GOP continues drive for preemptive "war of choice" with Iran

Republicans Warn Iran Against Nuclear Deal With Obama

WASHINGTON, March 9 (Reuters) - Republican senators warned Iran on Monday that any nuclear deal made with U.S. President Barack Obama could last only as long as he remains in office, in an unusual intervention into U.S. foreign policy-making.

The letter, signed by 46 U.S. senators, says Congress plays a role in ratifying international agreements and points out that Obama will leave office in January 2017, while many in Congress will remain in Washington long after that.

"We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei," the letter read.

So here we have the GOP "leadership" undermining their own president in an attempt to sabotage US foreign policy and prevent any form of diplomacy between Iran and the United States.

Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last

A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.

Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.

This is yet another first in American history - never has Congress directly intervened or interfered with foreign policy between a sitting president and foreign leaders. It is a traitorous attempt to sabotage negotiations. The duty of negotiating treaties belongs to the executive branch with Congress having the power to ratify or not, but Congressmen have never inserted themselves directly into ongoing negotiations, especially to sabotage delicate negotiations.

This comes on the heels on Netanyahu's speech to Congress, another "first in American history," where Congress placed a foreign leader over their own president in order to drive foreign policy. Netanyahu laid out to Republican leaders another plan for a preemptive "war of choice", just as he did once before in 2002 in the run up to the second war in Iraq (you know, the one that has led to the creation of Al Qaeda in Iraq / ISIS.

It seems an inevitable future, the GOP and certain foreign leaders have already destined we are going to be at war with Iran. I just wonder how many of those Republican leaders will be sending their own children over their to fight it.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer


And people wonder why Iran is practicing attacks on a mock US aircraft carrier while Obama engages in talks.....


Iran is not dumb.

Iran KNOWS Obama and Democrats are likely not long in office and in 2016 some warmongering neocon maybe even ANOTHER Bush will be in office.

They know the USA Foreign policy is unstable and unpredictable.


If I was Iran id be training my armed forces for the worst even if I do want peace.

And I expected better from Rand Paul.

I agree with the congressmen and good for them to finally show some guts and stand up against our dear leader dictator.

I disagree this will lead to war. It is simply reminding the President that his attempts at end runs around the congress and constitution will not be tolerated. Executive orders are only as lasting as the President is in office, and congress decides to let them slide or the following President allows them to slide. Otherwise, executive orders are only truly orders as long as the President is in office, in this case only 2 more years.

Speaking of a war in the middle east. Wasn't it dear leader dictator O, who just sent troops into the middle east to fight a religious war that has basically gone on for thousands of years in one form or another? (check history, Islamic terrorism, Jihad, has been on and off for thousands of years, the latest iteration is just that, the latest iteration) The US has no business sending troops to a religious war. If you fully support Obama and his policies then you must by default support the US sending troops to the ME to engage in, well war. A religious war at that, because sending troops to fight ISIS Daesh is sending troops to fight Jihad, to fight a religious war.

a reply to: grandmakdw

No doubt a number of chickenhawks will fully agree with you - war by any means. U-S-A!

originally posted by: grandmakdw
I agree with the congressmen and good for them to finally show some guts and stand up against our dear leader dictator.

Its selective outrage.

There are other country's out that either HAVE nukes or have the capability to make nukes that are far worse.

North Korea
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Israel.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: grandmakdw

No doubt a number of chickenhawks will fully agree with you - war by any means. U-S-A!

Yup gotta kill those godless Araabbbbs YEHAAAAA! derp derp!

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

You got upset at my opening and need to re-read the last paragraph.

Obama has already started a new war (ie restarted a war) in the ME,
fighting Jihad - he sent troops -
to engage in a religious war
that has raged on and off for thousands of years
and is not winnable by infidels (Satan's US Army, as the ME mindset sees it).
By quietly sending troops to fight ISIS Daesh,
he is sending troops to fight Islamic Jihadists, um,
last time I checked that was a religious group (much as O denies it and pretends it is not true).



Obama did this after his secret meeting with Middle Eastern leaders. We are now fighting their war for them. The only people who can stop Islamic terrorism are other Muslims and Muslim countries. Infidel countries, secular countries, like the US will only exacerbate the infidel hatred and make matters worse outside the ME.

Don't blame these congressmen, look in your own back yard first.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: grandmakdw

No doubt a number of chickenhawks will fully agree with you - war by any means. U-S-A!

Yup gotta kill though godless Araabbbbs YEHAAAAA! derp derp!

Just like Blackmar. your brain was flooded with hormones that prevented you from reading the last paragraph correctly.

Please read my reply to Blackmar.

It is Obama who has already started a war in the ME, wake up,

a reply to: grandmakdw

Obama has already started a new war in the ME, fighting Jihad - he sent troops - , to engage in a religious war that has raged on and off for thousands of years and is not winnable by infidels

You're kidding, right? Obama started this war? You need a history lesson of the past 10 years.

a reply to: grandmakdw

I agree with the congressmen and good for them to finally show some guts and stand up against our dear leader dictator.

I don't think you understand the role of Congress in foreign policy. If you did, you'd realize that congressional Republicans have gone off the rails and are now trying to usurp the powers vested in the President by conducting foreign policy negotiations themselves.

This is particularly ironic since you're referring to the President as "dear leader dictator." Congressional overreach isn't any better than Presidential overreach. I wonder if you'd similarly applaud a Democratic controlled Congress doing the same thing with a Republican President? I think not.

