Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Cotton Letter a Breach of Protocol? Tosh
Noting that the White House and journalists of every description on the left are now accusing senator Tom Cotton of violating protocol in writing to the leaders of Iran, Josh Trevino replies, in effect, “Nonsense.” From his recent post on Facebook:
[I]n the modern era, we see United States Senators and Congressmen communicating and even traveling abroad to counter Presidential foreign policy rather often. There’s the Ted Kennedy 1984 outreach to Yuri Andropov to form an electoral alliance against Ronald Reagan (yes, you read that right); there is the 1985 John Kerry and Tom Harkin trip to Managua; there is the 1985 Jim Wright “Dear Commandante” letter; and there is the 2002 Jim McDermott trip to Baghdad. For starters.
One may dispute the merits of these acts, but they happened, and if you’re going to…[discuss] the topic, you may want to know that.
Nicely done, no?
It seems to me that if people are spending more time talking about whether Republicans violated protocol or even the Logan Act and less time talking about whether Obama’s agreement with Iran will give them enough time to produce a weapon that will kill more Jews in a single day than the Third Reich in 12 years, perhaps there were ways to do this better.
Quinn: “It seems to me that if people are spending more time talking about whether Republicans violated protocol or even the Logan Act and less time talking about whether Obama’s agreement with Iran will give them enough time to produce a weapon that will kill more Jews in a single day than the Third Reich in 12 years, perhaps there were ways to do this better.”
What on earth do you mean? Pre-emptive attack? Any number of extreme things come unpleasantly to mind when I read your last line. I think a letter is a polite shot across the bow.
Forget who I saw on twitter, might have been Rich Lowry, saying that Obama’s been telling Congress to “go to Hell”, this is Congress saying “right back atcha”.
I meant the letter. (And I don’t think 47 Senators could lead a pre-emptive attack, although the image makes me smile from the silliness. McConnell as a ninja.)
A letter that turns the issue into whether the Republicans violated the Logan Act and away from how bad a deal is emerging is a public relations debacle. If the difference between those discussions is a different salutation on the letter, that might have been the way to go.
For the record, I would support a pre-emptive strike. Waiting until after Israels 6.2 million Jews (and the innocent 2 million non-Jews) are dead is closing the barn door after the horse left. But the Americans won’t do it, so there is no point in getting hung up on it.
– “GOP Iran Letter Draws Obama Rebuke,” WSJ, 10 March 2015
For decades, national security was a shared concern by Democrats and Republicans. It’s still shared by some Democrats. Staying the course on issues like defense and national security is not an issue Republicans have walked away from. The letter demonstrates steadfastness in support of those objectives, it doesn’t demonstrate partisanship, unless by comparison with those who actually have changed their priorities, i.e., the Democrats.
It would be one thing if we and the president were all of the same mind in negotiating this nuclear deal. It’s almost inconceivable that we aren’t, but here we are. A president who appears to be doing little more than paying lip service in support of getting a questionable deal, and a president currently unpopular and appearing to be catering hard on behalf of an avowed enemy of the US — these are the actions of a severe partisan. Mono-partisan even, but still partisan.
A deal with the stated timetables outlined to date would be like a negotiated surrender of the United States without the Republic of Iran firing a single shot.
So, what’s the answer here? Or, what’s the Ricochet consensus?
1. It’s unusual for legislators to interfere in foreign policy, but it’s been known to happen?
2. Dems love to do it if they get to shake hands with a tyrant?
(May I add, 3. Has the GOP ever done it, was it ever prudent?)
4.This letter is excused by necessity, because Iran getting the bomb portends war?
5.Finally, the GOP is doing something about foreign affairs, & it’s mostly ok?
Have I missed anything? Why isn’t this question turned into one of these Ricochet polls? I take it there are dissenting voices here–so far as I can see, no one argues that bad form is the main problem, mostly that it’s imprudent either as a matter of foreign policy or as a matter of the domestic partisans fight, or both.
This. Step back from the optics momentarily, and the minor questions of advantage in the political game.
For years we’ve been watching Obama get away with doing whatever he wants whether it’s legal or illegal. Obama didn’t go through congress even when he controlled the Senate. Clearly he’s not a fan of separation of powers. Obama is trying to bind the hands of his successors. Or else why would he write an agreement with provisions past 2017?
The 53 other senators ought to spend some quite time reflecting on their oath to support and defend the constitution.
If you’re playing that game, you’ve already lost. The Republicans NEVER get to say “We told you so.”
As an aside, two references.
1) A list of the 47 senators who signed the bill.
2) The Sputnik News opinion on the letter. They’re against it.
(In case you missed it, Sputnik News is not a reliable source)
I think that the real purpose of the letter, is to make a public statement to the world, and especially the likely 2/3 of US population who don’t know that the President does not have the power to bind the US to any policy, rule, or terms with any foreign power, he must go to the congress and get the approval of 2/3 of the US Senate. The senators were right, and it was essential to say what they did. Any agreement with Iran that lets them continue to build a bomb, and as far as we can see the currently proposed one certainly does, is very destructive, and we should cheer any attempt to make its effect less.
If the agreement did provide an indefinite period of monitoring by the US (I don’t trust the UN) where the US could inspect anything we wish, anywhere in Iran, with no exclusions, and agreement is null and void on first refusal by Iran, and we maintain a credible threat to destroy what they won’t let us inspect, then submit it to congress, and a treaty likely could be had. Less than that, lets have a president who will defend the US
Here are the 7 Republicans who didn’t join the 47 who signed the Cotton letter:
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
Daniel Coats (Ind.)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Thad Cochran (Miss.)
Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)
Bob Corker (Tenn.)
Round up the usual suspects?
The day the Democrats rise up and charge Jane Fonda for treason is the day they are allowed to use the word again in public.
Peter & All,
Simple question:
When in the history of the United States of America has any Senator been indicted for treason over a breach of protocol?
When in the history of the United States of America has there been a President that circumvented the Senate’s power to ratify treaties and suffered no consequences?
Regards,
Jim
If you look at the Iranian leader’s reply, he certainly thinks the agreement will outlive the O administration, even after the Rs’ letter.
What I don’t understand is why didn’t they just pursue a Sense of the Senate Proclamation/Resolution that stated basically the same terms – any agreement that is likely to set off a nuclear arms race in the Mideast has to be approved by Congress. This would have gotten the rest of the Repubs, probably some Dems, or at least had some Dems abstaining. Peter Robinson talks about breaking furniture, but this seems to be more like breaking tools – like opening a paint can with a saw blade. That’s why level headed guys like Bob Corker did not give in to petulance and frustration.
What he says and what he thinks are two different things. I suspect he is posturing so that when Iran has its nuclear breakout, they can use this as a pretense. He wants to play the victim card and this is a public relations way to do that.
And frankly Iran has no business talking about who is bound and who is not, since everyone expects Iran to cheat anyway.