Forum Thread

Senate Republicans Do Netanyahu's Bidding; Attempt to Sabotage Iran Deal

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 76 - 88 of 88 Prev 2 3 4 5 6
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Well it looks like the Likud Party and Netanyahu have been re-elected by the good people of Israel. Boehner's hosting of Netanyahu and Tehran Tom's letter to the Ayatollah of Iran had it's desired effect. Netanyahu says that he will oppose a two state solution. When Netanyahu speaks of a "Jewish only" state of Israel then that means apartheid.

    Netanyahu will now declare a mandate to continue sabotaging Obama's efforts for peace in the Middle East. The Likud Party and Netanyahu only can get re-elected time and time again by running a campaign of fear. Without fear, Likud would not exist as the majority party. Peace is the enemy of the Likudists.

    Maybe Tehran Tom and his fellow 46 Senate Saboteurs can have a joint celebration with their fellow Likudists in Israel.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: Well it looks like the Likud Party and Netanyahu have been re-elected by the good people of Israel. Boehner's hosting of Netanyahu and Tehran Tom's letter to the Ayatollah of Iran had it's desired effect. Netanyahu says that he will oppose a two state solution. When Netanyahu speaks of a "Jewish only" state of Israel then that means apartheid.

    Netanyahu will now declare a mandate to continue sabotaging Obama's efforts for peace in the Middle East. The Likud Party and Netanyahu only can get re-elected time and time again by running a campaign of fear. Without fear, Likud would not exist as the majority party. Peace is the enemy of the Likudists.

    Maybe Tehran Tom and his fellow 46 Senate Saboteurs can have a joint celebration with their fellow Likudists in Israel.
    Schmidt; yes a disaster. It certainly will not help to bring peace to the middle east. My question to you is; how will it effect Obama and our party?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I was very unhappy with the results. I heard on the news that the group that came in third and I think will take 14 seats.... is a group that includes many Palestinians and other Arabs that have settled there. Talk about an opposing party...... I also think the news mentioned that we send 3 Billion dollars a year to Israel. It's not like they are a third world nation. Do you need our foreign aid ? NO ? That's alright we have so much damned money we insist on sending it anyway.
    ****
    Apartheid, That's it in a nut shell. As always Schmidt, you are right on target. Everybody hated apartheid because it was terribly unfair and not acceptable. This boot stomp by those who cash our check is the same and very unacceptable to me.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    "should indeed be an official elected president not a bunch of indoctrinated idiots who have no clue about international politics"
    You're absolutely right Dutch. And it's not just about international politics. It's about our constitution and the role that congress plays in treaties.
    For starters, this isn't even a treaty. It's an executive action. As much as the Republicans are insisting that they have a role to play here, the fact is that they don't have any role at all. They're a legislative body. They have no involvement in Treaties. They can't stand that Obama is doing something that they can't get their claws into.

    Actually, the negotiation of treaties had long since been taken over by the President; the Senate’s role in relation to treaties is today essentially legislative in character.
    In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (No. 98)
    Argued: November 19, 20, 1936
    Decided: December 21, 1936
    Opinion: Southerland.

    Justice Southerland wrote"
    The Framers' Convention was called, and exerted its powers upon the irrefutable postulate that, though the states were several, their people, in respect of foreign affairs, were one. Compare The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581, 604, 606. In that convention, the entire absence of state power to deal with those affairs was thus forcefully stated by Rufus King:

    "The states were not "sovereigns" in the sense contended for by some. They did not possess the peculiar features of sovereignty -- they could not make war, nor peace, nor alliances, nor treaties. Considering them as political beings, they were dumb, for they could not speak to any foreign sovereign whatever. They were deaf, for they could not hear any propositions from such sovereign. They had not even the organs or faculties of defence or offence, for they could not, of themselves, raise troops, or equip vessels, for war."

    "Neither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law. As a member of the family of nations, the right and power of the United States in that field are equal to the right and power of the other members of the international family.

    In Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U.S. 378, 396, we said,

    "As a nation with all the attributes of sovereignty, the United States is vested with all the powers of government necessary to maintain an effective control of international relations."

    "Not only, as we have shown, is the federal power over external affairs in origin and essential character different from that over internal affairs, but participation in the exercise of the power is significantly limited. In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.

    As Marshall said in his great argument of March 7, 1800, in the House of Representatives,

    "The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations."

    Annals, 6th Cong., col. 613. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, at a very early day in our history (February 15, 1816), reported to the Senate, among other things, as follows:

    "The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution. The committee consider this responsibility the surest pledge for the faithful discharge of his duty. They think the interference of the Senate in the direction of foreign negotiations calculated to diminish that responsibility, and thereby to impair the best security for the national safety. The nature of transactions with foreign nations, moreover, requires caution and unity of design, and their success frequently depends on secrecy and dispatch.

    It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations -- a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress but which, of course, like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution.

    It is quite apparent that if, in the maintenance of our international relations, embarrassment -- perhaps serious embarrassment -- is to be avoided and success for our aims achieved, congressional legislation which is to be made effective through negotiation and inquiry within the international field must often accord to the President a degree of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction which would not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved.

