Cite that the Administration expressed opposition to the letter when it was written in August?
I think the interim agreement is a good one, and I think you don’t actually understand the difference between the letter written in August and the opposition to the interim agreement that began in November. You haven’t really shown the slightest familiarity with the contents of the letter. It appears to me that you read a blog post about 76 senators/Iran/Obama rules/something something and you seized upon the contents of the blog, but never bothered to read the letter or understand that it predates the interim agreement by months.
There’s friction between the Administration and those who oppose the interim agreement. The letter doesn’t have anything to do with the interim agreement, because it was written months before the Obama’s phone call to Rouhani, the Geneva talks, and the interim agreement.
I have not seen an explanation of what was constructive about what those people who signed the letter were agitating about more severe sanctions in November 2013. That they backed down somewhat does not explain what was constructive about it in the first place.
What is wrong with taking the President’s side on a matter of war and peace ?
The content of the letter is not the issue. This is the issue that concerns me. This political grandstanding is a serious problem. It I not necessary at all.
Well, I quoted it. You wrote it. Everyone can read it:
If you didn’t mean that the problem with the letter is that Republicans were part of it, what did you mean by that sentence? Because it says exactly that.
You want to know what’s constructive about the letter, but you don’t want to discuss its contents. Uh, ok.
Also, the Senate has a role in providing not only its consent, but also it’s advice to treaties. A bunch of senators telling the president what they think of our foreign policy toward any country is perfectly within the norms of what the Senate does.
Again, sorry that you don’t like Republicans or the letters they write.
I have no problem with Republicans writing letters and signing them. The problem involves what you quoted Senator Schumer as saying after it was announced that an interim deal had been reached that also followed the public displays of moderation and cooperation as expressed by Rouhani.
Obama and Kerry and our allies announce a breakthrough and instead of Schumer getting the gist of what’s going on he runs to the nearest neocon and goes on display to show that Obama and Kerry aren’t quite bright enough and careful enough to be negotiating this deal on his own.
Schumer joined the neocons in order to upstage the Administrations’ big announcement. I’m sure Schumer prefers a diplomatic solution rather than war, but it would behoove him to hold back on this type of political ploys that serve no purpose and could make things worse.
That’s the problem.
I posted some of your earlier comments to try and recall what the point of this thread is.
It seems you somewhat agree with me that Obama should be left to do the deal. so I don’t know what you are driving at actually with your point I have no point because I hate Republicans. I hate what Schumer did. I’d like to know what you can find constructive in what Schumer did around Thanksgiving when this news was breaking about a deal with Iran.
It’s impossible to have a debate with you. We’re trying to understand what you find objectionable about the August letter, other than Republicans signed it, and now you’re jumping to what Schumer said in November. One thing at a time, please.
And please, for the love of Allah, stop it with the neocon bullshit. It’s as though everyone who disagrees with Obama, no matter how much of how little, is a neocon. You’re not going to win any arguments around here by throwing labels around. Argue the substance, not some meaningless label.
Please keep it on topic. I’ve explained what I find objectionable about the group that signed that letter and what they did in November after the deal was announced.
If you don’t have anything to say please stop with the declarations that the discussion is settled requesting that we must pretend that neocons do not exist.
I consider John Bolton to be a neocon. So what is the BS? Bolton has plenty to say about this topic. Bolton says Obama was ‘weak on sanctions’… I think the guy is deranged. But he has a soapbox and can be influential … specifically when similar messages come from the left.
Bolton is beyond condemnation. But why can’t I criticize Schumer for seeking the limelight in opposition to the President if no one here can tell me that what he and Bolton are doing is not constructive to a diplomatic solution?
Was Schumer doing something constructive or necessary for the national security of the USA when he came out calling for tougher sanctions when the President was leaning toward testing Iran by easing sanctions.
I have no problem with easing some sanctions if the let the IAEA in. Bolton of course thinks the IAEA and the UN are worthless. he says
““In truth, an Israeli military strike is the only way to avoid Tehran’s otherwise inevitable march to nuclear weapons, …”
That is the “ONLY” way according to Bolton.
I whole heartedly disagree. I agree with Reagan… the Republican… Trust but verify… . Let the IAEA verify …
AND I Don’t think anyone who disagrees with Obama is a neocon. Please correct you comments to reflect that.
When you say that “neo-con” is a “meaningless label”, do you mean that there are no such persons in positions of power and influence here in the US, or that you simply find the label ill-defined and imprecise?
