Right here:
The negotiations weren’t “private”, they were secret. No one knew about them. If you think the letter was destructive to negotiations that no one in the Senate knew about, you are saying that no such letter can be constructive, ever, since no one will ever be able to tell if there are secret negotiations going on or not. That’s what “secret” means.
More democratic than Iran, usually, but I never really thought of it as part of the MENA.
Turkey is part of the actual Middle East, which Iran is not. Iran is part of the “Greater Middle East”.
It unconstructive because tough sanctions were already in effect. And the signers were rumbling prior to Thanksgiving week about passing something in the Senate after the breakthrough in negotiations and six month deal
was announced.
It’s obvious the letter at the time was a political stunt to make it look like Obama was weak in negotiations by suggesting strong sanctions were not in play.
Again if you wish to argue against the letter being unconstructive you need to explain what is constructive about it. And what is constructive for Dem Senators to align so strongly with Obama and diplomacy’s adversaries from the right.
The date of the letter has nothing to do with my point and it never did.
So, if the letter had been written 2 years ago or 5 years ago, it would still have been bad? The sanctions in place at whatever time were exactly the ones needed. No more, no less. Perhaps we can call them the “Goldilocks Sanctions”.
I’m still pretty sure you haven’t read the letter because you have yet to reference one substantive matter it discusses. But let me ask you specifically: what does the letter say that Obama has not said himself?
Is it that the letter says that the US threat of using military force must be “credible?”
Is it that the letter says that the US must “fully explore a diplomatic solution to our dispute with Iran?”
Is it that the letter urges Obama to say that “we will not allow” Iran to get a nuclear weapon?
Is it that the letter urges Obama to continue the “maintenance” of sanctions?
Tell me, what exactly is the problem? If you can’t tell us specifically, my next post will be one of those games where I give a quote, and then you have to tell me (without cheating!) whether that quote is from Obama or from the letter.
No, that’s not remotely true and whoever told you that was either a fool or trying to fool you.
For all their problems both Iraq and Lebanon have vastly better claims.
For that matter even Jordan, which no one would call a democracy is more democratic since at least there the King can and has been overriden by parliament.
Could you produce a cite for that claim.
Of course it does. Haven’t you ever heard of a pocket veto?
Holy Forum Mixing, Batman!!
No need to argue the difference between private and secret. My point has nothing to do with the signers’ not knowing about the Admin’s private or secret negotiations. The signers’s knew about the sanctions in place and they kept yapping about the need for tougher sanctions after the breakthrough was announced. That could have disrupted the moderates and may have an impact. There was no need to mouth off about tougher sanctions in November and to disrupt Obama’s diplomacy by showing that his own Party does not support him.
I can’t imagine why you think a pocket veto constitutes the president being able to sign bills at his leisure. It makes no sense to me.
There are no matters in the letter that disturbs my point. The fact that Dems have signed the letter is the problem. You have not explained one constructive thing that group of 76 have added to the diplomacy.
I am waiting for that.
The pocket veto constitutes the president being able to not sign bills at his leisure, which amounts to the same thing.
*Whoever told you that was either a fool or trying to fool you.
If you read my post more carefully, you’d see that many of the points made in the letter were virtually identical to what Obama has said. So I have, in fact, posted what is constructive about the letter. I also think there are unconstructive things about it. But I’m waiting for you to show an indication that you have read the letter, which I’ve yet to see. Can you quote some lines from it?
But honestly, I think I understand what your problem with the letter is. Republicans signed it, therefore it is bad. And Democrats signed it too, so those Democrats are just as bad as the bad Republicans.
I see. Not signing a bill within a certain timeframe is the same thing as signing a bill without respect to any timeframe.
Has the Constitution you are consulting been dropping acid or something? Because that makes zero sense.
Not really. Obviously, Iraq has it’s problems but it has a democratically elected government that you’ll be pleased to note was not the guys the US wanted in place and while the sectarian bloodshed has been quite distressing it’s not as bad as it used to be and there seems to be a broad agreement among the different factions that they’d like to keep Iraq a united country.
They certainly have more claim to being a democracy than Iran, which admittedly is not saying much.
I have told you what the problem is. It is not the content of the letter - it is the association by the Democrats with those there is no need to associate unless Obama is conducting policy with Iran that must be changed or corrected for some clear reason.
I notice you have yet to provide any evidence to support your rather foolish claim that Iran was the closest thing in the Middle East to being a functioning Democracy other than Israel.
For the second time could you please provide a cite for that because I don’t see how you can make such foolish argument when there are other leaders with democratically elected leaders while the leader of Iran is not democratically elected and his rule is absolute.
Thank you in advance and I await your answer.
You can think it but you are wrong. There is nothing ‘net’ constructive by the actions of that group that were signatory to that letter. And that applies to whether Obama holds a similar position as some of the content.
The Administration has expressed opposition to the actions of that group and I agree with the President on this.
Do you think the actions of that group who signed the letter are constructive in general or do you agree more with the President?
Points in the letter may very well be identical with Obama’s but there must be a problem since there is friction between the two sides.