Kerry: Not negotiating a legal agreement with Iran

H

Horn6721

Hook'em
( I couldn't fit the exact quote so here it is)
from Wapo:
"Credit Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) for raising the issue. Without a letter reminding the White House, Congress and the American people that a deal must be approved by the Senate in order to be binding, we might never have learned from Secretary of State John Kerry that “we are not negotiating a legally binding plan.” Oh, really?
< last paragraph>
This is a pretty huge deal and should cause some serious rethinking about what the administration is doing. If all it can promise is, in effect, disruption of the sanctions regime during the lame-duck president’s remaining time in office, his conduct may undercut future presidents’ leverage. Is this just about getting a piece of paper as a legacy and leaving others to deal with the mess? It sure looks that way."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...t-legally-binding/?postshare=7291426092371486

Amazing, what Kerry is admitting is exactly the same view Iran was taking. No matter what they appeared to agree to Iran was going to do what it wanted.
I can't see any positive from this for BO but I am sure supporters can explain.
 
I'm curious, were you worried about Presidential leverage to negotiate agreements/treaties before or after Tom Cotton's letter? It's quite apparent that most of the right is only worried about the Obama Administration's leverage which in and of itself should be considered despicable but when coupled with the Netanyahu debacle is purely abhorrent behavior. Seriously, call for a formal review of any treaty which we KNOW has to be ratified by the Senate. Instead, weak leadership like Mitch McConnel let a junior congressman like Cotton play diplomat. If the Republican party wasn't so obviously run by clowns, Obama's ****** track record would be on the front pages. Rather, the theatrics of the right continues to miraculously keep the Congressional approval ratings below Obama's by orders of magnitude. Let that thought simmer.
 
I'll be glad when his useful idiot card is fully punched so someone else gets a chance.
 
Husker
What " leverage" do you think BO has? The world didn't need a letter to understand BO is not in a position of strength vis a vis Iran.
 
Husker
Read the Constitution? I have and I did not need a letter to tell me the Senate ratifies
Is that a clear enough answer for you?
So Husker what leverage does BO have?
 
The current Executive Branch leadership believes, I believe, that Iran is capable of being a valid ally. It is folly in my opinion.
 
It's ironic that the same person who negotiated our deal with North Korea is also negotiating this "deal". We all know how well our agreement with North Korea has worked out. Obama seems to think that this is helping his "legacy" somehow.

The Iranians are religious fanatics that think that an apocalyptic war will bring about the Islamic Messiah, al Mahdi, and world peace under Islamic rule. You can't negotiate peace with people who want war.

What was Churchill's quote about Great Britain's negotiations with Nazi Germany, something like (paraphrasing); "you could have chosen war or shame. You chose shame. Now we will have war".

Obama is choosing shame. We will have war.
 
Horn6721 said:
Husker
Read the Constitution? I have and I did not need a letter to tell me the Senate ratifies
Is that a clear enough answer for you?
So Husker what leverage does BO have?
Click to expand...

That wasn't the question I asked. I'll repeat.

Seattle Husker said:
I'm curious, were you worried about Presidential leverage to negotiate agreements/treaties before or after Tom Cotton's letter?
Click to expand...

If the US didn't have leverage why would Iran be negotiating? Some of y'all should take the lead from the more rational Senators on the right that have admitted that sending a letter directly to the "Leaders of Iran" wasn't the wisest choice and potentially an illegal one. That last bit is for the those that have been trumpeting the importance of following the rule of law.
 
I really don't see what purpose the letter was supposed to serve. It made the GOP look petty, condescending, and disloyal to its president overseas. I'm not going to call it "treason" or pretend that Democrats haven't acted like disloyal and unpatriotic pricks in the foreign policy realm when a Republican is in the White House. They certainly have. However, there's no upside to this letter - politically or otherwise. It's just shear stupidity.

