Nixing the Iran agreement
 

Maybe we can expound on the three choice presented by the Iran agreement in another post, agreement, no agreement, or war.

If Congress agrees with it by not overriding the veto, then the conversation ends there.

No agreement. Tom Cotton wants us to go back to the negotiation table, and make a better deal. That is totally unrealistic. The UN Security Counsel has approved the deal 15-0. The European alliance has removed oil against Iran, which was hurting their economies. Russia, and China probably won't accept any further sanctions against Iran, unless Iran violates the agreement. England, and France like the agreement. If Congress overrides the veto, we will be standing alone.

If Congress overrides the veto, they have to put forward what the acceptable alternative is. We do not have to live up to the agreement, but why should Iran care, what we do, if we are the only ones that object to the agreement. Once the agreement was reached by the P5 plus one, it was a pretty much a done deal.

So, the Republicans should do what they do best, bitch forever about Obama's irresponsible actions, and never but never offer an alternative. They have so cover on this one, because Democrats will have to go against their president to override the veto.

Talk about Obama's legacy. It will be enhanced, if all other countries abide by the agreement, and it works. Obama will have a "big I told you so".

War. Is not an alternative for us. However, Israel is another story.

Very good post.

There are not enough votes to over ride a Presidential veto. Congress could not come up with a better deal.

Look at the Republicans trying to undo the ACA. 40 times and they still failed. And the Republicans never came up with an alternative. Just the Party of No.

And then of course there is the option taken off the table by the president to ramp up what was working, ie. The sanctions and insist on total dismantling.

Dont expect the GOP to come up with an alternative---did they come up with another health care plan? Nope! This is "too hot" for anything but the old Partisian politics. It's very predicable.

How idiotic is it to depict this as partisan politics? That's exactly what you are doing.

The issue here is risk of war with a nuclear armed Iran and putting the US at risk long term which is what this does. Our generation skates by .... our kids and grandkids are the ones that suffer thanks to Obama / Kerry fecklessness and weak minded approach to realpolitik. God help us (sorry if the word God offends anyone :) )

It appears to me, and many others, especially on this forum that what is good for our country is trumped every time by what looks good politically. Those in this forum do not read, do not understand and they debunk any and all that might even look bad politically.

I suppose, when discussing pure politics that might play, but international affairs is much too serious to be rendered as what party looks what way.

President Obama, and John Kerry know the political in fight that is going on between the parties in the US. Maybe they should have brought in a responsible Republican in the negotiations with Iran. It couldn't have hurt any, and the Republicans would know what was obtainable, and what was not. If Republicans can't trust one of their own, what can you do? It wouldn't have stopped this legacy nonsense that comes up with everything President Obama does, but this would have almost guaranteed a veto proof agreement.

One of the things that the Republicans did bring up on the ACA was letting health insurance carriers cross state line. Competition would drive down insurance rates. that might have helped the people that have insurance, but do very little for people that can't afford it.

One change that should be acceptable to both parties is remove the penalty for not having insurance for people that live in states that didn't accept Medicaid funds. These people seem to be punished twice for the same crime.

Thank you very much. I just wonder why this was not option number one on the list?

Why is it not even discussed here or in the media or addressed by Obama or the WH as an option.

And for those ready to pounce, do not try the fable that it wasn't working.
Of course it was working. Along with more strict sanctions would eventually force the Iranians hand.

But this option of course does not allow Obam or his minions to make it look like he was able to extend the magic olive branch and be friends around the camp fire singing Koom by yah! And then being able to say see....we can make progress.....and of course the sanctions would not follow his legacy time table.

Another forced fit Obama ram rod personal gain issue, sucked up by the gullibles.

Why it so hard for Republicans to understand that we weren't working alone in stopping Iran from getting a nuclear bomb? The sanctions that were relieved to get Iran to the bargaining table weren't that great.

