Who is Tom Cotton, and why did 46 senators follow him over the cliff?

There's no doubt, Tom Cotton looks good on paper.   Young (37), articulate, Harvard Law School graduate, decorated Iraq war veteran.   Elected to the U. S. House of Representatives, Cotton lost no time but took an activist role in the government shutdown to protest the Affordable Care Act.  While still in his first term in the House, he ousted Sen. Mark Pryor from his Senate seat in the Nov. 2014 election.   Barely two months as a new senator, Cotton pulled off what seemed to conservatives as a major coup with his letter.   Before the ink was dry on that letter, the right wing began talking of him as a presidential candidate in 2020.

Liberals have a different view.  Rep. Alan Grayson says he is "already on his way to marking himself as the premiere warmonger of the 114th Congress."  Digby, writing on Salon, called him:  "Ted Cruz with a war record, Sarah Palin with a Harvard degree, Chris Christie with a Southern accent."  Code Pink said:  "Whatever your characterization, this much is clear: this freshman senator is an arrogant bully and needs a time out."

What does he stand for, besides killing any negotiated agreement with Iran?  The following information is derived from an article by Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CodePink, Women for Peace:

1. Senator Cotton says the only problem he has with Guantanamo Bay prison is that "there are too many empty beds."   He insists that we should be proud of how we treat the "savages" detained there.   That pride apparently includes our use of waterboarding and the fact that a fair number of those "savages" turned out to be innocent.

2.  He likens the negotiations with Iran to the "appeasement of Nazi Germany" in the run-up to World War II.

3.  He claims that our military intervention in the Middle East makes us safer, while in fact it has been shown that all our military intervention there brings more recruits for the terrorist groups that threaten us.  He may actually believe this ideologically, but it's no coincidence that the National Defense Industrial Association made him their guest of honor just 24 hours after his notorious letter became public.   Just a meeting of common purpose?   Or a little inducement?   It's hard to say.

4.  Fear-mongering is his method.   In his recent campaign for the senate, he made the wild accusation that Hezbollah and the Mexicans are collaborating to bring terrorists across our border and attack us right here at home -- even in Cotton's home state of Arkansas, which of course is a bit removed from the Mexican border.   "It's not just an immigration issues, it's a national security issue," he says.

5.  During the 2014 Israeli invasion of Gaza that killed hundreds of civilians, many in their homes, including children, Cotton called the Israeli forces "the most moral, humanitarian fighting force in the world.”  He wants us to supply Israel with bunker-buster bombs for air strikes against Iran.   "The Emergency Committee for Israel donated $700,000 to his senate campaign last fall -- a nice sum for a first time senate candidate.    Again, just common purpose?   Or a little inducement, repaid in full by the letter?

6.  He calls food-stamp recipients "addicts," and says the system is "riddled with fraud and abuse" that results in long-term dependency.   This from the now-senator from Arkansas, which ranks #1 in the nation for number of residents who need assistance to put food on their tables.   But he would put much harsher restrictions on food stamps and severely cut the budget for welfare.    Given his constituents' level of needing government assistance, why did the people of Arkansas elect this man? 

7.  He opposes expanding women's rights, having voted against equal pay and the Violence Against Women Act during his first term in the House.

*  *  *

"Ted Cruz with a war record, Sarah Palin with a Harvard degree, Chris Christie with a Southern accent."     Yeah.   But the problem is that then you've still got Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, and Chris Christie.

Ralph 

What the letter caper means for our own government. Why it matters so much.

Regarding "that letter" (again), there's the effect on the negotiations with Iran;  there's the shocking disrespect for our commander-in-chief with roots in Obama-hatred;   there's the effect on the U.S.'s standing in the world.

And then there is this:   The dysfunctional Republican congress has reached the point that seasoned senators have allowed the most irresponsible, right-wing zealot,** the youngest member of this once-august body, to lead them to abandon the near sacrosanct agreement that -- when it comes to dealing with foreign governments and national security -- we are one nation under one leader.

Are we going to return to the late 18th century, before the U. S. Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation and established the office of president, with the power to make treaties?  Before that, individuals and even states tried to make deals with foreign governments concerning their own local issues.   That was pretty chaotic, even in a world that was magnitudes less complex and without weapons of mass destruction.

Let us not return to that.

