When Vice President Joe Biden was a senator in 2002, he wrote a letter to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell charging that a planned strategic arms reductions deal with Russia constituted a treaty subject to Senate approval since it would require "significant obligations by the United States."
2
Our Senators say they support Israeli concerns. What are those?
Now, the Israelis say they want "changes." They don't. They know such changes are not possible, and that is why they specify them.
What they want is to prevent any deal.
Why? They want a US attack on Iran. See Bolton's and McCain's plain talk on that. See also what Netanyahu said before he fell back on "changes."
They want war. If they can't sell that, they'll sell changes just so long as those are plainly impossible and would produce a war.
They don't want to "improve the agreement." They said any agreement was bad before they even knew the terms. They just don't want an agreement.
Now, the Israelis say they want "changes." They don't. They know such changes are not possible, and that is why they specify them.
What they want is to prevent any deal.
Why? They want a US attack on Iran. See Bolton's and McCain's plain talk on that. See also what Netanyahu said before he fell back on "changes."
They want war. If they can't sell that, they'll sell changes just so long as those are plainly impossible and would produce a war.
They don't want to "improve the agreement." They said any agreement was bad before they even knew the terms. They just don't want an agreement.
5
Even if the President signs this foreign policy agreement as a sole executive agreement, should Iran abide by every letter of that agreement, given that Germany, France, Russia, etc., will have signed the agreement also, it will destroy any subsequent US president and his/her administration, should it cancel such a sole executive agreement.
4
Similarly a future Ayatollah could renege on any agreement
The Republican Congress and Israel seem to want a war with Iran. Getting congressional approval for an agreement supported by the international community will be seen as capitulation.
We know they are incapable of rational behavior because of the campaign funding system.
We know they are incapable of rational behavior because of the campaign funding system.
3
I was not aware Congress had the right to pass such a law. The Executive Branch handles international negotiations, not the Congressional Branch. Until law breakers in the House/Senate are arrested and charged with crimes, they are going to continue doing anything they can to disrupt our president from doing his job. If that is not a crime I don't know what is.
1
The framework leaves Iran as a nuclear-threshold state. Iran will still have nuclear facilities, diminished and under international monitoring, and nuclear know-how. That is, however, far better than a future in which Iran is a nuclear weapons state. And it is probably as much as negotiations could have achieved.
The West negotiated with Iran not because Iran's regime has suddenly become our friend and ally, but because it is, and will for the foreseeable future remain, a frequent antagonist, hostile to Western interests. That hasn’t changed. For example, Iran remains the main backer of the Assad regime in Syria, and of Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The West negotiated with Iran not because Iran's regime has suddenly become our friend and ally, but because it is, and will for the foreseeable future remain, a frequent antagonist, hostile to Western interests. That hasn’t changed. For example, Iran remains the main backer of the Assad regime in Syria, and of Hezbollah in Lebanon.
2
Pity poor Bob Corker. His party won't accept any peace deal with the Obama name on it and the country won't support another war in the Middle East. Now poor Mr. Corker must become a political Solomon. Let's hope the little man from Tennessee punches above his weight.
2
What if John Kerry steps aside and becomes an observer. The other countries know where Obama sits. Let them be in charge of closing the deal. Obama isn't going to bomb Iran and the UN isn't going to bomb Iran. And the other countries aren't going to bomb Iran. Let the next president, if that person is a republican, bomb Iran. The republicans don't intend to be a part of the solution, so let them stew until 2016.
The Republicans have given up the last trace of any honor they may once have had in their drive to control both houses of Congress. And now to have their other-party nemesis, President Obama, be on the verge of preventing Iran from going nuclear without a single bomb dropped or landing force landed, just by applying diplomacy—a diplomatic effort led by their former other-party nemesis, Secretary Kerry the swift-boater—must feel like an unexploded bomb in their bellies. No wonder they've been acting even more like a pack of ninnies than usual.
2
These attempts by Congress to insinuate themselves into the purview of the Executive, negotiating and signing foreign policy agreements are not only outrageous but unconstitutional, and will no doubt fail with any challenge to the Supreme Court.
6
Maybe I am obtuse but I don't understand your point. You say correctly that congress is trying to usurp an executive function. Then you go on to say what seems to be that the Executive negotiating and signing a foreign police agreement is unconstitutional (which point I really disagree with, treaties yes, agreements, no). I mean nothing derogatory, I just don't understand your position.
But for a comma between 'agreements' and 'are', I have created confusion in your mind. I do apologize.
Let's think this through. The Senate is going to create a law that give them the right to usurp the president's authority in shaping foreign policy, because Netanyahu doesn't like it. This is a huge and catastrophic mistake that has the potential to hamstring this and future presidents and US foreign policy initiatives for decades. Why doesn't the Congress understand they are not the policy arm of our government, but the legislative arm. They are too dysfuctional to legislate, so now they want to disable our executive branch.
As I see it, Congress will blink before President Obama does. I believe he is willing to cash in all his chips on this one, and if I was a betting man, I'd take Obama over Corker seven days a week. He will outwork and outthink Bibi and the Tea Partiers. The nation is behind him.
As I see it, Congress will blink before President Obama does. I believe he is willing to cash in all his chips on this one, and if I was a betting man, I'd take Obama over Corker seven days a week. He will outwork and outthink Bibi and the Tea Partiers. The nation is behind him.
9
Bob Corker is no different than other Republicans who want to kill the deal, except he wants to do it with a smiling face and use President's own party to do it. it is a mistake by the whit house to portray Mr. Corker as fair minded man, all it will do is make the joining democrats comfortable.
6
The Republican party aka Likud's branch in the U.S. wants to take over the talks with Iran from all of the international parties. Their m.o. is to destroy their enemies, including President O'Bama, versus talking with them. God help us and Israel.
One last point: NYT do not call the Israel and American hawks PRO-Israel. Their war mongering does not make them pro-Israel but pro war with Iran. Because many of us are for negotiations, that does not make us anti-Israel which your labelling connotes and is totally in error.
One last point: NYT do not call the Israel and American hawks PRO-Israel. Their war mongering does not make them pro-Israel but pro war with Iran. Because many of us are for negotiations, that does not make us anti-Israel which your labelling connotes and is totally in error.
10
We went to war in Iraq because the Republican President Bush wanted to.
Now, the Republican Congress wants to stall and pick apart the executive agreement of the 5+1 committee on Iran.
Under the Republican leadership, 4,491 American Troops died. This does not even cover the enormous financial cost of the Iraq war, which the Republican President Bush borrowed money to pay the defense industry, which we are still repaying.
Now, the Republicans are saying trust us, and let us ignore the US Constitution which calls for the President to negotiate executive agreements on foreign policy and we will in all likelihood end up going to war with Iran.
If the Republicans can change the 5+1 agreement to a "treaty", with the help of Democrats, the Republicans can drag their feet as the Republicans did with the affordable healthcare act, which they delayed for 100 years so US citizens could die and/or go broke, instead of getting affordable healthcare.
The right wing does not believe in science, math or history, but most of us not only believe, but know we will not be made fools of by the right wing and the GOP again. The question is, do our Democratic politicians understand what is at stake?
Now, the Republican Congress wants to stall and pick apart the executive agreement of the 5+1 committee on Iran.
Under the Republican leadership, 4,491 American Troops died. This does not even cover the enormous financial cost of the Iraq war, which the Republican President Bush borrowed money to pay the defense industry, which we are still repaying.
Now, the Republicans are saying trust us, and let us ignore the US Constitution which calls for the President to negotiate executive agreements on foreign policy and we will in all likelihood end up going to war with Iran.
If the Republicans can change the 5+1 agreement to a "treaty", with the help of Democrats, the Republicans can drag their feet as the Republicans did with the affordable healthcare act, which they delayed for 100 years so US citizens could die and/or go broke, instead of getting affordable healthcare.
The right wing does not believe in science, math or history, but most of us not only believe, but know we will not be made fools of by the right wing and the GOP again. The question is, do our Democratic politicians understand what is at stake?
6
I am so confused by Republican politicians. They claim to be one thing, but are actually doing the opposite. Are they actually intending to produce the opposite of what they are saying or are they just oblivious to the obvious. If Corker stops an agreement with Iran, then it will accelerate the development of nuclear weapons by Iran.
6
Unfortunately, Obama has forced Congress to focus on containing his many unlawful, unconstitutional, unwanted unilateral actions. So far they are doing a great job:
Obama's amnesty - stalled
Obamacare - another SCOTUS challenge in June
Obama Iran deal - subject to Congressional review
Obama climate change agenda - neutered
Obama tax hikes - ended
But there is still a lot of work to be done before his disastrous Presidency finally ends.
Obama's amnesty - stalled
Obamacare - another SCOTUS challenge in June
Obama Iran deal - subject to Congressional review
Obama climate change agenda - neutered
Obama tax hikes - ended
But there is still a lot of work to be done before his disastrous Presidency finally ends.
4
Perhaps you are referring to the following?
-- Dreamers who have never known another country being permitted to stay, while criminals are deported.
-- 20 million Americans now with health care experiencing medical care, not suffering, and without fearing medical bankruptcies.
-- Presidential constitutional responsibility with the State Department to conduct foreign affairs working with other world powers to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons
-- Serious consequences of climate change (confirmed by 99% of all scientists) being faced to hopefully mitigate them
-- Wealthy continue to get enormous tax breaks, thanks to the GOP, while middle class and others pay far more than the wealthy do.
Historic presidency that has achieved much including healthcare reform, saving the economy from the Great Recession, saving the auto industry, removing chemical weapons from Syria without war, killing Osama bin Laden, and ending the disastrous Bush war with Iraq that was based on lies.
-- Dreamers who have never known another country being permitted to stay, while criminals are deported.
-- 20 million Americans now with health care experiencing medical care, not suffering, and without fearing medical bankruptcies.
-- Presidential constitutional responsibility with the State Department to conduct foreign affairs working with other world powers to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons
-- Serious consequences of climate change (confirmed by 99% of all scientists) being faced to hopefully mitigate them
-- Wealthy continue to get enormous tax breaks, thanks to the GOP, while middle class and others pay far more than the wealthy do.
Historic presidency that has achieved much including healthcare reform, saving the economy from the Great Recession, saving the auto industry, removing chemical weapons from Syria without war, killing Osama bin Laden, and ending the disastrous Bush war with Iraq that was based on lies.
5
Corker should put a cork in it. It's the POTUS that makes foreign policy. I don't trust any Republican when it comes to foreign policy. We're still cleaning up the Bush/Cheney mess in the middle east. With Bibi interfering in our political process it's clear the Republicans only want yet another war. War is good for their fat-cat friends in the military industrial complex (aka Halliburton) - not so good for the rest of us. If the Republicans in Congress want war instead of diplomacy let them declare war. Meanwhile let Obama do his job.
7
Your problem is that you don't understand that the "current mess in Iraq" is because of Obama. And the current ISIS mess is because of Obama. Experts say this. Not "Republicans".
And your non-understanding of what it means for Iran to have a NUKE which is what Obama says his "treaty" with Iran enables is dangerous. You are so hung up on wealth redistribution that you completely don't understand foreign policy. And the consequences to the United States and its citizens for bad foreign policy.
And your non-understanding of what it means for Iran to have a NUKE which is what Obama says his "treaty" with Iran enables is dangerous. You are so hung up on wealth redistribution that you completely don't understand foreign policy. And the consequences to the United States and its citizens for bad foreign policy.
1
I just love it when guys like you blame President Obama for the withdrawal of american forces from Iraq in accordance with the agreement President Bush made with the Iraqis.
By keeping the terms of the agreement, you complain that we abandoned Iraq to the jihadists. If the President violated the terms of the agreement, you'd complain that he was not to be trusted and a warmonger.
Do you understand that the only way to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon would be by the invasion and long term occupation Iran? Then we would have to dismantle all of their nuclear infrastructure and lock up all of their nuclear scientists. Even with all of that, what would stop a dedicated group of Iranians from getting a small suitcase nuke from North Korea or Pakistan?
If the current framework leads to an agreement, Iran will have to wait at least ten years to get a nuke.
That gives Israel and the rest of the world ten years to either make peace with Iran, or prepare for all out war.
We can all afford to wait ten years before we start WWIII, don't you agree?
By keeping the terms of the agreement, you complain that we abandoned Iraq to the jihadists. If the President violated the terms of the agreement, you'd complain that he was not to be trusted and a warmonger.
Do you understand that the only way to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon would be by the invasion and long term occupation Iran? Then we would have to dismantle all of their nuclear infrastructure and lock up all of their nuclear scientists. Even with all of that, what would stop a dedicated group of Iranians from getting a small suitcase nuke from North Korea or Pakistan?
If the current framework leads to an agreement, Iran will have to wait at least ten years to get a nuke.
That gives Israel and the rest of the world ten years to either make peace with Iran, or prepare for all out war.
We can all afford to wait ten years before we start WWIII, don't you agree?
3
Even Chuck Schumer, the next Consiglieri of the Senate Democrats, supports Corker on this one.
And Emperor Obama cannot lift sanctions on Iran, only Congress can do that.
As with the immigration amnesty, eventually Obama will have to back down and allow the duly elected Representatives of We The People to play their role.
And Emperor Obama cannot lift sanctions on Iran, only Congress can do that.
As with the immigration amnesty, eventually Obama will have to back down and allow the duly elected Representatives of We The People to play their role.
4
Generally speaking, I would not have a great problem with Congress having some involvement in this process, but it should be at the discretion of the President.
On the other hand, I do not trust THIS Congress at all. If I felt that they were working for the good of the country and it's people, that would make sense. But I don't believe that they are. They are working for their own interests - mostly financial - that go directly against the good of the country. Their other goal is to bring this President down in everything that he does.
On the other hand, I do not trust THIS Congress at all. If I felt that they were working for the good of the country and it's people, that would make sense. But I don't believe that they are. They are working for their own interests - mostly financial - that go directly against the good of the country. Their other goal is to bring this President down in everything that he does.
7
You need to step into the real world! No president should go it alone negotiating with a rogue country about nuclear weapons. I can not believe that after almost 7 years of this man in the white house, after all his lies about health care, Benghazi, fast n' furious, IRS etc, etc, etc, there are still people out there that trust him. At least with congress and the senate, it's not one persons decision, it's many.
2
Do you truly believe that "this president" is looking out for the good of the country??? Or is he playing Emperor Politics and being the narcissist that he clearly is??
Does "this president" perform the duties of his office as described by the constitution??? does he enforce the laws of the United States??? (no, he doesn't)
So, while I agree with you about Congress (both parties), I disagree with you about "this president". I think he's the worst president in modern history.
Does "this president" perform the duties of his office as described by the constitution??? does he enforce the laws of the United States??? (no, he doesn't)
So, while I agree with you about Congress (both parties), I disagree with you about "this president". I think he's the worst president in modern history.
2
I certainly agree to disagree with you.
This President has done more to help average Americans than any President in some time.
This President has done more to help average Americans than any President in some time.
2
Senator Bob Corker may be a reasonable man, but his position, and most certainly that of his Republican colleagues in the Senate, on the potential nuclear "deal" with Iran is not. The deal is the result of many years of negotiations by an international group called the "P5 + 1" composed of the major world powers--the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) plus Germany. It is simply irresponsible and likely a violation of the "separation of powers" in the Constitution to demand the final say in approving such a deal which is not a formal treaty. It would be more reasonable and useful for Mr. Corker to demonstrate his bipartisanship by working with President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry in finalizing the actual terms of the deal rather than insisting on "playing Monday morning quarterback." Waging peace, not war, should never be a partisan political issue, but unfortunately 47 Senate Republicans have made it so even before a deal was reached.
5
You can't even get your limited view of the facts correct. Its not just the republicans who recognize a bad treaty when they see one. And in this case, a bad treaty is FAR WORSE than none at all. When Israel ceases to exist in 13 1/2 years, and the world is a far more dangerous place, its too late to recover from your fatal thinking.
2
"A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms." (Wikipedia)
Under the US Constitution, the President as chief executive conducting foreign policy, negotiates the terms of the treaty (as defined above) and the Senate must then ratify that treaty.
That's the law of the land. Now the Obama administration seems intent on executing some international agreement that, somehow, isn't really a treaty but an executive action. That's not correct or proper. Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 clearly says that with the advice and consent of the Senate and with two-thirds concurring, a treaty is ratified.
Why would an agreement with Iran be any different than any other treaty we have? Just because someone substitutes "agreement" instead of "treaty" doesn't change facts.
The Senate must have a say.
Under the US Constitution, the President as chief executive conducting foreign policy, negotiates the terms of the treaty (as defined above) and the Senate must then ratify that treaty.
That's the law of the land. Now the Obama administration seems intent on executing some international agreement that, somehow, isn't really a treaty but an executive action. That's not correct or proper. Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 clearly says that with the advice and consent of the Senate and with two-thirds concurring, a treaty is ratified.
Why would an agreement with Iran be any different than any other treaty we have? Just because someone substitutes "agreement" instead of "treaty" doesn't change facts.
The Senate must have a say.
3
Annotation 12 - Article II
"... The Constitution recognizes a distinction between ''treaties'' and ''agreements'' or ''compacts'' but does not indicate what the difference is. The differences, which once may have been clearer, have been seriously blurred in practice within recent decades. Once a stepchild in the family in which treaties were the preferred offspring, the executive agreement has surpassed in number and perhaps in international influence the treaty formally signed, submitted for ratification to the Senate, and proclaimed upon ratification."
"... In the period since 1939, executive agreements have comprised more than 90% of the international agreements concluded. "
FindLaw U.S. Constitution Article 2 Annotation 12 - Article II
The law of the land clearly recognizes that there are differences between treaties, agreements, and compacts.
The Senate only gets to weigh in on treaties.
If the Senate thinks they have a constitutional right to interfere in this agreement because they claim it is a treaty, they need to have the issue decided by the Supreme court.
"... The Constitution recognizes a distinction between ''treaties'' and ''agreements'' or ''compacts'' but does not indicate what the difference is. The differences, which once may have been clearer, have been seriously blurred in practice within recent decades. Once a stepchild in the family in which treaties were the preferred offspring, the executive agreement has surpassed in number and perhaps in international influence the treaty formally signed, submitted for ratification to the Senate, and proclaimed upon ratification."
"... In the period since 1939, executive agreements have comprised more than 90% of the international agreements concluded. "
FindLaw U.S. Constitution Article 2 Annotation 12 - Article II
The law of the land clearly recognizes that there are differences between treaties, agreements, and compacts.
The Senate only gets to weigh in on treaties.
If the Senate thinks they have a constitutional right to interfere in this agreement because they claim it is a treaty, they need to have the issue decided by the Supreme court.
2
While the Senate has the right to review treaties, this isn't one of them. It doesn't change our laws, as treaties do. Additionally, if Iran doesn't follow through with their end of the deal, sanctions, which are a part of US law, will not be lifted. They can only be lifted when the legislation creating them is amended. I hope that this will help.
Gillibrand and Schumer are for this nonsense. I called 'em. You should too.
Gillibrand and Schumer are for this nonsense. I called 'em. You should too.
3
Corker differs from other Senate Rs in that his primary motivation is to humiliate the President most of the time instead of all the time. We can only hope there are enough Ds concerned more with our national interest in stopping Iran from building a bomb than in the institutional prerogatives of the Senate.
6
We have gotten this far with Iran because of our foreign partners. This is not a US deal, but one involving a remarkable coalition of countries concerned with the avoiding a potential war. The senators pushing this 'approval' policy are dangerously myopic.
8
Despite being biased, which I acknowledge that I am, I would like to at least understand what those with differing opinions have to say. Unfortunately, I am unable to do so.
Since the GOP has made it an outspoken priority to defeat the president’s every move I am unable to distinguish between their efforts in that regard from any actual, serious flaws in the impending deal with Iran, and so I must proceed with a less-than-complete knowledge of the facts.
Is there any way out?
Since the GOP has made it an outspoken priority to defeat the president’s every move I am unable to distinguish between their efforts in that regard from any actual, serious flaws in the impending deal with Iran, and so I must proceed with a less-than-complete knowledge of the facts.
Is there any way out?
4
Apparentely Corker did not get the memo that says he has no role, and in reality there is nothing he can do.
5
It's really quite simple.
Either we deal with Iran in a diplomatic fashion...
or we declare war.
If Congress doesn't like the President's deal... they have the authority to declare war.
I'm tired of all this Grandstanding, Senator Corker included.
If he were serious (he is not), he would simply craft a Declaration of War on Iran, and get that passed through Congress.
You can't have it both ways. So let's do one or the other. If you aren't willing to declare war, then get out of the way of diplomacy (which is the Constitutional duty of the President of the United States).
Either we deal with Iran in a diplomatic fashion...
or we declare war.
If Congress doesn't like the President's deal... they have the authority to declare war.
I'm tired of all this Grandstanding, Senator Corker included.
If he were serious (he is not), he would simply craft a Declaration of War on Iran, and get that passed through Congress.
You can't have it both ways. So let's do one or the other. If you aren't willing to declare war, then get out of the way of diplomacy (which is the Constitutional duty of the President of the United States).
9
Are you insane? Declare war on Iran? For what reasons? What have they done to us?
Besides, it would not matter if Congress declared war on Iran - the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and he's not going to do anything even remotely like that.
Besides, it would not matter if Congress declared war on Iran - the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and he's not going to do anything even remotely like that.
2
Bob Corker is a responsible politician. He has a good background in business and local, retail politics. He is what a conservative politician should be- analytic, skeptical, taking a long view, and most of all, pragmatic. However, his party is too conservative, and he and all other Republican politicians will always have to guard his/her right flank.
5
An article next to this one describes the following "Israel lists changes it wants in Iran deal" but the NY Times has no Comments section for it. I suppose that's because there isn't enough computing power for the number of raging comments that would be posted by Americans who are loyal to America and not to Israel. Where do these people get the idea they have any say in this? What exactly do they think our nation is relative to theirs? Has anyone told the Israelis that they have gone too far in pushing the boundaries of decency? I am disgusted.
6
The main problem in allowing the Congress to vote on the Treaty is that many of them are unaware of the basic facts of both nuclear and Middle East issues and their vote can harm the long term interests of Israel, US and the world. The best compromise is to require that all members of Congress who wish to vote on this issue pass a background intelligence test administered by a recognized University like Harvard or Princeton. Those who choose to be ignorant should not mess up the lives of future generations.
2
If Senator Corker wants to run US foreign policy then let him run for and win the Presidency. The entire Republican party seems to hold, as one of its many articles of faith, that the next Republican President will also have Republican majorities in both the House and Senate. I wonder how they will react if Democrats oppose that Republican President's foreign policy initiatives? Oh, yeah -- that would be unpatriotic and divisive...
7
His name is Corker?
Ya can't make this stuff up!
Ya can't make this stuff up!
4
Congress is out of control! Since when does a President require congressional approval for diplomatic agreements. Further, do those megalomaniacs in Congress recognize that the approval of this deal goes beyond just the U.S. and Iran and includes the other world powers as well?
8
"Since when does a President require congressional approval for diplomatic agreements."
Since 1789.
Since 1789.
2
You are wrong. Congressional approval is needed for treaties, not diplomatic agreements. Reagan and many other presidents made agreements without any congressional approval. I think the Louisiana Purchase was one of them.
7
Every agreement with a foreign nation is a treaty by definition. Don't believe the Louisiana Purchase was made without congressional approval. This agreement with Iran is certainly a treaty.
1
These clowns are going to scuttle the deal, the rest of the world will start doing business with Iran and we'll be like the old geezer who shouts "Get off my lawn!" to kids who just laugh at him and keep on playing.
9
Let's be realistic here.
We'll be like the old geezer with a loaded gun who shouts at the kids.
We'll be like the old geezer with a loaded gun who shouts at the kids.
Obama's strategy of recognizing there may be helpful ways for congress to contribute and encouraging that, but at the same time reminding them that HE is the one who negotiates and sets foreign policy as according to the constitution. Obama is acknowledging the work and tone Senator Corker has demonstrated in the past, that he is a reasonable and serious person, unlike the majority clown car that currently resides in congress.
5
It was the United States Congress that prevented this nation from joining the League of Nations after World War I.
Then, we had World War II in which 50 million people lost their lives worldwide.
The United States Congress permitted this nation to join the United Nations after World War II.
