About Senator Tom Cotton’s (R-AR) letter with 47 signatories to those nasty Iranians. The letter informed Iranian Mullahs, that without congressional approval, The Iran Agreement Act could become null and void when a new president rises after the next election. Democrats are outraged. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the letter was sent “AFTER OBAMA TOLD CONGRESS TO GO TO HELL.” Meygn Kelly asked Cotton if his letter was no more than a “distraction.” Cotton reminded her that Obama has conceded “…a vast Iranian enrichment capability. That paves the way for Iran to get the bomb….” Megyn lamented that Cotton and the signers of the letter “offended” Obama, and some Democrats, and particularly Democrats who might cross the aisle, and stand with Republicans. Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trip in 2007 to Syria to meet with Bashar Assad, against the wishes of the G.W. Bush administration, is a point of high discussion, but take at look at four additional Democrat moves one instigated by Ted Kennedy and one paid for by Saddam Hussein.
The Washington Examiner offers five examples of what Democrats have done in the past. The Republicans in the House wrote a public letter, nothing secret. Look at these:
In 1984, 10 Democratic lawmakers — including the then majority leader and House Intelligence Committee chairman – sent a letter to Nicaraguan Communist leader Daniel Ortega known as the “Dear Comandante” letter. In it, the lawmakers criticized Reagan’s policy toward Nicaragua and whitewashed the record of violence by the Sandinista communists.
That time “liberal lion” Ted Kennedy proposed a secret alliance with the Soviet Union to defeat President Ronald Reagan
A 1983 KGB memo uncovered after the fall of the Soviet Union described a meeting between former KGB officials and former Democratic Sen. John Tunney (Sen. Kennedy’s confidant) in Moscow. Tunney asked the KGB to convey a message to Yuri Andropov, the Soviet leader, proposing a campaign in which Kennedy would visit Moscow to offer talking points to Andropov and Soviet officials on how to attack Reagan’s policies to U.S. audiences. According to the memo, Kennedy, through the intermediary, offered to help facilitate a media tour in a proposed visit by Andropov to the U.S. Kennedy’s hope, as conveyed by the letter, was to hurt Reagan politically on foreign policy at a time when the economic recovery was working in his favor.
Democrats visited Iraq to attack Bush’s policy
As Stephen Hayes recounts: “In September 2002, David Bonior, the second-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, flew to Baghdad in an attempt to undermine George W. Bush’s case for war in Iraq on a trip paid for by Saddam Hussein’s regime. Bonior, accompanied by Reps. Jim McDermott and Mike Thompson, actively propagandized for the Iraqi regime. McDermott, asked whether he found it acceptable to be used by the Iraqi regime, said he hoped the trip would end the suffering of children. ‘We don’t mind being used,’ he said.”
Jimmy Carter tried to sabotage George H.W. Bush at the U.N.
On Nov. 20, 1990, as President George H.W. Bush gathered support to oppose Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait, the former Democratic President Jimmy Carter wrote a letter to nations who were in the U.N. Security Council trying to kill the administration’s efforts. As Douglas Brinkley explained, Carter’s letter was an attempt “to thwart the Bush administration’s request for U.N. authorization of hostilities against Iraq. President Bush’s criterion for proceeding with a war was the exhaustion of ‘good faith talks,’ and Carter placed his interpretation of that standard above the administration’s.”
And, of course:
Pelosi visited Syrian ruler Bashar Assad
In 2007, newly elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. As the Associated Press reported at the time, “The meeting was an attempt to push the Bush administration to open a direct dialogue with Syria, a step that the White House has rejected.”
“I’ve been working on bipartisan legislation with others that says Congress will not agree to lift the sanctions that we created unless we look at the deal and vote as to whether or not we want them lifted. The president of the United States does not have the authority, in my view, to tell the Congress that we cannot look at a deal that would lead to the lifting of the sanctions, that would create it. I did not sign the letter until the president threatened to veto the bipartisan legislation I just described. The moment he told Congress basically to go to hell, I want him and the Iranians and the world to know you can’t deal us out. If he’s contemplating a deal to give congressional sanction relief and not allow us to have a say, he’s flat wrong and that’s why I signed the letter.”
“How about this, Secretary Clinton? We want to stand up for the idea that sanctions created by Congress cannot be lifted by the commander-in-chief unless we agree. The only thing in this legislation deals with the lifting of congressional sanctions. And to Secretary Clinton, if you were president, would you deal Congress out? Would you threaten to veto a bill that’s bipartisan, requiring Congress to review your deal before Congress agreed to lift the sanctions they created? This is a very big deal. There’s only one commander-in-chief, but we’re the Congress. We created these sanctions, Bill. We should have a say. By the way, the Congress, the Senate hasn’t toppled four Arab capitals. We’re not the largest state sponsor of terrorism. It is Iran. We haven’t been lying about our nuclear ambitions for the last 20 years,…
Rumors abound that Obama will bypass Congress, but seek the approval of the U.N. Security Council (UNSC). An unnamed “senior U.S. official” “…said there is no plant “of using the United Nations to lock into place any potential deal with Iran over its nuclear program.”
