The Editorial Board of the NYTs can't quiet bring themselves to speak the truth about the situation in which we presently find ourselves. Since they lost the presidency in 2008, Republican politics have been entirely about getting it back. If they can prevent President Obama from achieving anything, and perhaps have the country back in a recession prior to the next election, they may achieve their goal. Massive spending cuts in a deep recession? Shut down the government? Undercut efforts to solve thorny foreign relations issues? None of these are a problem. Simple minded American voters--the real Republican base--will blame the president for whatever happens in the country without any regard to who is actually to blame, so these tactics work. Personally, I think Republican obstructionist tactics crossed the disloyalty line a long time ago.
41
Regardless of one's opinion on the deal, it should be appalling that Democrats are resorting to the filibuster -- which they rightfully condemned Republicans for abusing in the last Congress, when they were in the minority -- to prevent debate on what many have called the most important foreign policy vote in a generation, which most have called the most difficult and soul-searching vote of their careers. Even those who ultimately intend to vote against the resolution of disapproval owe it to the voters and to history to permit a full debate and recorded vote.
11
Republicans, why do you keep delaying action on things you strongly oppose and that a majority of your constituents and, yes, most Americans oppose? Why further delay Obama's desire to give Iran immediate access to $150 billion dollars, strings free? Why drag this thing out for another week now that Obama has strong-armed enough Dems to buck the popular will and surrender to the enemy terrorist regime in Iran? Just get it over with so Obama and proceed to sell us down the river!
6
I goggled "agreement vs treaty" and got this
---------
What is the difference between a treaty and an executive agreement?
As explained in greater detail in 11 FAM 721.2, there are two procedures under domestic law through which the United States becomes a party to an international agreement. First, international agreements (regardless of their title, designation, or form) whose entry into force with respect to the United States takes place only after two thirds of the U.S. Senate has given its advice and consent under Article II, section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution are "treaties." Second, international agreements brought into force with respect to the United States on a constitutional basis other than with the advice and consent of the Senate are "international agreements other than treaties" and are often referred to as "executive agreements." There are different types of executive agreements.
-------------
So, the executive agreement on Iran is valid beyond any doubt.
---------
What is the difference between a treaty and an executive agreement?
As explained in greater detail in 11 FAM 721.2, there are two procedures under domestic law through which the United States becomes a party to an international agreement. First, international agreements (regardless of their title, designation, or form) whose entry into force with respect to the United States takes place only after two thirds of the U.S. Senate has given its advice and consent under Article II, section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution are "treaties." Second, international agreements brought into force with respect to the United States on a constitutional basis other than with the advice and consent of the Senate are "international agreements other than treaties" and are often referred to as "executive agreements." There are different types of executive agreements.
-------------
So, the executive agreement on Iran is valid beyond any doubt.
4
"stepped-up effort to contain Iran’s military activity and increased military support for Israel. That is the responsible way forward."
The responsible way forward might just be to begin weaning Israel off our aid. Had any other country's prime minister insulted, say, President Reagan the way Netenyahu did President Obama the republican congress would have declared war. His interference with the Iran deal is unconscionable.
It was interesting the spectacle of hysteria, lies, and bombast that showed itself outside the Capitol yesterday; a hillbilly duck hunter, a meth freak from Alaska, the 21st Century version of McCarthy, and the Nation's #1 flimflam man from some real estate firm or other.
This group showed itself as the face of republican opposition to all things Obama.
It is past time for this paper and all members of the 4th Estate to, once and for all, call out the republican party; they are not just anti government they are anti-American. After all, what makes America exceptional if not the form of government we have. These people want to destroy that form of government and it is time to call them out for it.
The responsible way forward might just be to begin weaning Israel off our aid. Had any other country's prime minister insulted, say, President Reagan the way Netenyahu did President Obama the republican congress would have declared war. His interference with the Iran deal is unconscionable.
It was interesting the spectacle of hysteria, lies, and bombast that showed itself outside the Capitol yesterday; a hillbilly duck hunter, a meth freak from Alaska, the 21st Century version of McCarthy, and the Nation's #1 flimflam man from some real estate firm or other.
This group showed itself as the face of republican opposition to all things Obama.
It is past time for this paper and all members of the 4th Estate to, once and for all, call out the republican party; they are not just anti government they are anti-American. After all, what makes America exceptional if not the form of government we have. These people want to destroy that form of government and it is time to call them out for it.
36
With Republicans unanimous in their opposition to the Iran agreement, it should be recalled that they were unanimous in their endorsement of the use of military force against Iraq back in 2002. The fact that Iraq turned out to be a disastrous misadventure does not seem to sober Republicans in the least. It has disappeared from their collective memory.
But unlike 2002, when there was some intellectual merit to the Republican position, today few rational arguments or alternatives are being offered; only inchoate emotion and overblown rhetoric. And who are the spokespersons for the Republican position? Why, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Tony Perkins, and Duck Dynasty, of course. One assumes Ted Nugent was not available.
But unlike 2002, when there was some intellectual merit to the Republican position, today few rational arguments or alternatives are being offered; only inchoate emotion and overblown rhetoric. And who are the spokespersons for the Republican position? Why, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Tony Perkins, and Duck Dynasty, of course. One assumes Ted Nugent was not available.
17
This whole article presupposes that the White House has complied with its own constitutional and statutory obligations. It has done neither. If Obama chose to comply with the Constitution, he would submit the Iran deal to the Senate for approval as a treaty. If he chose to comply even with the Corker bill, he would have submitted the entire Iran deal to Congress within 5 days after finalizing it. He did not, and has not, as side deals between the IAEA and Iran containing critical inspection rules still have not been disclosed to Congress. This is not a technical argument either. The Corker bill explicitly required the president to provide to Congress within 5 days "the agreement. . . . including all related materials and annexes." And it expressly defined "agreement" to include "side deals". The fact that most Democrats are willing to follow their leader blindly down any path he chooses changes nothing.
So I will forgive the majority of Congress for not rushing to give passive approval to Obama's unconstitutional and unlawful action regarding a deal that, oh by the way, wide majorities of Americans disapprove!
So I will forgive the majority of Congress for not rushing to give passive approval to Obama's unconstitutional and unlawful action regarding a deal that, oh by the way, wide majorities of Americans disapprove!
5
a couple of questions:
1. how is this a gop partisan only vote when some democrats have also come out against the deal?
2. if congress is to vote on whether the deal is good - shouldn't they know what agreements have been reached about inspection and enforcement between iran and the iaea?
3. if not related to weaponization - why does the nuclear research at parchin need to be secret at all? someone could make the argument about the rights of sovereign nations to decide what is classified but the sole purpose of this deal is to curb iran's quest for a nuclear weapon. which we know they pursued at parchin - surely open kimono should apply there of all places in any worthy deal. no?
political rhetoric should be exposed in the discussion on this. but let's not dismiss legitimate questions that aren't rhetoric...
1. how is this a gop partisan only vote when some democrats have also come out against the deal?
2. if congress is to vote on whether the deal is good - shouldn't they know what agreements have been reached about inspection and enforcement between iran and the iaea?
3. if not related to weaponization - why does the nuclear research at parchin need to be secret at all? someone could make the argument about the rights of sovereign nations to decide what is classified but the sole purpose of this deal is to curb iran's quest for a nuclear weapon. which we know they pursued at parchin - surely open kimono should apply there of all places in any worthy deal. no?
political rhetoric should be exposed in the discussion on this. but let's not dismiss legitimate questions that aren't rhetoric...
6
If an intelligence test and demonstrated knowledge of foreign affairs were required in order to vote, the inescapable conclusion after reading a sampling of the Pro-Iran and Obama comments is that most of those in favor of this gift to the Iranians would fail. Astonishing display of outright ignorance. Hopefully for the next presidential election as revealed in every poll, most Americans have the common sense to understand what a terrible agreement this is.
7
The Republican Party of today is just so boring and predictable. It is all about obstruction and obfuscation and they appear to regressing farther into childhood. In Orwellian fashion they celebrate loses as victories (e.g. Kim Davis) proclaim their Christianity (while acting in most un-christian ways). And of course they have forgotten or neglected any and all science lessons they have had in school. As for "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" well I've heard far worse as a Yankee fan in Fenway Park, I've manage to handle that without declaring war on Boston. I now pray nightly for the Republicans to just grow up.
16
Do the Republicans actually believe that the Chinese and the Russians can be brought back to the table and will stick it out until Iran agrees to everything that those who mistrust or simply want the regime gone want? Do they think that the United States can afford to invade and occupy Iran until a regime that can be put into place of which they approve can be accomplished? No, I think that the Republicans are more obsessed with politics than with having a well functioning and robust government for the people of this country, and that they do not think that what they are doing is doing any real harm to the country in anyway that really matters.
13
The opposition party opposes the deal because the majority of American voters elected them into office. The Iran deal is much like the ACA, will pass on a 100% partisan basis. By a 2:1 majority the people disapprove of the deal. Khameni continues his words of confrontation while supporters of the deal hope it works out in time for Iran to become a player on the world stage.
Bomb Iran, destroy the IRG & Al Quds, initiate a coup against the mullahs, Free the Iranian people.
Ideals are lofty, history is bloody.
Bomb Iran, destroy the IRG & Al Quds, initiate a coup against the mullahs, Free the Iranian people.
Ideals are lofty, history is bloody.
3
On certain issues well intentioned people on either side will eventually have to agree to disagree. What I find objectionable is the sentiment the that Democratic Party and the Obama administration are acting to stymie debate by garnering enough votes to sustain a filibuster.
Can any serious person who has actually been paying attention really opine that this issue hasn't been thoroughly debated.
When will the issue be settled?
This is just the latest example of a major party refusing to accept defeat because an issue didn't go their way, and is, I believe a real threat to our democracy.
Can any serious person who has actually been paying attention really opine that this issue hasn't been thoroughly debated.
When will the issue be settled?
This is just the latest example of a major party refusing to accept defeat because an issue didn't go their way, and is, I believe a real threat to our democracy.
5
Thank goodness they're doing it. They are speaking for a large portion of Americans who oppose the deal the Iranians will be receiving.
7
The Republicans are an annoying group. All they do is snipe at anything proposed by the Democrats. When was the last time they did anything of benefit for the American people? If they had come up with the Iran deal, they would claim it to be the greatest thing since the wheel. However, they wouldn't have come up with it since they prefer war to diplomacy at least as long as they don't have to personally do the fighting.
16
We haven't seen the whole deal yet including the "side" agreements.
6
The only 'senseless' thing about the Iran deal were the terms we agreed to. Trump is absolutely right when he calls Obama and Kerry incompetent fools. The Iranians must be laughing in Tehran at the astonishing incompetence of Obama and co. Add to that blunder the spectacle of the current wave of refugees flooding into Europe caused by Obama's passivity and timidity in withdrawing from Iraq prematurely, taking out Qaddafi in Libya before ensuring a stable gov't could take over and it is no wonder that when it comes to foreign policy, this ex-Community Organizer's talents, be as they may, were best served in the South Side of Chicago.
9
What is the Conservative alternative to treaty with Iran? I keep hearing protest after protest from the far Right, but never an alternative to all out war.
We're seeing how that worked out in the Middle East following the Cheney/Bush, "Project for a New American Century" fiasco in Iraq, and destabilization of the region; destabilization that spread like a range fire in a hot August with prevailing winds.
Where is the demand by our media that Israel and Conservatives propose a reasonable, well considered, probable positive outcome way to preventing Iran from refining nuclear waste for weapons and comes even marginally close to the likely constructive outcome of this treaty.
One that doesn't involve, or unavoidably lead to, all out war that lays waste more generations and destroy our dreams, hopes, and plans instead of building on those we've managed to realize?
.
We're seeing how that worked out in the Middle East following the Cheney/Bush, "Project for a New American Century" fiasco in Iraq, and destabilization of the region; destabilization that spread like a range fire in a hot August with prevailing winds.
Where is the demand by our media that Israel and Conservatives propose a reasonable, well considered, probable positive outcome way to preventing Iran from refining nuclear waste for weapons and comes even marginally close to the likely constructive outcome of this treaty.
One that doesn't involve, or unavoidably lead to, all out war that lays waste more generations and destroy our dreams, hopes, and plans instead of building on those we've managed to realize?
.
20
Here's one superior alternative: don't give Iran immediate access to $150 billion in cash and open markets in exchange in exchange for ... essentially nothing. War is a whole different subject, which nobody is talking about. Just keeping the sanctions on Iran and doing nothing else is preferable to this deal which permits Iran to self-monitor its own compliance with nuclear restrictions, allows them to build ICMs almost immediately, actually sanctions (i.e., allows) Iran to build a nuclear bomb after 15 years ... and oh by the way gives them a flood of cash which it will use to bolster its military and fund more terrorism.
6
The Iran deal is the capstone on a failed Obama foreign policy. It's strangely similar to you can keep you doctor and your health plan and we need to pass it to find out what's in it. It's a treaty but not really a treaty. Yes, there are "side deals" but you can't see them - might make you a bit more informed.
This is a horrible deal - nearly 80% of the public thinks so as do a significant majority of Congress. Obama's what difference does it make idea of negotiating anything is a joke. And no, the only alternative is not war - if it were the D's would figure out a way to lose it.
This is a horrible deal - nearly 80% of the public thinks so as do a significant majority of Congress. Obama's what difference does it make idea of negotiating anything is a joke. And no, the only alternative is not war - if it were the D's would figure out a way to lose it.
9
This is the moments Republicans cherish!
They get to make a scene from the sidelines!
Look at their constituents, still arguing state's rights, blocking civil rights, voting rights, promoting antiquated military approaches, demonstrably false economic theory, and obstructing the executive branch at every step.
These people are losers, and they represent losers. What do losers do best? Lose. Why do you think the biggest loser of all, Trump, is king of the GOP primary?
Nothing to see here, the deal is done anyway. They have no shame.
They get to make a scene from the sidelines!
Look at their constituents, still arguing state's rights, blocking civil rights, voting rights, promoting antiquated military approaches, demonstrably false economic theory, and obstructing the executive branch at every step.
These people are losers, and they represent losers. What do losers do best? Lose. Why do you think the biggest loser of all, Trump, is king of the GOP primary?
Nothing to see here, the deal is done anyway. They have no shame.
25
This delay is absurd.
This deal guarantees Iranians obtain an ICBM within the next 15 years.
With Iran in possession of ICBM's, what could go wrong? Hurry up and make this happen, GOP.
This deal guarantees Iranians obtain an ICBM within the next 15 years.
With Iran in possession of ICBM's, what could go wrong? Hurry up and make this happen, GOP.
8
Benyamin Netanyahu/Likud and the GOP are fighting a losing battle. America has decided to change its foreign policy towards the Middle East. Iran, not Israel, will be the focus of American diplomacy in the near future. The only response is to adapt and evolve. Period.
Perhaps is time for Israel's leadership and Jews American to take a hard look into the consequences of their aggressive intromission in American politics. Bibi has challenged and humiliated President Obama many times before. As the old saying goes: when you strike a king, be sure you kill him.
Perhaps is time for Israel's leadership and Jews American to take a hard look into the consequences of their aggressive intromission in American politics. Bibi has challenged and humiliated President Obama many times before. As the old saying goes: when you strike a king, be sure you kill him.
17
This whole theatre of GOP outrage reminds me why the American people are so disgusted with our elected officials. Let's keep trying to overthrow Roe v. Wade and spend LOTS of time trying to find ways to make sure Obamacare does not succeed. When are the voters (and shame on the non-voters) going to wake up and realize that the governmental mess we have that is again threatening a government shutdown is our own fault.....either because we drank the kool-aid provide by sensational snake charmers, or avoided that horrible inconvenience of getting out to vote? The current (and in my humble opinion, entirely premature) campaign climate is like a carbuncle growing on our political face that surely has our founding fathers (who the GOP often sanctify and claim as having their own conservative bent) rolling over in their graves.
Instead of being a well-oiled machine, productive in its output, our elected government has become a snake-pit of writhing dissent, bent on evading at all cost (whether to forgoing morality or in producing virtual anarchy) any productive results....particularly any outcome would shine a beam of complimentary light on the current administration.
But again, I remind you, it is WE, the American People, who have not used the potential power we could wield in shaping our own government.
Instead of being a well-oiled machine, productive in its output, our elected government has become a snake-pit of writhing dissent, bent on evading at all cost (whether to forgoing morality or in producing virtual anarchy) any productive results....particularly any outcome would shine a beam of complimentary light on the current administration.
But again, I remind you, it is WE, the American People, who have not used the potential power we could wield in shaping our own government.
15
It began with the likes of Karl Rove, this attack, block, obfuscate, deny, confuse version of governing the Republicans have created. It's like we're all being subjected to Rove's debate years in high school and college again and again. It's GroundHog Day over and over again. For anybody who didn't read about Karl Rove and his infamous debate techniques; he would wheel out a hand truck onto stage loaded with boxes of papers and book rising his opponent into thinking that these were his notes on the subject about to be debated - that the opponent didn't have a chance. They were not. They were just random boxes of papers etc. My point is is that Rove's entire point was to win. It wasn't to be right. It was to win.
Well our president doesn't play these games. He has the job of actually governing a country and to keep our part on the world stage and I for one think he has done a rather good job - considering the lame grouping of opponents within our own country.
Well our president doesn't play these games. He has the job of actually governing a country and to keep our part on the world stage and I for one think he has done a rather good job - considering the lame grouping of opponents within our own country.
26
"A senseless delay"?
The latest polls show a significant majority of Americans oppose this deal. This deal is not even legally called a "treaty" , it was pushed through using a presidential end-around. It may be officially legal, but to me, add the majority opposing public opinion, and this deal does not pass the political smell test. It should be debated to the end, even if it is already predetermined.
The latest polls show a significant majority of Americans oppose this deal. This deal is not even legally called a "treaty" , it was pushed through using a presidential end-around. It may be officially legal, but to me, add the majority opposing public opinion, and this deal does not pass the political smell test. It should be debated to the end, even if it is already predetermined.
9
The consequences of no longer teaching Civics in our high schools becomes increasingly apparent on Capitol Hill. We have a generation of politicians in Congress with no conception of how government is supposed to work nor their obligation to the People, Country and Constitution to get positive things done. This futile effort over the agreement with Iran is just a diversion in avoidance of dealing with the budget. Many of the dysfunctional GOP ideologues have made dubious commitments to their party's so-called base and now must follow through in the light of day. Boehner and McConnell better break out the Ritalin if they expect to maintain focus on the budget; which will set the whirling dervishes into a spin over Planned Parenthood Funding!
9
Nikita Khrushchev said he was going to bury the west.....we're still here.
Let's not take internal political blustering on the part of Iranian politicians seriously. They have constituencies to pander to just like ours do.
No one really thinks Trump, Huckabee, or any individual in Congress really speaks for all Americans.
Let's not take internal political blustering on the part of Iranian politicians seriously. They have constituencies to pander to just like ours do.
No one really thinks Trump, Huckabee, or any individual in Congress really speaks for all Americans.
9
Now that the deal is certain to go through being against the deal is a no lose decision for Republicans.
Republican congressmen and senators can argue to their constituents that they did everything they could to stop the deal.
The deal cannot be proven to be a success for at least 15 years.
Even if Iran keeps all its pledge and ends all development on a bomb and stops funding terrorists Republicans will argue that they are doing it all secretly.
If there was a chance that their obstruction could actually end the deal then Republicans would have to consider that they would face a situation where all sanctions were lifted on Iran and Iran could continue developing the bomb.
Then they would argue that the problem was that Obama was an ineffective president, but that is a bit tenuous even for Republicans.
Republicans do not have to give any consideration to what is actually better for the US and the world, just what is better for themselves politically.
Republican congressmen and senators can argue to their constituents that they did everything they could to stop the deal.
The deal cannot be proven to be a success for at least 15 years.
Even if Iran keeps all its pledge and ends all development on a bomb and stops funding terrorists Republicans will argue that they are doing it all secretly.
