Free Markets, Free People

Where’s the “treason?”

You know, anymore you have to wait a couple of days for the hysteria to settle before you can figure out what may or may not have happened.   And unfortunately, our “National Enquirer” media is usually the leaders of the hysteria.

This supposed “treasonous” letter, for instance.  Finally, Jennifer Rubin lends a little sanity to what have been the equivalent of click bait headlines these past few days.


[T]he letter was “open” — that is, akin to an op-ed, not dropped in the mail with a Tehran address. This is not a private negotiation or even a message primarily to the Iranians; it was a statement concerning the president’s powers, in contravention of prior promises, to make an critically important deal without Congress. It was unfortunate that it was not instead a letter to the editor or the president; the content would have been the same and Democrats would have been deprived of a silly but unifying talking point. But let’s get to the reason it had to be sent in the first place. As Jeb Bush noted in a statement, “The Senators are reacting to reports of a bad deal that will likely enable Iran to become a nuclear state over time. They would not have been put in this position had the Administration consulted regularly with them rather than ignoring their input.”

Can’t begin to see how that measures up to “treason”.  I can see how the subversion of the Constitution could lead in that direction though.

Second it is a warning to Iran to deal straight with the President:

Republicans are saying to the mullahs they’d better not sucker the president into a sweetheart deal because ultimately that deal will have to pass muster with Congress. Any savvy negotiator would use that to say to the mullahs they need to deliver more, not less, because of the ornery lawmakers. But Obama is so determined to give the mullahs whatever they demand he cannot recognize bargaining leverage when it is staring him in the face. It is only when you are trying to give away the store that you consider a letter warning the mullahs the bar will be high for a deal to be “sabotage.”

So instead, it’s backing this idiot’s sucker’s President’s play.  They’ve actually managed to give Obama some leverage and Obama is rejecting it for heaven sake.


The letter was meant to highlight a point about which critics have not quarreled: The president can have a binding treaty with Senate approval, or he can have an executive agreement that may be null and void when he leaves office. (If he has told the Iranians otherwise, either he is confused or he is selling snake oil.)

Got that?  Deal straight and make the sort of deal we will approve in the Senate.

But, as Rubin points out, there’s a bigger question:

What does the president think he is negotiating if he intends to keep Congress in the dark and present a fait accompli?

Does he understand that if he thinks its a “treaty” and it doesn’t go before (and get passed by) the Senate, it isn’t worth a war bucket of spit?  I mean, he may have a pen and a phone, but he can’t agree to a treaty without Congress’s okay no matter how hard he tries to pretend he can.

Which may necessitate some more “depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” reasoning from Democrats.

There’s the story.

So, in terms of the letter, another partisan tempest in a teapot.

Meanwhile, the big Constitutional question mostly gets ignored.

Thanks media.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

93 Responses to Where’s the “treason?”

  • True, it’s not treason. Iran already knows everything in the letter, and they’re enjoying seeing the political divisions in the US – the response from Iran’s ambassador was smugly funny – but you’re wrong on substance. You also don’t seem to know what executive agreements are – and how they can be far more important than treaties.

    The negotiations involve five countries with Iran and will likely lead to Security Council resolutions. Once those resolutions are passed, the US has a legal obligation as a Security Council member to abide by them. Now, since the US can’t be punished, it’s possible that a future Republican President might want ignore those obligations. But at the earliest that would be in 2017, and by then if the agreement is functioning well it would not at all be in the US interest to suddenly refuse to be involved – that would weaken our ability to hold Iran accountable. So while an executive agreement does only last as long as the President’s term, historically they are far more common than treaties and until 1972 didn’t even have to be reported to Congress. No one who understands foreign policy would call executive agreements ‘not worth a bucket of spit.’

    Yes, the letter was meaningless – I think the GOP is feeling frustrated at their impotence in stopping Obama and this smacks of a publicity stunt. I wonder what the reaction will be if Netanyahu loses next Tuesday (very possible) and if his Washington speech is seen as one reason for his defeat.

    • Without the lifting of sanctions, which only Congress can do, no matter what the Security Council says, this will be worse than a bucket of spit.

      I long for the post-racial, post partisan government that starts on Jan 20, 2017

      • Not really, the way the sanctions were written give the President considerable leeway on whether or not to enforce them. Read this:

        • Yeah. Really, all Pres. ScamWOW has to do is lie. He does that remarkably deftly, dunnhe?

          He can certify to Congress this and that, according to law, but there doesn’t have to be a word of truth in anything he submits. Like ObamaDoggle.

          But the author of that piece is a moron, and spends a lot of his ink contradicting his own title.

          Or did you read the piece?

          • “Any deal with the U.S. would — I hope — insist on unrestricted access to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure for UN inspectors …”

            I’ve seen this movie before, except instead of Iran it was Iraq.

          • Khamenei said that whenever the talks approach a deadline, “the tone of the other party, particularly the Americans, becomes harsher, harder and more violent. This is part of their tricks and deceits.”

            Does anybody really believe that the Iranians will push aside decades of the “Great Satan” meme when you get stuff like this ?

        • We all know about the President’s leeway to enforce things don’t we.
          If you want an example of an executive agreement that was abrogated, look no further than South Vietnam – the Paris Peace treaty, 1975.
          So, politely speaking, stuff it.

          Are you that desperate for Iran to have a nuke just so you can milk your Obama fixation a little longer?

