I'd like to know how we were misled into two unnecessary wars. Everyone in America was affected by this issue.

Throughout President Obama's presidency the Republican Party has treated him with utter disrespect. They have pushed the limits of decorum on many occasions but this is an act of TREASON and everyone of them needs to be apprehended by Attorney General Eric Holder. If he does not, then our Constitution means nothing and the Republicans will continue to believe that they are above the law. Their letter indicates that they will not follow any agreement the President might make with Iran which in itself is another act that breaks International Law. These Senators are an embarrassment, as well as being traitors and need to be removed from office immediately.

I believe that the activities of the Republicans in the Senate warrants an investigation of treason, but let's start with censure and then file charges of treason against Senator Cotton and other ring leaders.

Established back in 1799, the Logan Act makes it illegal for unauthorized American citizens to negotiate with foreign governments. Violation of the act is a felony, and comes with a punishment of up to three years in prison. By organizing his fellow Senators to sign an open letter to Iran, Senator Cotton may have broken any number of laws, and the Department of Justice needs to investigate.

UPDATE 4/2: President Obama has just announced a framework agreement for a deal. Republicans are already attacking. Democrats need to speak up now! === President Obama may be on the verge of striking a historic deal to limit Iran’s nuclear program - unless some Democrats scuttle it. [1] Some Democrats are considering siding with right-wing Republicans to undermine Obama’s diplomacy, thereby pushing us towards another war in the Middle East. Two pieces of legislation in the Senate, one backed by Sens. Mark Kirk [R-IL] & Robert Menendez [D-NJ], the other by Sens. Bob Corker [R-TN] & Lindsey Graham [R-SC] are poison pills designed to kill any chance for diplomacy. One GOP senator said the “intended consequence” of any new Iran bill is to “end the negotiations.” The Kirk-Menendez bill would impose new sanctions on Iran in violation of the interim agreement. The Corker-Graham bill would throw impossible-to-meet procedural hurdles in the way of successfully completing an agreement. The passage by Congress of either bill would blow up the talks – which is exactly what the Republican diplomacy saboteurs want. Urge your Representative and Senators to oppose these bills by signing our petition. References: 1. “Democrats: Don't Side With Republicans on Iran,” Anna Galland (MoveOn) and Becky Bond (CREDO), Roll Call, March 2, 2015 http://www.rollcall.com/news/democrats_dont_side_with_republicans_on_iran_commentary-240443-1.html

This overt attempt to undermine President Obama's negotiations with Iran on the nuclear issue is damaging to US interests and could push the US unwittingly into another costly, bloody, and misguided war in the M.E.

In recent weeks, attention has focused on the outrage surrounding Netanyahu’s March 3rd speech to Congress, and House Speaker Boehner's invitation to Netanyahu. After Netanyahu's speech, focus must revert to the real issues: Iran negotiations, deal or no deal, peace or war. Prime Minister Netanyahu has made clear that any viable, reasonable deal – a deal that both Iran could accept and one that meets the red lines of the P5+1 negotiators – would never reach his standard. With the deadline for a framework agreement with Iran approaching (March 23rd) and with AIPAC getting into gear, pressure is mounting on members of Congress to proceed with new legislation – sanctions and other initiatives – that could kill a deal before it is reached or render any deal dead on arrival.

Benjamin Netanyahu has been one of the chief architects of ethnic cleansing in the occupied Palestinian territories. He has conspired with the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives to violate U.S. law, specifically the Logan Act and he has attempted to sabotage negotiations with Iran.

We as a nation must seek some accounting of the crimes that have been committed in the mistaken belief that our leaders knew how to protect our nation's security with vile acts and unprincipled torture perpetrated on unarmed and often innocent men.