And if you were an Iranian advocating for a peaceful detente with the US, how would you view that document? Would you see it as a positive development, a clear indication of American sincerity and peaceful intent?
In Iran, even as we type, this same argument is mirrored. Got a nickel says that those people pressing the case for mistrust and suspicion towards America are waving that document in the faces of Persian “peaceniks”. Is that a positive development?
When two powers are attempting to defrost a long-standing enmity, gestures become exaggerated and amplified depending on who benefits. Of course, it is unfortunate that the Persian people seem to regard us as bellicose and militaristic. It is even more unfortunate that we have given them good reasons to think so.
The fact that your primary argument against Schumer is that he happens to be closer to a Republican on this one issue is a terribly vapid and unsubstantial argument. Your constant refrain of those who disagree with Obama as simply seeking “limelight” is as empty a criticism as the one thrown at Obama by conservatives who complained he was “spiking the football” if he even mentioned bin Laden’s death. In other words, your argument needs substance, facts and analysis. As it stands, it’s as content-free as those lousy political talk shows that feature people yelling at each other.
No. I mean that the way NFBW is using it. If I’m wrong, then I’m open to being corrected.
Well, first of all, the letter was drafted during a time when no one knew there was any negotiations going on. But what specifically in the that letter do you find troublesome?
The topic was your assessment of a document you refuse to read. And as it has been pointed out to you, it mirrors everything Obama has and continues to say.
That’s not my argument at all. My argument is that Schumer should have a valid and serious reason to buck the President on this issue because bucking the President such as suggesting attaching sanctions to the Defense Appropriations Bill so Obama can’t veto it weakens the President. And while it is doubtful its not not Schumer’s intent it gives aid and comfort to Obama’s enemies who seek to push the theme that Obama is weak in these the negotiations.
That is why I cited Bolton’s reference to the majority support in the Senate for tougher sanctions that he admits won’t work anyway, because he says iin Rumsfeldian fashion that ‘only’ bombs will work after all.
Instead of addressing a primary argument that I have not made, if you could address this one directly it would be appreciated. What does it accomplish toward a peaceful resolution of Iran’s nuclear program for a high ranking Democrat to blatantly oppose the President’s preference for giving the interim deal a chance to play out?
As to your request for a cite of some sort, I am citing the President’s judgment on this matter. I trust his judgment so my argument is little more than matching Obama’s argument.
The problem with what Schumer is doing is that there is no benefit TO THE PROCESS in what he is doing except that people like Bolton can unfoundedly declare solidarity with top Democrat Party leaders which very much lends credibility to right wing hawkish crazy war talk on Iran.
Do you disagree with any of that specifically and if so try to explain your alternative ideas of what level of criticism might be appropriate for an American citizens such as myself to direct to politicians like Chuck Schumer for doing what he is doing.
If it “mirrors everything Obama” has said and continues to say then there would be no issue. Obama did NOT SAY (in November after the announcement of the interim deal) that we need to pass tougher sanctions now in response to the deal. Obama ACTUALLY said he wants to lift some sanctions.
So you have committed a glaring error in your statement. Are you going to correct it?
What ‘assessment’ of that summer letter from me are you referring to? An actual cite of my quote would be appreciated rather than what others think my assessment would be.
No. I mean that the way NFBW is using it. If I’m wrong, then I’m open to being corrected. -John Mace
[/QUOTE]
Provide the cite where I have ‘used’ the term Neo-Con as a meaningless ill-defined label or was imprecise in reference to it.
Why can’t you stick to the arguments and points that I have made instead of commenting that you think I have a problem of hating Republicans - that I didn’t read a letter - that I misuse the term neocon etc?
I restated my argument a couple of posts up to Ravenman. Could you try to respond to that without bringing personal issues into this discussion?
Am I obligated to cease to criticize Schumer for what he is doing and to question his reasoning for bucking the President on a serious matter that you and I agree the President is doing the right thing.
I don’t get your criticism of my criticism of Schumer.
No one and specifically US Senators are obligated to shut up. That is not my point either. They are obligated to think and to justify some things they say that are questionable as to why and how and -who with- they are saying it.
The (a) content of the letter and the *(b) association by the Democrats with Obama’s political enemies * are two separate and distinct issues which can exist apart from each other. It is a matter of simple use of language to have a problem with one and not the other.
I have no problem with the (a) *content of the letter *specifically because it has nothing at all to do with the point I am making on this thread. I have a serious problem with the (b) **association ** however and that is a major part of my points made in this thread.