          • Alan, you aren’t responding to my points. First, do you think one executive agreement that wasn’t followed denies either their overall importance or the situation I described which would make it unlikely that the next President (probably not a Republican) would abrogate this one? Your argument is based on a logical fallacy. It’s the equivalent of saying “they Yankees shouldn’t bring in their ace reliever to close out the game because a few years ago he gave up a game winning homerun.” And the goal is to get Iran to agree not to have nuclear weapons. An attack on Iran would bring an oil crisis, may not work, and may ignite a new round of terrorism and conflict in the Mideast. No sane person wants a war. A negotiated settlement with the UN Security Council is in the US interests. So really, you have nothing, Alan.

          • I’m pointing out that executive treaties have been abrogated in the past, and I picked one of my favorites, though I’m sure you’d rather not be reminded where and when, and who did it before.
            Kerry was sort of involved in that fiasco to.
            The point the Senators are making is that the next President can abrogate the treaty without so much as a by your leave if he or she chooses to.
            We went to war to prevent their neighbor from getting a weapon of mass destruction and now we’re negotiating how many centrifuges they can build for enriching fissile materials.

            No, your argument is based on the premise that Iran is dealing square, and that’s not a premise I subscribe to, their daily actions belie that premise.

            “An attack on Iran would bring an oil crisis, may not work, and may ignite a new round of terrorism and conflict in the Mideast.”
            That attack is precisely what Obama/Kerry are proposing as a big stick we’ll use if Iran fails to stand by the treaty. So one of the very things you insist we cannot do we are proposing as one of our courses of action as a solution for their treaty breaking.

            Furthermore they’re apparently over there discussing weekend vacation plans for Obama to Tehran, rather than treaties – “We are not negotiating a legally binding plan.” – John Kerry
            Not legally binding – so much for your security council protection eh? Read those words slowly NOT LEGALLY BINDING
            but the security council one will be? How when the basis for any Security Council agreement will be a not legally binding document.
            What exactly is the point if it’s not binding?

            So, really, it is you have nothing Scott.
            I watch as Iran shouts at our ambassadors during negotiations (and boasts about it), bombs a mock up of one of our aircraft carriers (and boasts about it), and threatens to fly the Islamic flag over the White House. These strike me as rather poor negotiation tactics for a country seeking a mutually beneficial and peaceful accord. These are the actions of an arrogant puffed up bully confident in their bully behavior.

            Which is why I’m not surprised you are not bothered by them and ignore them. I have long suspected that your form of diplomacy would be to readily agree to anything the man who beats you with a club, kidnaps your children and defiles your wife demands.
            Your fixation with the perfection that is Obama easily rivals any fixation we may have to the contrary here.

            You are weak Scott, weak and fawning and eager to appear clever and worldly.

          • Splendid job, Alan, demolishing Scott’s every argument with simple, verifiable facts.

          • Wow, Alan, you must feel desperate, you’ve given a word salad that says nothing but shows your frustration.

            Let me walk you through this. Everyone, including the Iranians, know the limits of an executive agreement. However, if one is made and it’s working, the likelihood that a President will break it in 2017 is very low, even in the unlikely event it’s a Republican. Moreover, a UN Security Council resolution is legally binding international law. The US cannot “undo” a Security Council vote. So if that’s in place, there is a binding agreement. True, the US can break its word at that point, but if it does there will be a diplomatic price that a new President will think twice about paying.

            Your other insults and bravado shows that you know you have a pathetically weak case. All the stuff about their ambassadors yelling at ours is silly – and totally irrelevant to the points I made. In fact, you’re falling over yourself trying to hurl insults and emotional talk, which speaks volumes. People don’t do that when they have a good argument. Again: executive agreements vastly outnumber treaties and are seen as a primary tool of foreign policy.

            You don’t deny that. You say they can be broken, but I said just as much in my first post. I also explained, patiently, how the context here makes it unlikely that IF they reach an agreement, and it’s working in 2017, a future President will break it. It will not be in the US interests. You never address that. You assert that Obama is threatening war, but that also is not the case – in that you’re simply stating a falsehood. You don’t deny the negative consequences of a war with Iran.

            So you don’t deny any of my points, but post a verbose, rambly attack. That’s the mark of someone who knows he’s lost an argument.

          • So you don’t deny any of my points, but post a verbose, rambly attack. That’s the mark of someone who knows he’s lost an argument.

            Self-parody, thy name is Erp…

          • “Let me walk you through this.”

            Indeed Scott, let me –
            the UN Security Council agreement you’re busy defending, is pure fantasy at this point in time.
            There is no such agreement, other than in the second paragraph of your first drooling post.

            So to discuss the immense binding strength of an agreement which does not exist, based on a non binding agreement which has not been created is rather pointless.
            Shall we continue the walk?

            “All the stuff about their ambassadors yelling at ours is silly”
            But happened, you weren’t paying attention to the world news – 10 points off.

            “Again: executive agreements vastly outnumber treaties and are seen as a primary tool of foreign policy. ”
            And that has no relevance in this discussion, because the point at hand was made in a letter by US Senators that the treaty under discussion is the form of treaty that may be rescinded without voting by anyone unless it is ratified by the Senate per the US Constitution.
            I didn’t deny it, you didn’t deny it, no one denied it. We have known it was the plan all along, at least as far back as October of last year.
            An executive action.

