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.
Wow, and you only needed to go back 30 years to find what you thought was a good example compared to the GOP letter.
Reagan wasn't negotiating a peaceful outcome, he was funding the Contras through the CIA to overthrow the Sandinista Government in Nicaragua. The thrust of the democratic letter was for Nicaragua to hold open and free elections and was also critical of the Reagan's funding of the Contras. Many countries including Great Britain were critical of our actions, particularly the CIA mining of international waterways near Nicaragua.
They did in fact hold free elections and actually threw the Sandinistas out in 1990.
They were not our enemy nor were they a threat to any other countries, we had no business intervening in their country nor any of the other south American countries just because we didn't agree with their politics.
The white house is attempting to negotiate a peaceful settlement with Iran, quite different than congress taking exception to our funding of terrorist activities in the over through of governments.
Wow, and you only needed to go back 30 years to find what you thought was a good example compared to the GOP letter.
Reagan wasn't negotiating a peaceful outcome, he was funding the Contras through the CIA to overthrow the Sandinista Government in Nicaragua. The thrust of the democratic letter was for Nicaragua to hold open and free elections and was also critical of the Reagan's funding of the Contras. Many countries including Great Britain were critical of our actions, particularly the CIA mining of international waterways near Nicaragua.
They did in fact hold free elections and actually threw the Sandinistas out in 1990.
They were not our enemy nor were they a threat to any other countries, we had no business intervening in their country nor any of the other south American countries just because we didn't agree with their politics.
The white house is attempting to negotiate a peaceful settlement with Iran, quite different than congress taking exception to our funding of terrorist activities in the over through of governments.
WOW...the left had to go back 40 years to degrade Romney....
Why does the left always have a time limit on something when it comes to the left...when it comes to the right "well 40 years ago Romney did this."
Of course there is no double standard, is there lefties....<<<<<<rhetorical BTW
The dog romney owned...how frail the lefties minds are when it comes to remembering....
Thanks!
And don't forget the prep school bullying by Romney in high school, supposedly against a gay student. This was the subject of a multi-page "investigative" report in the Washington Post.
You DO realize the dems went back 40+ years to degrade Kerry, right? Did you say anything about?
And that was about his military service, which actually does matter to the job. What did Romney's dog or alleged high school bullying have to do with being president?
I don't care about either letter. Obama wants to cut congress out of the process altogether and give the United Nations the final approval of the deal. Who really thinks this is a good idea? If you do, you're too partisan to think at all. It seems some people think the president is king, but he's not. Even kings have parliaments to deal with. He's not a dictator either. If you want to live under a dictator, move to Venezuela and see how that works out for you.
Wow, and you only needed to go back 30 years to find what you thought was a good example compared to the GOP letter.
Reagan wasn't negotiating a peaceful outcome, he was funding the Contras through the CIA to overthrow the Sandinista Government in Nicaragua. The thrust of the democratic letter was for Nicaragua to hold open and free elections and was also critical of the Reagan's funding of the Contras. Many countries including Great Britain were critical of our actions, particularly the CIA mining of international waterways near Nicaragua.
They did in fact hold free elections and actually threw the Sandinistas out in 1990.
They were not our enemy nor were they a threat to any other countries, we had no business intervening in their country nor any of the other south American countries just because we didn't agree with their politics.
The white house is attempting to negotiate a peaceful settlement with Iran, quite different than congress taking exception to our funding of terrorist activities in the over through of governments.
It's not necessary to go back thirty years. It's just an example I happened to be reading about recently, and thought was a good comparison But there are numerous other examples. A Contrived Controversy | The Weekly Standard
Quote:
In 2002, in the heat of the congressional debate over the authorization of the Iraq war, the second-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, David Bonior, traveled to Baghdad with two fellow Democrats to oppose the imminent invasion. Democratic congressman Jim McDermott appeared on ABC’s This Week from Baghdad to denounce President George W. Bush and propagandize for Saddam Hussein. Shakir al-Khafaji, a well-known fixer for the Iraqi regime and a longtime supporter of Bonior, arranged the visit. The Democrats vigorously denied that they had accepted Iraqi regime funding for the trip. Documents uncovered in postwar Iraq demonstrated that their claim was untrue.
The Constitution does designate the POTUS as Commander in Chief, but it does not stipulate that the Congress should have no voice in foreign policy The liberal outrage over this letter is a dog and pony show.
So OP, if the Dems letter was bad 30 years ago ( sad that you had to go back 30 years to find something that you think made those treasonous Repugs look ok ) but the repugs letter was ok, doesn't that make repugs hypocrites?
How about Pelosi going to Syria in 2007 to undermine Bush? baghdad Jim McDermott going to Iraq in 2002? Are those recent enough for you? Funny how they stopped doing that when Obama was elected.
Which is worse, writing a letter or visiting in person like the treasonous Democraps do?
It's not necessary to go back thirty years. It's just an example I happened to be reading about recently, and thought was a good comparison But there are numerous other examples. A Contrived Controversy | The Weekly Standard
The Constitution does designate the POTUS as Commander in Chief, but it does not stipulate that the Congress should have no voice in foreign policy The liberal outrage over this letter is a dog and pony show.
The comparison was Nicaragua and it is a very poor comparison by any standard, congressmen visit foreign countries all the time and are not necessarily in agreement with the administration, so what. Congress has a place in foreign policy, they will have their opportunity to vote but I don't want a senator that has been in office 60 days screwing up complicated negotiations that have been going on for several years
The intention in this case was to terminate negotiations that have not been concluded without even offering a reason, I don't recall anything like this.
If you have an example of the entire senate writing a letter to Gorbachev during Reagans negotiations on nuclear capability that would be a better comparison.
Wow, and you only needed to go back 30 years to find what you thought was a good example compared to the GOP letter.
Reagan wasn't negotiating a peaceful outcome, he was funding the Contras through the CIA to overthrow the Sandinista Government in Nicaragua. The thrust of the democratic letter was for Nicaragua to hold open and free elections and was also critical of the Reagan's funding of the Contras. Many countries including Great Britain were critical of our actions, particularly the CIA mining of international waterways near Nicaragua.
They did in fact hold free elections and actually threw the Sandinistas out in 1990.
They were not our enemy nor were they a threat to any other countries, we had no business intervening in their country nor any of the other south American countries just because we didn't agree with their politics.
The white house is attempting to negotiate a peaceful settlement with Iran, quite different than congress taking exception to our funding of terrorist activities in the over through of governments.
I`ll stick with "the only good commie is a dead commie" standard!
The comparison was Nicaragua and it is a very poor comparison by any standard, congressmen visit foreign countries all the time and are not necessarily in agreement with the administration, so what. Congress has a place in foreign policy, they will have their opportunity to vote but I don't want a senator that has been in office 60 days screwing up complicated negotiations that have been going on for several years
The intention in this case was to terminate negotiations that have not been concluded without even offering a reason, I don't recall anything like this.
If you have an example of the entire senate writing a letter to Gorbachev during Reagans negotiations on nuclear capability that would be a better comparison.
So in essence that an open letter signed by 46 senators is a horrible breech of protocol, while a visit and direct communications by one or more senators is not. First, on what basis is the distinction made between a letter and a visit? Second how many Senators must be involved before your horror kicks in? 2? 10? 30? Or does it have to be exactly 46?
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.
