Tom Cotton, and The Republicans are Lobbying For War on Two Fronts

The debate still rages on regarding Tom Cotton and 46 other Republican senators attempting to circumvent Executive office treaty negotiations through their letter to Iran leaders. While many continue to hash out the possibility of Logan Act offenses, we should consider, for a moment, the motivations for injecting the Legislative branch into ongoing diplomacy.

Given the latest developments, we can only surmise that the motivations of Tom Cotton and his conservative colleagues is that of war. Today, he's meeting with the National Defense Industrial Association, the primary lobbying group for defense contractors.

No matter what Tom Cotton and his Republican co-conspirators say in public, the actual actions show that their interest is not in peace, but provoking war. And, most importantly, receiving contributions from defense contractors as a big thank-you for provoking war.


What do you, my esteemed friends of ATS, think of these developments?

a reply to: mister.old.school

Good, give them a rifle, map, canteen and compass and let them go fight it.

a reply to: mister.old.school

I would suggest that in light of current actions and previous, Americans be very aware:

“And for the Republicans in Congress, there’s another interest—namely, to undermine anything that Obama, you know, the entity Christ, might try to do. So that’s a separate issue there. The Republicans stopped being an ordinary parliamentary party some years ago. They were described, I think accurately, by Norman Ornstein, the very respected conservative political analyst, American Enterprise Institute; he said the party has become a radical insurgency which has abandoned any commitment to parliamentary democracy. And their goal for the last years has simply been to undermine anything that Obama might do, in an effort to regain power and serve their primary constituency, which is the very wealthy and the corporate sector.”

www.addictinginfo.org...

Mmm good good, morr warr!

Sidenote: I enjoy reading addictinginfo.com, but to say they have a liberal bias/agenda would be the understatement of the year.

Damn hilarious reader comments on that site though.

This is in the open. This letter and is reminder of what is in the COTUS. The Senate does have final powers to ratify any agreements made.

Now if you want to read about active work to undermine presidencies ... let's examine Ted Kennedy. He worked against both Carter and Reagan with the Soviets to advance his own political interests.

It is about time inject Legislative Branch into this "train wreck" deal with Iran.

Expect a lot more of this since they controlled by Republican leadership...sensible leadership finally.

Iran recently rejected Obama's proposals.

Now why would they do that?

I think Obama is derailing the talks on purpose.

There's no other explanation.

a reply to: mister.old.school


I disagree.... the 47 Senators stated in their open letter only a simple explanation of how a binding treaty is negotiated, which should be found in any high school civics class. I see no attempt of interfering with Mr. Obama's negotiations...merely a short primer of how a treaty is negotiated by the President and then ratified by the Senate. As for the Logan Act, nothing is being negotiated or discussed through this open letter , so,how could it apply ?

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: mister.old.school

Good, give them a rifle, map, canteen and compass and let them go fight it.

Exactly.


Those that call for war should be the first to fight.


It why I think politcians should have a family member conscripted when takei g office.

originally posted by: Granite
It is about time inject Legislative Branch into this "train wreck" deal with Iran.

Expect a lot more of this since they controlled by Republican leadership...sensible leadership finally.

What makes Republican leadership "sensible" exactly? To me, it's just more of the same. Just a different arm stuck up the puppet's ass.

Great more war....

I wonder if the GOP actually thinks this will translate in more votes for their candidates?

Traitors more than willing to send the sons and daughters of middle class and poor families to fight their wars while their kids are comfortable in their Fraternities and sororities at school.

originally posted by: Granite
It is about time inject Legislative Branch into this "train wreck" deal with Iran.

Expect a lot more of this since they controlled by Republican leadership...sensible leadership finally.

The sad thing is that you actually seem to believe the stuff you post..

I pointed this out last night in another thread about the letter. Sen. Cotton has made absolutely no secret of what the intentions of the letter were and what he and other GOP hawks want.

Huff Post - Senator Who Organized Letter To Iran Has Said He Wants To Sabotage Negotiations:

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), the organizer of a controversial letter warning Iran that the U.S. government will not necessarily abide by any agreement Iran strikes with the Obama administration, previously told a conservative audience that the goal of congressional action should be to scuttle talks with Iran. The U.S. should, instead, engage in a policy of "regime change," he argued.

Iran hawks in the House and Senate have long said that their aim is to help the White House strike a tougher deal with Iran. The administration and others, meanwhile, have charged that the hawks' true motivation is to undermine the talks entirely. Cotton, for his part, has made no secret that he wants the talks to fail.

"The end of these negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of congressional action. It is very much an intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so speak," Cotton said in January, speaking at a conservative conference hosted by the advocacy group Heritage Action for America.