            “You assert that Obama is threatening war, but that also is not the case – in that you’re simply stating a falsehood. ”
            “The U.S. goal is to make sure “there’s at least a year between us seeing them try to get a nuclear weapon and them actually being able to obtain one,” Obama said in the interview, carefully timed by the White House a day ahead of Netanyahu’s polarizing speech to Congress.”
            And what would that year’s time be used for, I wonder. Planning a party to welcome their new baby bomb to the world?
            That’s an implied threat – in that before that year elapsed their capacity to make a nuclear device would be destroyed.
            Otherwise why would it matter, why would it need to be said. Why would a year be worth mentioning.

            So, to recap, the ‘treaty’, if it is signed, as of yet has no UN Security Council agreement to prevent a US President from rescinding it.
            Your argument is that the next president must be bound by stare decisis because you say so and because there might be a Security Council treaty.
            Why don’t you suggest there also might be a treaty with Intersteller Police Force that will prevent it as one also does not exist.

            So, until there IS a treaty,
            AND a Security Council treaty,
            you have nothing Scott.

    • The letter was full of meaning, and that’s why your Collective is frothing at their collective mouths, and you know it.

      People…well, Americans…are wondering why the FLUCK Barracula is acting hell-bent on assuring Iran they can have the bomb…and hegemony over that region. It’s one of those posers for people who think like Americans, instead of…you know…you.

      The letter addressed the concerns of Americans, and it fired a shot across ScamWOW’s bow. And you know it.

      • I’m amused by that letter, and find it funny that Iran’s ambassador’s response really stuck it to the people who wrote/signed the letter. No big deal – I think it’s rather funny. But no, it’s not treason or anything serious. It didn’t tell Iran anything they didn’t already know very well.

        • You know that repeating yourself is just short of drooling on the “dementia assessment score”, right, Erp?

        • Oh yeah, yessir, he sure ‘stuck it’ to the Senators, yes indeed. I’m sure they’re feeling stung and sufficiently put in their place.
          Did you have a fantasy dream about it?

          They’ll probably remember how stung and beaten they are when time comes to ratify any treaty too.
          And then we’ll see huh.
          His diplomatic version of “up yours” will certainly win their vote for ratification.

          Course it’ll never get there, because the Constitutional Scholar doesn’t think he needs their approval to create law.

          • I doubt they’ll be asked to ratify any treaty, and yes, I think the GOP is damage control mode now. This was a political mistake, it feeds into the image of the GOP as being ideologically rabid Obama haters, putting their anger at the President above the good of the country. It’s part of the reason why the GOP is likely to lose the Senate in 2016 – unless they can learn to compromise and work nicely with the President. This was never meant to be a treaty, it was meant to be an executive agreement (historically those outnumber treaties about 20-1, and have had far more influence on foreign policy) and a Security Council resolution.

          • Khamenei said states typically remain loyal to their commitments even if governments change, ” but American senators officially announced the commitment will be null and void after this government leaves office. Isn’t this the ultimate degree of the collapse of political ethics and the U.S. system’s internal disintegration?”

            Wasn’t this the point of the “Cotton Letter” ? That the Congress would have to ratify it to “emain loyal to their commitments.”

          • Well, you’ll find that pretty much nobody here “weeps” over the bullshit printed in the Mushroom Media about conservatives…or even the GOP.

            And I note with great amusement you talk of a “fallacy” while employing them freely every time you come here. This time, we have the “false dichotomy” fallacy where we either have a choice of making a bad, weak “executive agreement” with Iran or attacking Iran. The truth is quite different, as you’d know if you could remove the ObamaCock oral device and detox for a while. The Barracula trajectory is MORE apt to result in either war or capitulation to Iran as the hegemon in the ME, plus a general up-arming of other nations like Saudi Arabia.

            You’ve been asked several questions, and we all note that…as usual…you are afraid to respond.


          • Read it and laugh Scott – Politico – citing John McCain – the weepy head RINO.

            Even the article indicates the 47 signatories have no regrets Scott, so ‘some Republicans’ are weepy and concerned?


            About half the ignorant media was yelling treachery and sedition and illegal, so this article is supposed to make me weep?

            Politico, tied in knots for days now wringing their hands about Iranian Hard Liners, as if these people are not already in charge, as if they’re having to sneak around behind the scenes and are just waiting to wrest power from the enlightened moderate government of Iran.
            You aren’t paying attention to Iran’s daily activities Scott, and the writers at Politico are as delusional as you are.

            Iran, where women are put in jail for a year for the crime of watching men’s volleyball.

            No hardliners here, no indeed.

            Since you were kind enough – consider this then. Iran’s treaty violations

            a snippet – “A U.S. delegation informed a U.N. Security Council panel of experts monitoring Iranian sanctions in recent months that Iranian procurement agents have been increasing their efforts to illicitly obtain equipment for the IR-40 research reactor at the Arak nuclear complex.”

            I don’t expect you’ll weep however, I expect you’ll just ignore it.

          • …next President (probably not a Republican)….

            …the GOP is likely to lose the Senate in 2016….

            We’re all so very impressed by your predictive skills, Scott.

            How’s that Arab Spring turning out? Christians lined up for beheading in Libya. Is that “good and necessary”?

            …unless they can learn to compromise and work nicely with the President.

            Oh, even better. You, a partisan hack who cheers every Democrat win pretends to give advice to your enemies how they can take away power from your party.

            I’m sure that advice is sound.

            Again, if your idol gets his agreement with Iran, but Iran breaks the agreement, what will he do about it? Backpedal and repeat the Syria red line excuse? Attack Iran and do exactly what you denounce?