If there was a chance that their obstruction could actually end the deal then Republicans would have to consider that they would face a situation where all sanctions were lifted on Iran and Iran could continue developing the bomb.
Then they would argue that the problem was that Obama was an ineffective president, but that is a bit tenuous even for Republicans.
Republicans do not have to give any consideration to what is actually better for the US and the world, just what is better for themselves politically.
10
Any delay, and any process that might stop the deal is quite sensible. The less time the deal is in effect, the better for the US and the world.
5
Dear Editorial Board
Do you guys think before you write? You may blindly support Obama's quest for a legacy, but you've failed to identify what we get out of this deal. Except for the hope that Iran changes over time, which seems unlikely given that we are handing them huge amounts of cash and by lifting sanctions, improving their economy by about 20%.
And this for a country with American blood on its hands, a desire for middle eastern hegemony, one that wants to wipe out our single reliable ally (at least pre-Obama) within 25 years and chants death to America.
They will cheat, because they can, because there are side deals that enable cheating and because it's what they do. And with more dollars they can afford to take more sophisticated approaches to cheating. And fund terrorism.
With Obama's foreign policy Iran knows that it is unlikely that we will go to war over their having nukes. But if Obama is right (this deal or war to prevent Iran nukes) then when the deal ends we will again be confronted with the need to go to war to prevent a much stronger future Iran from going nuclear -- if they haven't already.
So oh omniscient board -- 50 years from now where will we be? Are you confident this deal will stop Iran's nuclear ambitions? How about 100 years -- or can you think that far ahead except on issues you support like Climate Change.
The repubs are perfectly right to oppose a bad deal. I'd rather keep a firm grip on the snake than let it loose.
Do you guys think before you write? You may blindly support Obama's quest for a legacy, but you've failed to identify what we get out of this deal. Except for the hope that Iran changes over time, which seems unlikely given that we are handing them huge amounts of cash and by lifting sanctions, improving their economy by about 20%.
And this for a country with American blood on its hands, a desire for middle eastern hegemony, one that wants to wipe out our single reliable ally (at least pre-Obama) within 25 years and chants death to America.
They will cheat, because they can, because there are side deals that enable cheating and because it's what they do. And with more dollars they can afford to take more sophisticated approaches to cheating. And fund terrorism.
With Obama's foreign policy Iran knows that it is unlikely that we will go to war over their having nukes. But if Obama is right (this deal or war to prevent Iran nukes) then when the deal ends we will again be confronted with the need to go to war to prevent a much stronger future Iran from going nuclear -- if they haven't already.
So oh omniscient board -- 50 years from now where will we be? Are you confident this deal will stop Iran's nuclear ambitions? How about 100 years -- or can you think that far ahead except on issues you support like Climate Change.
The repubs are perfectly right to oppose a bad deal. I'd rather keep a firm grip on the snake than let it loose.
7
Obama just keeps on winning the domestic and foreign policy battles. I believe the GOP has been so over the top with its efforts to delegitimize the President, kill Obamacare, tank the Iran deal, oppose tax increases for the wealthy, and efforts to achieve energy independents that they have lost all credibility. It is ironic that Republican efforts for Obama failure have enhanced Obama's effectiveness and secured his legacy.
9
When the leader of Iran says that Israel will not exist in 25 years, I believe that we should rethink this ill conceived idea.
5
Republicans and Israel shuttled weapons to Iran just 30 years ago (Iran-Contra), and now Republicans and Israel want to scuttle a deal meant to keep Iran from getting worse weapons. Whose side are these two really on?
6
The fact that all Republicans oppose the deal indicates their reasoning. It is purely political, and has nothing to do with the merits of the deal at all. The reasons they give do not make sense. And, listening to Ambassador Dermer explain why the deal should be rejected, I found several fundamental, logical flaws in his 'explanation.' The most egregious was his statement that the sanctions would surely stay in place because the Iranians would violate the tenets of the deal quickly, so that the entire P5+1 would maintain sanctions. The absurdity of that argument is staggering! The sanctions are certainly coming off for the other members of the negotiating team, so the Iranians will get that alleged $100B or most of it regardless of what the United States does. So, either there is no deal, and they can go ahead and build several nukes within 6 months, or there's a deal and at least some chance that it will succeed. If there ever were a no-brainer, this is it. Moreover, a successful implementation of the deal, if it works out that way, is better for Israel, the Middle East, and the rest of the world.
11
The NY Times Editorial Board should should be forced to register as Lobbyists. I Stop trying to lobby us to believe this treaty is a wise decision and in our best interests. It is nothing more than an opportunity to give Iran $100 billion for them to buy arms from Russia, North Korea and China. They want the money so they can move forward with their pledge - to destroy the USA and Israel.
6
Mars, go back to your home planet. The deal is the best deal that ANYONE has proposed or can hope to get. The alternate is....nothing.
2
Why doesn't the White House submit the "agreement" to the Senate for approval and see if it gets the required two-thirds majority required by the constitution. The Treaty Clause empowers the president to make or enter into treaties only with the approval of two-thirds of the Senate. Calling a treaty a "deal" or an "agreement" makes no difference.
5
This editorial and so many of the comments accompanying it, are so terribly cynical. Unanimity among the Republican congressional delegation is maligned as malicious obstructionism with no credence given to the thought that perhaps there is sincere disagreement on the merits. No mention is made of dissent on the Democratic side including that of New York's own Senator Schumer who is (or maybe now was) considered to be the front runner to succeed Senator Reid as leader.
Essentially the suggestion is that the Republicans should just shut up and sit down, forsake their sworn duty as elected representatives and acquiesce to a minority view. That is not how our democracy is supposed to work.
Essentially the suggestion is that the Republicans should just shut up and sit down, forsake their sworn duty as elected representatives and acquiesce to a minority view. That is not how our democracy is supposed to work.
5
The key phrase here is "Republicans don't much care about governing." Failing to achieve their original highest priority of the Obama era -- limiting the president to one term -- and utterly lacking any positive, creative policies of their own, their fallback position is one of attempting to deny Mr. Obama any achievements at all, regardless of the consequences. The GOPs negativity and insularity are just two of the factors contributing to the increasingly obvious irrelevance of the party.
12
I am so sick of the Republicans in Congress, I would like to regurgitate.
What I really wish I could do is not to pay their salaries. How can I go about that? Can I write a letter to the IRS?
Time is money, therefore, these blowhards are waisting our money as well as our time.
Yesterday, Moody's downgraded Brazil, partly because the country has a deficit, but partly because of weakness in the ruling coalition of parties and corruption.
Our Congress is pretty ineffective and weak, even if their lungs are strong--when is Moody's going to downgrade us for these shenanigans that will interfere with the next hurdle, funding the government???
What I really wish I could do is not to pay their salaries. How can I go about that? Can I write a letter to the IRS?
Time is money, therefore, these blowhards are waisting our money as well as our time.
Yesterday, Moody's downgraded Brazil, partly because the country has a deficit, but partly because of weakness in the ruling coalition of parties and corruption.
Our Congress is pretty ineffective and weak, even if their lungs are strong--when is Moody's going to downgrade us for these shenanigans that will interfere with the next hurdle, funding the government???
9
Those who argue that the deal deserves a vote and that it's a travesty for the Democrats to filibuster it ignore the fact that the Republicans unanimously opposed the deal before it was even negotiated. THAT is the travesty--that one entire party in this country is so in the bag for the military-industrial complex that not a single one of them could see their way clear to choose peace over yet another war.
We had Democrats seriously thinking about the deal for weeks, but did any Republicans agonize over their vote? Heck no. This issue alone shows that it DOES matter who we elect--both parties are not the same!
We had Democrats seriously thinking about the deal for weeks, but did any Republicans agonize over their vote? Heck no. This issue alone shows that it DOES matter who we elect--both parties are not the same!
13
Abuse of the filibuster is a Republican thing. Democrats are better than that. They should allow a vote, with the President vetoing as needed.
2
Dick Cheney et al and Netanyahu are on the side of reason. Obama and all his apologists are on the side of cutting a deal with the devil and hoping that he takes pity on you because you are such a pathetic negotiator.
Lots in the news yesterday. Russia is busy establishing a base in Syria from which to make war and actually affect the destiny of the area. ISIS yesterday over-ran another Syrian air base that ISIS has besieged for almost two years now.
ISIS is winning. Only Russia is really moving to stop them.
On the National Mall, Trump, Ted Cruz, and Sarah Palin joined hands to say lots of unkind things about the Obama administration, the Republican Establishment types who helped Obama and the Democrats fashion this treaty-which-is-not-a-treaty, and the Democrat Establishment (to include the editorial boards of several newspapers of record) all of which are desperate to believe that WMD's will never, ever be used again because they JUST CAN"T be.
Remember when Obama scolded Putin about Ukraine, essentially saying that it is so not cool to do this because civilized nations just don't behave like this any more, don't you know? Moscow has everything it wanted from the attack on Ukraine--the strategic Crimean peninsula back and a secure overland pipeline corridor to the peninsula from Mother Russia.
So, will Russia, Iran, and Syria be able to defeat ISIS? What level of nasty weapons will it take to do that? Once they succeed (and they will) what does that portend?
Lots in the news yesterday. Russia is busy establishing a base in Syria from which to make war and actually affect the destiny of the area. ISIS yesterday over-ran another Syrian air base that ISIS has besieged for almost two years now.
ISIS is winning. Only Russia is really moving to stop them.
On the National Mall, Trump, Ted Cruz, and Sarah Palin joined hands to say lots of unkind things about the Obama administration, the Republican Establishment types who helped Obama and the Democrats fashion this treaty-which-is-not-a-treaty, and the Democrat Establishment (to include the editorial boards of several newspapers of record) all of which are desperate to believe that WMD's will never, ever be used again because they JUST CAN"T be.
Remember when Obama scolded Putin about Ukraine, essentially saying that it is so not cool to do this because civilized nations just don't behave like this any more, don't you know? Moscow has everything it wanted from the attack on Ukraine--the strategic Crimean peninsula back and a secure overland pipeline corridor to the peninsula from Mother Russia.
So, will Russia, Iran, and Syria be able to defeat ISIS? What level of nasty weapons will it take to do that? Once they succeed (and they will) what does that portend?
4
This debacle of an agreement REQUIRES us to trust the Iranians as they will be conducting self inspections at their most critical sites. We must also trust the unreliable Russians and Chinese if we want to re-impose sanctions when Iran cheats. After the sanctions are lifted and these countries are making money dealing with Iran I would not trust Putin or the Chinese leadership to be willing to "snap back" the sanctions. This is particularly important since Putin has been walking all over Obama since the Clinton re-set.
5
Okay Larry, you've responded in the negative, whats your plan? Tell me please what you would do and how you would get 5 major powers to enforce it?
I'm waiting.
I'm waiting.
3
This is reminiscent of the battle to pass ACA.
The Republicans make a deal ("let us vote, and we'll agree to do so by 9/17") and then they repudiate it, making some new demand.
They are not a party who can govern anymore. The Tea Party has turned them into the "rebel against government" party. They like it that way, as it allows them to stoke anger and fear in their base, which keeps the base voting for them.
This is a new, 21st Century form of secession. Shutting down government, and refusing to perform basic functions are their platform.
The Republicans make a deal ("let us vote, and we'll agree to do so by 9/17") and then they repudiate it, making some new demand.
They are not a party who can govern anymore. The Tea Party has turned them into the "rebel against government" party. They like it that way, as it allows them to stoke anger and fear in their base, which keeps the base voting for them.
This is a new, 21st Century form of secession. Shutting down government, and refusing to perform basic functions are their platform.
10
Nuance and farsightedness has never been a prominent trait in republican politics. The opposition to this agreement fail to understand (despite the supreme leaders claims) that twenty five years from now it will be the Islamic Republic of Iran that no longer exists.
4
Yes, Republican lawmakers want to see the record of what Iran previously did at Parchin. Why is that a problem for the administration? You would think before we hand $100 billion dollars back to Iran and provide them a long term legal path to building a nuke, that we might want to know if they previously broke agreements by trying to build a nuke (or other weaponry) at Parchin.
Seems ironic that the left, who lambasted to no end the Bush administration (and rightly so) for lies and burying facts in the lead up to the Iraq war, now is so eager to push through the Iran deal so speedily when all the facts are not known.
Seems ironic that the left, who lambasted to no end the Bush administration (and rightly so) for lies and burying facts in the lead up to the Iraq war, now is so eager to push through the Iran deal so speedily when all the facts are not known.
1
It is a criminal act under US law to provide funds to entities that fund terrorism. The Iran deal will provide $100 billion to the Iranian regime, which supports terrorism on a large scale. Accordingly, the deal is illegal, as it is not a law, or a treaty, and is therefore subject to existing statutes. So, rather than pretend to oppose it via symbolic votes, the Republican leadership should go to court and get an injunction to stop it dead in its tracks.
1
The Republican delay has nothing to do with the Iran agreement or what is best for American interests. In this game of politico they cannot let President Obama chalk up yet another score.
4
HRC is calling for a stepped-up effort to contain Iran's military and increase military support for Israel. What, with more Google satellite images and a high altitude drones?
Given the 35+ years of repeated conflict between the two countries, the US trying to buy a congenial relationship is akin to Richard Gere bringing a dozen roses to Julia Roberts in 'Pretty Woman'.
Given the 35+ years of repeated conflict between the two countries, the US trying to buy a congenial relationship is akin to Richard Gere bringing a dozen roses to Julia Roberts in 'Pretty Woman'.
The GOP is using the Iran deal as a political wedge issue- just as they do every other issue. Trump and Cruz held a rally about what a bad deal we got with Iran and got the crowd all whipped up. They needed another wedge issue after they lost the ACA battle. They just keep looking for issues to divide America instead of bringing people together as true leaders do. Pathetic. This too shall pass and then the deal is done, don't worry- they'll find something else to go nuts about.
6
"The debate has been vitriolic and raw, with opponents waging a multimillion-dollar campaign that relied heavily on distortions and made supporters of the strong and worthy deal out to be anti-Israel or worse."
It sure has. I can't remember political ads rolling on TV that don't tout a candidate but a policy negotiated by a sitting president. Behind all these distorted ads is the invisible hand of big money--the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and others. Some are against the deal ideologically, but more are against it financially. War helps them prosper, and they're just itching for another one in order to boost the price of oil and get fat military contracts for their sub-companies.
Thus has the American public been totally soured on what they were in favor of just a few short months ago. Nothing displays the power of advertising and big money more than these specious, made-to-frighten ad.
The Democrats, have not been able or willing to run counter ads that would attest to the truth: the choice between certain war and more American bloodshed versus a diplomatic path that can still be yanked should events warrant.
I doubt the American public has the understanding it needs to run with one or the other argument. But detractors of President Obama reflexively support anything their party does to grandstand the deal, from delaying the vote in Congress to Trump's baseless boasts.
That our foreign policy is being held hostage while government runs amok is obscene.
It sure has. I can't remember political ads rolling on TV that don't tout a candidate but a policy negotiated by a sitting president. Behind all these distorted ads is the invisible hand of big money--the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and others. Some are against the deal ideologically, but more are against it financially. War helps them prosper, and they're just itching for another one in order to boost the price of oil and get fat military contracts for their sub-companies.
Thus has the American public been totally soured on what they were in favor of just a few short months ago. Nothing displays the power of advertising and big money more than these specious, made-to-frighten ad.
The Democrats, have not been able or willing to run counter ads that would attest to the truth: the choice between certain war and more American bloodshed versus a diplomatic path that can still be yanked should events warrant.
I doubt the American public has the understanding it needs to run with one or the other argument. But detractors of President Obama reflexively support anything their party does to grandstand the deal, from delaying the vote in Congress to Trump's baseless boasts.
That our foreign policy is being held hostage while government runs amok is obscene.
12
Great point. Supporters of Obama and the plan are all well-versed on the plan, its finer points, how the promises will be verified, etc. . .
However detractors of the plan are robotic trolls who can't think for themselves and reflexively follow what their local beauraucrat tells them.
Do you think it's possible you might have this backwards? Maybe the detractors actually do understand the issue and think it's a bad deal, and they are actually the ones instructing their representatives to vote 'No' on this.
However detractors of the plan are robotic trolls who can't think for themselves and reflexively follow what their local beauraucrat tells them.
Do you think it's possible you might have this backwards? Maybe the detractors actually do understand the issue and think it's a bad deal, and they are actually the ones instructing their representatives to vote 'No' on this.
Nothing new here. This Republican delegation is still trying to re-fight the Civil War.
7
Unfortunately, any time a major policy objective is passed/implemented along strictly party lines - the minority has the obligation to extend the process to whatever means necessary. Obama never knew what compromise meant during his Presidency with the ACA as its prime example. No other President has implemented major changes without bipartisan support and his continued use of Executive Action will mean that the next President has the immediate opportunity to undo many of the changes that he's implemented.
Relative to the Iran deal - why can't the public view of all the side accords associated with this? Oh, that's right - the political class is smarter that the rest of us. The blood of future generations is on the hands of the Democrats and the Editorial Board of the New York Times.
Relative to the Iran deal - why can't the public view of all the side accords associated with this? Oh, that's right - the political class is smarter that the rest of us. The blood of future generations is on the hands of the Democrats and the Editorial Board of the New York Times.
2
Republicans cannot govern, it's that simple
Please wake up and realize electing these people is just wrong!
Please wake up and realize electing these people is just wrong!
7
For people who are paying attention, the Republicans are big into theatrics. Acceptance of reality whether it relates to supreme Court decisions, climate change, or settled legislation seems to be completely irrelevant to them. They love to climb up on their soap box and rant and rage. The spectacle of once again watching a flailing John Boehner trying to bring order to his unruly members would be funny if it were not so sad. You would think that a public that has placed both legislative branches in the hands of the GOP would sit up and take notice. But perhaps this is hoping for too much,
8
To use a baseball analogy, opponents are suggesting that the team with the lead -- let's call them the Yankees -- shouldn't bring in their best relief pitcher, so that the game will be more competitive and the losing team -- let's call them the Red Sox -- will have a better chance to win. The only thing wrong with the analogy is that, in my experience, the Red Sox have always shown more class, and would never whine about the rules of the game.
1
Republicans just want to know what they are voting for. Not like ACA where Pelosi said, "we have to vote for it to see what is in it."
3
I suggest they read the agreement.
1
Now that we have a deal the key is to verify and hold the alliance together to convince the Iranians that cheating will be expensive. Republican and israeli opposition to the deal and continuing warnings about dire consequences is a helpful factor here. Their 'bad cop' role helped negotiators stay tough and their continuing prediction of disaster puts enormous pressure on the next democratic president to react decisively to continuing Iranian nuclear development.
2
This is just another reason why Donald Trump needs to be the standard bearer for the GOP.
If it isn't endless Benghazi investigations, shutting down the government, the debt ceiling brinkmanship, or the 50 plus times Obamacare was defeated in the House, it is now 'holding their breath' over the Iran deal. Unfortunately the Republican party has become synonymous with dysfunction in government.
So why not Trump as the nominee. The perfect embodiment of this sad state of affairs. Let him lead the party over the cliff. Hopefully thru that wreckage, a more viable and responsible party will emerge and we can end these kind of dramatics.
If it isn't endless Benghazi investigations, shutting down the government, the debt ceiling brinkmanship, or the 50 plus times Obamacare was defeated in the House, it is now 'holding their breath' over the Iran deal. Unfortunately the Republican party has become synonymous with dysfunction in government.
So why not Trump as the nominee. The perfect embodiment of this sad state of affairs. Let him lead the party over the cliff. Hopefully thru that wreckage, a more viable and responsible party will emerge and we can end these kind of dramatics.
5
We are known as a bully throughout the world due to our over use of military action or the threat of it. Maybe it is time to show the world that we can, peacefully, get along with others. Lets stop the saber rattling.
4
The Republicans manage to be both sore losers and sore winners at the same time.
Memo to Donald Trump "Make America Great Again: Vote Democratic!"