This is not a case where we have to guess what the motivations are or what is at stake.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: mister.old.school

Good, give them a rifle, map, canteen and compass and let them go fight it.

Exactly.


Those that call for war should be the first to fight.


It why I think politcians should have a family member conscripted when takei g office.

That's a tired old fallacy that the only people who have a right to criticize or call for something are the ones who have direct expertise in the subject.

But in this case, Cotton IS a vet. He served in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

And if we always followed that line of reasoning, then the only people who had any right to dictate health care were actual doctors, and the only ones in Congress were both Republicans and both shut out of the process entirely.

I don't see any classroom teachers or child developmental psychologists involved with writing the Common Core Curricula ... What was Gates excuse for being there again?

originally posted by: Granite
It is about time inject Legislative Branch into this "train wreck" deal with Iran.

Expect a lot more of this since they controlled by Republican leadership...sensible leadership finally.

Sensible leadership = never ending war in the ME?

More destabilization, failed nation building, increased animosity against the US, fertile ground for radicals and terrorists, trillions of dollars funneled to defense contractors, etc etc.

Don't be a fool (again). To quote perhaps the most famous Bushism:

"Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me... You can't get fooled again!"

a reply to: theantediluvian

There are plenty of ways to change a regime. It could be argued that the US engaged in one of them when they refuse to support Mubarak and called for him to step down. There was no war involved there. Similarly, we could have supported the Iranian Green Uprisings that we kept silent where they revolted in the streets.

Obama is attempting another in Israel right now as we speak by sending his own election experts to work against Netenyahu and sway the election in favor of the opposition.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: mister.old.school

Good, give them a rifle, map, canteen and compass and let them go fight it.

Exactly.


Those that call for war should be the first to fight.


It why I think politcians should have a family member conscripted when takei g office.

That's a tired old fallacy that the only people who have a right to criticize or call for something are the ones who have direct expertise in the subject.

But in this case, Cotton IS a vet. He served in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sorry but war is the most horrid of things and is a action that should NEVER be made lightly. You would not let a janitor perform brain surgory which could kill one, so by that logic you should not let a lawyer start a war that could kill thousands or even millions.

Maybe if politicians had something to actually lose in war rather then let the poor middle classes do the sacrificring there would maybe be less unjust wars?


Sure cotton might be a vet but the majority of your goverment are not.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: mister.old.school

Good, give them a rifle, map, canteen and compass and let them go fight it.

Exactly.


Those that call for war should be the first to fight.


It why I think politcians should have a family member conscripted when takei g office.

That's a tired old fallacy that the only people who have a right to criticize or call for something are the ones who have direct expertise in the subject.

But in this case, Cotton IS a vet. He served in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sorry but war is the most horrid of things and is a action that should NEVER be made lightly. You would not let a janitor perform brain surgory which could kill one, so by that logic you should not let a lawyer start a war that could kill thousands or even millions.

Maybe if politicians had something to actually lose in war rather then let the poor middle classes do the sacrificring there would maybe be less unjust wars?


Sure cotton might be a vet but the majority of your goverment are not.

And that's the point. If all of our government were military, we would be a military government wouldn't we? Does anyone think the world would be better off if the soldiers ran the show? I actually don't.

Maybe if these retarded republicans would actually hang out with some war vets and see the horrors of it they wouldn't be so eager to send the next generation into one. Guys getting shot multiple times, missing limbs, brain damage, PTSD, Young fathers and husbands getting blown in half by explosions. It's horrible stuff. That's how it would be in IRAN.

They seem to forget that these negotions and deals by Obama, aren't by him alone, It's a whole negotiation with China, Russia, UK and other countries.

The stupid in our government is nearing epic proportions.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: mister.old.school

Good, give them a rifle, map, canteen and compass and let them go fight it.

Exactly.


Those that call for war should be the first to fight.


It why I think politcians should have a family member conscripted when takei g office.

That's a tired old fallacy that the only people who have a right to criticize or call for something are the ones who have direct expertise in the subject.

But in this case, Cotton IS a vet. He served in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sorry but war is the most horrid of things and is a action that should NEVER be made lightly. You would not let a janitor perform brain surgory which could kill one, so by that logic you should not let a lawyer start a war that could kill thousands or even millions.

Maybe if politicians had something to actually lose in war rather then let the poor middle classes do the sacrificring there would maybe be less unjust wars?


Sure cotton might be a vet but the majority of your goverment are not.

And that's the point. If all of our government were military, we would be a military government wouldn't we? Does anyone think the world would be better off if the soldiers ran the show? I actually don't.

Now your takeing it to extremes.


What I was suggesting was those in office if the start a war should send a loved one off to fight it along with the riff raff they are happy to sacrifice.

They should have a real stake in the war, not sit behind a desk drinking champaign while other peoples family dot the pain and suffering.