Congress is considering an authorization for the use of military force against ISIS. Progressives like Senator Bernie Sanders [1] and the Congressional Progressive Caucus [2] are concerned that the restrictions on the use of U.S. ground troops for offensive combat operations in the Administration's AUMF proposal are too vague, and could enable a future President to introduce U.S. ground troops into offensive combat in Iraq or Syria. They are also concerned that unless the 2001 AUMF is addressed, restrictions on the use of ground troops in a new AUMF will be meaningless. Many Republican “hawks” oppose the President’s AUMF proposal because they don’t want any restrictions on the use of U.S. ground troops for combat at all. [3] The main legal authority that the Administration has relied on for military operations in Iraq and Syria right now is the 2001 Authorization for the use of military force. There’s no restriction in the 2001 AUMF on the use of U.S. ground troops for offensive combat. If the 2001 AUMF authorizes bombing Iraq and Syria, then a future U.S. president can easily claim it authorizes sending 100,000 U.S. troops to Iraq or Syria for offensive combat. If a future President believes that the situation has changed and the use of U.S. ground troops for combat has become justified, he or she can then ask Congress for that authority. Tell Congress not to hand a blank check to a future President to use U.S. ground troops for combat in Iraq or Syria by signing our petition. References: 1) “Fight versus ISIS roils 2016 field,” Alexander Bolton, The Hill, 2/12/15, http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/232579-fight-versus-isis-roils-2016-field 2) “Progressive Caucus Statement on President Obama's AUMF Proposal,” Congressional Progressive Caucus, 2/13/15, http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/press-releases/progressive-caucus-statement-on-president-obamas-aumf-proposal/ 3) “Boehner: Obama AUMF not strong enough,” Keith Laing, The Hill, 2/15/15, http://thehill.com/policy/defense/232884-boehner-obama-war-request-not-strong-enough; “McCain: Obama war powers request ‘convoluted’,” Keith Laing, The Hill, 2/15/15, http://thehill.com/policy/defense/232888-mccain-obama-aumf-convoluted

On December 28, 2014, in a speech directed at Islamic religious scholars and clerics, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi said, “It is inconceivable that the ideology we sanctify should make our entire nation a source of concern, danger, killing, and destruction all over the world. Honorable Imam (the Grand Sheik of Al-Azhar), you bear responsibility before Allah. The world in its entirety awaits your words, because the Islamic nation is being torn apart, destroyed, and is headed to perdition. We ourselves are bringing it to perdition. We need to revolutionize our religion…” The extraordinary, unprecedented courage of Egyptian President El-Sisi in taking this position, endangering his life, stands in stark contrast to the misguided message of world lay, political, and religious leaders, who deceive the public by denying that the atrocities, which Egyptian President El-Sisi seeks to correct, are of Islamic origin. It is incumbent on our President, Congress, their equivalents in the free world, and lay and ecclesiastic leaders, to express appreciation and support to Egyptian President El-Sisi for his stance.

President Obama sent language to Congress on Wednesday seeking an Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF) for military action against ISIS, which seeks Congressional approval for war in the Middle East for the next three years. National Priorities Project, a non-partisan and non-profit research group that tracks federal and military spending, urges Congress to evaluate carefully the very real financial and human costs of continued conflict in the Middle East, for the following reasons: Our nation has been engaged in military action against ISIS since June 2014, at the cost of $312,500 per hour to American taxpayers. In just the past eight months, we have spent more than $1.8 billion on military force in the Middle East, without Congressional authority or full debate by lawmakers about the costs of continued war in the region. We are concerned about the implications for American taxpayers and our federal budget if the United States engages in renewed and expanded military action in the Middle East. Over the last 14 years, our nation has spent more than $1.6 trillion on war in Iraq and Afghanistan – plus countless more in the human cost and long-term investment necessary to care for veterans who return from a grueling conflict. With our federal budget still burdened by these seemingly endless wars, and many pressing social and economic needs at home, now is not the time to sink trillions more into an endless war overseas, especially when polling shows Americans would like to invest in domestic priorities. While the proposed AUMF is limited to three years of military action, it leaves in place the broad and open-ended 2001 AUMF that authorized the use of force in Afghanistan, and under the president has justified current action against ISIS. This raises the question of whether the new AUMF in fact leaves open a very real possibility of a new open-ended war, with a price tag to match. Ultimately, American taxpayers deserve to know whether ongoing and increased investment in war will actually reduce the threat of terrorism against our country. With compelling evidence that each round of war fuels subsequent wars and terrorist outbursts, there lie deeper questions about whether the trillions of dollars spent on military force only serve to foment more unrest. Lawmakers must carefully consider not only short-term action, but also longer-term consequences before prioritizing military action over other means of influence toward peace and security. As Congress debates the president’s proposed AUMF, the American people must also weigh in on the continued financial and human costs of war. Tell Congress: Negotiations about a new AUMF must include evaluation of the cost of war.