An already heated battle between the White House and Republicans over negotiations to curtail Iran’s nuclear program grew more tense Monday when 47 Republican senators sent a letter to Iran designed to kill any potential deal.

The White House responded by accusing the Republicans of conspiring with Iranian hard-liners, who oppose the delicate negotiations, and suggesting that their goal was to push the United States into a military conflict.

“I think it’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran,” President Obama said a few hours after the letter was made public. “It’s an unusual coalition.”

Vice President Biden blasted the letter as “beneath the dignity of an institution I revere.”

“In 36 years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country — much less a longtime foreign adversary — that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them,” Biden said in a statement.

What are these legislators thinking?  Their behavior is unprecedented.   Why would these senators cozy up to the Iran hardliners?  Why would they assume that they are there to sit down along side the president and negotiate treaties?

I believe Hillary Clinton has it right.  They either want to aid the rogue regime or they want to do anything they can to disrupt the President, regardless of what it does to the country.  Apparently they chose war over peace.

I find their behavior despicable and treasonous.  Perhaps they can go ride in a tank with the Iranian head-honchos, you know, sort of like Jane Fonda.  I see almost no difference other than Fonda was a lot younger than most of them.  In essence, 47 senators found common cause with terrorists.  I find those that signed to be stupid, self-serving and impetuous.



148 Thoughts to “What are the Republican Senators thinking??!!”

  1. middleman

    Wolve :
    Middleman — If you go up to #38, you will find the origins of the personal mud slinging on this thread. That would be you and your reference to myself as being further down a rabbit hole than you thought. And I hadn’t even addressed a post to you.
    I think I told you before in another thread that I tend not to respond on substance to posters who lack politesse. Usually I just smack ‘em back and move on. An exemption was made on the last one because it was a Swiss cheese post full of informational holes and I just couldn’t resist it, as much as I tried. As for your #104, I will just let you research that history on your own. Time to move attention forward. ISIL may be losing Tikrit.

    Wolve, your name calling didn’t start on this thread. And an opinion regarding one’s position in relation to a rabbit hole is obviously not the same as throwing around childish pejoratives.

    It seems to me more like you don’t respond when you know you’re wrong, which is understandable I guess.

  2. Cargosquid

    Please point out how mandating that citizens purchase anything is a conservative idea.

  3. middleman

    Cargo and Kelly, here’s an excerpt from a paper on treaties and executive agreements that documents the rise of the executive agreement and it’s parity with treaties:

    “Such an expansive view of the president’s powers in foreign policy is consistent with the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation (299 U.S. 304 [1936]), where Justice Sutherland concluded that the president’s powers in the international realm were “plenary and exclusive.”24 Although Curtiss-Wright did not ad- dress executive agreements directly, the opinion allowed for vast delega- tions of power from Congress to the executive in the international realm (Ackerman and Golove 1995: 58). Moreover, where Congress was silent, presidents were essentially authorized to complete executive agreements (see Glennon 1990: 178–79). It did not take long, however, before the Court gave executive agreements the same legal weight as formal Article II treaties. In two cases involving settlement disputes ›owing from the Litvi- nov Agreement of 1933, a sole executive agreement where President Roo- sevelt of‹cially recognized the government of the Soviet Union (O’Brien 2003: 79), the Court addressed the issue more directly. In United States v. Belmont (301 U.S. 324 [1937]) and United States v. Pink (315 U. S. 203 [1942]) the Court’s opinion essentially elevated the legal status of execu- tive agreements to treaties consented to by the Senate.25 Margolis (1986: 61) summarizes, “Like its more formal counterpart, the executive agree- ment was now the law of the land.”
    The complete overhaul of the Senate’s treaty role in terms of ex post consent would not be solidi‹ed until the 1940s, when the American people began to doubt the wisdom of keeping such an important power in the hands of such a small minority (it only takes a small minority in the Senate to kill a popular treaty). As a result of historic changes in the wake of World War II, executive agreements became the normal method in completing most international agreements. Figure 1 charts the use of ex- ecutive agreements as a percentage of all international agreements com- pleted by U.S. presidents through 1989. The data are clear: in the modern era, the vast majority of agreements (nearly 95 percent) are completed as executive agreements rather than as treaties.”

