Republican Congressional Stupidity Falls Two Votes Short

Formaldehyde

Both Fair And Balanced
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
33,999
Location
USA #1
This is huge. Basic common sense, international consensus, and the facts win out over fierce Israeli lobbying based on fearmongering and hatred:

Iran nuclear deal survives as Democrats block disapproval vote

Senate Democrats voted to uphold the hard-fought nuclear accord with Iran on Thursday, overcoming ferocious GOP opposition and delivering President Barack Obama a legacy-making victory on his top foreign policy priority.

A disapproval resolution for the agreement fell two votes short of the 60 needed to move forward as Democratic and independent senators banded together to vote against it. Although House Republicans continued to pursue eleventh-hour strategies to derail the international accord, the outcome in the Senate guaranteed that the disapproval legislation would not reach Obama's desk.

As a result the nuclear deal will move forward unchecked by Congress, an improbable win by Obama in the face of unanimous opposition from Republicans who control Capitol Hill, GOP candidates seeking to replace him in the Oval Office and the state of Israel and its allied lobbyists in the U.S.

Beginning next week, Obama will be free to start scaling back U.S. sanctions to implement the agreement negotiated by Iran, the United States and five other world powers. The accord aims to constrain Iran's nuclear ambitions in exchange for hundreds of billions of dollars in relief from international sanctions.

"We have one goal in mind, shared by many nations around the world: to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon," said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat. "I believe this agreement comes as close to achieving that as we can hope for at this moment."

Frustrated Republicans railed against Democrats for using a procedural vote to block final passage of the disapproval resolution, and issued grim warnings about a deal they contend could serve only to enrich Tehran and leave it closer to building a bomb when constraints begin to ease in 10 or 15 years.

"To my Democratic friends: You own this. You own every 'i' and every 't' and every bullet, and you own everything that is to follow," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "And it's going to be holy hell."

In the House, Republicans had not given up on blocking the deal against all odds. After backtracking on plans to vote on the disapproval resolution when it began to look short of support in the Senate, House Republicans lined up votes on several related measures.

Late Thursday they expected to pass a measure specifying that Obama had not properly submitted all documents related to the accord for Congress' review, and therefore a 60-day review clock had not really started.

That would be followed Friday by votes on a bill to approve the accord — which is doomed to fail, but Republicans want to force Democrats to go on record in favor of the agreement — and on a measure preventing Obama from lifting congressionally mandated sanctions on Iran.

"This debate is far from over, and frankly, it's just beginning," said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. "This is a bad deal with decades-long consequences for the security of the American people and our allies. And we'll use every tool at our disposal to stop, slow and delay this agreement."

Some House Republicans, buoyed by a favorable ruling this week in a lawsuit they filed over Obama's health care law, have begun suggesting a lawsuit to stop the accord. Boehner called that "an option that is very possible."

Yet the House Republican maneuvers seemed to have little chance of bearing results, and White House officials sarcastically branded them the "Tortilla Coast Gambit," a reference to a Capitol Hill restaurant where tea party lawmakers plan their moves. Even before the Senate voted, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest was boasting of the administration's success.

"Look, if we were sitting here just a month ago, back in mid-August, talking about how things would be resolved in Congress ... and I told you that neither house of Congress would pass a resolution of disapproval for this agreement, you'd be shocked," Earnest said. "That's an indication of the kind of progress that we've made."

In fact, opponents never had much chance of blocking the deal on Capitol Hill, partly because of a complicated congressional review process that gave unusual power to Democratic minorities in the House and Senate who could secure a win for Obama simply by upholding his veto of a disapproval resolution. Yet it was widely expected in the days after the nuclear deal was signed July 14 that Obama would have to use his veto pen.

Despite poll numbers showing significant public concern about the agreement, opposition never seemed to catch fire among Democrats or voters over the summer. In the end, instead of registering unified opposition to the deal, congressional Republicans turned the debate into the latest occasion for infighting within the party and between the House and Senate.
 
Even if you think its a bad deal seeing as everyone else participating in sanctions is going to lift sanctions I am not sure what they thought their hissy fit could accomplish... Well most of them just want cheap political points but I am not sure what the ringleaders were thinking they would accomplish
 
How did the presidential hopefuls on both sides vote?

Sounds good, although i am not convinced that the political ruling class in the US is willing to be reasonable regarding the middle east.
 
Even if you think its a bad deal seeing as everyone else participating in sanctions is going to lift sanctions I am not sure what they thought their hissy fit could accomplish... Well most of them just want cheap political points but I am not sure what the ringleaders were thinking they would accomplish
I'm not sure either. I seriously doubt Obama would have vetoed any UNSC resolutions dealing with this matter, which were unanimously agreed to by all the other permanent members.

But I was deluged for a while with AIPAC SuperPAC propaganda on TV. They did all they possibly could to sway opinion to defeat this and gain sufficient votes to even try to overturn a veto.

How did the presidential hopefuls on both sides vote?

Sounds good, although i am not convinced that the political ruling class in the US is willing to be reasonable regarding the middle east.
There were only 4 Senate Democrats who joined all the Republicans in the 58-42 vote. The four Democrats were Ben Cardin (Md.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), and Joe Manchin (W.Va.).

The House voted totally along partisan lines: 245 to 186.
 
If this is the kind of vote whipping we can expect from minority leader Chuckles McShrooms, there is fairly weak Democratic leadership replacing The Quiet Pugilist.
 