Memo to Donald Trump "Make America Great Again: Vote Democratic!"
10
"Senseless" is a deal with "side agreements" that are kept secret.
4
It is the height of irresponsibility, stubbornness, spite and foolhardiness to delay and postpone the debate on the Iran Deal, now that the outcome has become inevitable. They are doing undue harm to our credibility considering the five other nations who have signed off on the deal has made it veryclear they will not be returning back to the negotiating table. Republicans and Israel are going to bring this country down if this keeps on going. Thank God! The Iran Deal is a done Deal!!
3
By Senseless, is the NY Times Editorial Board referring to the Islamic State of Iran's Ayatollah's comments yesterday that Israel will be destroyed in the next 25 years? Or was the NYT referring to the leader of the Islamic State of Iran's comments yesterday that he intends to fully continue his support for Hamas and Hezbollah and other terrorists he deems noble on 5 continents?
5
That's why we are a Democracy and not a monarchy. Obama signed a bill on Iran and has not complied simple as that.
2
Why should anyone be surprised regarding the Republican approach to the Iran agreement? This is a party that after all has constructed a platform based upon the idea of holding back Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Reproductive Rights, Immigrant Rights, and the very idea of Modernity itself. The surprise would have been for the Republicans to show a scintilla of recognition that history and current events are moving forward and that it is impossible to recapture a "Faux Golden Past." The so-called "Better Deal" will appear be at the same time as the Republican alternative to Obamacare. Rather once again we will be treated to an excess of foot stomping, breath holding, and food throwing.
7
"A Senseless Delay on the Iran Deal"
The stage has now been set for at least a year's worth of future Times editorials wondering why, carping about, and severely criticizing the, "rush" to rubber stamp a, "very bad agreement."
Just as soon as Iran secretly completes their nuclear bomb program, and announces ICBM technology capable of reaching the US. While continuing the Shia Islamic Republic's support for international terrorism.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Irans-supreme-leade...
The stage has now been set for at least a year's worth of future Times editorials wondering why, carping about, and severely criticizing the, "rush" to rubber stamp a, "very bad agreement."
Just as soon as Iran secretly completes their nuclear bomb program, and announces ICBM technology capable of reaching the US. While continuing the Shia Islamic Republic's support for international terrorism.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Irans-supreme-leade...
6
By all accounts Israel has between 80 and 100 nukes already, with capacity to very quickly build 100 or so more. Why is this fact not reported more often? With climate change and the state of the environment in the middle east, is is so unreasonable for the Iranians to be allowed access to any nuclear power? Theocracy in Iran will only last so long. It's a highly educated and sophisticated society, with millions of young people with aspirations not so different from our own young. Why not GIVE PEACE A CHANCE?
6
Only if you like the deal. Otherwise it's courage.
3
Did you listen to Ted Cruz yesterday? I have never heard such a glaring example of psychologically priming a constituency for fear, hatred, and murder. He used those words repeatedly. Don't be fooled that he or his lot are looking for a peaceful solution. It was not courageous, it was incendiary.
3
You endorse Hillary Clinton's proposal to increase military support for Israel as part of "the responsible way forward" in the face of the now inevitable passage of the Iran deal. But what's responsible about providing more military aid to a country that has refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and regularly uses American-supplied weapons to commit war crimes against the people of Gaza and the West Bank?
3
The "senseless delay" surrounding the Iran Deal is indeed misplaced.
The Iran Deal moved promptly throughout, with every deadline achieved. Oops, that was not the case.
The Iran Deal was surrounded by full disclosure and no hidden side-deals. Oops, that was not the case.
The Iran Deal was negotiated by the same astute Administration who negotiated the 5-to-1 Bergdahl deal, Astute? Oops, that was not the case.
The Senate has a valuable role in reviewing the Iran Deal, as mandated by the US Constitution. For the NY Times to advocate the abrogation of that role is very misguided. The gaming of the word "treaty" by the Administration should be of concern to the NY Times.
The Iran Deal moved promptly throughout, with every deadline achieved. Oops, that was not the case.
The Iran Deal was surrounded by full disclosure and no hidden side-deals. Oops, that was not the case.
The Iran Deal was negotiated by the same astute Administration who negotiated the 5-to-1 Bergdahl deal, Astute? Oops, that was not the case.
The Senate has a valuable role in reviewing the Iran Deal, as mandated by the US Constitution. For the NY Times to advocate the abrogation of that role is very misguided. The gaming of the word "treaty" by the Administration should be of concern to the NY Times.
3
The article states: "Congress seems determined to drag out the fight, even if it means neglecting other business...."
Sorry but that is wrong.
Our "honorables" have ample time to make those fund-raising phone calls, attend fund-raisers, get TV face time and go on "fact-finding" trips to nice resorts.
What other business is there?
Sorry but that is wrong.
Our "honorables" have ample time to make those fund-raising phone calls, attend fund-raisers, get TV face time and go on "fact-finding" trips to nice resorts.
What other business is there?
5
With their bogus arguments against the Iran Deal, there can be no denying that Republicans are putting their politics of fear a head of what is best for the nation.
Conservatives claim they do not want to elect politicians. So for the last two elections, they elected non politicians and produced two of the most dysfunctional Congresses in recent history. Perhaps it is time to reconsider rather than double down on failure?
Conservatives claim they do not want to elect politicians. So for the last two elections, they elected non politicians and produced two of the most dysfunctional Congresses in recent history. Perhaps it is time to reconsider rather than double down on failure?
4
We've invaded countries that border two sides of Iran and constantly talk about bombing or invading them. Trust?
9
The era of false equivalence is drawing to a close. Equal time and equal blame is largely responsible for the gridlock in Washington. At last a majority recognize that Democrats are not responsible for failed government. Republicans do not share blame, nor should they share air time or an equal place at the table until they are potty trained, wash, and wear clean clothing. They are children with no manners, no knowledge of traditions of democracy, and they actually gross most of us out.
Rejecting 15 years of protection from a nuclear weapon in Iran is just like rejecting climate change, evolution, science, equal rights for women, Black and Hispanic citizens, immigration reform, infrastructure repair, public education, universal healthcare, and defense spending reduction. It is stupid, lazy, and internationally harmful. Enough with the defiant rejection of adult behavior!
Rejecting 15 years of protection from a nuclear weapon in Iran is just like rejecting climate change, evolution, science, equal rights for women, Black and Hispanic citizens, immigration reform, infrastructure repair, public education, universal healthcare, and defense spending reduction. It is stupid, lazy, and internationally harmful. Enough with the defiant rejection of adult behavior!
5
I agree with the article, but the conclusion is very shallow. The prospect that Hillary Clinton becomes US president is wishful at best, and I can't wait for the world to be a safer place by giving Israel even more military aid than it has now (...did Chuck Schumer contribute here...?) The Editorial Board couldn't be more naive.
1
There they go again. Thank God we have intelligent people in the White House. Imagine the Republicans in congress and the current crop of presidential candidates trying to negotiate anything on the world stage? What a crew. I watched Colin Powell on one of the Sunday shows this past weekend and he is so articulate and calm and knowledgeable, where have all the smart Republicans gone?
4
" ...articulate and calm and knowledgeable,", huh, Kareena? Powell?
Do you happen to know -- was he speaking assertions, or facts?
Do you happen to know -- was he speaking assertions, or facts?
I'd like to point out that according the a September'15 polling surver by the PEW Research Center. . . only 21% of Americans approve of the 'Iranian Deal'; and 49% disapprove- and 30% are DK (don't Know)!
So the present administration is set to impliment a foreigh policy 'edict' while only about 20% of the American population are approving of it.
And the NYTimes is approving of this?!
So the present administration is set to impliment a foreigh policy 'edict' while only about 20% of the American population are approving of it.
And the NYTimes is approving of this?!
3
Nice try, but 75% of the American public supported the war in Iraq, and more than half of those thought Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. You have to understand what is going on before you can make an informed decision.
2
So the supreme leader of Iran stated yesterday that Israel will not exist in 25 years and is calling the United States "Satan" AGAIN, yet liberals actually believe Iran is not going to be cheating on this deal from day one, amazing. I'm beginning to think the left is cheering this deal simply BECAUSE the idea of Israel not existing in 25 years is appealing to the left. Disgusting.
6
Iran "may" try to cheat? You blew your credibility with that one sentence. Yes, they will cheat. Which is why a majority of Congress, and all sane persons, regard this deal with a sworn enemy of the U.S., the West, and Israel, as pure insanity. Obama once said Iran should never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. It turns out never is roughly 10 years, by the president's own admission. Which means we will face Iranian nuclear threats long before most death row prisoners face their own demise.
4
The President and the New York Times are so eager to make a bad deal, that has little to no teeth, with a country that is very clear about it's long term goals, the destruction of Israel. The only winners in this deal are Iran and the European countries dying to do business with them. Great job Mr. President!
4
It's all so simple, isn't it?
Khamenei indeed allowed the deal to go forward despite severe opposition of the militant arch right in Iran, the Revolutionary Guard.
Yet he did not say that 'Israel' will not exist any more in 25 years, the length of the present accord between the P5+1. He said that the Zionist Regime will not exist any more after that period.
Big difference.
And that, at least in my opinion, is a not so subtle reference to Netanyahu and his own arch-right supporters and illegal West Band settlers dreaming of and working towards a 'Greater Israel', including Judea and Samaria, which is the current West Bank.
Yet he did not say that 'Israel' will not exist any more in 25 years, the length of the present accord between the P5+1. He said that the Zionist Regime will not exist any more after that period.
Big difference.
And that, at least in my opinion, is a not so subtle reference to Netanyahu and his own arch-right supporters and illegal West Band settlers dreaming of and working towards a 'Greater Israel', including Judea and Samaria, which is the current West Bank.
2
@Sarah Arlington, VA
Thanks for that clarification.
It is a big difference.
One does wonder what is going to happen to Israel. There does not seem to be either a two-state solution or a one-state solution that will allow Israel to be able to continue as a Jewish state.
Thanks for that clarification.
It is a big difference.
One does wonder what is going to happen to Israel. There does not seem to be either a two-state solution or a one-state solution that will allow Israel to be able to continue as a Jewish state.
1
Events in DC, and elsewhere, call the whole American democracy project into question. Trump tells us this Iran-nuke deal is the worst he ever saw, but says nothing of his serial experience of bankrupt projects that bear his name. Tea Party Patriots believe that within a deal that involves a posse of countries, Obama and Kerry have managed to hide a secret side-deal. I wish O and K would let us know how they managed that, because I have a bank account and an identity that badly need protection from hackers.
In fact, current events call into question all the imagined benefits of evolution and of the superiority of H. sapiens. (Is it the Ascent of the Descent of Man? Descent!) The supporters of Kim Davis want her deputies fired for following the law, and some of those who celebrated her release from prison carried signs that said: United we stand! Stand, indeed, with all the stability of a human pyramid built by drunken frat boys.
In fact, current events call into question all the imagined benefits of evolution and of the superiority of H. sapiens. (Is it the Ascent of the Descent of Man? Descent!) The supporters of Kim Davis want her deputies fired for following the law, and some of those who celebrated her release from prison carried signs that said: United we stand! Stand, indeed, with all the stability of a human pyramid built by drunken frat boys.
7
The delay has to be about something serious and significant about the Iran deal. I mean the Congressional Republicans could not be so corrupt cowardly and craven to be playing politics. What could it be?
Maybe the Republicans are planning to bring in self proclaimed Jewish King Benjamin Netanyahu with another 11th hour "surprise" address to Congress. Perhaps King Bibi has another treacherous American like Jonathan Jay Pollard working for Israeli intelligence with "new" facts. Or maybe Republicans want to send another "love letter" threatening to trash the deal.
Or maybe King Bibi has negotiated a better bilateral deal with Iran. Perhaps Israel will declare and destroy it's nuclear arsenal and join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty along with the treaties regarding chemical and biological weapons. Perhaps Israel will announce a one-state solution declaring all of the 6 million Christian and Muslim Arab Palestinian Israelis under Israeli dominion to be part of a single civil secular plural egalitarian democracy.
Ayatollah Khamenei's weak meaningless trash talking about Israel not existing in 25 years and calling America "Satan" is a street smart deception intended for any Iranian hardliners who are against this deal. The nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 hopefully brings to an end 60+ years of covert and overt American war against Iran.
Hopefully neither Israel nor Iran as they currently exist will be around in 25 years. And America will be an "Angel".
Maybe the Republicans are planning to bring in self proclaimed Jewish King Benjamin Netanyahu with another 11th hour "surprise" address to Congress. Perhaps King Bibi has another treacherous American like Jonathan Jay Pollard working for Israeli intelligence with "new" facts. Or maybe Republicans want to send another "love letter" threatening to trash the deal.
Or maybe King Bibi has negotiated a better bilateral deal with Iran. Perhaps Israel will declare and destroy it's nuclear arsenal and join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty along with the treaties regarding chemical and biological weapons. Perhaps Israel will announce a one-state solution declaring all of the 6 million Christian and Muslim Arab Palestinian Israelis under Israeli dominion to be part of a single civil secular plural egalitarian democracy.
Ayatollah Khamenei's weak meaningless trash talking about Israel not existing in 25 years and calling America "Satan" is a street smart deception intended for any Iranian hardliners who are against this deal. The nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 hopefully brings to an end 60+ years of covert and overt American war against Iran.
Hopefully neither Israel nor Iran as they currently exist will be around in 25 years. And America will be an "Angel".
3
The Republican rhetoric on this has been virtually identical to their rants against the Affordable Healthcare Act. So far, "Obamacare" seems to be working out and is far from being "disastrous", "catastrophic", or the end to America as we know it.
5
I just saw Jeb Bush blame the government's inaction, incompetence on Obama. They cause it and then blame it on the democrats.
6
It seems Republican politicians and voters would rather ruin anything the US does and brag they were right while living under a bridge in the future then admit maybe they should have done more to help their country move forward.
1
After looking at the video which shows the statements of the Republicans regarding the deal, there is but one thing that comes to my mined:
"Saying no if you do not understand what this is all about is the idiot's way out."
"Saying no if you do not understand what this is all about is the idiot's way out."
1
Missing from all this is the fact that other countries are moving forward and are not going to side with the Republicans. It's done. They are trying to lead from behind... way behind... the curve.
1
Certainly the NYTs has benefited from the fracas about the Iran nuclear limitation agreement; just look at the number of full page ads, presumably funded by the AIPAC or one of its many satellite organizations.
Indeed I find it particularly galling that Israel, dominated by a group of religious extremists, itself sitting on a huge undeclared arsenal of atomic weapons, including hydrogen bombs, would so vocally oppose this sensible agreement thru its lobbying arm. Perhaps the only thing more galling is that this tiny nation, the largest single recipient of US foreign aid over the last 5 decades, can skillfully use checkbook lobbying to so influence our Congress that, even ‘tho at this point there is no longer concern that Congress might block the agreement, it allows the Republican supported charade to go on, leaving other important business unattended.
My own Senator, Chuck Schumer, has seemingly forgotten that he is elected by US citizens resident in NY State to represent our interest, not Israel’s.
Israel with at least 200 nuclear weapons is not a member of the IAEA, refuses to sign the NPT & allows NO international inspections of its nuclear facilities. How is it possible that so many members of Congress blithely condone this behavior while criticizing the agreement with Iran? The answer is money spread widely throughout the halls of Congress by the clever operatives of the AIPAC.
Indeed I find it particularly galling that Israel, dominated by a group of religious extremists, itself sitting on a huge undeclared arsenal of atomic weapons, including hydrogen bombs, would so vocally oppose this sensible agreement thru its lobbying arm. Perhaps the only thing more galling is that this tiny nation, the largest single recipient of US foreign aid over the last 5 decades, can skillfully use checkbook lobbying to so influence our Congress that, even ‘tho at this point there is no longer concern that Congress might block the agreement, it allows the Republican supported charade to go on, leaving other important business unattended.
My own Senator, Chuck Schumer, has seemingly forgotten that he is elected by US citizens resident in NY State to represent our interest, not Israel’s.
Israel with at least 200 nuclear weapons is not a member of the IAEA, refuses to sign the NPT & allows NO international inspections of its nuclear facilities. How is it possible that so many members of Congress blithely condone this behavior while criticizing the agreement with Iran? The answer is money spread widely throughout the halls of Congress by the clever operatives of the AIPAC.
5
Jeez, more money to support Israel's bloated military. What are they, the United States. Got a better idea, let's just make them the 51st state. Interesting thing, I would bet most of those who are such vehement supports of Israel(excluding APAIC) probably couldn't find it on a map unless an arrow was drawn to it. If pointed out they might be surprised to see Iran is two countries away.
1
Just change the words "Iran Deal" and you could pretty well sum up the entire range of governance of the Republican party. Their perfidy seems to know no bounds and their shameless attempts at subverting the will of the people appear to be endless.
In regards to the Iran deal, while not perfect, it's galaxies ahead of what the opponents propose--or more precisely, don't propose. Yesterday's spectacle at the "Tea Party" event in opposition to the Iran agreement featured Trump, Cruz, Bachman, Palin, and Phil Robertson ("Duck Dynasty"). All that was missing was an appearance by Netanyahu and the day would have been complete.
What a bunch of crazies.
In regards to the Iran deal, while not perfect, it's galaxies ahead of what the opponents propose--or more precisely, don't propose. Yesterday's spectacle at the "Tea Party" event in opposition to the Iran agreement featured Trump, Cruz, Bachman, Palin, and Phil Robertson ("Duck Dynasty"). All that was missing was an appearance by Netanyahu and the day would have been complete.
What a bunch of crazies.
7
The Republican shenanigans, however childish, will certainly endear them to Israel and its lobby who have done all they can to kill the Iran deal. The editors are right about that.
"The debate has been vitriolic and raw....and made supporters of the strong and worthy deal out to be anti-Israel or worse."
Or worse. Seems the Times editors assume that if you're anti-Israel, you're already bad, and possibly could be worse.
Dear editors, it's not intrinsically bad to be anti-Israel. Israel is just another country, not a religion, not a race, and should not be considered a protected class. If it does bad things, then decent people will be against it.
"The debate has been vitriolic and raw....and made supporters of the strong and worthy deal out to be anti-Israel or worse."
Or worse. Seems the Times editors assume that if you're anti-Israel, you're already bad, and possibly could be worse.
Dear editors, it's not intrinsically bad to be anti-Israel. Israel is just another country, not a religion, not a race, and should not be considered a protected class. If it does bad things, then decent people will be against it.
1
While I think the Republicans, Bibi and AIPAC are beyond wrong on this deal, after all what are they going to do instead? War? Worked out real well in Iraq didn't it? Get a better deal? Well, that's what W told us he was going to do with North Korea, and it worked so well they got nuclear weapons. I am equally troubled by comments from Mrs. Clinton about boosting Israels military. What have they done with all that aid so far? Defend against Iran? ISIS? No, they have used our military aid to devastate Gaza and boost their occupation on the West Bank. If Israel disappears in 25 years it won't be due to the AYatollah, it will be due to disastrous policy choices by Netanyahu and the Israeli right wing who refuse to negotiate meaningfully with the Palestinians, the other people with an ancient claim to territory in that area.
3
What they would do is not return $100 billion dollars of frozen funds in exchange for a handful of un-enforcable and un-verifiable promises.
1
One of the Republican arguments against the Iran deal is that it will (I kid you not) destabilize the Middle East.
The other one, that they call us Satan, is usually stated simultaneously with calling them Satan.
And our friend here in New York, Chuck Schumer, friend of Wall Street and bedmate of AIPAC, suggests (with a straight face) that we reject this deal and go back to get a better one.
The "senselessness" is more far-reaching that just this little GOP tantrum.
The other one, that they call us Satan, is usually stated simultaneously with calling them Satan.
And our friend here in New York, Chuck Schumer, friend of Wall Street and bedmate of AIPAC, suggests (with a straight face) that we reject this deal and go back to get a better one.