Now, a Republican-controlled Congress (which itself is controlled by the non-profit and untaxed American organization the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu) wants to have an "up or down" vote on the non-military solution negotiated over many months by Secretary of State Kerry and endorsed by President Obama in accordance with our laws.
For any who doubt the extent of Israel's influence upon our Republican Congressional representatives, they should watch closely the video of every Republican member of the House and Senate giving standing ovation after standing ovation to the remarks made by Netanyahu, in his speech condemning the "bad deal" being negotiated with Iran, to a joint session of Congress on March 3, 2015.
In short, the legislated vote proposal by the Republican-controlled Congress is a foregone conclusion. The next vote in Congress will be to authorize Israel to receive (probably at no cost) from the United States the only bombs in the world capable of destroying Iran's underground nuclear facilities.
Who is ready for another war in the Mideast and $10 a gallon gasoline?
Then, we had World War II in which 50 million people lost their lives worldwide.
The United States Congress permitted this nation to join the United Nations after World War II.
Now, a Republican-controlled Congress (which itself is controlled by the non-profit and untaxed American organization the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu) wants to have an "up or down" vote on the non-military solution negotiated over many months by Secretary of State Kerry and endorsed by President Obama in accordance with our laws.
For any who doubt the extent of Israel's influence upon our Republican Congressional representatives, they should watch closely the video of every Republican member of the House and Senate giving standing ovation after standing ovation to the remarks made by Netanyahu, in his speech condemning the "bad deal" being negotiated with Iran, to a joint session of Congress on March 3, 2015.
In short, the legislated vote proposal by the Republican-controlled Congress is a foregone conclusion. The next vote in Congress will be to authorize Israel to receive (probably at no cost) from the United States the only bombs in the world capable of destroying Iran's underground nuclear facilities.
Who is ready for another war in the Mideast and $10 a gallon gasoline?
5
Corker was on the Congressional committee re saving/bailing out the GM & Chrysler in 2008. He stated that he was against it and that Chrysler would fail in the next yr or so. Of course time has shown him to be totally wrong (his state had no GM or Chrysler plants to close). US car-truck production has surged to new record levels since the bail out and been an important part of the US recovery from the Republican caused recession.
Giving Corker a voice in the Iran agreement is dangerous to the US national interest but good for the Israel Lobby.
Giving Corker a voice in the Iran agreement is dangerous to the US national interest but good for the Israel Lobby.
5
"Totally wrong in the past," unfortunately, may be a fair characterization of the BEST congresspersons that we've got in power right now.
I believe that President Obama is the best person who, with his foreign policy staff, is able to determine our foreign policy. I also believe Congress is playing the children's game called "top of the hill." They want the United States to be on the top of the pyramid and even after being at the top, enough is never enough. Our over abundant military strength to them is still not enough for them. I think the Republicans believe we must never give other nations a chance to improve their societies lest we ourselves show a sign of weakness. I believe our president is taking a more Christian attitude in finding ways to help bring about peace in the Middle East without using our war powers. I believe racial prejudice, a lack of smarts, and inappropriate feelings of personal insecurity are problems facing members of our Congress. A significant problem for our nation is that we elect representatives and senators who become heads of congressional committees without having experience to know how to do their jobs. Time and again, we see someone in charge of our space program who knows nothing about space sciences; someone heading a health committee who knows nothing about human biology; someone heading transportation committee who is knows nothing about engineering. Education in the United States is not valued sufficiently for our citizens to learn to choose the best leaders. Alas, what's to be done?
3
What is so odd here?
Doesn't the Constitution say that the Senate must approve all treaties?
Calling a treaty something else than a treaty would not change such a requirement.
Doesn't the Constitution say that the Senate must approve all treaties?
Calling a treaty something else than a treaty would not change such a requirement.
1
Between 1939 and 1989, approximately 94% of all international agreements between the US and other nations came through executive agreement, a practice first begun by President Washington and validated by the Supreme Court. The filibuster in the Senate allows a tiny handful of Senators to control approval of treaties, making consultation with the Senate a perilous process. Since most executive agreements require some legislation to fund them or support them, most executive agreements have some element of informal Congressional review and approval.
3
Treaty or not, Congress' input is required to undo the sanctions.
Just because you think it's a treaty doesn't make it so.
Even if a hundred Senators call it a treaty, it doesn't make it so.
That's why Senator Corker is working so hard to get the President to agree to some kind of review. He understands that if this issue goes to the Supreme Court, they may agree with the President that this is not a US treaty with Iran.
If it's not a treaty, the Senate has no power to insist that they must advise and consent to the agreement.
Even if a hundred Senators call it a treaty, it doesn't make it so.
That's why Senator Corker is working so hard to get the President to agree to some kind of review. He understands that if this issue goes to the Supreme Court, they may agree with the President that this is not a US treaty with Iran.
If it's not a treaty, the Senate has no power to insist that they must advise and consent to the agreement.
1
Fine, let them Veto but also lets also make sure they get blamed for the consequences.
3
I have a novel plan that would stop all of the bickering on both sides. Let’s bring the draft back with no deferments. No college exempts.no sex exempts, and so on. If everyone truly had some skin or kin in the mix maybe we would stop playing this partisan game. Maybe if we had a truly fair draft we could stop this brinkmanship. It should be a requirement of every one of these folks to visit a veteran’s hospital to see what happens to our children. It’s more to it than wearing a flag pinned to your lapel. Disliking the president should not translate into disliking our children. No one is saying run away from a fight but fight only when you have too. Really tired of hearing the comparison to Chamberlain. We are the best fighting force the world have ever seen. Let start acting like it. The notion that the most advanced countries in the world are going to let Iran play them for rubes is beyond the pale. Why even have diplomats if you don’t want to use them? Almost 60000 dead in Nam and now we wear jeans made there!.
5
The influence of Corker in this matter is evident by the president's comments during Tom Friedman's interview of him: he made it clear that he was resolved to find a way to allow the Iran deal to be presented to Congress and submitted to its "oversight" -- clearly, an attempt to defuse Corker's efforts to force it to be managed as a normal treaty subject to Senate approval.
In the end, much of the country is going to remember the ACA, passed, just barely, in the teeth of unanimous Republican rejection ... and the hideous faction that caused in our politics since. For resistance of this magnitude, which draws in enough Democrats to make the override of a presidential veto tenable, a sensible president would pause and consider legitimacy. Corker's argument is that anything with as broad a set of implications as the Iran deal really should be managed as a treaty and sold to the Senate as such.
It's not an irrational argument.
In the end, much of the country is going to remember the ACA, passed, just barely, in the teeth of unanimous Republican rejection ... and the hideous faction that caused in our politics since. For resistance of this magnitude, which draws in enough Democrats to make the override of a presidential veto tenable, a sensible president would pause and consider legitimacy. Corker's argument is that anything with as broad a set of implications as the Iran deal really should be managed as a treaty and sold to the Senate as such.
It's not an irrational argument.
3
It may not be irrational but it is entirely unnecessary at this point and just plain meddling into something that would never have happened if it had been a treaty. Can't they leave well enough alone? Or are the Republicans dead set on dashing any good news that comes our way?
2
Has Obama decided it's worth another big battle with Congress to secure his deal with Iran? Judging from his heavy charm offensive, it appears to be the case.
Deja vu all over again.
Deja vu all over again.
1
" ... to make sure Congress plays its appropriate oversight role.. " is the correct position. I am not sure however, "appropriate role" includes includes legislation passed before the fact. "Too many cooks are (it is said) sure to spoil the broth".
3
I keep wondering why my comments, which are respectful and on-point have not been allowed to be published in this forum. They are critical of the current Israeli leadership and the Republicans but in no way should they be flagged. As a veteran who served his country to protect free speech, I am very suprised that the NY Times should support its suppression. Someone should do an investigate article on this forum's process.
6
I get rejected constantly on the other side of the spectrum. Especially regarding facts like donations to Democrats. Even though they are in response to comments about donations to Republicans - so directly on topic, clearly.
Interestingly, I flag comments which are blatantly antisemitic and also copy them and complain to the editors but those remain. The only one ever removed was one I wrote myself. I used every trope imaginable and unlike my respectful comments -pointing out ie George Soros' donations to the Democratic party - my antisemitic comment was posted immediately. I then sent it to all of the editors and it was removed immediately. Yes, there is a definite problem.
Now let's see if you'll post this criticism of you, NYT.
Interestingly, I flag comments which are blatantly antisemitic and also copy them and complain to the editors but those remain. The only one ever removed was one I wrote myself. I used every trope imaginable and unlike my respectful comments -pointing out ie George Soros' donations to the Democratic party - my antisemitic comment was posted immediately. I then sent it to all of the editors and it was removed immediately. Yes, there is a definite problem.
Now let's see if you'll post this criticism of you, NYT.
If you are interested in unfettered monologuing start a personal blog. The moderation of this forum is one reason it remains readable.
2
Once again the Republicans demonstrate that they have zero respect for the Constitution and the separation of powers.
6
Ironic isn't it. The people who rant and attempt to invoke the constitution on their cause du jour have the least knowledge and respect for it.
1
The GOP has blocked the confirmation of the non controversial Attorney General Lynch for many months, 47 sent a letter attempting to undermine the deal, many present themselves as anti science, and they want to be given the responsibility of a serious analysis of this deal with it's highly technical parameters? I simply don't trust the majority of GOP Senators (certainly not 47 of them) to treat this role seriously.
16
We are in serious trouble if the congress and senate get involved. All reasonable ideas and discussion is off the table and the food fight will begin. The Iran hard liners are soo happy to see these guys mess up a deal they are very afraid may happen and begin to open Iran up to the world. Not to worry Revolutionary Guards these guys are herd liners like yourselves and have zero understanding of the subject but are united in their hate of the president. They will assure that you get a war.
2
Israel is not yet a perfect country, but it is constantly in the process of attempting to become one, as evidenced most recently by the free, spirited and open-to-everybody election it recently conducted. This is not true of any other country in the Middle East you care to name. Not a single one. That is why I and millions of other Americans proudly stand in her corner. And that is where we are planning to stand until the very last galoot reaches shore.
1
Geeeez, I thought we were discussing the Senate, Bob Corker, and the Iran agreement.
Which agreement would go before Congress?
US - sanctions are lifted in steps based on Iran allowing inspections.
Iran - Sanctions are lifted immediately upon signing.
The devil is in the details.
US - sanctions are lifted in steps based on Iran allowing inspections.
Iran - Sanctions are lifted immediately upon signing.
The devil is in the details.
2
The negotiation is ongoing, so neither. Don't waste your time commenting on how each side sells it to their constituents.
2
I remain perplexed about this issue. If the President does not present the agreement as a "treaty" where does the Senate find the authority to force a review?
10
President Obama saying this Iran deal is the only way to accomplish our goal of reducing Iran's capability to create a nuclear weapon, goes against everything I've ever been taught. Every problem has multiple solutions. Further, he'd have made a terrible lawyer, if he believes there is only one solution to this issue. Good lawyers always offer options, ways to circumvent a problem. President Obama is truly insulting our intelligence.
1
You have forgotten that the US is not the only country at the table. Further, to assume that the 6 countries involved have not been looking at many possible solutions, and various aspects thereof, is rather naive.
5
It would be lovely to see what other viable method you would offer before you castigate the President.
3
Your right, the invasion and occupation of Iran would also reduce Iran's capability to create a nuclear weapon.
However, it wouldn't be able to stop them from buying one on the open market.
You can be sure that if we invade Iran, and they buy a nuke, they are going to use it.
However, it wouldn't be able to stop them from buying one on the open market.
You can be sure that if we invade Iran, and they buy a nuke, they are going to use it.
Nothing, and I mean nothing, worked out as well as having the US Congress vote on the League of Nations after WWI that kept the US out of that international body. Yes, tying the hands of Wilson worked out so well it ultimately delivered such wonders as a second world war, a holocaust, gas attacks in Ethiopia and millions dead around the world. I sit on the edge of my seat to see what wonderful disasters this congress can imagine for me in the future.
Mr. Corker please put your nation first before party and lobby.
Mr. Corker please put your nation first before party and lobby.
17
Ashley Parker and Peter Baker selling us Bob Corker? Why would they do that?
It is a normal practice that the Congress ratify any such agreement with Iran or any other nation involved.
So this isn't news. It's gossip designed to show the Senator in the best light possible.
Is this the starting point for a president or even a vice presidential bid? Maybe using the media to test the waters?
It is a normal practice that the Congress ratify any such agreement with Iran or any other nation involved.
So this isn't news. It's gossip designed to show the Senator in the best light possible.
Is this the starting point for a president or even a vice presidential bid? Maybe using the media to test the waters?
Trust Iran? Hec, who trusts Corker? Go back to the auto plant fiasco, where he interceded in the most inappropriate way imaginable, basically, lying, in order to prevent a vote in favor of unionizing. The Republicans are incapable of doing anything in a bipartisan fashion. In this instance, they will try to appear bipartisan, while at the same time being opposed to the deal. It's a wonder that anything is ever accomplished. I suppose without the President's initiatives in every area where those are possible, nothing would ever be done, and they fight him tooth and nail on those, as well, distorting the facts as it suits them. Given the Republican's intrusion visa vie the Netanyahu invitation, Cotton's open letter, and the neo cons, this will turn out to be another disturbing event, when it need not have been at all. It is simply amazing to me how it is that those with nothing in the game at all can pretend that they could in some way do better. There has not been one single thought or point made by the Republicans on the Iranian negotiations that has actually made sense. It all boils down to them not trusting Iran. So, don't trust them. Put steps in place to replace the need for that, like Kerry and the President have done. What more do you want? The impossible, something that the Republicans could not achieve on their own, even if they were given a century to complete the task. Bombing for profit is the only way they know.
11
Haha. Congress???? We'd never get a deal then. Obviously.
5
President Obama is still a young man and apparently has not yet learned the lesson that many older people could teach him, which is that achieving little or nothing in life is frequently better than accomplishing things they had imagined were good but later turned out to be bad. Or to be put it another way, beware of legacies, they cut in all directions.
3
Your advice is little too late for George W and Chaney, or were this comment intended for them? George Bush said that Iraq would be a beacon of democracy in the middle-east, turns out Iraq today is an ISIS rat hole. As for the republicans and neo-conser always war mongering. Okay, go to war with Iran to appease Israel and Mr. Bibi. The same way GW expected Iraq to be a show case of democracy, Russia, Germany and China might join Iran. Neo-conser go ahead set the world on fire.
I'm starting to miss the old days when politicians concerned themselves more busying their time finding ways to bring the pork home and getting re-elected as a way to get their ego's boosted.
At least that way their meddling was somewhat contained, now it's not enough for them unless they feel it's their right and duty to burn the whole world down as well. Maybe Corker sees no pork for the rest as more pork for Tennessee? I don't know what he's thinking other than he just likes saying nay.
At least that way their meddling was somewhat contained, now it's not enough for them unless they feel it's their right and duty to burn the whole world down as well. Maybe Corker sees no pork for the rest as more pork for Tennessee? I don't know what he's thinking other than he just likes saying nay.
2
The President is on a roll. He will NOT let this important bill be thrown out by the likes of McCain etc.
6
For this deal to go through for sure on your side the American people need to inform their congress that they support their President on this in clear and uncertain terms. Massive letter writing would be a good start.
1
I come from Tennessee and always vote Republican. The Prime Minister of Israel has insultingly argued against any Iran deal before the United States
Congress. Clearly Netanyahu wishes to get us into yet another war, just
as Sharon got us into the Iraq War. The last major war of aggression waged
by Iran happened 2,500 years ago. The Iranians lost (at Salamis). This
treaty is the best we can hope for. The alternative would be to let the Israeli
tail wag the American dog yet again and count down the time to an American
attack on Iran. Enough is enough. Iraq is much worse off than before Bush
attacked and killed Saddam at Sharon's bidding. 150,000 killed and the infrastructure left in shambles. And the Americans took a big hit in its own casualties and loss of treasure ($3 trillion according to Noel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, the cost of running the entire US government for a year). President Obama is frequently wrong. This time he is right and deserves the support
of the gentleman from Tennessee.
Congress. Clearly Netanyahu wishes to get us into yet another war, just
as Sharon got us into the Iraq War. The last major war of aggression waged
by Iran happened 2,500 years ago. The Iranians lost (at Salamis). This
treaty is the best we can hope for. The alternative would be to let the Israeli
tail wag the American dog yet again and count down the time to an American
attack on Iran. Enough is enough. Iraq is much worse off than before Bush
attacked and killed Saddam at Sharon's bidding. 150,000 killed and the infrastructure left in shambles. And the Americans took a big hit in its own casualties and loss of treasure ($3 trillion according to Noel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, the cost of running the entire US government for a year). President Obama is frequently wrong. This time he is right and deserves the support
of the gentleman from Tennessee.
10
Sen. Corker to Obama: "Sign this into law so we can wrap it around this wooden club, the better to beat you with." "Oh, and political death to Obama!"
6
All GOP presidential candidates must oppose and criticize anything and everything Obama does or did, otherwise they are RINO (republican in name only). The GOP senators must undermine everything the president's agenda otherwise they will be challenged in primary election and will receive no money from big donors. Now another big elephant is in the room and that is Netanyahu. It is not love for Israel or Netanyahu , it is the fear of AIPAC and money . Lindsey Graham and McCain are warmongers and they do not like Obama at all. I am scared of the whole situation about Iran deal . But I believe there are number of intelligent and educated senators who understand and put the country's interest above their politics. Let us pray for the best for our country and the world.
8
Let us not forget that there is a Republican majority in Congress because of gerrymandered representative districts. In fact, if you believe in the principle that each citizen's vote should have equal weight then do not forget that more citizens voted for Mr Obama than for the current Republican Senators and Congressmen, by a large majority.
11
sorry, absolutely meaningless if you can't get them to the polls. I am truly amused at the liberal idea of criminalizing not voting though.
2
Hasn't voter turnout increased in recent national elections? Your response isn't to the point made by RLW. We have House districts that have been structured under extreme efforts to gerrymander for the GOP, which resulted in lots of safe districts with extreme blowhards who dont think about ever having any problem being reelected. The time has come to reconsider what Eldridge Gerry promoted during the constitutional convention - I for one find it hard to believe that the abuses we've seen on such a large, national scale are consistent with what was intended.
@closet-- I would have no issue making entire states cookie cutter, identical districts with no regard to voter blocs----what history has shown us in the last several years when reforms are proposed those who panicked most and threatened lawsuits are blacks who are scared to death they will lose what power they possess now.
1
The senators, even one as well meaning as Sen. Corker, do not have the background of the details and have not been working on this for as long as the State Department. Some like one shown n the photograph have been in office a few months now, and have zero foreign policy experience.
This is not a partisan issue. This is entirely for the president and the state department. Republicans seem to want war, but the majority of American people absolutely do not.
Delicate negotiations are not something for the Congress to meddle in. They should do their own job, instead of constantly passing their own record for dysfunction. Repair America's infrastructure, and let the president do his constitutional job of foreign affairs. The president was twice elected by the majority of the nation: these senators were elected by a fraction.
This is not a partisan issue. This is entirely for the president and the state department. Republicans seem to want war, but the majority of American people absolutely do not.
Delicate negotiations are not something for the Congress to meddle in. They should do their own job, instead of constantly passing their own record for dysfunction. Repair America's infrastructure, and let the president do his constitutional job of foreign affairs. The president was twice elected by the majority of the nation: these senators were elected by a fraction.
38
Lawrence Tribe talks about setting the Constitution on fire over EPA regulations on coal fired generation, but this move by Sen. Corker and his Congressional allies flies in the face of the Constitution and post World War II American foreign policy and precedent. Congress doesn't have the authority to usurp the President's primacy in matters of foreign policy except by initiating impeachment proceedings against him. If Congress hadn't railed against this President from the moment he took office 6 years ago it might have more credibility this time. Given the history of this Congress with this President, the present actions just seem like another act of political hatred that cares more about discrediting the President and making him fail than about the future well being of America and the World.
18
I assume, since you are in favor of President Obama pursuing the Executive Action Agreement (as then Congress would not have the authority to 'usurp' his Executive Action) as opposed to a full fledged Treaty, which requires a 2/3 approval by the U.S. Congress per the Constitution, that you therefore would also support the authority of the very next President to nullify Obama's Executive Action, since it would be in the Constitutional authority of the next President, or any other subsequent President, to revoke it - since it would merely be an Executive Action Agreement. Unless of course President Obama did chose the Treaty route, which would most assuredly make it very difficult for a future President to nullify - as this would require a 2/3 vote in favor of Congress as well.
3
We do have a precedence in this case. An agreement negotiated and signed by President Reagan on Jan 8 1981 with Iran. I wonder what the Republicans think about President Reagan's deal with Iran right after the hostage crises - really fresh in everyone's mind.
I guess we did not had the AIPAC and the Jewish Lobby
I guess we did not had the AIPAC and the Jewish Lobby
16
This congress cannot fix a pot hole in their district's.
13
Most Americans seek peace in the Middle East, rather than the eternal war that profits and benefits only the military industrial complex and members of the Likud party. Mr. Corker has demonstrated which constituents he stands for----and they are not the taxpayers of his district.
20
The Simple Guide to the Nuclear Negotiations with Iran was very clear and did indeed help me understand what was being negotiated. But what is there is only what Iran will do / give up. I notice there is nothing there that anyone, particularly the US, has to do / give up. I thought (O how naive can one be....) that a negotiation was a give and take activity that aimed to reach a win/win for each side. I wish this graphic had included what items are being discussed for the not-Iran side.
12
The sanctions are the big giveaway on the other side.
That's what the sanctions are. We give them up in exchange for compliance.
Something many seem to be overlooking, it takes 13 Democrats (almost 1/3 of the total number of Democrats) to join the Republicans to produce a veto proof piece of legislation. Therefore this would be a bipartisan derailing of any 'Executive Action' agreement the Obama administration produces.
6
Well, maybe the Obama Administration should simply make a backroom deal with Senator Bob "Pay Day Loans" Corker.
You give the Iran deal support, and we won't take a second bite at the Dodd-Frank apple and try to reign in your friend, W. Allan Jones, who started the payday loan industry with Check Into Cash and whom you protected on the first round of Dodd-Frank financial reform.
Usurious interest rates and perpetual peonage for the most vulnerable workers?
Hey, you got a problem with that?
Senator Bob doesn't.
http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/the-payday-lender-senator-corker-...
You give the Iran deal support, and we won't take a second bite at the Dodd-Frank apple and try to reign in your friend, W. Allan Jones, who started the payday loan industry with Check Into Cash and whom you protected on the first round of Dodd-Frank financial reform.
Usurious interest rates and perpetual peonage for the most vulnerable workers?
Hey, you got a problem with that?
Senator Bob doesn't.
http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/the-payday-lender-senator-corker-...
7
Schumer jumped on the Bill, S615 on Monday to fill some of the gap left by Menendez and act as a source that can reach out to the American Jewish community, to Senate Democrats and the White alike and work to facilitate the most positive outcome for the Bill and more importantly the Framework agreement.
1
I doubt it, Chuck's in bed with Wall Street (oil interests) and AIPAC
4
i don't trust schumer not to put israel's interests first.
4
Israel is bent on regime change in Iran and needs the US as an occupying force. It was the same story in Saddam's Iraq. ( the neo cons said then that "peace in the mideast goes through Bagdahd." Let's not plunge into another senseless middle eastern war.
20
Corker wants us to believe that he actually cares about the Deal, but I do believe that he'd like to go to war with Iran. In reality, it's the same old goal: anything to cause harm to our President. Contemptible.
11
Israel is emboldened by the Republican's primarily. Americans should be furious with the idea of the U.S. having to check with Israel when it relates to foreign policy.
Israel wouldn't have it. They wouldn't stop building settlements even after they were told that it is provoking an all ready deeply contentious situation.
It is the resentment and contempt of Pres. Obama that fuels this. The racial factor is certainly an undercurrent with everything the Congress does, proven by abject disrespect.
Israel and the Republicans will ultimately lose on this one. The American people respect the office of the Presidency, in general. Those who are truly patriotic would never show sheer disdain for their President. Yes, push back , debate, etc. but the Republicans are simply trying to destroy any legacy this president may have as they place every American citizen at risk.
Americans are tired of the foolishness, and will remonstrate in 2016...
Israel wouldn't have it. They wouldn't stop building settlements even after they were told that it is provoking an all ready deeply contentious situation.