            Please, elaborate.

          • Elliot, the Arab spring is going exactly as I expected it to – slowly. I noted that this is the start of a transition, a necessary one, from obsolete and broken dictatorships towards modernization. It’s driven by demographic change as the youth population rapidly increases. That along with globalization spells doom for the dictators. But it will take time – it’s a generational change.

            I also predicted there would be considerable violence before things get better – but that’s also a necessary part of the process of change. The corrupt violent dictatorships left a political culture built on fear and violence. It will reflect that for some time as the reactionaries fight against modernization. But it’s a fight they’ll lose. Consider the West – modernization included slavery, the US civil war, WWI, WWII, the holocaust, communism, colonialism that had mass murder as a weapon in many cases (like Latin America) and destruction of culture as a given in many others. Our transition was violent too – there has never been a civilization as violent as the West. Yet we’ve emerged and are continuing to improve. That’s the way the world works. No magic answer sheets or ideological “correct” path – just messy historical progress. It’s been that way for the length of human history.

            I’m an optimist. I believe that we can overcome these problems, but forcing change with violence will often make it worse, and trying to prevent modernization by supporting dictators will lead to even worse violence and more difficulty in the transition. That’s the world you find yourself in Elliot, like it or not.

          • there has never been a civilization as violent as the West.

            I always LOVE these occasions when you show your ass WRT history, Erp…!!!

            There are MULTIPLE historical examples of MUCH more violent…and lethal…”civilizations” than “the West” (which is a FLUCKING implicit LIE, all by itself).

            The Collective was NOT “the West”, liar. The West DEFEATED your Collective.

            The WEST…for the first time in history…ENDED slavery…at least in the CIVILIZED world (it still is practiced by the barbarians of Islam. Innit?)

            You poor, stupid, ignorant, lying sack of shit.

          • …the Arab spring is going exactly as I expected it to….

            Yes, just like colder winters were predicted as part of global warming.

            If you do consider all the brutality and murder of women, beheadings, and burning alive in cages to be part of the “good and necessary” “progress” you cheered, then what does that say about you?

          • “I also predicted there would be considerable violence before things get better – but that’s also a necessary part of the process of change”

            Except, of course, when those nasty Western Europeans or Americans are involved.

            “modernization included slavery,…”

            No. Modernization included the abolition of slavery. There is nothing modern about slavery.

            “…, the Holocaust…”

            Now that is just plain sick.

            The rest of your nonsense isn’t worth the time.

        • I thought it was funny too. Mostly because from the tone, it could have been written by Erb.

        • Hard Sciency stuff here for you Professer Tinkles, some complex math word problems

          if there are 54 US Senators who are classified as Republicans,
          and 47 of them have no regrets about signing the open letter –

          how many Republican Senators might have regrets about the letter?

          Let’s see,
          54 Republican Senators
          47 with no regrets

          equals – uh, uh, uh, uh…

          a whole bunch of them!
          a lot!

          As a percentage of the total who have regrets which of the following provides the best description:
          A) Most Republican Senators
          b) The vast majority of Republican Senators
          c) All of the Republican Senators
          d) Everyone but that pita Tom Cotton
          e) None of the above.
          f) Obama is just so dreamy

          • g) I TEACH THIS STUFF!!!
            h) thou doth protest too much
            i) go read this [link to rambling diatribe about quantum stuff and junk]
            j) you horrible mean inbred impotent losers, look at how you insult me for no reason
            k) I’m taking my ball and going home, you’ll never see me again


      Here’s the fake Irishman, John E’fing Kerry, going full headless chicken over the letter that “was meaningless”. Is that how one reacts to “meaningless”?

      Why do you figure he felt he had to lie?

      • Sharks gotta swim, bats gotta fly, Kerry has to lie. Just another of Ma Nature’s little quirks.

    • Yo, professer Tinkles – can you say ‘arms race’?

      Yeah, I knew you couldn’t.

      We desperately need to let Iran enrich nuclear ore don’t we,
      because what’s important is that the lightweight asshat in the White House, and the lightweight asshat from Massachusetts get a shot at a Noble Peace Prize,
      and have a publicity backpatting orgasm over their fantasy nonbinding treaty with Iran.

      • Wow, you’re sort of blathering on and on with personal attacks and irrelevant tangents. You’re wearing the fact I frustrated you on your sleeve, excellent! But of course, you’re dealing with fantasy. Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons. Iran is a very weak state. The government could collapse. Nuclear energy is a logical course of action due to its refinery problems (it has to export and re-import oil to get it refined), and the public are pushing for more democracy. The clerics like a crisis so they can play the nationalist card and try to keep the opposition down – but it’s a losing battle. Those who compare Israel to Nazi Germany or Netanyahu to Churchill (eyes rolling) forget that Germany was a major world power, Iran is weak and has little of a military. Nukes could give it more regional clout, and that would upset the balance of power, and thus we oppose it. But to paint Iran as some scarey crazy state that can’t be contained shows an extreme lack of knowledge of foreign affairs.

        • You are complete (which is a good trick) moron, Erp.

          Iran IS a major world power. Why? Because Barracula has ALLOWED it to be. Like Russia, which is a very analogous state.

          BOTH have very formidable military forces with a HUGE investment in arms and R&D.

          Iran has problems with REFINERIES? How much would a SET of refineries cost relative to deeply underground centrifuges?

          Seriously, you are un-serious. You’re a buffoon.