Ralph

** Another time, I'll back up this claim about Tom Cotton.

The "Letter" through Al Jazeera's eyes -- more comprehensive than American media

Anyone who has had enough of my obsession with the debacle of the 47-senator-letter-to-Iran can just skip this post and read what Robert Reich says about economic myths.

I just ran across this in Al Jazeera, the English language version of the Arab language web news service based in Qatar, that gives a somewhat more substantive perspective on The Letter.   I have previously found their news stories to be more balanced and less sensationalized than ours, either from the right or the left.   It's refreshing to get a view from outside the U.S. that reflects how others see us -- but without anti-American bias or condescension.

In fact, the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences named the Al Jazeera web news site as one of the five best, along with the BBC and National Geographic.   The American web news service, Salon.com, said that Al Jazeera's coverage of the 2011 Egyptian uprising was superior to that of American media.   Want to check it out?   Go to http://america.aljazeera.com

I wanted to pass along this excellent explanation by Tony Karon of the senators' letter and the Iranian response.   It is worth reading for anyone who likes to understand it in full.   In truth, it should be read and absorbed by those 47 senators, who obviously do not have a good understanding of the diplomatic negotiations.    Here is Karon's Al Jazeera article.

"What 47 Republican senators may not understand about Iran."

"There’s a charming naiveté to the open letter [PDF] by 47 Republican senators that condescendingly seeks to explain features of the U.S. constitutional system to Iran’s leaders that they otherwise 'may not fully understand.'

"The missive warns that, with respect to 'your nuclear negotiations with our government ... any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress' could be revoked by the next president 'with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.'

"Beyond the amusing inaccuracies about U. S. parliamentary order, it seems there are some features of the nuclear negotiations that the signatory senators don’t fully understand — not only on the terms of the deal, but also on who would be party to an agreement.

"There are no negotiations on Iran’s 'nuclear-weapons program” because the world’s intelligence agencies (including those of the U.S. and Israel) do not believe Iran is currently building nuclear weapons, nor has it made a strategic decision to use its civilian nuclear infrastructure to produce a bomb. An active Iranian nuclear-weapons program would render moot the current negotiations, because Iran would be in fundamental violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

"As things stand, Tehran remains within the terms of the NPT, which allows nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, but monitors member states to prevent weaponization. Tehran and the IAEA remain in dispute over full compliance with all transparency requirements of the NPT, particularly over alleged previous research into weapons design. But Iran’s nuclear facilities remain under constant monitoring by international inspectors who certify that no nuclear material is being diverted.

"The current negotiations are focused on strengthening verifiable safeguards against weaponization over-and-above those required by the NPT, yet the Republican-led Congress, egged on by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is warning that those goals are insufficient, and the terms and time-frame of the deal are unacceptable.
 
"The key element missing from the GOP Senators’ letter, however, is that the deal is not being negotiated between Iran and the United States; it is being negotiated between Iran and the P5+1 group, in which the U.S. is joined by Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. Even if the U.S. is the key player in that group, the deal being pursued reflects an international consensus — the same consensus that has made sanctions against Iran so effective.

"This was likely in the mind of Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, who dismissed the letter as 'of no legal value' and a 'propaganda ploy.'   Zarif noted that the deal would indeed be an international agreement adopted by the U.N. Security Council, which a new administration would be obliged to uphold — and that any attempt by the White House or Congress to abrogate, unilaterally modify or impede such an agreement would be a breach of U.S. obligations.  

"The U.S. has barely traded with Iran since the revolution of 1979; its capacity to sanction Iran relies on its ability to persuade or force other countries to do the same. Many of Iran’s major trading partners, such as Russia, China, India and Turkey, are not taking their lead from the U.S., even if they’re partially abiding by sanctions imposed by Washington and the European Union. Moscow and Beijing, in particular, have expanded trade and investment deals in recent months, and more ominously signaled a willingness to cooperate with Iran on defense issues to an extent that will make Tehran’s adversaries uncomfortable.

"China late last year conducted joint Naval exercises with Iran, while Russia has raised the prospect of selling Iran its most sophisticated surface-to-air missile system.

"The scenario sketched by the GOP Senators would have an incoming U.S. president tear up or seek to unilaterally modify an international agreement painstakingly negotiated over seven years, even if that agreement were being observed by Iran. Such a move would put Washington sharply at odds with the international consensus, leaving it more isolated than Iran on the question of sanctions or other pressure tactics.  

