Mediaboss Marketing

As first reported byBloomberg's Josh Rogin, a group of 47 Republican senators signed a letter addressed to "the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran," warning them not to be too optimistic about ongoing negotiations with the Obama administration over Tehran's nuclear program. It was organized by freshman Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and advisedthe Iranian leadership that "anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement."

The letter is brief, and can be read in full here.Republican lawmakers are opposed to the Obama administration's current overtures to Iran, a disagreement that was put into stark relief last week by the polarizing speech delivered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before a joint meeting of Congress. This is yet another tactic to scupper a potential deal.

Itstarts with the patronizing premise that "you may not fully understand our Constitutional system" and goes on to explain, first, that any international treaty will need to be ratified by a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress and that, unlike the president of the United States, senators"may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms." The message to the mullahs:don't get comfortable with anydeal, because we're going to scrap it as soon as we can.

Onthe Lawfare blog, Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith describes the letter as "embarrassing," because it's technically wrong:

The letter states that the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote. But asthe Senates own web page makes clear: The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent,empowering the president to proceed with ratification (my emphasis). Or, as this outstanding 2001 CRS Reporton the Senates role in treaty-making states (at 117): It is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States, but only if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent. Ratification is the formal act of the nations consent to be bound by the treaty on the international plane. Senate consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification for the United States. As the CRS Report notes: When a treaty to which the Senate has advised and consented is returned to the President, he may simply decide not to ratify the treaty.

Dan Drezner, writing for Post Everything, adds that the letter may "paradoxically help Obama" by persuadingIran's leaders to hatcha successful bargain now with the United States rather than further down the road after Obama has departed. Some argue that a deal pushed through by the White Housewill not be that easy to overturn later, especially if it appears to be working.

Forty-seven Republican senators signed a letter to the government of Iran, warning that any deal they make with President Obama can be rolled back after a new president takes power. (Reuters)

Whatever its effects in Washington, the letter is almost farcically condescending in word and tone. Iran's leaders are well aware of how the United States works. The country's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, spent the better part of a decade as the Iranian envoy to the United Nations; like many others in the Iranian cabinet, he was partly educated in the United States.

It reflects the willfulignorance on the part of many hawks in Washington who insist on seeing Iran purely as an irrational actor and a permanent regional threat. As WorldViews discussed earlier, Iran is problematic in many ways, and its regime plays a role in fueling proxy wars in parts of the Middle East. But one can argue that the same is true of Washington's chief Arabally in the region, Saudi Arabia.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif described an open letter on a nuclear deal with Iran signed by U.S. Republican senators as a propaganda ploy from pressure groups afraid of diplomatic agreement. (Reuters)

Read more:
WorldViews: The misguided, condescending letter from Republican senators to Iran

An already heated battle between the White House and Republicans over negotiations to curtail Irans nuclear program grew more tense when 47 Republican senators sent a letter to Iran designed to kill any potential deal. But is it treason? (Jason Aldag/The Washington Post)

An already heated battle between the White House and Republicans over negotiations to curtail Irans nuclear program grew more tense Monday when 47Republican senators sent a letter to Iran designed to kill any potential deal.

The White House responded by accusing the Republicans of conspiring with Iranian hard-liners, who oppose the delicate negotiations, and suggesting that their goal was to push the United States into a military conflict.

I think its somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran, President Obama said a few hours after the letter was made public. Its an unusual coalition.

Vice President Biden blasted the letter as beneath the dignity of an institution I revere.

In 36 years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country much less a longtime foreign adversary that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them, Biden said in a statement.

President Obama says it was "somewhat ironic" that Republican senators wrote a letter to Iranian leaders warning them about a potential nuclear deal with the United States. (Reuters)

The letter, written by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), suggests that any deal between Obama and the Iranian leadership would amount to only an executive agreement that could be undone by Congress or a future president. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time, states the letter which was first reported by Bloomberg View.

The Republican signatories dismissed Obamas assertion that they are cozying up to Iranian hard-liners.