Retired US Generals to Obama: 'No War of Choice in Iran'

Several former high-ranking military, intelligence and State Department officials took out an ad in the Washington Post today urging President Obama to stand fast against political and lobbying pressure to attack Iran over claims it is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

The letter, signed by five retired generals, two senior intelligence analysts and a senior State Department official, is accompanied by a photo and quotes from other current military and defense officials warning against such an attack.

"There is a national reflex on the conservative part [of the] political spectrum to reach for the military option first and others second," said retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, commander of the Coalition Military Assistance Training Team in Iraq from 2003 to 2004, when he developed and oversaw the training of the Iraqi military and security forces.

President Obama and others in the administration believe they can stop Iran from pursing a nuclear weapon through economic sanctions.

"We feel the need to give the president and those who endorse this approach as much space as possible to let … the economic efforts guide Iranian behavior," said Eaton, who is a senior advisor with the National Security Network.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: grandmakdw
I agree with the congressmen and good for them to finally show some guts and stand up against our dear leader dictator.

Its selective outrage.

There are other country's out that either HAVE nukes or have the capability to make nukes that are far worse.

North Korea
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Israel.

It is a symbolic act.

It is congress saying we have had enough of your executive orders and making treaties without the consent of congress.

Congress is supposed to ratify all treaties, and treaties are null and void without their ratification.

President Obama has changed law with his executive orders, something the constitution forbids, when he changed the Obamacare law, that was illegal (allowing exemptions and delays). Only congress according to the constitution is allowed to change law.

This dictator like behavior on the part of Obama has now led to a treaty that is actually helping a nation become a nuclear nation, a nation whose openly declared goal is the death of every Jew on the planet and the total annihilation of the state of Israel. Unless, that idea floats your boat as it appears to do with many Obama supporters, well in reality it is guaranteed a nuclear holocaust of proportions the world has never seen. Especially since the nation has already declared that annihilation of another country and an entire religion is something they want to do.
Real smart huh?

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: grandmakdw

Obama has already started a new war in the ME, fighting Jihad - he sent troops - , to engage in a religious war that has raged on and off for thousands of years and is not winnable by infidels

You're kidding, right? Obama started this war? You need a history lesson of the past 10 years.

I didn't say he started it, he restarted it.

10 years old? Jihad is thousands of years old.

originally posted by: grandmakdw


It is Obama who has already started a war in the ME, wake up,

Yeah so the world does not need another war.

Especially a war with people actually fighting ISIS.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Especially since the nation has already declared that annihilation of another country and an entire religion is something they want to do.
Real smart huh?

Its been pointed out time and time again that was not what Irans Past president said.

It was mistranslation the warmongers in your country ran with.

Here is a run down of what was actually said.

Speach

PS:And Im far form a Obama supporter. Just because I agree with him on one foreign policy matter (well two counting cuba) does not mean I like the rest of his foreign and domestic policy's.

It is very apparent that the American government has been hijacked by Congressional Republicans. They've been engaged in this since the day Obama took office, continually shutting down government, playing games with the budget, undermining foreign policy. We should all remember the trips Republican Senator McCain took to meet with the Syrian rebels, some of whom are now rank and file members of ISIS.

The NeoCons from the Reagan/Bush era have never ceded power, even after Obama took office, many of those neocons stayed firmly rooted into office. The Republicans dug in their heels and did their best to trip up Obama when he tried to withdraw from the ME. They have undermined diplomacy and thwarted foreign policy, and in this case, openly did so, to force Iran to avoid making any diplomatic agreements with the US.

They are clearly setting the stage so if and when they have another neocon in the WH, they can point their fingers at Iran and say "it's your fault their is no diplomacy between us and so we are going to war."

I guess this kind of points to a next elected republican presidential candidate...only one that is set on invading Iran...no other candidate will do.

What a sad country you've become.

I am basically a libertarian FYI.

Obama has been pretending he is dictator
by saying he can do anything he wants to
with his pen and paper.
He openly said he wished the US were
more like China (ok not a dictator ship/ a totalitarian communist regime)
where he could just act without
having to go through congress (oh yea, that is a dictator)

Then he realized no one challenged him
when he used his pen and paper
illegally, going squarely against the constitution.
When congress let it slide,
he was then a defacto dictator,
with a weak and piddly congress
cowering at his every pen stroke.
Guess some Pit Bulls woke up
and decided not to pee at the
very sight of him,
and have decided to return him
to his constitutional role.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer


Well...

What a bunch of treasonous dogs.

This chest beating nonsense does not make these senators look like rational, peace loving people. It actually makes them look like children, petulant and foolish, and unaware of their responsibilities toward their people, and their president. They have no respect. For all that government is simply a method by which small numbers of people control large numbers of people, this is certainly not a good way to run one, or to be a part of one.

Fools the lot of them, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
I guess this kind of points to a next elected republican presidential candidate...only one that is set on invading Iran...no other candidate will do.

What a sad country you've become.

The US has already invaded the middle east, yet again, Obama just restarted the troops going over to fight Jihadists.

If any candidate says they want to either: continue the religious war against Jihadists (Democratic stance, as evidenced by Obama being the head of the Democratic Party sending troops to fight the religious war)
OR: start a war with Iran (as you all are claiming is the Republican stance, although I disagree)
well, I can tell you that it will be the prime opportunity
to return sanity to the US
and a third party - Libertarian or something else
will have a real shot for the first time to win
and restore sanity to the US