2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumCorker: Iran bill will beat Obama veto
TheHill
Senator: Iran bill will beat Obama veto
By Jordain Carney
Legislation requiring congressional review of any Iran nuclear deal will get the 67 Senate votes needed to overcome a presidential veto, Sen. Bob Corker predicted Friday.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/236485-senator-iran-bill-will-get-veto-proof-majority
MBS
(9,688 posts). Obama and Kerry really have been doing excellent work on this very delicate and important diplomatic maneuver. Not to mention the many other countries involved.
still_one
(91,965 posts)seen, and yet he is implying they will vote against it sight unseen, and they have votes to overturn a veto.
I won't even comment on corker's hypothetical.
It should be very clear that the republican agenda is war
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)negotiations for a peaceful resolution, and that means these Democrats want WAR.
Let's hope that Corker is just talking out of the side of his neck again (as he's wont to do) and that Democrats DO NOT actively undercut the head of their Party as he tries to negotiate a peaceful solution to the Iran issue. Otherwise, if Corker proves to be truthful (there's always an off-chance) and there are Democrats willing to side with Republicans to push for war rather than a peaceful resolution to the Iran nuclear issue, they should be held to account.
MBS
(9,688 posts)Or at least that Harry Reid will be able to keep his Dems in line. Menendez, I know, is an Iran hawk.
The thought that these long, delicate negotiations, which have required such persistent and creative diplomacy on the part of our US diplomats (and, once again, kudos to Kerry, Obama, and colleagues for what's been accomplished so far) could be sabotaged by these jokers is almost too much to bear. Actually, the fact that they WANT to sabotage this agreement is an outrage in itself.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)not a Democrat at all.
That said, if Corker isn't talking out of the side of his neck, we have some closeted warmongering Democrats we need to approach and admonish. My hope is that Menendez is so damaged by his corrupt acts as Senator that he becomes a pariah in the Democratic Party that they'd be ashamed to side with him especially on this issue.
And yes, I agree...it's an outrage that any Democrat would undercut President Obama's attempts at a peaceful resolution to the Iran nuclear issue since the alternative is war, which should tell anyone willing to listen that they're just as hungry for war as Republicans.
MBS
(9,688 posts)I would not weep if his legal problems forced him out of office.
Actually, it's an outrage even that the Republicans are making such blatant (and juvenile and wrong-headed) attempts to sabotage these negotiations.
I'm so sick of these folks and their embarrassing, destructive antics.
greymattermom
(5,751 posts)So that any war authorized results in an automatic tax increase to prevent the deficit from increasing. Maybe some Rand Paul types would agree with this.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)on Israel's last bloody excursion into the Gaza strip so maybe that's why they're so silent now?
Perhaps Senator Boxer can speak up. At any rate, we need Senatorial Democrats to speak up loudly now that Rep. Rangel has suggested that if they want war we should reinstate the draft. He's starting the conversation. It's a good start but we need much more in order to head off the drumbeats of war that'll inevitably come from warmongering M$M.
karynnj
(59,475 posts)I would argue that lobbying FOR an agreement would be far easier that taking a stand against what Happened in Gaza. The latter is complicated because it would be directly calling out Israel. Even with a very even handed comment that speaks of the transgressions of Hamas as well (even though the number of dead are VERY skewed - almost all are Palestinian), it would be politically suicide.
If you doubt that, remember the political uproar when Kerry speaking to an American Jewish group warned of the Israel POSSIBLY MOVING TO an apartheid state if they rejected a two state solution. Given the audience, this should have not been a problem at all - as it was to a pro Israel audience which understood the issues.
Once there is an outline, Obama/Kerry et al can argue more coherently why this path keeps Iran from a bomb for far longer than the path of rejecting it. That path possibly leads to BOTH war and Iran having more motivation to get the bomb -- which would likely happen before the end of the period of monitoring that will be included in the deal.
At this point there is not a deal -- and many supporting NOT agreeing -- point to comments from France that the deal should be stronger. Two points:
1) Every vague outline of a deal is better than the alternative of no deal
2) It is ridiculous to think if a deal - after a decade of negotiations - fails, that there will be a magic better deal - especially one meeting Netanyahu's description.
3) If there is a deal, it will be one that Russia, China, the UK, France and Germany agree to as well as the US.
The danger is this legislation being put to a vote before there is a deal. If it is I hope that some Republicans like former Senator Lugar or James Baker speak against destroying this opportunity. (I don't know their positions)
world wide wally
(21,719 posts)pollution, and promote greed as Republicans are doing now and still get elected to anything.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)karynnj
(59,475 posts)(Note that there are (counterproductive) things Congress can do - just as revoking the language that allows the President to waive sanctions. )
This is as good a case as I have seen as to why it is a bad idea and why NOT going with an agreement leaves the US with no real policy to stop Iran.
http://www.armscontrol.org/issue-briefs/2015-02-11/Voting-Up-or-Down-on-an-Iran-Nuclear-Deal-Not-as-Easy-as-123