Bob Schieffer Mocks GOP Clown Tom Cotton: Do You Plan On Writing To North Korea Next? (Video)

bob-schieffer-face-nationWhen news of the now infamous Republican letter to Iran broke, one would assume that this was a carefully orchestrated ploy spearheaded by Republican leaders in the Senate – but it wasn’t. As it turns out, the “mastermind” behind this fiasco for the GOP was none other than freshman Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), a man who’s only in the Senate because he pandered to the tea party just enough to get elected. He’s yet another one of these clowns who we’re all going to have to suffer with for years because of the idiocy of the tea party. They really do elect some of the dumbest human beings our government will ever experience.


However, there is a bright side to having a few of these tea party favorites in Congress – they love getting in front of cameras and they’re almost always eager to show off the ridiculousness of conservatives.

Take for instance yesterday when Senator Cotton went on CBS’s Face the Nation and proceeded to make himself look like an absolute idiot. While discussing the letter with Bob Schieffer, Cotton tried to explain why Iran is such a threat.

“We have to stand up to Iran’s attempts to drive for regional dominance,” Cotton said. “They already control Tehran and, increasingly, they control Damascus and Beirut and Baghdad. And now, Sana’a as well. They do all that without a nuclear weapon. What they would do without a nuclear weapon.”

Yes, that’s Cotton suggesting that Iran is a threat because they control their own capital city. Not only that, but he cites their influence over Baghdad – something they wouldn’t have if Bush hadn’t invaded Iraq.

But the best part of the interview came when Schieffer basically mocked Cotton right to his face.

“Are you planning to contact any other of our adversaries?” Schieffer asked. “Do you plan to check with the North Koreans to make sure they know any deal has to be approved by the Congress?”

Like most Republicans, Cotton loves citing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “credible source” on Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s been claiming for over 20 years that Iran is “on the brink” of developing a nuclear bomb – yet they still don’t have one.

My question is, exactly how many decades need to go by with Iran not having a nuclear weapon before Republicans stop believing Netanyahu? Three? Four?


Listening to Cotton speak, all I see is another individual who got elected thanks to propaganda, who has no business in our government. It’s one thing to run campaigns based on ridiculous nonsense, but it’s another thing to try to govern by it.

Watch the clips below via CBS News:





Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • alwayscorrect

    Tom seems to know more about Iran’s political system than he does The Constitution of the USA.

    • strayaway

      What doesn’t Cotton know about the Constitution?

      I looked at your petition. It had a White House letter head and advocated “we demand all electronic mail accounts of these individuals be locked, searched, and to be potentially used as evidence against these individuals as co-conspirators with said foreign government.” I chose not to include my name among these anti-free speech fascists advocating a de facto coup. (e.g. “Congress shall make NO LAW…abridging the freedom of speech”) Progressives used to champion the 1st and 4th Amendments. How things change.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Freedom of Speech…..with Iran. Wow, you are totally lost.

      • strayaway

        The wording, again is that “”Congress shall make NO LAW…abridging the freedom of speech”. I am basing my comment on the phrase “NO LAW”. You are saying there are exceptions? How so?

      • felipe63

        “Congress shall make NO LAW…abridging the freedom of speech”.

        Except there are plenty of laws that do exactly that aren’t there? The idea that freedom of speech allows for absolutely anything is simplistic and juvenile.

        If you really believe that, why don’t you threaten the Presidents life here or go shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.

        There are limits on free speech and you know it. Try again…..

      • strayaway

        I hope no one harms the president. He might not be a good president but I believe in the rule of law. You are right though that if someone shouted ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, they could be punished for causing potential or actual trampling. They would be damaging someone’s business. Similarly, if someone wrongly slanders hurting another person, they might get sued. In either case, it isn’t so much about preventing free speech as suing for damages. Why don’t you support the 1st Amendment and instead make excuses for our president’s dictatorial tendencies? I mean, here we have some Senators just stating the obvious – something written in the Constitution about Senators being required to pass treaties by a 2/3 margin causing progressives to act like witches confronted with a silver cross.

      • felipe63

        I didn’t make excuses for anything. You have a remarkable habit of inserting words into peoples’ posts that they didn’t actually write.

      • strayaway

        In my previous post I suggested that although there is freedom of speech even to yell ‘fire’ in a theater, there might still be hell to pay if someone gets trampled because of yelling “fire”. But the lawsuit would come not because of censorship but because someone was or could be hurt. But you are straying from the situation at hand bringing in all that. This is about if elected US Senators have the freedom to mail someone quotes from the Constitution. They didn’t, as far as I know, get down to specifics they would like to see in a treaty. Anyway, Obama hasn’t been calling this a treaty. Its just some sort of a personal deal. The US is probably negotiating with every country where it has embassies. Does it follow, in your limited speech America, that Senators can’t send pocket constitutions abroad?

        Another point in your censorship logic was that there are laws restricting speech as opposed to causing damage. If so, they contradict the 1st Amendment. That doesn’t mean there should be more such laws.