It is the resentment and contempt of Pres. Obama that fuels this. The racial factor is certainly an undercurrent with everything the Congress does, proven by abject disrespect.
Israel and the Republicans will ultimately lose on this one. The American people respect the office of the Presidency, in general. Those who are truly patriotic would never show sheer disdain for their President. Yes, push back , debate, etc. but the Republicans are simply trying to destroy any legacy this president may have as they place every American citizen at risk.
Americans are tired of the foolishness, and will remonstrate in 2016...
19
the President should be free to negotiate the best deal he can get for the country. Still once a treaty is negotiated the Senate must ratify the treaty.
In a democracy you may want both parties to put aside their partisan politics for the benefit of the country but that doesn't mean we skirt the Constitutional system we all agreed to abide by.
Unfortunately during the process of negotiating the treaty, which is part of the executive function the Senate and House tried to over reach their respective constitutional mandate.
All of us have the right to free speech including Senators and Congress people. However they aren't just a citizen utilizing their right to free speech when they put their thoughts down on Senate letter head to a foreign leader or invite people to speak at the US Congress for the purpose of undermining the Presidents ability to negotiate. They are using power as elected officials to subvert their constitutional mandate. That still doesn't give the President the right to avoid ratification of treaties by the US Senate.
War just like peace has consequences. This is another example of how we are losing the war on terror.
In a democracy you may want both parties to put aside their partisan politics for the benefit of the country but that doesn't mean we skirt the Constitutional system we all agreed to abide by.
Unfortunately during the process of negotiating the treaty, which is part of the executive function the Senate and House tried to over reach their respective constitutional mandate.
All of us have the right to free speech including Senators and Congress people. However they aren't just a citizen utilizing their right to free speech when they put their thoughts down on Senate letter head to a foreign leader or invite people to speak at the US Congress for the purpose of undermining the Presidents ability to negotiate. They are using power as elected officials to subvert their constitutional mandate. That still doesn't give the President the right to avoid ratification of treaties by the US Senate.
War just like peace has consequences. This is another example of how we are losing the war on terror.
3
One has to wonder whether the republicans allegiance is toward American citizens or Israel's.
12
My guess is that their allegiance is to money
1) sheldon Adelson's campaign contributions
2) Texas oilmen : price of oil goes down as sanctions end and Iranian oil returns to world markets
1) sheldon Adelson's campaign contributions
2) Texas oilmen : price of oil goes down as sanctions end and Iranian oil returns to world markets
The Senate consists of the same Republican nitwits who ignored the weapons inspectors in Iraq and followed the Bush-Cheney cabal into the disastrous war in Iraq which blew up the Middle East. Then the recent lamebrained 47 wrote and insulting letter to the leaders of Iran after having invited the warmongering Netanyahu to make a grandstanding, spit in the eye or every American speech to Congress. NO WAY should this bunch of Obama-hating, lobbyist-owned bunch be allowed anywhere near this treaty that the President, SOS Kerry and the leaders of other nations have put together to ward off a war with Iran.
11
The US Senate is clearly required by the Constitution to advise upon and consent to treaties with a 2/3rds vote. There is no ambiguity in this requirement. It is not "the President's job" - it is the job of the President as advised by, and consented by, 2/3rds of the Senate. No President, not Obama nor anybody else, has the right to make a treaty without the Senate no matter the merits of the treaty.
2
not so clearly. Reagan had an agreement with Iran, I didn't see Congress getting their nose out of joint over it
This is NOT a treaty. This is an agreement between the US, Iran and 5 other nations. The Congress does NOT have a say here.
Whether or not it is a "treaty", or an "executive agreement", there is total transparency in the steps Iran must take under its terms. We will know immediately if there are violations, in which case, the re-imposition of the old sanctions, plus newer and even harsher ones can be imposed.
Why is it necessary now, to allow the politicians of both parties to endanger a very delicate negotiation that has (literally) earth-shattering historical implications?
Why is it necessary now, to allow the politicians of both parties to endanger a very delicate negotiation that has (literally) earth-shattering historical implications?
11
The deal remains a very bad one for the world, but thanks to the brave and persistent efforts of Mr. Netanyahu, it is a much-less-very-bad-deal than it would have been six months ago and, with Senator Corker's help, could get considerably better still.
Go to it, Senator.
Go to it, Senator.
5
SO nice to know that Netanyahu has a say in OUR foreign policy. He should stay out of this. Let him clean up his mess in Israel then he can talk.
16
Specifically what details make the deal a "very bad one for the world?" And specifically what provisions of the deal did the "brave" efforts of Netanyahu cause to become better? And specifically what provisions of the deal will Iran renegotiate in response to Corker? I'm eager to learn from your obvious knowledge and expertise relative to the specifics of the negotiations six months ago and today.
13
It is too bad the opposition to an accord are offering only a military standoff as the alternative. They must not recognize that Iran has a huge military force along with a bellicose attitude. This legislation will, of course,go down by veto.
4
Well, this *is* what your founders envisioned, right? The usurpation of authority by one branch to another. The tree rots from within, not from without.
2
If Congress wants a debate, it should get on with it and if warranted provide a formal resolution to the President on their position on the Iran agreement.
Not sure what the main message is here, but it certainly seems to lean heavily towards assuring the reader that Mr. Corker is hardly a hard-liner and that he has no nefarious partisan intentions.
Problem is that he is pushing for legislation that aims to put the final deal brokered with Iran to an up or down vote by the Congress.
So what happens if the Congress says no to the final agreement, and does it with a veto proof bill?
Does the U.S. just contritely back out while the other five major negotiating nations move on with the agreement, or does the agreement just collapse?
Surely the Congress would not attempt to become the primary agency in some renegotiations based on a mandate for substantive changes to the agreement, they can barely manage the most rudimentary domestic legislative business.
Not sure what the main message is here, but it certainly seems to lean heavily towards assuring the reader that Mr. Corker is hardly a hard-liner and that he has no nefarious partisan intentions.
Problem is that he is pushing for legislation that aims to put the final deal brokered with Iran to an up or down vote by the Congress.
So what happens if the Congress says no to the final agreement, and does it with a veto proof bill?
Does the U.S. just contritely back out while the other five major negotiating nations move on with the agreement, or does the agreement just collapse?
Surely the Congress would not attempt to become the primary agency in some renegotiations based on a mandate for substantive changes to the agreement, they can barely manage the most rudimentary domestic legislative business.
1
As usual the Republican alternative to an Obama initiative (and a crucial one at that) is: nothing. Add to that the fact that the Constitution entrusts conduct of foreign policy to the executive branch (except in the ratification of treaties, which the emerging agreement is not), and you have the sum of the Republican-controlled Congress's competence and right to interfere in these particular dealings with Iran. They may pass all the resolutions they wish, but Corker's kind of interference is harmful.
7
The US Constitution requires 2/3 Senate ratification of any US treaty negotiated by a US President. A treaty is defined as an agreement with any foreign nation.
5
The US Constitution also require every Senator to pledge an oath to the United States, if anyone is violating an agreement, lets start there. How does torpedoing this deal help America? This is all about Israel and its objectives, and last I checked, the US Constitution does not look fondly on those who place a foreign nations interests above America's, and yet that is precisely what we have here.
This is NOT a treaty. It is an agreement between Iran and 5 other nations. Congress has no role here.
Sen. Corker's bi-partisanship aside, the real question here is whether or not our country will betray the other negotiating countries trying to work out this settlement by bringing in our Congress to cast a deciding vote on something the other nations have already agreed on.
I can just imagine that Mr. Netanyahu, who wants us to take on Iran, is champing at the bit to influence the Republicans in Congress to go to war. Does anyone remember how he and his colleagues promoted an unjust war against Iraq, using the same tactics? If this matter is put before Congress for approval, with Netanyahu's influence over the Republicans, it would be dead on arrival and another war would likely follow.
Who could trust Netanyahu and his Likud party again on matters of war and peace when Israel's interest clearly points to war?
I can just imagine that Mr. Netanyahu, who wants us to take on Iran, is champing at the bit to influence the Republicans in Congress to go to war. Does anyone remember how he and his colleagues promoted an unjust war against Iraq, using the same tactics? If this matter is put before Congress for approval, with Netanyahu's influence over the Republicans, it would be dead on arrival and another war would likely follow.
Who could trust Netanyahu and his Likud party again on matters of war and peace when Israel's interest clearly points to war?
15
Donald Coureas@ No one trusts Netanyahu when it relates to war, that is why other nations are involved.
What you so aptly stated...
What you so aptly stated...
2
Congress should advise, not interfere with the President. Let him do his job without sabotaging him again and again.
17
Now Congress decides to get involved in foreign policy --- two wars too late.
16
Since we know there is no language in this agreement that Israel has the right to exist.
With Iran building ICBM's- is there at least any language that the USA has the right to exist?
I thought not.
With Iran building ICBM's- is there at least any language that the USA has the right to exist?
I thought not.
6
our saudi pals don't recognize israel either, and their citizens attacked us on 9/11. want to declare war on them?
“Voting for this legislation will have a positive effect on the negotiations, not a negative effect?"
Republicans exist in an alternate universe. Other than the gullible, no one believes them in this one.
Republicans exist in an alternate universe. Other than the gullible, no one believes them in this one.
8
After 47 republicans took the extraordinary step of sending a letter to a foreign leader trying to scuttle the negotiations our own state department was conducting with with him, we should be under no illusion that sending the final agreement to those same senators, no matter it's merit, will result in anything but more open warfare by the hardliners. Kennedy did not go through the Senate when he and Khrushchev redeployed nuclear armaments away from immediate conflict, nor did Nixon when he dealt with Mao to engage China. Corker seems like a swell guy who should be consulted, but he has no control over his hyper political colleagues, nor is the executive branch obliged to get their approval. So long as the democrats don't sell out to fear of some powerful monied interests attempting to subvert the will of the people.
15
While some are calling this many things it is a treaty. As laid out in the Constitution, it needs to be voted on by the full senate and requires a 2/3 majority.
If this is not attainable, it must not take effect. So simple.
Instead, we will present this treaty to the UN and let Russia and China make the final decision.
If this is a worthy deal, why not follow the normal policy dictum?
If this is not attainable, it must not take effect. So simple.
Instead, we will present this treaty to the UN and let Russia and China make the final decision.
If this is a worthy deal, why not follow the normal policy dictum?
6
So, the congressional brick throwers in the Republican Party have found a palatable front man for their obfuscation of the President and the weasily Democrats have their Israeli advocate to make them appear sorta, kinda hawkish. The tone changes but the cast of characters remains the same and America's influence on the world stage still suffers from congressional second-guessing. Hardly bipartisanship.
True bipartisanship in the case of foreign policy would create a unified foundation for a president seeking to change the violent dynamic of the Middle East.
True bipartisanship in the case of foreign policy would create a unified foundation for a president seeking to change the violent dynamic of the Middle East.
8
There is no deal according to the Iranians. There is only a deal in the mind of a desperate POTUS....This, as "work place accidents" seem to multiply around the world and the Saudis just bombed the Russian consulate in Yemen which was working as the intelligence headquarter for Iran.
In this war of Iran-Russia-China against our allies and interests, are we neutral?
Will we be able to convince our allies that we have their back as we did with Ukraine when it agreed to surrender its nukes?
Maybe for 2 years...as it seems to happen again and again all the POTUSes care about is maintain a semblance of control as they exit the WH and enter the profitable and enjoyable season of their life in the talk circuit.
In this war of Iran-Russia-China against our allies and interests, are we neutral?
Will we be able to convince our allies that we have their back as we did with Ukraine when it agreed to surrender its nukes?
Maybe for 2 years...as it seems to happen again and again all the POTUSes care about is maintain a semblance of control as they exit the WH and enter the profitable and enjoyable season of their life in the talk circuit.
4
Protocol or not, when it relates to congress, we all know with the actions of the congress in regards to this President, have always been contentious.
Congress has proven they will throw America under the bus simply to antagonize Pres. Obama.
As we become the laughing stock of the world....
Congress has proven they will throw America under the bus simply to antagonize Pres. Obama.
As we become the laughing stock of the world....
11
Yes, by leading from behind.
2
Lise P. Cujar@ As of recent, taking the lead has not served America well....
1
The vast majority of the comments here show that there is no analysis of the merits of a critical national security issue. Instead, it is a strictly partisan issue, and the discussion in mainly an attack on Republicans, the state of Tennessee ("peckerwood contingent" and Scopes trial and succession from the Union references), Bush, Israel, etc.
Mr. Obama claims that this is good deal for the US, the Middle East and the world. If it is, then it will withstand scrutiny in Congress.
Mr. Obama claims that this is good deal for the US, the Middle East and the world. If it is, then it will withstand scrutiny in Congress.
4
If it were to be discovered tomorrow and demonstrated to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iran is already in possession of several nuclear weapons, President Obama and his legions of fans would still be in favor of moving ahead with this deal. That is the true and sorry state of affairs this nation is currently contending with.
5
In the land of hypotheticals very little progress is ever made, lets start with what we do know. Israel's PM once before demanded American stop Saddam and his WMD's, and we all know how that worked out. Yet few, if any, who orchestrated the disastrous war on Iraq ever paid a price, in fact they are at it again, and you would seem to be following their advice, again. What do they say about fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me?
President Obama admitted that he is "kicking the ball down the road" to another President when he told NPR in an interview yesterday that Iran will have great ability to produce WMD atom bombs when his "deal" ends. President Obama is excellent at structuring things so they go bad after he leaves office or after an election. Don't you see a pattern here?
4
The Republician Party will do anything to defeat the President no matter the cost to the Country. Perhaps someone, the NYT? could provide the public with a list of the money Israel provides the Republicians in Congress.
11
Got to think its the money. Wish someone would ask these guys to point to Iran on a map. These are same guys bringing snowballs to deny climate change. Guess Fox news does not know where California is. Everybody has an axe to grind the only ones who pay is our troops. Lets bring back the draft with no exemptions. Bet we would do a lot of talking then.
1
Corker needs to get out of the way of peace. Everyone knows the GOP does the bidding of Netanyahu and not the citizens of the US who approve the framework of this deal. I doubt Corker has the interest of the American people at heart- it is about his political career and showing his donors he has the so called backbone to stand up for war mongering business as usual by trying to subvert this agreement before it even gets finalized. By meddling in this agreement and trying to insert the GOP controlled Senate where it has no business to do so, he knows once the GOP gets a foothold, they will do everything they can to derail this agreement- because that's what Netanyahu and Halliburton want- not the American majority.
10
Kudos to the President for reaching out and building the relationship with Corker. We can only hope that any parallels drawn to Howard Baker turn out to be more and more evident, and more real. The beginnings of the Reagan revolution in which the Republican party sold out to the right wing appears to have been marked in time by the rejection of Baker as Reagan's running mate. For similar reasons we shouldn't expect to see a President or Vice President Corker.
I see a larger Big Oil/Fossil Fuel dimension to the Republicans' hesitancy to a peace treaty with Iran than has been reported in the national media. As reflected in Morgan Stanley's reports to its clients about the investment landscape, a deal with Iran should be expected to contribute to oil prices remaining low. Low oil prices is a huge loser for the Republicans because it makes a lot of people happy but means a continuation of significantly reduced profits to the industry that dominates the Party and fills its campaign coffers. And the Koch Brothers and other right wing forces at work in this country do not care whether a politician is a Republican or Democrat, only that he or she is easily corruptible with $.
I see a larger Big Oil/Fossil Fuel dimension to the Republicans' hesitancy to a peace treaty with Iran than has been reported in the national media. As reflected in Morgan Stanley's reports to its clients about the investment landscape, a deal with Iran should be expected to contribute to oil prices remaining low. Low oil prices is a huge loser for the Republicans because it makes a lot of people happy but means a continuation of significantly reduced profits to the industry that dominates the Party and fills its campaign coffers. And the Koch Brothers and other right wing forces at work in this country do not care whether a politician is a Republican or Democrat, only that he or she is easily corruptible with $.
4
AS I read the comments, I get the same sick feeling that I got when Sarah Palin called Obamacare (ACA) the "Death Panel Law"....
IN a way Netanyahu/Neocon Slogans of Iran's Nuclear Program is an "Existential Threat To Israel" is another "Bogus Talking Point That Has No Base In Fact Nor In Science".
AND that is Red Meat for the "GOP Do Nothing Congress".
IN FACT The US Presidents are the ONLY Elected Officials That Are Elected By All Americans As Opposed To By Any Single State and That IS Why The Constitution Has Empowered Them To Speak For America On The International Stage.
I URGE Mr. Obama To Take His Case Directly To The American People And Ask Them To Support Him By Writing To Their Senators And Congressmen And Organizing Peace Rallies So To Silence The Sarah Palins Of The World.
ANYONE Thinking We Would Get A better Deal Is Delusional At Best Or Is An Outright Liar.
IN a way Netanyahu/Neocon Slogans of Iran's Nuclear Program is an "Existential Threat To Israel" is another "Bogus Talking Point That Has No Base In Fact Nor In Science".
AND that is Red Meat for the "GOP Do Nothing Congress".
IN FACT The US Presidents are the ONLY Elected Officials That Are Elected By All Americans As Opposed To By Any Single State and That IS Why The Constitution Has Empowered Them To Speak For America On The International Stage.
I URGE Mr. Obama To Take His Case Directly To The American People And Ask Them To Support Him By Writing To Their Senators And Congressmen And Organizing Peace Rallies So To Silence The Sarah Palins Of The World.
ANYONE Thinking We Would Get A better Deal Is Delusional At Best Or Is An Outright Liar.
11
The Treaty Clause of the Constitution empowers the President to negotiate agreements which must be confirmed by a supermajority of the Senate. The clause does not prohibit other agreements, such as have been common throughout history, the validity of which have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
The US has entered into thousands of international agreements which are not treaties. Generally agreements by Executive Order are held valid when concerning matters within the President’s authority or when the Congress has delegated such authority to the President. Many international agreements have been by Executive Order.
US sanctions against Iran have largely been Executive Orders. There has been legislation empowering the President to impose and waive sanctions. The sanctions acts have not sanctioned the government of Iran, as seems to be misunderstood. Rather, they sanction Americans by prohibiting our trade with Iran, Iranians, or the government of Iran.
Under most recent legislation the President may waive sanctions against American interests wishing to engage in trade with Iran.
For its part, in the collaborated agreement between the P5 + 1 and Iran, the US makes the concession to do so, to waive some or all of these sanctions against Americans, in return for Iran’s agreement to make its diverse concessions.
The US has entered into thousands of international agreements which are not treaties. Generally agreements by Executive Order are held valid when concerning matters within the President’s authority or when the Congress has delegated such authority to the President. Many international agreements have been by Executive Order.
US sanctions against Iran have largely been Executive Orders. There has been legislation empowering the President to impose and waive sanctions. The sanctions acts have not sanctioned the government of Iran, as seems to be misunderstood. Rather, they sanction Americans by prohibiting our trade with Iran, Iranians, or the government of Iran.
Under most recent legislation the President may waive sanctions against American interests wishing to engage in trade with Iran.
For its part, in the collaborated agreement between the P5 + 1 and Iran, the US makes the concession to do so, to waive some or all of these sanctions against Americans, in return for Iran’s agreement to make its diverse concessions.
2
Corker just hates Obama and Republicans will do anything to hurt him. More Obama Derangement Syndrome.
7
Back your president! Geeze, democrats are such utter wimps!
9
Since when do Senators, much less a lone one, determine our foreign policy? We have our own house to take care of; how about passing legislation that deals with crippling drought, inadequate healthcare initiatives, failing infrastructure, educational opportunities, maternity/paternity leave, minimum wage law...
I could go on but you get the idea. Even dealing with ONE of these issues would make you a hero. But sure, let's spend your time in office mucking up our already tarnished international street cred.
I could go on but you get the idea. Even dealing with ONE of these issues would make you a hero. But sure, let's spend your time in office mucking up our already tarnished international street cred.
7
The US Constitution requires the Senate to ratify all treaties by a 2/3 majority.
2
If Senator Corker is actually a "good and decent" gentleman seeking to add his measure of reasoned deliberation to these proceedings, fine. But he is a Republican. His party left reasoned deliberation behind losing ago in kowtowing to its unreasoning rabid base. I don't want their worldviews anywhere near this process.
10
47 senators have already shown their partisan and ham-fisted approach to this deal. god forbid they get any ability smash it like a child kicking an elaborate tower of blocks. if the senate wants to play an appropriate role in foreign policy, they might try passing a use of force agreement.
4
Sen Corker states that a non-binding vote has "no substance". The same may be said of his proposal - it contains absolutely nothing of substance about the issue in question. It is strictly a "concept", an idea that the Senate would vote on something that is yet to be determined.
It's time for the Senate to "get real" about the real stakes here and learn from history. In the most recent "test" of the efficacy of inspections for WMD's was the case of Iraq. The inspectors reported that there were no WMDs -- and they were right. But, the Bush-Cheney neo-cons decided to ignore their findings and go to war (with Congress following like lemmings). The war destabilized the Middle East and cost the U S dearly in many ways.
If Sen Corker and his fellow senators did their history homework, they'd be passing a non-binding resolution supporting the conclusion of this agreement instead of threatening to override it. That would be a move that truly had "substance."
It's time for the Senate to "get real" about the real stakes here and learn from history. In the most recent "test" of the efficacy of inspections for WMD's was the case of Iraq. The inspectors reported that there were no WMDs -- and they were right. But, the Bush-Cheney neo-cons decided to ignore their findings and go to war (with Congress following like lemmings). The war destabilized the Middle East and cost the U S dearly in many ways.
If Sen Corker and his fellow senators did their history homework, they'd be passing a non-binding resolution supporting the conclusion of this agreement instead of threatening to override it. That would be a move that truly had "substance."
7
I actually support Senator Corker's intentions.
Trouble is, I don't trust the rest of his party. And I don't blame the White House for sharing that mistrust.
Senators like Corker (and Sen. Flake from AZ), whatever their ideology, seem to genuinely want to engage the WH on this issue. But theirs is a party teeming with cheap demagogues like Cruz and Cotton, opportunistic presidential candidates like Rubio or Paul (for whom opposing whatever deal is brought to the table - given that it was negotiated by hated Obama - is a primary prerequisite), or senators like McCain and Graham, for whom foreign policy starts and ends with the same thing: war.
Hard to take seriously a political party that doesn't take its mandate seriously.
Trouble is, I don't trust the rest of his party. And I don't blame the White House for sharing that mistrust.
Senators like Corker (and Sen. Flake from AZ), whatever their ideology, seem to genuinely want to engage the WH on this issue. But theirs is a party teeming with cheap demagogues like Cruz and Cotton, opportunistic presidential candidates like Rubio or Paul (for whom opposing whatever deal is brought to the table - given that it was negotiated by hated Obama - is a primary prerequisite), or senators like McCain and Graham, for whom foreign policy starts and ends with the same thing: war.
Hard to take seriously a political party that doesn't take its mandate seriously.
75
..and just as hard to take seriously an executive who flouts our laws and thinks he can subvert the Constitution.
3
Its not about stopping Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. Israel has been hanging that straw man out front for over a decade, saying a nuke would be ready within a year. Members of the US Congress have been saying for just as long they want to bomb Iran. But its not about that.
Its more about sanctions. Lifting the sanctions results in Iranian oil hitting the market, displeasing many of our allies and corporations. It also means money could flow in and out of Iran, making them more liquid. Israel likes the collar on Iran's neck with the sanctions, but taking that collar off they fear will result in a stronger Iran, with more regional influence, more money and easier ways to fund Hezbollah.
Corker and the others in Congress are just voting for their constituencies – the corporations that fund them.
Its more about sanctions. Lifting the sanctions results in Iranian oil hitting the market, displeasing many of our allies and corporations. It also means money could flow in and out of Iran, making them more liquid. Israel likes the collar on Iran's neck with the sanctions, but taking that collar off they fear will result in a stronger Iran, with more regional influence, more money and easier ways to fund Hezbollah.
Corker and the others in Congress are just voting for their constituencies – the corporations that fund them.
2
I don't know much about Senator Corker, but this article gives me hope that there are still some sane individuals in Congress. HOWEVER, regardless of how decent the man may be, and how reasonable his bill might turn out, it will still be politicized once it hits the floor of the Senate, not to mention the yahoos in the House. If Corker's bill makes it to the President's desk, I'd be astonished.