    Moreover, he, not Congress, has the better opportunity of knowing the conditions which prevail in foreign countries, and especially is this true in time of war.

    He has his confidential sources of information. He has his agents in the form of diplomatic, consular and other officials. Secrecy in respect of information gathered by them may be highly necessary, and the premature disclosure of it productive of harmful results. Indeed, so clearly is this true that the first President refused to accede to a request to lay before the House of Representatives the instructions, correspondence and documents relating to the negotiation of the Jay Treaty -- a refusal the wisdom of which was recognized by the House itself, and has never since been doubted. In his reply to the request, President Washington said:

    "The nature of foreign negotiations requires caution, and their success must often depend on secrecy, and even when brought to a conclusion, a full disclosure of all the measures, demands, or eventual concessions which may have been proposed or contemplated would be extremely impolitic, for this might have a pernicious influence on future negotiations or produce immediate inconveniences, perhaps danger and mischief, in relation to other powers. The necessity of such caution and secrecy was one cogent reason for vesting the power of making treaties in the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, the principle on which that body was formed confining it to a small number of members. To admit, then, a right in the House of Representatives to demand and to have as a matter of course all the papers respecting a negotiation with a foreign power would be to establish a dangerous precedent."

    The Republicans love to tell us all about the "constitution" but they couldn't pass a high school civics test. Rand Paul is probably the most outrageous of these pretenders. He told Kerry that he ( an Eye Doctor) doesn't need to be lectured on the Constitution by the President ( A Constitutional Scholar). Rand Paul will tell everybody what is illegal and unconstitutional without having a clue as to case law, and SCOTUS rulings. He's not a lawyer. He has no more knowledge about the subject of the Constitution than anybody posting to this site. He and all the other 46 should be marginalized as the traitors that they actually are. If he wants to talk about what is illegal and unlawful, he should recognize that they all violated the Logan Act with this nonsense in trying to sabotage the presidents Foreign Policy.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I hate to say that I'm not surprised with the results whatsoever. Netanyahu is a master politician and he took a page out of the good ole 'southern strategy' playbook. All he had to do was fan the flames of fear, hate, and racism to get across the finish line. I hope it was worth it considering he just guaranteed another generation of apartheid and instability in the region just so he could stay in power a little while longer.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Actually all treaties must be approved by the Senate and can be amended by that body. In fact the president has no foreign policy power except that granted to him by the legislature. So the Senate really does control our nations foreign policy.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Adagio, good piece, welcome to the "hub"; sure the government the way it is now has become way too complicated; indeed you can study all the laws/rules day and night and still does not know how to apply it. That causes the "missteps" when people want to push their own agenda's. It should be run like any bussiness, but it does n't. Therefore if it was a bussiness it would have been bankrupt a long time ago.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    [url=https://www.democratichub.com/user/106236.aspx">J.C.C.[/url] Wrote: Actually all treaties must be approved by the Senate and can be amended by that body. In fact the president has no foreign policy power except that granted to him by the legislature. So the Senate really does control our nations foreign policy.

    The senate does not engage in diplomacy. In point of fact as well as reality they cannot. Yes, they approve treaties which is as it should be but the president who does conduct foreign policy is under no obligation to advise them of what he is negotiating. A president is smart to be aware of how the senate may react and should consider when the time comes how he will negotiate with the senate over the agreements he has negotiated with foreign governments but he does not and cannot conduct foreign policy being directed by the senate. That is not the senate's job.

    Adagio explains it very well for you. Read his post.

    And I second the welcome to adagio.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    To expand upon Adagio's post above:

    Difference Between Treaty and Executive Agreement

    Treaties are international agreements and are equally binding under domestic laws. A treaty is a formal agreement made by the President of the U.S. It is carried over to the successive officeholders. According to current statistics, the U.S. is party to about 900 treaties. This number is much less than the number of executive agreements. One reason for this difference may be the mandatory two-thirds vote required which is applicable for a treaty.

    Executive Agreements are international agreements which are brought to force in relation to the U.S. without the advice and consent of the Senate on a Constitutional basis. They are often referred to as “international agreements other than treaties.” An executive agreement does not require a mandatory two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate. The executive agreements are international agreements and are binding under the domestic laws very similar to treaties. An executive agreement is not as formal as a treaty and they are not binding on the successive presidents. An executive agreement needs renegotiation by the successive presidents. At present, the U.S. is party to at least 5,000 executive agreements. They account for about 90% of all the international agreements signed by the U.S.


    The Executive Agreement that the Obama administration is negotiating with Iran, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Russia and China [the UN's P5+1] to curtail and freeze Iran's nuclear program in return for the removal of sanctions does NOT require the consent of the Senate. However, it is true that Obama's successor will have to also approve it's continuation, or modify it, but any changes would also have to go through all the above mentioned countries. This is NOT a deal exclusively between Iran and the USA.

