Kerry: Not negotiating a legal agreement with Iran

[Horn6721]

?
MrD
I only pointed out I did NOT contradict myself. BO can make a bad deal and he likely will. However I am also correct that it will not be a binding deal.

I guess since you think Iran will get a nuke no one, not the 5+1 now in Geneva nor Congress should bother trying to stop them. Just step aside and let them build nukes cuz even though they also now have ICBMs Iran has reasonable levelheaded leadership who has never threatened to destroy the US or anyone.

Prepared to do what?

 

[Mr. Deez]

?
MrD
I only pointed out I did NOT contradict myself. BO can make a bad deal and he likely will. However I am also correct that it will not be a binding deal.

I never said it would be a binding deal, and I'm not sure why you're celebrating that point. The fact that it can't be a binding deal weakens the letter's benefit. It doesn't help it. And a non-binding deal is a bit of an oxy moron. If it's not binding, then it's not much of a deal.

I guess since you think Iran will get a nuke no one, not the 5+1 now in Geneva nor Congress should bother trying to stop them. Just step aside and let them build nukes cuz even though they also now have ICBMs Iran has reasonable levelheaded leadership who has never threatened to destroy the US or anyone.

Prepared to do what?

No, we shouldn't just let them do it. We should attempt to stop them diplomatically, because of the appearance it makes. Like I said earlier, it's MUCH easier to sell a military strike against Iran if they've violated some agreement.

However, my key point is that we should act as though they're going to build a nuke regardless of what we do diplomatically. If they're really committed to it, then we can't stop them without using force. Even if somebody like Tom Cotton hustled Iran to sign the most onerous nuclear deal he could come up with, we should assume Iran will break it and build the nukes anyway. That means we should maintain or expand our military presence and develop a missile defense system.

 

[Horn6721]

MrD
You have an odd view of celebrating. I nor I suspect anyone who does not want Iran with a nuke is not celebratingsnymore than anyone celebrated BO announcing he would make sure to NOT take an accord to Congress.
I do think keeping the issue in the media raising people's awareness of the enormous problem with negotiating with whackos.
It also appears that the other 'moderate" ME nations like Saudi Arabia are invested more than before in making sure Iran does not get a nuke . That can't hurt.

 

[Mr. Deez]

MrD
You have an odd view of celebrating. I nor I suspect anyone who does not want Iran with a nuke is not celebratingsnymore than anyone celebrated BO announcing he would make sure to NOT take an accord to Congress.

You made a big deal out of the fact that the White House's deal would be nonbinding and hyped up the fact that I didn't make that distinction in my initial point that the letter was a bad idea that did more harm than good. The fact that any deal would be nonbinding makes the case for the letter weaker, not stronger.

I do think keeping the issue in the media raising people's awareness of the enormous problem with negotiating with whackos.
It also appears that the other 'moderate" ME nations like Saudi Arabia are invested more than before in making sure Iran does not get a nuke . That can't hurt.

The letter didn't keep the issue in the media. It gave the media a diversion to attack Republicans rather than discuss the merits or demerits of the deal and made it more difficult for more conscientious Democrats on the Hill to stand with the GOP on the issue. It had absolutely no benefit at all and reinforced every negative stereotype of the GOP. It was bad for the country. It was bad for the issue. It was bad for the Republican Party. If things ultimately turn out OK, it will be in spite of the letter, not because of it.

 

[Horn6721]

?" The fact that any deal would be nonbinding makes the case for the letter weaker, not stronger."
And all this time I thought an accord voted for by Congress and signed by the POTUS was a binding deal.

Since AFAIK BO hasn't offered any details of " the deal" it would be difficult for the media to discuss it.

Do you think that if BO had NOT made such a big deal out of stating he would not send any agreement to the Congress there would have been this open letter?

 

[Clean]

Word is that Obama is thinking about taking his Iran "agreement" (assuming he actually gets one) to the U.N. Security Council instead of Congress. I suppose he thinks that if they ratify it, it will bind whoever succeeds him as President. He's a sneaky little ****. It wouldn't surprise me.

[URL]http://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-warned-not-to-take-iran-deal-to-un-instead-of-congress/#![/url]

 

[Seattle Husker]

Word is that Obama is thinking about taking his Iran "agreement" (assuming he actually gets one) to the U.N. Security Council instead of Congress. I suppose he thinks that if they ratify it, it will bind whoever succeeds him as President. He's a sneaky little ****. It wouldn't surprise me.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-warned-not-to-take-iran-deal-to-un-instead-of-congress/#!