With that said, I'd think its unconstitutional anyway, since its one of the Executive branch's primary roles to conduct foreign policy. The founding fathers were right to keep this power out of Congress' hands, since they are the deliberative organ of government and can't act nimbly enough. They need to steer clear of the Iran negotiations until something concrete and in-writing comes out of the process. We've just gotten past the first hurdle, and there are lots of things that could halt the process. Let's let the diplomats do their jobs!
With that said, I'd think its unconstitutional anyway, since its one of the Executive branch's primary roles to conduct foreign policy. The founding fathers were right to keep this power out of Congress' hands, since they are the deliberative organ of government and can't act nimbly enough. They need to steer clear of the Iran negotiations until something concrete and in-writing comes out of the process. We've just gotten past the first hurdle, and there are lots of things that could halt the process. Let's let the diplomats do their jobs!
2
If someone ever took the time to examine Sen. Corker's history and consensus building moves, they would find he more closely resembles President JFK and the later term President Clinton than most of his critics would ever guess.
There is a reason President Obama is not just trying to blast through Sen. Corker.
Think clearly. Policy conducted by executive order can be easily undone by the same.
This "framework" deal is incredibly fragile, and if someone wants it to accomplish more than headline generation, then there must be a larger group of willing participants to support it beyond President Obama's last week in office.
Corker is, and has been, a cross-party collaborator - usually behind the scenes - which is what any President needs.
There is a reason President Obama is not just trying to blast through Sen. Corker.
Think clearly. Policy conducted by executive order can be easily undone by the same.
This "framework" deal is incredibly fragile, and if someone wants it to accomplish more than headline generation, then there must be a larger group of willing participants to support it beyond President Obama's last week in office.
Corker is, and has been, a cross-party collaborator - usually behind the scenes - which is what any President needs.
13
You're right about Corker. Obama needs him to get the votes, and will promise the world for his support.
Obama will hold up the Iran agreement as his best foreign policy move, and Kerry will use it to make another ill-fated run. Politicians are sick people and infect those around them.
I think Iran has been continuing to develop the "bomb" and delivery systems non-stop, and will continue to do so.
Obama will hold up the Iran agreement as his best foreign policy move, and Kerry will use it to make another ill-fated run. Politicians are sick people and infect those around them.
I think Iran has been continuing to develop the "bomb" and delivery systems non-stop, and will continue to do so.
How absurd to think that the one hundred member Senate, with all it's ties to lobbyiets, corporate donars, and of course AIPAC can speak with a clear untainted voice on a matter as complex as this nuclear agrement with Iran.
All nations must have a voice that leaders of other countries can rely on. For us that voice resides in the presidency, whether occupied by Obama or someone else. The Senate should be informed and "consulted" but not made part of the negotiating team. The separation of powers requires that much of our foreign policy reside with the executive branch. Let's keep it that way. The Senate can monitor the progress under the agreement with periodic hearings, but should stay out of the negotiating business.
All nations must have a voice that leaders of other countries can rely on. For us that voice resides in the presidency, whether occupied by Obama or someone else. The Senate should be informed and "consulted" but not made part of the negotiating team. The separation of powers requires that much of our foreign policy reside with the executive branch. Let's keep it that way. The Senate can monitor the progress under the agreement with periodic hearings, but should stay out of the negotiating business.
2
Foreign policy negotiations in the US are solely in the realm of the executive branch, including arms agreements. President Obama would need permission from Congress if he wanted to to start a hot war - as his predecessor did.
Should the agreement between the P5 + 1 and Iran come to fruition, the only leverage our 'great' legislators have is to not reverse the sanctions that Congress itself has leveled against Iran. The other nations are not obliged to do the same, and the Brits, France, China, Russia and Germany will be happy to do business with Iran.
As others have noted here, Israel did not sit around the negotiation table in Lausanne. As an American Jew, I am getting sick and tired of the arch-right PM Netanyahu meddling in both the domestic and foreign policies of the US, a country that is giving them billions of dollars to keep their military might - one that includes The Bomb - greater than any other country in that region.
Should the agreement between the P5 + 1 and Iran come to fruition, the only leverage our 'great' legislators have is to not reverse the sanctions that Congress itself has leveled against Iran. The other nations are not obliged to do the same, and the Brits, France, China, Russia and Germany will be happy to do business with Iran.
As others have noted here, Israel did not sit around the negotiation table in Lausanne. As an American Jew, I am getting sick and tired of the arch-right PM Netanyahu meddling in both the domestic and foreign policies of the US, a country that is giving them billions of dollars to keep their military might - one that includes The Bomb - greater than any other country in that region.
3
Bob Corker is from the mold of Lyndon Johnson.He has the ability & desire to work across the aisle, unlike Obama. It is this kind of Politician that we need to bring together a divided Congress. Why isn't he running for President ?
9
You know, you folks keep blathering on and on and on about your president's "inability to work across the aisle," so that much that's become its own fact in your eyes. It is patently untrue and has been demonstrated time and time again, yet you people continue to fall for that canard. And you think yourselves *good* for it, too.
To work with the opposing party is building a relationship with those of the other party. Obama has no desire to do that , and has never done it. He has a small enclave of yes men within his own party. He is a major reason that congress is so divided.
2
Really Ultraliberal? Obama has refused to reach across the isle? We see very different realities. In the real world the GOP conspired, on the night of Obama's first inaguration, to obstruct everything. It didn't matter if they agreed or not. The plan was pure obstruction, and ever since then we've seen nothing but republican obstruction.
That is not what people based in reality calls reaching across the isle.
That is not what people based in reality calls reaching across the isle.
2
I have been a huge supporter of our President, including a routine funder of his initiatives, but I was shaken when I watched the staggering amount of pandering to Israel in the first portion of the tape. I stopped watching half way through the second question, as he was like a love struck puppy who went on and on about how we should all worship Israel, no matter what they do. We have a serious, serious problem when an overtly incorruptible politician is so completely over the top in supporting any foreign country, much less our eternal aid recipient. Every US politician seems to to have succumbed to the Israel-First foreign policy for a totally inexplicable reason to the 98% of us who are not Jewish. We need to show up en masse on the day of Corkers' Rebellion to remind our 535 naked emperors who is the actual boss. I will show up on the National Mall and hope a million or two others are there as well. This sell-out has to be met with sheer force of our democracy, and soon.
1
Bob Corker is a rare species in the GOP camp! In a week members of the Foreign Relations Committee are planning to vote on his legislation, giving Congress 60 days after a nuclear deal is reached to decide if they want to waive sanctions against Iran.
Can Corker prevent the Congress from blowing the deal up? Even though there are potential risks of an agreement with Iran, Corker should find a way to convince his intransigent peers. He ought to see what is good for the international community rather than the illusionary aims of America's allies in the Middle East.
Can Corker prevent the Congress from blowing the deal up? Even though there are potential risks of an agreement with Iran, Corker should find a way to convince his intransigent peers. He ought to see what is good for the international community rather than the illusionary aims of America's allies in the Middle East.
My respect for the Senate is only slightly higher than that for Congress.
I see Mr. Corker as one of the more reasonable voices in the Senate GOP and GOP in general. I definitely do not agree with him on some issues, this is one.
That being said, I think a vote on any agreement would be less than constructive because of the partisan bias exhibited by both chambers.
An agreement on limiting nuclear weapons is a start, much like it was with the Russians. It is not a be all end all solution. Inflammatory rhetoric on both sides does little to resolve our differences. Too many Americans forget that we toppled Iran's elected government and supported the Shah, prior to their revolution. The pendulum swings both ways...
I see Mr. Corker as one of the more reasonable voices in the Senate GOP and GOP in general. I definitely do not agree with him on some issues, this is one.
That being said, I think a vote on any agreement would be less than constructive because of the partisan bias exhibited by both chambers.
An agreement on limiting nuclear weapons is a start, much like it was with the Russians. It is not a be all end all solution. Inflammatory rhetoric on both sides does little to resolve our differences. Too many Americans forget that we toppled Iran's elected government and supported the Shah, prior to their revolution. The pendulum swings both ways...
3
On this issue, and increasingly concerning others as well, I would actually prefer unilateral executive action to 'checks and balances'. As a well educated person who tries to have a nuanced view of the world, I can say with confidence that Congress does not represent people like me. Their tiresome political gamesmanship is an unwelcome distraction from the delicate diplomacy being exercised by the executive branch. That diplomacy has a coherent message that the administration has laid out; any addition by Congress can only water down the message with pandering to right wing fear-mongers. Please Mr Corker, choose another vitally important issue to inject your party's vitriol into.
37
What else to call it but mutiny when Democratic Senators, including the would be new leader of the minority Democrats, Sen. Chuck Schumer, would align themselves with the opposing Republicans and against the President to undermine the Iran deal.
18
Well, at least we haven't heard the accusation of "treason" yet. Only a matter of time now.
5
"What else to call it but mutiny when Democratic Senators, including the would be new leader of the minority Democrats, Sen. Chuck Schumer, would align themselves with the opposing Republicans and against the President to undermine the Iran deal."
Do you think it's possible that the Jewish lobby has something to do with Mr. Schumer's position on the deal? Money talks and Schumer walks.
Do you think it's possible that the Jewish lobby has something to do with Mr. Schumer's position on the deal? Money talks and Schumer walks.
1
What else to call it?
How about "advise and consent", just as intended in the Constitution?
How about "advise and consent", just as intended in the Constitution?
The agreement has to be presented to the Senate only if it reaches the level of a treaty. The agreement (AFAIK) does not meet that test. However, if the president does want to get their advice and consent, a non binding resolution would be the appropriate path.
5
Republicans attack the President for the interim agreement; they do not attack the substance of the agreement or what needs yet to be negotiated. They say the Iranians cannot be trusted to keep their word. But then they say that a bad deal is worse than no deal, and they wanted the President to walk away and keep the sanctions in place to get a "better deal." They contradict themselves. If they have a problem with what is on the table, let them speak now about the substance. The alternative to a deal now is to allow the Iranians to keep working towards a bomb which will require, sooner or later, a military response which will turn the Iranian people against us for a hundred years and cause the Iranians to refuse to deal, period, and lead to broader war. The President should challenge the Republicans--put up or shut up.
13
Just think if we had a Congress of Bob Corker types on either side of the aisle, with the idea to get something accomplished rather than partisan bickering. He appears to be a throwback from a time when Congress actually cared about the country first, party second.
4
The GOP wants to bomb Iran. Always has always will, especially those Republicans who have never worn a uniform. This has little to do with "executive overreach" or whatever they call it.
19
Republicans are not the source, they are responding to pressure from special interests groups, predominately those such as AIPAC...
The real question is, what deal do we have with Iran?
5
Maybe Senator Corker is one of the few who have looked up the word compromise and is trying just that.
3
Considering the mental calibre not to mention the ignorance, arrogance and foolishness of so many of its members I frankly don't think the American Congress at this time in history should be even given the time of day let alone "approval" of any action on the part of President Obama.
22
Yes, let's go the 'benevolent dictator' way. That's worked out so well in the past. Of course I'm sure you will remain on top.
1
The encomiums to Senator Corker are politically charged. He is praised for his advocacy of a "comprehensive immigration reform bill" (S.744) that was a mendacious piece of legislation that would have resulted in programs to import massive numbers of low-skill and uneducated labor to drop wages and devastate America's working class and working poor. It was corporatism at its worst, and he cynically larded the bill with billions (that no one ever expected to be spent) on "border security measures" to win over skeptical Republicans. All the praise from the Democrats and White House suggests Corker is seen as a guy with whom "business can be done" in the very worst sense of what that means. Rather than compromise with the Mullahs, who are already deconstructing the "outline' of an agreement in Lausanne, we need to dig in. Perhaps Corker will. I am hopeful. But past experience shows that rather than being the Great Statesman described here he is ready to go along to get along.
3
The US Constitution provides overlap between the executive and legislative branches relative to foreign policy, and throughout history, there have been periods of dominance of one branch over he other. Since WWII, it has not been a matter of conservative or liberal: Presidents Nixon, Reagan, Kennedy, LBJ, and both Bush's have dominated during their terms. During the Eisenhauer and Clinton terms, the Congress dominated. But one thing that history does tell us is that no matter who dominates, when there is clear communication and cooperation between the two branches, things work best for our nation. What some legislators refuse to recognize, and what most citizens simply do not understand is that the purpose of this agreement with Iran, the USA, and the 5 other major economic world powers, is to limit Iran's use of nuclear power to that of peaceful purposes - and not nuclear weapons. None of the sanctions regarding human rights and terrorism, which were put in place over the past 40 years can or will be lifted as a result of this agreement. Only the sanctions applied during the Obama Administration, applied by America and our negotiating partners can be lifted as a result of international inspectors finding that Iran is in compliance with the agreement. Unfortunately, in this age of 140 character twitters - few people are thinking!
10
Including Congress.
1
Senator Bob Corker may be a reasonable man, but his position, and certainly that of his Republican colleagues in the Senate, on the potential nuclear "deal" with Iran is not. The deal is the result of many years of negotiations by an international group called the "P5 + 1" composed of the major world powers--the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) plus Germany. It is simply irresponsible and likely a violation of the "separation of powers" in the Constitution to demand the final say in approving such a deal. It would be more reasonable and useful for Mr. Corker to work with President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry in finalizing the actual terms of the deal than "playing Monday morning quarterback." Waging peace, not war, should never be a partisan political issue.
22
This would be a reasonable assessment of the negotiating partners' stance if you didn't know the dynamics at work behind the scenes. An Iranian defector who worked as a media aid for Rouhani made this startling claim* about the Americans' role in the negotiations:
“The U.S. negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal."
Speaking on Iran's behalf. Is this really how you envisioned the Americans would be conducting the negotiations? It is understandable that Israel would be concerned to learn of the US' position as the Iranian "advocate."
******
* "Pro-Hassan Rouhani Iranian editor defects while covering nuclear talks in Lausanne"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11500145/Pro-H...
“The U.S. negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal."
Speaking on Iran's behalf. Is this really how you envisioned the Americans would be conducting the negotiations? It is understandable that Israel would be concerned to learn of the US' position as the Iranian "advocate."
******
* "Pro-Hassan Rouhani Iranian editor defects while covering nuclear talks in Lausanne"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11500145/Pro-H...
5
I find it sad that when the Times writes an article on someone trying to meet in the middle to gain consensus to move the country forward there is still those who must go to the dark side. Let's see how this plays out. My guess is that Corker and Dems who want to meet in the middle will be overcome by the far lefties in the White House and the far righties in Congress.
Please don't denegra someone for trying to reach compromise.
Please don't denegra someone for trying to reach compromise.
8
Is he really looking for compromise? Or trying to undermine the President? Yeah, let's see how it plays out - how Pres. Obama's deal plays out that is
8
Others like China and the rest can alone relate to Iran and the whole issue.We matter little and way out of proportion.In the end we will be left alone to sulk.
4
Another one of those silly NYT speculations. The notion that 10 Democrats are going to vote against their own president in order to hand the Republican war party a big victory is nonsense. I don't care how white Corker's hair is.
18
If--- IF--- Iran complies it just pushes their acquisition of a bomb down the road, Obama just said as much in an interview. Death to America is chanted at public rallies in Iran on a regular basis, do you really think they'll comply? Liberals are baring their teeth at Chuck Schumer because he won't move in lockstep with Obama. I guess it's only OK for democrats to vote their conscience when they are doing whatever Obama says, even if its handing the bomb to a country that chants "Death to America" at public rallies.
11
@Jordan
So why are we cooperating on the quiet with Iran in Iraq? And you're perhaps unaware that one of the unintended consequence of the Bush fiasco in Iraq was to turn into an Iranian satellite.
So why are we cooperating on the quiet with Iran in Iraq? And you're perhaps unaware that one of the unintended consequence of the Bush fiasco in Iraq was to turn into an Iranian satellite.
18
This is the classic mistake about Iran--to assume that it is a monolith. There are reformers and hardliners, progressives and conservatives, young and old, rural and urban, fanatics and secularists. Part of the reason why this deal is such a dazzling accomplishment is that it strengthens moderates and reformers in Iran and sidelines the hardliners (who have, like our homegrown hardliners, also been agitating to disrupt the deal--partly by trying to persuade the west that they wouldn't honor any deal). Normalizing relationships with the US has been the prize for a generation. Obama has made sure it ends up in the hands of the right people.
Fun fact: the warmongering, racist, saber-rattling, pro-torture, misogynist, religious hypocrisy faction in Iran are also known as the "Republicans" (IRGC).
Fun fact: the warmongering, racist, saber-rattling, pro-torture, misogynist, religious hypocrisy faction in Iran are also known as the "Republicans" (IRGC).
11
The Chinese under Mao had rallies that would make the Iranians look soft. He had nukes and made threat against the US and was involved in a hot war with us in Korea. That did not stop Nixon from reaching out because the calculation was that the Soviets would be in a disadvantage and America would gain. The Sunnie extremist such as ISIS and their Saudi backers are a bigger threat to the US than Iran. The question is whether those in Congress are willing to make decisions on American interest or those based on foreign lobbyist be it Saudi Arabia or Israel. It will be a tragedy if at this point we are not able to take advantage of a strategic opening to weaken the threat we face..
9
First of all this is not a treaty it is an agreement of more than one country involved and guide lines to for next step. Second of all with this being in negotiations to nail down the precise language the Congress will have plenty of time go over it. Legislation is not needed and worsen any chance for an extensive agreement the provide the safety to all Europe and the middle east.
If I ran were to break any part of the agreement then we could go back to where we started imposing sanctions.
If I ran were to break any part of the agreement then we could go back to where we started imposing sanctions.
19
Exactly! So many commenters here seem to forget that what's being discussed is a possible agreement among 6 countries, not just the US & Iran. As the President has stated, if Iran reneged on the terms of the agreement, we'd go back to sanctions.
The Iranian population wants to join the rest of the world. They do not long for nuclear war.
NOT negotiating with Iran serves no purpose –except to Israel, who doesn't seem to understand one simple thing: NO agreement means Iran will in fact develop their nuclear weapons sooner rather than later.
The Iranian population wants to join the rest of the world. They do not long for nuclear war.
NOT negotiating with Iran serves no purpose –except to Israel, who doesn't seem to understand one simple thing: NO agreement means Iran will in fact develop their nuclear weapons sooner rather than later.
10
Dear Congress:
No one cares about you.
Yours,
USA
No one cares about you.
Yours,
USA
31
Seventy-four percent percent of the American people voted in the latest non partisan Pew poll that Congress should be involved and sixty-nine percent said they should have the final say.
What are you so afraid of? Congress has the right to vote to remove the sanctions it imposed. Obama is President not King.
What are you so afraid of? Congress has the right to vote to remove the sanctions it imposed. Obama is President not King.
5
Interesting. I can get very fed up with congress, and , like many Americans, I abhor the stand still. But "not care?" Not care is one of our huge problems. Only worse problem is ignoring congress, either the people ignoring it, or, worse, the Administration ignoring it. I wonder if Anthony would have the same view if there were more people on the other side of the aisle?
2
Jack, you calculate like a Republican statistician. The Pew poll didn't ask 100% of the American people and that "Seventy-four percent" you cite isn't 74% of them. It's a tiny sample of a tiny sample. Your instinct for disproportion must be what impels you to project your fears so aggressively.
Poor Mr. Netanyahu. Another day of vitriolic reader comments aimed directly at him simply because he means it when he says "never again."
7
he's got 200 nuclear weapons, and has agreed to no inspections. never again should israel set our policy in the middle east by playing victims when they are armed to the teeth.
1
never again means never again for everyone.
"Never again" should read to ALL people, not just his own. He would have death and destruction rain down upon the Iranians, JUST like he pushed for the Iraq's destruction. Sorry, all life is equally valuable, that seems to be a hard concept for those like Netanyahu to grasp.
Senator Bob Corker has the opportunity to play an important role in this historic agreement. Or, he can play a role cast by the Senate Republican leadership, namely to continue denying this president any victory, at whatever cost to the country.
26
Are the members of the Senate willing to take time to consider the agreements as they are completed? I doubt that they are willing to take the time to understand complex negotiations. If not willing to,devote the time to do it right, forget trying.
9
If Senator Corker is as judicious and eager to reach across the great divide in Congress, he sounds like a dream come true. The devil is in the details however--as his goal seems to be to destroy the President's Iranian deal rather than fix it.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt but it wouldn't surprise me if Congress ends up upending a deal that, while far from perfect, is a shot at peace and an arrest to the knee-jerk "let's go to war" attitudes that have really changed the heart and soul of our foreign policy in the past 15 years.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt but it wouldn't surprise me if Congress ends up upending a deal that, while far from perfect, is a shot at peace and an arrest to the knee-jerk "let's go to war" attitudes that have really changed the heart and soul of our foreign policy in the past 15 years.
15
I have the highest respect for President Obama's restraint and tactfulness in handling Corker--the best strategy for dealing with a well-ensconced petty despot is cajoling and flattery. But I have no diplomatic obligations to uphold and prefer the truth: the Republican party has become dangerously deranged, selling out our environment to corporations, our democracy to billionaires, and our national security priorities (to wit: lasting peace) to warhawks in Israel. Under no circumstances will I forgive or forget what the Republicans have done in my lifetime. They will never have my trust again.
63
Of course Congress should have some role, at least in advice, over the results of these negotiations. But we all know at this point what that means. Mr Corker from Tennessee is not the pivotal force in Congress but rather the Senator from Israel, Mr Netanyahu who wags their dog. Both of these Republicans, like all the rest, mean only to see Mr Obama fail, at whatever cost. And so America will move closer to war again when these negotiations are finally scuttled by Congress. What else could possibly happen give our political dysfunction?
32
It seems to me that the Obama strategy is designed to build a foundation for strengthening the more moderate voices in Iran; whether he is on the right path or whistling past the graveyard is absolutely something congress should look into.
The President has his powers afforded to him by the constitution, congress is required to check that power.
Democracy is messy and often imperfect, however, it is infinitely better than the system it was designed to overcome. One that is not dissimilar to the theocracy in Iran.
The President has his powers afforded to him by the constitution, congress is required to check that power.
Democracy is messy and often imperfect, however, it is infinitely better than the system it was designed to overcome. One that is not dissimilar to the theocracy in Iran.
5
Very frankly President Obama has a long history of speaking half truths. His pledge to unite America , his lies about ACA and "you can keep your doctor...", his claims to want to work with Republicans while vilifying them constantly have earned him many Pinnochio awards which will be his legacy. He has drawn red lines only to ignore them. Trust is lacking in the president by allies and citizenry .Why should we now believe him that the Iran nuclear negotiations are a good deal? Only his most ardent followers will step up to drink his Kool -aid. Congress must ratify any Iranian agreement to give it credibility.
10
The President has to keep making the case just like Sunday with Freidman. Keep telling the American people what's what and that there is really no other choice but to engage the world where we can. Put these Senators on the defensive. You have to remember that Israel runs our foreign policy. This congress gave a standing ovation to themselves when they passed an emergency money bill for Israel while they massacred 2,000 Palestinians this summer.
Every time there is good news about Iran and Cuba, the stock market goes up. The whole world wants to get past this and start really working to stabilize the Middle East. And if it ever gets to war with Iran, it will be Israel & the U.S. against everyone else. It is amazing to me that these Senators don't see this. Mr Obama please get out there now !!!! Don't let Fox news and all the others steal the narrative, it has already started.
Every time there is good news about Iran and Cuba, the stock market goes up. The whole world wants to get past this and start really working to stabilize the Middle East. And if it ever gets to war with Iran, it will be Israel & the U.S. against everyone else. It is amazing to me that these Senators don't see this. Mr Obama please get out there now !!!! Don't let Fox news and all the others steal the narrative, it has already started.
31
We should have let the South secede. That way they could have their own little theocracy and fight as many wars as they'd like, bless their hearts....
34
Tempting, of course, but we would have a crazed failed state on our border.
If this is the "good deal" the President has stated it will be, free and open debate and a real ratification vote by Congress on its merits should be welcome.
Instead, we're hearing Obama just wants the Congress to "express itself?"
Given his Administrations never ending foreign policy disasters, why am I not encouraged?
Instead, we're hearing Obama just wants the Congress to "express itself?"
Given his Administrations never ending foreign policy disasters, why am I not encouraged?
8
This is not a treaty, understand? Congress has no role here.
Yea right- you need to get out more.
1
British PM, David Cameron has asserted that the agreement with Iran represented "a good chance to achieve peace in the region and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons".