    Link to the complete paper is here: http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472116874-ch1.pdf

    I think it’s clear why 94% of international agreements have been executive agreements since the Supreme Court decision listed above. And they didn’t even envision the kind of ultra-partisan government gridlock we have today.

  4. Kelly_3406


    I read this paper years ago in a National Security course. There is no question that the president has the authority to choose an executive agreement. There is also no doubt that the Congress has the right to make known its displeasure with his choice.

    The question is whether an executive agreement is the right way to go here. An executive agreement has no teeth; it is likely to be short term; and it is unlikely to prevent Iran from exploding a nuclear bomb. My belief is that an executive agreement is worse than no agreement at all, because it will allow more opportunity for the Iranians to acquire technology and materials needed to progress its nuclear program.

  5. Cargosquid

    “And they didn’t even envision the kind of ultra-partisan government gridlock we have today.”

    Of course they did. Today is NOTHING compared to FDR’s time. Ultra-partisan, that is. The gridlock is a benefit.

    Nothing in that article contradicts my statement that executive agreements can be dissolved at will by later Presidents. It just means that while they are in power, the agreement will be recognized, with limitations. Congress does NOT have to write law to comply with it. See the Kyoto Agreement.

    And Kelly is absolutely right.

  6. Wolve


    Middleman — Wrong again. I don’t post when I deem responding to a particular post is a waste of my time. Can you possibly understand? I decided to confront you on your post on Nicaragua. You were severely embarrassed by the informational holes in that post. I understand that. But you have to stop it sometime. Now is a good a time as any. Exeunt.

  7. Pat.Herve

    cargo – for one, here is the Heritage Foundation’s plan for health reform in 1989 – http://healthcarereform.procon.org/sourcefiles/1989_assuring_affordable_health_care_for_all_americans.pdf They wanted an individual mandate.

  8. Wolve

    Moon-howler :
    I respect Wolve. I just don’t necessarily think that the people in the field have the best political analysis of any situation. He probably knows more about details and tactics than the average Joe. As for the politics…well, those things will always be debated.

    Moon — Old Wolve was not always out in the field.

  9. Cargosquid

    Guess what?

    ANY mandate is not conservative, regardless of source. The idea of the government mandating that private citizens buy ANYTHING is not a conservative idea nor constitutional.
    The ONLY thing that the government is supposed to mandate in purchasing is that members of the militia were to provide certain gear and weaponry and keep it in good order.

    The Heritage Foundation made a mistake.

  10. Pat.Herve

    sometimes you just make me laugh.

    Have you found any credible source that the R’s were locked out of the room for ACA discussions?

  11. middleman

    Pretty convenient for you that it just happens to be a waste of your time when you’re wrong and have no answer.

    Severely embarassed? For you maybe…

  12. middleman


    “An executive agreement has no teeth; it is likely to be short term; and it is unlikely to prevent Iran from exploding a nuclear bomb.” Opinion, Kelly- Do you have anything to back it up?

    1. I believe that over half of the “treaties” since 1930 are executive agreements. Ha! Maybe that is why we have gone to war so many times….Congress wasn’t involved. NOT

  13. Pat.Herve

    Cargosquid :

    Good one trying to slip this in.

    The link you provided refers to the R’s being locked out of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee regarding Kent Conrad. Now, go back and find where the R’s were locked out regarding ACA. You will not find it. It did not happen. But keep saying it and maybe, someday, it will be true.

    I also do not consider creationwiki to be a credible source and the main author of that page is very biased.

    1. Why Pat, don’t you know if you see it on the internet then it is bound to be true?

  14. Pat.Herve

    I am still waiting for the internet to break from the photo of Kim’s assets.

  15. Pat.Herve

    that is what I thought – just keep saying it and people will believe it to be true – but no facts to back it up.

Comments are closed.