What a spectacle. The renown lying Republican candidate for president, Donald Trump, really went all out with absolute bullshit for two days pummeling Obama for letting Iran belittle him with a video supposedly showing a ransom payoff for hostages. None of that was true, but that didn't stop the incredible Trump.
Trumpateers will see nothing wrong with the total fiction created by Trump...because that's what it's all about anyway, embarrassing Obama.
Look, you kinda lose the moral high ground and the ability to call your opponent a liar when in fact, you're the liar:
Donald Trump acknowledged Friday that the videotape he has been talking about over the last couple of days is of American prisoners being freed from Iran and not of a $400 million cash payment from the U.S. as he had described it.
Republicans have decided that calling President Obama a liar and delegitimizing everything he's ever stood for wasn't enough, so they're now pretending he doesn't exist, by dealing with foreign governments on their own and promising to abandon any agreements Obama's negotiated.
Who could have imagined this ever happening? This is beyond radicalism, beyond racism, beyond policy that spells the end of the experiment we call the United States. This is a declaration of war by a party crazy enough to hold the rest of the world hostage. After all, they've done that with the nations solvency, why not foreign countries?
President Obama commented on one of the most irresponsible declarations yet by a presidential candidate, Gov. Scott Walker. While Walker has waffled on every questions he's never answered, it's foreign policy where he's suddenly decided to draw the line:
NPR: Obama scoffed at Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's suggestion that he would, on Day 1, revoke any nuclear agreement with Iran if he is elected president. "It would be a foolish approach to take," Obama said in an interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep, "and perhaps Mr. Walker — after he's taken some time to bone up on foreign policy — will feel the same way."
Here's Walker's original comment on WTMJ:
"Absolutely. I will pull back on that on Jan. 20, 2017, because I think the last thing not just for the region, but for this world we need is a nuclear-armed Iran."
Here's Obama's response:
Here's Walker's bizarre response, which is true to his "divide and conquer" strategy for everything, suggesting Obama not "attack" his critics?
While the Democratic Party “flames on” again, with Sen. Chuck Schumer helping Republicans delegitimize Obama, Walker’s march to war is inexcusable. Walker might just bluster his way into the White House, demanding compliance from other countries in the region...or else:
"President Obama's failed leadership has put him at odds with many across the country, including members of his own party, and key allies around the world. Whether it is cutting a bad deal with Iran, calling ISIS the JV squad, or touting Yemen as a success story, Obama's lack of leadership has hurt America's safety and standing in the world. I mean, to me, it is, the concept of a nuclear Iran is not only problematic for Iran, and certainly for Israel, but it opens the doors. I mean, the Saudis are next. You're going to have plenty of others in the region. People forget that even among the Islamic world, there is no love lost between the Saudis and the Iranians. And so they're going to want to have a nuclear weapon if the Iranians have a nuclear weapon. This is something that just escalates right before our eyes."
During a call I had with my conservative friend in Milwaukee about Indiana's religious freedom law, he did what most Republicans do so often: He made his case in support of the law by bringing in a bunch of completely unrelated topics, which then veered off into going to war with Israel's enemy, Iran.
He then made this comment, and I'm paraphrasing: "Democrats started WW1."
Okay, whatever.
But then I saw this at Raw Story, and I had to chuckle:
Beck: “When we entered the Progressive Era, we caused World War II."
It's funny seeing these two together...even agreeing on something. I'm sure my conservative friend would disagree with Beck's conclusion below though. War to him and Scott Walker...preemptive war especially, is always the better answer, because you never know what they're hiding:
Greenwald: “But I think that region, like most regions, is
filled with extremists. In Iraq and Syria, we’re fighting with Iran against
ISIS. Because they fear Sunni extremism. Yes, there’s lots of disturbing
rhetoric that comes from Iranian mullahs, [but] there’s a basis of rationality
that allows us to sit down. We can’t afford a war with a country three times
the size of Iraq. Part of the problem is that [we have embraced] this theory of
endless war.” Beck: “It erodes our morals. The people who are pulling the
trigger don’t even know what they’re pulling the trigger for anymore. We can
become the darkest nation ever on the face of the Earth. We have the power to
make the Nazis look like rookies.” Greenwald agreed: “Endless war, has brought down every
empire in history, and before it does that, it degrades the population. If you
constantly find new people to kill and torture and invade and bomb, it starts
to seep into your domestic life.”
Dumb Ron Johnson gladly signed on to the much criticized
letter to Iran’s leadership, trashing Obama’s power to do anything
internationally without their consent. It’s an example of senatorial overreach
and bullshit that is beyond words and historical references.
The blissful base were quick to latch onto their leaderships
talking points. With no sense of curiosity to double check the facts or explore
the reasons why people are saying what they are saying, right wingers are now fumbling
around trying to save face. Twisting in the wind so to speak.
The 47 senators who signed onto political newcomer Tom
Cotton’s naive and factually inaccurate letter to Iran’s leadership didn't just
destroy their credibility, but it made them look completely irresponsible and shockingly
incompetent.