I'm curious, do the puppet strings of the Israel lobby hurt or tire you out?

J/K Clean. I get a chuckle at all the "If Obama does this which wouldn't surprise me" faux outrage.

 

[BevoBeef]

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. ...........

I do not disagree with this practical impact of the letter. In order to gauge the success of the letter, you have to do it in relation to the purpose of sending the letter. The objective of the letter is preemptive in nature ............... prevent the signed agreement to even happen or to make it politically more apparent that the signed deal is horrible. Barrasso, who was one of those who signed the letter, said in an interview on a Sunday news show that it was their conclusion that the deal that BO was trying to get was bad. They did not need to see the actual details because the broad purpose of the deal had gone out of bounds of what was hoped for initially. The implication is that they wanted to give Iran a negotiating position for the talks to fail. If it turns out that there is no agreement that BO wants, then the letter was a success.

I have a hunch that there was also some objective to influence the coming Israeli election, but it is difficult for me to assess that because I do not understand Israeli politics.

 

[Clean]

I'm curious, do the puppet strings of the Israel lobby hurt or tire you out?

I suppose you've got better insight into what Obama may or may not do than the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? Your anti semitic red neck is showing.

Dear President Obama,
It is my understanding that Secretary of State John Kerry will sign the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on behalf of the United States. The ATT raises significant legislative and constitutional questions. Any act to implement this treaty, provisionally or otherwise, before the Congress provides its advice and consent would be inconsistent with the United States Constitution, law, and practice.
As you know, Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution requires the United States Senate to provide its advice and consent before a treaty becomes binding under United States law. The Senate has not yet provided its advice and consent, and may not provide such consent. As a result, the Executive Branch is not authorized to take any steps to implement the treaty.
Moreover, even after the Senate provides its advice and consent, certain treaties require changes to United States law in the form of legislation passed by both the House and Senate. The ATT is such a treaty. Various provisions of the ATT, including but not limited to those related to the regulation of imports and trade in conventional arms, require such implementing legislation and relate to matters exclusively reserved to Congress under our Constitution.
Because of the concerns discussed above, as well as the fundamental issues the ATT raises with respect to the individual rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, as the Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it is my view that you may not take any executive action to implement this treaty, provisionally or otherwise, unless and until: (1) the United States Senate has provided its constitutionally required advice and consent to its ratification; and (2) the Congress has passed any and all required legislation to bring this treaty into effect under United States domestic law.
Sincerely,
Senator Bob Corker

[URL]http://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/ranking/release/corker-warns-obama-administration-against-any-action-to-implement-un-arms-trade-treaty-without-senate-advice-and-consent[/url]

 

[Mr. Deez]

?" The fact that any deal would be nonbinding makes the case for the letter weaker, not stronger."
And all this time I thought an accord voted for by Congress and signed by the POTUS was a binding deal.

Since AFAIK BO hasn't offered any details of " the deal" it would be difficult for the media to discuss it.

Do you think that if BO had NOT made such a big deal out of stating he would not send any agreement to the Congress there would have been this open letter?

You're right. The details of "the detail" haven't been publicized, which makes the letter look even stupider. They're ripping something they don't know the details about. And you're dancing around the real issue here. You're coming up with reasons why Obama has screwed up or is acting like a jackass, but none of that has any bearing on the merits of the letter.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I suppose you've got better insight into what Obama may or may not do than the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? Your anti semitic red neck is showing.



http://www.foreign.senate.gov/press...rade-treaty-without-senate-advice-and-consent

Anti-Semtic redneck? That hurts. I simply have an issue with handing over our foreign policy decisions to our allies. Clearly the Republicans have decided to side with Israel over US interests in this Tet e Tet.

The challenge with taking that letter on its surface is whether the Obama admin has actually signed something that is legally binding without Congressional approval. Have they? If so, I'll jump onto your bandwagon with pitchfork in hand. All I see right now is preemptive strikes that in fact are overreaches by Congress.