British soldiers have fought and died alongside their American allies in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They did so regardless of who was the US President, Bush or Obama.
Why are the Republicans in Congress now so dismissive of Britain’s efforts to secure a deal with Iran? Why are they now treating our proven loyal ally as an enemy?
British soldiers have fought and died alongside their American allies in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They did so regardless of who was the US President, Bush or Obama.
Why are the Republicans in Congress now so dismissive of Britain’s efforts to secure a deal with Iran? Why are they now treating our proven loyal ally as an enemy?
36
Corker wants his say, whether it's constitutional or not. Just another attempt to attack Obama by the peckerwood contingent.
27
This President makes it very difficult to believe what he says.
9
By all accounts, Mr Corker appears to be a reasonable voice in the otherwise dysfunctional GOP. He at least did not sign the letter authored by Mr Cotton that warned the Iranians of the GOP intent to undermine the negotiations.
That said, we are still talking about republican politicians who are committed to undermine our president, his domestic legislation, our foreign policy and our economy simply and solely for political gain. A republican party that would gladly turn the clock back to the 50's to secure the supremacy of state's rights. The 1850s. A republican party that genuflects to Mr Netanyahu for his leadership in lieu of seeking understanding with our own leader.
Republican politicians are not to be trusted. If Mr Corker actually does work toward compromise, it is not likely that he will be able to sway the zealots in his own party to travel down that path.
That said, we are still talking about republican politicians who are committed to undermine our president, his domestic legislation, our foreign policy and our economy simply and solely for political gain. A republican party that would gladly turn the clock back to the 50's to secure the supremacy of state's rights. The 1850s. A republican party that genuflects to Mr Netanyahu for his leadership in lieu of seeking understanding with our own leader.
Republican politicians are not to be trusted. If Mr Corker actually does work toward compromise, it is not likely that he will be able to sway the zealots in his own party to travel down that path.
23
Republicans are not "committed to undermining" Obama. They are committed to undermining failed and potentially failing policy. There is no reason to support a president's naive judgment.
1
While Bob works out how to scupper the deal, what he doesn't realise that the rest of the negotiating team, Russia, China Britain and France are getting set to reverse the sanctions. That will occur if the Congress and Senate trashes the agreement . The outcome will be that the US is isolated and no longer leading or controlling events to get the best deal.
The GOP and Israel currently are working to get offside with all the parties involved in the talks and we can assume they will ignore the US moves are internal political posturing of the isolationist kind.
The GOP and Israel currently are working to get offside with all the parties involved in the talks and we can assume they will ignore the US moves are internal political posturing of the isolationist kind.
24
Israel has now handed Obama a list of issues he must re-open with Iran. I have my own to add: that all terms adhered to by Iran must also be adhered to by Israel!
36
no way, Israel was not part of the deal, Mr O said so
1
When we accept the fact that our Secretary of State is John Kerry and not Bibi Netanyahu, the long term wisdom of this deal becomes readily acceptable.
44
"[T]he president said in an interview over the weekend that he was
open to finding a way for Congress to 'express itself' as long as it did not block
his ability to carry out the agreement."
The President "speaks": "Go ahead, Congress, knock yourself out. I'm not listening anyway. And .. if you think you have a say in this, keep thinking. After June 30, you can cry on Fox News, or maybe stoke the impeachment fires again. But, I have my pen and my phone and my Kerry, and that's all America needs to get this treaty, ah, er, this agreement done."
"You're welcome, Ayatollah."
open to finding a way for Congress to 'express itself' as long as it did not block
his ability to carry out the agreement."
The President "speaks": "Go ahead, Congress, knock yourself out. I'm not listening anyway. And .. if you think you have a say in this, keep thinking. After June 30, you can cry on Fox News, or maybe stoke the impeachment fires again. But, I have my pen and my phone and my Kerry, and that's all America needs to get this treaty, ah, er, this agreement done."
"You're welcome, Ayatollah."
5
And you are welcome as well, Grand Master
Why spend the time to write such nonsense?
1
From some of these comments it sounds like some people do not think the GOP should question the President. For my part I hope the Democrats and the GOP and the Independents question everything and everybody. There seems to be several sides to each story and Iran and nuclear power might have several sides.
7
The Republican side is Netanyahu's side.
As a citizen who pays attention, I'm getting tired of it all.
10
The republican party has become the party of "anti" everything and of hate. Much as the democratic party was in the 50s and 60s. I'm always amazed that our country which has nuclear bombs, can demand that no one else have them. We do not rule the world anymore. So we need to use diplomacy and tact to try to stop nuclear weapons from becoming the weapon to use for any dispute. God forbid ISIL should get the nuclear weapons.
10
Here we go again. Obama's authority is being challenged and many are rallying to his side to protect him.
The president has to contend with Congress whether he wants to or not, whether he can outmaneuver them or not. People cannot nor should they try to protect him from the basic responsibilities of his job as Executive.
Congress must be involved since it has a right to provide input on the sanctions, which are pivotal to Iran's compliance.
If this deal is as important to the US as everyone claims, it is important enough to be opened to daylight and debated.
The president has to contend with Congress whether he wants to or not, whether he can outmaneuver them or not. People cannot nor should they try to protect him from the basic responsibilities of his job as Executive.
Congress must be involved since it has a right to provide input on the sanctions, which are pivotal to Iran's compliance.
If this deal is as important to the US as everyone claims, it is important enough to be opened to daylight and debated.
18
You are disingenuous. The only reason the GOP cares is that it will allow them to give BO a smack down. But you'd like that. Schoolyard politics...
7
It's only important to Israel, not the US. I am tired of the Israeli tail wagging the US dog.
2
This is true. After all, Obama doesn't sit on the Board of, or accept huge donations from, the American Petroleum Institute or AIPAC. If he did, we could trust him. He's only the guy that was elected by a nationwide vote of the people of the United States to become their head representative in State affairs.
Great, the future of a nuclear deal with Iran in part depends on a senator from the state famous for the "Scopes Monkey Trial" in the 1920's where a teacher was tried by the state for teaching evolution and most of the people there, including the Senator, would go back to making it still illegal if they could.
40
Perhaps it might be salubrious to take into the consideration the likelihood that the Islamic Republic of Iran would probably imprison a teacher caught teaching evolution to ordinary school children, today.
3
Bob Corker, a former mega real estate developer, is now dictating foreign policy. Exactly what's wrong with this country, it's being run by amateurs.
51
Ah yes. Obama and Kerry have so much experience negotiating deals. Nothing amateur about them. Oh. I forgot. Kerry negotiated a great deal on his last yacht. Even a place to pay for and store to avoid home state taxes. Obama's only job in private industry was as a teen working for McDonald's. A world of experience there in negotiations.
4
Corker or Obama?
1
No, the foreign policy experts at the White House and State Department seem to have the ball on this one.
4
No US senator(s) should ever be in a position to determine a US foreign policy with a potential result of a major war that has nothing to do with the security of the Nation.
197
Yes the Senate should not be following its Constitutional duty to provide oversight of treaties negotiated by the Executive Branch.
4
If Iran destroys Israel, the role of the US in the entire world will be severely diminished. Which may, at the end of the day, be exactly what the Obama Administration wants.
See also, the President's Syrian "red line" and the welcoming of Russian solutions for his foot-in-mouth moment. Solutions which led to the annexing of Crimea, and attack on the Ukraine.
See also, the President's Syrian "red line" and the welcoming of Russian solutions for his foot-in-mouth moment. Solutions which led to the annexing of Crimea, and attack on the Ukraine.
1
Being 'sponsored' to negotiate in the interests of a foreign state is not a constitutional duty.
1
I think this love fest by Democrats for Republcians shows how relay weak Democrats are. I understand the media pushing the ideology of Republcians, but Democrats have to face the voters and they do not fare so well in the last elections.
The media will always prop up Republcians as they do every Sunday on the "news" shows, but any Democrat that sides with a foreign leader and not the Democratic president of the United States, is a problem for the party, and especially for NY Senators Schumer and Gillerbrand. Schumer is supposed to be the next leader in the senate, how ironic.
The media will always prop up Republcians as they do every Sunday on the "news" shows, but any Democrat that sides with a foreign leader and not the Democratic president of the United States, is a problem for the party, and especially for NY Senators Schumer and Gillerbrand. Schumer is supposed to be the next leader in the senate, how ironic.
13
As a long-time Democrat I say "Shame on the Democrats!" Statesmanship, diplomacy and our President at the very least should receive complete support in this last-ditch effort to save the Middle East, and us. I thought the Republicans' constant racism and desire to defeat Obama, even when he is not a candidate, were a danger to our country - this vote alignment shows that Pogo once again was right: the enemy is us! It is a very good time to be very old......
32
President Obama's promise to have the back of Israel has to make sure a preemptive US or US supported strike on Iran's nuclear and military facilities once Iran IS CLOSE to have nuclear weapons / warheads. Israel can not afford a first Iranian nuclear attack of any dimension, a terrorist dirty bomb included. Due to its size, any nuclear strike may cause such a devastation that makes subsequent Israeli or US responses irrelevant. In addition if we take into consideration how in reality treaties are enforced (see how Ukraine is protected after the Budapest agreement, etc) and the fact that Mr. Obama will most probably be no more the Commander in Chief it is anybody's guess how Israel is going to be proactively protected. It seems that as for now thees
questions are still unanswered.
questions are still unanswered.
9
Israel has 200 Nuclear weapons capable of destroying Iran. israel should declare its intentions and make it clear to the Iranians the red lines. It is not up to America or the American tax payer to carry the burden of Israel's defense. Israel is capable of taking care of its interest. We Americans should take care of ours.
Until Israel becomes our 51st state, any preemptive strikes on Iran, either nuclear or conventional, should be solely Israel's decision. It certainly has a large enough nuclear arsenal to obliterate the entire mid-eastern region. But, please don't invite nor demand the US to participate in this lunacy!
gyurka,
Your right on the money. If your saecurity is in the hands of someone other than yourself, you do not have security.
Your right on the money. If your saecurity is in the hands of someone other than yourself, you do not have security.
Are we going to lie down and take it?
From Haaretz:
"Israel to push Congress to pass bill to hamper Iran deal
Israel will try to persuade congressmen and senators to introduce a clause stipulating that the deal with Iran should be seen as an international treaty requiring senate ratification and not an agreement.
By Barak Ravid
Israel will adopt two lines of attack as it tries to thwart – or at least modify – the international nuclear agreement with Iran in the coming weeks, a senior official said."
From Haaretz:
"Israel to push Congress to pass bill to hamper Iran deal
Israel will try to persuade congressmen and senators to introduce a clause stipulating that the deal with Iran should be seen as an international treaty requiring senate ratification and not an agreement.
By Barak Ravid
Israel will adopt two lines of attack as it tries to thwart – or at least modify – the international nuclear agreement with Iran in the coming weeks, a senior official said."
15
I didn't know that Israel was one of the United States. When are Americans going to reclaim their country!
1
If Congress derails this accord, the U.S. credibility in the world will plummet. Our relations with China and Russia will decline. They will be very happy to capitalize on the obvious weaknesses in our government; look for Russia to become more aggressive. And Iran will be free to develop its weapons with no oversight or restraint. Anyone who wants these outcomes, is not considering the best interests of our country.
32
"... look for Russia to become more aggressive..."
You mean, they haven't been more aggressive since Obama declared his red line in Syria, and then backed down to let the Russians solve his problem?
You mean, they haven't been more aggressive since Obama declared his red line in Syria, and then backed down to let the Russians solve his problem?
2
What a joke! We have so much credibility in the world after Obama's repeated lies, red line in Syria, you can keep your insurance and doctor, etc etc. The US is viewed as a joke in Russia, not a force to be seriously contended with, and you have the nerve to talk about US credibility now? Seriously?
2
I feel pity for Obama. Isn't he supposed to be the most powerful man on earth? And yet he courts dodgy senators and very biased and utterly mediocre editorialists, like Friedman -- to do what is in the interests of the American people.
Because the agreement with Iran is in the interests of the American people -- but if Israel is against it, who cares for the American people? The third of the Israeli who voted for Netanyahu have greater weight than the three hundred plus million Americans.
Because the agreement with Iran is in the interests of the American people -- but if Israel is against it, who cares for the American people? The third of the Israeli who voted for Netanyahu have greater weight than the three hundred plus million Americans.
32
Apparently, Obama doesn't want the US President to be the most powerful man on earth. What else would explain his tough talk on Syria, and then backing down to let the Russians step in? After which they simply took the Crimea, and attacked the Ukraine. Sanctions? The Iran experience is demonstrating there may be a workaround for those.
1
Maybe if more Americans voted, things would be different. Our indifference, our apathy--these are our down fall in these times.
3
So are we now to believe Senator Corker is motivated by a lofty cooperative bipartisan spirit and global outlook to contain Iran nuclear proliferation?
The same Senator Corker, who during a UAW unionization vote at a VW auto plant in Tennessee, "misspoke" (lied) for partisan motives when he said he "was in the know" that German management would not expand and possibly shutter the plant if the UAW was successful in it's collective bargaining drive.
If there was real concern, not partisan one-upmanship in the Senate regarding terrorists, nuclear weapons, and Israel's security, they would look at that failed state to the east. They would look to a nuclear Pakistan!
The same Senator Corker, who during a UAW unionization vote at a VW auto plant in Tennessee, "misspoke" (lied) for partisan motives when he said he "was in the know" that German management would not expand and possibly shutter the plant if the UAW was successful in it's collective bargaining drive.
If there was real concern, not partisan one-upmanship in the Senate regarding terrorists, nuclear weapons, and Israel's security, they would look at that failed state to the east. They would look to a nuclear Pakistan!
11
It is hard to see what constructive role the Senate can play in these negotiations. The devil is in the details on any agreement with Iran. How can Senators from both parties, who must stand for reelection, articulate a coherent well reasoned position on these issues? This is further evidence that our political system is dysfunctional and incapable to coping with the pressing issues facing our country. I am convinced no one will ever trust our president's ability to negotiate with foreign powers on matters of national security if our irresponsible congressmen are able to unravel the most carefully drafted international agreement. I am afraid we have become our own worst enemy.
30
Too bad the Constitution doesn't agree with your personal opinion, eh?
2
Who are we kidding? GOP constituents aka big business has a lot to gain with the sanctions being lifted on Iran. The oil rich nation will line their coffers with cash and that is what is driving the likes of Corker to go 'soft' on the Iran deal. Gotta love the American politics, it is so multi-faceted that you can be pro and con the same goal simultaneously: keep your right wing constituents happy while you show the primrose path to big business.
Sanctions did nothing to undermine the Iranian establishment. Having said that we need to keep continuing political pressure to make sure we keep Iranian militancy under check. That is going to be increasingly difficult when big business and big investment gain vested interest foothold in Iran and turn into de facto proxies for the Iranian establishment on the U.S. soil.
To add insult to the injury, those vested interests will all be Republicans!
Sanctions did nothing to undermine the Iranian establishment. Having said that we need to keep continuing political pressure to make sure we keep Iranian militancy under check. That is going to be increasingly difficult when big business and big investment gain vested interest foothold in Iran and turn into de facto proxies for the Iranian establishment on the U.S. soil.
To add insult to the injury, those vested interests will all be Republicans!
3
What twisted reasoning. I was going to say logic, but there is none to your comment. Corker is doing the bidding of the weapons makers, not the oil interests. The oil interests want this deal and if he was with them he would keep his mouth shut. He is for the Military Industrial Complex. As are any Democrats who go along with this.
3
Senator Corker must remember that this is a deal between Iran and P 5+1, Sanctions regime would fall apart as the UK, Germany, France, Russia, and China would stop agreeing to the sanctions as they have negotiated a deal and the US Senators (AIPAC Funded/bribed) have told them to fly a kite. All other cooperation may also be impacted between us.
Think carefully and put America First.
Think carefully and put America First.
23
Very well said, some just can't grasp the idea that America is a part of a group, not the ONLY voice. Especially, as you said, that voice does not in any way represent the will of the American people, but a foreign power.
This is a news item an analysis or a paid announcement from a Saudi/Israeli think tank? The question that needs to be answered is rather simple.
The elected body of the Representatives who were elected by the US population to cater and look out for our interest, then why is our Foreign policy dictated by the Jewish Lobby with blind support of Israel at its core. Why is it that we have so much blind support of another country in our Congress? is it just money? or there are other undercurrents working to derail any peace moves that this President or any other president of the US makes.
The Senators must be loyal to the oath that they took on their election to this august body and not to any foreign country regardless of their religiosity.
American people will not forget these Senators for ruining our best chance to curtail nuclear proliferation. It may even lead to a major conflict in Middle East. My only hope would be for these Senators to have some skin in the game by the ensuring that the sons and daughters of the Bibi47 and the Senators who are responsible to scuttling this last chance at the behest of the Jewish lobby have their sons and daughters on the front lines. Aerial bombing by Israel wont do it. In three months or so we may not be able to do anything about curtailing Iran's Nuclear program. Bibi would have his wish of an all out war with Iran.
And Diplomatically achieved results would disappear and it would be a nightmare for Israel and the world Jewry
The elected body of the Representatives who were elected by the US population to cater and look out for our interest, then why is our Foreign policy dictated by the Jewish Lobby with blind support of Israel at its core. Why is it that we have so much blind support of another country in our Congress? is it just money? or there are other undercurrents working to derail any peace moves that this President or any other president of the US makes.
The Senators must be loyal to the oath that they took on their election to this august body and not to any foreign country regardless of their religiosity.
American people will not forget these Senators for ruining our best chance to curtail nuclear proliferation. It may even lead to a major conflict in Middle East. My only hope would be for these Senators to have some skin in the game by the ensuring that the sons and daughters of the Bibi47 and the Senators who are responsible to scuttling this last chance at the behest of the Jewish lobby have their sons and daughters on the front lines. Aerial bombing by Israel wont do it. In three months or so we may not be able to do anything about curtailing Iran's Nuclear program. Bibi would have his wish of an all out war with Iran.
And Diplomatically achieved results would disappear and it would be a nightmare for Israel and the world Jewry
20
If Congress, including the usual suspect Democrats, kill this deal on behalf of Bibi and Israeli-American billionaires, the world, including the P5+1 will laugh in our faces, withdraw their sanctions, engage in trade and commerce with Iran, and leave America isolated with Israel, and poorer, as all our corporations will be banned from trade and profit.
American banks and investors will start piling their money into German and European stocks to take advantage of the new economic stimulus. Americans will be left, alone, unable to "go to Cuba", while the Canadians and Europeans sun themselves, except on a much more wider scale.
America will also lose vis-a-vis China and Russia, the ability to pull Iran away from them, like Nixon to China. It could be devastating, especially after the Europeans abandon our policies. Israel and Israel's lobbying in this country is doing serious damage to our prestige, national security, and economy.
To do this for a wild-eyed right wing foreign leader is treasonous. If we betray Washington's farewell address and our own national security for Netanyahu and wealthy, manipulative billionaire donors, we will have finally lost our country, to, as Thomas Jefferson warned, foreign interests.
American banks and investors will start piling their money into German and European stocks to take advantage of the new economic stimulus. Americans will be left, alone, unable to "go to Cuba", while the Canadians and Europeans sun themselves, except on a much more wider scale.
America will also lose vis-a-vis China and Russia, the ability to pull Iran away from them, like Nixon to China. It could be devastating, especially after the Europeans abandon our policies. Israel and Israel's lobbying in this country is doing serious damage to our prestige, national security, and economy.
To do this for a wild-eyed right wing foreign leader is treasonous. If we betray Washington's farewell address and our own national security for Netanyahu and wealthy, manipulative billionaire donors, we will have finally lost our country, to, as Thomas Jefferson warned, foreign interests.
22
It was the Congress which approved of the sanctions against Iran. It is the Congress that must approve lifting those sanctions. The people elect the Congress to oversee what the Executive branch does approving its actions and providing the funding for it. Why have so many Americans become so ignorant of the checks and balances provided by the Constitution?
1
The President speaks for the United States on matters of foreign policy. With 535 senators and congressmen, Mr. Corker is leading us down a road where we will have to debate among 535 conflicting views of how U.S. foreign policy should be conducted.
Corker should just put a cork in it, shut up and let the President do his job.
Corker should just put a cork in it, shut up and let the President do his job.
25
Who wants a war? Israel. Who wants a war? The G.O.P. Who wants a war? Arms manufacturers. Who will die because of it ? All of us.
31
Who's so infatuated with the president, so mesmerized his intellect and beguiled by his words, that they're willing to believe anything he says even though he won't subject his deal to scrutiny?
6
AACNY
Who is so bigoted and in thrall to the right wing that they will
Do or say anything to destroy the president and the executive.
I am mesmerized and beguiled by the thought that diplomacy can rule the day. I am mesmerized and beguiled by the idea that war is not the answer.
I see the Republicans wanting two things:
To demean President Obama and destroy his presidency
To bring us to another war for their profit
The a Republicans are despicable.
Who is so bigoted and in thrall to the right wing that they will
Do or say anything to destroy the president and the executive.
I am mesmerized and beguiled by the thought that diplomacy can rule the day. I am mesmerized and beguiled by the idea that war is not the answer.
I see the Republicans wanting two things:
To demean President Obama and destroy his presidency
To bring us to another war for their profit
The a Republicans are despicable.
5
Margo's point proven, I'd say. And you are infatuated with doing what it takes to destroy this presidency, and the nation....
3
The constitution gives the Senate the power to advise and consent. Look past temporary partisanship and imagine the precedent of a chief executive doing a deal of this magnitude without congressional oversight being used by a president you don't like. If the deal is good (not perfect, just good) the senate will ratify. I hope it is but I want a look at it (which senate hearings will provide) Don't you?
4
I'm wondering if the unindicted co-conspirators will vote as one block. Senator Corker is not one of the gang of 47.
6
Both Sen. Corker and Sen. Schumer can't be wrong on this issue. One is a Southern Republican and the other a liberal Northern Democrat. One is Jewish and the other not. One has always stood by Obama (i.e., until now).
Now for what they have in common: Both are very shrewd negotiators - while Barack Obama's negotiating skills leave a lot to be desired. (Obama is known for "telegraphing" his intention to offer concessions even before negotiating).
One question to Barack Obama: If your deal with Iran is so "great" for Americans, why are you reluctant to submit it to Congressional "approval"..?
Now for what they have in common: Both are very shrewd negotiators - while Barack Obama's negotiating skills leave a lot to be desired. (Obama is known for "telegraphing" his intention to offer concessions even before negotiating).
One question to Barack Obama: If your deal with Iran is so "great" for Americans, why are you reluctant to submit it to Congressional "approval"..?
7
Could it be because the GOP always votes no to whatever the president proposes?
20
So, according to your "logic", the President should act (as recklessly) as he pleases on such a grave matter of National Security...?
Your response is like that of a "16-year old" who wrecks the family car which he drove without permission. Then, he tells his dad he never bothered asking permission "because dad always says NO"...
Guess who has to pay the bill on the wreckage...?
Your response is like that of a "16-year old" who wrecks the family car which he drove without permission. Then, he tells his dad he never bothered asking permission "because dad always says NO"...
Guess who has to pay the bill on the wreckage...?
Will will the likes of Senator Corker stop meddling on an Agreement people want?
15
As soon as the Constitution is amended to remove the Senate's duty to advise and consent to treaties and the House's duty to fund the operations of the government. Daily the Left shows its contempt for the Constitution and its desire for a dictatorship run only by itself.
1
Even the Saudis are now on board.
"Saudi Arabia cautiously endorses Iran deal
By ADAM B. LERNER 4/6/15 (Politico)
Saudi Arabia released a cautious statement Monday endorsing the nuclear “framework” agreement reached last week between Iran and six world powers.
“The council of ministers,” a top governing body within the Saudi system, “expressed hope for attaining a binding and definitive agreement that would lead to the strengthening of security and stability in the region and the world,” read the statement, first published by the Saudi state news agency."
"Saudi Arabia cautiously endorses Iran deal
By ADAM B. LERNER 4/6/15 (Politico)
Saudi Arabia released a cautious statement Monday endorsing the nuclear “framework” agreement reached last week between Iran and six world powers.
“The council of ministers,” a top governing body within the Saudi system, “expressed hope for attaining a binding and definitive agreement that would lead to the strengthening of security and stability in the region and the world,” read the statement, first published by the Saudi state news agency."