Having said that, anyone who thinks this president or any president was going to be able to negotiate a deal that would truly stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons is a fool. To negotiate a nuclear agreement, you have to be able to trust the nation you're negotiating with, because there's no way to verify the absence of nuclear weapons. We can't search every square inch of the country to verify their compliance, and they'd never allow that anyway. That means trust is essential, and we cannot, do not, and will not trust Iran. Accordingly, any deal that is negotiated is a blatant sham. If they want nuclear weapons, they will get them. The wisest thing we can really do is be prepared for the time when Iran and other nutcase regimes get nuclear weapons.

Having said that, negotiating a deal with Iran is not a total waste, because of the political implications. If they develop weapons or get close to it and we want to attack them militarily, it'll be much easier to gain popular support (at home and especially abroad) for such an attack if there's a clear violation of an agreement. So long as internally we knew the agreement is ******** and that we're prepared for the time when they break it, I'd much rather have it than not have it.
 
Horn6721 said:
Husker
You are the one saying BO has leverage. I am asking what leverage you think he has.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying the US has less leverage now than before. Do you disagree? I'll also restate, if the US had no leverage then explain why Iran would be at the negotiating table.

While some try to make this an Obama issue this is a US vs. Iran negotiation. That's what is being lost in this sad mess. The hate for Obama is so clouding the judgement of some on the right that they are conversing directly with the "enemy" to undercut the US foreign policy. This is a classic "cut off your nose to spite your face" scenario. That's a sad statement and if the shoe were on the other foot I'd have no doubt that Fox news would be screaming TREASON!!!
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
While some try to make this an Obama issue this is a US vs. Iran negotiation. That's what is being lost in this sad mess. The hate for Obama is so clouding the judgement of some on the right that they are conversing directly with the "enemy" to undercut the US foreign policy. This is a classic "cut off your nose to spite your face" scenario. That's a sad statement and if the shoe were on the other foot I'd have no doubt that Fox news would be screaming TREASON!!!
Click to expand...
Exactly right.
 
Husker
You seem like a smart male /female I bet you can think of a reason a "enemy" like Iran would want a pretend non binding agreement. Think hard and look at Iran's history and actions over the past decades.Do you truly think Iran will negotiate in good faith? What in their past gives you confidence you can trust them?
.
As far as Fox crying treason find a link where Fox accused Pelosi of treason for her disastrous private meeting with Assad in 07.Was Assad / Iran an enemy then? why Yes yes it was
That private meeting, where she also enraged Israel by misrepresenting what Olmert said comes closer to treason than an open letter to Iran also sent to every major news outlet by Senators who are the ones to ratify any agreement.
Did you read the letter? It is out there to read and you might gain some insight from reading it.

I haven't by the way been able to find a transcript of what Pelosi said to Assad.
 
HORN6721 - Can't you simply admit that whatever leverage the US had was diminished with the letter? Why is that so hard?

Now you want to go into Congressional fact finding missions with this letter that was directly pointed to a leader we were in active negotiations with?

You should probably know that many blogs did call Pelosi a "traitor" with that trip and Foxnews slipped in this tidbit here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/0...arks-criticism-for-bungled-shuttle-diplomacy/

A group of three Republican congressmen also visited Syria in recent days, but with a much lower profile. They too met with Assad. One staff member, however, said the two trips were planned independently and the Republicans were unaware of the speaker's travel plans.
Click to expand...

This very common activity by congressional leaders has nothing to do with the letter signed by the 47.
 
Bi-Partisan? It notes a single Democrat leading the effort.

With that said, the House was much wiser and smarter in that they at least are making this public stand directly to Obama rather than foreign leaders. I see you continue to avoid answering the question of whether the letter addressed to the Iranian leaders weakened the US negotiating power. That's OK. The answer is obvious.
 
Husker
BO weakened our negotiating power when he announced that he would do everything he could to circumvent Congress.
 
Whether the letter weakened our position our not, what good did it do? In what sense are we better off than if the letter hadn't been written?
 