The "senselessness" is more far-reaching that just this little GOP tantrum.
6
"The bruising battle over the Iran nuclear agreement should be over...."
That is truly the wish of the liberal media elite, trapped in the politically correct bubble of their own making, and deperately seeking to change the conversation so that Democratic candidates do not have to own this "Iran proliferation deal."
It will not work. Every day, the "supreme" leader (der Fuhrer) clarifies his regime's hate and intent against both the West, and Israel. The tired Obama mantra that "the deal could have been worse," or "what's the alternative?" have been answered repeatedly, "no deal, tighter sanctions, military strike ready, even if "it only pushes the Iranians back a few years."
The Obama Doctrine will be a subject of the Presidential campaign. The Times has its work cut out; it must run daily columns explaining why the Russians not only occupied Crimea and are bleeding the Ukraine while NATO sits idly by, but why the Russians are moving into Syria, the Cubans gav e up nothing for dictatorial recognition, and why the Iranians will be allowed to perfect ballistic missiles with 150 billion dollars of freed-up money for their "tightly" inspected and non-existent nuclear enrichment program.
Our President abandoned the Syrian people long before the little boy washed up on European shores. Mr. Obama's "red line" never existed, and the Iranian Green movement was betrayed.
Even the Times cannot stop the coming debate on the Obama Doctrine during the campaign season.
That is truly the wish of the liberal media elite, trapped in the politically correct bubble of their own making, and deperately seeking to change the conversation so that Democratic candidates do not have to own this "Iran proliferation deal."
It will not work. Every day, the "supreme" leader (der Fuhrer) clarifies his regime's hate and intent against both the West, and Israel. The tired Obama mantra that "the deal could have been worse," or "what's the alternative?" have been answered repeatedly, "no deal, tighter sanctions, military strike ready, even if "it only pushes the Iranians back a few years."
The Obama Doctrine will be a subject of the Presidential campaign. The Times has its work cut out; it must run daily columns explaining why the Russians not only occupied Crimea and are bleeding the Ukraine while NATO sits idly by, but why the Russians are moving into Syria, the Cubans gav e up nothing for dictatorial recognition, and why the Iranians will be allowed to perfect ballistic missiles with 150 billion dollars of freed-up money for their "tightly" inspected and non-existent nuclear enrichment program.
Our President abandoned the Syrian people long before the little boy washed up on European shores. Mr. Obama's "red line" never existed, and the Iranian Green movement was betrayed.
Even the Times cannot stop the coming debate on the Obama Doctrine during the campaign season.
4
For any responsible American voter, this latest Republican ruse for resisting the deal is a priceless object lesson in governance. The merits and demerits of the agreement are well known and have been dissected ad nauseam. Facing an inevitable defeat, Republicans and their Tea Party fringe nevertheless are determined, if they can, to wreck and ruin the mechanics of government simply because (fill in your own blank). There is no aging grid in this country that does not require urgent repair or replacement, yet Republicans are more than willing to put the nation at serious risk, at many crucial connecting points (roads, rails, electric, water and sewage, airports) to continue fighting a battle they cannot possibly win. On this matter, America is no different from Syria or any other unstable regime in passing the sniff test: it's not working; it's broken; what do we do about it?
5
Is it true that the "deal" allows Iran to do their own inspections?
Does the "deal" free up money for Iran, but not free any America hostages?
Not much of a "deal", at least for America.
Does the "deal" free up money for Iran, but not free any America hostages?
Not much of a "deal", at least for America.
3
This treaty will leave the U.S. weak in the Middle East and weak in the world.
It is an abdication of world leadership. It is a failure of Obama's leadership
that he fails to understand the Ayatollah's statements about Israel, The
U.S. is repeating Munich in 1938.
It is an abdication of world leadership. It is a failure of Obama's leadership
that he fails to understand the Ayatollah's statements about Israel, The
U.S. is repeating Munich in 1938.
5
As an elementary school student I was taught in civics class that in a democracy, issues are debated and ultimately voted upon. Once the issue is decided with a vote, everyone should get behind the resolution. The republicans obviously have failed civics. Nothing is ever decided in their minds, so the wage decades-long battles on issues they have lost wasting valuable time and taxpayer money (e.g., Social Security). Important issues then languish in the halls of congress, while the GOP panders to its base. Now we have yet another issue where the republicans cannot accept reality. It is no wonder that voters are flocking to non-political figures, however flawed. Their logic appears to be, "How could it be worse?" In most cases it would be worse, except in the case of The Donald, of course.
3
Leave it to Darth Cheney to out "right fright" the Ayatollah. Since the GOP/AIPAC/BIBI axis of evil has driven themselves off a steep cliff, I guess we are destined to have to watch the ridiculous old men put on some kind of free fall show as they go crashing to the ground again. And their remnants of a following just want some screaming, name-calling, yelling and lots of legislative play acting as they know they will never win any policy positions again because trickle down proved "it don't hunt" and that was the last gig they had running, except their loud boorish yaps.
6
If the deal is so great, so necessary, so moderate, why did we have to throw $$ and arms to our ME allies? Anyone care to chew on that nugget?
4
Because our allies saw a chance to get some freebies, piggybacking off the Republican tantrum?
1
The GOP establishment, led by Corker, ceded their Constitutional Treaty Power to Obama. They basically turned it on its head. Do the fix was in months ago.
Follow the money. The pols who are for this deal received money from Iranian lobbyists. And the ones who didn't receive money from the Iranians, received the high sign from the Chamber of Cronyism: Big multinational companies will reap big rewards from this deal. Which will flow to the pols.
But this deal will destroy the world. The mad mullahs of Iran will have more money now for terrorism, their biggest export. And the nukes come next.
Follow the money. The pols who are for this deal received money from Iranian lobbyists. And the ones who didn't receive money from the Iranians, received the high sign from the Chamber of Cronyism: Big multinational companies will reap big rewards from this deal. Which will flow to the pols.
But this deal will destroy the world. The mad mullahs of Iran will have more money now for terrorism, their biggest export. And the nukes come next.
10
@Cjmesq0 Bronx, NY
I hope you will remember your words ten years from now when none of your predictions come true.
And I'll give you Netanyahu's words to the US Congress in 2002 as an example:
Testifying again in front of Congress in 2002, Netanyahu claimed that Iraq’s nonexistent nuclear program was in fact so advanced that the country was now operating “centrifuges the size of washing machines.”
Netanyahu said in 2002. "If you take out Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region."
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/18/opinion/sick-netanyahu-on-iran/
I hope you will remember your words ten years from now when none of your predictions come true.
And I'll give you Netanyahu's words to the US Congress in 2002 as an example:
Testifying again in front of Congress in 2002, Netanyahu claimed that Iraq’s nonexistent nuclear program was in fact so advanced that the country was now operating “centrifuges the size of washing machines.”
Netanyahu said in 2002. "If you take out Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region."
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/18/opinion/sick-netanyahu-on-iran/
1
If Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ever tires of being the Supreme Ruler of Iran, he might consider immigrating to the US and running for Congress as a Tea Party Republican. His mindset, demeanor and rhetoric will fit in very nicely.
5
What part of "Death to America" does the NY Times not understand?
13
@ R.R.
They probably understand about as much as those 36 retired admirals and generals, not to mention the chairman of the joint chiefs, who have endorsed the deal. And I'd say this was rather more than you and those other Republican foreign policy experts Palin and Trump.
They probably understand about as much as those 36 retired admirals and generals, not to mention the chairman of the joint chiefs, who have endorsed the deal. And I'd say this was rather more than you and those other Republican foreign policy experts Palin and Trump.
31
I learned about the meaning of "sticks and stones" in the school yard in grade school. Did you skip that part of your education?
5
What part of the newly received moderate message, "Death to no one!" do you dislike?
The most appalling thing about this negotiation is that we have American citizens who stand with a foreign leader and a foreign government against an American president, and against the best interest of the US. There is a disconnect on whether folks associate more with a foreign country than they do their own country.
43
Aren't Representatives supposed to determine for themselves and their constituents what the best interests of the United States are? I missed the part of the Constitution where it says Representative should just listen to the Executive's point of view and follow blindly. The Republicans are trying to support their constituents and the best interests of the country.
Most Republicans believe this is a bad deal. They believe we are releasing $100 billion dollars in exchange for promises Iran has no intent on keeping, and that we have little means of punishing Iran if the promises are broken (if we can even prove they broke them).
It's a difference of opinion with the President who thinks the deal is strong. The Republicans are not actively backing Netanyahu. Both oppose the deal because they believe it will be bad for their people.
Most Republicans believe this is a bad deal. They believe we are releasing $100 billion dollars in exchange for promises Iran has no intent on keeping, and that we have little means of punishing Iran if the promises are broken (if we can even prove they broke them).
It's a difference of opinion with the President who thinks the deal is strong. The Republicans are not actively backing Netanyahu. Both oppose the deal because they believe it will be bad for their people.
3
Your way of saying that supporters of the deal are traitors. Nice.
Our choices should be guided by hope for a bettor future. I heard John McCain say that to hope us naive. I disagree.
Our choices should be guided by hope for a bettor future. I heard John McCain say that to hope us naive. I disagree.
This is t our country anymore. Obama has so successfully divided us that this is no longer the America that I grew up loving.
1
As if we needed more proof that republicans are completely incapable of governing, here we go again. This level of irresponsibility would normally be the death knell of any party acting in such a way, but then again, Donald Trump's rise in the polls is partly due to the GOP base approving of his reckless and irresponsible approach to running. Therefore, the problem is not with the approach, it's with the republican electorate. Given the dunderheadedness of republican voters nowadays, passing a literacy test in order to vote really doesn't sound like a bad idea.
23
This is the republican creed. Oppose and spoil everything driven by their unfailing conviction in the notion that they alone are the true rulers of this country; everyone else, and everything else is illegitimate and unworthy.
This is republican steel. Democrats, now humming and hawing about Hillary's emails and sowing doubt, and apologetic, scared democratic senators and congressmen/women, the weak, effete, ineffectual apologists - deserve everything they get from the "we, and not you, own this place" republicans. If democrats were my opposition, I would laugh all the way to the white house every time (and if republicans don't, it is because of their own proclivity for worshiping ancestors and dynasties, and because when they are in power, they leave behind a country in ruins of wars, debt, recession, and a coarsened national psyche that is unembarrassed by our disdain toward the have-nots).
Nothing in this delay is senseless. Every delay serves to elevate the status of some republican among some constituency (yesterday, Ted Cruz - the second coming of Torquemada - was holding forth, followed by buffoon in chief Trump). All this to the glee of a surprising mix of "know nothing" right wingers and Jewish groups (genuinely concerned about Iran).
The disorganized humming and hawing from democrats, and total dedication to spinelessness is not the republicans' fault; republicans will kill, delay, destroy, stop, worsen absolutely everything they can. And do.
Kalidan
This is republican steel. Democrats, now humming and hawing about Hillary's emails and sowing doubt, and apologetic, scared democratic senators and congressmen/women, the weak, effete, ineffectual apologists - deserve everything they get from the "we, and not you, own this place" republicans. If democrats were my opposition, I would laugh all the way to the white house every time (and if republicans don't, it is because of their own proclivity for worshiping ancestors and dynasties, and because when they are in power, they leave behind a country in ruins of wars, debt, recession, and a coarsened national psyche that is unembarrassed by our disdain toward the have-nots).
Nothing in this delay is senseless. Every delay serves to elevate the status of some republican among some constituency (yesterday, Ted Cruz - the second coming of Torquemada - was holding forth, followed by buffoon in chief Trump). All this to the glee of a surprising mix of "know nothing" right wingers and Jewish groups (genuinely concerned about Iran).
The disorganized humming and hawing from democrats, and total dedication to spinelessness is not the republicans' fault; republicans will kill, delay, destroy, stop, worsen absolutely everything they can. And do.
Kalidan
12
The Iranians have their Ayatollah Khomeini and his hard liners. We have Dick Cheney (and his mini-me, Liz) and our republican hard liners. Israel has Netanyahu and his hard liners in AIPAC. Every single one of them sing the same song: war. The US is the "great Satan", Iran is the "axis of evil", and Israel is referred to in very disparaging terms I will not repeat here. It seems that these people are incapable of understanding that war is self-perpetuating, solves nothing, with only mass death and destruction as a result.
With this deal, although not perfect, it will hopefully provide some breathing room for cooler, more rational (sane) minds to prevail. Younger generations want a future for themselves and their children. In twenty five yrs., I believe, that if we give peace a chance, these dogs of war, the hate mongers on all sides, will have been silenced by either reason or the grave. Good riddance.
With this deal, although not perfect, it will hopefully provide some breathing room for cooler, more rational (sane) minds to prevail. Younger generations want a future for themselves and their children. In twenty five yrs., I believe, that if we give peace a chance, these dogs of war, the hate mongers on all sides, will have been silenced by either reason or the grave. Good riddance.
22
Senseless and moronic, the apparent basis for all Republican action and/or lack of action, the last several years. The Republicans are "exceptionally" good at avoiding doing anything that resembles governing and acting responsibly. The last gambit, demanding the release of "secret" side agreements, when the agreements are not secret to them, is like trying to make a move in a chess game in which you are already mated. Their efforts are useless and childish. There is nothing new here at all.
12
The NY Times has its head in the sand just like the democratic party. If you deal with the devil, you end up dead. The Iranian Nazi's have only one plan! Death to America and the Western World. I am not going to let history repeat itself again.
7
I guess all the country's in Europe, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, the Pope and the U.N. Secretary General, Republicans Richard Lugar and Colin Powell all must also have their heads in the sand. The only ones who seem to be able to see are Netanyahu and the Congressional Republicans.
4
A senseless delay?
Ever heard of two sides to a story.
Ever heard of two sides to a story.
6
We have been waiting and waiting to hear the other side of the story, but the other side of the story doesn't have a plausible alternative solution.
“This is a good deal for the United States,” said President Clinton. “North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.”
7
And therefore, for the rest of time, we should never accept any deal to reduce nuclear weapons, with any country.
And, btw, how are those sanctions working out for you in N. Korea?
And, btw, how are those sanctions working out for you in N. Korea?
It's a pattern for sure. The majority white GOP rejects, delays or stalls whatever the Obama Administration proposes. Blatant jealousy, envy or good ole fashion racism at work.
13
The GOP doesn't agree with it. That's the way the system works. They are doing their job. Similar complaints were legion about Harry Reid stonewalling.
5
The GOP led congress is the lowest rated in history for precisely the reason addressed in this excellent editorial; led by willfully ignorant and purposely obstructive members of the Tea Party, to which they have given an inordinate amount of power like parents to a spoiled, screaming toddler for the sake of temporary peace, they have repeatedly chosen and spectacle and useless symbolic gestures over meaningful protest leading to an adult compromise or surrender. As a result they remarkable lack of productivity has come to the attention of every voter to the satisfaction of none, except perhaps the most nihilistic members of their base, who at the end of the day will never be truly satisfied, as they apparently have no knowledge of how the government functions and expect their representatives to do the impossible. Since it is impossible to do the impossible, which their reps promise to keep them from caterwauling for a spell, the cycle continues. It is a pathetic display, now visible to the entire international community and if they imagine this makes
America look strong, nonetheless "exceptional", they are sorely mistaken.
America look strong, nonetheless "exceptional", they are sorely mistaken.
9
Republican voters have a poor track record. The people they elect to represent their interests vote against them, they delay, defer, deter, and vote repeatedly to shut down a health care system that benefits them. They vote to hand Social Security to the investor class, and lower the already low taxes paid by the wealthy and corporate.
With elected officials like Boehner and McConnell running congress, it's no wonder that Republican voters want candidates like Trump, Carson, and Fiorina - people who have never been elected, ever. The GOP voter just doesn't understand that they are picking from the wrong pool of candidates. If you don't want ineffective, do-nothing, incompetent officials, stop voting Republican.
With elected officials like Boehner and McConnell running congress, it's no wonder that Republican voters want candidates like Trump, Carson, and Fiorina - people who have never been elected, ever. The GOP voter just doesn't understand that they are picking from the wrong pool of candidates. If you don't want ineffective, do-nothing, incompetent officials, stop voting Republican.
42
Most health care benefits have gone to the poor, as it should be. Middle class Republicans are helped by the pre-existing condition law, which doesn't require a plan, and single individuals and the sickly also benefit, but they are clearly a minority. As for proposed Social Security changes, they are comparable to pension reform -- designed to assure fiscal viability, which may or may not be necessary, an issue ducked by Democrats, who refuse to debate because cuts to Social Security are against Democratic religious dogma. I am tired of Democrats who think Republicans are stupid and that they know best what's good for Republican voters. Those views are arrogant and wrong. I've never voted for a Republican. But I don't believe in the high priests of Democratic ideology any more than I believe in evangelical Republicans. America needs to debate its core issues, and folks like you refuse to engage just as much as Mr. McConnell.
Democrats have a worse problem. Hillary is popularity is dropping and the Grubers have to figure out who they can draft to run against her. Biden, Warren, Gore, Kerry. I guess Sanders has already been voted off the team.
Self-righteous indignation about weapons of mass destruction got us into a fiasco of a war with Iraq. That was the Republicans' doing. Self-righteous indignation about a useless nuclear agreement with a nation that thinks of us as Satanic, and will do whatever it wants to do, puts us in the position of enforcing an agreement with Iran that isn't there. Obama did a great job with sanctions, bringing Iran to its knees. This fiasco of an agreement is a big mistake, though. We haven't learned the lesson of Bush's folly. Nothing ever goes right when we get entangled in the Middle East.
5
As usual you miss the point. The point is that about two thirds of the Congress, that is House and Senate, think this Iran Deal is a Bad Deal and the majority of American people think it is a Bad Deal and you are concerned that we are dragging our feet and not entering into this bad deal fast enough because we have more important things to do? In my eyes the more important thing is getting more Republicans in House and senate and a republican in the White House so we can undo the damage our communist president has done.
7
On the mark!
Wrong. The deal is sound. The only reason Republicans oppose it is because their boss, Netanyahu, opposes it.
2
Anyone who truly thinks our President is a communist has totally missed many points.
4
Maybe the Congressional Republicans can write another letter to the Ayatollah and ask for help.
26
One of the great benefits of the Iran nuclear agreement already has been achieved.
Most of us did not need reminding, but some Americans may not have realized the lengths to which Republicans will go to score political points – even little or imagined points – and how dishonest these conservatives are ready to be in the process of seeking those tiny victories. The continuing debate about the nuclear deal confirms that the right-wing agenda is to oppose anything President Obama does, irrespective of how much that unwavering pettiness hurts vital American interests.
The prolonged posturing and maneuvering by Congressional Republicans over the Iran deal has no more substance than John Boehner’s phony outrage over the renaming of Mount McKinley. It is just another example of how irresponsible and disloyal our elected G.O.P. representatives can be.
These are not serious, mature people.
As the new election cycle heats up, this reminder of Republican triviality is valuable information for all American voters. It will be kept in our minds in ways that Republican politicians never imagined.
Most of us did not need reminding, but some Americans may not have realized the lengths to which Republicans will go to score political points – even little or imagined points – and how dishonest these conservatives are ready to be in the process of seeking those tiny victories. The continuing debate about the nuclear deal confirms that the right-wing agenda is to oppose anything President Obama does, irrespective of how much that unwavering pettiness hurts vital American interests.
The prolonged posturing and maneuvering by Congressional Republicans over the Iran deal has no more substance than John Boehner’s phony outrage over the renaming of Mount McKinley. It is just another example of how irresponsible and disloyal our elected G.O.P. representatives can be.
These are not serious, mature people.
As the new election cycle heats up, this reminder of Republican triviality is valuable information for all American voters. It will be kept in our minds in ways that Republican politicians never imagined.
40
It seems Iran has plenty to be wary of.
We send drones to places we don't like, no one else really does that.
War is our big business since it's been up for sale to private contractors, and the Republicans are outing themselves as being their party. Willing to say/do anything to keep the wars going, you people can eat cake. Bigger war each day.
