White House Dares Democratic Senators Pushing Iran Sanctions To Admit They Want War

[Purveyor]

WASHINGTON -- The White House on Thursday challenged a group of senators to admit they are working to push the country toward war with Iran, upping the tension between the administration and Senate advocates of tough new sanctions amid nuclear negotiations.

"If certain members of Congress want the United States to take military action, they should be up front with the American public and say so," Bernadette Meehan, National Security Council spokeswoman, said in a statement. "Otherwise, it’s not clear why any member of Congress would support a bill that possibly closes the door on diplomacy and makes it more likely that the United States will have to choose between military options or allowing Iran’s nuclear program to proceed."

The "certain members" the White House is referring to are led by Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who is pushing legislation, backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, that would tighten sanctions on the Iranian regime despite the ongoing negotiations.

Advocates of a peace deal with Iran warn that toughening sanctions now strengthens the hand of hard-liners in Iran who can argue the U.S. is not negotiating in good faith.

The White House has consistently signaled its opposition to the bill, warning that it could unravel the delicate talks underway, and has promised a veto if it passes. But Thursday's statement is the first public accusation that the senators pushing the bill may have motivations they are not "up front with."

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/09/white-house-iran-war_n_4572003.html

[DonCoquixote]

1. There is an angle

OK, who is the one Democratic candidiate known to be a war Hawk? Yes folks, expect to hear "We have to vote for Hillary to protect Israel!" in 2016!

[Whisp]

8. I sure smell Clinton remnants of 'persuasion' in these warmongering stances.

and the use of their influence and power on others.

This is wrong, as wrong as how Christie operates.

[spanone]

2. i guess they think Presidents come and go, Israel will always be there

and what's another fucking war anyway?

[woo me with science]

3. This is all Kabuki.

The decision has been made. They simply cannot afford to have it look like the President didn't at least try to oppose it.

[geek tragedy]

5. Grade AAA ODS with a side order of Alex Jones nt

[okaawhatever]

7. Agreed. Obama definitely doesn't want this war. He knows we can't afford it financially and Russia

and China want us to get into this war so it will drive us over the edge financially and Russia will make a fortune selling weapons to Iran and China will gladly buy their oil at rock bottom prices. Also, a war with Iran won't be anything like Iraq or Afghanistan. Iran will fight back and they have a much greater force to deal with.

[woo me with science]

16. I don't know what Obama wants.

It is pretty clear by now whom he works for.

When the MIC and the One Percent decide the timing is right, the corporate politicians they have installed will comply.

This is not a problem of individual politicians and their whims. This is a problem of systemic corruption through power and money.

[sabrina 1]

29. It's not working, surely you have realized that by now. The old 'don't address the issue, attack

and attempt to denigrate the commenter to distract from the issue.

The issue is that if that many Dem Senators are pushing for War it is better so as not to turn any more Democrats away from the party, to allow the WH to take an anti war position.

Do we know that for sure, no. Is it cynical, yes based on all we have observed now for over a decade.

We used to be so innocent. Being innocent made emotional, partisan manipulation possible. Cynical is better, and if we turn out to be wrong, that would be great. But innocence had the opposite effect and it won't happen again.

We are now, most Progressives, as cynical as the political operatives who have been all over Dem forums since the early 2000s. Their jobs are much harder now and I notice their deep frustration and the extremes they are now going to try to regain some credibility. It won't happen. Once the people wake up they don't go easily go back to sleep again.

[geek tragedy]

33. Your imagination is not an adequate substitute

for facts.

[sabrina 1]

34. Neither is yours. But for the past twelve years or so we've been proven to have been

right on almost everything so I'll go with OUR 'imagination', that's what it was called back then also, rather than yours. No offense but I haven't seen many facts from you. Otoh, wmws has earned the credibility he enjoys here.

That's just a fact. Those who have earned their credibility over a long time are going to trump those who have not when any disagreement arises. That's just the way it is.

[geek tragedy]

37. Those who dispute that cigarettes kill people

never had any credibility.

[sabrina 1]

38. Those who misrepresent and misquote people definitely have zero credibility.

But just for fun, I love this, if you are referring to me re cigarettes 'don't kill people' why don't you post where I said that? Be careful, this could be a trick question.

[Bobbie Jo]

30. And a dish of bizarre obsession for dessert.

[Whisp]

11. good gawd but the obsession about the Hidden Evil of Obama is hilarious.