9
The Saudi ambassador to the US has also repeatedly said, "There is no 'deal' yet." They do not believe anything of substance has actually been agreed to yet.
They probably wouldn't be talking about acquiring a nuke if they actually believed in this deal.
They probably wouldn't be talking about acquiring a nuke if they actually believed in this deal.
4
The Saudis are so comforted by this deal that they are increasing their arms purchasing and looking for their own nuclear armaments. They may be hoping for an agreement that protects them but they aren't showing that they will like every detail in a deal.
Where's the coverage about Chuck Schumer in all this? This is the guy that holds the key as to whether or not the senate passes this proposal. The analysis about Corker being open to not passing the oversight legislation is silly. He will vote with the rest of the GOP to kill this accord with the Iranians. While it's laudable for Schumer to be concerned for our friend Israel, it's not okay to place what Bibi, and the other hard-liners in Israel, want over our own best interests. If the details of this agreement, that have been reported, are true, and are included in the final written agreement, then it's an absolutely amazing victory for us, and the other nations that have negotiated this. It's also in Israel's security interests to support this agreement.
11
Israel's Senator Schumer has one vote like all other Senators, and is not the minority leader no matter how many times the white male press tells us he is "next in line". If he squirrels this deal, he may not even be in the Senate in 2017, if my prayers are answered. Enough with the AIPAC pole dancers.
1
A Congress corrupted by campaign funding has no business representing the United States of America in world affairs.
29
What precisely do we have to lose from a rapprochement with Iran? The enmity of the Saudis and the Gulf Emirates? The purveyors of global jihad and the financial sponsors of every radical islamist movement on the globe? What have we gotten out of our one-sided approach to affairs in the middles east, our blindly pro-Israel, pro-Saudi policies? Nothing! Iran, with or without nuclear weapons does not threaten the United States. Attacking us would be suicidal. In one what way would it not be in our interest for Iran to rejoin the community of nations and to have peaceful relations with us? We are at the mercy of a virtual Sadui/GCC monopoly on the world's oil supply, would it not help for there to be a little more competition in that arena? Ah, but Iranian oil and gas will flood the world market, lowering their world prices and hurting our energy companies who depend on higher prices to stay solvent, and our banks who need those precious petrodollars deposited right back into the financial system in order to survive too. All this "poor Israel" talk is just a smokescreen for the real game that's being played.
7
Well stated MC. I wish our media would tell the masses the truth. But alas they are bout and paid for by the very same players you speak of.
It's hard to know who knows less; the Ayatollah or Sen. Corker. Not that it matters, since American Middle Eastern policy has always been torn between holy texts and light sweet crude truth.
8
Democrats like Cardin and Schumer, and others too close to AIPAC/Israel, deserve an article of their own drawing attention to their betrayal of Obama and American national security interests.
Republicans are the opposition party. We can expect games. The focus should be on the Democrats trying to undercut Obama/World's deal with Iran. They should be primaried, each and every one.
Republicans are the opposition party. We can expect games. The focus should be on the Democrats trying to undercut Obama/World's deal with Iran. They should be primaried, each and every one.
11
Bigger problem than Corker, is Schumer himself who is supporting the same unconstitutional bill.
Call your representatives folks. If we don't ring their phones off the hook, they are going to go with the wishes of their 'donors'.
Call your representatives folks. If we don't ring their phones off the hook, they are going to go with the wishes of their 'donors'.
13
Is it really so terrible to have the Senate put it's views on the record? I do not know if this is a good deal or a bad deal, (My advice is Trust but Verify). As I recall, both Bush I and II got Senate approval before war with Iraq. It is called sharing responsibility. I'm sure Kerry, Hilary, and Biden wish there had not been a vote, I am glad there was one. I think there are a lot of Republicans who will decline to oppose the President on a security issue. I think there are a bunch of Democrats who are afraid of being forced to take a public stand on this matter. Let us debate and vote.
1
Mr. Corker must take a hard look at the US Constitution. It is the Executive Branch that is responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs while the Legislative Branch's role is limited to regulation of foreign financial affairs.The Senate is typically called upon to ratify "treaties", but the Iran deal is not a treaty.
11
Americans have forgotten how much prestige the US lost under Bush and Cheney.
If the Republicans sabotage this for their own political gain the other members will make the agreement without the US participation.
If the Republicans sabotage this for their own political gain the other members will make the agreement without the US participation.
12
The president has repeatedly pronounced his deal as "verifiable". Yet, he, himself, does not want Congress to verify its terms.
Something is fishy. The president expects Americans to trust him, but trust for him stops where trust for Iran begins.
The deal needs Congressional review. Period.
Something is fishy. The president expects Americans to trust him, but trust for him stops where trust for Iran begins.
The deal needs Congressional review. Period.
4
Senator Corker needs 67 votes in the Senate to override President Obama's promised veto. Every day, he gets closer to that number as more and more Democratic Senators sign on to his legislation. It will be Democrats who will sabotage what could be a transformative multi-lateral agreement (not a treaty) to curtail Iran's nuclear proliferation.
"Within the Senate Democratic Caucus, a dozen senators have either co-sponsored Corker’s legislation or indicated they could support it. That would put the measure one vote shy of a veto-proof majority. On Monday, three more Democratic senators — Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Claire McCaskill of Missouri — left open the possibility of voting for it, according to aides."
That would give him more than enough votes.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/chuck-schumer-bucks-white-house-on...
70% of Democrats support a negotiated deal. It's disgraceful so many Democratic Senators are ignoring our voices. They need to hear from us.
"Within the Senate Democratic Caucus, a dozen senators have either co-sponsored Corker’s legislation or indicated they could support it. That would put the measure one vote shy of a veto-proof majority. On Monday, three more Democratic senators — Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Claire McCaskill of Missouri — left open the possibility of voting for it, according to aides."
That would give him more than enough votes.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/chuck-schumer-bucks-white-house-on...
70% of Democrats support a negotiated deal. It's disgraceful so many Democratic Senators are ignoring our voices. They need to hear from us.
72
"Israel to push Congress to pass bill to hamper Iran deal"
"Israel will try to persuade congressmen and senators to introduce a clause stipulating that the deal with Iran should be seen as an international treaty requiring senate ratification and not an agreement."
It will focus on getting Democratic Senators to sign on to the Corker legislation.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.650813
"Israel will try to persuade congressmen and senators to introduce a clause stipulating that the deal with Iran should be seen as an international treaty requiring senate ratification and not an agreement."
It will focus on getting Democratic Senators to sign on to the Corker legislation.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.650813
7
Making this into a partisan "crusade" to provide cover for the president to unilaterally push this deal through would be a big mistake.
Americans support a deal but ONLY if Iran complies. Not all of us are swept up by the president's superior intellect and gift of rhetoric. Some of us want to see the details before believing.
The compliance piece of this deal is crucial. Having a deal without that is worthless (nothing "transformative" about that). When the president negotiates the terms of verification, he should not hide them from Congress.
Americans support a deal but ONLY if Iran complies. Not all of us are swept up by the president's superior intellect and gift of rhetoric. Some of us want to see the details before believing.
The compliance piece of this deal is crucial. Having a deal without that is worthless (nothing "transformative" about that). When the president negotiates the terms of verification, he should not hide them from Congress.
2
As the Iran deal is not a treaty, there is no Constitutional requirement for Senate involvement.
3
This is pathetic, next up Tom Cotton, not that Corker deserves the respect and snow this article bestowed on him. Myself, I'm unable to put him up for a integrity award as this article seems to.
21
The same sort of article could be written about Obama on many occasions and topics...let's say, Health Care? where he tried working with Republicans. But NYT chooses to stroke Corker's ego instead?
1
In reply to swm, who comments, "No country will ever trust us if we can't follow through with negotiations because of internal dissent that has been fueled by a radical fringe. Nobody trusts Congress to do the right thing. Please do not let Congress derail the negotiating efforts of the Obama Administration."
Be careful what you wish for. Stare decisis is as operational with the President as with the Supreme Court. Grant President Obama certain powers in his relationship with Congress, and those powers will be there, when we have a President you don't like and a Congress you do like.
One should tread carefully in situations such as this, inasmuch as the dynamics of our government's balance of power among the three branches is much more important in the long run than any given policy issue.
Be careful what you wish for. Stare decisis is as operational with the President as with the Supreme Court. Grant President Obama certain powers in his relationship with Congress, and those powers will be there, when we have a President you don't like and a Congress you do like.
One should tread carefully in situations such as this, inasmuch as the dynamics of our government's balance of power among the three branches is much more important in the long run than any given policy issue.
4
Doesn't Sen. Corker understand that the Senate must ratify any treaty already?
2
It is NOT a treaty.
4
This isn't a treaty and it isn't a unilateral agreement. If and when it approaches treaty status, the Senate would be asked to ratify it.
1
1. Iran, with or without nuclear weapons, is no threat to the United States, despite the rhetoric form Bibi and the Republicans. Pakistan HAS nuclear weapons, with a large terrorist faction in-country. Pakistan is more of a threat.
2. We no longer have a dog in the fight in the MIddle East; we are energy independent. So a pox on all their houses.
3. Tom Cotton and the Republican Party are owned by the Jewish/Israel lobby. The hype over the Iran threat is a well-orchestrated effort to beat the drums for Israel and continue to sacrifice the lives of our soldiers and our treasure; reminiscent of the hype from the Bush administration over Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
4. Bibi was the biggest cheerleader in taking down Iraq. Turned out to be a bad decision because the outcome was to strengthen Iran, exponentially. So why would anyone want to take Bibi's advice on this agreement? Oh, I remember, because Bibi is recognized by the Republican Party as the REAL President of the United States; Obama is a usurper.
5. Mr. Corker is only going to listen to his master's voice on this deal. Lobby money talks, and the American people walk.
6. Iran is a much larger country and economy than Israel. It will be much more beneficial to mend relations with Iran than to continue our one-sided relationship with Israel. For all of my life, like most Americans, I have blindly supported Israel. The last six months have opened my eyes. I think we've all been played for suckers.
2. We no longer have a dog in the fight in the MIddle East; we are energy independent. So a pox on all their houses.
3. Tom Cotton and the Republican Party are owned by the Jewish/Israel lobby. The hype over the Iran threat is a well-orchestrated effort to beat the drums for Israel and continue to sacrifice the lives of our soldiers and our treasure; reminiscent of the hype from the Bush administration over Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
4. Bibi was the biggest cheerleader in taking down Iraq. Turned out to be a bad decision because the outcome was to strengthen Iran, exponentially. So why would anyone want to take Bibi's advice on this agreement? Oh, I remember, because Bibi is recognized by the Republican Party as the REAL President of the United States; Obama is a usurper.
5. Mr. Corker is only going to listen to his master's voice on this deal. Lobby money talks, and the American people walk.
6. Iran is a much larger country and economy than Israel. It will be much more beneficial to mend relations with Iran than to continue our one-sided relationship with Israel. For all of my life, like most Americans, I have blindly supported Israel. The last six months have opened my eyes. I think we've all been played for suckers.
75
Judgeroybean you can relax. The US is not immediately threaten. The US has the distance, the size, the military power and the time to decide its response after Israel is devastated.
"Judgeroybean you can relax. The US is not immediately threaten. The US has the distance, the size, the military power and the time to decide its response after Israel is devastated."
Well, your comment raises the point about who the "benefactor" is in this one-sided relationship and should the relationship be examined going forward? Israel insults the "benefactor" by Netanyahu coming here like he owns our Congress, insulting our President, interfering in our elections, having the effrontery to try to sabotage the talks and direct our foreign policy, as if the tail wags the dog; instead of showing the requisite respect for the "benefactor" who has lost soldiers and treasure acting as a proxy in Israel's wars, over the decades. The United States does not include the state of Israel, though the Jewish lobby in this country believes otherwise. I agree with you that we, in the U.S., are not threatened by a nuclear Iran. We are more threatened by Israeli meddlers in OUR business.
Well, your comment raises the point about who the "benefactor" is in this one-sided relationship and should the relationship be examined going forward? Israel insults the "benefactor" by Netanyahu coming here like he owns our Congress, insulting our President, interfering in our elections, having the effrontery to try to sabotage the talks and direct our foreign policy, as if the tail wags the dog; instead of showing the requisite respect for the "benefactor" who has lost soldiers and treasure acting as a proxy in Israel's wars, over the decades. The United States does not include the state of Israel, though the Jewish lobby in this country believes otherwise. I agree with you that we, in the U.S., are not threatened by a nuclear Iran. We are more threatened by Israeli meddlers in OUR business.
I'm amazed how many in Congress hate a deal they haven't even seen.
21
Not so amazing.... If Obama is for it, the Republicans are against it.
5
Perhaps they don't want to have to pass something to find out what's in it. Whoops! Never mind! Been there, done that!
1
The president is now "campaigning" in similar style to his championing of Obamacare. Selling a deal is what he does best. We must trust but verify what he's selling.
1
59 percent of Americans may want an agreement, but do you seriously contend that 59 percent of Americans could articulate one or two specific conditions of that agreement?
3
59 percent of Americans are busy with their own jobs. They are allowed to trust their president, their State Department, their intelligence community, and 5 other major powers who have all weighed in positively on this agreement.
7
Well it is a simple choice between peace and yet another Israeli-demanded Middle East war so yes, I think most US citizens are qualified to make that call even if they don't know the details.
1
The jury is still out on Senator Bob Corker. In a speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association on March 20th, Corker sounded like a candidate at a campaign rally gleefully describing the Administration’s foreign policy team as “The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight” and accusing the President of being a man who “has never been comfortable being commander-in-chief.” Senator Corker does have the right and responsibility to offer differing viewpoints and champion the constitutional role of the Senate in checking and balancing the role of the Executive in the conduct of foreign policy. But he should not reflexively oppose everything President Obama proposes because, in the political world he lives in, that is what Republicans are automatically expected to do. Will future generations view Corker as a man who placed patriotism above party or a petty party hack who deliberately drove a partisan wedge into prospects for peace? It remains to be seen.
12
It was illuminating to see in Tom Cotton's now-infamous open letter to Iran that he referred to Senator's serving for "decades" - as a way to use this as a type of threat to Iran that any deal they get with Obama will be short-lived and won't be allowed to happen again as long as they are in congress. Which begs the question: Just who is the despotic regime here? Iran, or the United States? Are our "elected" leaders nothing but minions doing the bidding of hidden special interests - many operating against the best interests of this country? Does this dynamic make our democracy nothing more than empty rhetoric?
11
Nice try, President Obama, but you might as well give up on any deal with Iran. Israel runs our foreign policy, and our politicians. Never was it so blatantly more obvious than it is today.
25
Pew poll: Heavy majority thinks Congress, not Obama, should have final authority to approve Iran deal.
Sixty-nine percent in the recent Pew poll said Congress not the President should have final authority.
If the media reports on the framework are correct:
1- The sanctions will be lifted at the signing of the final agreement
2- There will be no snap inspections
3- Iran will maintain its nuclear infrastructure
When the negotiations began and throughout President Obama said these points were non negotiable.
1-Sanctions would be lifted slowly over time as inspections verified compliance with the agreementIran
2-Unannounced inspections were critical to any agreement
3- Iran's infrastructure needed to be dismantled.
When did this change? We need fresh eyes to verify a good agreement. If a veto proof majority, a bipartisan vote of 67 Senators reject the agreement I think that would be strong indication it is a bad deal.
Sixty-nine percent in the recent Pew poll said Congress not the President should have final authority.
If the media reports on the framework are correct:
1- The sanctions will be lifted at the signing of the final agreement
2- There will be no snap inspections
3- Iran will maintain its nuclear infrastructure
When the negotiations began and throughout President Obama said these points were non negotiable.
1-Sanctions would be lifted slowly over time as inspections verified compliance with the agreementIran
2-Unannounced inspections were critical to any agreement
3- Iran's infrastructure needed to be dismantled.
When did this change? We need fresh eyes to verify a good agreement. If a veto proof majority, a bipartisan vote of 67 Senators reject the agreement I think that would be strong indication it is a bad deal.
6
Oh please - a heavy majority of Americans? How many is that exactly? Considering that most Americans haven't taken a peek at the Constitution in awhile, Im betting they do not even realize that Congress has no role here. This is an agreement with Iran NOT A TREATY.
Reinstate the draft.People will think twice about sending THEIR loved ones in harms way.It's sad that the generation of peace and love has morphed into the generation of war and greed. Too easy for the rich and powerful to send others to war.
53
I am so tired of our president being undermined at every possible turn by a politically driven Congress. Do they have no shame? While Obama is courting Corker, you can bet there are a gaggle of GOP foot soldiers in the wings slapping his back. Now is the time for the GOP to grow up and stop the obstruction. We are talking about nuclear weapons, a landmark agreement between nations, one that could possibly change the winds of conflict to a more functional, peaceful Middle East. Please, Corker and the Grand Old Party, step up and do the right thing. Let Obama do his job.
50
PE, you seriously expect Republicans to change at this point? My word, they have their careers and reputations as Obama haters at stake!
1
Let's see, the Senate's Bibi 47, having sent an arguably illegal letter to Iran trying to undermine the President's negotiations, does owe the peace process a big one. Otherwise, we will regrettably have to label them as our war party, and hold them responsible for the next failed peace initiative with Iran, one that is arguably the best hope in decades, and the consequences thereof. BTW, one hopes that the next war or undeclared war be preceded by a war tax, so we know the costs of bravo actions up front.
19
The Democrats who praise Mr. Corker in this article are all pro-Israel. Charles Schumer couldn't wait to get the US into a war with Iraq. Tim Kaine just got back from a trip to Israel, probably to get his marching orders.
There is no mention of Diane Feinstein's disgust with what's going on in the Senate nor the fact that Schumer is trying to deny Dick Durbin the whip position in the Democratic Senate leadership because Durbin has been an outspoken supporter of a negotiated settlement with Iran.
These AIPAC Democrats have no problem putting Israel's wants over US national security needs. The Democratic senators mentioned in this article are the major enemies of President Obama's initiatives with Iran. They're just hiding behind Bob Corker. Just follow the money. Pro-Israeli groups cut their donations to Durbin's 2014 reelection campaign in half because of his support for Obama's Iran policies.
There is no mention of Diane Feinstein's disgust with what's going on in the Senate nor the fact that Schumer is trying to deny Dick Durbin the whip position in the Democratic Senate leadership because Durbin has been an outspoken supporter of a negotiated settlement with Iran.
These AIPAC Democrats have no problem putting Israel's wants over US national security needs. The Democratic senators mentioned in this article are the major enemies of President Obama's initiatives with Iran. They're just hiding behind Bob Corker. Just follow the money. Pro-Israeli groups cut their donations to Durbin's 2014 reelection campaign in half because of his support for Obama's Iran policies.
153
No country in history has ever allowed another country to quite literally buy its government with bribes, the way Israel has used the Israel Lobby to do here. It's incredible that the American public, which whines all the time about its patriotism and "love" for America, has either been too blind, too lazy, or too stupid to stop Israel from buying control of our government (except for the indomitable Obama, of course) in order to have control of our military and the power to order up proxy wars for "regime change" for Israel any time Israel wants one--first in Iraq, next, when Obama's gone, in Iran in 2017--wars always paid for entirely with the blood of ordinary Americans and many trillions in new national debt the kids of these Americans will be saddled with for decades. No other nation would be dumb enough to allow this to happen, but as Bibi said, he knows America and knows "how easy to move" it is--presumably because of the unique lazy obliviousness of its masses. Israel will give these Americans exactly what their lazy inattention deserves.
42
Mary Scott@
"There is no mention of Diane Feinstein's disgust with what's going on in the Senate nor the fact that Schumer is trying to deny Dick Durbin the whip position in the Democratic Senate leadership because Durbin has been an outspoken supporter of a negotiated settlement with Iran."
Yes ! Schumer is another third rate politician, who gets reelected due to low informed voters. He has done nothing significant as he represents the state of NY. Instead he glides through every year with little to show for it. Mediocre Senator at best...
No one wants war that really has skin in the game. Bring back the draft, you will see many "war hawks" declawed ....
"There is no mention of Diane Feinstein's disgust with what's going on in the Senate nor the fact that Schumer is trying to deny Dick Durbin the whip position in the Democratic Senate leadership because Durbin has been an outspoken supporter of a negotiated settlement with Iran."
Yes ! Schumer is another third rate politician, who gets reelected due to low informed voters. He has done nothing significant as he represents the state of NY. Instead he glides through every year with little to show for it. Mediocre Senator at best...
No one wants war that really has skin in the game. Bring back the draft, you will see many "war hawks" declawed ....
2
It's important to emphasized that many people who are pro-Israel disagree with Netanyahu and strongly support the agreement. Netanyahu would like us to see him, the Likud and Israel as synonymous, but they are not.
The current polls say 59% of Americans want a diplomatic agreement with Iran.
So WE the people have spoken.
The Senate should be supporting the President, not working against him and the American people.
So WE the people have spoken.
The Senate should be supporting the President, not working against him and the American people.
139
They're still not listening.
5
Don't any Republicans remember their sainted Ronald Reagan initiating the '85 Geneva Summit with Gorbachev in an effort to show that the US is interested in peace, while all his party's hardliners howled? That all ended up pretty good.
The Iran deal is ever more clearly War vs Peace.
There's big money in war that some of our brethren don't want to give up, it would seem.
So come on America, speak up. War or Peace?
(And make Israel safer also by helping stabilize the region in spite of Bibi.)
The Iran deal is ever more clearly War vs Peace.
There's big money in war that some of our brethren don't want to give up, it would seem.
So come on America, speak up. War or Peace?
(And make Israel safer also by helping stabilize the region in spite of Bibi.)
58
Yes we do remember, and this is not a Democrat vs Republican thing, as far as the country is concerned - the polls show that more Republicans support this deal than oppose it. This is an AIPAC vs America thing - and we need to make sure America prevails.
17
Democrats were so good to Reagan. That's what I remember.
3
I enjoyed watching President Obama speak with Thomas Friedman. I was proud to see an American President approach such a volatile topic with poise, thoughtfulness and statesmanship.
However, I think even humoring the GOPs request to play a roll in approving any deal gives the outlandish idea credit. The President should speak directly to the American people about it. I think we're more equipped to give him the backing he needs than the senate is.
However, I think even humoring the GOPs request to play a roll in approving any deal gives the outlandish idea credit. The President should speak directly to the American people about it. I think we're more equipped to give him the backing he needs than the senate is.
298
You think humoring the GOP's request to play a roll in approving a deal is outlandish? This type of thinking may be exactly what gave the GOP the majority in the house and the senate. Hopefully they will have all three after the next election. Then they can blame the democrats for everything that goes wrong. The new saying will be it's Obama's fault! lol
1
Obama has the title of "Liar in chief" for a reason. He does so with poise, thoughtfulness, and statesmanship (otherwise known as political skill). When he's done, I'm sure he will want to sell you something else.... I'd watch what you "buy" from him.
Most critics of the framework agreement in Congress and their fellow travelers believe they can enhance sanctions against Iran.
For those enhanced sanctions to work it needs the whole world to be enforce them
There is little chance China , Japan , India who need oil and even lower prices will go along with this and cannot wait to do business with Iran.
Russia will always support Iran and if these talks fail they are in a position to support any effort by Iran to accelerate their nuclear program.
They need the business .
As does Europe which has close business ties to Iran ,needs lower oil prices , also do not underestimate Europeans respect for 77 million Iranians.
Unilateral intensification of sanctions by the Congress will leave us and Israel
isolated and create a path to nuclear weapons for Iran if that is the path they wish to take.
For those enhanced sanctions to work it needs the whole world to be enforce them
There is little chance China , Japan , India who need oil and even lower prices will go along with this and cannot wait to do business with Iran.
Russia will always support Iran and if these talks fail they are in a position to support any effort by Iran to accelerate their nuclear program.
They need the business .
As does Europe which has close business ties to Iran ,needs lower oil prices , also do not underestimate Europeans respect for 77 million Iranians.
Unilateral intensification of sanctions by the Congress will leave us and Israel
isolated and create a path to nuclear weapons for Iran if that is the path they wish to take.
19
This was a multi state deal and I am sure France, Germany, China, UK, EU and Russia will just welcome the USA, Saudi Arabia and Israel trying to put the kibosh on this deal. I look forward to the US joining North Korea as the other rogue nuclear state on this planet. This is exactly what the world needs now the strongest nation on Earth being ungovernable and doing its best to promote global chaos. I thought Americans believed politics stopped at the waters edge.
