Did GOP Leaders Betray Our Country By Writing Letter to Iran?

Cenk Uygur | (The Young Turks) –

“”Cenk Uygur (http://www.twitter.com/cenkuygur) host of The Young Turks discusses the continuing developments between the United States and its allies and Iran regarding their Nuclear program.

Forty seven republicans in the Senate have sent a letter to the leaders of Iran without asking the permission of the officials in direct charge of the nuclear negotiations in an attempt at intentional . The letter in question threatened Iranian officials that any negotiations they didn’t like would be seen as nothing more than a piece of paper and not even a real treaty. This letter has been widely regarded as a bad move, and seen as directly trying to undermine the negotiations and influence foreign policy that they do not have the power to legally do.”

Are these Senators over stepping their power? Let us know what you think in the comments section below.

The Young Turks: “GOP Leaders Betray Our Country By Writing Letter to Iran”

19 Responses

  1. I don’t know what the “conduct of diplomacy” means. The 47 Senators might as well have published their letter as an op-ed in the Times. They did not pretend to be negotiating in behalf of the USA, rather the opposite.

    So, no, I don’t think these 47 hae broken the law (as to who can perform diplomacy for the USA). As to overstepping their power, why, even I can write a letter.

    The letter did smack of a sort of blackmail, a threat, a promise of high-handed behavior yet to come. And it was a bit like name-calling (“Hey, iran, you don’t deserve to be talked to politely”).

    Stupid, ignorant, bad manners to Iran’s leaders, “lese majeste” (to President Obama and Secretary Kerry)), yes. Overstepping their power? No. It was nil-potent. It use3d no powers and accomplished nothing.

  2. I agree the Senate Republicans overstepped their bounds and may have broken the law. If they are lawbreakers and not “law-abiding citizens” they shouldn’t be allowed to own guns.

  3. Hi Cenk, spot on of course. The only thing I disagree with is when you call them “borderline traitors”. That is like calling GW Bush or Dick Cheney a “borderline psychopath”. Don’t pull your punches. They are full-out traitors. Yes they are abysmally Ignorant about foreign policy and the democratic pretensions of the United States, but that is no excuse. There is no good faith there, zero. They hate Obama because he is a “black” who is a thousand times more intelligent and successful than them, and because his too-calm style infuriates them all the more-they want nothing more than to pound his face into the ground with their meaty fists and that’s hard to do when he refuses a fight.

    This country is going down the drain, fast, as the only recent “progressive” victories are on the relative distractions of gay marriage and legalized weed, while infrastructure, education, the climate, and our democratic institutions crumble and the 1% loses ground to the real masters, the .001%. Welcome to Hell.

  4. You are spot on of course, Cenk. The only part I don’t like is where you call them “borderline” traitors.

    That’s like calling GW Bush or Dick Cheney a “borderline psychopath”: they are full-out traitors. Don’t ever pull your punches: we need to hear it exactly like it is, and you are one of the very few in the public eye who still speaks the truth.

    These un-American idiots do of course viscerally hate Obama, no doubt because he is a “black” who is infinitely smarter and more successful than they could ever hope to be. It’s made worse by his too-calm style: these are ignorant, selfish bullies who would like nothing better than to pound his face into the concrete with their hammy fists- while he, the superior, intellectual black, just dances away and refuses to fight.

    The country is going downhill fast, as the only progressive victories are the relatively cosmetic distractions of gay marriage and legalized weed while
    the infrastructure, education, climate and our democratic pretensions all crumble, as new wars are begun, and as the 1% loses out to our real masters, the .001%. Welcome to Hell.

  5. The one thing that (former Lieutenant) Cotton has forgotten is that the chain of command works regardless of who the CINC is. One does not get to choose whether one serves because it’s a Ford or a Carter or a Reagan or a Bush or a Clinton in the White House, all of whom were CINCs during my career. What is astounding is this lower level functionary has been given some “responsibility,” one that has once again bolstered his ego, tricking it into thinking that his participation and efforts have some real relevance in the greater scheme of things. How that shiny brass can be blinding! As is evident, four years was long enough for (former Lt) Cotton to be in the service of a pResident who is now considered a terrorist* in some countries and is considered for prosecution** in others. While (former Lt) Cotton might consider himself some sort of heroic figure, let us not forget that the premise for his “heroism” was found to be nothing more than a clump of prairie apple on the bottom of some dude’s*** shiny new boot heel.****
    Let us not forget who the Republicans work for these days – and it’s not the American people. With the appearance of the Occupiers Of Palestine leader to perform his traveling carnival^ act, it is plain to see the subjugation of the attendees to a foreign power, no longer to the Constitution of the United States or the government of the people, by the people, for the people it represents. Further proof of this is contained in an article at the Ron Paul Institute, “Sen. Cotton’s Shocking Ignorance,” in which this bit of information is provided: “Veteran journalist Jim Lobe might have the answer. He writes yesterday in his blog that:
    Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton … as reported by LobeLog, received nearly $1 million in advertising support from Bill Kristol’s Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI) in the closing days of last November’s campaign.”