    If Iran is abiding in good faith by the terms of the agreement when a new president comes into office in 2017, the new president would have a lot of explaining to do if he/she chose to scuttle the deal mainly because Netanyahu asked the president to scuttle it. How would that be perceived by the American public?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote: Less than a week after Benhamin Netanyahu's dangerous speech to Congress, his Republican pawns in the United States Senate have moved to do his bidding and sabotage the deal before it is even signed. This is dangerous in more ways than one, but the fact that sitting US Senators are openly and deliberately trying to sabotage an international agreement between all the major nations is unheard of in our nations history. It is not their job to negotiate international agreements and they are setting a very dangerous precedent in writing this letter.

    The fact that members of the United States Senate are so openly doing the bidding of another nations leader is scary. Their demands are carbon copy of Netanyahu's wholly unrealistic demands and can only be read as a prelude to war. They offer zero alternative other than complete capitulation, which anyone with a working brain understands will not happen. I don't know about you, but I am tired of my country and specifically the Republican Party, going to war as a first resort.

    Mr. Cotton and all the Senate Republicans who signed this letter need a lesson in US Civics. They don't control our nations foreign policy. Our President does.
    Getting back to Jared's original post, the latest Wall Street Journal revelation in the Israel-Republican romance is that Israel spied on the sensitive negotiations between Iran and the six nations seeking to make an agreement curtailing Iran's nuclear program. Then Israel shared the confidential information with Republicans so that they could undermine and sabotage the deal. This sounds like the Republicans are collaborating with a foreign government to sabotage the President of the United States of America. Hey, it's happened before. Remember the Iran hostage situation back when Jimmy Carter and Reagan were running for the presidency.

    Al Jazeera: Report: Israel spied on Iran nuclear talks.

    Israel has spied on US negotiations over Iran's nuclear programme and fed the obtained intelligence to Republican Congress members in order to undermine support for the talks, the Wall Street Journal reported. The Israeli effort was part of a campaign to help build a case against the emerging terms of a deal, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, citing current and former US officials without naming them.

    "It is one thing for the US and Israel to spy on each other. It is another thing for Israel to steal US secrets and play them back to US legislators to undermine US diplomacy," the newspaper quoted a senior official as saying.

    The report said that the US discovered the information breach when US intelligence intercepted Israeli cables in which details of the negotiations were discussed.


    I have quoted the Al Jazeera article because the Wall Street Journal often requires a subscription to view. The Republicans wallow in hate and anything goes in their quest to undermine the Obama presidency.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:
    jaredsxtn Wrote: Less than a week after Benhamin Netanyahu's dangerous speech to Congress, his Republican pawns in the United States Senate have moved to do his bidding and sabotage the deal before it is even signed. This is dangerous in more ways than one, but the fact that sitting US Senators are openly and deliberately trying to sabotage an international agreement between all the major nations is unheard of in our nations history. It is not their job to negotiate international agreements and they are setting a very dangerous precedent in writing this letter.

    The fact that members of the United States Senate are so openly doing the bidding of another nations leader is scary. Their demands are carbon copy of Netanyahu's wholly unrealistic demands and can only be read as a prelude to war. They offer zero alternative other than complete capitulation, which anyone with a working brain understands will not happen. I don't know about you, but I am tired of my country and specifically the Republican Party, going to war as a first resort.

    Mr. Cotton and all the Senate Republicans who signed this letter need a lesson in US Civics. They don't control our nations foreign policy. Our President does.
    Getting back to Jared's original post, the latest Wall Street Journal revelation in the Israel-Republican romance is that Israel spied on the sensitive negotiations between Iran and the six nations seeking to make an agreement curtailing Iran's nuclear program. Then Israel shared the confidential information with Republicans so that they could undermine and sabotage the deal. This sounds like the Republicans are collaborating with a foreign government to sabotage the President of the United States of America. Hey, it's happened before. Remember the Iran hostage situation back when Jimmy Carter and Reagan were running for the presidency.

    Al Jazeera: Report: Israel spied on Iran nuclear talks.

    Israel has spied on US negotiations over Iran's nuclear programme and fed the obtained intelligence to Republican Congress members in order to undermine support for the talks, the Wall Street Journal reported. The Israeli effort was part of a campaign to help build a case against the emerging terms of a deal, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, citing current and former US officials without naming them.

    "It is one thing for the US and Israel to spy on each other. It is another thing for Israel to steal US secrets and play them back to US legislators to undermine US diplomacy," the newspaper quoted a senior official as saying.

    The report said that the US discovered the information breach when US intelligence intercepted Israeli cables in which details of the negotiations were discussed.


    I have quoted the Al Jazeera article because the Wall Street Journal often requires a subscription to view. The Republicans wallow in hate and anything goes in their quest to undermine the Obama presidency.
    Schmidt; yes like I said before; I still call it treason.If things continue this way then I fear that there never will be peace in the middle east. I absolutely do not understand why we "uberhaupt" give Israel more billions for weapons as requested by them; Mc Cain is already counting his profit.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    uberhaupt?

    The weapons are for the great End of Days battle to happen in Armageddon. You know that of course.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: uberhaupt?

    The weapons are for the great End of Days battle to happen in Armageddon. You know that of course.
    I guessed that you knew German!!