43
Conservatives don't compromise and they love to ruin life for everyone; they're very special people.
Two years ago, the Senate failed to ratify an international treaty intended to protect the rights of those with disabilities, as a bloc of conservatives opposed the treaty believed it could interfere with U.S. law.
The Senate voted 61 to 38 to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, a tally that fell short of the two-thirds needed to sign on to an international treaty.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-rejects-treaty-to-protect-...
Two years ago, the Senate failed to ratify an international treaty intended to protect the rights of those with disabilities, as a bloc of conservatives opposed the treaty believed it could interfere with U.S. law.
The Senate voted 61 to 38 to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, a tally that fell short of the two-thirds needed to sign on to an international treaty.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-rejects-treaty-to-protect-...
29
"Many U.S. policy makers, including President Obama and some Members of Congress, agree that existing U.S. laws and policies are compatible with CRPD. In fact, some CRPD provisions appear
to be modeled after U.S. disability laws. The United States has historically recognized the rights of individuals with disabilities through various laws and policies, including the Americans with
Disabilities Act."
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42749.pdf
to be modeled after U.S. disability laws. The United States has historically recognized the rights of individuals with disabilities through various laws and policies, including the Americans with
Disabilities Act."
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42749.pdf
"Role of the CPRD committee. Critics are concerned that recommendations of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Convention’s monitoring body, could deem U.S. laws to be in violation of CRPD and presume authority over the private lives of U.S. citizens. Supporters, including the Obama
Administration, emphasize that committee decisions are non-binding under international and domestic law."
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42749.pdf
Administration, emphasize that committee decisions are non-binding under international and domestic law."
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42749.pdf
Republicans have spent more time politicking than studying the technical merits of this agreement-in-princple. And for what, to appease Netanyahu, who represents a nuclear armed country that is one of the only four countries in the world (along with Pakistan, India and South Sudan),who has not signed the NPT? How is this irony lost on many? For over 40 years we have led the world to help reduce the arsenal of nuclear weapons, yet we look the other way at Israel who is the world's third largest nuclear power, and not in the NPT club. Bob Croker will likely fold under GOP pressure. And that will be sad day for how DC deals with one of the most important foreign policy matters we have faced in a generation.
30
It is assumed Israel has nuclear capabilities. That has never been proven nor has Israel said it does.
Despite his short tenure in the Senate, it's interesting to compare Corker's actions to those of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Perhaps Senator Corker could explain the phrase, "advice and consent" to Mr. McConnell.
4
I am sick and tired of republicans opposing everything President Obama says and does. From the day he was sworn in, republicans have done everything in their power to shame and erase any successes for the first African American President. Let' be honest. This isn't about war or peace. It's about racism and politics and we're disgusted by it all.
49
Democrats would be foolish to go along with any Republican attempt to give Congress a possible veto over the final deal with Iran. The GOP senators are betrayed by their own previous words; these show clearly that they will never afford any deal negotiated with Iran by the Obama administration (and four other nations let's not forget) a fair shake. We will risk a collapse of the deal which will leave Iran with no incentive to negotiate further and the US will be blamed. Furthermore, it is far from clear that other countries would go along with a continuation of economic sanctions. Israel will then be pushing us into attacking Iran's facilities, with GOP support.
The current GOP majority are simply not responsible enough to be accorded that sort of power.
The current GOP majority are simply not responsible enough to be accorded that sort of power.
41
Of course, perhaps by now Mr. Obama has learned to use all levels of power to keep his office and the country from being undermined by Congress; In this case Senators that, without care about the separation of powers, sink the United States to banana republic status in the world stage --a chaotic ex-superpower unable of the most basic projection of power: that of being a negotiating partner among its rivals and even its peers.
But perhaps the dear Senator forgets that this treaty is not solely between the United States and Iran, but between Iran and the major Western powers, China, and Russia. Thus the treaty should be signed and enforced via the United Nations, with the US one country among many. If Mr. Corker has a problem with that, I suppose he should be prepared to impeach the President and remove the US from the United Nations, leaving our country an island of international opprobrium and isolation.
And, Senator Corker, while you are at it, as you say war is the alternative, are you preparing a military draft and volunteering your grandchildren to do war in Iran?
But perhaps the dear Senator forgets that this treaty is not solely between the United States and Iran, but between Iran and the major Western powers, China, and Russia. Thus the treaty should be signed and enforced via the United Nations, with the US one country among many. If Mr. Corker has a problem with that, I suppose he should be prepared to impeach the President and remove the US from the United Nations, leaving our country an island of international opprobrium and isolation.
And, Senator Corker, while you are at it, as you say war is the alternative, are you preparing a military draft and volunteering your grandchildren to do war in Iran?
25
Whatever the outcome our congress has really let the people of our country down. Corker's campaign against Ford showed what he was ready to do to win. The shameful scene we saw when Bibi spoke to congress was not enough now the fate of deal and the world my rest on Bob Corker! For the prime minister of a foreign country to publically say he was going to lobby us. Corker is doing an end run around the deal. With 47 already on record to kill the deal who is he trying to fool? Sure he didn't sign the letter to Iran. Does anyone remember the white woman that just happened to be in his campaign ad against Ford when he ran for the Senate? Now Corker is the great statesman? If congress has approve anything the deal is dead and everybody knows it. Not because of the merits of the deal but because our congress is bought and paid for. Before there was even a deal they made it perfectly clear that any deal was a bad deal. Would we demand any deal with Saudi Arabia be contingent on them stop paying for the schools that teach radical Islam? We would stop selling them arms if they refused to allow females to drive? On our march to war with Saddam where was all of these statesman? Everyone forgets when they say can we trust Iran that our CIA overthrow the government in Iran and installed the Shah. We seem to forget that any deal has to be sold in Iran too. They capitulated on this deal but they also have to sell it at home. They are a proud people their hardliners need to save face also.
11
Anyone else remember how much the GOP used to love Dick Cheney's "Unitary Theory of the Executive"?
18
Who knows maybe Corker is a genuine Senator who understands having working relationships with others regardless of party affiliation will result in better outcomes for all Americans.
I will say this, as a construction business owner myself you understand that ideology and political affiliation matter nothing when it comes to getting the building finished. If that is his background, I suspect the president will find a true working partner.
I will say this, as a construction business owner myself you understand that ideology and political affiliation matter nothing when it comes to getting the building finished. If that is his background, I suspect the president will find a true working partner.
22
Construction? Corker et al. seem bent on quite the opposite when it comes to our agreement with Iran.
1
It is a singular matter that Mr. Corker is perhaps the most reasonable of the Republicans in the Senate--and he is very unreasonable. Most of the Republicans haven't read the agreement with Iran, and most of those who might have read it don't understand it.
Tonight Energy Secretary Moniz, himself a Ph.D. nuclear scientist, gave one of the most cogent reports on the Iran agreement on the Rachel Maddow Show. It was patently clear that this agreement is brutally stringent on Iran. It embodies, in fact, the most stringent inspections regime in history.
However, it doesn't do the impossible--it doesn't completely dismantle Iran's 40 year old nuclear program.
Why? Because Iran is signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that gives them the "inalienable right" to peaceful nuclear development. Iran has compromised, but it is too much to ask Iran to humiliate itself by giving up its treaty rights. Iranians have an enormous amount of pride in their scientific and engineering skills. Iran would be the only nation out of 200+ NPT signatories to be forced to totally give up its nuclear technology. It is simply too much to ask.
However indifferent the Republicans might be to the reality of the Iranian situation, they are sure of one bit of humiliation they want to inflict--that is humiliation heaped on President Obama. No deal would ever be good enough for them. They want to see President Obama brought low and ground in the dust--more than they wish this for Iran.
Tonight Energy Secretary Moniz, himself a Ph.D. nuclear scientist, gave one of the most cogent reports on the Iran agreement on the Rachel Maddow Show. It was patently clear that this agreement is brutally stringent on Iran. It embodies, in fact, the most stringent inspections regime in history.
However, it doesn't do the impossible--it doesn't completely dismantle Iran's 40 year old nuclear program.
Why? Because Iran is signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that gives them the "inalienable right" to peaceful nuclear development. Iran has compromised, but it is too much to ask Iran to humiliate itself by giving up its treaty rights. Iranians have an enormous amount of pride in their scientific and engineering skills. Iran would be the only nation out of 200+ NPT signatories to be forced to totally give up its nuclear technology. It is simply too much to ask.
However indifferent the Republicans might be to the reality of the Iranian situation, they are sure of one bit of humiliation they want to inflict--that is humiliation heaped on President Obama. No deal would ever be good enough for them. They want to see President Obama brought low and ground in the dust--more than they wish this for Iran.
43
"stopping enough Democrats from joining [Corker] so that he is short of a veto-proof majority" Obama must do this now, full force.
13
Agree completely, our President should make a statement that he will personally lead the efforts in 2016 to primary any Democrat that votes for this AIPAC foreign policy statement. The rightly decried Citizens United decision that rendered this chaos might actually prove to be presciently named if we get smart, and at least end the AIPAC ownership of Democrats. That means you, Chuck Schumer, so quit measuring for curtains in Harry Reid's office and get ready to face the people. I am hoping Patty Murray doesn't defect because she should be the next leader of the Democrats' Senate caucus, but only if she is loyal to her oath of office.
1
So the Country has to decide;
Do we want another North Korea-like agreement which allows a fascist regime to breach a preventative nuclear arms agreement for the sake of a lack of ominous headlines for a few years?
Of course we do! We are aging progressive baby-boomers who want social security to be viable today, and who cares about tomorrow?
Do NOT disturb my President's "legacy."
You will be crossing my "red lines."
Do we want another North Korea-like agreement which allows a fascist regime to breach a preventative nuclear arms agreement for the sake of a lack of ominous headlines for a few years?
Of course we do! We are aging progressive baby-boomers who want social security to be viable today, and who cares about tomorrow?
Do NOT disturb my President's "legacy."
You will be crossing my "red lines."
1
"Do we want another North Korea-like agreement which allows a fascist regime to breach a preventative nuclear arms agreement for the sake of a lack of ominous headlines for a few years?" Another vote to go to war without knowing what the agreement really says.
4
Suggest some reading on the circumstances of North Korea's nuclear program. It was the Republicans who came into power in 2001 that dismantled a Clinton era agreement with North Korea. North Korea then developed and tested their nuclear weapon in 2006 during the Bush Administration.
1
Democrats need to wake up. They will benefit far more from backing Obama in bringing Iran in from the cold than from trying to avoid losing campaign funds by being Republican Lite. That didn't work in the last election and it won't work in the next. Also, it's crazy to imagine Adelson, Netanyahu and AIPAC won't stick to the party that parades its presidential candidates before Adelson in a Beauty Conte$t.
Look at Netanyahu's track record at fear mongering. Iraq, a major disaster and Iran which has been on the verge of having a bomb for how many years? Why is anyone li$tening?
Look at Netanyahu's track record at fear mongering. Iraq, a major disaster and Iran which has been on the verge of having a bomb for how many years? Why is anyone li$tening?
36
I don't see why Obama doesn't go directly to the American people and make an articulate and sensible speech for the Iran Nuclear deal. He has facts and logic on his side.
He is a very persuasive speaker and he should put his best writers on the job.
Public pressure is the only leverage against this gutless Congress.
He is a very persuasive speaker and he should put his best writers on the job.
Public pressure is the only leverage against this gutless Congress.
33
He has no "facts" on his side since the details haven't been worked out yet.
By all means let us govern the country with whoever can supply the best in Rhetorics instead of the deliberative reasoning the Constitution requires of us and our elected representatives.
He did – please see the entire interview with Friedman:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/opinion/thomas-friedman-the-obama-doct...®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well
It is difficult for me to understand how so many people think Obama's strategy is wrong, on any level. As he points out, the US really has nothing to lose by trying to get an agreement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/opinion/thomas-friedman-the-obama-doct...®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well
It is difficult for me to understand how so many people think Obama's strategy is wrong, on any level. As he points out, the US really has nothing to lose by trying to get an agreement.
1
I see a headline below this article listing: "Israel Lists Changes It Wants in Final Iran Deal"
Absurd. Absolutely crazy. A foreign nation is now dictating our foreign policy. How did we get here? Methinks it's political contributions.
Absurd. Absolutely crazy. A foreign nation is now dictating our foreign policy. How did we get here? Methinks it's political contributions.
61
No...not crazy..............this is an ally saying:.."..if we are left unprotected from a fanatical regime in Teheran.....we will take military action".....so make the deal better.....or we will act.......pretty darn clear
It is hard to trust any Republican when his vigilante cohorts meddle in crucial Presidential foreign policy prerogatives. A strong voice from his Party would be welcome, but straddling the thin line does not inspire trust. I know it is tempting to find anyone in the Republican Party who does not make blanket condemnations of the President and put some trust in that person. But in the end the President must stand strong to make this agreement work. He must be the leader here and if some Republican wants to support the agreement well, that should be appreciated, but not depended upon considering the toxic history of Republicans supporting the President..
13
After seeing our President negotiate with the Republicans for 6 years, I can't imagine a good deal would come from his negotiating with Iran.
1
Poor Mr. Netanyahu. Another day of savage, vitrioloic reader comments aimed directly at him simply because when he says "never again" he means it.
2
I'll believe this narrative about Sen. Corker when I see it. There is little support for it as yet.
Congressional and pundital Republicans have been nothing but onerous and obstructionist toward the President, openly disrespectful of the man and showing scant regard for the Constitutional structure of their job (Article I) compared to his (Article II). Even where the text places the foreign relations powers squarely as the Executive role.
Knowing that the Courts (Article III) would more likely punt (avoidance) than weigh in on a Constitutional clash, the Republicans continue riding roughshod over a cowed press and a pathetic corps of Democrats.
Recall by contrast the deference Republicans demanded all show to Pres. Bush - "He's the Commander-in-Chief!" That turned out poorly. If a Democract wrote a letter to Mullah Omar or PM Ehud Olmert, Republicans would be apoplectic, call it treason, and burn in the Dem in effigy.
Now they're asserting (read: inserting) themselves into foreign relations, and everyone is bending over (forwards, not backwards) to make sense of it.
Congressional and pundital Republicans have been nothing but onerous and obstructionist toward the President, openly disrespectful of the man and showing scant regard for the Constitutional structure of their job (Article I) compared to his (Article II). Even where the text places the foreign relations powers squarely as the Executive role.
Knowing that the Courts (Article III) would more likely punt (avoidance) than weigh in on a Constitutional clash, the Republicans continue riding roughshod over a cowed press and a pathetic corps of Democrats.
Recall by contrast the deference Republicans demanded all show to Pres. Bush - "He's the Commander-in-Chief!" That turned out poorly. If a Democract wrote a letter to Mullah Omar or PM Ehud Olmert, Republicans would be apoplectic, call it treason, and burn in the Dem in effigy.
Now they're asserting (read: inserting) themselves into foreign relations, and everyone is bending over (forwards, not backwards) to make sense of it.
13
Oh how I wish our Congress would just put a fraction of their time into America's priorities as they do, Israel's. Iran is no threat, never was, never will be, but israel wants to be the only player in the Middle east, so take out the last of the surrounding civilizations...and our Congress helped, disgusting.
26
This contrary Congress has murmured against each and every initiative proposed by President Obama. Neither Mitch McConnell in the Senate nor John Boehner in the House has ever asked the president "what can we do to make this work?" whether the issue was foreign policy or domestic policy. They have trotted out "impeachment" as an implied threat to curb what they stubbornly interpret as executive over-reach. Yet the Republican leadership is clearly marshaling support to dilute the strength of the plan as we now have it. The president is clearly within the law to make treaties, or executive agreements. This president has demonstrated a willingness to bridge a divide on this complex agreement. Sen. Corker appears to be an honorable man, one far less susceptible to the shrill dogmatism that is the DNA of a majority of his fellow Republicans. If this all collapses because of adamant support for Israel, America will be gravely compromised. We will be seen as a country whose nationally elected leader is held captive by lawmakers who are harnessed to be ridden by a foreign prime minister who can only cry "wolf!" This Congress lacks the maturity and integrity to imagine the damning consequences to America of a demonstrably weakened president. They cannot see a president beyond Mr. Obama because they are so invested in his complete and total failure--in any and every endeavor.
30
"The president is clearly within the law to make treaties, or executive agreements." And the Senate is Constitutionally empowered to approve those treaties while the House of Representative is Constitutionally empowered to fund or not fund those agreements. We aren't a Dictatorship yet.
That United States Senator Robert Corker is a "major player in Iran Accord" is definitive proof of how the deck is stacked against President Barack Obama in Washington, D.C., and thus by American politics writ large.
Senator corker was one of many Republican "Wise Men" who met in on the night of President Obama's first inaugural night as the elected president of the United States to pledge unremitting opposition to the democratically-elected president of the world's most powerful democracy. These Republican's antidemocratic intentions have played out powerfully throughout the Obama presidency.
That Corker is now worthy of such a story speaks to how powerfully a position such figures wield in Washington D.C., at home and abroad.
Such an assault on human democracy should not be allowed to stand. Tragically, such a Republican Party-led Congress plays a dominating role in the affairs of democracy in America.
Senator corker was one of many Republican "Wise Men" who met in on the night of President Obama's first inaugural night as the elected president of the United States to pledge unremitting opposition to the democratically-elected president of the world's most powerful democracy. These Republican's antidemocratic intentions have played out powerfully throughout the Obama presidency.
That Corker is now worthy of such a story speaks to how powerfully a position such figures wield in Washington D.C., at home and abroad.
Such an assault on human democracy should not be allowed to stand. Tragically, such a Republican Party-led Congress plays a dominating role in the affairs of democracy in America.
18
The US is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional or Representative Republic. Thus the people elect others to protect their interests and do not vote directly for any legislation. Democracy is a catch all phrase that can describe many forms of governing.
I don't think Congress will ultimately have that much to do. Iran will never sign an accord in June. Guaranteed.
3
We should be asking obstructionist elected representatives like Bob Corker an inconvenient question.
What nation do you really represent - the United States of America or Israel?
What nation do you really represent - the United States of America or Israel?
53
Republicans have sabotaged President Obama every step of his presidency and now it looks like Senator Schummer has joined their ranks. This is the same Senator who wants to lead the Democrats in the Senate. What a bad joke!!
46
Remember that when he runs for reelection
1
I think that we should stop wasting precious time - declare a draft with no exemptions and attack iran post haste.
2
This is serious business. Enough with the jokes!
Corker seems to be a thoughtful and responsible sort of guy but that's a pretty low bar to set for a President who has to deal with an opposition comprised mainly of lunatics, thieves and autocrats.
27
Come on...do we have to continue to pretend that congress would EVER side with Obama? Seriously? It's a no-brainer that this congress is against ANYTHING/EVERYTHING this president is for.
Come on USA! We NEED YOU!!!
We need the people who are sending their children into the line of fire, to know that they are respected by us, and that their injured and fallen will be taken care of by our government. It's not the President who decides that...IT IS CONGRESS!!!! And it is Congress that decides how much money, if any, is going to our Veterans, their families, our young people, who have suffered horrible physical wounds, and those who have suffered horrible psychological wounds. If you're not sure whose side congress is on...check it out @ https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes and then think of the kids coming back from tours in the middle east. And ask yourself...would I have encouraged my son/daughter to sacrifice themselves for this country? Ask yourself. And if you have, and if you have lost a loved one...please know that we, so many, many, many of us, are thinking of/praying for/ all of you. These thoughts and prayers go WAY beyond religion, and are meant to touch every soul who is hurting, and trying to bring peace to you all. Love <3
Come on USA! We NEED YOU!!!
We need the people who are sending their children into the line of fire, to know that they are respected by us, and that their injured and fallen will be taken care of by our government. It's not the President who decides that...IT IS CONGRESS!!!! And it is Congress that decides how much money, if any, is going to our Veterans, their families, our young people, who have suffered horrible physical wounds, and those who have suffered horrible psychological wounds. If you're not sure whose side congress is on...check it out @ https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes and then think of the kids coming back from tours in the middle east. And ask yourself...would I have encouraged my son/daughter to sacrifice themselves for this country? Ask yourself. And if you have, and if you have lost a loved one...please know that we, so many, many, many of us, are thinking of/praying for/ all of you. These thoughts and prayers go WAY beyond religion, and are meant to touch every soul who is hurting, and trying to bring peace to you all. Love <3
45
Your last paragraph doesn't follow from the first. Your urging of support for the casualties and veterans of war is well meant, but that's not ths issue. The whole idea is to AVOID another war in the Middle East.
"It's not the President who decides that...IT IS CONGRESS!!!!" But WHAT is it that the President doesn't decide? Right now we're concerned that "CONGRESS!!!!" may decide they'd rather engage in war-posturing for the sake of right-wing votes than go along with Obama's agreement with Iran.
"...would I have encouraged my son/daughter to sacrifice themselves for this country?" WHICH country? I hope you don't mean Israel. No one is talking about going to war for Israel. The whole idea is to keep Iran from deciding they need to build a bomb.
Your comment seems very confused. Please figure out what you're trying to say.
"It's not the President who decides that...IT IS CONGRESS!!!!" But WHAT is it that the President doesn't decide? Right now we're concerned that "CONGRESS!!!!" may decide they'd rather engage in war-posturing for the sake of right-wing votes than go along with Obama's agreement with Iran.
"...would I have encouraged my son/daughter to sacrifice themselves for this country?" WHICH country? I hope you don't mean Israel. No one is talking about going to war for Israel. The whole idea is to keep Iran from deciding they need to build a bomb.
Your comment seems very confused. Please figure out what you're trying to say.
Yes, Mareln, we agree, we and beg everyone else who agrees to call and express their opinions to their representatives in Congress. Also, PLEASE VOTE!
1
The latest from the legislative body that refused to ratify the League of Nations or the Kyoto Accord...
And some wonder why the standing of the US keeps falling in the eyes of the world?
And some wonder why the standing of the US keeps falling in the eyes of the world?
131
Thankfully Corker is getting respect and the President recognises him for it. Not a bad thing. Perhaps the Iran deal is a bad deal but hopefully Corker can make it fully verifiable with incentives that work for the adherence to the framework of what could be passed.
5
It is a given that Mr. Corker will find agreement in Congress on a 60 day debate period followed by an up or down vote on the Iran agreement. His Bill will require Congress to become involved and will make it possible to suggest amendments that would kill the agreement. Although on the surface giving Congress a say appears to be the thing to do in a Democracy, in reality, Congress was not present at the negotiations and therefor have no knowledge of what was discussed to arrive at the current agreement. If the opposition in Congress has the final say on what has already been agreed to, what's the point of having a Secretary of State and a President representing the country on matters like this? If we look at Corker's Bill from a partisan political point of view it is just one more exercise to delay and disrupt anything and everything the President tries to do.
85
More evidence that the Republican's are usurping Obama and the Office of The President in their effort to telegraph that they, (catering to their Israeli conservative constituency) and not the legitimately elected president of the United States, will be the final authority in the negotiated terms of any agreement with Iran.
110
The Repubs are not catering to Israel. They're catering to their own right-wing voters who they think are all favoring Israel.
As for the Israelis, Netanyahu is just another politician catering to his own right-wing electorate. Personally - and as one who once lived in Israel for several years - I think the Israelis are nuts to ally themselves with the American right wing.
As for the Israelis, Netanyahu is just another politician catering to his own right-wing electorate. Personally - and as one who once lived in Israel for several years - I think the Israelis are nuts to ally themselves with the American right wing.
3
Corker's bill is a great example of the new spirit of bipartisanship in the Senate. Congratulations to Senator Schumer for working together, to get things moving again.
7
Strange that you call it "moving," when in fact their goal is to stifle and undermine the negotiations at hand. These congressional actions are fundamentally reactionary.
4
Wow, with comments like your's helps explain the horrible condition America is in...What will you congratulate them for next, WWIII?
2
".....working together, to get things moving again." Yes, and both senators are influenced by campaign donations to give their first allegiance to the interests of Israel rather than to the interests of the United States.
12
So the country has to decide.
Do we want to perpetually be at war in the Middle East, with the "off the books" costs associated with war and death, or do we want to start trying to find the best paths we can to peace and use all those billions of dollars saved here at home?
We know where the Republicans in Congress stand on this issue, but is this really what the American people want? And if not, why do they keep voting for them?