I think thats a laughable charge coming from this administration, said Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), who signed the letter. He said the administrations rush to secure a deal with Iran had led it to dismiss Congresss concerns.

Read this article:
Republican letter to Iran deepens White House ire

WASHINGTON The labor union members did not boo the Republicans.

Instead, hundreds of firefighters offered polite applause or silence to GOP White House prospects Tuesday at a union-backed presidential forum, a Washington event that highlighted organized labor's evolving role in national politics.

"Both parties want to work with firefighters," said former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a likely Republican presidential candidate who addressed the crowded hotel ballroom in a brief video message. "People on both sides of the aisle understand the tremendous commitment our courageous firefighters make each day."

Bush was among a half dozen potential Republican White House candidates to address Tuesday's gathering of the International Association of Fire Fighters, an organization that has poured millions of dollars into recent elections largely to benefit Democrats. Union leaders could not remember endorsing a Republican presidential candidate. Organized labor generally has worked aggressively against some of the GOP's more controversial leaders such as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who signed legislation to weaken union members in his state on Monday and did not appear at the firefighters' conference.

Yet, beyond the cool reception for many Republicans at Tuesday's event, there are signs the GOP is cutting into the Democratic Party's long hold on labor unions.

Exit polls taken after last fall's mid-term elections found that union members were almost evenly split between the Republican and the Democrat in the major statewide races for U.S. Senate. The Republican wave in the November elections left many unions nationwide looking exceptionally vulnerable.

Union leaders on Tuesday conceded that a significant portion of their members most of them white working-class men vote Republican.

"We're a union that understands the diversity of our membership," said Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, noting that his organization would contemplate presidential endorsements in both parties over the coming year.

Jim Tolley, president of the Florida Professional Firefighters union, said his organization endorsed both of Bush's successful gubernatorial campaigns.

He described Bush as "very understanding" and said his Florida members might endorse him again should he run for president. "Will this entire body? I think there's going to be a lot of discussion," he said.

Visit link:
Republican White House hopefuls pushing for union support at firefighters conference

WASHINGTON Forty-seven Republican senators warned on Monday that any agreement the Obama administration strikes with Iran to limit Tehrans nuclear program may be short-lived unless Congress approves the deal. The White House accused the Republicans of advocating a rush to war.

In an open letter to Iranian leaders, freshman Sen. Tom Cotton and 46 other Republicans said that without congressional approval any deal between Iran and the U.S. would be merely an agreement between President Barack Obama and Irans supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen, they wrote, and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

The U.S. and other nations are seeking a pact that would let Western powers verify that Iran will not obtain a nuclear weapon.

At the White House, spokesman Josh Earnest said the Republican letter interferes with negotiations over limiting Tehrans nuclear ambitions.

I would describe this letter as the continuation of a partisan strategy to undermine the presidents ability to conduct foreign policy and advance our national security interests around the globe, Earnest said. The rush to war or at least the rush to the military option that many Republicans are advocating is not at all in the best interest of the United States.

Earnest said the talks with Iran are no different from the negotiations that resulted in an agreement with Syria to eliminate its chemical weapons arsenal. Earnest noted that Congress did not have to approve that agreement.

Though the Republican letter was addressed to leaders in Tehran, it seemed as much aimed at delivering a message in the United States.

Republicans and some Democrats want Congress to vote on any agreement. The pact the bargainers are working on would not require congressional approval because it is not a treaty. A treaty would require a two-thirds majority Senate vote to be ratified.

Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, accused the Republicans of risking another war in the Middle East.

Read more here:
Republican senators issue written warning to Tehran over U.S.-Iran nuclear talks

Illinois Republican congressman faces ethics inquiry over lavish spending
Rep. Aaron Schock is facing allegations of violating ethics rules, as more information on his lavish spending of campaign and taxpayer funds is coming to lig...

By: RT America

Read the original:
Illinois Republican congressman faces ethics inquiry over lavish spending - Video