Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is another example of the many precedents established for this by Democrats:
In April 1985, as the Reagan administration sought to limit Soviet influence in Central America, Senator John Kerry traveled to Nicaragua, met with Communist strongman Daniel Ortega, and accused the Reagan administration of supporting “terrorism” against the government there. Said Kerry, “Senator Harkin and I are going to Nicaragua as Vietnam-era veterans who are alarmed that the Reagan administration is repeating the mistakes we made in Vietnam.” Kerry’s trip followed a letter from a group of House Democrats led by majority leader Jim Wright to Ortega. The “Dear Comandante” letter declared: “We regret the fact that better relations do not exist between the United States and your country. We have been, and remain, opposed to U.S. support for military action directed against the people or government of Nicaragua. We want to commend you and your government for taking steps to open up the political process in your country.”
Except Reagan wasn't in the middle of delicate multi-nation negotiations to keep the Nicaraguans from building a nuclear warhead. Granted, Reagan was illegally selling missiles to the Iranians to fund fascist death squads in Nicaragua at the time of Kerry's visit. So there's also that to consider...
Here is another example of the many precedents established for this by Democrats:
In April 1985, as the Reagan administration sought to limit Soviet influence in Central America, Senator John Kerry traveled to Nicaragua, met with Communist strongman Daniel Ortega, and accused the Reagan administration of supporting “terrorism” against the government there. Said Kerry, “Senator Harkin and I are going to Nicaragua as Vietnam-era veterans who are alarmed that the Reagan administration is repeating the mistakes we made in Vietnam.” Kerry’s trip followed a letter from a group of House Democrats led by majority leader Jim Wright to Ortega. The “Dear Comandante” letter declared: “We regret the fact that better relations do not exist between the United States and your country. We have been, and remain, opposed to U.S. support for military action directed against the people or government of Nicaragua. We want to commend you and your government for taking steps to open up the political process in your country.”
A fine point, given Kerry's latest bleatings and babblings about he's never even heard of anything like what Cotton did, even though his entire career is built on directly opposing the White House and/or Congress on foreign policy DIRECTLY and VOCALLY. The Vietnam era Winter Soldier crap (before he was even in the Senate), the Nicaraguan nonsense in the mid 80s, and an almost constant anti-Bush, anti-White House drumbeat in the early 2000s concerning Bush and Iraq. Cotton is padawan to Kerry's jedi master where back sassing the White House on foreign policy anything is concerned.
Back in 1919, Wilson was the lead negotiated for America for the Treaty of Versailles, Wilson signed it and was heralded as the hero of Europe. Then, he went back to America and the Senate laughed in his face and rejected the Treaty, not allowing America to join the League of Nations Wilson fought so hard to make.
Now did those Senators a Commit treason? No
Going against the Presidrnts agenda, foreign or Domestic is not treason.
Here is another example of the many precedents established for this by Democrats:
In April 1985, as the Reagan administration sought to limit Soviet influence in Central America, Senator John Kerry traveled to Nicaragua, met with Communist strongman Daniel Ortega, and accused the Reagan administration of supporting “terrorism” against the government there. Said Kerry, “Senator Harkin and I are going to Nicaragua as Vietnam-era veterans who are alarmed that the Reagan administration is repeating the mistakes we made in Vietnam.” Kerry’s trip followed a letter from a group of House Democrats led by majority leader Jim Wright to Ortega. The “Dear Comandante” letter declared: “We regret the fact that better relations do not exist between the United States and your country. We have been, and remain, opposed to U.S. support for military action directed against the people or government of Nicaragua. We want to commend you and your government for taking steps to open up the political process in your country.”
The Regan administration was supporting the Contras in their attempt to Overthrow the Nicaraguan Government, he even went so far to place mines in the ports. So yes many people took issue with his activities that is why congress withheld US funding of terrorist activities in South America, which Regan ignored.
That is quite different than undermining negotiations towards peace that involves several countries. We were not at war with Nicaragua and they never did a thing to us but they were guilty of communism.
The Regan administration was supporting the Contras in their attempt to Overthrow the Nicaraguan Government, he even went so far to place mines in the ports. So yes many people took issue with his activities that is why congress withheld US funding of terrorist activities in South America, which Regan ignored.
That is quite different than undermining negotiations towards peace that involves several countries. We were not at war with Nicaragua and they never did a thing to us but they were guilty of communism.
But it does not appear to a great many people that he is negotiating "peace," but rather an effort to get an "agreement," any agreement, regardless of what it is, so that he can say that he did. It is all about Obama and his "legacy". So, what we are seeing here is the narcissist in chief at it again. He and his supporters apparently are most concerned about this from the perspective that it is all about Barack Obama.
And here the end game is the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran and its terrorist network, a matter of grave national and international importance. This is not some trivial agreement that Obama can just approve on his own. This is very possibly the most important agreement our country has tried to negotiate in the last 20 years at least. And Obama appears to be in appeasement mode, making commitments without adequate concern for verifiability, and with a view almost entirely to his "legacy". What an awful man and an awful President Barack Obama is.
This needs to be considered and ratified by the Senate, and if Barack Obama refuses to submit it for ratification, as he as already indicated is his intention, that will serve as a confirmation that he is not really serious about peace or respecting our constitutional establishment of separation of powers, but rather only about himself and what he wants.
But it does not appear to a great many people that he is negotiating "peace," but rather an effort to get an "agreement," any agreement, regardless of what it is, so that he can say that he did. It is all about Obama and his "legacy". So, what we are seeing here is the narcissist in chief at it again. He and his supporters apparently are most concerned about this from the perspective that it is all about Barack Obama.
And here the end game is the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran and its terrorist network, a matter of grave national and international importance. This is not some trivial agreement that Obama can just approve on his own. This is very possibly the most important agreement our country has tried to negotiate in the last 20 years at least. And Obama appears to be in appeasement mode, making commitments without adequate concern for verifiability, and with a view almost entirely to his "legacy". What an awful man and an awful President Barack Obama is.
This needs to be considered and ratified by the Senate, and if Barack Obama refuses to submit it for ratification, as he as already indicated is his intention, that will serve as a confirmation that he is not really serious about peace or respecting our constitutional establishment of separation of powers, but rather only about himself and what he wants.
This keeps popping up in these threads. Where is anyone getting the idea that an agreement allows Iran to get a nuclear weapon? The entire point of an agreement between Iran and the Nuclear Five plus Germany explicitly keeps them from doing that in return for dropping the sanctions and some normalization of relations.
Walking away from the table or threats of military intervention would drive them to build a nuclear deterrent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
