Christian foreign war hawk about to lose his job.

[nxylas]

6. Did you read the second paragraph?

The mockery was subtle, but it was there.

[Fred Sanders]

11. I have read his entire statement. Would you like me to quote it in full?

[Vattel]

7. This is awkaward because although I would much rather

have Obama determine the United States' commitments to Iran (I am a dove when it comes to Iran), constitutionally I agree with the idiots in Congress who sent the letter.

[Raine1967]

8. How so?

The executive branch is in charge of foreign policy.

[Vattel]

9. The executive branch is in charge of negotiating treaties

but the Senate has to ratify them. The Founders wanted the Senate to have the final say on what the United States' commitments to foreign nations would be. Trying to avoid the need for ratifying treaties by distinguishing agreements from treaties is yet another way the executive branch has tried to seize the legislative branch's powers.

[Raine1967]

10. No, the Senate does not have to ratify, it can give advice and consent.

From Senate.Gov:

https://www.senate.gov/general/Features/Treaties_display.htm

The Constitution gives to the Senate the sole power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties negotiated by the executive branch. The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification. The Senate of the First Congress set the precedent for how it would handle treaty consideration. When President George Washington visited the Senate Chamber in August 1789 to seek advice and consent on a pending treaty, he became frustrated when the senators referred the treaty to committee for further discussion. Another 130 years would pass before another president of the United States personally delivered a treaty to the Senate. On July 10, 1919, President Woodrow Wilson asked for a quick consent to the Treaty of Versailles.

Are you still ok with the Senate interfering with the executive branch regarding with this? As far as I can see, that is exactly what they are doing. That is what I personally am taking issue with, the Senate is interfering with the responsibility of the Executive branch.

[Fred Sanders]

13. CORRECT. No debate is needed. The law is clear and precise.

[Vattel]

17. Okay, I should have said approve instead of ratify. The point still holds.

[Fred Sanders]

12. This is not a treaty, it is an international agreement with 5 other nations...you are wrong.

Do you think Obama is wrong?

[Raine1967]

15. Thank you. I wasn't able to address that at the time.

This is not a treaty. You are quite correct.

[Vattel]

20. I never said it was a treaty.

It is a mere executive agreement and so cannot bind the United States.

[Vattel]

18. I know it is not a treaty. It doesn't bind the United States, only the current executive.

[Fred Sanders]

14. The GOP line you quote is wrong.

[Aerows]

16. No offense

but I think President Obama should have rather than been conciliatory with the outright idiots that authored and were signatory to this "letter" on Senate Letterhead, no less, and should have had them all frogmarched by the Capitol Police and processed.

A Republican would have done it, and he would have fully been within his rights to do it. Piss them off? Yes, but occasionally you need to assert that fucking around with you isn't going to work.

[steve2470]

19. I love your passion, totally agree with it

I just don't know that, either legally or politically, he could get away with it. I think the most he could do would be to ask the Justice Department to investigate. Even that would be assailed as political and overkill etc etc etc. I think a very good case can be made for Logan Act violation, but I'm no prosecuting attorney.