Having read the actual letter that 47 Republican Senators signed to Iran, I do not want to focus on whether or not it counts as treason, or sedition, or illegal, as I am no legal expert in any of those, and I am sure most of us would agree that distinction is best left to the experts to decide.
And I enjoy the schadenfreude in seeing fellow Conservative outlets calling these Senators out for their brazen behavior.
And I have even seen and read about people in the media interviewing Cotton about the letter and even asking a lot of pointed questions, something the media is often lazy about, so it is always refreshing to see them pushing back at all.
But despite all of that, there is one point of contention, that I think more people should be asking:
What was it exactly that they were even trying to accomplish with this letter?
Say that, instead of being ridiculed all around for this ill-advised ploy, Cotton and his gang had gotten exactly what they were trying to get.
What would that have even looked like?
Were they really trying to torpedo the negotiations with Iran? If so, wouldn't they have disrupted all the hard work, not just of the Obama administration, but the other negotiating countries as well? Would that really have been something to brag about, if we made our major allies (and enemies) less likely to deal with us diplomatically in the future?
Were they trying to convince Iran to cater their negotiations to what the Republican Congress wishes rather than the P5+1 group? If so, what sense does that really make?
Why would Iran have any expectations at all that what the GOP Congress wants would be any more to their advantage than what they would get with the P5+1? Especially when it is rather fairly well-known they are far less friendly to Iran's interests.
Were they really trying to make it more likely that the negotiations fail, and that we get closer to going to war with Iran, like many of them, and people like Netanyahu, want? If so, that is all the more reason to get them to be honest about why they sent that letter. If that is the outcome they want, get them on the record saying that. Of course, that is not likely to happen, but my point is, why are we not asking, what was it exactly that they were trying to accomplish?
Was the motivation for this letter really as simple as looking to embarrass President Obama, somehow? Perhaps not so unfeasible, given the tactics that seem to work with their Obama-hating base nowadays. That does seem to be what that invitation from Boehner to Netanyahu was all about, after all. But if that were the case, would they be up front about it, at least? And if that were case, why go through such unorthodox means? It certainly seems like they already have an endless array of ways to torment and obstruct Obama; how exactly did this action add to their arsenal?
What good could have possibly come from that letter? Scratch that, what could have possibly come from signing that letter, period? Other than the ridicule and embarrassment that has, one might say, predictably happened already?
Today I found an Op-Ed from Cotton himself, ostensibly answering this very question.
That is why this week, I, along with 46 of my fellow senators, wrote Iranian leaders to inform them of the role Congress plays in approving their agreement. Our goal is simple: to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Was this really the reason? Because that makes absolute zero sense. That is like, worse than almost any other reason one could conceive of for Senators of their stature to write an official letter to Iran.
You and 46 Senators sent Iran a letter screwing over our own President to let them know what our Constitution says? Hello, it's not a secret, they could find out themselves if they need to. What good is it to tell them something that they could easily find out on their own, anyone could? 47 of you thought this was an idea worth supporting?
Setting aside the issue of whether or not Obama even needs Congressional approval on this deal at all: does anyone really think that if Obama came to Congress with a deal that meant Iran would abandon its nuclear weapons program, whatever the terms, that Republican Senators would really block it? Or even if you do block it, that you wouldn't face incredible popular backlash for seemingly forcing us into yet another war in the Middle East?
What exactly would Iran gain at all from listening to someone like you?
It boggles my mind to imagine that there are such simplistic people in such high offices in our country, that do not think through the consequences of their actions. Or at least it would have, had I not lived through the Bush years and everything since. But when it gets to the point now where they are just so obtuse and vindictive, that it seems like the rationale for their actions is sometimes almost too infantile even for my two-year old to resort to, one has to ask, when are these people finally going to be treated like the fools that they are, and finally held accountable for the incredible responsibility they hold to lead our nation competently?
It's nice to see a lot of these Senators taking a lot more heat over this than they probably expected. But the main point of contention remains: What was it exactly that they were trying to do?
Do you know? Do they know? Does anyone?
11:29 AM PT: If you managed to get through this diary, you must definitely read this one by Jon Says.