How are we better off? Maybe by learning from history?
Remember what happened after the " historic " agreement BO and others accepted Nov 13? Remember that both Rs and Ds in Congress were concerned about Iran living up to their end?
Did Iran live up ? At the time of the signing Obama insisted the sanctions relief is reversible if Iran doesn’t live up to its end of the bargain.
Here from USA today Feb2014. Very concerning wouldn't you day?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/02/28/iran-nuclear-economic-advance/5835935/
What did BO do or has done in the past year ?
If by sending an open letter a new "bad" ( which is what the 2013 deal was) deal might have less chance of being done and allowing Iran time to finish a nuke.

It will be interesting to see how many Representatives from both parties end up signing the letter of support for the 47 Senators.

Would anyone really like to see BO and the other nations sign a new accord that Iran will violate?
Does anyone think Iran would NOT violate a new accord?
Why wouldn't anyone want Congress knowing details of any deal BO would sign?
 
Mr. Deez said:
Whether the letter weakened our position our not, what good did it do? In what sense are we better off than if the letter hadn't been written?
Click to expand...

I guess it depends upon how pro-Israel you are and how much that you trust Iran. The evidence is that BO's drawing a line in the sand does not mean anything. He backed off a US pledge in missile defense of eastern Eu. The reset with Russia seemed to do a lot of good? So why should I trust him to make a deal that is beneficial to USA in the long run. My sense is that he is more concerned about his legacy.

So if I want to make it difficult for BO to capitulate and make it more dangerous for Israel, then the letter does some good.
 
This is good:

Mr. Deez said:
If they develop weapons or get close to it and we want to attack them militarily, it'll be much easier to gain popular support (at home and especially abroad) for such an attack if there's a clear violation of an agreement. So long as internally we knew the agreement is ********
Click to expand...

Most everyone seems to agree that any negotiated deal with Iran is not going to be honored by that regime. Now the U.S. needs to make sure the agreement is a "good" agreement, which is one that clearly defines what is acceptable and what is not. Currently, Israel has a great deal at stake over the agreement and is unhappy with its terms (however they found out what those terms are). Should those opposed the agreement do nothing if they believe its terms weaken the ability to gain popular support for a military strike?
 
BevoBeef said:
I guess it depends upon how pro-Israel you are and how much that you trust Iran. The evidence is that BO's drawing a line in the sand does not mean anything. He backed off a US pledge in missile defense of eastern Eu. The reset with Russia seemed to do a lot of good? So why should I trust him to make a deal that is beneficial to USA in the long run. My sense is that he is more concerned about his legacy.

So if I want to make it difficult for BO to capitulate and make it more dangerous for Israel, then the letter does some good.
Click to expand...

But the letter has no real bearing on that. First, the content of the letter is true. The President can't make a legally binding deal with Iran without Senate approval. It can only bind the current administration to the extent it wants to be bound, and that happens with or without the letter. Second, the letter polarized and injected partisan politics into the issue, making it harder for Democrats who don't like what the Administration is doing to stick with the GOP on the issue.

You don't have to tell me about Russia or the missile defense issue. I'm with you 100 percent on that. I understand why we don't have 300,000 troops in Europe like we did during the Cold War. However, we've gone much further with the drawdown than we should have. And stopping the missile defense program is nuts. It was not only a check on Russia but also a check on Iran. It also pissed off the Czech Republican and Poland who are good allies.
 
iatrogenic said:
This is good:



Most everyone seems to agree that any negotiated deal with Iran is not going to be honored by that regime. Now the U.S. needs to make sure the agreement is a "good" agreement, which is one that clearly defines what is acceptable and what is not. Currently, Israel has a great deal at stake over the agreement and is unhappy with its terms (however they found out what those terms are). Should those opposed the agreement do nothing if they believe its terms weaken the ability to gain popular support for a military strike?
Click to expand...

See my post to BevoBeef. I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't see how the letter can really make an impact. The White House can always agree to bind itself, but it can't bind the US long term without Senate approval. Both facts are true with or without the letter.
 