[woo me with science]

15. I think you are very naive to assume

that it would be Obama making this decision.

I think it's pretty clear by now that the MIC is working on an agenda that has been planned and in progress for some time.

Obama was clearly chosen by his financial backers because of his aptitude and willingness to carry corporate water, but decisions about the timing and political calculus of the next major MIC blood for profit undertaking are most certainly being made above him.

[Whisp]

17. That reads like it is from a Prompter

[zeemike]

19. Yep.

But some have the illusion that because he is CIC that he calls the shots...and that is how the MIC wants it to be...but the reality is much different than that.

[DevonRex]

28. Hahahaha!!!!!!!! OMG my side!!!!!

That is serious WOO!!!!

[sabrina 1]

35. Amazing isn't it, the obsession with this President, EVERYTHING is about him to some people. It

must be very difficult to be so narrowly focused when the rest of the world is looking past you and seeing things you can't figure it out and assume everyone is as narrowly focused as you are.

I totally agree with you and at this point it would be absolutely foolish to think otherwise. When it comes to these global wars we are engaged in I doubt the WH has much say at all anymore.

[dionysus]

13. .

[DevonRex]

23. Puke-worthy. He's risking everything for PEACE & Dems don't back him.

You? I don't know what the hell your party is but to PRETEND you have a some WOO crystal ball and know something that is completely different from the evidence before our eyes is just fucking snake oil salesmanship.

The EVIDENCE we have is the agreement Obama & Kerry worked out with Iran at the risk of damaging relations with a longstanding ally in Israel. It is also very clear that Obama and Kerry are working very hard to honor our commitments to Israel at the same time.

This is an extremely delicate, precarious, and ultimately, potentially dangerous balance to strike. This is the hardest work of diplomacy I can imagine. Nobody else has had the guts to even try, much less anywhere near the ability to maneuver like Obama and Kerry.

But keep on with that $2 crystal ball.

[dionysus]

24. care for a truffle?

I have magic crystal sprinkles for these... nom nom nom...

[DevonRex]

25. How about just the magic crystal sprinkles?

I bet we'll legalize those in CO, too.

[dionysus]

26. crystal sprinkles are so kabuki, mannnnnn.. phhhft.

[Drunken Irishman]

32. What the fuck does Obama gain from that?

Are you just throwing shit at the wall and hoping it sticks - or did you mistake this place for InfoWars? Time to take off the tinfoil, you loon, and back away from the computer.

Basically, you're saying, Obama is going to willfully support a plan that embarrasses him, gives him a foreign policy failure in front of the entire world as his own party back stabs him and makes him weak to appease, what, the MIC?

Jesus Christ. You probably talk back to the TV, don't you?

[SolutionisSolidarity]

6. That's a handy list of people to never vote for.

It's amazing how unrepresentative our country is. There is zero will for another mid-east conflict, and neither Party cares.

[WillyT]

9. K & R !!!

[Cha]

10. Yeah, just come out and say it, chickenshits. Is that Leahy

up there? Shame on Gillibrand.. thought she was more wise.

[karynnj]

21. Leahy was one of the chairs who signed the letter against the sanctions - he is one of the good guys

That is why I used my (NJ phone number cell phone) to call Booker and Menendez rather than Leahy and Sanders who are publicly against the sanctions.

[Cha]

22. Oh good.. 'cause that didn't make sense. thanks

Karen in Vt!

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. I wondered the same thing - because it does kind of look like him. But that didn't make sense to me

given Sen. Leahy's record as being one of more reasonable Senators on Middle East issues. Still I'm relieved to have it confirmed that it is not.

[Whisp]

12. useless assholes, all of them. and newbie Bookie - can't stand him anyway. n/t

[Owl]

14. Good.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

18. I'm reminded of Obama's Denver spreech in 2008 when he forcefully said, "Enough!"....

Oh well, one can dream,...right?

[mountain grammy]

20. There's my senator, Bennet. What's up bro? Thought you were a Democrat?

I'll be calling and writing.
Please, let's give peace a chance. Let's give the middle east a chance.

[Chathamization]

31. Where's the effort to primary these warmongers?

I'd be happy to sign up. Does anyone know about any organized efforts to push back?

[sabrina 1]

36. I'm for that. Get rid of all of them. They do not deserve the honor the people bestowed on them.

Shame on them.

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. good for President Obama

[Wilms]

40. ^