We've already cheated on Iran so many times, how do we take this tone of superiority?
We send drones to places we don't like, no one else really does that.
War is our big business since it's been up for sale to private contractors, and the Republicans are outing themselves as being their party. Willing to say/do anything to keep the wars going, you people can eat cake. Bigger war each day.
We've already cheated on Iran so many times, how do we take this tone of superiority?
11
Dick Cheney and his crew were asleep at the switch leading up to 9/11 and they lied us into a disastrous war that has blown up the Middle East. Does any sane person really listen to Dick Cheney and his ignorant daughter anymore?
70
Huh? Asleep from January to September 2001? It wasn't clinton who watched the trade center bombing in 1993 and then chased chicks from 93 until he left office in 2001. Clinton didn't let 9/11 happen? Bush and Cheney did? Omg how adorable.
Cheney had only been in office for 9 months. Bill Clinton was the President that was too busy with extra marital affairs to secure the air spaces so that illegal squatters from the middle east could not get flight lessons to learn how to fly a passenger aircraft.
Obama and the European Nations had the Iran Deal approved by the United Nations It appears to be a done deal without the imput of the American people through their elected officials
Since the United States is a republic in which Democracy is practiced the accepted rule of law is that there are various political parties and voters with opposing views who elect the Executive legislative and judicial branches to represent them
Since the polls indicate that the majority of Americans oppose the Iran Deal maybe Congress is doing what they were elected to do-giving their constituents a voice
Since the United States is a republic in which Democracy is practiced the accepted rule of law is that there are various political parties and voters with opposing views who elect the Executive legislative and judicial branches to represent them
Since the polls indicate that the majority of Americans oppose the Iran Deal maybe Congress is doing what they were elected to do-giving their constituents a voice
15
I don't believe you. What polls.
2
Absolutely.
Yes, congress has to do within the laws before September 17. All out opposition by Republican majority is not what the 'majority' of Americans want. They want a resolution before September 17 and if not done sensibly the agreement goes into effect.
To me, the most irritating question that I have about the JCPOA is this: How can any member of Congress vote either for or against this deal when important documents, most specifically the secret agreements between the IAEA and Iran, remain unseen? The old simile 'like a pig in a poke' comes to mind.
8
We can't vote until you show us the secret documents. We are really for immigration reform, but first we have to secure the border. ACA is such a disaster we have had to vote 50 times to eliminate it even though we invented it. We are for rebuilding our infrastructure, but it would be a disaster to raise the gas tax to support it. Planned parenthood is destroying the social fabric of the country so we are going to shut down the government until it is defunded. Voter ID is required because wide spread voting fraud is about to destroy our democracy. The county clerk in Kentucky needs a religious exemption because God hates gays. We had to invade Iraq in order to destroy Saddam Hussein's stockpile of WMD. Terrorism is the biggest threat to our national security as it has killed about 50 Americans since 9/11. We don't need a universal background check because firearms have only killed 400,000 Americans since 9/11.
Increased military support for far and away the most powerful country in the region is the responsible way to go? Even more high tech weapons for the major nuclear power which flagrantly violates a host of international accords by building more and more illegal settlements and whose leader has baldly rejected a two-state solution? Yes, Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself. It does not have the right to unilaterally declare it's own borders, however, and use billions of dollars in US supplied weapons to slaughter any Palestinians who dare resist the theft of their land. The United States rightly guarantees Israel's security but has become an enabler of the lawless behavior condemned by every nation in the world except the US and Canada. Making massive military supplies contingent on ending the settlements and negotiating in good faith is the responsible way to go and it will not happen.
6
We cannot expect anything else from the Republicans other than the nihilistic, obstructionist tactics they have been employing during the entire term of Barack Obama. They have sworn to stop his presidency in its tracks and have failed miserably. Nevertheless, like the walking dead, they continue to pursue a scorched earth policy. They care nothing about the American people nor world peace, their only objective is to deny any meaningful achievements by the Obama administration. They are born to lose.
19
When speaking of congress and its dysfunction, the Pubs really need to be singled out as the real problem. The Tea Party Pubs never intended on legislating but to bring congress and the government to a grinding halt and they have succeeded. The Pubs made the filibuster the norm blocking all things Obama. If he is for it, then they are against it no matter if it would be great for our country.
They refuse to take a vote on the conflict with ISIS seeing they can get more mileage politically by just complaining about how Obama is handling this. They have shut the government down costing the tax payers billions of dollars. The same can be said about voting to repeal Obamacare over fifty times costing millions and now this. This congress is truly the do nothing congress accomplishing less than any other congress in our political history.
Because of their incompetence, they have given rise to the huge narcissistic Trump because all are sick and tire of how the Pubs, now in charge, are running our congress. They hate giving Obama a win and this is another great win not just for Obama but also for the five other nations involved. This fact seems to be lost in Pub logic (an oxymoron these days) and how detrimental killing this deal would be for us and our allies. Let’s thank the 42 Dems senators.
They refuse to take a vote on the conflict with ISIS seeing they can get more mileage politically by just complaining about how Obama is handling this. They have shut the government down costing the tax payers billions of dollars. The same can be said about voting to repeal Obamacare over fifty times costing millions and now this. This congress is truly the do nothing congress accomplishing less than any other congress in our political history.
Because of their incompetence, they have given rise to the huge narcissistic Trump because all are sick and tire of how the Pubs, now in charge, are running our congress. They hate giving Obama a win and this is another great win not just for Obama but also for the five other nations involved. This fact seems to be lost in Pub logic (an oxymoron these days) and how detrimental killing this deal would be for us and our allies. Let’s thank the 42 Dems senators.
15
Unlike today, long ago Republicans took foreign policy seriously. Now all they have to offer are immature sophomoric temper tantrums. Moreover, it is quite obvious they do not know or even care to know what is actually in the agreement, otherwise they would not be repeating 2 false talking points 24/7/12.
But the bigger problem is Republicans do not believe in employing diplomacy; They believe in deploying the troops. That is the result from operating on the ill-conceived idea that diplomacy is 110% our way or the highway.
Bush & Cheney with the help of Congressional Republicans trumped up a case based on lies & fictions peppered with a whole lot of fear mongering to sway public opinion to favor taking military action against Iraq. Now Republicans are trying to do similar regarding Iran.
To put any stock in what they are saying now after hyping non-existent WMD threats would be more than foolish; it would be egregiously irresponsible on our part to even give them the benefit of the doubt. IMHO
But the bigger problem is Republicans do not believe in employing diplomacy; They believe in deploying the troops. That is the result from operating on the ill-conceived idea that diplomacy is 110% our way or the highway.
Bush & Cheney with the help of Congressional Republicans trumped up a case based on lies & fictions peppered with a whole lot of fear mongering to sway public opinion to favor taking military action against Iraq. Now Republicans are trying to do similar regarding Iran.
To put any stock in what they are saying now after hyping non-existent WMD threats would be more than foolish; it would be egregiously irresponsible on our part to even give them the benefit of the doubt. IMHO
145
Let's take a look at the Democrates' record on foreign policy and how it has led to problems. World War I, World War II, the the Korean War, our relationship with Cuba, the Vietnam War, Iraq, Syria, .... The assumption that we can come to an agreement and the other party with comply or that violations won't affect the U.S. has proven folly over and over but the Democrats don't seem to learn. When someone repeatedly and with urgency tells you they are going to hurt you and your friends there seems to be an obligation on your part to believe them. It is irresponsible to wave those threats off as theatrics meant only for and audience comprised of their own internal interests.
1
Regardless of one's opinion on the deal, it should be appalling that Democrats are resorting to the filibuster -- which they rightfully condemned Republicans for abusing in the last Congress, when they were in the minority -- to prevent debate on what many have called the most important foreign policy vote in a generation, which most have called the most difficult and soul-searching vote of their careers. Even those who ultimately intend to vote against the resolution of disapproval owe it to the voters and to history to permit a full debate and recorded vote.
19
This deal hinges on a Senate filibuster, not a Senate ratification of a treaty. The Pubs don't want it taken seriously.
1
Unfortunately, debate is not something that has happened in our Congress for quite some time. What passes for debate is shouting bumper sticker slogans at each other with "louder" being equivalent to "more correct". While I'm not a big fan of the filibuster, in this case, as in recent congressional history, should be thought of as a mute button on the remote control sparing us the posturing that passes these days for thoughtful, well-reasoned policy positions.
2
Are you even paying attention to what is happening?
There can not be debate, when the Republican Reactionaries refuse to even read the "deal" before screaming fire in a crowded theater.
fwa
There can not be debate, when the Republican Reactionaries refuse to even read the "deal" before screaming fire in a crowded theater.
fwa
2
Yes, the Iranian Leader's kooky hate filled saber rattling is painfully and pathetically ill-advised. But so is the equivalent from the American Right Wing.
Do the mostly young and Westward looking masses of Iran agree with him? All evidence in recent years would indicate the answer is "No." The Iranian people are much like us, with similar hopes and dreams for peace, prosperity and harmony in their homes and communities...
Just remember, with all the vile virtual treason, Right Wing false outrage, and Obama hate speech in recent years, a great deal of American politicians and senior leaders look just as threatening to others from the outside looking in. Also note, we have *actual Presidential candidates* debating whether they would start a war with Iran on the very day they are sworn in! *Do people really think Iran and the rest of the world does not notice - or react?!* Why do we look only to the words and actions of others, rather than to how OUR actions are perceived by others?
1). We *already have* a vast number of nuclear weapons! Iran has yet to make or test one.
2). Iran is also not actively debating a timetable for war with the US. However, some senior Republicans are debating an Iran war timetable, with the full and happy support of many members of their core base...
Some mature perspective would be most welcome here.
Do the mostly young and Westward looking masses of Iran agree with him? All evidence in recent years would indicate the answer is "No." The Iranian people are much like us, with similar hopes and dreams for peace, prosperity and harmony in their homes and communities...
Just remember, with all the vile virtual treason, Right Wing false outrage, and Obama hate speech in recent years, a great deal of American politicians and senior leaders look just as threatening to others from the outside looking in. Also note, we have *actual Presidential candidates* debating whether they would start a war with Iran on the very day they are sworn in! *Do people really think Iran and the rest of the world does not notice - or react?!* Why do we look only to the words and actions of others, rather than to how OUR actions are perceived by others?
1). We *already have* a vast number of nuclear weapons! Iran has yet to make or test one.
2). Iran is also not actively debating a timetable for war with the US. However, some senior Republicans are debating an Iran war timetable, with the full and happy support of many members of their core base...
Some mature perspective would be most welcome here.
199
Mature perspective is obviously subject to senescence.
Comparing American Republicans to the Leaders in Iran? Typical Progressive Dem response. I've never heard a Republican say anything like "Death to the United States", but then maybe I haven't read or heard everything.
1
Please. Saying "Israel won't exist in x years" or "death to the great satan" have become at this point simple chest thumping counterpoints to the militant posture the Israelis and Americans too adopt to their regime. It is just a there, I said it, what are you gonna do kinda thing, be because people like Netenyahu or Hillary Clinton or Asthon Carter or all Republicans alive also feel compelled to make aggressive noises.
And you know what? To the extent these people, on either side, feel compelled to ACT on those noises, the reaction will be opposite, although I am not sure whether it would be equal. Read Ali Larjani interview with NPR today for example.
It seems the old is simply stuck with these "conservatives" and those who would be dragged along with them since as Bill Clinton said, tough and wrong wins all the time.
And you know what? To the extent these people, on either side, feel compelled to ACT on those noises, the reaction will be opposite, although I am not sure whether it would be equal. Read Ali Larjani interview with NPR today for example.
It seems the old is simply stuck with these "conservatives" and those who would be dragged along with them since as Bill Clinton said, tough and wrong wins all the time.
5
There is a striking difference in the tenor of those diplomats that actually engaged in the years-long negotiations and the ill-informed Republicans who offer no alternative than yet another war in the Middle East. Those that know the details of the agreement and the steps taken to achieve it are not fools-they know the pitfalls and risks of trusting Iran but weigh these against the potential upside. They know the degree to which, and the exact ways that we all know Iran will test our mettle, and try to see how far they can go. As an American simply tired of our causing and involvement in years of never ending wars in the middle east, I am willing to give it a try.
On the other side is ill informed pointless and inflamatory rhetoric about leading Israel to the doors fo the gas chamber (really? Is that really necessary? are we really such fools as to believe that?). Or Trump saying we are led by very stupid people. We are not led by stupid people. Disagree if you like, and provide a detailed and informed alternative..other than to say 'elect me and we will be winning so much you will be tired of winning' (I feel like Charlie Sheen is running for pres). But please do not insult our intelligence by saying we are led by stupid people. C'mon-you want to engage me, then show some level of intelligence. I need another alternative to the Iran deal than war to make me vote against it. How about we pledge to COMPLETELY take care of all American war verterans before creating more....
On the other side is ill informed pointless and inflamatory rhetoric about leading Israel to the doors fo the gas chamber (really? Is that really necessary? are we really such fools as to believe that?). Or Trump saying we are led by very stupid people. We are not led by stupid people. Disagree if you like, and provide a detailed and informed alternative..other than to say 'elect me and we will be winning so much you will be tired of winning' (I feel like Charlie Sheen is running for pres). But please do not insult our intelligence by saying we are led by stupid people. C'mon-you want to engage me, then show some level of intelligence. I need another alternative to the Iran deal than war to make me vote against it. How about we pledge to COMPLETELY take care of all American war verterans before creating more....
12
I once was dragged to a nuclear free zone meeting with a group of high school teachers where they dropped nails on a cookie sheet, in the dark, to illustrate the number of warheads in the US inventory. I commented then how weak was the analogy followed by muffled laughter. Kerry, it seems to me, is stuck in the same level of reallty..."Would you like a cookie, young man?"
5
Ronald Reagan proposed, during nuclear negotiations with the USSR, the zero option to remove all nuclear weapons from arsenals. Under the leadership of Obama and Kerry, why didn't they demand something that the US government demanded thirty some odd years ago?
As for the senseless delay, where was the Times during all the years of negotiations with Iran? Talk about senseless delays. To be frank, what's the rush now? Agreements between the IAEA and Iran are now glibly declared confidential. Yet who is paying for the IAEA? The US taxpayer. But it's none of our business as Kerry and Co have declared it confidential. I can imagine with another party in office the Times screaming to the heavens about promiscuous classification of agreements under the cloak of confidentiality as being secret. No less a President than Woodrow Wilson spoke against secret treaties, but a hundred years later, that is what we face. This is totally unacceptable.
And of course, Mrs. Clinton has articulated what the correct response to all this should be. Why doesn't the Times end the suspense and endorse her now for President instead of waiting for next year?
This editorial borders on the absurd.
As for the senseless delay, where was the Times during all the years of negotiations with Iran? Talk about senseless delays. To be frank, what's the rush now? Agreements between the IAEA and Iran are now glibly declared confidential. Yet who is paying for the IAEA? The US taxpayer. But it's none of our business as Kerry and Co have declared it confidential. I can imagine with another party in office the Times screaming to the heavens about promiscuous classification of agreements under the cloak of confidentiality as being secret. No less a President than Woodrow Wilson spoke against secret treaties, but a hundred years later, that is what we face. This is totally unacceptable.
And of course, Mrs. Clinton has articulated what the correct response to all this should be. Why doesn't the Times end the suspense and endorse her now for President instead of waiting for next year?
This editorial borders on the absurd.
7
It is senseless delay because Republicans lacks detail on what they are opposing, fundamental logistics, and commonsense.
1
Although IAEA is partly (and sometimes grudgingly) paid for by the US taxpayer, it is a UN agency and acting on behalf of all member states, paid for by all states as agreed in the UN charter. Thus, agreements between IAEA and Iran are handled as IAEA see fit.
President Reagan may well have proposed a zero nuclear weapons option in negotiations with the US but did he actually intend to dismantle the US arsenal if the USSR had accepted? The current agreement is in fact a zero level option regarding nuclear arms for Iran, at least for the stipulated time. Adding extra bombastic language to the agreement in the Reagan mode would accomplish nothing but would have made it politically impossible for Iran to accept.
President Reagan may well have proposed a zero nuclear weapons option in negotiations with the US but did he actually intend to dismantle the US arsenal if the USSR had accepted? The current agreement is in fact a zero level option regarding nuclear arms for Iran, at least for the stipulated time. Adding extra bombastic language to the agreement in the Reagan mode would accomplish nothing but would have made it politically impossible for Iran to accept.
1
"Yet who is paying for the IAEA? The US taxpayer."
Source?
Source?
The NY TIMES reported that the Ayatollah (again!) reiterated his promise to give no peace to the Zionists and that the US is still the Great Satan. Why isn't that mentioned in the TIMES editorial. Is Netanyahu just stupid or is Obama and the liberals in the US willing to ignore existential and continuing threat from Iran? To me, an Israeli, the TIMES and Obama are doing just what Chamberlain did in Munich - deceiving themselves for a temporary 'quiet'.
8
Peretz: yes, Netanyahu is just stupid . Please keep your bully inside your country-
we have enough of our own here.
we have enough of our own here.
2
What is the difference between Khamenei and the Republicans and AIPAC? None, it seems to me. The are mirror images of each other.
From the editorial: Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who allowed the deal to go forward, on Wednesday gave its opponents more ammunition — in remarks on his website and in posts on Twitter, he predicted Israel will not exist in 25 years and ruled out new negotiations with the United States, the “Satan.” His contempt is well known, but it should not drive an analysis of whether the multinational pact that constrains Iran’s nuclear activity improves regional security, which it does.
1
You would think the Republicans could find something more constructive to do. Like perhaps repealing Obamacare again.
20
There will be another government shutdown soon over the urgent need to defund Planned Parenthood to appease the wrath of God.
for the 98,563 time...and still failing to do so
For the first time in almost a century, war has returned to the Arabian Peninsula. It is working its way up north, south, and westward. The people involved in that conflict are anything but moderates. Slavery is but one chapter in their book. And their numbers are growing. The stability of the Peninsula is now an emerging issue.
Shouldn’t Congress have a duty to finally decide what action to take regarding the warring factions overlapping oil fields? Wouldn’t that signal competence more than anything else?
Shouldn’t Congress have a duty to finally decide what action to take regarding the warring factions overlapping oil fields? Wouldn’t that signal competence more than anything else?
2
Interesting,"for the first time in a century war has returned to the Arabian Penn". I guess we missed the 3 or four Arab-Israel conflicts and the never ending clash in Palestine, Iraq's invasion of Iran, the Lebonese civil war. Must I go on.
The president is only US official elected to represent the national interest. All the rest of them represent only states or congressional districts.
Republicans don't actually like statecraft. They'd rather fight about Terry Schiavo or freedom fries, or prolong a lost fight on a good deal with Iran, just to score points with their base and financiers.
RM Nixon, despite his flaws, was more of statesman than all these guys put together.
RM Nixon, despite his flaws, was more of statesman than all these guys put together.
29
Today's Republicans are juveniles worshiping at the altar of a cargo cult.
Doing nothing of value for the country is exactly the point of the GOP members of Congress. If the "government" works, where would they be? It is all theater and all completely pointlessness and unproductive. What else do they have to offer? It is entertainment for a certain very small segment of the population. The 1%, to be precise.
16
"A Senseless Delay By the GOP Congress on the Iran Deal"
HERE WE GO AGAIN***
HERE WE GO AGAIN***
13
Sancho Panza: "Sir, the dogs are barking"
Don Quixote: "Stay calm Sancho, It's a sign that we are moving forward"
Don Quixote: "Stay calm Sancho, It's a sign that we are moving forward"
9
Republicans want government small enough to drown in a bathtub, except for the part they want to send to bomb Iran.
We've seen this movie before. Their vision- get a Republican in the White House, cut taxes on the rich, bomb Iran. What could possibly go wrong?
We've seen this movie before. Their vision- get a Republican in the White House, cut taxes on the rich, bomb Iran. What could possibly go wrong?