Do we want to perpetually be at war in the Middle East, with the "off the books" costs associated with war and death, or do we want to start trying to find the best paths we can to peace and use all those billions of dollars saved here at home?
We know where the Republicans in Congress stand on this issue, but is this really what the American people want? And if not, why do they keep voting for them?
233
You have to look at what's driving this attitude and who stands to benefit. War means business for the military industrial complex. It also means that America will continue to support Israel's defense system. And who pays for all this, the American public. Then you hear, but we Republicans will cut taxes, so don't worry. And if you read between the lines, the military budget will increase, aid to Israel will increase while funds for social assistance, science, health care, education, infrastructure and a bunch of other programs that it worth living in the US, will decrease. Those services will be handled by the private sector at a reasonable cost. That's what it's all about folks.
1
Americans need to let our Senators know we expect them to represent us, not AIPAC and Israel. California's Senator Feinstein has courageously spoken out to support the deal and US interests and to tell Netanyahu to "contain himself". We need to demand that the rest of Congress follow suit - we are tired of their pusillanimous kowtowing to foreign interests.
325
Senator Feinstein has unmitigated gall and hutzpah in her comments to Mr. Netanyahu.
Mr. Netanyahu has his job to do. Perhaps Senator Feinstein might have noticed that there are no voices in Israel supporting this deal, but rather only discussions as how to cope with it. Across the political board it is considered bad and problematical at best.
Just as she demands respect for her president, so she should have a minimum amount of respect for the Prime Minister of another country.
Mr. Netanyahu has his job to do. Perhaps Senator Feinstein might have noticed that there are no voices in Israel supporting this deal, but rather only discussions as how to cope with it. Across the political board it is considered bad and problematical at best.
Just as she demands respect for her president, so she should have a minimum amount of respect for the Prime Minister of another country.
Mr. Schwartz, As I trust you are correct about no one in Israel supporting this deal, trust me when I tell you this: Bibi has lost the respect of the American people and is dragging Israel down with him.
3
And may I point out that the situations are not parallel. Israel is not a party to this deal - the negotiators are the P5+1. So its opinions on this issue are of no interest to Americans - at least, those who put America first, rather than a foreign country, which is most of us. And we will no longer tolerate AIPAC's and Israel's arrogance and presumption, with this sort of attempted interference with our foreign policy.
As a former resident of Tennessee, I can say that those of us who had progressive views were never impressed with Corker. Tea party types in the state were not fond of him for the wrong reasons. I think President Obama is mistaken to expect much from the man. Compared to Mitch McConnell and the rot that the Republican mainstream represent in the Senate he may look great, but he obviously does not understand how treaty making has been done in American history. Times readers who read Thomas Friedman's lengthy story in the Times will be impressed with how mature and brilliant Obama has become in dealing with a complex international problem. I see no evidence that Corker will ever be on that level.
164
That interview, in video and writing is incredible. The president is unbelievably brilliant. He can actually walk and talk and understand and deliver all at once.
2
Too bad we cannot reelect President Obama.
No one has made mention of AIPAC. Just wondering how many Democrats co-signing onboard have taken their money?
64
We've cared so little for this issue for so long but when israel says jump, unfortunately our right wing representatives ask how high. A sad day for the United States.
199
Not just the right wing. The "bipartisan consensus" on Israel in the US Congress has been pretty strong for decades. It is starting to break down now, but we have yet to see if the growing anger in the Democratic Party with Israel translates into dissent in Congress. Once again, struck by the absolutely bizarre nature of the US-Israel relationship, where Israel has extraordinary influence over the superpower, even if it does not completely call the shots.
1
If this is such a great deal then why is the President running around the country and talking with all his friendly "news" people trying to sell this deal. Seems to me, if this was a GOOD deal it would sell itself. Maybe he meant it was a good deal for Iran.
8
Because the President is black, and the G.O.P. won't give him the time of day, let alone give him credit for getting this done. I mean, what's the big problem? If the deal falls through, we can bomb them and start a war. Then you can send your kids to die in Iran.
75
Here, read and view this, maybe you might, I know it's a long shot, you just might understand. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/opinion/thomas-friedman-the-obama-doct...
7
Good deals don't sell themselves. No deals sell themselves. Welcome to the 21st century.
3
Congress does not get to make laws on a whim to change the fundamental methodology laid out in the Constitution regarding US Foreign Policies and ratification of treaties. The President leads on Foreign Policy: that's the Constitutional mandate. To make a fundamental change to this will require an amendment, not just some simple law set down by a Congress, that from the day this President was elected, has refused to act like adults.
Congress needs to have a heck of a good reason to start tinkering in this area. Obsession with Israel, a desire to "align with the 'right side'" for the Bible's "end times," or any of the many Right Wing "Obama Derangement Syndrome" reasons are all not good enough - not even close.
Congress needs to have a heck of a good reason to start tinkering in this area. Obsession with Israel, a desire to "align with the 'right side'" for the Bible's "end times," or any of the many Right Wing "Obama Derangement Syndrome" reasons are all not good enough - not even close.
131
The truly scary part of all this is that Congress can not even remotely pretend that it's following the popular will of the nation, or protecting our interests, as only the truly Biblically obsessed and a portion of America's Jews can be said to want to scuttle this treaty. The rest of our nation's Jewish citizens are as appalled as the rest of us. Do we want to aim towards war on behalf of Israel, with one of the largest and best locally fortified militaries in the World? Heck No! The loss of lives, ships, planes, etc. may be unlike anything seen since WWII. After getting off of the two longest and most expensive wars in our history, with lots of America's needs sorely neglected, only a fool would want this!
This is a treaty and movement supported by pretty much all the rational countries of the West and the developed world. Any claim that Iran is a threat to us, and will drop a nuke on the US, with our overbearing nuclear superiority is just plain nuts. It will also take out a major ally against ISIS, and make us one of the very few true military aggressors in the world today.
How many ways can we just say, "NO?!"
This is a treaty and movement supported by pretty much all the rational countries of the West and the developed world. Any claim that Iran is a threat to us, and will drop a nuke on the US, with our overbearing nuclear superiority is just plain nuts. It will also take out a major ally against ISIS, and make us one of the very few true military aggressors in the world today.
How many ways can we just say, "NO?!"
1
If the GOP controlled congress manages to block or kill the agreement, then what is next? I don't trust Iran either but while the US Government sat on their hands for decades Iran managed to build up their nuclear program despite the sanctions. So are the GOP senators advocating a war against Iran? Bomb them or send it ground troops?
Or perhaps they can convince the Gulf Arab states to form a joint ground force with the Israelis to invade Iran with the US cheering on the sideline. I am all for that!
Or perhaps they can convince the Gulf Arab states to form a joint ground force with the Israelis to invade Iran with the US cheering on the sideline. I am all for that!
5
The Senate has every right to review the agreement, as it stands now, and even if they can't substantially change it, they should offer constructive input. The last thing the President, and our nation, needs is to be backing a deal with so many air holes that he's embarrassed to defend it and/or hear other viewpoints about how to improve it. Or, if needed, walk away from it. Go for it, Mr. Corker. The Iranians are watching your moves, and realize you and other senators have the President's back.
5
When is the last time any Republican Senator offered anything constructive? They don't really support Israel. They think that when the time comes, they'll throw out all of the Jews and Muslims, and claim Israel for themselves.
17
The key word is "constructive" input. It is evident that Congress is in the hands of Netanyahu where no deal is a good deal. However if you want to see the effects of sanctions, look at North Korea, one of the poorest most isolated countries in the world with a very nice nuclear arsenal.
17
If those senators have Obama's back, it's only to stick a knife in it.
20
Neutral public opinion polls show the electrorate in overwhelming support of this negotiation and deal with Iran. Roughly, IIRC, the Pew numbers are like 60% for, 30% against and 10% not sure. That is 2 to 1 from the Public. The President, the only person elected by all the public is obviously for the deal.
If one considers how the public is usually skewed, Democrats for the deal must be running like 70% plus. There are 45 Democrats in the Senate, who one would think, are representing these people, 70% or more of whom are saying, I want you to vote with your president of your own party, and I am the one who will vote to elect you next time. It sounds like a no brainier.
And, Corker is a good man, but I do not know how it works out fior him with those numbers. Plus he is out of line on the powers of the legislature; this isn't a treaty so no vote is required, and should not be contemplated. There would be votes required to lift congressional sanctions, and he would be on solid ground there if that's where he is going, based on the politics, I don't expect the US congress as presently composed to lift sanctions, just like they could not pull off the IMF votes to make adjustments for China and thereby diminished the US in the world.
But other countries will do what they agreed and that should be enough to move things along.
If one considers how the public is usually skewed, Democrats for the deal must be running like 70% plus. There are 45 Democrats in the Senate, who one would think, are representing these people, 70% or more of whom are saying, I want you to vote with your president of your own party, and I am the one who will vote to elect you next time. It sounds like a no brainier.
And, Corker is a good man, but I do not know how it works out fior him with those numbers. Plus he is out of line on the powers of the legislature; this isn't a treaty so no vote is required, and should not be contemplated. There would be votes required to lift congressional sanctions, and he would be on solid ground there if that's where he is going, based on the politics, I don't expect the US congress as presently composed to lift sanctions, just like they could not pull off the IMF votes to make adjustments for China and thereby diminished the US in the world.
But other countries will do what they agreed and that should be enough to move things along.
24
This Pew poll you reference wants a negotiated deal but only if it is a good deal.
You fail to mention the poll said sixty-nine percent said they wanted Congress to weigh is, and if fact thought Congress should have final authority. Nothing like telling half the story.
You fail to mention the poll said sixty-nine percent said they wanted Congress to weigh is, and if fact thought Congress should have final authority. Nothing like telling half the story.
1
Why don't we shut down Congress and just let BiBi Netanyahu and Sheldon Adelson decide what's best for the USA in regard to the talks with Iran.
68
Something's developing in addition to the usual GOP obstructionist derailment tactic. Politico reported earlier that Senator Schumer had this to say: "I strongly believe Congress should have the right to disapprove any agreement"
It's one thing when you have the opposition against you... But possibly the future leader of the Senate's minority? Hmm...
The constitution was written to give the president, whoever he or she may be, certain responsibilities and latitude. Remove this particular ability and the office of the presidency is reduced. Where are congressional Republicans going with this? Surely, they're not planning on usurping the White House completely, or are they?
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/chuck-schumer-bucks-white-house-on...
It's one thing when you have the opposition against you... But possibly the future leader of the Senate's minority? Hmm...
The constitution was written to give the president, whoever he or she may be, certain responsibilities and latitude. Remove this particular ability and the office of the presidency is reduced. Where are congressional Republicans going with this? Surely, they're not planning on usurping the White House completely, or are they?
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/chuck-schumer-bucks-white-house-on...
34
My comment is intended to be snarky. Would this Congress have been engaged in such machinations with Ronald Reagan in the White House?
26
Republican hard line antics resulted in a North Korean nuclear arsenal.
Now they are doing it again. The same guys, the same way.
They are going to turn success into failure, and ensure an Iranian bomb. They'll be proud of themselves for that, and claim it proves they were right all along.
Now they are doing it again. The same guys, the same way.
They are going to turn success into failure, and ensure an Iranian bomb. They'll be proud of themselves for that, and claim it proves they were right all along.
339
There is nothing, absolutely nothing more important than defeating their president. You, I, the people of America - none of us are more important than that goal. Talk about patriots!
52
Mr. Obama, try as he might, cannot have it both ways. You cannot refer to this initiative, as Mr. Obama has, as one of the most important in our time and then *not* seek the advice and consent of the Congress. In what appears to be a naked attempt to shape a positive legacy, Mr. Obama is tacitly admitting that Congress knows he gave way too much away in pursuit of a fatally flawed agreement. Ego and nuclear weaponry do not mix.
When Iran reneged on its promise, two days before the deadline, to ship extraneous nuclear material to Russia - and Mr. Obama actually gave into that - he cemented his legacy as both a poor negotiator and a hopelessly naive one as well. Ayatollah, one - Obama, zip.
When Iran reneged on its promise, two days before the deadline, to ship extraneous nuclear material to Russia - and Mr. Obama actually gave into that - he cemented his legacy as both a poor negotiator and a hopelessly naive one as well. Ayatollah, one - Obama, zip.
12
"You cannot refer to this initiative, as Mr. Obama has, as one of the most important in our time and then *not* seek the advice and consent of the Congress."
Yes you can. It is not a treaty.
We did many very important things with the Soviets, when they were far more dangerous, by agreement without Congressional approval.
Yes you can. It is not a treaty.
We did many very important things with the Soviets, when they were far more dangerous, by agreement without Congressional approval.
243
With any other congress, I might be inclined to agree with you RMAN. Sadly, I truly feel that a) this congress would object to a cure for cancer if Obama favored it, and b) most of them are more concerned with pleasing the Prime Minister of Israel than doing the right thing for the United States. I suspect I am not alone in this thinking.
155
"we did many very important things ... more dangerous"
can you name any examples? Otherwise its hyperbole similar to Obama's.
can you name any examples? Otherwise its hyperbole similar to Obama's.
1
The ever-anemic Corker did nothing for Chattanooga when he was mayor (unlike the current Democratic mayor, who has made the city thrive beyond measure), and has done nothing for Tennessee, other than to threaten workers who tried to unionize:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/13/us-volkswagen-corker-idUSBREA1...
He has no intention of working with President Obama. He just wants to look good to Adelson should he decide to run for president.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/13/us-volkswagen-corker-idUSBREA1...
He has no intention of working with President Obama. He just wants to look good to Adelson should he decide to run for president.
215
Considering that the GOP has spent over six years trying, and and sometimes succeeding, in undermining almost everything on President Obama's agenda, it's not surprising that they would do the same here. They seemingly have no solutions for the problems that face the United States (healthcare, immigration, the economy etc) and yet consistently try to undermine solutions that have worked (Obamacare, the Auto and Financial Service bailouts etc) And now we are supposed to believe they have a better solution for problems in the Middle East, after attacking the one country in the Axis of Evil without a nuclear weapons program, under false pretenses, and totally botching that effort.
When I watched the video of President Obama with Tom Friedman, I saw a principled, thoughtful statesman. And I don't see anyone in the Congressional GOP or potential Presidential candidates that comes close to the President Obama.
When I watched the video of President Obama with Tom Friedman, I saw a principled, thoughtful statesman. And I don't see anyone in the Congressional GOP or potential Presidential candidates that comes close to the President Obama.
463
Yes, but somehow even the Democrats ran away from President Obama's huge accomplishments in the last congressional elections. Worse, the public did not even bother to vote for Democrats after the President turned around the financial situation of the country; took our men and women in the military out of Iraq and Afghanistan; got Obamacare running; nominated two women to the Supreme Court; wrote directives to try to reduce global warming; etc. None of these moved his fellow Democrats or us, the public at large; that empowers the Republicans to block everything he tries to do regardless of the merits. Reason, simple: they don't pay at the polls for it.
27
Oh, but they do have a solution. Turn everything over to the private sector. They will figure it out.
7
The video should be required viewing. No sound bites, just, as you said, "principled, thoughtful statesman". 45 minutes. Brilliant man.
21
This is a Treaty, although Obama has structured it as an Executive Agreement. It's no wonder he doesn't look forward to the congress getting a vote; after all he's been as non-compliant and partisan as anyone on the Republican side. Maybe more so because his office calls for bipartisanship and congress is not called to such leadership. Obama is intelligent but his leadership skills are minimal. He's made his own bed and now he has to lie in it.
23
Sorry; Corker wants to mess up the bed and we will lie in it. As for leadership skills, ever try to herd cats?
11
That 'bed' is the potentially the most momentous foreign agreement of the 21st century. Don't kid yourself - Obama is very proud of this accomplishment, and deserves to be.
18
Old School, I'm afraid I must take issue with your post. You don't get to decide whether or not this is a treaty -- only the courts can do that. The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Executive Agreements and in recent decades more than 90% of all international accords have been Executive Agreements rather than treaties. George W. Bush established Executive Agreements with Iraq that far exceeded Obama's commitments in the Iran negotiations. With respect to your other points, all presidents are partisan to some degree and, yes, Congress too is called to bipartisanship -- they simply ignore those pleas. Finally, I don't understand what bed Obama has made that he is now forced to lie in. That phrase has negative connotations and I don't see what problems he has created for himself through his diplomatic efforts. Did he somehow fail in your mind? The problems, it seems, come from others. To be honest, I am surprised that your thoughts are a "NYT Pick." The logic and coherence usually associated with such are not readily apparent in this case.
22
ACCORDING to Ernest Moniz: "The Framework Agreement Is A Good Deal Based On Facts & Science".
HOWEVER that may be too much to ask from the Neocons who have no respect/time for such "Profound Metrics".
THE danger however is that if the Congress gets its way and "Kills the Deal", Iran will walk "Scot Free" as the P5+1 Coalition will fall apart.
AND The US Will End Up Being The Biggest Loser!
HOWEVER that may be too much to ask from the Neocons who have no respect/time for such "Profound Metrics".
THE danger however is that if the Congress gets its way and "Kills the Deal", Iran will walk "Scot Free" as the P5+1 Coalition will fall apart.
AND The US Will End Up Being The Biggest Loser!
28
Furthermore, if this deal tanks, it virtually insures that Iran will get their nuclear weapons SOONER!
1
Granted, Mr. Corker is a version of Baker and Alexander. But legislation to force the Iran Accord to Congress for review and judgment is akin to bringing red meat into the lions' den. Many in Congress appear to prefer aggression over diplomacy and have great disdain that it is Obama leading the way to rapproachement with Iran. On this issue, their leader is PM Netanyahu.
Can Corker have a "substantive conversation" with his fellow Republicans?
Can Corker have a "substantive conversation" with his fellow Republicans?
43
Than why doesn't he run for president?
2
As sincere as Senator Corker's intentions may be, the Iran talks are the purview of the President and his cabinet, not of legislators. The more individuals who try to insert themselves into the accord efforts, from Congress to Netanyahu (particularly working in concert!), the more of a melee the diplomatic process becomes. Some things are too important to be reduced to political scorekeeping.
461
The US Constitution says otherwise. The US Constitution requires 2/3 majority Senate ratification of any US treaty. A treaty is defined as any agreement with a foreign country.
1
Well, I can't think of anything in the purview of politics that aren't too important to be reduced to political scorekeeping.
We want our Congress to be open and honest. We've seen what secret negotiations with foreign nations can lead to. The President needs to understand that the American people want integrity of purpose from the Oval Office and the Congress.
We still await that Change we were promised.
We still await that Change we were promised.
1
where does the congress get the authority to tell the President how to do his job? We have three separate but equal branches of government. The President all by himself is equal 535 members of congress. that changes of course if they have a super majority in the congress but that is rare.
219
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution,
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...
6
It is NOT a treaty. It is not even a unilateral agreement. It is a multilateral agreement. P5+1 (Germany) if the Repubs torpedo this deal against the wishes of our allies they will lose the respect of the rest of the world that this administration has worked so hard to regain after it was trashed by the Cheney/Bush travesty.
7
When exactly did they change the Constitution to your foolish interpretation? How in the world did 82 people recommend this silly statement?
4
Hate for Obama and love for Israel is a killer combination for any deal with Iran. Mr. Crocker is probably the least of all evils that want to kill any deal with Iran.
Obama knows Republicans will neither remove the sanctions nor approve any deal with Iran. He is just hoping to be right in eyes of the historians.
There are sad times because hate for an American President and love for a foreign country drive so called patriots, Republicans, to act treasonably.
Obama knows Republicans will neither remove the sanctions nor approve any deal with Iran. He is just hoping to be right in eyes of the historians.
There are sad times because hate for an American President and love for a foreign country drive so called patriots, Republicans, to act treasonably.
293
Seriously, how can you trust Obama on a matter of such consequence when he has been wrong on almost every foreign policy decision in his presidency. Would you go see a movie, stay at a hotel, buy a product from Amazon if it was rated one star? Seriously.
3
Jack, I never trust one star ratings on Amazon. They're written by people with no perspective who usually have an axe to grind.
Same with "been wrong on almost every foreign policy decision in his presidency." It's all a matter of perspective and ground axes.
Only a staunch Obama hater would make that claim. At the same time, only a staunch Obama supporter would make the opposing claim. As with most things, the rational truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Same with "been wrong on almost every foreign policy decision in his presidency." It's all a matter of perspective and ground axes.
Only a staunch Obama hater would make that claim. At the same time, only a staunch Obama supporter would make the opposing claim. As with most things, the rational truth lies somewhere in the middle.
7
This guy is a snake. He will torpedo President Obama every chance he gets. It would be one thing if he had any serious foreign policy credentials. I think his biggest success was his meddling in the UAW voting at the Chattanooga VW plant. How did that turnout for you, Mister Senator? Last I saw, Volkswagen headquarters overruled your wishes to keep Tennessee worker's pay and benefits in the gutter.
182
Please remind me of President Obama's "foreign policy credentials:"
1. Drew a red line in the Syrian sand with invisible ink
2. Russian "reset" -- That's worked out well hasn't it.
3. Can't say the word Islam when discussing ISIS/ISIL -- that JV terrorist team he underestimated
1. Drew a red line in the Syrian sand with invisible ink
2. Russian "reset" -- That's worked out well hasn't it.
3. Can't say the word Islam when discussing ISIS/ISIL -- that JV terrorist team he underestimated
4
"bill would force the president to send any Iran deal to Congress for approval"...... because that's what Israel wants.
217
No country will ever trust us if we can't follow through with negotiations because of internal dissent that has been fueled by a radical fringe. Nobody trusts Congress to do the right thing. Please do not let Congress derail the negotiating efforts of the Obama Administration.
641
NO country ever should trust the US, ever...
3
Well said. Iran has told their hard-liners to put a cork in it... we need to do the same.
Fact is we have a common enemy now. There are seriously crazy people killing cartoonists and cutting off the heads of even other Muslims. The Iranian government is eager to NOT be associated with that element. Like it or not, we could use their help (or they could use ours) in bringing some peace and stability back to the region.
Fact is we have a common enemy now. There are seriously crazy people killing cartoonists and cutting off the heads of even other Muslims. The Iranian government is eager to NOT be associated with that element. Like it or not, we could use their help (or they could use ours) in bringing some peace and stability back to the region.
15
Your so called radical fringe happens to be the majority in both the house and senate. Perhaps the radical fringe is a president out of control with no checks and balances. What right and when was it given to a president to sign a treaty without approval by the rest of our elected officials?
2
Sen. Schumer's support of the Corker bill is highly dangerous. We all know it's likely Republicans will vote against the agreement just to oppose the President, regardless of its merits. Can Obama refuse to order the military to bomb Iran, even if Congress supports war? War with Iran would be a massive tragedy. I would be the first to march on the Pentagon and Capitol.
32
Yes he can. The President is Commander in Chief and doesnt need to attack anyone no matter if Congress declares War. Which they won't.
2
Well, well. well. Sensibility, a rare commodity in Republican circles, has reared its soon to be removed head. Perhaps this will drive some of the Democratic Senators, who once had that sensibility, to join the "sensible ones" and embrace Obama's Iran negotiations. But I should not get my hopes up.......
8
Senator Corker has violated the Logan Act, negotiating with multiple foreign powers (the State of Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran). He is actively undermining U.S. foreign policy and should be removed from office and tried.
127
I suspect you meant to refer to Senator Tom Cotton.
Senator Corker quite sensibly did not sign Senator Cotton's unprecedented letter to the leadership of Iran.
Senator Corker quite sensibly did not sign Senator Cotton's unprecedented letter to the leadership of Iran.
15
They both fit the description, but one undermines in the open, the other does it furtively........
1
Israel should no say in what our foreign policy is.
115
Why not? The United States is trying to have a say in Israel's foreign policy.
3
That's pretty rich. Obama is heavily involved in Middle Eastern events, directly influencing Israel's future. Why should Israel not have a say?
1
NewsJunkie – the US has a $3 billion-per-year say in what Israel does.
5
What Corker subsequently does, will finally determine if a foreign country through money and political clout actually controls the American Congress.
271
I was not aware there was ever any doubt in anyone's mind........
1
I hope that the Republicans who shudder at giving President Obama anything at all can for the moment set aside their collective fears and prejudices and do something good for our, and their, country. And would that the Democrats who are looking askance at this agreement will settle in and advocate strongly for it.