Everything isn't about President Obama. Everything that he is doing isn't wrong. Maybe the Republicans in Congress can get off their asses from the cheap seats, and offer solutions to the current problems. Criticize, condemn, and complain is all they think they are required to do. They are getting standing ovations from their supporters for doing nothing. They should all feel so proud for doing what comes naturally. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****.

Why! Democrats didn't do nothing when they had both. Even if they did offer solutions obummer would just veto. MMMmmm, sounds just like liberal democrat. Blame blame blame.

Obama didn't need to he had dingy Harry to can the house solutions, didn't even make it to the senate floor for vote. Some of the best known liars are democrats Harry Reid nod his lobbying family was the Kings.

Some Republicans here really do live in alternative universe. In June, 2010, the UN, which I think we were a member then, issued the harsh sanctions that brought Iran to the bargaining table. I could be wrong, 2009 and 2010 the Democrats did control both parts of Congress. I might have missed it, but I don't remember the President's veto being overridden by Congress in 2009-2010.

Now, I fully understand why Republicans think we were the only ones working on an agreement with Iran. They don't inhabit the same world that we currently live in. In their world, the Republican party is all knowing, all seeing, and never wrong. Offer an alternative, why? People in the real world are so far beneath us, we don't have the time to explain anything to them. They would never understand anything we say anyway. So, talking to this lower form of life is just a waste of our time.

If Democrats didn't do anything of substance in 2009-2010, why is ACA such a problem? Maybe they didn't do anything in 2009-2010, because Mitch McConnell, the filibuster king, stopped everything from going anywhere. Why? It was a matter of principle. Again, Republicans are never wrong. Even considering anything the Democrats proposed was just wasting their time. The only time that Democrats are welcomed in our world is when they pick up our garbage. Reality! Reality! Reality!

Nicely stated, but anyone who has been paying attention for the past six years knows that President Obama always gets his way; ie ACA, TPA, etc. Republicans jump up and down, bedwetting and setting their hair on fire, while Obama continues to give them just enough rope to hang themselves.

Do not bet against this president as he is just getting fired up and ready to go in his final year and a half.

And royally :censored: up the country while padding his and his first lady's needs to continue their racist endeavors where they left off before suckering some Americans into putting him in office.

Yup be proud of the administration that accelerated the demise of the America most of us know and love and defend.

This post has strayed so very far from reality it is not even close.

I will not defend the Republican Party in any way, but to present AS FACT that they could do one single thing during the periods mentions. You ignore the complete and total destruction of all Senate procedures by Harry Reid, and talk as if the Democratic Party in congress would do anything to upset this President; a president and Senate head who both have the reputation of taking names and getting even.

You know, the more I hear from those of you who just do not care about any facts and change history to fit your needs, the more I am liking Trump.

And be proud of your President who is a great politician, but a lousy leader, a terrible state and despite my stated feelings about his character being beyond reproach, I now question that evaluation. Playing games is not leadership...telling lies, and someone said on here in the last day or so in defending him, that they were not lies, but some things did not work out as he said.

No way, they were lies, and despite the revisionist history that you try to run here, it is slowly unraveling.

The most recent Iran trickery with the UN makes those in the party proud, but the world sees what he did. The Saudi's now jump ship joined by many others in the ME.

His legacy,of which they say is important to him, will eventually shine through. His,lies,once he no longer has the hammer will be, not exposed..they already are, but will become validated as people become able to speak freely.

I heard everything that you just said. Now, bring us back reality. What is the alternative now? Do you really think if we bring back sanctions on our own, Iran really cares? I don't want to hear about 10 or 15 years from now. I want to here about now.

If this Iran deal works without us, the Republicans are going to be the liars. Their obstruction will be used by future parties on what not what to do.

Again, the world sees what he did. We keep on coming back to the fact that the US was the only ones negotiating a deal with Iran. Since when doesn't the UN represent the world? If I was trying to make an argument that the Republicans live in an alternative universe, your comment of the world, as you see it, makes the case. Hatred of this president makes everything that he does completely wrong. That can't be the case. Why would anyone floating in the middle of road, wherever that is now, listen to a word that the Republicans say? Everything is colored by their hatred. They just going looking for news outlets that back up their beliefs. Then, they turn around and call this be open minded or "fair and balanced".