 

[Horn6721]

Husker,
The 47 Senators pointed out there could be no binding resolution without involving Congress. Corker's letter did much the same. So there is no binding resolution of any kind at the moment,
Neither letter addressed policy at all so not sure how you see that as handing on foreign policy to our allies
BUT having Kerry sign something the UN puts together is out sourcing our foreign policy to many nations who are clearly not our allies.


the phrase you mean is Tete-a-Tete. However I knew what you meant so this is not a criticism

 

[Seattle Husker]

I don't really have an issue with Corker's letter other than it was made public shows it was as much a political stunt as it was formal communication.

The Iran letter was addressed to and sent to the enemy. How can that be seen as anything other than foreign policy? It wasn't addressed to Obama.

Thanks for the correction. Yes, that was my intention.

 

[zork]

i don't like it, the letter, but don't appreciate at all the Kerry/Admin give up/abdication on a broad range of USA positions in general and Iran specifically. You typically don't get success with unilateral action, giving up everything for nothing in return. since Iran cannot be trusted their words are nothing in return even if they are making promises to the useful idiots in charge here.

 

[Horn6721]

Actually the Senators letter was not sent to Iran, merely posted on Cotton's website
help me understand the difference in your mind between declaring he would not let Congress vote on any agreement he made( knowing that is contradictory to the Constitution) which he later admitted would mean it was a nonbinding legal agreement and the 47 Senators outlining what is stated in the Constitution.
There was not one smidgen of policy mentioned in the letter.
Do you think if BO had not publically stated he would not send an agreement to Congress that such a letter would have been written?

 

[Seattle Husker]

There was not one smidgen of policy mentioned in the letter.

An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran

That's how it was addressed. No policy? By definition the Republicans were trying to address Iran directly. Most on the right don't even buy that line of thinking.

 

[Seattle Husker]

i don't like it, the letter, but don't appreciate at all the Kerry/Admin give up/abdication on a broad range of USA positions in general and Iran specifically. You typically don't get success with unilateral action, giving up everything for nothing in return. since Iran cannot be trusted their words are nothing in return even if they are making promises to the useful idiots in charge here.

Wait...you've read the deal? That seems to be more than most. Other than the leaked fragments by the Israeli "allies" where has the deal been posted? This could be the worst deal in the history of foreign relations but aside from Israel exposing portions which are self serving has anything else been posted. You have Senators that signed the letter openly admitting they have no knowledge of the negotiations. Have our negotiation partners of Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany suddenly disappeared?

 

[Horn6721]

Husker.,
policy? Not sure how recounting what is in our Constitution is as you called foreign policy.
Husker do YOU think the letter would have been written if BO had not publically announced he would not send any agreement to Conress?

 

[zork]

ooooh got me. havent read it. no matter, I'll hear about it in the news soon. that's a valid excuse, right?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Husker.,
policy? Not sure how recounting what is in our Constitution is as you called foreign policy.
Husker do YOU think the letter would have been written if BO had not publically announced he would not send any agreement to Conress?

Was this letter directed to Obama?

 

[Seattle Husker]

ooooh got me. havent read it. no matter, I'll hear about it in the news soon. that's a valid excuse, right?

That's good enough for me.

 

[zork]

were the discussions kerry/admin are making to Iran discussed with the House and Senate before discussing the supposed plans with Iran?

 

[Seattle Husker]

were the discussions kerry/admin are making to Iran discussed with the House and Senate before discussing the supposed plans with Iran?

Given how amicable the relationship isn't between the Obama Admin and the Republicans I wouldn't be surprised if nothing was discussed. At least, nothing more than the Executive Branch is obligated to report to oversight committees.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I do not disagree with this practical impact of the letter. In order to gauge the success of the letter, you have to do it in relation to the purpose of sending the letter. The objective of the letter is preemptive in nature ............... prevent the signed agreement to even happen or to make it politically more apparent that the signed deal is horrible. Barrasso, who was one of those who signed the letter, said in an interview on a Sunday news show that it was their conclusion that the deal that BO was trying to get was bad. They did not need to see the actual details because the broad purpose of the deal had gone out of bounds of what was hoped for initially. The implication is that they wanted to give Iran a negotiating position for the talks to fail. If it turns out that there is no agreement that BO wants, then the letter was a success.

I have a hunch that there was also some objective to influence the coming Israeli election, but it is difficult for me to assess that because I do not understand Israeli politics.

