Posted on 03/10/2015 3:59:14 PM PDT by walford
Is it the Republicans in the Senate who are the problem and not the Islamic Republic of Iran’s on-going pursuit of being able to massacre hundreds of thousands if not millions of people at the push of a button? Who’s motivations should make us more wary?
I can certainly see questioning the appropriateness of the Senate sending a separate message to a hostile nation while negotiations are in progress.Why would they do this; do they simply hate the President personally and want to undermine him for political gain -- as is being implied by his supporters -- or do they have good reason not trust him to negotiate on the best interests of the American people due to his track record?
In fairness, we must acknowledge that since the recent election in which the voters put both Houses in the hands of the opposing Party, the President has in word and deed made it clear that, in direct response, he intends to circumvent popular will and essentially rule-by-decree much like the Third World dictators he apparently admires and envies.
And so he has.
The majority of the American people want the flood of economic refugees stopped. They believe that Israel has a right to protect itself from those who repeatedly vow to destroy the Jewish State. They do not want a nation that has repeatedly stated its intention to destroy Israel and the United States to have nuclear weapons.
Obama clearly doesn’t care what the American people want on these and other vital issues, either because he thinks that he knows what’s better for them -- or he believes that other interests transcend those of the people he is sworn to defend and protect. Certainly statements he’s made before becoming President with respect to American Exceptionalism would give at least some of us reason to suspect it’s the latter.
Either is unacceptable.
So let us then consider the issue of negotiating Iran’s nuclear weapons development. With its status as a major international petroleum exporter -- and the centrifuges that only have the purpose of producing weapons-grade fissile materials -- Iran citing its motivation as pursuing alternative sources of energy is pure bunk and everybody knows it. Further, the Mullahs’ track record in abiding to any agreement they’ve signed since they took over in 1979 is exactly zero.
To understand why, we must candidly consider the fact that the Islamic Republic’s policy in negotiating with the Infidel is rooted in the Koranic concepts of taqiyya and kitman. It is not only acceptable, but required to lie if such deception results in advancing the Cause of Islamic expansion at the expense of non-Muslims. [I’m not saying that all Muslims think this way, but those running the Islamic Republic most definitely do -- and we must understand and accept this if we are to deal with them realistically.] They do not believe in peaceful co-existence. Period. They regard our pursuit of such as a weakness to exploit and nothing more.
The only thing such people understand is force and a resolve to use it. The only way to “negotiate” with such people effectively therefore is to make it clear that if they use force or threaten to use it, it will be met with an overwhelming response. If they attempt to acquire WMDs, they will absolutely be thwarted. If they cheat, a price will be paid -- one that they would consider too high. They must be shown that their aspirations of violent expansion are not in their best interests -- and that we are at least as resolved in securing our safety as they are in threatening it.
It may seem counter-intuitive to some, but that is the only to secure even a modicum of peace with an aggressive, violent, totalitarian regime.
It seems, however, that Obama is part of the cadre of Westerners who have automatic sympathy with those who express hatred for us and think that if we merely heal our sins against them, they will be willing to live in peace with us. We and our allies cannot afford to gamble our security with this completely unsubstantiated and self-loathing theory.
Within months of being sworn in, he went on a tour of the Middle East, apologizing for America’s past mistakes, tacitly justifying the violent responses, offering to accommodate their “grievances”-- and asking for nothing in return. Yet, in the beginning of Obama’s Presidency, the Iranian regime in its myopia had repeatedly shown its utter fecklessness in dealing with politicians who approach foreign policy his way.
On America’s behalf, Obama offered sniveling olive branches to the Iranian Mullahs and they promptly smacked him down for his trouble. If they had made the effort to understand how Western leaders like him think, they would have seen that all they needed to do was make noises about peace, mutual understanding, loving our children -- with no intention of abiding by any agreements -- and our President would have eaten it up, followed by giving them every concession they demanded.
Then afterward, anyone who was so impolite as to point out any subsequent treaty violations would be smeared as war-mongers -- and summarily dismissed -- while the Iranian government does whatever it damn well pleases. The result, of course, is the region and the world becoming more dangerous.
It’s a familiar pattern.
Now perhaps they’ve gotten smart while Obama remains clueless. So, while I have misgivings about a legislative body going over the Chief Executive’s head and directly negotiating with a foreign regime, I can see their frustration and can therefore understand what motivated them to do this.
Do we have an autonomous king or a Constitutionally bound President? That’s the pertinent question here.
What did they do? appeal directly to Moochell?
Or is he merely a formless power exercising his will as he sees fit unbound by laws whether Constitutional, statutory or case law? Is he the first of the coming formless powers that have existed for quite a while governing in Latin American nations?
Schooling the rag heads on our constitution is really not going over anyone’s head. You can find the same thing online...
A flyover of six inches off the lawn.
I would recommend that everyone running down this particular thread review the actions of various Democratic senators and congressmen from the mid 1970’s through the mid 2000’s.
The are many examples, a few bordering on active treason, when Democratic members of Congress have actively conducted foreign policy initiatives that were in direct contradiction to expressed and active foreign policy positions by the existing administration.
IMHO the letter was actually aimed at Obama to remind him that any treaty that was going to become law has to be approved by 2/3rds of the Senate. If this treaty is NOT submitted to the Senate for approval then it is a policy and is subject to review, revision, or rejection by any incoming administration, not just necessarily the person who moves into the White House January 2017.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.