The letter to Iran from republicans in the senate...

The mock indignation surrounding this letter is almost as amusing as the petulancy arising from Clinton's private email 'scandal'.
 
Hawk said:
The mock indignation surrounding this letter is almost as amusing as the petulancy arising from Clinton's private email 'scandal'.
Click to expand...

Deflection. The #1 defense of the Dummicrats. The Repukecans are good at countermeasures.

I can't understand why people won't go to be Centrists or Independents. Depending on your party ideology is STOOPID. They own you and want to make sure you goose-step in line.
 
Hawk said:
The mock indignation surrounding this letter is almost as amusing as the petulancy arising from Clinton's private email 'scandal'.
Click to expand...

not mock indignation - actually no indignation. Just worry that the people that control the Senate and the House of Rep. have so little understanding. From government shutdowns to the non sense about ACA and "you lie " to this. did I mention the 47 % ?

///////////////////////////////////////

The man that gave us Sarah Palin and stalwart of Sunday talk shows --

Senator John McCain, whom you may remember from that one time he nearly became the president of the United States, has a less-than-satisfactory explanation for why he signed Senator Tom Cotton's open letter to Iranian leaders.

McCain told Politico that:

"I saw the letter, I saw that it looked reasonable to me and I signed it, that’s all. I sign lots of letters."

McCain's statement, reported late on Tuesday when the furor over Cotton's letter had become a national scandal, seems clearly intended to minimize his actions by making them seem commonplace and inconsequential.

Just signing a letter! Who among us hasn't signed letters? Basically the same as the family update your mom mails to all her cousins every Christmas — they're all just "letters."

Okay, Senator, you "sign lots of letters." But this letter was pretty clearly intended to undermine President Obama's position in the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran, by explicitly saying he would not be able to keep the promises he was making. This letter was addressed to the leadership of a hostile nation that is currently engaged in sensitive diplomatic negotiations with the United States, with the goal of undercutting the president of the United States in those negotiations.

Seems maybe worth pausing over a bit longer than the birthday card to a supporter's spouse.

In many ways, McCain's decision to sign the letter is more disturbing if he thinks it was merely a minor act. It's one thing to decide to actively and publicly undermine the president's conduct of foreign affairs, not just in this treaty negotiation but potentially in all other future negotiations, with all other countries, who will now also be able to point to this same letter as evidence that the president cannot be trusted to negotiate agreements on behalf of the United States.

But at least take that seriously. At least treat it as a weighty decision that carries significant, far-reaching consequences. Don't act like it's just more boring paperwork!
 
Sounds like a bunch of petulant children to me

///

At some point you gotta quit defending this -- I would think
 
57Brave said:
Sounds like a bunch of petulant children to me

///

At some point you gotta quit defending this -- I would think
Click to expand...

Or, an elected majority acting on the promises that got them elected to begin with: making it difficult for a lame duck President to enact any major foreign policy during his remaining months in office.
 
Hawk said:
Or, an elected majority acting on the promises that got them elected to begin with: making it difficult for a lame duck President to enact any major foreign policy during his remaining months in office.
Click to expand...

by word of those 47 he has been a lame duck since Jan '09.
The promises they made ???
"After three hours of strategizing, they decided they needed to fight Obama on everything. The new president had no idea what the Republicans were planning."

Isn't ironic how that number keeps coming up ?

Robert Draper Book: GOP's Anti-Obama Campaign Started Night Of Inauguration

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

McConnell never made a statement on how he would serve his "voters" only a , to be polite , naked power grab. I am sure there are others that would say there is another reason.
But, he did say this -- now note Hawk, this was before he was "a lame duck President"
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/27/news/la-pn-obama-mcconnell-20101027

//////

and then there is this too

///////////////////

I am not sure what it is Iran has done to the US in the past 35 years.

/////

A little research would tell you we -- yes we - the USof is fighting side by side with the IRanians
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=us-iran-isis..

////////////

So all the bluster about fighting ISIS and the 47 went and ...

Wasn't Rubio one of the 47 ? See what I mean, petulant children
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/sec-kerry-explains-us-iran-isis-to-sen-rubio-412336195709
 
more they did what "they promised their voters":

"The latest comes by way of John McCain, who said a D.C. snowstorm last week contributed to the problem."

Senator now considers letter a "problem"
 
As much as I am with a ( weaponized ) nuclear Israel (India-Pakistan - France -Britain - Russia - China - US etc etc etc )

Wouldn't you think it better to have verifications in place when and IF they develop a weapon.

Like I said, I been hearing about the dangers of a nuclear Iran since late 70's. 35 years ago.
Alas, there is no nuclear capability in Iran -- yet. Hasn't Israel developed in that period of time ???

////////////

voter fraud
a good guy with a gun
Iran's bomb
 
Why in the world would an American be just as okay with a nuclear Iran as they would with a nuclear US?
 
Dalyn said:
Why in the world would an American be just as okay with a nuclear Iran as they would with a nuclear US?
Click to expand...

First off why not ?
With all of the international verifications in place the Russians the Chinese the Pakistani's and yes, The US have to abide by. Would you rather it be like N Korea where we havwe no idea where or how much they hold ?? Believe me, if Iran wanted a bomb - they would have a bomb. What did I say above, 35 years. Reminds me of The Saddam Bluff.

To be clear this American isn't all that - over US possessing nukes. I mean -- what is one more ?
Ban the lot of them or shut up.

Where do we hold the moral high ground (blind spot ? ) and get to decide who does and doesn't get to have them ?
I am the opposite of fond ~ "American Exceptionalism"

....

One more thing, Iran does not have the delivery systen to threatn the US. Israel - yes -- but, Israel has both the delivery system and ---- the bomb
 
Why not ?
If it was that obvious I wouldn't ask the question.

How many countries has Iran invaded and occupied the past 15 years ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top