    Time for the Gang of 47 to resign and relocate to their country of preference. Not quite up to Utah’s standards^^^, but I am only an observer, not someone who has assigned himself a role as self-appointed decider about sacrificial lambs devoted to a cause that is outside the interests and laws of the United States of America.

    * link to addictinginfo.org

    ** link to addictinginfo.org

    *** link to bartleby.com

    **** link to thinkprogress.org

    ^ link to etymonline.com
    (Notice the references to “flesh”)

    ^^ link to ronpaulinstitute.org

    ^^^ link to theatlantic.com

  6. From my reading of the letter and the definition of the word, they committed sedition and are in violation of the Logan act.

  7. Stephen Hatt

    Betraying the country may be an overstatement, but there letter is an unprecedented event, hardly consistent with their sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution, including what it says about the responsibilities of Congress, the responsibilities of the President and the separation of powers. Some in the GOP are so stridently opposed to anything this President is doing that they are willing to betray their Oath of Office and at the very least, their service owed their countrymen. Until the fruit of negotiations are known, it is just talking, not appeasement, and the last time I talked to people in uniform, they all preferred talking to killing. Of course that point continues to be lost especially on so many members of the GOP who have never been in uniform and nothing more than pay lip service to those that have and still are. Just when we think we can not possibly become more disapproving of Congress, they give us additional reason to reach new levels of bile fueled, wrenching disgust.

  8. A poorly written letter signed by 49 faux-Republican extremists hating-on our twice-elected dark-skinned President is not treason so much as a full display of the blatant lack of qualifications to be our elected officials shown by the signees.

    Deeply embarrassing our country is not treason. Cue banjo music.

  9. The 47 members of the senate who sent that insulting letter to the leaders of Iran must realize that in no way do they represent the majority of us and that we citizens hope for the success of a fair agreement between our two countries. I am insulted and embarrassed by the actions of the 47 renegade, letter writing, members of the senate and want the people of Iran to know that we want peace between our two countries and mutually successful relations. Please realize that those few letters do not represent the people of the United States.

  10. Yes they have betrayed the Obama administration, peace and U.S. National Security. No one wants to talk about Iran being a signatory to the NPT and that they have the legal right to enrich uranium up to 20% for peaceful purposes. The very nation who sits on massive stockpiles of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons that go un inspected by the international community. Israel continues to refuse to sign the NPT. Can it get any more absurd? Hypocritical?

  11. It is vitally important that this talk of “treason” and “treasonous” and “traitor” and “betray”, in connection with “the letter”, stop. Assuming without conceding (I think it a matter of grave doubt at best) that a violation of the Logan Act has occurred, “the letter” is very clearly not a “treasonous offense”, See, Constitution of the United States of America, Article III, Section 3: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort”.

    There are two axes along which it is of vital importance to stop the talk of “treason”. The first is that because it is so obviously a false statement, focusing criticism on talk of “treason” gives the 47 and their supporters an absolute free ride — two free rides, actually – in responding to their critics. The first is that because all the noise is about “treason” the real issues that the 47 should be required to address are lost in the noise. The second free ride is that the critics who cry “treason” are easily portrayed as ranting in ignorance. The second fundamental reason why the talk of “treason” must stop is that if “the letter” is defined as treason then virtually any action in which critics of national policy engage is open to the same claim. Those who criticize the 47 — as I do, for an action that is without question dangerous and either enormously ignorant or, if not ignorant, enormously cynical — are precisely those in this country most endangered by application of the label “treason” to political dissent.

  12. No one appears concerned for the impression all this is making on the rest of the world, particularly European allies who have had to overlook increasing examples of unrepentant human rights hypocrisy, unsustainable economic policies, blatant intrusive surveillance, unforgivable misuse of the UN veto to protect their lawless ally Israel, and a dangerous stand-off with Russia, which is both a blow to European economies and raises the spectre of serious war. The US is beginning to resemble the proverbial bull in the china shop and, quite frankly, Putin, Khomeini and Xi Jinping appear comparatively more stable with each passing day, and that’s not because of any change in them.

  13. The only thing unusual about the Republican Party treating with the mullahs of Iran is that finally they’re actually doing it out in the open.

    That said, this pseudo-diplomatic letter now establishes that sedition/treason are valid political strategies for the GOP. They’ve already normalized the filibuster, government shutdowns, and jeopardizing the full faith & credit of the United States of America. Now, they also get to disrupt the treaty process and swear allegiance to rulers of other countries.

    What next? — Bear in mind that under no circumstances would a Democrat be allowed to get away with any of this.

  14. I definitely feel that the letter oversteps the Constitution and all precedent. It is not only a betrayal of our country, but of sanity. I agree that something should be done about it, and as a previous comment suggests that “under no circumstances would a Democrat be allowed to get away with any of this.”

    • “Would a Democrat be allowed to get away with any of this?” Get a way with it? It’s humiliating just to ask this question! That’s the problem with Democrats -always afraid to say anything that is controversial, unwilling to stick to their guns. Never sticking their head out. Always afraid of the big Repulican demagogues…

Comments are closed.