31
A nation under God conducts idolatry for magic tricks. There is no connection to reality because God works in mysterious ways.
It is so interesting to read the comments and to see how so many NYT readers were influenced by the title. By no stretch of the imagination did Khamenei's comments imply any sort of military attack on Israel. Yet the knee-jerk comments on how Israel would 'obliterate' Iran show that some readers either misunderstood the message or are crying for war.
It seems to me that Iran, and not Israel, faces the real military threat.
It seems to me that Iran, and not Israel, faces the real military threat.
15
Indeed, it is up to God to demonstrate that He wants only Muslim rituals to be practiced in Jerusalem. If that is what God wants, God will make it happen.
The republicans have zero credibility for two reasons - (1) They criticized the deal BEFORE they ever read it - (2) They have yet to come up with a specific alternate --- Perhaps they promised BiBi and Sheldon that they would continue their jabbering forever ! --- Down the road what will happen will be that any minor infraction (and there will be plenty) will be exaggerated and trumpeted ad infinitum by these hired mouths. As far as Iranians saying 'death to Israel' didn't our own John McCain jokingly sing 'bomb bomb Iran' ? Which the rest of them, most with little or no military experience, repeated every which way ... Can't have it both ways folks --- phony machismo is usually met by ... phony machismo ... And now we have Cheney, king of the chicken hawks, grunting his displeasure with mindless, unproven generalities.
26
Headline: "... Senseless delay ... " Well, we are talking about Congress, after all.
" ... postponed its debate on the accord after some Republicans revolted, ..." True that: some Republicans are truly revolting.
" ... postponed its debate on the accord after some Republicans revolted, ..." True that: some Republicans are truly revolting.
10
Yes, how dare government officials attempt to do their jobs. We should institute an Obama dictatorship now so we don't have to deal with this anymore.
8
The Republicans need to quit wasting time on the Iran Agreement and so they can vote again to repeal Obamacare.
10
Why does the NYTimes want further armaments sent to Israel while at the same time writing constantly of effectively disarming our own nation?
I don't like guns but I dislike this disparity even more.
I don't like guns but I dislike this disparity even more.
"And she called for a broader strategy that includes plans for a stepped-up effort to contain Iran’s military activity and increased military support for Israel. That is the responsible way forward."
No, that is not the responsible way forward. The responsible way forward would be for Israel to open negotiations based on the Arab League Peace offer. Signing a peace agreement with the Arab countries would be the best way to isolate Iran in the region.
Another responsible way forward would be for the US to tell its allies in the region (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait,etc..) that the US will not tolerate their support of Muslim Extremism around the world.
Arming Israel and the Arab countries as the board suggests, will only make the situation worst. The ME has spent in the last 15 years more money in weapons than Latin America , Africa and Eastern Asia combined.
No, that is not the responsible way forward. The responsible way forward would be for Israel to open negotiations based on the Arab League Peace offer. Signing a peace agreement with the Arab countries would be the best way to isolate Iran in the region.
Another responsible way forward would be for the US to tell its allies in the region (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait,etc..) that the US will not tolerate their support of Muslim Extremism around the world.
Arming Israel and the Arab countries as the board suggests, will only make the situation worst. The ME has spent in the last 15 years more money in weapons than Latin America , Africa and Eastern Asia combined.
4
What do you expect from Republicans who are so openly nothing but ventriloquist's dummies for Netanyahu and Adelso, whose goal it is to control the entire American government to make America a de facto military colony of Likud Israel, to be used at will to fight endless disastrous proxy wars against Israel's enemies. First stop was the fiasco in Iraq, next a much, much greater disaster for us in Iran. Never in history did a large nation allow its government to be openly bought and controlled by a tiny one like Israel. Another example of American "exceptionalism"--exceptional, lemming-like stupidity that is.
13
Typically, NYT editorials have a viewpoint which readers can accept or reject, depending on basic convictions. This one, though, gives off a cess of concern approaching desperation. Now, that's curious, because as of now it's pretty sure that if the Iran deal isn't filibustered in the Senate, an up-and-down vote that Democrats were famous for demanding when THEY had the majority in the Senate will pass it solidly in both houses, the president will veto it and his veto will be sustained in the Senate.
So ... why lambaste a "delay" that clearly is NOT senseless but provides the opportunity for Republicans and a fair number of important Democrats to register their rejection of the deal? Could it be that the likelihood is high that Iran will cross lines before Election Day 2016, violating details of that "deal", and employ the billions that come free with unfrozen assets and a lifting of sanctions to do something outrageous, like far better fund Assad in Syria to produce chemical weapons to be used to kill his own countrymen in violation of ANOTHER Obama deal; or foment another war between Hezbollah and Israel; or even annex the Iraqi Shiastan? If that happens, who will be blamed for it? Well, Mr. Obama will be blamed for it, and every Democrat who facilitated this vote going the president's way.
And a lot of those Democrats are up for re-election in 2016.
Ah, NOW I see why the delay is "senseless". People, realizing all this, might change their votes.
So ... why lambaste a "delay" that clearly is NOT senseless but provides the opportunity for Republicans and a fair number of important Democrats to register their rejection of the deal? Could it be that the likelihood is high that Iran will cross lines before Election Day 2016, violating details of that "deal", and employ the billions that come free with unfrozen assets and a lifting of sanctions to do something outrageous, like far better fund Assad in Syria to produce chemical weapons to be used to kill his own countrymen in violation of ANOTHER Obama deal; or foment another war between Hezbollah and Israel; or even annex the Iraqi Shiastan? If that happens, who will be blamed for it? Well, Mr. Obama will be blamed for it, and every Democrat who facilitated this vote going the president's way.
And a lot of those Democrats are up for re-election in 2016.
Ah, NOW I see why the delay is "senseless". People, realizing all this, might change their votes.
5
This is not an impartial article, nor are most of your comments. The fact remains that every week since this deal was "settled" that Iran has continually challenged the US and the UN and their ability to enforce it. They have already refused to allow UN inspectors to inspect or even view their facilities. I am not in any way taking a partisan view on this, but you cannot look at the simple facts and believe this is good for anyone.
Iran defied the UN for how many years after their revolution? If you cannot answer that then you do not deserve to chime in with an opinion. The bottom line is we gave in with little to no concessions on their side just to make a deal that would last through this president's time and had no consideration for what happens afterward.
If you feel I am wrong, just go to any publication outside the US and see what they have to say.
Iran defied the UN for how many years after their revolution? If you cannot answer that then you do not deserve to chime in with an opinion. The bottom line is we gave in with little to no concessions on their side just to make a deal that would last through this president's time and had no consideration for what happens afterward.
If you feel I am wrong, just go to any publication outside the US and see what they have to say.
7
Oh, nonsense! This is the OPINION page, it's not supposed to be impartial.
And really, ANY publication outside the US? In Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China?
And really, ANY publication outside the US? In Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China?
Quite honestly, I think the majority of Republicans are against Iran bc Obama is for it. It hardly matters what he proposes bc GOPers will be against it if Obama supports it.
I'd like to be more open and an "Independent" politically. but as long as these types of shenigans continue, I'll vote Democratically.
I'd like to be more open and an "Independent" politically. but as long as these types of shenigans continue, I'll vote Democratically.
9
"But the Republican-led Congress seems determined to drag out the fight, even if it means neglecting other business...."
Yes, they'll stop fighting the Iran nuclear agreement and get back to their Benghazi boondoggle.
Yes, they'll stop fighting the Iran nuclear agreement and get back to their Benghazi boondoggle.
6
This is a lesson in civics around the world...describing what can happen when a government allows uncontrolled finances to be donated to elected officials.
Their decisions are often determined by their contributors, and they no longer represent the general citizenry. The behavior of a group of elected representatives in Congress , concerning the Iran Nuclear Deal, has been a total embarrassment.
Their decisions are often determined by their contributors, and they no longer represent the general citizenry. The behavior of a group of elected representatives in Congress , concerning the Iran Nuclear Deal, has been a total embarrassment.
5
With the Republican Party, sense has totally gone out the window. They are desperate to achieve something because they have lost on so many issues since they became majorities in Congress. And now, with the rise of Donald Trump they're even losing control of their basic party line. They know they have fallen down, and are doing whatever they can think of to beat back the Great Satan, the President. To threaten a government shutdown over a video about Planned Parenthood widely acknowledged as distorted? But they don't even care any more about laying off thousands of workers ("Oh well, they'll eventually get their back pay") or possible loss of basic government services. Nothing counts any more except Republican dominance in something -- any issue whatsoever.
7
“Increased military support for Israel” is not “the way forward”. It is the way backward. The way forward would be to impose sanctions on Israel for defying U.S. law on outright theft of Palestinian lands, euphemistically and hygienically referred to as “settlement expansion”.
Unfortunately, Realpolitik stands in the way of Principle in every decision the U.S. makes in that sorry region of this planet, and no number of Editorials focussing on Iran will ever alter the fact that the U.S.'s blind support of Israel has been the key factor behind the rise of Islamic Extremism.
Unfortunately, Realpolitik stands in the way of Principle in every decision the U.S. makes in that sorry region of this planet, and no number of Editorials focussing on Iran will ever alter the fact that the U.S.'s blind support of Israel has been the key factor behind the rise of Islamic Extremism.
5
I agree!
Why cannot the world see that Israel is the cause of all of our woes.
Just yesterday, the Ayatollahs again condemned homosexuality, and supported imprisonment of journalists, because the Mossad made them do it!
Meanwhile, glad to see you are writing from Spain. You are lucky. Not too many Jews left in Spain since the Inquisition and exile forced them out in 1492. Do you have any room left for me?
Why cannot the world see that Israel is the cause of all of our woes.
Just yesterday, the Ayatollahs again condemned homosexuality, and supported imprisonment of journalists, because the Mossad made them do it!
Meanwhile, glad to see you are writing from Spain. You are lucky. Not too many Jews left in Spain since the Inquisition and exile forced them out in 1492. Do you have any room left for me?
1
The aim of the Republicans is to make President Obama look bad. If the national interest is damaged in the process, hey, that's just collateral damage.
11
As to whether Israel exists or not in 25 years, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is no prophet.
As to the promised continued hostility from Iran, I believe every word, and I would gather that most people here do. Why not believe it? After all it is not just Iran, but Iran's proxies, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas.
But if the Obama Administration wants to believe that Mr. Khamenei's remarks are not pertinent or the NYT wants to believe that they "should not drive an analysis" of whether the deal improves regional security, then their naivitee will cause much blood and suffering.
Would the Iranians be so forgiving if Mr. Obama were to talk in similar terms as Mr. Khamenei? Would they not believe him?
As to the promised continued hostility from Iran, I believe every word, and I would gather that most people here do. Why not believe it? After all it is not just Iran, but Iran's proxies, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas.
But if the Obama Administration wants to believe that Mr. Khamenei's remarks are not pertinent or the NYT wants to believe that they "should not drive an analysis" of whether the deal improves regional security, then their naivitee will cause much blood and suffering.
Would the Iranians be so forgiving if Mr. Obama were to talk in similar terms as Mr. Khamenei? Would they not believe him?
5
When will a certain party in the United States realize that our country is not exceptional?
We are rich and powerful, true. But we should respect other countries as well. Our partners in negotiation with Iran, and Iran itself, have valid interests that should count as much as our interests.
The sanctions against Iran worked. Iran came to the bargaining table and gave up its nuclear weapons program. Iran stopped moving forward with its program, and now will dismantle it. Iran will use its nuclear technology only to generate electrical power.
We won. But if we don't be gracious in victory, and try to rub Iran's nose in it, we can still lose a little. Or maybe even a lot.
Iran has a right to call the United States a satan. We overthrew its democratic government and installed a brutal dictator in its place. It took a revolution to unseat the Shah, and Iran has never forgiven us for that.
Let's let this deal go forward, and try to join with other nations instead of demanding that they bow down to American might.
We are rich and powerful, true. But we should respect other countries as well. Our partners in negotiation with Iran, and Iran itself, have valid interests that should count as much as our interests.
The sanctions against Iran worked. Iran came to the bargaining table and gave up its nuclear weapons program. Iran stopped moving forward with its program, and now will dismantle it. Iran will use its nuclear technology only to generate electrical power.
We won. But if we don't be gracious in victory, and try to rub Iran's nose in it, we can still lose a little. Or maybe even a lot.
Iran has a right to call the United States a satan. We overthrew its democratic government and installed a brutal dictator in its place. It took a revolution to unseat the Shah, and Iran has never forgiven us for that.
Let's let this deal go forward, and try to join with other nations instead of demanding that they bow down to American might.
8
Please feel free to share and disseminate my best argument for adoption and following this nuclear avoidance agreement..................
Now that the agreement is assured barring some ridiculous invention by the Republicans or Netanyahu the Nightmare....................
Iran has absolutely no chance of moving ahead with the manufacture of nuclear weapons now or even after the 15 year period of the agreement because if they did, the entire world would condemn and destroy them knowing they had insincerely acquiesced to the agreement to stall for time until the end and because if they later procure nuclear weapons it will be absolutely known by all that they intend to use them. Iran would be destroyed.
I truly believe this agreement is a milestone of absolutely ended aspirations for nuclear weapons by Iran.
The people of Iran spoke of their desire for peace when they elected the moderate leader who entered into negotiations and the agreement.
Will you tell those Iranian people who voted for peace that you want war anyway?
Then we are the real threat to world peace if we scuttle this agreement.
Israel IS a threat to world peace just as much as Iran was. I'm very disappointed that this editorial board writes of further arming Israel.
Now that the agreement is assured barring some ridiculous invention by the Republicans or Netanyahu the Nightmare....................
Iran has absolutely no chance of moving ahead with the manufacture of nuclear weapons now or even after the 15 year period of the agreement because if they did, the entire world would condemn and destroy them knowing they had insincerely acquiesced to the agreement to stall for time until the end and because if they later procure nuclear weapons it will be absolutely known by all that they intend to use them. Iran would be destroyed.
I truly believe this agreement is a milestone of absolutely ended aspirations for nuclear weapons by Iran.
The people of Iran spoke of their desire for peace when they elected the moderate leader who entered into negotiations and the agreement.
Will you tell those Iranian people who voted for peace that you want war anyway?
Then we are the real threat to world peace if we scuttle this agreement.
Israel IS a threat to world peace just as much as Iran was. I'm very disappointed that this editorial board writes of further arming Israel.
7
The GOP thinks their number one job is to obstruct anything the President is trying to do, even if it is good for the country and even if it is something they like. The GOP is determined to wreck the country.
16
The best minds and negotiators from the most advanced nations on earth, the US, Europe, Russia and China forced a deal with Iran to not have to go to war to prevent little Iran from having a nuclear weapon. But the moronic clown act called the Republican Party Lilliputian candidates and the proven liar, draft dodger, and coward war monger Cheney could do better? Give the world of reality and common sense a break.
16
And once the Republican have wasted their time delaying the Iran deal, they will waste their time and American tax dollars shutting down the government over Planned Parenthood. Wasting time and taxpayer money seem to be the only things the Republican Party is good at.
15
Everything the Republicans do seems to be caused by their absolute hate of President Obama. It is unfortunate that they cannot overcome this hate and pass some needed legislation.
12
The author of this article has a lot of confidence in the protections built into the JCPOA, but doesn't go very far in detailing exactly how inspections can be trustworthy when the Iranian side has 24 days' advance notice. Nor does this article address how the president subverted an honest debate by securing the votes to necessary to prevent it from ever getting to the Senate floor. Since when are treaties imposed on the American public by de facto executive order?
2
Oh, and don't forget that the Saudis, even though they say they support the deal, would like nothing better than to get us to take on their religious and petroleum competition. "We'll get the US to take the competition out for us" they think.
Well, the Bush family is overjoyed about going to war for the Saudis. They can make a lot of money out such a war. Ask the Saudis who JEB should attack first.
Obama is right to make peace with the Iranians and shift the balance of power in the Middle East. Just look how our "shock and awe" and alliance with the Saudis has paid off in the years since WWII! The Saudis have gotten rich and they've funded militancy around the Middle East for decades. All we got was a war that made the Iranians the supreme military power in the area.
I don't blame the Iranians for using a nuclear weapon as leverage here, after all W Bush threatened them from the first day he took office with war. That worked out great too, didn't it? The Saudis paid for the bombs that Pakistan built. Now we're gonna sell them more arms and jets. These are the allies that the Republicans trust?
Well, the Bush family is overjoyed about going to war for the Saudis. They can make a lot of money out such a war. Ask the Saudis who JEB should attack first.
Obama is right to make peace with the Iranians and shift the balance of power in the Middle East. Just look how our "shock and awe" and alliance with the Saudis has paid off in the years since WWII! The Saudis have gotten rich and they've funded militancy around the Middle East for decades. All we got was a war that made the Iranians the supreme military power in the area.
I don't blame the Iranians for using a nuclear weapon as leverage here, after all W Bush threatened them from the first day he took office with war. That worked out great too, didn't it? The Saudis paid for the bombs that Pakistan built. Now we're gonna sell them more arms and jets. These are the allies that the Republicans trust?
5
Will Rogers, a comic from a bygone era, once espoused creation of a law that would ban congress from entering any new wars until they had paid for the last one. Seems that nothing much has changed from that bygone era till now. There were saber-rattlers then, and they're still here today, always ready and willing to send someone else into battle.
Perhaps we should make a law requiring the congressional chest-pounders and saber-rattlers to man the front line. I think Will Rogers would approve. And, in such a case, I think we would be hearing nothing but praise and hosannas for this nuclear deal.
Perhaps we should make a law requiring the congressional chest-pounders and saber-rattlers to man the front line. I think Will Rogers would approve. And, in such a case, I think we would be hearing nothing but praise and hosannas for this nuclear deal.
10
I agree!
And you are "manning" the front line now.
The Jihadists will soon have nukes for you and me, and there will be no "front line."
Why even now, a few years after 9/11, lone Jihadists are murdering Americans, or trying their best to murder Americans, right here at home, in our mall parking lots.
What do you think Will Rogers would make of that?
And you are "manning" the front line now.
The Jihadists will soon have nukes for you and me, and there will be no "front line."
Why even now, a few years after 9/11, lone Jihadists are murdering Americans, or trying their best to murder Americans, right here at home, in our mall parking lots.
What do you think Will Rogers would make of that?
1
The opponents of the deal in the Congress on Iran 's nuclear weapons program , led by Republicans had a long thought solid plan and strategy on procedural votes in the Senate . Why prevent 42 Senators for filibuster , under the existing standard operating process , be sabotaged this late ? The right wing extremists Israeli prime minister , and his conservatives supporters here have been misleading the Congress ! The same political interests groups who were responsible for unnecessary Iraq War ( 2003 - to date ) , and had lobbied hard on President Bush 's War planning and execution blunders e. g. , a ) Iraq 's Civil War and ISIS b ) Advantages for Iran c ) Underestimated and ignored challenges for the U. S. and NATO partners . If the economic sanctions did not deter Iran , from advancing production of centrifuges in the past ! How else Republicans in Congress would like to force Iran for not developing weapons grade 25,000 centrifuges ? Why not Congress announce concerns on Iran 's nuclear weapons program deal , with their alternative plan . In the aftermath of signing a deal on Iran's nuclear weapons program , besides the six countries led by U. K. in opening Embassy in Tehran , China , Russia , European , African, Asian , the Middle East and other countries are preparing to follow . The U. S. should not be forced and left behind by political narrow mindedness of right wing religious extremists , conservatives , neo con War mongers .
5
Our real Republican led military government is desperately trying to start another war to divert Americans attention away from the pressing instability in our own nation they brought about.
Consider these facts.................
The Republican cabal led by the MIC and driving government policy and inaction in Congress has sabotaged our nations wellbeing in every way from health care to infrastructure maintenance to the financial condition of the unemployed and those down on their luck. They are still attempting to sabotage efforts at reining in the pirates of our financial industries and banks by decimating Dodd-Frank regulations.