If Obama is living a lie, he has plenty of company with the Republican party and their followers. I hate that conversation on this board always has to take the path of naming calling, and one upmenship.

O" yes let's pass it to see what's in in!

When this President leaves office and can no longer "come down" on his party for not cow tailing, it will be interesting. I know that every President of every party has this influence and that every president from every party has people in their party who follow them without questions...

BUT, this is a man who we know does not even speak to his party most times....I think the revelations will be amazing....but for now....

"Sen. Ron WydeSen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, said Saturday that he has concerns about the nuclear deal with Iran, adding that that he believes the Obama administration is “flouting” Congress by going to United Nations to get approval first.

“Now there was a new wrinkle in this on Friday, which concerned me, which was the administration was talking about going to the U.N. to get approval,” Wyden told a town hall audience this weekend. “I think the U.N. does some very good things, I think they do some other things not so good. But the point is going to the U.N. before the Congress weighs in is really in my view flouting the Review Act, you know the whole point…”n, amocrat from Oregon, said Saturday that he has concerns about the nuclear deal with Iran, adding that that he believes the Obama administration is “flouting” Congress by going to United Nations to get approval first.
“Now there was a new wrinkle in this on Friday, which concerned me, which was the administration was talking about going to the U.N. to get approval,” Wyden told a town hall audience this weekend. “I think the U.N. does some very good things, I think they do some other things not so good. But the point is going to the U.N. before the Congress weighs in is really in my view flouting the Review Act, you know the whole point…”

Sen. Ron Wyden On Iran Deal: Obama "Flouting" Congress By Going To U.N. First - BuzzFeed News

Oh, let's criticize it before we read it. We, as Republican law makers, can't call President Obama, or John Kerry to get an idea, what the major points of the agreement are, because they have unlisted telephone numbers. We can't offer our opinions, because we have none.

The conservative heads of governments in England, France, and Germany aren't really conservatives. If they were, they wouldn't be in partnership with the communist countries of Russia, China, and soon to be US. Anyone, that can't see that President Obama wants to be Chairman Obama, isn't looking. The P5 plus one is the great left wing abomination joined together to bring an end to the world. We, as Republicans, will stop that road to extinction as soon as we get our head out of hind part.

You want sarcasm. You got sarcasm. Now, that we know that two can that game, how about offering an alternative, if you override the President's veto? Given even an attempt to do that, it is quite clear that there isn't one, or at least one coming from the Republican party.

The idea of the Review Act is to go into debate of an act with an open mind. Senator Ron Wyden is in the Senate obviously. The Senate does contain reasonable people from both parties. Senators may have a good reason to have their nose a little out of joint.

However, the House is a horse of a different color. Mr. Boehner showed his true colors, when he invited President Net tin yahoo (no disrespect, but my spelling really sucks) speak before a joint session of Congress. The House Republicans never had any intention of approved the agreement with Iran.

We keep on coming back to the fact that we think we are the only one that negotiated with Iran. There is a 90 day period for the UN agreement to take effect. There is a 60 day period for Congress to act. If Congress overrides the veto, we will be standing alone. So, why wait for Congress approval before getting an UN vote?

Just going to give my thoughts very quickly on the entire thing which is over because that is how it is.

We had sanctions. The UN had sanctions. They were working. That is why Iran agreed to come to the table. We set parameters for those negotiations and changed each and every one of them to the benefit of Iran.

Congress wanted input. The President did not want to give it. Congress won that on a vote. Israel, the single most affected state on this thing wanted to be involved or at least have an opportunity to speak their mind. The President did not want that, thus the Speaker invited him here simply to give his opinions to the congress.

We had partners, every single one of which had very strong reasons to lift the sanctions but needed this deal to do that.

