President Obama Brilliantly Hammers Republicans Over Iran Letter (Video)

president-obama-viceThe now infamous letter to Iran sent by 47 Republican senators has been, in my opinion, one of the best displays of how shortsighted and small-minded conservative ideology really is. All these senators seemed to have in mind was trying to “top” the disrespect that was shown when John Boehner bypassed the president and invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak in front of Congress.


While both House and Senate Republicans clearly are trying to sabotage the president’s negotiations with Iran, neither one of these childish groups of supposed adults seemed to realize that their actions really did nothing more than embarrass themselves and this country by putting petty partisan politics out there for all the world to see.

Basically, all Republicans did was make absolute fools out of themselves.

Well, during an interview with Vice scheduled to be released on Monday, President Obama didn’t hold back when he said that he felt sorry for the GOP after they completely embarrassed themselves internationally.

“I’m embarrassed for them. For them to address a letter to the Ayatollah, who they claim is our mortal enemy, and their basic argument is ‘don’t deal with our president because you can’t trust him to follow through on an agreement,'” Obama said. “That’s close to unprecedented.”

There’s really no other way to say it – this letter has been an absolute disaster. By sending it, all Republicans really did was:

  • Make the United States look weak internationally by publicly showing off the dysfunction in our government.
  • Prove that they don’t understand how international treaties work.
  • Give a weapon for Iranian extremists to use as an example for why they shouldn’t trust the U.S. government – because 47 senators from that government basically said they shouldn’t.
  • Embarrass their own party by making themselves look immature and unstable.

It’s one thing for Republicans to play these kinds of childish games here at home when it comes to our own policies, but for them to have taken it to this level, weakening the United States on an international level, I don’t hesitate when I say that I fully believe this letter was treasonous.


This letter not only tried to undermine international negotiations being conducted by the President of the United States and several of our allies, but it weakened us internationally and provided propaganda to those who oppose us. And it’s not just the fact that they sent this letter, but the context of what was written. This wasn’t an attempt to offer an alternate solution to the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, it was a letter to Iranian leaders essentially saying that our government is not to be trusted and they should ignore any promise this president makes to them.

So, to those who support this letter, what would you call it when members of our own government not only try to sabotage our president, but also weaken us internationally while providing tools for our enemies to use against us?

Because that sure as hell isn’t patriotism.

Watch part of President Obama’s comments below via VICE:





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

  • curmudgeon VN Veteran

    Brilliant and Obama are only used in the stories from the liberal lap-dog media. Obama’s brain, Valerie Jarrett is cunning, but not brilliant and Obama minus his beloved TelePrompTers is more a babbling idiot than the hated George W. Bush. When he speaks off the cuff he is an embarrassment.

    • Donna Fernley

      Thank you for serving our country VN veteran…I will give you the honor you deserve……maybe you need to do the same.

      • strayaway

        The president has to earn honor instead of violating his oath of office and trying more and more to circumvent our elected representatives in Congress. This isn’t even a treaty if 2/3 of the Senate doesn’t vote in support of it. Presidents have no authority to cut personal deals. Going to the UN some some sort of approval, as some have suggested doing, is not a substitute for Senate support.

      • Sherri G

        § 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.

        In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), however, Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion:
        “[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. INTO THE FIELD OF NEGOTIATION THE SENATE CANNOT INTRUDE AND CONGRESS ITSELF IS POWERLESS TO INVADE IT” 

        Sutherland also notes in his opinion to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of February 15, 1816:

        “The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution.”

        What is an Executive Agreement?
        An executive agreement is an agreement entered into between a foreign government and the executive branch of the United States. Although the agreement binds the United States with as much force as a treaty, it is not actually as formal as a treaty and does not require Senate approval. Interestingly, executive agreements not authorized by Congress are not binding on subsequent presidents, because they are entered into only by the power of the president that enters into them.

        Authority to Enter into an Executive Agreement
        The president of the United States possesses the authority to enter into executive agreements. However, this power does not derive from the U.S. Constitution. The power to enter into a particular executive agreement flows from one of two sources, either (1) authorization by Congress or (2) the president’s inherent power to manage foreign relations with other countries. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that executive agreements hold the same weight as treaties in its 1937 decision in United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324.

      • strayaway

        Sherri, Please point out the wording in the Constitution about executive orders. Inventing a new name for treaty and making up a bunch of rules for your new word doesn’t make it constitutional.

        While you are doing that, I have a dictionary definition of “treaty” and what the Constitution has to say about treaties.

        TREATY: 1. a formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations. 2. the formal document embodying such an international agreement.

        Whatever this president is up to sounds like it fits the definition of “treaty” whether you want to call it a “treaty” or something else.