This is huge. Basic common sense, international consensus, and the facts win out over fierce Israeli lobbying based on fearmongering and hatred:

I see it as one more example of the administration getting another opportunity to play Calvinball.


Link to video.


Also, the international consensus appears to involve some secret side deals that no one knows the details of.
I thought the world swore off secret treaties after they caused WW1? :hmm:
Guess they are coming back into vogue just in time for WW3!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...d14dbc-3460-11e5-8e66-07b4603ec92a_story.html

President Obama promised that his nuclear deal with Iran would not be “based on trust” but rather “unprecedented verification.” Now it turns out Obama’s verification regime is based on trust after all — trust in two secret side agreements negotiated exclusively between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that apparently no one (including the Obama administration) has seen.

Worse, Obama didn’t even reveal the existence of these secret side deals to Congress when he transmitted the nuclear accord to Capitol Hill. The agreements were uncovered, completely by chance, by two members of Congress — Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) — who were in Vienna meeting with the U.N.-releated agency.

In an interview, Pompeo told me that he and Cotton were meeting with the deputy director of the IAEA and the agency’s two top Iran negotiators just days after the nuclear accord was announced, when they asked how the agency will carry out verification at the Iranian military complex at Parchin. IAEA officials told them, quite casually, that the details were all covered in agreements negotiated between the IAEA and the Iranian government. It was the first they had heard of the side deals.

Pompeo says they asked whether they could see those agreements. He says IAEA officials replied, “ ‘Oh no, of course not, no, you’re not going to get to see those.’ And so everybody on our side of the table asked, ‘Has Secretary Kerry seen these?’ ‘No, Secretary Kerry hasn’t seen them. No American is ever going to get to see them.’ ”

It turns out that only the two parties — the IAEA and Iran — get to see the actual agreements (though you can see a picture of Iranian and IAEA officials holding up what appear to be the secret accords here).

Even up to the last minute 2 days ago, Congress was squawking about the secret side deals.
They probably detail how Iran can just inspect itself and report to the IAEA on an honor system. (My guess)


Here's the actual text of the Iran Deal:
I'm pretty sure it is still up to date.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1651/


My condolences to AIPAC, who spent $30 million dollars to kill the Iran deal and failed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/w...-group-suffers-stinging-political-defeat.html
 
The initial post quotes a news article that says the Senate "voted to uphold" the Iran deal. That is not what happened.

Most of the Senate voted against the deal. The President couldn't get the full support of his own party. Instead of voting to uphold the deal, there was merely insufficient support for a measure to cancel the deal which Obama had snuck through using a parliamentary end run.

Regardless of whether the deal is good or bad, and there are some excellent cases to be made either way, it's passage (or, rather, the failure of the Senate to override an anticipate veto) is hardly an achievement for democracy.

That article makes it sound like the Democrats made an interception and ran the ball back when they merely forced a turnover.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Even up to the last minute 2 days ago, Congress was squawking about the secret side deals.
They probably detail how Iran can just inspect itself and report to the IAEA on an honor system. (My guess)

So your guess is the 'secret deal' involves continuing the situation as it was. That wouldn't necessitate any prolonged negotiations, now would it?
 
The initial post quotes a news article that says the Senate "voted to uphold" the Iran deal. That is not what happened.
And yet that is indeed what occurred. The Senate needed 60 votes and only got 58.

Too bad. And no, there are no "excellent" cases against it. If you think there is go right ahead and try to show that is indeed the case. There is a reason this was approved by every single permanent member of the UNSC, why Israel tried so vociferously to try to stop it from occurring, and why every single Republican decided to vote in their favor.

"That's the scary thing about Republicans. They don't care about facts." Bill Maher
 
I see it as one more example of the administration getting another opportunity to play Calvinball.


Link to video.


Also, the international consensus appears to involve some secret side deals that no one knows the details of.
I thought the world swore off secret treaties after they caused WW1? :hmm:
Guess they are coming back into vogue just in time for WW3!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...d14dbc-3460-11e5-8e66-07b4603ec92a_story.html



Even up to the last minute 2 days ago, Congress was squawking about the secret side deals.
They probably detail how Iran can just inspect itself and report to the IAEA on an honor system. (My guess)


Here's the actual text of the Iran Deal:
I'm pretty sure it is still up to date.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1651/


My condolences to AIPAC, who spent $30 million dollars to kill the Iran deal and failed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/w...-group-suffers-stinging-political-defeat.html
Countries cannot engage in secret treaties with other countries, international organizations can.
All this continued: "The president's black, we have to oppose everything he does!" posturing by the Republicans is getting old. I almost want another black president to replace him so that the entertainment can continue to even stupider levels.

You over estimate their racism and underestimate how much influence the American Zionist Committee has on the Republican Party (the original name for AIPAC was "American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs")
 
Funny how no matter what happens, it is always Iran who doesn't want peace, they just want to run Israel into the sea, blah blah blah. Does "Iran" in Persian actually translate to "GOP" in English? Maybe it's just a mistranslation?
 
Eh. I have no incentive not to follow it, so I don't particularly care. Countries can have secret treaties but they're not worth the paper they're written on. Or the hot air the politicians speak. Or the exchanged germs in the handshake. Or...whatever medium that secret treaty was made through.
 
You over estimate their racism and underestimate how much influence the American Zionist Committee has on the Republican Party (the original name for AIPAC was "American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs")

Where do I sign up for this 'American Zionist Committee'? Rotary turned out to be disappointing.

Godwin's law in 15 posts? This is some kind of a record, no?

Then those damn reds dropped the bomb!
 
Top Bottom