      • felipe63

        blah blah blah,

        still can’t admit that you needed to put words in my post I didn’t write in order to make a straw man attack on a issue I didn’t even address. nothing but spin to cover your inability to take responsibility for the inaccuracies in your statements

      • strayaway

        Felipe, I already answered you twice. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Its first amendment says that no law shall be made to abridge freedom of speech. Any laws that limit free speech are therefore not consistent with the First Amendment. The exampled you cited, e.g. yelling ‘fire’ in a theater can be remedied with damage law suits. You seem to be unable to grasp the line between freedom of speech and damage caused by words. To simplify this for you, consider a baseball bat. Baseball bats, like words, are legal. If used to assault someone, it is not the bat that is illegal. It is the misuse of the bat to hurt someone. It is the use of words to injure someone that is illegal. Is that too subtle a difference for you to comprehend? You seem to have nothing to offer regarding the topic at hand; Cotton’s letter and I have wasted enough time attempting to address your narcissistic sounding requests to make this all about you.

      • felipe63

        when you implied I said something I didn’t, you did make it about me. typical neocon, taking responsibility for one’s actions is only something other people must do, never yourself.

      • bigremo

        § 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
        Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
        This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
        You say you are all for the rule of law, but you don’t seem to understand the law. The above is The Logan Act, the law that was broken when the 47 traitors wrote to one of our enemies to undermine the only American authorized to speak with them, President Obama. You wanted to be shown where the freedom of speech ends, here you go, it ends before you can conspire with our enemies. Your claim of freedom of speech and supporting the rule of law is undermined by your ignorance of the actual laws of our country and how those laws are applied. Now if you really are pro-law and not just another traitor trying to cover up for the crimes committed by the GOP, I expect your full support in demanding that Cotton and the other traitors be prosecuted. So…are you walking the walk or do you just talk the talk?

      • strayaway

        McCarthyism is alive and well in the progressive movement. Left wing stooges are repeating a stupid mantra talking point sounding like complete fascists. At least McCarthy didn’t call people traitors for making mention of whats in the Constitution – requiring 2/3 of the Senate to approve of any treaty proposed by a president. How come you haven’t prosecuted John Kerry? He did more than paraphrase the Constitution when he meddled in negotiations. That petition with the White House letterhead was a de facto call for a coup. It read,”we demand all electronic mail accounts of these (47 Senators) be locked, searched, and to be potentially used as evidence against these individuals as co-conspirators with said foreign government.” That sounds like something issued from the office of the Reich but it had a White House letterhead? Have we gone that far? I’m hoping that someone was just borrowing the letterhead.

        The rule of law has it that the Constitution trumps other laws. Other laws are supposed to be consistent with it. If they aren’t, either get rid of the law or the Constitutional basis of our law. Your choice.

        If the president tries to legitimize his deal with a UN stamp of approval instead of 2/3 support of Congress wouldn’t that also be breaking both the Logan Act and the treaty clause of the Constitution?

      • The Reader

        Except nothing has been decided and we aren’t talking about a treaty.

      • strayaway

        Obama isn’t calling it a treaty. A treaty a formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations or the formal document embodying such an international agreement. So whatever Obama is agreeing to must be something outside that definition. If he isn’t working on such an agreement, what do you think he is doing?

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Have you ever heard of Treason or Sedition?

      • strayaway

        How was it treason? Obama isn’t even calling this a treaty.

      • alwayscorrect

        Free speech is not the same as Paid propaganda, which is exactly what cotton is known for.

  • alwayscorrect
  • David Jennings

    As it turns out, the “mastermind” behind this fiasco for the GOP was none other than freshman Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK), a man who’s only in the Senate because he pandered to the tea party just enough to get elected. He’s yet another one of these clowns who we’re all going to have to suffer with for years because of the idiocy of the tea party. They really do elect some of the dumbest human beings our government will ever experience

  • RCQ_92130

    Sure does “panty-wad” socialists and one-world-order types whan a republican actually acts in opposition to the destructive urges of the left. Probably panty-wads the traitorous GOP-E types as well. Poor, poor little girls!

    • Creeayshun Sighuntist

      you should up your meds because that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

      • RCQ_92130

        Yep. Whenever you encounter something you cannot make any sense of whatsoever, it MUST be that thing needs to be sedated. Perhaps euthanized? Because, holy cow almighty, it CAN’T be that your little cranium is just too underpowered to make sense of that which makes sense. CAN’T be THAT!

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        seriously, your dimwitted response is just insightful as your original thought. Thanks for the confirmation. Pretty please, up the meds before you hurt someone, including yourself. F-ing douche

      • RCQ_92130

        Yes, Sally, I did my best to come down to your level. Still too much for you; my bad.

        But you are not my cup o tea, so it’s probably best if you slither on over and see if you can infest some other poor slob.

        Cheerio!

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Seriously, up your meds and put them in your cheerios if you must. With all of that amazing “brain power” of yours at work (LOL), you can certainly find time in your day to that. And yeah, you are way too much for me….BBWAHHAAAHAA….thanks for the laugh!