BYOB wrote:

I'm down with that.

I do have to wonder whether the list of past Congresspeople doing similar stuff is accurate. Were those instances actually in the middle of a multi-country negotiation?

Looks like PA Senator Pat Toomey was a signer of the letter. God, I just love Pennsylvania.

 


Yeah. I wrote to Toomey to ask him to explain his thinking and rationale for being a part of this diplomatic debacle. It will be interesting to see if his office responds and exactly what their explanation will be.

Now this is what I consider sound reasoning and serious contemplation before signing an official government document:

Arizona Senator John McCain, a prominent Republican voice on foreign affairs and national security, has said that haste and an impending snowstorm in Washington short-circuited more measured consideration of the letter.

“It was kind of a very rapid process. Everybody was looking forward to getting out of town because of the snowstorm,” McCain told Politico in an interview. “I think we probably should have had more discussion about it, given the blowback that there is.”



Hey, there's nothing more important than gettin' out of Dodge due to impending bad weather.

Just ask the people that live and work in New England.

Talk about being totally irresponsible and completely out of touch. Especially with some after the fact consideration of the debacle. Thanks for clarifying your knee jerk reaction, John.

A general's opinion on Cotton and the other letter signatories, from an article by Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post:



Tom Cotton picked apart by Army general over ‘mutinous’ Iran letter

The open letter to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran signed by 47 senators and instigated by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) was a stunning breach of protocol. One so outrageous that my former colleagues at the New York Daily News dubbed the signers “traitors.” While it is indeed a slap in the face of President Obama and an affront to the presidency, I’m not sure I would go that far, especially since Cotton is an Army veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. So, I turned to retired Major Gen. Paul D. Eaton for perspective. He wouldn’t say Cotton and Co. were “traitors,” either. He had a better word.

“I would use the word mutinous,” said Eaton, whose long career includes training Iraqi forces from 2003 to 2004. He is now a senior adviser to VoteVets.org. “I do not believe these senators were trying to sell out America. I do believe they defied the chain of command in what could be construed as an illegal act.” Eaton certainly had stern words for Cotton.

“What Senator Cotton did is a gross breach of discipline, and especially as a veteran of the Army, he should know better,” Eaton told me. “I have no issue with Senator Cotton, or others, voicing their opinion in opposition to any deal to halt Iran’s nuclear progress. Speaking out on these issues is clearly part of his job. But to directly engage a foreign entity, in this way, undermining the strategy and work of our diplomats and our Commander in Chief, strains the very discipline and structure that our foreign relations depend on, to succeed.” The consequences of Cotton’s missive were plainly apparent to Eaton. “The breach of discipline is extremely dangerous, because undermining our diplomatic efforts, at this moment, brings us another step closer to a very costly and perilous war with Iran,” he said.

“I think Senator Cotton recognizes this, and he simply does not care,” Eaton went on to say. “That’s what disappoints me the most.” And that’s what’s so scary about this whole episode. The freshman senator from Arkansas and 46 of his Republican colleagues sought to bigfoot Obama on a deal not yet done whose details are not yet known.

In his column today, Michael Gerson makes a point that should have been obvious to all the signatories of the Cotton letter.

If Republican senators want to make the point that an Iran deal requires a treaty, they should make that case to the American people, not to the Iranians. Congress simply has no business conducting foreign policy with a foreign government, especially an adversarial one. Every Republican who pictures his or her feet up on the Resolute Desk should fear this precedent.

This is a point you imagine Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) would have made back in the good old days when he was a statesman. Instead, he signed the letter.

“I expect better from the men and women who wore the uniform,” Eaton said of Cotton. And the American people deserve better from the Senate.

BYOB wrote:

Rongone wrote:

BYOB wrote:

I'm down with that.

I do have to wonder whether the list of past Congresspeople doing similar stuff is accurate. Were those instances actually in the middle of a multi-country negotiation?

Looks like PA Senator Pat Toomey was a signer of the letter. God, I just love Pennsylvania.

 


Yeah. I wrote to Toomey to ask him to explain his thinking and rationale for being a part of this diplomatic debacle. It will be interesting to see if his office responds and exactly what their explanation will be.

Do let us know if they respond. It ought to be interesting, if nothing else.
 

 

Here is Toomey's response. The first four paragraphs are obviously the prepared justification for the misguided letter concocted by the staffs of the people that signed the document. It tells me how evil and dangerous the country of Iran is to world peace and my personal safety. It is evidence of the fact that these 47 signers realized shortly after drafting, signing, and publicizing their message that the overwhelming response to their message was negative. The last two paragraphs are Toomey, or a staff member, attempting to personalize his response to my question as to his thinking and rationale to signing the letter. As that was all I asked in my one sentence question to him, I also found it interesting that he mentions the fact that I may disagree with him on the letter. Just another indication of the massive negative blowback Toomey and others received in response to being party to this message.
From my perspective,the whole thing is a weak attempt at justification, not a real explanation. But, at least I wrote and he responded . . . We're like pen pals now.



March 20, 2015

Dear Mr.
Thank you for contacting me about negotiations with the Iranian government on its nuclear weapons program. I appreciate hearing from you.

The Iranian government is probably the most dangerous regime in the world. They pose a very serious threat to the U.S. and our allies. The Iranian regime has been killing Americans since 1979 and is a destabilizing force in the Middle East through its support of terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. It has propped up hostile regimes - such as Syrian President Assad who has slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people - and has helped topple friendly governments that are critical to our nation's counterterrorism efforts. Iran has a significant arsenal of long-range offensive missiles and an aggressive development program designed to extend their range and sophistication. Iranian leadership refers to America as "the Great Satan" and has called for the destruction of Israel, one of our closest allies. Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons would give it the means to do so.

I am very much in favor of a negotiated agreement that would prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. I am convinced, however, from public statements and administration leaks, that the Obama Administration has offered Iran a deal that would allow the Iranians to acquire nuclear weapons. Specifically, administration officials have confirmed that Iran could retain an industrial scale uranium enrichment capability. This capability can easily be converted from commercial use, to weaponized form. Such a dangerous agreement would be a huge setback for our own security and, ultimately, increase the likelihood of a nuclear arms race and military conflict in the Middle East. Given Iran's continuing unconstrained missile capability and development program, a nuclear armed Iran would soon be a direct and grave threat to American homeland security. This is an unacceptable outcome.

It is for these reasons that I believe that three things should be done. First, Congress should pass a bill imposing more stringent economic sanctions on Iran. Second, any deal should forbid an Iranian uranium enrichment capability. Lastly, Congress should have a vote on any agreement signed.

As you have noted, I also signed an open letter, authored by Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), to the Iranian government with 46 of my colleagues on March 9, 2015. The letter makes two main points. First, it observes that for any agreement to be enduring, it should have the force of law, which necessitates a congressional vote. Second, it points out that Senators serve 6-year terms that are unlimited. The issues addressed in the Cotton letter are an extension of my long and active record of engagement in the effort to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The alternative to a bad deal is not war, but a better deal. I will continue to try to achieve an agreement that will actually prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Thank you again for your correspondence. While we may not agree on this issue, I value having your input and knowing your concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.
Sincerely,
 
Signature
Pat Toomey
U.S. Senator, Pennsylvania

BYOB wrote:

Wow. That sure was a whole lot of words to say a whole lot of nothing. I reman thouroughly unimpressed.

A politician NEVER admits that he is wrong !