        • Hundreds?
          Number of nuclear weapons in excess of 3 digits?

          Go do some homework before you come back and talk about Israel.
          Let me help you before you step in it again,. having the quantity of plutonium to make a bomb is NOT the same as having a bomb (assuming you use plutonium), there’s way more involved.
          I suppose you think you stick a long fuse in this stuff, light it, and kick it out of the airplane to make the mushroom clouds.

          We opposed North Korea having a bomb, and yet they do. And technically, we’re STILL at war with North Korea. So much for ‘we oppose it’.

          As to Iran – Pakistan is not a world power – they have many bombs, in fact they have more deployed nuclear bombs than Israel.
          Saudi Arabia will attempt to develop nuclear weapons in response to Iran in the same way Pakistan did in response to India’s nuclear weapon development.

          If no country is willing to physically destroy someone else’s bomb making ability as Israel did to Iraq at the Ossiric facility, then they will develop them. It’s that simple.

          Arms race –
          yes, blathering, irrelevant tangent, because we’re discussing Iran developing nuclear weapons and a pointless pretend treaty to stop them,
          and how not stopping them will lead to a regional arms race.
          and how the Saudi’s have already taken the first step
          Because we know the Saudi’s, sitting on top of all that oil, just desperately need nuclear power.
          read the link you blathering, irrelevant twit.

    • Keep running up the bill Erb….

  • For real TREASON-y-LICOUS conduct, you have to go to Barracula.

    I DO believe that was a breach of law. But, hey… Laws are for little people, right, Erp?

    • The Democrats should milk this one politically – paint the GOP as going beyond the boundaries of what an opposition should do, use it to continue the claim the Republicans are driven by irrational hatred of Obama (ODS) and ideology. So Kerry’s response serves that purpose. First Homeland Security shutdown threats, now this…the GOP has the majority yet they’re handing the Democrats political gifts!

      • Huh. I had the integrity to read your cite. You didn’t bother to read mine. What does that tell us?

        • My cite was from Foreign Policy, a respected journal. Yours was…strange…I don’t really believe the claims, and there’s no evidence. And what is “gateway pundit?” Though my response was really to your previous post about Kerry. I clicked the wrong “reply” box.

          • No? You prefer to believe and trade in lies, as we all know here. It is what a Collectivist IS.

            You’re crowing about a lie told by your Collective regarding a “shut down”. And now this lie…or set of lies…from the fake Irishman, Kerry.

            Well, I understand. And thanks for the demonstration. With you and yours, it’s all about what you can fabricate. It’s all about a game. There are lots of us for whom it counts vastly more than that.

            Got a prediction on Bibi’s re-election? How ’bout that “faux scandal” with Ol’ Walleyes? Is she going to even run?

      • Yeppers, and maybe the Democrats can achieve as mighty a victory in the next election as they did in the last two.

        Give us a prediction – “What difference does it make” and Fauxcahontas in 2016?

        • I remember how certain Republicans were that 2010 meant Obama couldn’t be re-elected in 2012. You see, Alan, 36% of the country voted in 2014. That means less than 20% determined the outcome winners. But in Presidential years the vote goes way up and the demographics change. That’s what happened in 2012 – I recall one poster on this blog predicted on the eve of the election that Romney would win, citing “atmospherics.” So yes, I think the odds are very good that the Democrats will retain the Presidency and regain the Senate – the GOP is defending a lot of seats they won in 2010 in states that voted for Obama in 2012. You’re not dumb, Alan, but your penchant for emotional rants over talking about the issue is, well, amusing.

          • You didn’t answer the question.

            We noticed, you moron.

          • Yes, if only you could once again field another “”… mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy…”
            If only you could come off of a never ending series of wars on terror, with a BOOOOOOOSSSSSHHHHHHitler in office.

            That won’t happen again.

            Nevertheless, the Republicans will probably lose because it has not escaped the notice of conservative voters that they act like Democrats when they achieve office.
            Make no mistake, the Republicans are not my friends, and aside from a select few candidates who I’m convinced they will not offer me as candidates, will probably not get a vote from me in 2016.
            I’m not interested in perpetuating the slow ride to hell the Republican Gentry have planned any longer.
            I’m firmly in the ‘if we must go to hell, let the Democrats take us there as fast as they may, and the devil take the hindmost’ camp.

            I’m am interested when someone stands up for the principles that created the country, which the Republicans rarely do, and the Democrats almost never do.
            In this case the Senators, in an open letter, reminded people how treaties with the United States work. This was necessary because you may rest assured the Secretary of State, and the President, as has already been clearly demonstrated on many occasions, will say anything that pops into their heads to get what they want, not being men of principle, conscience, or good character.

            As you are fond of reminding us, you are purportedly a teacher.
            Whether you agree with what the Republicans did or not, the level of ignorance in response to this incident, a great deal of which was on display by elected and appointed officials and the media intelligentsia should disturb you.
            But as you lack principles yourself, it does not.

          • Yep. ^^^THIS^^^.

      • 2 weeks ago it was the height of bad behavior to question the motivations of a sitting President for political purposes.

        Now it’s perfectly acceptable to question the motivations of sitting US Senators for political purposes.

        Ass, meet thine hindquarters.

        • Remember that Senator John Kerry, along with Harkin, went behind Reagan’s back to meet with Daniel Ortega.

          And, recall the accolades about the “Lion of the Senate” upon his death. Yet, Ted “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy asked Yuri Andropov to intervene in the 1984 elections.