        The Constitution explains how treaties are approved:
        “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…” Period. That’s it. If 2/3 of Senator’s don’t agree to it, it’s not constitutional. King Leopold owned the Congo and used Belgian troops to maintain his ownership there. Our presidents don’t have any similar delegated power to cut private treaty deals. Making up terms with imaginary meanings doesn’t cut it with me. Save that for your authoritarian progressive friends. Maybe you should amend the Constitution to allow an enabling act to be in your comfort zone. That would allow petulant presidents to change and write laws and otherwise act like a dictator when they get frustrated with Congress not complying to their wishes.

      • Sherri G
      • strayaway

        I was hoping that you would find some wording in the original document instead of the opinion of some secular Pharisees. Try again.

      • Sherri G

        Cornell Law School isn’t good enough for you? Tough sh*t!
        The U.S. Supreme Court determined that executive agreements hold the same weight as treaties in its 1937 decision in United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324.

        “The recognition, establishment of diplomatic relations, the assignment, and agreements with respect thereto, were all parts of one transaction, resulting in an international compact between the two governments. That the negotiations, acceptance of the assignment, and agreements and understandings in respect thereof were within the competence of the President may not be doubted. Governmental power over internal affairs is distributed between the national government and the several states. Governmental power over external affairs is not distributed, but is vested exclusively in the national government. And in respect of what was done here, the Executive had authority to speak as the sole organ of that government. The assignment and the agreements in connection therewith did not, as in the case of treaties, as that term is used in the treaty-making clause of the Constitution (Art. II, § 2), require the advice and consent of the Senate.

        A treaty signifies “a compact made between two or more independent nations with a view to the public welfare.” Altman & Co. v. United States,224 U. S. 583, 224 U. S. 600. But an international compact, as this was, is not always a treaty which requires the participation of the Senate. There are many such compacts, of which a protocol, a modus vivendi, a postal convention, and agreements.”

        https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/301/324/case.html

      • strayaway

        The Constitution isn’t good enough for you? Tough sh*t! Then go to your self serving lawyers to explain how 2+2 = whatever they want it to or that corporations are persons. They can explain such to you so you won’t have to think about what words actually mean. Enjoy your budding little dictator who, more and more, circumvents Congress will clever interpretations of the Constitution. Why don’t you lobby for an enabling act while you are at it? It would suite your perspective.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        Lawyer? Couldn’t you find a vocation that was worth something of value? Plumbers are far more valuable to society than lawyers.

        A woman wrote to Dear Abby: I have a dilemma. I am about to get married, but I haven’t been totally honest with my fiancé. My mother is a well-known madam, my father is a convict, and my brother is a lawyer. My sister sells heroin to the children at the school down the street. She started doing that after my father got sent to prison for molesting her. I also have a problem – I’m wanted in three states for embezzlement. Taking all that into consideration, this is my question: how do I tell my fiancé about my brother the lawyer?

      • Sherri G

        Ronald Reagan signed 1500 executive agreements and every president over the last hundred years has done it!!! The U.S. Supreme Court determined that executive agreements hold the same weight as treaties in its 1937 decision in United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324.

        What is an Executive Agreement?
        An executive agreement is an agreement entered into between a foreign government and the executive branch of the United States. Although the agreement binds the United States with as much force as a treaty, it is not actually as formal as a treaty and does not require Senate approval.
        Interestingly, executive agreements not authorized by Congress are not binding on subsequent presidents, because they are entered into only by the power of the president that enters into them.

        Authority to Enter into an Executive Agreement
        The president of the United States possesses the authority to enter into executive agreements. However, this power does not derive from the U.S. Constitution.
        The power to enter into a particular executive agreement flows from one of two sources, either (1) authorization by Congress or (2) the president’s inherent power to manage foreign relations with other countries. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that executive agreements hold the same weight as treaties in its 1937 decision in United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324.

      • strayaway

        A lot of what you refer to as executive orders are administrative hirings, signing contracts, etc. to execute the laws of Congress. I didn’t even support Reagan. Why do you presume to bring him up? You are confusing that with the acts of dictators who change laws and make new ones without congress or a parliament. Then you switch gears to treaties.

        You still haven’t shown me anything in the Constitution citing, defining, or explaining executive orders.We are not going to agree on this because I am going by what the Constitution actually says about treaties and you, instead, are mentioning some guys who assure you that the king’s wardrobe is indeed marvelous even though your senses, or in this case, the constitution says the Emperor has no marvelous executive order powers. In mid-evil Europe the Bible was kept locked up and in Latin because, everyone was taught that only the clergy could understand what scriptures actually meant as opposed to what they said. The clergy said selling indulgences could get one’s relatives out of purgatory making many people poor while reaping the revenue. I take the same position as the boy who said the Emperor had no clothes and what the Constitution actually says instead of what the secular priest class wants us to believe it means. You cannot use the Constitution to back your claims and even the dictionary definition of treaty sounds like the first sentence of your definition of executive order.