What is going on here? For starters, the existing U.N. resolutions obtained by President George W. Bush are much, much stricter than anything President Obama has indicated would be forthcoming. Those resolutions don’t permit Iran to keep thousands of centrifuges. They don’t give Iran a 10-year sunset. They require complete dismantling of Iran’s illicit program, full inspections and an accounting of past illicit behavior. In other words, any new deal negotiated by the administration would be weaker than — and in fact, in violation of — existing U.N. resolutions. That is why Obama would need to go back to the U.N., to water down, to cave into Iran’s demands.
This is not an original thought. For quite some time, former U.N. spokesman Richard Grenell has been warning that this is exactly what is coming down the pike. Last year Grenell wrote: “President Obama’s Geneva proposal to the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council allowing Iran to enrich some uranium violates previous UN resolutions demanding the Islamic Republic stop ‘all’ uranium enrichment activity.
To avoid a violation of current UN resolutions, the permanent members must ask the entire Security Council to vote to weaken and supersede their previous demands.” He continued, “The UN’s four rounds of hard-fought sanctions on Iran and several other resolutions demanding compliance call for a full suspension of all enrichment activities, including research and development, then full verification of that suspension before negotiations on a permanent diplomatic solution begin. The sequencing was strategic. It was designed to build international confidence in a secretive country’s deceitful past.” But Obama deliberately departed from these restrictions, so he has always planned to go back. Otherwise, his deal would be in violation of existing international law. Washington Post
The above article posits that Obama can, and will waive the U.N. resolutions. “He will get the U.N. to water down international sanctions while he suspends U.S. sanctions.Why is this so dangerous?”
President Obama risks undermining the entire sanctions edifice on which continued economic leverage depends. A future US president will need this leverage to enforce an Iran deal so that he can respond to Iranian noncompliance without resorting to either military strikes or surrender. But it increasingly appears that UN, EU and perhaps some US sanctions will be suspended and then reimposed or snap backed if Iran cheats. The snapback is a delusion. Source: Mark Dubowitz in an email to Jennifer Rubin. Read more here.
WhiteHouse.gov has a cheesy petition up with 290K+ signers encouraging prosecution for “treason” of the 47 signers of Cotton’s letter with treason. Since the petition has more more than 100,000 signatures, the rule is, the White House must respond in some way:
Of course, there is exactly zero legal ground for any such charges to be brought under the suddenly popular (on the Left) Logan Act — which, by the way, John Kerry flagrantly violated when he interfered in the Paris peace talks near the end of the Vietnam War. Source: PJ Media
Cotton (R-AR), Hatch (R-UT), Grassley (R-IA), Shelby (R-AL), McCain (R-AZ), Inhofe (R-OK), Roberts (R-KS), Sessions (R-AL), Enzi (R-WY), Crapo (R-ID), Graham (R-SC), Cornyn (R-TX), Burr (R-NC), Thune (R-SD), Isakson R-GA), Vitter (R-LA), Barrasso (R-WY), Wicker (R-MS), Risch (R-ID), Kirk (R-IL), Blunt (R-MO), Moran (R-KS), Portman (R-OH), Boozman R-AR), Toomey (R-PA), Hoeven (R-ND), Rubio (R-FL), Johnson (R-WI), Paul (R-KY), Lee (R-UT), Ayotte (R-NH), Heller (R-NV), Scott (R-SC), Cruz (R-TX), Fischer (R-NE), Capito (R-WV), Cassidy (R-LA), Gardner R-CO), Lankford (R-OK), Daines (R-MT), Rounds (R-SD), Perdue (R-GA), Tillis (R-NC), Ernst (R-IA), Sasse (R-NE), Sullivan (R-AK).
The above list leaves seven Republicans not signing:
Alexander (R-TN), Collins (R-ME), Corker (R-TN), Coats (R-IN), Cochran (R-MS), Flake (R-AZ), and Murkowski (R-AK).
Two matters of monumental importance are 1) Obama opening the door to a nuclear Iran, and 2) Obama opening the door to 12-15 million illegals. Republicans must revolt against an arrogant president who refuses to ignore the rule of law. Firm stands must be made, Congress must speak out, let their voices be heard, and TAKE ACTION. Enough of the groaning. Get busy, do your job and stop this administration at every unconstitutional turn.