      • The Democrats should milk this one politically – paint the GOP as going beyond the boundaries of what an opposition should do….

        Hillary’s response.

  • Politifact claims that the private email use alone didn’t sink the U.S. ambassador to Kenya, Scott Gration in 2012.

    While using a private email account was a factor, it seems that the main reason Gration was forced out was because President Obama had appointed a complete incompetent to be U.S. ambassador to Kenya.

    “The ambassador is completely incompetent and should be removed as quickly as possible before he does any more damage to American interests.”

    While the exact reasons were not obvious at first blush, Ambassador Gration and Secretary Clinton had much in common.


    Read THAT, and weep, Erp. Then you can explain. Or run away like a little bitch. You are sooooo deep up Barracula’s ass you think it’s just the Collectivist cocoon.

  • It begins …

    WASHINGTON—As U.S. and Iranian diplomats inched toward progress on Tehran’s nuclear program last week, Saudi Arabia quietly signed its own nuclear-cooperation agreement with South Korea.

  • The office of the House minority leader issued a scathing statement Wednesday night saying her meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad was part of a bipartisan effort — conducted through the Bush administration — to encourage peace in the region and accusing the Republicans of launching a “desperate” defense of their Iran letter to mask criticisms coming from both sides of the aisle.

    “The desperate hyperventilation by Republicans and conservative talkers over the intense, national backlash to this letter has caused them to search for a Democratic equivalent to the dangerous precedent set by 47 Republican Senators,” said Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill. “The fact is, there is simply not one.”

    … “bipartisan effort” … who knew ?

    • “Literally just one month ago, the Bush administration said U.S. officials should not have contact with the Syrian government.” Vice President Cheney called Pelosi’s effort “bad behavior.” President Bush said Pelosi’s delegation was counterproductive.” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino suggested Pelosi was visiting to “have a photo opportunity and have tea” with Syria’s prime minister.

      Bi-partisan ? .. who knew ?


  • Khamenei said states typically remain loyal to their commitments even if governments change, ” but American senators officially announced the commitment will be null and void after this government leaves office. Isn’t this the ultimate degree of the collapse of political ethics and the U.S. system’s internal disintegration?

    Oh, yeah! THAT sure sounds like…

    1. someone who understands our system (i.e., “knows everything in the letter”)

    2. is an honest broker

    3. has any respect for America (a.k.a. “Great Satan, Inc.”)

    Yep. We can do business with THESE guys. Nola problema.

    Erp, you prove yourself a DANGEROUS moron.

    • Which explains his fixation that Obama will be accorded the laurels and title “one of the greatest Presidents”.

      By the restored Caliphate perhaps.

      • Well.

        They “love” him (in the most obscene possible context) in Cuber, N. Korea, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and those places controlled by ISIS. And why not…??? He’s so soft and easy.

  • During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign


    Erp, you got anything to disprove that? Anything…??? Erp…???

  • Everything that Obama has done in foreign policy has shown intentional malice toward American interests and American friends. Negotiating any kind of deal with the Iranian regime is like negotiating a deal with monkeys at the zoo that they will not masturbate. You might get a thumb print but the monkeys will be masturbating again before you’ve closed the door to the monkey house.

  • Plus – arms race with Saudi Arabia

    Who’s next

    The older the Tom Lehrer stuff gets the more accurate it becomes.

    (as a bonus – let Youtube continue after the first one ends and you’ll get the “national brotherhood week” song )

    • The hypocrisy in National Brotherhood Week is also still alive and well; “…as long as you don’t let em in your school” for example. Sidwell Friends, anyone?

  • What I particularly note and am trying to decide if I’m more sickened by the stupidity than amused, is the rabid ignorance being displayed by people upset by the letter.

    Impeachment! TREASON!, recall elections!, thinking they can sign a petition to have Senators removed, screeching about negotiating with an ‘enemy’, violations of the Logan Act, etc, racists! even.

    I’m beginning to believe voting in elections should indeed require testing, just as naturalized citizenship does.

    If they are unable to understand the basic civics of the Constitution they shouldn’t be making decisions about who represents the people. Because the country will fail if they elect dumbasses like themselves.

    That which has been demonstrated.

  • If the Democrats want to start talking about treason, Ann Coulter has written an entire book about *their* treason, and that’s the title, “Treason.” The subtitle is, “Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.” Highly recommended, and there are probably plenty of used copies available from Amazon, and of course it’s available for Kindle, which gives you a searchable text. Good to have for spicing up this ridiculous effort to portray the hapless GOP senators as treasonous.

  • Also, I see that the ten-year-old political science professor Stinky Erb (after Stinky from the old Abbott and Costello show) is imparting his special flatulence in this thread. I’m sure that I don’t need to remind anyone here, where he is well known, that he knows almost nothing at all about his own field and is a complete fake, and that even when he’s not lying it still doesn’t mean he’s telling the truth. Usually, when he is not simply lying, he’s showing what a psychological cripple he is. Fascinating specimen.

    • Yep. Like the specimen I left for my doctor.

      • “Your son’s a doctor no?” says I.
        “aye” she says.
        “What’s a specimen?” I says to her
        “piss in a cup says she”
        So I said “shite in your hat!”

        And the fight was on.