        I’ll go this far with you about a president’s power to execute executive orders, treaties, or whatever you want to call them, “”[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”

      • Sherri G

        Executive orders are NOT the same as executive agreements, multinational agreements, etc…Try reading what I posted before dismissing it. Executive agreements falls under the CONSTITUTIONAL EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY over FOREIGN POLICY.

      • Pipercat

        You have to forgive Stray, he gets so involved in logic chopping, he forgets where he left off and has trouble reading what others say….

      • Sherri G

        I agree….I presented a ton of VALID factual information and he didn’t even bothering reading it. It clearly states where the constitution allows them in the law link i provided, as well as the Supreme Court AND the LEGAL use of them the last 200 years! He is so confused because these are NOT executive orders …..these are executive agreement or multi national treaty.

      • Pipercat

        Being a Google scholar, he completely dismisses judicial review and Executive Powers defined by such.

      • Sherri G

        Hahahaha….good one!

      • strayaway

        You presented a ton of opinions but not one sentence from the Constitution making your case that presidents have these wonderful dictatorial powers you claim.

      • strayaway

        Please, please spell out exactly what the Constitution has to say about “executive agreements, multinational agreements, etc.” Just cut and paste portions of the Constitution that make your case.

      • Chad3434

        Lets just face it. You would be willing to give Obumer any authority he needs. That’s called cutting through the crap.

      • Chad3434

        Obama used an executive action to break a law. Not the same. No president has ever done that out side Obama.

      • Sherri G

        Prove your bullshit statement and I want VALID sources….

      • Chad3434

        You will get what we give you and not what you demand. If the judge in TX had not stopped Obama he would have broken immigration laws by letting thousand of illegals stay in this country. The law says you can not be in this country illegally. Prove that is not the law on the books and we can talk further other wise we are done with this conversation.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        Situational amnesty where your liberal democRAT politicians were involved or just too young to recall?

      • MjrMissConduct

        You are unabashedly unaware of how the Executive Branch works. Pick up a book and have mom help with the big words.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        Thank you. I really have a difficult time finding anything to respect regarding liberalism or the people who vote for democrat crooks and RINO republicans. Hard for me to respect the folks who hate their own country of birth.

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

        Who hates their country of birth? Of whom are you speaking?

      • MjrMissConduct

        Seems like the Agent Orange really did effect his brain.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        If that were true I would be a liberal. No brain damage here, you on the other hand…….

      • Chad3434

        The Agent Orange deal is something that should not be used carelessly to make some point or try and humiliate some one. Agent Orange is a serious matter and thousands still suffer from it’s effects. Try using something else if you want to try and humiliate some one.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        Anyone supporting Obama and his anti American rhetoric and policies.

    • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

      Oh gee—could you get any more lame? Criticizing a teleprompter for a presidential speech? At least he comes off sounding good which is more than you could ever say about Bush—he could have had a teleprompter glued on his hands and he still wouldn’t have known how to pronounce words or repeat a story or what the hell he was talking about.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        Must be that Ivy League education? Oh wait, Bush……MBA, OMG!

      • Chad3434

        Bush could fly a fighter jet. What could Obama do outside ride a tricycle. Oh I know. Nothing!!!!

    • tumbleweed

      speaking of babbling idiot ^^^ would you care to share with us just which President did not use a teleprompter?

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        George Washington and Abraham Lincoln for starters, but even someone with your limited intellect probably was aware of that. Some Presidents with the exception of Obama could actually speak without them, but then they spoke from the heart and not with the rhetoric that others provided for them.

        What’s up with the sibilant esses that the boy king uses in his speech patterns?

    • Creeayshun Sighuntist

      You have a very short memory vet. Have you really forgotten just how colossally stupid Bush was and still is? Obama literally came from nothing to be the President of the United States. George was handed it, just like everything else in his pathetic life. He never had to work an honest day for anything. And I’m sure we would all get a huge kick out of listening to you give a speech or talk on camera. I would love to dissect that.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        Wow, we agree that a Harvard education isn’t worth the cost. Yale graduated Sheila Jackson-Lee as well who is dumber than an ice cube.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        You must be hearing voices because that is not at all remotely related to what I posted. Move along

      • Chad3434

        Obama come from Kenya. Obama was a hand picked man by Soros and Saudi Arabia. Obama went to school in the US as a foreign student. Obama has at least six SS cards. And we could go on and on.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        that is probably the funniest thing I’ve read in sometime. LOL….I almost thought you were serious! LOL

      • Chad3434

        Serious as a heart beat. Would bet my last dime he is not even an American citizen. Most people know that. You know the ones who actually read things and do some checking. What I loved was that phoney BC he tried to feed us. You could actually take it apart with the right software. What a joke that was. But it was just fine for the sheep. They gobbled it up like a hog eating slop.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        by “most people” you mean the loonies on the extreme right like Orely Taint? I have some news for you, President Obama was elected TWICE! So no, most sane people don’t believe in such farcical things that you subscribe to. Try to up your medication today little fella.

