Usually traitors don't graduate magna cum laude from Harvard, then from Harvard Law, volunteer for the Army, and then turn down a JAG position in order to serve as an Army Ranger.
And FORTY-SEVEN Senators? That's half the Senate. What was IN that letter they signed?
1. CONTEXT: IS THE LETTER UNPRECEDENTED?
a. Nicaragua. After the Soviet Union came apart, a 1983 KGB memo surfaced that described a meeting between KGB officials and former Democratic Senator John Tunney. Senator Ted Kennedy had sent Tunney during the Reagan years to encourage the Russians to support their cause in Nicaragua (at the same time President Reagan was trying to help the freedom-fighters pushing back on the Soviet-backed Sandanistas).
Senators John Kerry and Tom Harkin (both Democrats) even WENT to Nicaragua in support of the Communist Sandanistas. And in 1984, ten Democratic lawmakers - including the then Majority Leader and House Intelligence Committee Chairman - sent a letter to Nicaraguan Communist leader Daniel Ortega. The letter was known as the "Dear Commandante" letter and in it they criticized Reagan's policy toward Nicaragua and whitewashed the record of violence by the Sandinista Communists. Secretary of State Kissinger excoriated John Kerry for sending that letter.
c. Kuwait. Two months after we invaded Kuwait in November, 1990, Jimmy Carter (D) wrote a letter to the heads of state of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council urging the countries to drop their support for President' Bush's proposed military solution.
d. Vietnam. Perhaps the best example of undermining (both his fellow soldiers and his country) is John Kerry's 1971 letter to Congress and later testimony that his fellow soldiers had committed war crimes. Soldiers had withstood torture by the Viet Cong for years in order not to say such a thing.
The letter told the mullahs and ayatollahs that they might want to know something about our Constitution - that our Congress had to ratify any agreement they signed with us. Why did the Senators think the Iranians needed to know that?
The executive branch of our government has repeatedly sailed over the legislative branch as the president's pen and phone have been making un-Constitutional moves, while basically telling Congress to take a hike.
Now we're hearing the president may try to take the agreement over to the U.N. and get a global agreement. Hope he knows that our law trumps anything the U.N. law might propose.
What is up with an administration full of independent operators?
When half the Senate is against an Iranian deal, it might be helpful to know why.
It's more than just because they have their feelings hurt because they're being sidestepped. IT'S A BAD DEAL! When Netanyahu was here, he made the case that "no deal is better than THAT deal". Why? What IS the deal?
*If Iran signs, they get to keep their nuclear structure (reactors and converters that could be restarted and back to producing in a short time) and they promise to be good and not keep building. Then after ten years, they can have a bomb.
*If Iran doesn't sign, they keep working on the bomb.
EITHER WAY, THEY GET THE BOMB. Of course, the kicker is that the IAEA (the nuclear watchdogs) have already said they can't verify whether Iran is cheating NOW, much less later. So how would we know?
You may be thinking...then why would our president be willing to see Iran get a bomb? This has NEVER been American foreign policy. Does his plan hang on the hope that Iran will change their spots and make nice in the days ahead?
The answer may have something to do with the president's worldview. He sees a moral equivalency of nations (remember he once famously said "America is exceptional as all nations think they are exceptional"). His worldview reasons "why should others have the bomb and not Iran"? And "who are we" to say they can't have it? We're no better than anyone else.
Iran has an unsavory track record of cheating and being aggressive; their rhetoric clearly states a purpose intent on destroying Israel and the West. If they want to be treated like a peaceful nation, they should act like one.
Israel takes them at their word...and there was a time when America did, too. When the president presents the issue, it is in his favorite strawman fashion. He says it's either give them the bomb and hope they won't use it...or the alternative is war. Nonsense. The option is what Bibi said: SANCTIONS. They worked before and brought Iran to the table. Now that the price of gasoline has gone down by half, the sanctions would work even better.
Economic strength is the strength that hurts, and strength is what they understand.
No comments:
Post a Comment