The Republicans are readying to fight Democrats on every front, this time siding with a foreign nation, namely Israel, supporting it's aggressive attempts at starting a war of hatred in which the Republicans would sacrifice our young men and women to serve Israel's hatred of Iran.
The Republicans were deadly serious when Newt Gingrich, the Speaker of the House declared the "Contract on America" and the "Republican revolution?
Yes, the Republicans are deadly serious. Look at the signs; making every effort to arm their unhinged followers with weapons, even machine guns. They fought every piece of legislation that could possibly help Democrat voters like unemployment insurance and Social Security whose recipients ultimately come to realize how good the Democrats are at helping Americans.
The real danger is Nuclear armed Republicans.
Consider these facts.................
The Republican cabal led by the MIC and driving government policy and inaction in Congress has sabotaged our nations wellbeing in every way from health care to infrastructure maintenance to the financial condition of the unemployed and those down on their luck. They are still attempting to sabotage efforts at reining in the pirates of our financial industries and banks by decimating Dodd-Frank regulations.
The Republicans are readying to fight Democrats on every front, this time siding with a foreign nation, namely Israel, supporting it's aggressive attempts at starting a war of hatred in which the Republicans would sacrifice our young men and women to serve Israel's hatred of Iran.
The Republicans were deadly serious when Newt Gingrich, the Speaker of the House declared the "Contract on America" and the "Republican revolution?
Yes, the Republicans are deadly serious. Look at the signs; making every effort to arm their unhinged followers with weapons, even machine guns. They fought every piece of legislation that could possibly help Democrat voters like unemployment insurance and Social Security whose recipients ultimately come to realize how good the Democrats are at helping Americans.
The real danger is Nuclear armed Republicans.
10
Additionally, consider the hatemongering and sabotage of Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Who really cares if she used a private email server? The secret CIA/FBI/Pentagon government is obviously trying to derail Clinton's campaign so a Republican would win and help start a war.
As long as the filibuster holds, all this will be forgotten on Sept 18.
5
Mr Rajiv is exactly right. And this one-line comment underlines the malignant nature of the contemporary GOP. What a tragedy, for the party and for the country. One more thing: please note that what Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is saying about Israel is just a cruder expression of the sentiments of many patriotic Israelis, who worry that their country cannot endure much longer as both a Jewish-majority polity and a democratic one. Khamenei will pass, and the agreement on nukes will, one must hope, serve as the first step in an Irano-American rapprochement that serves Iran, the US and the Near East well. And may history reserve a place for the achievements of Secretary Kerry.
2
That's what you and the Times hope.
But we will not forget. It will be a campaign issue right through next year.
Hey, your congressperson voted for it, you own it.
Better hope the Ayatollahs hide their enriched uranium till after the elections.
But we will not forget. It will be a campaign issue right through next year.
Hey, your congressperson voted for it, you own it.
Better hope the Ayatollahs hide their enriched uranium till after the elections.
1
Some Republican politicians are running scared of Tea Party extremists. Others share the views of those extremists. Hapless John Boehner and other ordinary, conservative Republicans have turned over the wheel of their party's ship to the pirates now in control. The vessel no longer follows a set course. It sails in circles, zig-zags, a straight line in one direction then the opposite one. Cruz and Trump or Trump and Cruz. Pandemonium.
10
So Ali Khamenei says in 25 years Israel will not exist and badmouths the United States.....what is his track record in making predictions? And did not Richard Cheney, former Vice-President and architect of untold misery and death stand before an audience of his faithful and denounce Iran? So it is quite acceptable for Cheney to pound his chest but unacceptable for a high Iranian to do the same thing? It is okay for the President of the United States to say "all options are on the table" but unacceptable that an Iranian leader to cry "death to the United States"? What planet do you folks like on?
Maybe Iran will cheat. But I am far more concerned about an Israeli false flag operation involving American naval forces in the Persian Gulf late next summer than I am Iran maybe cheating. The most likely event would be Israelis attacking Iranian forces in an attempt to get them to strike at the American Navy, thereby justifying an American counter-strike, loosing the dogs of war and tilting the election to the Republicans. But we could see a direct Israeli attack on US assets, carefully ambiguous so we are not sure who did what but immediately followed by clamor to retaliate against Iran. All of the sowing of doubt and distrust sets the stage for this, a far more likely scenario than Iran risking a major conflict for minor gains. This is the time for opening a hot line to Tehran and diplomatic ties as counters to a dangerous opportunity for brutal and unscrupulous extremists.
Maybe Iran will cheat. But I am far more concerned about an Israeli false flag operation involving American naval forces in the Persian Gulf late next summer than I am Iran maybe cheating. The most likely event would be Israelis attacking Iranian forces in an attempt to get them to strike at the American Navy, thereby justifying an American counter-strike, loosing the dogs of war and tilting the election to the Republicans. But we could see a direct Israeli attack on US assets, carefully ambiguous so we are not sure who did what but immediately followed by clamor to retaliate against Iran. All of the sowing of doubt and distrust sets the stage for this, a far more likely scenario than Iran risking a major conflict for minor gains. This is the time for opening a hot line to Tehran and diplomatic ties as counters to a dangerous opportunity for brutal and unscrupulous extremists.
58
Given that Iran has publicly declared that they will attempt to stop the flow of oil from our allies like Saudi Arabia, and attack US assets in the Middle East and around the world should Israel attack them, tell me again why Israel would attack the US?
I consider myself cynical but the scenarios you envision concerning Israel wouldn't have occurred to me. But thinking back to the 1967 war and Israel's brazen & wanton attack on our ship "Liberty" shouldn't leave anything off the table. I hope the Obama administration is as prescient as you and warns Netanyahu of what the consequences should be, but weren't in 1967, if Israel we're to engage in skulduggery. By hook or by crook Netanyahu will want to get his way. We can't let that happen.
1
Scared and stunned by Israeli wolf-cry on Iran the Republicans seem to have gone so crazy and unsettled as to smell Iranian bomb and conspiracy in every corner and conduct of the US Congress.
27
Nope.
it is not as bad as you describe.
It would be like claiming that every Indian politician sees a Pakistani nuke in every corner of India. And we know how well you all get along!
Now, if I could just convince my Republican friends that the Russians really do mean well in Crimea, I mean Ukraine, I mean Syria.....
it is not as bad as you describe.
It would be like claiming that every Indian politician sees a Pakistani nuke in every corner of India. And we know how well you all get along!
Now, if I could just convince my Republican friends that the Russians really do mean well in Crimea, I mean Ukraine, I mean Syria.....
2
They think they'll get the "Jewish vote"
Pretending on Israel they dote,
It's a con and most Jews
Know Repubs are bad news,
They are shaming Obama by rote.
Pretending on Israel they dote,
It's a con and most Jews
Know Repubs are bad news,
They are shaming Obama by rote.
26
It's a little hard to get behind a deal when the other side has shown nothing but bad faith. Days before the accord was finalized Iran staged one of their signature "death to America" rallies.
Since then the illegitimate so-called "islamic republic of iran" has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction while at the same time vowing to not have anything to do with the USA aside from this agreement.
Do we really want to see these illegitimate, unelected dictators in their little costumes and 6th century headgear come one iota closer to nuclear capability?
I say ramp up the sanctions and call upon the Iranian people to overthrow their illegitimate dictators.
Since then the illegitimate so-called "islamic republic of iran" has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction while at the same time vowing to not have anything to do with the USA aside from this agreement.
Do we really want to see these illegitimate, unelected dictators in their little costumes and 6th century headgear come one iota closer to nuclear capability?
I say ramp up the sanctions and call upon the Iranian people to overthrow their illegitimate dictators.
14
Yeah, and how did that work out for Syria?
2
Mike,
That strategy worked very well in Cuba and North Korea.
What is it about 60 years of failed policies that you don't understand?
Iran has the second best educated and second most urbanized population in the mid-East, what is it about a younger generation that is eager to embrace so many of our freedoms if we weren't seen to be the bad guys that you don't understand?
That strategy worked very well in Cuba and North Korea.
What is it about 60 years of failed policies that you don't understand?
Iran has the second best educated and second most urbanized population in the mid-East, what is it about a younger generation that is eager to embrace so many of our freedoms if we weren't seen to be the bad guys that you don't understand?
4
The US would be ramping up sanctions alone, which would have little effect. The international community is by and large unwilling to continue sanctions. Most importantly, countries like India, Russia and China are unwilling to continue them because of the harm the sanctions do to their own economies. Without their support, the US sanctions would be much weaker and leave the US in an even weaker position to secure a deal.
In short, there is no tougher deal option. The other option is to allow Iran to do whatever it wants or to start yet another war in the Middle East (which is what Netanyahu seems to want). Those who clamour for 'tougher sanctions' are not paying attention. Sadly, this includes Senator 'Where Will the Camera Be?' Schumer.
In short, there is no tougher deal option. The other option is to allow Iran to do whatever it wants or to start yet another war in the Middle East (which is what Netanyahu seems to want). Those who clamour for 'tougher sanctions' are not paying attention. Sadly, this includes Senator 'Where Will the Camera Be?' Schumer.
1
Those opposing the deal are simply doing the work of their overlords: AIPAC.
78
Those who support the what should be a treaty should know better...and they do. So what do we call that,..suicide or treason?
1
Since Iran openly declares its intent to annihilate Israel, Israel has every right to wipe the Islamist entity that occupies historic Persia off the face of the earth. That's what self defense and 'never again' mean.
10
Israel has no right to initiate force against Iran for a war of words.
The Saudis do not like Israel, the Syrians do not like them. the Egyptians do not like them.
Ir an has never said they had an intent ti annihilate Israel, that is Israeli rhetoric. They have never said they would attack Israel, and they know if they used a nuke, they would be radioactive waste in the time it takes a missile to get there from North Dakota.
It is rhetoric like yours that is the enemy of peace. If Israel initiates a military attack on Iran, the rest of the world will refuse to deal with it, the U.S. public is fed up with these wars in the nations of sand.
Iran is not stupid, they have radar defenses and dummy radar to lure Israeli warplanes to attack, then they will send anti aircraft missiles against the Israeli refueling planes, and Israel will lose a great many of its warplanes and pilots.
Israel uses the "Never Again" pledge to justify its military actions, and its subjugation of the Palestinians.
The Saudis do not like Israel, the Syrians do not like them. the Egyptians do not like them.
Ir an has never said they had an intent ti annihilate Israel, that is Israeli rhetoric. They have never said they would attack Israel, and they know if they used a nuke, they would be radioactive waste in the time it takes a missile to get there from North Dakota.
It is rhetoric like yours that is the enemy of peace. If Israel initiates a military attack on Iran, the rest of the world will refuse to deal with it, the U.S. public is fed up with these wars in the nations of sand.
Iran is not stupid, they have radar defenses and dummy radar to lure Israeli warplanes to attack, then they will send anti aircraft missiles against the Israeli refueling planes, and Israel will lose a great many of its warplanes and pilots.
Israel uses the "Never Again" pledge to justify its military actions, and its subjugation of the Palestinians.
39
Ah, Israel already possesses the nuclear armament to destroy Iran. It doesn't need any help from us, even though Israel loves to have the US fight its wars for them.
16
By "never again" you mean genocide is okay as long as it's not directed at Jews?
9
I thought the so-called lesson from Munich was "don't negotiate with dictators". Iran's leader, just today, threatened that "in 25 Israel won't exist" and "no further agreements with the 'Satan America'". OK, the old man was grandstanding BUT the country IS ruled by BRUTAL dictators who cannot be trusted. Why a country sitting on a SEA of oil would ever need nuclear power for "peaceful" reasons is beyond me. No one wants war (think Chamberlain) but if it's inevitable then it needs to be faced. Iran's sanctions should remain and they should be under no delusion that IF they are detected to have proceeded with the making of a nuclear device they WILL face military intervention. I just don't see how an "agreement" can be made with these devious criminals. Some things ARE worth fighting for and one of those things is guaranteeing that the murderous, hateful regime in Iran never gets a nuclear weapon. One renegade nation (N. Korea) is quite enough, isn't it?
5
Perhaps you could tell us who the dictator of Iran is? And as for death to America and Israel won't exist in 25 years; it is nothing more than a childish school yard taunt, throwing a meatless bone to the right wing radicals of Iran. Of course I understand that there are people who actually buy into Chaney's mindless ravings, and to that kind of intellect a school yard taunt must be taken seriously.
82
"....a school yard taunt" from the DICTATOR of a country trying to obtain nuclear weapons. You have a very interesting interpretation of the geopolitical situation in the Middle East. PS - if you don't recognize the fact that Khamenei is a MURDEROUS DICTATOR, well, too bad for you.
3
The Supreme Leader is the dictator. He IS the right wing radical and he rules the country, so your post makes no sense whatsoever.
3
Sometimes the thought lurks in your mind that some Republicans would enjoy seeing a nuclear disaster, even one that hurts American interests, just so they could blame Obama and the Democrats.
Sometimes the thought lurks in your mind that Republicans care more about gaining power than about America or the American people.
Sometimes the thought lurks in your mind that Republicans care more about gaining power than about America or the American people.
140
Sometimes the thought lurks in your mind that people never learn the lessons of history and condemn another generation to needless death and suffering. Chamberlin is unfortunately alive and well with this agreement, but you are either too blind to see it or too stupid to recognize it.
1
A nuclear war would decimate America's cities and urban areas, the hotbeds of liberalism. By comparison, the rural areas of the Red Zones (well, except for a few missile bases) would be far less damaged.
Based on their performance to date, this sounds exactly like the sort of nihilistic card the Republicans would gladly play.
Based on their performance to date, this sounds exactly like the sort of nihilistic card the Republicans would gladly play.
You raise good points. The thought that they want power is nothing new. The second thought, that in the back of some of their minds, they want to cause havoc and sort of hope that some of the havoc might be nuclear, is very frightening.
I grew up under Duck'N'Cover and we had a fallout shelter in our backyard, built when I was eight years old. To me, anyone who EVER threatens the peace by toying with the notion of wondering what might happen if there was just a wee little nuclear accident somewhere is worse than treasonous at heart.
Just as it is sick to think about, "oh, I wonder what it might be like to stab someone," it is sick to think, "oh, gee, I wonder how much my electoral chances might be improved by if there is a wee, nuclear incident?"
To look at the way Republicans in Congress would rather jeopardize our peace by playing brinksmanship with the Iran deal is to look at a party that is sick and morally bankrupt.
I grew up under Duck'N'Cover and we had a fallout shelter in our backyard, built when I was eight years old. To me, anyone who EVER threatens the peace by toying with the notion of wondering what might happen if there was just a wee little nuclear accident somewhere is worse than treasonous at heart.
Just as it is sick to think about, "oh, I wonder what it might be like to stab someone," it is sick to think, "oh, gee, I wonder how much my electoral chances might be improved by if there is a wee, nuclear incident?"
To look at the way Republicans in Congress would rather jeopardize our peace by playing brinksmanship with the Iran deal is to look at a party that is sick and morally bankrupt.
3
"he predicted Israel will not exist in 25 years"
Don't demographic predictions say the same thing?
Don't demographic predictions say the same thing?
18
No. Demographics shoe a steadily lower Arab birth rate and higher Jewish one.
1
I think Demographically were possibly looking at an Israel ruled by an ultra-orthodox majority that are as unappealing (almost) as the Wahhabis.
Watching Cheney make the rounds this week on the Iran deal (and seeing who is in attendance at his AEI speech), the only logical thing to conclude in not going forward with this deal means more likelihood of the military option. There is no such thing as a better deal at this point because why on earth would the Iranians go back and renegotiate especially with five other countries ready to go forward? The US imposing sanctions alone will accomplish nothing and so the only leverage it will have is a military option.
No one can see that there is already a huge migrant problem washing up on Europe's shores? The GOP doesn't understand or care that this is a consequence of a couple of other wars we started? You think Europe is up for the consequences of even more ME destabilization? Yes, the Ayatollah is not helping matters with his comments but the GOP doesn't want to believe any words or gestures on the part of those trying to forge an agreement and only believe the most negative hardline comments which are only to be expected. If the US is so exceptional, why does the GOP feel so threatened by the Ayatollah's rhetoric?
No one can see that there is already a huge migrant problem washing up on Europe's shores? The GOP doesn't understand or care that this is a consequence of a couple of other wars we started? You think Europe is up for the consequences of even more ME destabilization? Yes, the Ayatollah is not helping matters with his comments but the GOP doesn't want to believe any words or gestures on the part of those trying to forge an agreement and only believe the most negative hardline comments which are only to be expected. If the US is so exceptional, why does the GOP feel so threatened by the Ayatollah's rhetoric?
66
The Ayatollah's comments are tactical. In his view, the best outcome for Iran is the US backing out of the deal. He is merely tryng to fire up the opposition in the US. The intended result--no deal, no European sanctions. The US then continues to be perceived as the bully of the region.
I cannot wait for the Kerry global trust plan to put a Republican in the White House.
3
I could be wrong of course, praying that I'm right, but I think you're going to be waiting for a good long while.
1
If you are awaiting a Republican in the White House, you better hope you are quite young.
With such august figures as the never-proven-correct Dick Cheney and John Bolton now weighing in against the Agreement, with the full, mutual support of the highly-scripted Republican Party, I am far more concerned about the sabotage of our own purveyors of war than I am about Iran "cheating."
www.endthemadnessnow.org
www.endthemadnessnow.org
126
Well, don't forget one of the very, very august figures speaking at the clown show in front of the Capitol yesterday, aka Sarah Barracuda. Once more one needed a translator to understand what she tried to say.
1
The US has no large trade with Iran; its sanctions can have no effect without the participation of the other partners to the agreement, UK, Germany, France, Russia, China (and also Japan) which do have trade with Iran . Going it alone is not a viable option and according to a recent NYT article (which did not give much prominence to the news) the Ambassadors of the five partner countries to the agreement have informed Senators they will not reintroduce the required, effective sanctions if US legislators reject the agreement. This is the simple end to any so-called "better agreement" I find it baffling that this simple fact of partner refusal to reintroduce sanctions has not been played up in the media. Even the NYT as far as I am aware buried this fundamental news within the story of the required numbers being reached to sustain a veto when it was first reported. Why was this game-changer not a separate front page story? Why is it apparently not emphasized in US media reporting on the Iran agreement?
56
The delay is quite logical. Even before Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, said that Israel would not exist in 25 years, there has been evidence that Iran's nuclear research is motivated, at least in part, by a desire to destroy Israel. Former President Rafsanjani said as much in his al=-Quds speech in 2001.
Approval should be delayed until Iran establishes diplomatic relations with Israel. That would indicate that Iran is no longer interested in destroying Israel--a country with which it has no tangible quarrel. When Iran shows that it understands that Israel and Iran have no reason to be enemies, there will be no reason to worry about Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Iran has no particular interest in helping the Palestinians, who are both Arabs and Sunnis. But if Iran became Israel's friend, it would be much easier for Israel and the Palestinians to reach an agreement, since the threat of destruction would have gone away.
The whole world would instantly become more peaceful if Iran and Israel became friends. They have a long tradition of friendship, starting with Queen Esther and continuing until Ayatollah Khomeini seized power.
Approval should be delayed until Iran establishes diplomatic relations with Israel. That would indicate that Iran is no longer interested in destroying Israel--a country with which it has no tangible quarrel. When Iran shows that it understands that Israel and Iran have no reason to be enemies, there will be no reason to worry about Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Iran has no particular interest in helping the Palestinians, who are both Arabs and Sunnis. But if Iran became Israel's friend, it would be much easier for Israel and the Palestinians to reach an agreement, since the threat of destruction would have gone away.
The whole world would instantly become more peaceful if Iran and Israel became friends. They have a long tradition of friendship, starting with Queen Esther and continuing until Ayatollah Khomeini seized power.
8
Would you want to have diplomatic relations with Netanyahu? I know I wouldn't!