We said recently that no way would we allow the arms embargo from the UN to be lifted. Our President needed to apply pressure to the congress and thus went directly to the UN to have them lifted. They were lifted,

Thus congress is now gong to be the bad guy one way or the other and the President has what he wants......not stopping nuclear building, simply postponing. ALL the neighbors in the region are opposed. Those who are with the US are those who will trade and make much money off the deal, including Russia.

We now have Syria looking to build up arms. Israel re looking at all their options and announcing they will not consult with the US as in the past but if they feel threatened will take unilateral action.

The terrorists in the middle east, sans ISIS so they say, are in joy. The only state in the ME that supports them now can do it openly and arm them, because remember we took that off the table because Iran asked us to.

We are screwed....those or some of those will rave about the ability of the President to box in his own congress while allowing Iran to celebrate taking us to the cleaners. He wanted the deal, despite caving on every requirement he had before beginning, and he got it just as he gets it all, by manipulation and being shrewd, something we don't see much in a President when discussing foreign affairs, especially in a situation this serious.

So let the strong party democrats celebrate. Let the nuclear race begin in the ME. Let the arms flow being TO Iran from Russia. Let the money flow to Iran from France and Germany for arms and oil.

Next thing, and I am not joking will be when Iran cheats and they WILL cheat, Obama will blame someone else....not him. When the arms race begins it will be anyones fault but his.

Too much verbiage with no substance.
So we would stand alone. Is that supposed to be a big deal?
We are supposedly in the agreement for the impact on Iran's nuclear capabilities.
The other countries are in favor of it ONLY because once the sanctions are lifted there is gain in it for them.
Russia-weapons, China-oil to name the top advocates behind Obama.

The others in the UN follow suit because there is a gain for them as well (I really don't know or care....they are not in it for the nuclear aspect).

Some of you need to know a little more than is exhibited in the posts here to make any sensible comments about why the agreement is good or bad.
Look at it from the point of view of what is in it for America. I will bet not one of you can state any gain for the USA in this agreement.

All we get is the rah rah cheerleader section for Obama and the UN are all for it. At least that is what Obama, the WH, the media and some of you would like us to believe.

Once you understand the reality of our position and discover that nobody is in it for what YOU think they are including Iran.

I do not expect anybody to respond except with the usual party and Obama love antagonism.

And that really is a shame for you and your family members future.

Post 22 by me was posted while I was doing mine and now see it before my 22.....my comments of no substance do not apply to this post which is 100% on targer!!

Only a feckless fool could have negotiated such a dangerous, one-sided deal that guarantees a nuclear armed Iran. Too bad Trump wasn't the negotiator ... even those who can't stand him (and his hair) will have to admit he would be a MUCH more formidable presence at the negotiating table than the hopeless John Kerry

A "responsible Republican"?

LOL - thank you for the laugh of the day ....... bur Sarah Palin wasn't available.

LOL........

Avoidance of the subject and mocking someone is a characteristic of, I assume, having no idea of what to say to discuss, which is sad when you think of it.

We do live in the information age and so much is available, and yet so many never get off the comics page.

Character Austin Millbarge in Spies Like Us....

"We mock what we do not understand"

This should really make you laugh, but I am dead serious here. The responsible Republican I was thinking of was "W". This would be in the vain of Nixon, staunch anti-communist, visiting China to try to normalize relations with them. "W's" mere appearance there would give Iran the unmistakable impression that we want a deal, but we are not going to roll over for it. He was also knowledgeable on Iran.

President Obama had a news conference, where he defended the deal against all the short comings that the Republicans, Israel and the press had brought up. Reduction in uranium centrifuges, explain why the 24 waiting period wasn't a problem, UN could follow the flow of nuclear material to Iran, they would find out if Iran was building up nuclear material in other countries, some MIT nuclear professor told him nuclear material give off a detectable scent, which easily can be detected etc. He covered everything. He certainly doesn't believe he totally rollover, a deal just for the sake of a deal. If Iran cheats, President Obama won't be president, when that happens. People don't listen to him now, so why would they listen to him then?