  • Alan, again, you’re saying nothing. You don’t deny what I said about executive agreements. You just say until there is an agreement (it’s never meant to be a treaty) and a Security Council resolution, “I have nothing.” But my point was that the goal is to get an agreement and a security council resolution in the future. You don’t deny it, you say it hasn’t happened yet. Well, duh! You don’t deny any of what I say, you just dance and weave and try to obfuscate. You’re better than that. You should be man enough to admit when you’re in error, and recognize when I’m right. You seem afraid to do that.

    Yes, Israel has hundreds of nuclear warheads. And of course a deal with Iran is the best way to stop an arms race with Saudi Arabia. Again, you’re not really saying anything meaningful. A war with Iran would not go well – the Pentagon has war gamed this out and it isn’t good for the US. Therefore, the US will not start a war with Iran – and if it did, the consequences would be dire.

    As for the elections. The US system requires compromise to function. Right now we’re going through a cultural and political transformation, both demographic and economic. I think tea party Republicans want to get back to the America of the 1980s. But that’s never going to happen. The country has changed, and there is a new cultural dynamic. Obama symbolizes the change, and that is why he’s so hated by reactionary right. But cultural change almost never goes backwards, it has a momentum of its own. You’re fighting a losing cause if you want some kind of holy war against the cultural changes taking place. The best bet for conservatives is to accept the changes, but redefine a conservatism effective in these new circumstances. Then they can compromise (prove they can govern, not just oppose) and be part of the solution to the problems that face us. I think too many on the right are so caught up in the talk radio/blogosphere/ideological vitriol against Obama that they’ve lost sight of what America is about – compromise is good. Listening to opponents is good. Ideological jihad is bad.

    • Thus sounds the familiar “Run away, Run away” bugle call of the bloodied Erp, it’s too well-known notes echoing in our ears.

      Ya-da, ya-da, paaaaump-yadadada….blat…paaaaump-yadadada…da

      Erp, you really are insulting in your triteness and vacuity.

      The arms race in the ME has STARTED, you moron. Not everyone is as stupid and delusional as are you. Can’t you READ?

      The Pentagon has confided its war planning to you, has it? I guess that goes with the Israelis whispering in your shell-like ear the number of the nukes.

      You are so full of shit, you must have to wear ear plugs in public.

      Where’s your Bibi election prediction, and your prognosis on Ol’ Walleye’s survival as a candidate before you run off…again…for the tall grass?

    • On average sources indicate Israel has somewhere on the order of 80 nuclear devices in the can.
      It’s a simple net search Scott, which you were unable to perform, yet again.
      You have the facilities needed to validate your contentions, or invalidate them, yet you never do.
      I even gave you the hint that stockpiled plutonium doesn’t equal a functioning device.

      You think Saudi Arabia is working on getting nukes BECAUSE we’re negotiating a treaty.
      How charming.

      Compromise – show us an instance where Barack Obama’s administration has compromised with the Republicans Scott.
      Their signature legislation was done with reconciliation, without 60 votes in the Senate, and without a single Republican vote in the House.
      And you talk of Compromise.

      If by cultural change, you mean we go back to a country where the executive branch doesn’t rule by fiat, yes, I’m against cultural change.
      You’re not man enough to admit that if the situation were reversed and a Republican President were committing various Constitutional fracturing you’d be against the goings on, because you have no principles and your morals are as ethereal as morning fog.
      None of us will benefit from the precedent and legacy of an Imperial President. It is a horrendously dangerous path, regardless of who’s party holds the power.
      You on the other hand, hopeless adult child that you are, see your side ‘winning’, and like so many of the idiots in this country think winning is what matters at all costs.
      There are things I will not agree to, or do, to “win”.

      This is very straightforward, it has been said to you again and again by many people here. As a whole we stand for principles Scott, and morality, whereas on numerous occasions you have established you believe both those concepts to be “whatever we want them to be”.
      You don’t believe in natural rights, you believe all your rights are granted to you by other men.
      That means there can no fire in you to restore your natural rights if they are taken away.
      It means you stumble through life, day to day, like a dog, hoping your masters will tell you to roll over because they may follow that order with a treat.
      You believe the state owns you, that it is entitled to your labor.
      This isn’t a blank slate.

      As to your, once again, ‘victory’
      We’re back to ‘not denying’ whatever drivel you’ve posted, is indication of your victory.
      Your contention was that we didn’t know what executive treaties were, that a non existent security council agreement would bind the next President in stare decisis.
      That failure to have this piece of paper would prevent anyone from holding Iran accountable for building a bomb. Then, per usual, you said all sorts of things that were demonstrably inaccurate.

      We disagreed.
      Where necessary we demonstrated we did understand the treaties, we explained why the letter mattered. We demonstrated it mattered to the White House, to the Secretary of State. Both of whom were forced to concede the agreement they are working toward had no legally binding standing.
      We proved it was not treason, sedition, a violation of the Logan Act, unauthorized negotiating with foreign powers.
      We demonstrated that executive agreements have been voided in the past.
      We demonstrated it was a co-equal branch of the government under the Constitution reminding the Executive branch, and it’s co-negotiators, that a binding treaty requires Senate approval.
      Regrettably that is required these days since the Imperium and it’s mindless cheerleaders such as yourself, think it may do as it wills, when it wills, because it possess telephones and pens, and the nation and world will be forever bound by it’s whims.

      Your entire story is created whole cloth in your second paragraph of your first post.
      There is no UN security Council treaty.
      It’s not something you can ‘win’ Scott because it’s your opinion.