    • Tee

      If you would pay attention, they ALL have teleprompters. What a idiot you are if you think it is unique to the President. Please relocate to Iran ASAP and save us money.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        Of course they do, but other than Obama they were able to speak from the heart as well and with their own words, not the rhetoric written by other more intelligent people.

        BTW, round up the homo’s and ship them to Iran and save us all some money. I’ll stick around here just to put your panties in a wad.

  • Jim Bean

    President Obama – who immediately and unilaterally threw out Bush’s missile defense system agreements with the Czech Republic and Poland in order to kiss Ukraine-invader Putin’s ass – cries ‘foul’ because Congressmen sent a piece of paper to an Iranian leader. And this rises to the level of ‘brilliance’ on the Left?

    We’re all screwed.

    • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

      Nobody said anything about brilliance on the left——but the idiocy is definitely on the right!

      • Jim Bean

        ‘Brilliant’ was a word used in the title. I’m sure someone said it.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        Well, the liberal lap-dog media assured us that the community agitator is brilliant. Hard to tell with the grades and college work under lock and key. Even a full blown Kool-Aid drinking liberal should be at least a bit suspicious.

      • Jim Bean

        Their love is unconditional.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        And the lunacy on the left!

      • Chad3434

        Tell a Lib that their boy king is from Kenya and heads will explode. Then they will throw that photo shopped BC at you. LOL

    • GenerallyConfused

      A piece of paper that could blow a hole into extremely difficult negotiations to deter Iran from creating nuclear program. I remember the Cold War. It wasn’t fun for all ages then and it certainly isn’t something that this country should or need to repeat.

      If you’d rather a full on nuclear war with Iran, you’re terrifyingly delusional – just like those 47 senators.

      • Jim Bean

        Sanctions are no longer an alternate choice? And I thought Iran didn’t have nukes yet? You don’t think they’ll give them to terrorists once they have them?

      • Sherri G

        During the Bush era, more sanctions were put on Iran than ever before and guess what…..Their nuclear program expanded exponentially!! Repeating something over and over again while still getting the same result is insanity. Just like wasting 50+ years boycotting Cuba when it didn’t do anything but keep us from communicating with them because they communicated just fine with the rest of the world.

      • Jim Bean

        Iran WILL give nuclear material to terrorists organizations. The terrorists WILL kill many innocent people with it and Iran WILL say, “Don’t blame us. We had nothing to do with it.’

        Mostly, I’ll blame the enablers like Sherri G.

      • Chad3434

        Have you had a good look at Cuba. Man they are still driving 52 Fords down there.

      • Chad3434

        If you think Iran is not going to produce nukes then I have some nice swamp land you should look at.

      • GenerallyConfused

        That is not the point of what I said. They are very delicate negotiations with a country that, for as long as I can remember (and probably longer), has not liked the US very much. To throw a wrench in those gears was irresponsible, at best.

        IF negotiations are successful after that little ploy and IF Iran then creates a nuclear weapon (or continues in their creation), I would imagine there would be specific actions that could and would be taken. The sanctions against Iran aren’t exactly peachy-keen, either.

      • Chad3434

        This is what you fail to understand. Iran will build the nukes. That is a given and nothing outside some huge bunker busters will stop them from that end. Once again, Iran will build those Nukes just you wait and see.

      • GenerallyConfused

        Netanyahu has been saying that for years now. Republican interference in these talks are see through. If a person can’t see through their little rouse, perhaps they are blinded by their own idealoges.

      • Chad3434

        That letter is called damage control. The 47 knew the clown in charge was in the process of side stepping them. Good for them.

      • GenerallyConfused

        And you need to learn the constitution a bit more. It is a lot more than the bill of rights.

  • Brian

    They should be up on charges. This is treason.

    • Tee

      Why don’t all you BFs worry about something you can control instead of this kind of crap. Maybe go home and take care of your families your POSs.

      • Brian

        Back at you.

    • Victory_for_Freedom_2016

      Help me understand how posting a letter on their website is treasonous? Before you answer that, consider the actions of a Democratic Senators who have done similar things.

  • Chuck Noe

    In 2008, then-Senator and Presidential candidate Obama sent a personal emissary to Iran, telling them not to sign any deal with Bush, as they would be offered a friendlier deal once he was in office.

    Short sighted odumbo forgot about the treason he did. Oh well lefttards never like facts.