BO polarized this months ago by announcing he would do everything in his power to make sure any accord he reached would NOT go to Congress.
So far what BO has said about an agreement concerns many in Congress. BO has for instance not mentioned Iran's ICBMs. Others are against a "sunset" clause( to Iran 10 years is nothing).
We know Iran has violated every agreement so far. BO said after the last agreement he would increase sanctions if Iran did not comply. Ask IAEA if Iran cooperated> What sanctions did BO increase?

So by alerting Iran that the USA has a Constitution and BO can do nothing the Senators also reminded the world and maybe even BO < if he read about it in the news>.
There is plenty of precedent for what the Senators did, precedent even by Obama and Kerry. This might prevent bad deal.

Is a bad deal better than no deal?
 
Horn6721 said:
BO polarized this months ago by announcing he would do everything in his power to make sure any accord he reached would NOT go to Congress.
So far what BO has said about an agreement concerns many in Congress. BO has for instance not mentioned Iran's ICBMs. Others are against a "sunset" clause( to Iran 10 years is nothing).
We know Iran has violated every agreement so far. BO said after the last agreement he would increase sanctions if Iran did not comply. Ask IAEA if Iran cooperated> What sanctions did BO increase?

So by alerting Iran that the USA has a Constitution and BO can do nothing the Senators also reminded the world and maybe even BO < if he read about it in the news>.
There is plenty of precedent for what the Senators did, precedent even by Obama and Kerry. This might prevent bad deal.

Is a bad deal better than no deal?
Click to expand...

Let's lay a few things down. First, I don't believe Obama actually cares if Iran gets nuclear weapons, and he's not going to do anything substantial to keep that from happening. Second, Iran will violate a good deal, bad deal, or any deal if they're really interested in getting nuclear weapons, which they presumably are.

However, you're contradicting yourself. You rightly agree with the letter that no deal can be made without Congress, yet you're worried that Obama will commit the United States to a bad deal. Both can't be true, and whatever deal he does make without Congress binds only him, which Congress can't prevent. So the letter is pointless.

Obama polarized it, but he polarized it in the GOP's favor. He looks like a jackass wanting to avoid dealing with Congress, but Cotton just threw the polarization back to Obama's favor by answering jackassery with more jackassery. He would have been better off keeping the criticism within the borders, highlighting Obama's stupid choice to try to go outside of Congress, and then blowing off whatever crappy deal Obama comes up with.
 
?"However, you're contradicting yourself. You rightly agree with the letter that no deal can be made without Congress, yet you're worried that Obama will commit the United States to a bad deal. Both can't be true"

Actually both can be true, READ the letter. You have to include a word you left out, BINDING.
BO has made it pretty plain he will get an agreement and that agreement would probably be in force until the POS leaves office.
 
Horn6721 said:
?"However, you're contradicting yourself. You rightly agree with the letter that no deal can be made without Congress, yet you're worried that Obama will commit the United States to a bad deal. Both can't be true"

Actually both can be true, READ the letter. You have to include a word you left out, BINDING.
BO has made it pretty plain he will get an agreement and that agreement would probably be in force until the POS leaves office.
Click to expand...

Yes, Obama can make a non-binding agreement that he chooses to observe. The letter does nothing to stop Obama from making a such an agreement, because he can blow off the letter and can blow off Congress when making this non-binding deal. So the letter does nothing in that regard. Also, you do know what the word "nonbinding" means, right? It means that the deal can be ignored by Congress and by the next president.

One thing the letter definitely did do is shift the political narrative from how bad of a deal Obama might make to whether or not 47 dumbasses on Capitol Hill are lawbreakers or not. That's about all it has accomplished, and that's sad. It shouldn't be the center of discussion, but it is and for no friggin' benefit to the GOP or to the country. Some stupid nonbinding agreement just isn't big enough of a deal to risk Senate seats and the presidency over.

Also, I've got news for you. If Iran wants a nuke, they're going to get one even with the best deal imaginable out there for the simple reason that we can't stop them without a war. And the American people want to avoid war more than they want to stop Iran from getting a nuke. We know it, and Iran knows it. That means they're going to get the nuke if they really want it. We just need to be prepared.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top