That pretty much fits Ron Johnson’s profile.
PolitiFact is saying something completely different:
"The Iranian parliament has the authority to ratify
treaties, but a possible nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 will be a
political agreement, not a treaty," said Alireza Nader, a senior policy
analyst at RAND Corporation.
The same is true of our president and senate:
Our ruling: Johnson said, "The Iranian parliament will
get to say yes or no" on the nuclear deal. This is incorrect on two accounts. Experts said the nuclear
agreement between the United States and Iran won’t require ratification by
Iran’s parliament, the Islamic Consultative Assembly. It’s possible the deal
will be contingent on Iran’s ratification of a previous international nuclear
agreement, which might require the assembly’s approval, but the body won’t
weigh in on the deal currently being worked on. And even if it did, it would be entirely symbolic, as the
assembly is heavily influenced by the Supreme Leader on foreign policy matters.
We rate the statement Mostly False.
This is not going to be good news for those wacky unquestioning Republicans true believers who have been tweeting support for the 47 unpatriotic senators fixin' for war:
Didn't the rank and file know it was all a joke? From the loyalists tweet above, guess not.
Rachel Maddow noticed, pointing to public blowback that caught these idiots by surprise, and the newspaper editorial boards brutal bashing of the 47 Senators who jumped into the clown car with Tom Cotton. Yup, it was just a joke...yea, that's the ticket.
So many Americans were outraged over this freakish attempt to belittle Obama and march off to war, that they managed to force the administration to say whether they will charge the senators for their violation of the Logan Act:
ABC News: A petition on whitehouse.gov calling for charges to be filed against the 47 senators who sent an open letter to the leaders of Iran, possibly in violation of the Logan Act, has collected more than 165,000 signatures in less than two days. Because the petition exceeded 100,000 signatures within 30 days, the White House is required to respond. The creator of this petition, known only by the initials C.H., alleges that the 47 senators “committed a treasonous offense when they decided to violate the Logan Act, a 1799 law which forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments.” The letter, which was published on Monday, warned Iranian leaders that any nuclear deal they sign with President Obama won’t last past his second term.
Sen. Tom Cotton's Letter to Iran: It'll be some time before Republicans can outdo what they did to Obama's efforts to prevent another war and to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear threat. Imagine "President" Scott Walker at the helm:
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker also did not say that he’d sign the letter, but said, “Unless the White House is prepared to submit the Iran deal it negotiates for congressional approval, the next president should not be bound (by) it.”
What, "word salad" Walker didn't commit again? Who cares, opposition won't be a problem under a one party system.
Traitors? Reading the Logan Act, Republican do look like traitors, yet legal experts and historians don't agree. Here's the Act;
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments: Any
citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the
United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any
correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or
agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign
government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or
controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United
States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three
years, or both.
Surprisingly, our own Rep. James Sensenbrenner tried to rewrite the act in 2006, focusing instead on false statements, which Sen. Tom Cotton's release contained:
Sec. 923. False statements influencing foreign government — Whoever, in relation to any dispute or controversy between a foreign government and the United States, knowingly makes any untrue statement, either orally or in writing, under oath ... to the injury of the United States, or with a view or intent to influence any measure of or action by the United States or any department or agency thereof, to the injury of the United States, shall be imprisoned not more than ten years.
Here's how the media pundits presented it. starting with the Logan Act and dissecting presidential/congressional power:
Right Wing Callers Wrong Again: WPR's morning guest, Ohio State Professor Richard K. Herrmann, answered questions from some very conservative callers:
Although their goal was interfering with “measures of the United States,” the Iranians are smart and took the open letter for exactly what it was; pathetic propaganda and a gross display of Republican ignorance of the Constitution and international law. It is what one expects from a bunch of petulant punks who are too stupid to understand they embarrassed themselves by lacking even an eighth-grader’s understanding of the document the swore to uphold.
Of course, the always frightened panicky guy from Wisconsin Dumb Ron Johnson, knew more than anyone else:
"I agreed to sign Senator Cotton’s open letter because
I believe it describes reality — it tells the truth," Johnson wrote … that
the president is mistaken for "acknowledging Iran’s right to enrich
uranium. As a result, the negotiation was lost before it even
began."
One final word:
Anthony Cordesman, a senior national security analyst for
the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the letter was “an
appalling mess.” “One thing about sending international letters, they better be
serious, they better be well-drafted, they better have a convincing
intellectual content, and they better not seem just a hollow political gesture
for partisan purposes,” Cordesman said. “This letter can’t meet any of those
four tests.”
I just came across this loony tunes interview Sen. Tom Cotton, by ABC's Jonathan Carl. Keep this one thing in mind; Executive foreign agreements do not involve congress. It's the UN P-5 +1-China, Russia, Germany, Brits, France that make these agreements, they are not treaties, with requires Senate approval:
