Republican Senators Write Iran, 155k Sign Treason Petition

Here is the letter Republican senators sent to the leadership of Iran.

Iran responded it has no legal value.

Republicans do not speak for Congress or the President who is Commander in Chief. They should be sanctioned for even writing it.

I guess I'm not the only one who thinks this is unacceptable behavior by Republicans. 155,000 people have signed a petition that the ink happy Senators be charged with treason. [More...]

More than 155,000 people by Wednesday had signed a petition to the White House urging charges be filed against 47 Republican senators who they say committed "treasonous" offenses by writing Iran's leaders about ongoing nuclear negotiations.

...According to the petition, 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."

Critics argue that the lawmakers, including at least three potential Republican 2016 presidential candidates, broke the law, or at least violated the traditions of Congress, by directly engaging a foreign power on US foreign policy.

Of course they won't be, but they should be removed and thrown out of Congress.

< Shami Witness: Police Seek Another 6 Months to File Charges | Thursday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Are members of Congress actually liable (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Peter G on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 11:01:54 PM EST
    to impeachment? I don't remember anything in the Constitution saying so. I thought Members could simply (by 2/3 vote) be expelled by a vote of their own House. Since that's far less technical and less cumbersome than impeachment, I doubt that the Framers meant for impeachment to apply.  I think it's for Executive and Judicial Branch miscreants only.

    You are correct, sir. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 01:48:47 AM EST
    Congress polices its own and governs itself. We the electorate enjoy only the right to vote for someone else the next time any of these 47 Senate clowns runs for re-election.

    (And prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment in May 1913, we couldn't even do that, because U.S. senators were chosen directly by state legislatures rather than elected by popular vote.)

    Members of Congress can neither be impeached nor recalled from office. Each house of Congress has sole authority to discipline the conduct of its respective members during the course of their official duties.



    There is another option (none / 0) (#19)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 02:40:01 AM EST
    A Democrat could challenge Cotton to a duel.

    5 famous duels

    Ciley-Graves Duel

    I'd never heard of the duel above.  Nasty business.


    Dueling is illegal. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 03:34:35 AM EST
    Tell that to then-Sen. Zell Miller (D, Ga.) (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by scribe on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 03:54:05 AM EST
    I seem to recall him getting a featured speech at the 2004 Republican convention and there calling out any Democrat who was man enough in their opposition to the Rethugs to go at it with him.  Something about standing with and supporting Bushie and Deadeye Dick.

    Great article on the legalese (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 02:21:35 AM EST
    Of who "Ratifies" and who provides "advice and consent" to international treaties.  

    Basically the Republicans are wrong when they say Obama can't ratify a treaty without them so it makes their letter sort of pitiful because it's legally incorrect.    Also it's dumb politics and just another piece of red meat for the base which Im not really sure needs it considering they just won a major election victory.  

    However the idea that it's treason and some sort of unprecedented action is equally <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/10/7-times-democrats-advised-americas-enemies-to-oppose-the-president/">false if we just stroll down memory lane.  </a>

    As with the Democratic examples cited above the letter is going against political reality and only makes the writers look partisan in their opposition.  As much as one might sympathize with their position the NRO link agrees it's meaningless without further action.   Action that is probably not forthcoming.  

    And, I have no sympathy for their position (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 05:37:43 AM EST
    Sorry, link issues (none / 0) (#18)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 02:24:40 AM EST
    You Links Speak.... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 08:55:05 AM EST
    ....volumes about your objectivity, or rather your silly notion that you are in any way objective.

    To be expected (2.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Slado on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 12:19:46 AM EST
    did you even bother to read them?

    If you didn't then your comment is meaningless.  

    Have an argument if you're going to post but dismissing links based only on the source just means you aren't in the least bit interested in becoming informed or having your ideas challenged which is exactly how people become better informed on issues.  

    Your loss, not mine.


    I Can Promise You... (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 05:06:41 PM EST
    ...regular readers of Breitbart are easily the most uniformed people in America, hands down.  

    There is nothing below Breitbart at the bottom of the barrel.

    Again, "Your links speak volumes about your objectivity, or rather your silly notion that you are in any way objective."

    Here's your serious source:

    In April 2014, Breitbart.com created an ad campaign to launch Breitbart California which included posters bearing an image of House minority leader Nancy Pelosi's head superimposed onto singer Miley Cyrus's body who was seen twerking on California governor Jerry Brown, spoofing the 2013 VMAs. DNC Chairwoman and Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz denounced the images as "disgusting" and "foul, offensive and disrespectful to all women." In response, House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy requested that his column be removed from the site.

    off topic comments (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 03:08:31 AM EST
    and race baiting deleted. Toggle, watch yourself. You're close to being banned.

    It's not treason (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 06:19:25 AM EST
     or any other "crime." (It would be folly to pursue the Logan Act which is likely unconstitutional facially and almost certainly if an attempt was made to apply it to this type of action by members of Congress; and they may also have immunity under speech and debate.

     The fact countless legislators have had communications with foreign leaders (and other "leaders" not acting as agents of the President in the past is relevant, but this is distinguishable from at least most, because it is is a direct and express effort to influence foreign leaders with regard to ongoing negotiations to reach an agreement between governments. that still doesn't make it a crime but it makes it much worse than most examples. (Not as bad as Nixon and Hanoi because this was done openly)

      It was stupid and wrong, and, in my opinion, a legislative branch usurpation of powers reserved to the Executive.

      It's a political issue though.

    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 08:53:39 AM EST
    This just proves, yet again, that 155,000+ people have no idea what they're talking about, and just because they can sign an online petition, they think they do.

    Or Rather... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 09:13:14 AM EST
    ... you can get people to believe and sign just about anything.

    I would consider 155k online signature for anything a fail, for something as serious as treason, it's embarrassingly that they submitted so few signatures.

    But they did meet the threshold to get an official response form the White House, but then again they got more signatures to pardon Snowden.


    Well, the people who signed that petition (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 09:13:42 AM EST
    may not understand what is and isn't treason, and what is and isn't covered by the Logan Act, but perhaps they know enough to know they don't think the letter was an appropriate undertaking for members of Congress, and signed on to this petition as a way of expressing their objections.

    Are you okay with that, or does what you see as their basic ignorance foreclose their right to express themselves?

    People are angry.  The WH is angry with the Gang of 47.  Democrats in Congress are angry with the Gang.  The public is angry at the Gang, angry at Obama, fed up and disgusted with Congress, and feeling like no one gives a good GD what they think or want.

    For many people, it may not have been a perfect petition, they may have known the action called for was over-the-top, but I can't say as I can blame them for being angry and feeling like no one's listening.  Because I really do think most of our elected leaders are so in-the-bubble and in love with their own importance that they don't even see the people trying to get their attention.


    Ignorance is okay if you're one of the (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 09:19:17 AM EST
    47 Senators who signed the letter, but not if one signs a petition opposing those who signed the letter.

    Got it.


    No, I don't think you do get it, actually. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 09:49:50 AM EST
    First, I never claimed the signatories to the Iran letter were ignorant; if you must know, I think they knew exactly what they were doing (although it has been reported that we're supposed to view the letter as just a "cheeky" act, and have a sense of humor about it - you know, because those Iranians have quite the sense of humor themselves).  Although it has also been reported that maybe some of those who signed on to the letter may not have been quite as informed about it as perhaps they should have been - so what do you think of that kind of ignorance?

    Second, could a case be made that the Gang sent the letter for the same reason people signed the petition: that over-the-top actions/reactions make news and get people's attention?  The problem is that the over-the-top petition will not be taken seriously, while the Iran letter will - and is.

    My main point was that people are angry, and frustrated that no one listens to them.  Do you get that?


    I'm referring to the signatories (none / 0) (#48)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 09:55:21 AM EST
    ignorance of Constitutional and international law.

    I'm fine with it (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 10:46:35 AM EST
      My post was not intended to suggest people must have a good grasp of all the "legal stuff" in order to have an express an opinion on an issue.

      I was merely stating the conduct is not "treason" as that word is defined by our law. People use words all the time in a more colloquial sense that has only a rough similarity to "the term of art" applicable in law and it's often the case that the colloquial sense connotes  a broader sense of the word  than the legal definition. That's one of the reasons why so many statutes expressly define many of the terms used.

      Signing a petition is little different really than holding a sign to protest. If people go to a rally and the organizers hand out signs that use a word that is also a legal term but the usage on the sign does not comport with the technical legal meaning, it would likewise not delegitimize the sign holders' position that whatever they are protesting is bad.


    Article III, Section 3, (none / 0) (#76)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 12:28:08 PM EST
     of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution.

    If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

    I hold no illusions regarding the practical steps of charging Treason against those Senators. However, it is a fact that "the people" have spoken, through their vote, as to who they granted Executive power to, including that of CIC. The, I believe, irrefutable fact, that the Representatives in question have done all in their power to prevent The President from carrying out his duties makes the charge of treason not as far fetched as you seem to think it is.


    there are MANY other teasons (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 12:35:03 PM EST
    But you might want to stsrt by realizing Iran is not our" enemy." Lots of words have sprcific mraning in lae.

    I admit (none / 0) (#82)
    by FlJoe on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 12:45:41 PM EST
    to yelling treason at first, but after I came down from my anger rush I can see rationally that the were in anyway aiding or abetting an enemy. If they were aiding and abetting anybody it would be our ally Netanyahu . The quick one two punches of the unprecedented "speech" and 'letter" sure makes it look that way. Extremely questionable actions constitutionally , but not illegal in my opinion.

    There might (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 12:51:43 PM EST
    be a case against Joni Ernst though if anybody was going to pursue it because she is active military and there have been people prosecuted for doing what she had done.

    I'm tracking that one (none / 0) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 01:44:14 PM EST
    She is National Guard.  Once upon a time the Guard did not owe the same deference to the President's authority.  At the start of the Iraq War when Bush was allowed to deploy National Guard units, the President was not legally their commander, their Governor was.

    Guard law has changed.  She should be asked to take her leave or else. She is in some sort of trouble or we are about to see some more of that unequal justice go down.  


    Maybe (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 04:35:06 PM EST
    your hubs would know about that. It seems likely that she makes the strongest case for prosecution.

    Lately, there have been a couple (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 01:07:05 PM EST
    Of actions certain individuals have taken that are so treasonous:  having the character or characteristics of a traitor, that you have to check the tomes of law :)

    Who thinks they are so special they keep 8 blindingly top secret books in a duffel bag or their Ethan Allen desk drawer blatantly defying the law that they have held others accountable to? :)

    Some actions are so bizarre or venomous you have to go look it up :)


    You seem (none / 0) (#89)
    by FlJoe on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 01:12:06 PM EST
    to be describing a large portion of the Republican agenda here,
    bizarre or venomous
    usually including both traits.

    Yes (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 01:18:22 PM EST
    Like I said, (none / 0) (#93)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 01:27:11 PM EST
    I have no illusions that any action will, or, can be brought against these 47 disgraces. Obviously, treason is a very specific legal act, but the very idea that the term is bandied about in reference to the actions these Senators have smeared themselves with is an indication of just how far "off the reservation" they have strayed.

    I'll try to find a link for an article I read the other day that listed all the actions the Far Right have perpetrated against this President, and the country. From threatening to not increase the debt ceiling to shutting down the government, this Republican Party stands in a league all its own. So much damage, so many people hurt, and, all for (perceived) political advantage.

    In the Law the terms, "de facto & de Jure," basically, mean, "the letter (of the law,)" and the "spirit of the law." These 47 Senators may not be technically guilty of treason, but, in spirit, they're guilty as charged.


    Let's (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by FlJoe on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 05:00:31 PM EST
    face it, this "letter" episode is a further example of of the GOP doubling down on the CRAZY, screw conventions and protocol. If you wanted to your a message loud and clear to the nation and the world why not just address your open letter to Obama? Why would you want to send a message addressed directly to the mullahs when there are several other "diplomatically  correct" ways to get it done?

     I do not understand why the Senate Republican leadership, allegedly the last bastion of sanity in the GOP, allowed this freshman yahoo to bring this unforced poopstorm upon their heads.


    Of course they can be angry (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 09:26:19 AM EST
    (But nice straw man).

    Words like "treason" and "Nazi", and now, apparently, "jihadi" get thrown around too easily, as you yourself pointed out just the other day. When people misuse or overuse the word, it loses it's impact.

    Anyone who is tech savvy enough to sign an online petition can also Google and read what the definition of treason is and read the thousands of articles explaining why this wasn't treason - just as when Ted Kennedy wrote to the Soviet Premier, or when Congressional Dems wrote a letter to and then visited Nicaragua's President Ortega.

    Can YOU recognize a political ploy when you see one?


    Agreed. (none / 0) (#80)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 12:42:14 PM EST
    My feelings are that the signers intend the petition to be a political statement.   It should not be surprising that the treachery of 47 Republican senators creates frustration and anger in many citizens. Especially, those who would prefer to avoid another war in the Middle East.

    Matters such as treason, Logan Act, Espionage Act-are not well understood but it is known that, say, the Espionage Act of 1917 can be dusted off and used against whistleblowers.   And, then there is that Harvard Law graduate Tom Cotton, the Republican's all too willing spear-catcher, paling around with hard-liner Ayatollahs, who once wanted to jail NYT journalists, including the NYT editor, for espionage.   The jailing was to be for an article he did not like.


    Maybe (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by FlJoe on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 09:21:03 AM EST
    155,000+ do not know what they are talking about, in a strict legal sense, but they sure are pissed off and rightfully so. I have and heard many ridiculous accusations of treasonable behavior from high level Republicans against Obama some and they should know better, I rarely hear them getting called out for their cluelessness.

    Only 155,000?? (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 10:46:06 AM EST
    I would be embarrassed to even bring the subject up if that's all I had.

    Only (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by FlJoe on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 10:54:45 AM EST
    47 Senators signed the "letter", how embarrassing.

    Jim (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 12:52:50 PM EST
    at least your senators in TN weren't stupid enough to sign the letter. You should be touting TN today.

    I'd like to point out (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by CST on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 10:05:12 AM EST
    That there is a current open petition on whitehouse.gov with 99,670 signatures to bring charges of treason against Obama that was filed yesterday.

    I'd say a whole lot more than 150,000 people don't know what they're talking about.


    The deep financial corruption of BOTH parties... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 10:44:06 AM EST
    ...is much more damaging and treasonous than this letter, as disgraceful a thing as it is. And we will never see either party charge itself with corruption or treason, so it all ends up moot. We're a very weird country. Very.

    How did this thread get so (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Slado on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 12:13:31 AM EST
    far off the rails? I guess when Jim took my attempt at humor too far?

    I always bring up dueling when people start acting like today's congress is the most partisan in history or that a congressman's actions are unprecedented blah, blah, blah...

    We've become pretty tame compared to the good ole days.

    I have no idea but I just deleted a slew of (none / 0) (#126)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 04:13:56 AM EST
    off topic comments. The reason we have open threads is so you all can write about topics that interest you that either I or BTD have not written about. The topic here is the Iran letter. I let most of the Cotton comments stay because he is one of the letter writers, but others were totally off topic. Comments with personal insults to other commenters were also deleted.

    Please stay on topic and save your thoughts on other topics for open threads.


    Who are Tom Cotton's combat buddies? (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 11:15:45 AM EST
    Well, NOT retired General Paul Eaton who goes so far as to say that Cotton doesn't even care if he places the nation at risk with fresh war.

    So which (1.83 / 6) (#22)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 03:15:32 AM EST
    is more important:  The Obama "brand" or the wisdom of allowing Iran to develop the means for our nuclear destruction?

    Engage in hyperbole much? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 03:37:40 AM EST
    As has been noted by others in the past (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 07:58:03 AM EST
    if Iran were to detonate one nuclear device against us or any other nation, they would probably end up a country of charred ruins over the next 12 hours or so after that from retaliatory strikes on our part.

    Whitecap333 is a racist and an idiot.  But the, I repeat myself.


    So it's treason (none / 0) (#45)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 09:41:06 AM EST
    to deem unacceptable the prospect of playing the "mutually assured destruction" game with Iran?

    GW Bush refused to negotiate (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 09:51:48 AM EST
    with North Korea, over their nuclear program, and we all know how well that worked out.

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 09:55:49 AM EST
    North Korea got more stuff and more powerful and then W came back begging for negotiations later and NK said no go bozo.

    Are you telling us (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by FlJoe on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 08:24:56 AM EST
    that the leaders of  United Kingdom, Russia, China, France and Germany, who are all full partners in these negotiations are all in to promote Obamas "brand". I know you guys think that Obama is a tyrant, but I didn't know his tyranny has spread(successfully) worldwide. Get real.

    "Our Nuclear Destruction"... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 10:08:52 AM EST
    you're funny.

    If that's your concern, I'd be worried about Pakistan...not Iran.

    And if by birth lottery you happened to be born in Tehran, I suspect you'd be the one screaming the loudest for your country to nuke up as a necessity for national defense.


    Also (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by FlJoe on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 10:19:51 AM EST
    funny that all of our partners in these negotiations have more reasons to fear a nuked up Iran then we do, I guess they are willing to sacrifice their safety so Obama can look good.

    House cleaning (1.00 / 1) (#2)
    by toggle on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 10:14:33 PM EST
    I can get behind this. If these heads are on the block, so are a lot of others. Jimmy Carter for one. Obama and Biden too. I remember Obama's statements directed to Iraq when he was running for president.

    I'm not sure about the line of succession but I think that means Boehner will end up being president, unless he's out for inviting Netanyahu.

    link? (none / 0) (#3)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 10:20:04 PM EST
    Obama's statements directed to Iraq when he was running for president

    Here's one (none / 0) (#4)
    by toggle on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 10:51:13 PM EST
    Politico Article

    The best quotes are not mentioned in that story; they were reported to the AFP but the story was taken down mysteriously. It remains available, however.

    Web Archive Link

    "[Obama] asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," [Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar] Zebari said in an interview, according to Taheri.

    "However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open," Zebari reportedly said.

    The Republican campaign of John McCain seized on the report to accuse Obama of double-speak on Iraq, calling it an "egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas."

    But Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri's article bore "as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial."

    In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.

    In the face of resistance from Bush, the Democrat has long said that any such agreement must be reviewed by the US Congress as it would tie a future administration's hands on Iraq.

    Basically it's exactly what the Republicans did with this letter.

    No it's (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 11:41:22 PM EST
    not what the GOP did with this letter. They wrote a letter and sent it to a country. Now if they had stood around making speeches at the podium aimed at Iran, yes, it would be the same.

    You mean if they had (2.00 / 1) (#10)
    by toggle on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 11:42:42 PM EST
    Traveled to Iran and secretly urged its leaders not to deal with the president, like Obama did when Bush was in office?

    Obama went to Iran when Bush was in office? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 11:51:24 PM EST
    No but a bunch of (none / 0) (#20)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 02:41:55 AM EST
    dem congressman did before Iraq war.  

    Ah, so Obama didn't do that. Got it. (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 10:25:08 AM EST
    Not that I thought he did, but such a blatant effin' lie is kinda hard to leave alone . . . .  

    Well, except for the (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 06:20:39 AM EST
    part you interestingly omitted where the Obama camp denied doing what your excerpted material claimed.

    Did you think no one would follow the link and read the articles?  


    I didn't omit anything (none / 0) (#57)
    by toggle on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 10:26:09 AM EST
    The "denial" was a non-denial for all intents and purposes. It was accompanied by an explicit admission that Obama had done what was claimed, just with the caveat that he had been talking about a different agreement than the one initially reported.

    For Logan Act purposes, it is irrelevant which agreement Obama was meddling with.


    Do you also find it interesting (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 10:27:31 AM EST
    that Obama's minions denied it?

    You seem to think (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 10:45:20 AM EST
    that denial=guilt in this case.

    I find that very interesting.


    Nope, what I find interesting is that (2.00 / 1) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 09:52:42 PM EST
    you even bother to try and defend.

    That's so funny I forgot to laugh (none / 0) (#123)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 01:17:55 AM EST
    There are no more minions, Jim. (none / 0) (#120)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 12:24:00 AM EST
    We were out of leeks, and had to use them instead for the pot roast.

    thanks (none / 0) (#6)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 11:15:08 PM EST
    i vaguely remember this now that i see it again

    i think the howls of Treason! are silly, whether they're coming from people in the media (who really should know better) or from grassroots partisans (who can be & love to be riled)

    it's a lot of political posturing on both sides, & politicians on both sides know it - the letter was definitely a miscalculation, though, a dumb overreach that has backfired on the GOP 47

    but US senators on both sides of the aisle do have legitimate concerns about the US president's role in something as important as Iran's plans for its nuclear program


    The GOP (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 11:39:08 PM EST
    definitely is taking a hit for their stupidity on this. Read some of Tom Cotton's writing in the Harvard Crimson. The guy is right up there with Himmler on policy.

    I was shocked (none / 0) (#1)
    by Jack203 on Wed Mar 11, 2015 at 10:14:01 PM EST
    That even some hardcore Republicans I know, who haven't shown an ounce of objectivity over anything else, are upset over this.  

    Thank you, Jeralyn, for posting on this. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 03:43:34 AM EST
    I've ranted enough about this issue in two prior threads and having thus said my piece, I shall now hold my peace. Aloha.

    Tom Cotton (none / 0) (#31)
    by RickyJim on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 07:58:52 AM EST
    If you haven't read up on him by now, Wikipedia tells us he is a graduate of both Harvard College and Harvard Law School where he studied with Elizabeth Warren!  He should know what's legal.

    "Studied under Elizabeth Warren" (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 09:29:17 AM EST
    at Harvard Law, means only that someone took one of her classes on Bankruptcy or on Consumer Law. It hardly means that he was a protege (or even that he paid any attention).

    this person didn't say under (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by CST on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 09:38:39 AM EST
    they said "with".  Implying simply that they both went to Harvard or have some association with Harvard and therefore must be of similar? intellect.

    Which is ridiculous.


    Sorry about the misquoted preposition (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 10:00:57 AM EST
    But the meaning is the same, in this context.  Prof./Sen. Warren is not a graduate of Harvard Law; she is a former professor there. Her law school alma mater is Rutgers. But she did not teach constitutional law, so the idea that Cotton (or anyone else) ought to "know what's legal" in this context wouldn't have anything to do with her teaching ... or with her at all, for that matter.  Try blaming Cotton's ignorance on Laurence Tribe or Elena Kagan, perhaps. Anyway, Ted Cruz went to Harvard Law also, so that's pretty conclusive proof that a HLS credential implies nothing about either intellectual integrity or intellect.

    Recent revelations have taken a lot of stress off (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 11:37:24 AM EST
    The college savings account...whew

    Paying for a Harvard education can be just like piling my money in a pit and setting it on fire :)


    this is off topic (none / 0) (#90)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 01:14:24 PM EST
    please keep the comments to the Iran letter.

    Wiki Says He Was "Taught" (none / 0) (#54)
    by RickyJim on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 10:20:04 AM EST
    by Elizabeth Warren.  Sorry I didn't quote it exactly before.  They reference an article in National Review that doesn't appear to be online: Nordlinger, Jay (22 October 2012). "Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Part 1". National Review.

    and according to google he has also said (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by CST on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 11:30:17 AM EST
    That he didn't get a very good grade in her class.

    Then the ignorance displayed in the letter (none / 0) (#32)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 08:01:40 AM EST
    is even more inexplicable, unless he's just using it to further his own political career..............

    I have a feeling Tom Cotton's going to (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 08:23:40 AM EST
    be finding out just how much too big for his britches he is, and soon.  

    Funny, isn't it, how Cotton's Harvard law degree makes him am expert, and Obama's makes him, what, just another minority of mediocre intellect who has affirmative action to thank for his degree?


    It's called (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 08:34:51 AM EST
    lowest commong denominator and yes, it's all about fleecing the rubes to advance your own political fortunes.

    You're confusing Iran with ISIS (none / 0) (#64)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 10:47:23 AM EST
    Jim, and not for the first time, either.  Look towards your own lack of logic before asking us to swallow the Netanyahu bilge, cork, bottle and all.

    And if you want to go (none / 0) (#66)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 10:50:22 AM EST
    after Pelosi but let the Senators off the hook, then your "both sides do it" rhetoric becomes meaningless.

    that comment was deleted as off topic (none / 0) (#69)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 11:26:51 AM EST
    stop the sniping. The thread is about the Republican letter, not you or Jim.

    So you're (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 11:06:39 AM EST
    talking about something completely unrelated about the soviet union that no longer exists.

    And yes, we see the fruits of radical fundamentalism here in the US in the house and senate everyday with the GOP but for some reason you seem to think they can be reasoned with. You guys just can't help sounding like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney every time you open your mouth can you?

    Agreed, but I do not (none / 0) (#86)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 01:03:00 PM EST
    think the comment should be deleted.  It may be some  scuttlebutt in winger circles.   And, it may bear caution.  My thinking is that there is something wrong with Cotton, if not PTSD then some unresolved anger issues that require appropriate medical care.  We should thank the commenter for the tip.