I hope that you not applying that Iran will be selling weapons to ISIS. You know that that is not going to happen. The Muslims sects hate each other more than they hate us.

Iran will never be a nuclear threat to us. Going to war with Iran will be a lot harder than it was going to war with Iraq. Iran is one step above a third world country.

The arms flow isn't going to go from Iran directly to the terrorists. That stunt was stopped in one big hurry by our Navy, when Iran tried to send weapons to the Yemen terrorists. They will go from the seller to the terrorists, and Iran will be billed.

Not until the Republicans do a 90 not a 180 degree turn to the center, every conversation is going to have a hostile ring to it, but there is never an excuse for name calling.

A few tidbits from todays news on this Iran agreement....

"Iran’s ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said the nuclear inspection organization is barred from revealing to the United States any details of deals it has inked with Tehran to inspect its contested nuclear program going forward, according to regional reports.

Recent disclosures by Iran indicate that the recently inked nuclear accord includes a series of side deals on critical inspections regimes that are neither public nor subject to review by the United States."

Iran: U.S. Banned from Knowing Details of Iran Nuclear Inspection Agreement | Washington Free Beacon

For those who object to links they do not like even though based on facts this is also available on NEWSWEEK but I do not subscribe and have used my quota.

"In a 416-page manifesto called Palestine, Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei details his view on the destruction of Israel and the deception of the US. The book, which credits Khamenei as "The flag bearer of Jihad to liberate Jerusalem," is only available in Iran, the NY Post revealed.

According to the Post, Khamenei quickly asserts his belief that Israel does not have a right to exist as a state. He does this by using three words: nabudi meaning annihilation, imha meaning fading out and zaval meaning effacement. The book allegedly states Khamenei's strategy for the destruction of Israel is through "well-established Islamic principles".

Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei publishes book to destroy Israel and deceive US

President is near to speaking on this treaty as he wants to convince all americans to be for it, which is far and to be expected.

Just please do not be led astray by the false and phone premise...

It is this agreement or it is war

That is really a simple pressure point and as his own folks testifying before congress agree, a very very far fetched way to present it.

Has anyone heard more on the Iranian warship pointing its guns at a US helicopter or was that an error on CNN ?

President Obama and Valarie Jarret are really good at this stuff I must admit...

" President Obama will deliver a crucial speech on the Iran nuclear agreement Wednesday, arguing that the congressional vote that could block the deal is "the most consequential foreign policy debate since the decision to go to war in Iraq," the White House said.

White House aides said Obama would "point out that the same people who supported war in Iraq are opposing diplomacy with Iran, and that it would be an historic mistake to squander this opportunity" to contain Iran's nuclear program.

The framing of that message appears to be a direct appeal to congressional Democrats; while some opposed the Iraq War, others came to regret their votes to authorize it. Obama will need their votes to get the one-thirds vote necessary to sustain a veto."

In speech, Obama to compare Iran deal to Iraq War vote

Obama's got that right...'the people that supported the Iraq war are the same ones who are against the Iran deal'. Sort of says it all.

My biggest concerns on this and they are big to me.....the secret deals.

"The White House said Tuesday the administration has given Congress all available documents on the Iran nuclear deal, brushing aside renewed calls from Republican lawmakers for text of “secret” side deals between Tehran and the United Nations.

“We believe we’ve produced all the materials Congress needs,” said White House press secretary Josh Earnest. He said the administration has satisfied terms of legislation requiring it to turn over all documents pertaining to the agreement for a 60-day congressional review."

White House rejects new GOP call to disclose 'secret' Iran nuclear agreements - Washington Times

This attitude bothers me no end....and when you read more about what the deal are about.....

"According to the IAEA, those involved with the negotiations, including the Obama administration, agreed to allow Iran to forge the secret side deals with the IAEA on two issues.