"And that would likely suit Iran’s clerical leaders just fine. After all, what the clerics want is an end to sanctions, not invitations to address Congress or host political fundraisers. And the hardliners running against the current government in the 2017 elections are, for their own political ends, also seeking to undermine the current negotiations.
 
"Moreover, the Senators’ letter’s scenario also disregards Iran’s own leverage in the talks. As Columbia University professor and former National Security Council Iran analyst Gary Sick noted, periods of heightened pressure on Tehran over the past decade-plus have actually seen it increase and accelerate its nuclear work, shortening the distance it would have to travel should it decide to build nuclear weapons. While sanctions played a role in bringing Iran to the table, Iran’s leaders also know that enrichment of uranium to 20 percent helped bring Western powers to the table seeking compromise. Sick warns that should the current deal be broken in search of one more to the liking of a new U.S. administration, Iran could be expected to escalate its nuclear work to the same end.

"So, while the GOP senators believe Iran’s leaders may not understand the workings of the U.S. Constitution, the decision-makers in Tehran may see a bigger picture than those Republican legislators."

*  *  *  *  *

A very disturbing element in this extraordinary debacle of Republican juvenalia is that so many of the seasoned senators who have been there for 20 or 30 years fell for it.    And now some of the senators are frantically trying to spin it, saying that they "sign letters all the time" (John McCain) and their aides are putting out the word that nobody took it very seriously;  it was sort of a joke for some of them.

That is as appalling as the letter itself.    They have truly lost their way -- and don't deserve to be members of "the most deliberative body" in the world.

Ralph

Chuck Todd's straight talk about the ACA

Egberto Willies, writing on the Daily Kos blog site, credited Chuck Todd for speaking some truth to media about the Affordable Care Act.   Here's part of the Daily Kos piece:

"Well Chuck Todd did his job this morning, well mostly did his job. The recent Gallup data simply confirms what was known and what should have been reported ad nauseam while Republicans continued using the media to lie to their constituents.

"Chuck Todd pointed out the fact that Obamacare , , ,  is dramatically lowering the uninsured rate throughout the country. He pointed out that the states with the biggest drop in uninsured rates were in fact two of the poorer states in the nation with Democratic governors who accepted the Medicaid Expansion to Obamacare. 

"He pointed out that the only state that showed an increase in the uninsured rate was Kansas, a state controlled almost entirely by Republicans and a state that refused to take the Medicaid expansion to Obamacare. 

"Chuck Todd failed to mention that Obamacare Marketplace is making health insurance in the aggregate more affordable.  He also failed to mention that in fact Obamacare is bending the cost curve more and faster than expected.

"While Republican politicians continue to dig their heals in, progressive policies are helping many of their constituents. It is important that this message gets to them in an unbiased manner. Let them see who is really looking out for them."

*  *  *  *  *

If so many people didn't believe and repeat the Republicans' repetitive talking points about what a "train wreck" Obamacare is (Ted Cruz) -- it would really be funny.  Because many of those same people who say they hate Obamacare actually love their new insurance that they obtained through the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).

Groucho Marx's famous line comes to mind:   "Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"

Ralph

47% of the U. S. Senate tells a foreign government not to trust us

Ralf Michaels, chaired professor, Duke University School of Law draws a deeper lesson from the controversy over the 47 senators' Letter to the Iranians than is being debated on Capitol Hill and by our media pundits.    He says that the damage goes far beyond the insult to the intelligence of the Iranian cabinet and its Foreign Minister who has a PhD in International Relations from a U. S. university;   it goes far beyond the letter's inaccuracies in constitutional law;   it goes far beyond the politicization of such a sensitive international moment and the disrespect for the office of the president and its current occupant.

Professor Michaels says that the critics have been outraged, but mostly for the wrong reasons.   To quote his editorial on the Huffington Post:

"What the letter says is essentially this: The word from the United States, as expressed by its head of state, has no value. We, the United States, should not be trusted. . . .  It warns our other allies to avoid entering into international agreements with us, because we may simply "revoke" them. . . . 

"This letter, therefore, does damage not only to President Obama, the office of the president, and the Senate as a respectable institution. The letter undermines the very standing of the United States in the World. . . . 