    I did delete it because (none / 0) (#125)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 03:55:36 AM EST
    it could be too easily misinterpreted and was by many readers who emailed me about it.

    With Jim, how is it possible (none / 0) (#98)
    by scribe on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 06:52:43 PM EST
    to know?

    Frankly, given the way the military is, his set of decorations is pretty much de rigeur for a junior infantry officer who successfully completed a tour in Iraq.  The CIB goes to every infantryman who's (a) colonel and under, (b) assigned to an infantry unit of brigade or lower size, (C) in a combat zone and (d) does this for at least 30 days straight.  You don't have to hear or see a shot.

    The Bronze Star (no "V" for valor) means he did a good job for his whole combat tour.  The Army Commendation medal means he did a good job for his three years or so in the unit.  As a Harvard grad, he would have figured out the system and the system would have recognized him as someone to get on the good side of, so he probably got a couple extra points in his favor when it came time to deal out decorations.

    In so many words, not too much to see there other than a Harvard man making the radical choice of joining the infantry rather than Goldman Sachs.  Seems to have stood him well.

    I can't diss the guy for his military record (none / 0) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 07:23:21 PM EST
    The first year in Iraq they handed out bronze stars like candy.  It created a big uproar.  So the handing out of the bronze star was scaled back.  He served in Iraq when we were losing our asses and it was just HELL every day.  He volunteered for Afghanistan right after my husband deployed there.  It was the Obama War,  that puzzles me.  For someone who despises this President so, why would he want to go?  He worked counter insurgency and reconstruction.  Another form of hell, another procession of days that seem like two steps forward one step back.

    My spouse came home with a bronze star from that deployment too and he earned every point.  He came home missing 40 lbs and he left fit.

    The guy does puzzle me.  I can't fathom working counter insurgency and reconstruction while being almost soulless.  Part of that Afghanistan mission was being close to the Afghans and acting as a protection force verses a threat to them.

    The guy puzzles the heck out of me, I feel like I have no clue who he really is and that's deliberate.

    If Ted Cruz had been compelled to serve though, just go wade into $hit willfully, I probably wouldn't be able to figure that out either.


    what's puzzling? (none / 0) (#112)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 11:13:49 PM EST
    that he combines personal valor & what is clearly dyed-in-the-wool conservatism with the kind of Ivy League credentials stereotypically associated with northeastern liberals?

    that he might have placed patriotism above antipathy toward any particular commander-in-chief?

    in any case, i think he first joined up when it was still "Bush's War"

    He served in Iraq when we were losing our asses and it was just HELL every day.  He volunteered for Afghanistan right after my husband deployed there.  It was the Obama War,  that puzzles me.  For someone who despises this President so, why would he want to go?  He worked counter insurgency and reconstruction.  Another form of hell, another procession of days that seem like two steps forward one step back.

    Yes, he joined when Bush was in office (4.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 11:39:14 PM EST
    But he volunteered to leave his stateside duty, he volunteered to deploy into what most Conservatives snidely called Obama's War...you know, so Obama would have some war on him too or something.

    The other thing that's wierd, during all this war soldiers make friends.  The friendships are so tight sometimes, they've had to rely on each other so much and gone through different things, they are sort of intimate with each other.  They will be friends for life, forever.  Where are Tom's friends?  Whenever a recent Veteran has run for office there is usually a little gaggle of fellow vet friends that can't say enough great things about them.  Looking around I can't find any such Cotton friends so far.


    And I feel like there are huge (none / 0) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 12, 2015 at 10:31:52 PM EST
    Chunks of this guys real history missing.  Or he's a robot.

    Tracy, (none / 0) (#128)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 01:51:22 PM EST
    have you read Richard Condon's "Manchurian Candidate," or seen the movies (1962, preferred version, or 2004)?  

    I did not read the book (none / 0) (#130)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 08:20:36 PM EST
    But I have seen both movies.

    I think after everything the Bush administration pulled and got away with the cap is off the tooth paste.  Anything is possible.  Maybe it always was and I had a false sense of security. I was born at the start of Vietnam.  It seemed as if nobody could do that to us again, and then they did.


    FYI, the NYT recently reviewed (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 09:19:32 PM EST
    an new opera: The Manchurian Candidate. The reviewer preferred the original movie.