I get that the point of the letter was to sabotage the talks, but you can't crap on the President of the United States to a foreign leader without it hurting your position in those talks. And why would Obama back out on making a nonbinding deal to appease the people crapping on him? Like I said earlier, I don't think Obama cares if Iran gets nuclear weapons. I think he wants a deal more than he wants to keep them from getting nukes, so I doubt that he's going to just back down or walk away from the talks.

I think Joe Lieberman sets forth the appropriate course. Congress should pass their own legislation dealing with the issue, and of course, the congressionally-approved sanctions should be in effect until Congress lifts them. Obama has no authority to do that, and if he tries to, then have that battle when the time comes.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-i-lieberman-congress-deserves-a-vote-on-iran-1426633380

 

[THEU]

Ok, my first foray into Westmall in some years, and it happens on this thread. I don't care about some letter or Obama, or Kerry. What I care about primarily is peace, and what is best for the United States, and people of the world including the people of Iran and the people of Israel, and more. I don't know that Cotton's open letter posted on his website does anything to make people safer, nor in a greater degree of danger.
There are much more foundational questions than some open letter. Like these: With whom is Kerry negotiating? Iran, right? Well, with whom in the Iranian government? It is never talked about. I would guess it is some delegation that was appointed by the President of Iran. So who cares? The president has no authourity in Iran. The Ayatollah runs the country. Since 1979, Iran has had only two leaders; Khomeini and Khamenei. Is Kerry negotiating with them or their emissaries? No. Then it doesn't matter if Obama believes that his negotiations are bounding, because on the Iranian side the negotiations have no authourity.
I saw the question asked here about what leverage Obama has. The answer is none. The obvious answer is that Iran is negotiating simply for economic sanctions to be eased. Our current sanctions do hurt the Iranian economy, and Iran wants sanctions eased. What do we get in return? Nothing. That is the short answer. I had an email conversation with the US former chief negotiator, Richard Nephew, about a month ago. He stated that ensuring that Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon is the goal of our negotiations. I just have serious reservations that the current negotiations will accomplish that goal.
Some time ago (over 2 years in fact), I spoke with a friend who worked in the Clinton WH, and on Hilary's 2008 campaign. Hilary was still Sec of State when I had this conversation in my car leave the old King's Daughters Hospital. I can remember where I was, but not hte date. He informed me of a conversation that he had with her about the fact an Iranian friend had confirmed to him that Iran had a nuclear warhead. She was livid. "Who told you that?!" Their issue then, as I assume now, is that it is quite difficult to deliver a nuclear warhead. I am no expert (nor even novice), but the technology to attach a nuclear warhead to a missile is quite daunting. It is also, to my understanding the only thing standing in the way of Iran having a deliverable nuclear device. That is a scary thing to me. And if true, means that Obama and Cotton are lost at sea. Just my two cents. If you take them ant $2.00 you can go to Starbucks and have a conversation about race.

 

[Horn6721]

Theu
You are right, the Ayatollah controls Iran and nothing is more frightening.
I am curious what Hillary said to your friend after she ask how he knew. Did she deny it?
BTW Gen Flynn told the Senate Armed Services cmte in Dec that Iran would have ICBMs in 2015
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/intel-chief-iran-will-have-icbm-by-2015/

And what are we and the world doing? Well actually what could the world be doing?

 

[majorwhiteapples]

Why don't we just give one of our most important defense pieces of land, the Panama Canal back to to Panama......oh wait......

 

[Seattle Husker]

Why don't we just give one of our most important defense pieces of land, the Panama Canal back to to Panama......oh wait......

Non-sequitur?

 

[zork]

yes but done under Carter's watch.

 

[THEU]

Theu
You are right, the Ayatollah controls Iran and nothing is more frightening.
I am curious what Hillary said to your friend after she ask how he knew. Did she deny it?
BTW Gen Flynn told the Senate Armed Services cmte in Dec that Iran would have ICBMs in 2015
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/intel-chief-iran-will-have-icbm-by-2015/

And what are we and the world doing? Well actually what could the world be doing?

I pray for Obama regularly. To quote him 'there are no good solutions just tough choices' (he said that about Iraq). It applies to Iran. But to misrepresent the status of their nuclear program is just wrong. That is what I take issue with. And then to get indignant about a letter written by a Senator? I don't get these Mickey Mouse games, when so much is at stake. I was not aware that ICBMs were so close on the horizon for Iran.