"The revocation of a binding international agreement . . . is a 'blatant violation of international law.'

"Now, the senators might of course say they do not care, that they would rather violate international law than risk an Iranian nuclear bomb. But their letter has broader implications, and it is astonishing that it takes the Iranian foreign minister to point them out: The letter 'undermines the credibility of thousands of such 'mere executive agreements' that have been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments' . . . .  Are the Republican senators really saying they do not feel bound by them? Should those other countries not feel bound either? . . .

"The United States has done much, since its founding, to earn the decent respect of mankind that the founders felt the country needed since the moment of foundation. But in directly asking foreign countries to mistrust us, Republicans are, it seems, intentionally trying to throw away what remains of this respect. It is hard to see how this could be good for the country."

*  *  *  *  *

There is nothing I can add except to thank Professor Michaels for such clarity and knowledge.   Let's hope there is some soul-searching among at least a few of those 47 senators, asking themselves why they allowed themselves to get stampeded by this two-month old upstart senator from Arkansas.    Is the political bubble so strong around Washington that they have lost their way?

It appears they have.    We cannot let the country follow them.    Some of them will be up for re-election in 2016.   Take note.

Ralph

Cheney: Congress must not interfere with the president's Iran policy

Congress must not interfere with the president's Iran policy.    Yes, that was Dick Cheney's stated position -- in 1986 -- when he was a congressman from Wyoming, the president was Ronald Reagen, and the issue was the Iran-Contra scandal that almost brought down the Reagen presidency.

For those too young to know what this was about, President Reagen got caught trading arms to Iran for money that was then secretly and  illegally diverted to aid the Nicaraguan rebels.   He could not openly support them, so this was a covert way to get money to them.   The truth came out and there was a congressional investigation, which Cheney denounced, saying, in effect, congress cannot interfere with the president's dealings with Iran.

Cheney wrote at the time:

"[T]hroughout the Nation's history, Congress has accepted substantial exercises of Presidential power -- in the conduct of diplomacy, the use of force and covert action . . . . "

Then, in 1989, speaking to the American Enterprise Institute, Cheney made it clear that his opposition to congressional interference in the president's power to conduct foreign policy and diplomacy applied, "whomever the President and whatever the policy."
 
In light of such a strong position on this in the past, what has Cheney said about the latest flap concerning Iran?     

So far, not a word.    I guess he wouldn't want to appear to be siding with Barack Obama after such dismissive comments he has made about him as commander-in-chief.

Ralph

Hillary's emails

The media seem more excited about Hillary Clinton's emails than about the borderline treasonous letter that freshman Sen. Tom Cotton got 46 other senators to sign onto.

So, let me have my say about the emails.    Yes, Hillary created a perception of hiding something by using only a personal Blackberry email account for both her personal and her government work while she was Secretary of State.  But I understand why she would want to keep control of them, given that people will comb through them with a microscope looking for anything to blow up into a scandal.   

The hue and cry is about whether she can be trusted to have turned over all relevant government-related emails in those 55,000 pages she has revealed.    She and her staff had the opportunity to delete any that they didn't want to come to light.   And she can't prove that they didn't do that.     She can't prove her innocence to those who want to find her guilty.

But, before we jump to the conclusion that this is so different, stop a minute to think about the set-up for officials who do use a separate government email account, which is automatically preserved, and a personal email account, which can remain private.

Let's say current Secretary of State John Kerry does use the requisite two accounts.   At any moment that he decides to send an email, he has to decide which account to use.   If he wants to keep it private, even if it is government-related, all he has to do is send it on his personal account.    It still comes down to having to trust the official.

How is that really different from Hillary in retrospect deciding which emails on her one account need to be submitted to the State Department for reviewed and archived?

I guess the difference is that it allows hindsight to determine the choice, whereas if the choice is made up front, there is a greater possibility of some slip-up revealing something for the scandal-mongers.

Ralph

PS:   My main concern in all of this is how Hillary's news conference response sounds like the 2008 campaigner.   I'm told that she is very warm and relaxed in person but that, when the microphones appear, she tightens up, gets formal, looks out above the crowd, and speaks in tones too measured, too legalistic, lacking the warmth she is capable of.   And she gets defensive when attacked.   Not a good sign.    She needs some of what Elizabeth Warren has.  Or, dare I say it?   Bill Clinton.