      At present our opinions, while odious to you, hold as much validity as your own, which in general we find odious, pompous, and condescending.
      I can only assume you’ve run out of things to do on spring break.

      • Well, we’ve been treated again to a sterling example of what makes a Collectivist, and how they “think”.

        Let’s recap; first…and always…Erp loves, admires, uses, and lives for a lie. Note the exchange about “lifting sanctions”. I pointed out that Barracula COULD ease sanctions by simply lying, and he never murmured any dissent. I suggest that would be because he knew I was being accurate. I pointed out that what Erp thought was so shiny WRT the “DHS defunding” flap was a lie. Again, not a peep of dissent. I cited to Kerry’s comments on the letter from our senators, and noted the numerous inaccuracies or outright lies Kerry relied on. Again, Erp only mewed in approval, and called it all a victory for his side.

        Erp simply denies reality. He states things that are laughably false, denies things that are demonstrably true, and can’t bother to research or verify points made by others or try to substantiate his own bullshit when he’s called on it. “Compromise”…or integrity…are not part of his vocabulary in reality.

        Erp is a doctrinaire Collectivist, and nothing BUT that. Right down to his attitude toward the Prime Minister of Israel. Every position he takes is right out of a can of moonbat. I can’t recall ONE original thought the man has ever offered. Yet WE are the ideologues!

        His coda really only reiterates his deep pathology. How many times have we seen the same apologia as he retreats? You can almost feel him glowing with anger and hate at being so ill used. Every. Time.

        Why this spectacle is repeated is another chapter in that Erpian pathology.

    • Results of Wiki Search that took me exactly 10 seconds:


      Israel: Between 80-100 nuclear warheads, with fissile material for up to 200.

      Gee Erb, I’m not even a college professor and I could find out an approximate number very quickly. And yet, you just spout some random number that you pulled out of your nether region and expect us to believe you. But we already know you lie constantly, just like your esteemed idol, the Dear Leader.

      • You obviously do not have access to the same top-quality pinky-swear secret sources that Erp does.

        • Yes, that’s true. I should probably stay quiet and bow to my collectivist masters like Erb. All hail Erb, Master of Idiocy!!!


    Read that. I puts the quietus on Erp’s bullshit rather nicely.

    Just as a point of interests, stare decisis does not really apply to any of Erp’s arguments. Rather, what he argues it that an executive agreement will, like Topsy, be something that “just growed that way”, and will be inconvenient for a future president to displace.

    And, really, that is all Barracula is attempting here. He’s in essence just leaving a pile of crap on the international carpet for the next administration to have to deal with. And that’s all he’s really interested in doing.

    • Speaking of treasonous, what of those who advocate that decisions of other nations (the UN) shall be binding US law without the consent of the American people as expressed by their elected representatives? I think that mey be a bit contrary to the US Constitution.

      • More, what about those who CONTRIVE to circumvent the LAW to effect a deal that they KNOW would not pass muster if exposed to due process?

        But that seems to be a pattern with the ObamaBanana Republic. Dunnit?

        • “Have pen – will sign executive orders.
          Wire Obama, Washington DC”

  • “Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said last night that the upper chamber does have the votes already to override a presidential veto on the Corker-Menendez bill to require congressional review of any deal with Iran.

    Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Ranking Member Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) introduced the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act on the eve of the AIPAC conference and Netanyahu visit along with Graham and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.). The bill mandates that the president submit the text of any nuclear agreement with Iran to Congress and prohibits the administration from suspending congressional sanctions for 60 days. During that period, Congress would have the opportunity to hold hearings and approve, disapprove or take no action on the agreement.

    Critics of the recent GOP open letter to ayatollahs in Iran have said the outcry over the move would dial back Democratic support for the bill, but even Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) acknowledged that wouldn’t be the case.”


    Or, as Erp says, “Then they can compromise (prove they can govern, not just oppose) and be part of the solution to the problems that face us.”


    • bu…bu….but…..that wasn’t what he meant by compromise!
      He meant do as they’re told!

      because “I WON!!!!!”

  • The only thing this thread lacked was a Ott Screb posting.

    Sigh. Well, you don’t get desert with every feast…

    • In the meantime, an extract from this essay inevitably calls to mind Professor Polywobble:

      Some gulags, it appears, are readily mistaken for idyllic acreage. They may not be discernible as gulags, but each is a cordon sanitaire of intellectual besottedness. The gulag from which one rarely escapes is a species of enchantment, namely, the shuttered enclosure of Edenic infatuations that inevitably brings and prolongs human suffering — the wages of cognitive imbecility.

      • Dude! It’s like the author had studied the Maven Of Moosesqueeze!


  • Ahhh…what a difference a week makes…now the Democrats are falling in line, and Cotton comes off looking like an Ace. Of course, the MSM will blame him should things to south, but that’s the price of leadership.

  • I wonder what the reaction will be if Netanyahu loses next Tuesday (very possible) and if his Washington speech is seen as one reason for his defeat.

    Looks like the speech was a hit after all. 😉

    • A big hit.

      Poor Scotty. Wrong again.

    • Oh, NO, guys. Erp bravely predicted exactly this outcome. Exactly .

      But seriously… Can you recall a time when he was 1) brave or 2) right?

      • As a newcomer, I’ve looked back into the deep archives of this site, and while there are many thoughtful and spirited dialectics from folks on all sides, not a single one of them contains any meaningful contribution from that imbecile.

      • Well, of course, there was that time when …


        okay, I got nuthin’.