The first governs the IAEA’s inspection of the Parchin military complex, the facility long suspected as the site of Iran’s long-range ballistic-missile and nuclear-weapons development. The second addresses what—if anything—Iran will be required to disclose about the past military dimensions of its nuclear program."

Release the Secret Iran Deals - WSJ

Now, it appears that the US has no idea of what these deals encompass, yet we are to trust all of this.

I also have concerns, in the face of these secret deals, about ongoing relations with Iran.

As the President said today.....Iran will continue to fund terrorism in the area. How will the secret agreements and this pact influence any dealings with this country as they fund terrorism and arm with missles. ?

How about we discuss the basics of the So called "agreement"?
How could Obama allow Kerry to speak of an agreement when neither of them have any idea what is in the side agreements which the USA are excluded from knowing the contents.

Trust but verify? Political BS.

We do not know the extent of the nuclear agreements...".where we are allowed to look/verify we give them 24 days notice?!?!

How ANYBODY in good conscience think for one minute we could verify anything is along with Barry and Kerry being very dumb or naive or both.

Another let's pass it to see what is in it.

This was not a negotiation. It is a bragging right for Obama.

Would you close on a new home when after the agreement was signed you were advised and here are some side agreements that you the buyer are not allowed to know about.

Of course not.

So how could Obama insist he is on the higher ground of the issue with such unknowns? He isn't and he does not care and obviously nor do we the people.

Concern is understatement!

I did listen to Obama today, give his speech(?) about the agreement. I have to admit to only half listening to it, as every other word was whining about how anyone that didn't agree with him wanted a war. He also lied continuously about the details of the agreement, but no one is going to fact check him. I have to say that I have never heard another president so unprofessional and so divisive in his complaining and whining. Even Clinton learned fast, and quit complaining about the Republicans. I certainly hope that this does not set a precedent for future presidential behavior, regardless of party affiliation. As far as I am concerned, if you can't work with your subordinates then you are not a leader. Obama is definitely NOT a leader. He can hold the position, but he is a disgrace.

I guess you better not disagree...

"Liberals are livid at Sen. Charles Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) decision to oppose the White House’s nuclear deal with Iran, and have threatened to launch a full-scale war as retribution.

Activists and former top officials within the Obama administration are openly contemplating whether Schumer’s stance disqualifies him from serving as the next Senate Democratic leader — which he is primed to do — and seeking to temporarily cut off money to Democrats in the upper chamber.
It’s unclear whether Schumer’s announcement will have a devastating effect on the White House’s efforts to prevent Democrats from killing the deal when it comes up for a vote in Congress next month.

But it’s clear that he will be Public Enemy No. 1 for liberal activists throughout the August recess, as they aim to rally support from Democrats on the agreement.

Liberal groups including Credo, MoveOn.org and Democracy for America are rallying supporters to flood congressional mailboxes and town halls over the course of the next month to demand lawmakers support the agreement. On Friday, they launched a new website, 60DaysToStopAWar.com, to list upcoming town halls and aid in the push. "

Fury of left falls on Schumer | TheHill

A bad deal is NOT better than NO deal.

Obama's ego NEEDS a win in his corner for a historical footnote. He is better suited for television entertainment, and pathetically over his head in the White House.

We need to strengthen sanctions, cut off their money and threaten to crush them if they don't release those hostages. But, Obama is no Reagan and Kerry is an idiot.

I am sure that the Republican replacement for Obama will be smart enough to hire much better advisers. Hopefully, it won't take 8 years to repair the damage that these inept amateurs have caused.

And we need to back our best ally in the area, Israel.

I am shocked that the Democratic party would allow it to become known that, on such an important vote, lobbyists such as MOVEON are DEMANDING votes.

THAT to me is very shocking as well as disconcerting.

Schumer is just posturing. He'll toe the party line when things get serious. He's the typical slimy liberal that will go along. Obama always gets his way, no exceptions. If they don't give him the vote, then he will do something illegal like writing an executive order or just blatantly disregarding congress. He still thinks he is the emperor-in-chief or king of czars.