2
The sterile obstructionist republican stand on a done deal (the Iran deal) seems preposterous. If a clerk in Kentucky was put in jail for not doing her job (alleging a faith-based intolerance to giving marriages licenses to homosexuals, the law of the land), what are we to think of Congress members not doing their job...other than wasting time and effort, while on the public dole?
63
Can we just declare them all to be contractors and pay them by the hour? Or better yet, only pay them if they actual get the job done?
1
For Congressional Republicans, obstructionism of the Iran accords is as politically wise as the umpteenth effort to repeal the ACA: ostensibly a waste of time on a futile endeavor, setting oneself up for failure, spreading fear among citizens rather than acting constructively, trying in vain to turn back time - but if they can plant seeds of doubt for President Obama's credibility, it was the apex of their legislative career.
141
What bothers me is that not only is this pointless political posturing, but the self serving amount of money being thrown into this effort. I am so disgusted to read of the billions spent on buying the outcome of either elections, or political squabbling. We have homeless, we have Veterans who have been neglected, we have an educational system that lags international standards, we have infrastructure failing daily in many communities, a health system in need of caring for the disadvantaged, and where is the money to politically support those needs? Bah, Humbug!!
69
So true. I can't remember when the Republicans in Congress put effort into the problems you mention. All they want to do is obstruct President Obama at every turn.
1
The blind sheeple. This will cost the2 WH. More than any other issue, Americans are against this foolish "negotiation" and give away. Obama and Kerry are bungling clowns who have pur America in danger. Just as Bush refused to admit it, both Iran and Iraq had been neutralized by US sanctions. All that was nedessary was to keep them in place.
7
You do know that the American people strongly prefer diplomacy to war, don't you? Or do you only watch conservative news, and therefore have no clue what happens in the real world?
1
I did not say go to war. I support maintaining the sanctions which are what caused Iran to come to negotiate in teh first place. Obama & Kerry rushed to do something for their legacy, not in the best interest of America. A few more years of sanctions would result in better terms.
1
The GOP will do its best to spread fear and paranoia about this agreement in order to discredit any action by President Obama. (Death panels anyone?)
In reality, much of the rest of the world is already on board with this agreement, and for Iranians it means the end of harsh sanctions and a belated entrance into the world economy. Even the GOP, down deep, realizes that Iran is a crucial player in the fight against ISIS.
Lest we all forget, it was the U.S. who has been largely responsible for isolating and radicalizing Iran. After the overthrow of Mossaddegh, U.S. supported Hussein during Iran's bloody war with Iraq (not to mention the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655).
It seems as if the real threat to global security hasn't been the Ayatollah after all.
In reality, much of the rest of the world is already on board with this agreement, and for Iranians it means the end of harsh sanctions and a belated entrance into the world economy. Even the GOP, down deep, realizes that Iran is a crucial player in the fight against ISIS.
Lest we all forget, it was the U.S. who has been largely responsible for isolating and radicalizing Iran. After the overthrow of Mossaddegh, U.S. supported Hussein during Iran's bloody war with Iraq (not to mention the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655).
It seems as if the real threat to global security hasn't been the Ayatollah after all.
59
Balderdash. Because they can't sustain a veto doesn't mean the Congress should roll over on their principles, especially on a topic as legitimately controversial as the Iran deal. Can the NY Times vouch for what is in the "side deals"? Does anyone actually know what is in the side deals? It's no laughing matter when the majority of Congress objects to this. You know, sometimes the majority has a point. Obama is naive on the Iran issue, with a host of failed international diplomacy failures in the run up to the "great deal" that even Hilary only supports with caveats (to cover her behind when it all heads south). Here is Obama's track record in the run-up to this deal: Benghazi, Syria (red line anyone?), Russia/Ukraine. Not sure what in that resume suggests he has negotiated a "winning" deal for the U.S.
12
What principals? The majority in Congress had made up its mind months ago when they tried to undermine the negotiations by inviting Netanyahu to speak in Congress. These principals to me seem the same principal that they have exhibited on every issue of governance, i.e., undermine Obama, that is the only principal of the congressional majority.
1
The countries of the EU all back the agreement. Russia and China support it and even Saudi Arabia is on board. The Secretary General of the U.N. and the Pope have embraced the agreement. Even highly respected Republicans, former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former Senator and recognized expert on nuclear disarmament Richard Lugar are strongly in favor. And absolutely no one has suggested a remotely plausible alternative. How is it then that Congressional Republicans can possibly be unanimous in opposition? Given those facts, one cannot reasonably imagine how they would thoughtfully all reach the same conclusion, so there must be another reason. What can it be? They certainly cannot claim what they are doing is in best interest of their country. No, they seem to be afflicted with a tragic illness of the soul, and every American should be sorely tired of having to suffer them.
106
I guess you could call racism a tragic illness of the soul. Ever since he was elected in 2008, the Republicans have been conspiring to undermine everything President Obama has tried to do. I have never found a better explanation than plain, ordinary racism. Only that soul sickness can explain the intensity and vehemence of Republic opposition over the last six years.
1
And get out to vote against them in every election no matter how much their donors saturate the airwaves with ads intended to manipulate and fool us.
1
A Pointless Delay on the Iran Deal By The Editorial Board SEPT. 9, 2015
In this article the author attempts to show the futility of Republicans trying to stop the Iran nuclear deal. He argues that there are no more options left for the Republicans that could stop the bill. This is after there bill to dismiss the Iran nuclear deal could not overcome a democratic filibuster in senate. With 42 democrats now supporting the bill all senate democrats have agreed that the Iran nuclear deal is positive. This is done by explaining that there are no more political maneuvers left to destroy the deal. They could attempt to add new sanctions against Iran after the deal is implemented. The possibility of the republicans trying to legal action against the president accusing him of breaking the law. Focusing so much energy on this issue is impart due to some of the dels most vocal critics. Israel and its supporters in America have been violently opposed to any deal with Iran preferring to chose more destructive ways. These supporters were given more credibility when Iran's president said, “Israel will not exist in 25 years,” and called America “Satan”. Either way it is pointless to attempt to stall the deal as it will take effect no matter what happens. The Republican Party showed focus on more pressing issues like making sure the deal is strictly enforced and the IAA has enough funding. Now it is only a matter of days until the successful Iran nuclear deal takes effect.
In this article the author attempts to show the futility of Republicans trying to stop the Iran nuclear deal. He argues that there are no more options left for the Republicans that could stop the bill. This is after there bill to dismiss the Iran nuclear deal could not overcome a democratic filibuster in senate. With 42 democrats now supporting the bill all senate democrats have agreed that the Iran nuclear deal is positive. This is done by explaining that there are no more political maneuvers left to destroy the deal. They could attempt to add new sanctions against Iran after the deal is implemented. The possibility of the republicans trying to legal action against the president accusing him of breaking the law. Focusing so much energy on this issue is impart due to some of the dels most vocal critics. Israel and its supporters in America have been violently opposed to any deal with Iran preferring to chose more destructive ways. These supporters were given more credibility when Iran's president said, “Israel will not exist in 25 years,” and called America “Satan”. Either way it is pointless to attempt to stall the deal as it will take effect no matter what happens. The Republican Party showed focus on more pressing issues like making sure the deal is strictly enforced and the IAA has enough funding. Now it is only a matter of days until the successful Iran nuclear deal takes effect.
1
Looks like the Times is ready to endore Hill Rod for president. No surprise. Heres the reality about the deal with Iran. They played everybody with the of a nuclear weapon in order to get their 150 billion back and the trade restrictions lifted.They know Israel would shower their country with a dozen nukes if Iran launched an attack.Iran may already have enough plutonium secreted away.It doesn't matter.They made everyone believe they were doing it.In reality Iran doesnt need a nuke.All their mischief involves conventional weapons.And now they have the money to expand that.You have to hand it to them.The Iranians are brilliant.The republicans in Congress are idiots.The real threat is the MONEY Iran is getting.Played like a cheap drum. Kerry and Obama included btw
7
"Played like a cheap drum. Kerry and Obama included btw."
Who says so? Are you an expert at negotiations between countries, just where do you get your expertise to have opinions like this?
Maybe from Trump, Palin, Cheney, and few other subnormal members of the GOP?
Who says so? Are you an expert at negotiations between countries, just where do you get your expertise to have opinions like this?
Maybe from Trump, Palin, Cheney, and few other subnormal members of the GOP?
34
Republicans have spent the last 6 years obstructing the President while he saved the country from the ruin they left the country in.
Why should now be any different?
Why should now be any different?
119
Where does the editorial board get off calling this a "worthy deal"? You don't know that. You merely may think that. The worthiness and wiseness of this deal won't be known for years. And to my mind there is no question we were out flanked by the Iranians. But the very fact that the President had to lobby hard with not a few members of his own party, and the fact that the entire Republican legislature opposes the deal makes your assurance of its "worthiness" meaningless.
8
I trust the NY Times Editorial Board's assessment of the Iran nuclear agreement far more than your ignorant opinion that we were outflanked by the Iranians. Russia, China, Great Britain, France and Germany all sent their best negotiators alongside John Kerry, our distinguished Secretary of State. Your explanation of this outflanking is sadly lacking.
1
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei announced today in Tehran that Israel will not exist as a country in 25 years. Khamenei said "With Allah's help, there will be no such thing as a Zionist regime in 25 years." The Iranian supreme leader promised Israel continued hostility, saying “the spirit of fighting, heroism and jihad will keep you worried every moment,” and predicting “there will be no Zionist regime in 25 years.” The President of the United States, Harry Reid and Hilary Clinton support the nuclear treaty with Iran.
5
This evening I heard a talk by Joe Sestak, a retired admiral from the US Navy, who commanded nuclear aircraft carriers in the Middle East, served as a Presidential advisor, and set policy in the Pentagon.
"Distrust but verify" is a very accurate assessment of his view. A few points he brought out:
1) The West has the right to inspect after a 3 week notice ANY facility in Iran. It is impossible to scrub all of the traces of nuclear enrichment from a facility in that short a time.
2) Currently Iran can make a nuclear weapon in a short time. After the accord, their plutonium capability will be gone, and their uranium will be diluted. It would take over a year to enrich it to bomb strength, during which time it will be caught by the routine and on-demand inspections.
3) A military solution is possible, but would be extremely costly and protracted. It should not be "off the table, but at the back of the table."
4) The US is developing antimissile capabilities that will make Israel (and the rest of the world) safer than a nuclear Iran, and the accord buys us time to perfect the system.
So who do you believe, a draft dodger who filibusters the Senate with Dr. Seuss, or a serious military person with experience in the region and at the highest policy levels? Mr. Sestak has had his finger on the trigger, knowing the consequence to the 5000 sailors under his command. Diplomacy first, with the backing of a strong and dedicated military only when there is no other option.
"Distrust but verify" is a very accurate assessment of his view. A few points he brought out:
1) The West has the right to inspect after a 3 week notice ANY facility in Iran. It is impossible to scrub all of the traces of nuclear enrichment from a facility in that short a time.
2) Currently Iran can make a nuclear weapon in a short time. After the accord, their plutonium capability will be gone, and their uranium will be diluted. It would take over a year to enrich it to bomb strength, during which time it will be caught by the routine and on-demand inspections.
3) A military solution is possible, but would be extremely costly and protracted. It should not be "off the table, but at the back of the table."
4) The US is developing antimissile capabilities that will make Israel (and the rest of the world) safer than a nuclear Iran, and the accord buys us time to perfect the system.
So who do you believe, a draft dodger who filibusters the Senate with Dr. Seuss, or a serious military person with experience in the region and at the highest policy levels? Mr. Sestak has had his finger on the trigger, knowing the consequence to the 5000 sailors under his command. Diplomacy first, with the backing of a strong and dedicated military only when there is no other option.
27
200 Generals and Admirals signed a letter opposing the deal. I trust them.
If you ever wondered why Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are now leading in their respective races for their party's Presidential nominations, the petty, peevish politics on display with respect to the Republicans' endless obstructive attempts to prevent the unpreventable with respect to the Iran nuclear deal says it all. This is just the latest in their dysfunctional, anti-Obama, really anti- any serious legislative action, antics following right after their other debacle with Obamacare. Americans of both political parties are showing their contempt for this continuing Congressional charade at governance by stalemate and shutdown in rallying to the anti-establishment candidates. When government ceases to work for the people, they turn away from those who have ceased working for them and appear to be working for Wall Street or other special interests like Israel and AIPAC.
15
Actually following the law, as it is clearly and unambiguously written, is "pointless." So, a county clerk must obey the law, surely, or be imprisoned; but the commander in chief of the United States Armed forces is immune.
The law clearly states that the President cannot act, i.e., waive any sanction, until 60 days after all related agreements, from any parties, are provided to Congress; not sixty days after Congress is briefed, sixty days after Congress is provided with the agreement, a prerequisite that has not occurred.
The editorial states that sans a vote the agreement will go into effect. This is not so for two reasons. The first, because it violates the law. The second, because the agreement is neither a law, nor a treaty, and thus has no effect to go into. The only question is whether the President can waive sanctions, without providing Congress the prerequisite agreements. The question iis not whether the agreement will go into effect, but rather whether the Iran review law is operative.
The Times editorial does not appear to understand this.
The law clearly states that the President cannot act, i.e., waive any sanction, until 60 days after all related agreements, from any parties, are provided to Congress; not sixty days after Congress is briefed, sixty days after Congress is provided with the agreement, a prerequisite that has not occurred.
The editorial states that sans a vote the agreement will go into effect. This is not so for two reasons. The first, because it violates the law. The second, because the agreement is neither a law, nor a treaty, and thus has no effect to go into. The only question is whether the President can waive sanctions, without providing Congress the prerequisite agreements. The question iis not whether the agreement will go into effect, but rather whether the Iran review law is operative.
The Times editorial does not appear to understand this.
4
The majority of the Senate opposes the agreement, and even many of those who support it are unhappy with it. The Editorial Board does not seem to think that this is worth mentioning, much less than that the reasons have merit. Instead, they insinuate that the majority has been bought off by "political capital" invested by supporters of Israel.
It is particularly disappointing to see commenters alleging that the Republicans are waging an ongoing war against America, with the intent to defeat it. These are accusations of disloyalty, and, sadly, will likely be highly recommended by people who genuinely believe it.
It is particularly disappointing to see commenters alleging that the Republicans are waging an ongoing war against America, with the intent to defeat it. These are accusations of disloyalty, and, sadly, will likely be highly recommended by people who genuinely believe it.
4
The majority of the Senate are Republicans.
Of course the Republicans are obstructing this deal, as they've done with everything the President has tried to do for the last seven years.
But I wouldn't call their tactic "pointless." In fact it's got a clear point: to make the country so ungovernable that the public will conclude that they shouldn't bother. The more voters who become cynical and tune out, the better the Republicans' electoral chances get.
The question is whether we, the public, will let them get away with it.
But I wouldn't call their tactic "pointless." In fact it's got a clear point: to make the country so ungovernable that the public will conclude that they shouldn't bother. The more voters who become cynical and tune out, the better the Republicans' electoral chances get.
The question is whether we, the public, will let them get away with it.
31
Wrong again, editorial board of the Obama administration.. Every minute the focus stays on this awful, awful deal and the almost complete lack of support in polls and in congress, dramatizea just how derelict and naive obama has been in his pursuit of a deal with this rogue regime.
5
Well, what else is new? The GOP, once again, opposes anything that makes sense, with lies, distortions and outright falsehoods. The bigger question is: why does any sensible person fall for their baloney?
19
"But the Republican-led Congress seems determined to drag out the fight, even if it means neglecting other business, including legislation to fund the government."
For Republicans, neglecting other business ain't a bug. It's a feature.
Haven't we all figured out, given now almost seven years of evidence, that shutting down Government means exactly that, whether the Government is open for business or not.
The Republican Congressional mandate is simply the philosophy of Kim Davis, writ large: My job is not to serve. My job is to do what I want to do, and to not do what I don't want to do. And you'd better respect my feelings. Because they're mine.
For Republicans, neglecting other business ain't a bug. It's a feature.
Haven't we all figured out, given now almost seven years of evidence, that shutting down Government means exactly that, whether the Government is open for business or not.
The Republican Congressional mandate is simply the philosophy of Kim Davis, writ large: My job is not to serve. My job is to do what I want to do, and to not do what I don't want to do. And you'd better respect my feelings. Because they're mine.
24
This whole article plays out like a sports cast if you call the teams republicans and democrats. The first paragraph is the democrats move, the second is about the republicans response, and so on...
It's frustrating to me when it's displayed like this, I feel like it's more about the political parties rather than the issue at hand.
It's frustrating to me when it's displayed like this, I feel like it's more about the political parties rather than the issue at hand.
4
This is a surprise? Obama, the Muslim-Socialist-Usurper, is still black and still in office, isn't he? Why would Republicans suddenly behave rationally? Their constituents require a strident lunacy from their representatives. So the Republican sideshow continues.
26
As usual the republicans will do the bidding of Sheldon Adelson and the billionaires and leave the critical work of the people undone. Of course when the repercussions of this neglect come to fruition, they will do what they do best, blame Obama and of course have the blessings of the media.
25
The Republican party lost the values of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower when Nixon appealed to southerners furious at LBJ for his civil-rights legislation. Since 1968, the party has sunk lower and lower.
22
No matter how much better a deal with Iran could be, the GOP and its Tea Party faction would oppose it. Not because it is a flawed deal, or does not meet the criteria of Netanyahu, but because Obama and his administration worked it out. It is a historic breakthrough which if administered properly would bring some peace to the Middle East. The Republicans hate the idea that Obama will get credit for this, and that their aggressive confrontational ideology did not bring Iran to the table.
The oath, "Death to Israel" is a curse, it does not mean Iran would take military action, but they will work to make all of Israels neighbors enemies.
Israel helps them out with their treatment of the Palestinians, and everyone knows it, but AIPAC and its U.S. sycophants turn a blind eye to it.
Iran was western friendly until the Eisenhower administration along with BP, and with support from the rabid anti communist Dulles brothers, engineered the overthrow of its democratic government, and that is where the U.S. got the title "The Great Satan," it was earned fair and square.
Iran does not need a nuke, it is simply a bargaining chip. They could not use it, but Israel just might. and if they did, they would become the international pariah.
The oath, "Death to Israel" is a curse, it does not mean Iran would take military action, but they will work to make all of Israels neighbors enemies.
Israel helps them out with their treatment of the Palestinians, and everyone knows it, but AIPAC and its U.S. sycophants turn a blind eye to it.
Iran was western friendly until the Eisenhower administration along with BP, and with support from the rabid anti communist Dulles brothers, engineered the overthrow of its democratic government, and that is where the U.S. got the title "The Great Satan," it was earned fair and square.
Iran does not need a nuke, it is simply a bargaining chip. They could not use it, but Israel just might. and if they did, they would become the international pariah.
34
when was Iran a Democracy? It is true we overthrew their government for the Shah who was trying to bring in more of the western and Democratic reforms culture including the rights of women. It is also true that Jimmy Carter forced the cancer stricken Shah to abdicate and refused to allow him into the United States for medical treatment.
4
The only way Israel won't exist in 25 years would be crazy politics in which religion and ethnic/religious identity trumps everything. Hey, isn't this EXACTLY what the Repubs are trying to do here?
16
There was nearest unanimity by all the chambers to give this Agreement to a vote. The majority of the country is not supportive of the Agreement. Give folks their say, get a vote, let the President veto it and then fail to override his veto. That how the process is outlined.
Now, the President is getting what he demanded. He is our CIC and its his show. But, if the Iranians do something foolish or crazy, there will be "a hanging party for all hands on Constitution Avenue". We get this agreement may be a Pyrrhic victory, but for the Dems, you bought it, you own it.
Now, the President is getting what he demanded. He is our CIC and its his show. But, if the Iranians do something foolish or crazy, there will be "a hanging party for all hands on Constitution Avenue". We get this agreement may be a Pyrrhic victory, but for the Dems, you bought it, you own it.
4
The Iran deal is clearly a treaty that under the Constitution requires a two-thirds Senate confirmation vote. The compromise when the Administration said that two-thirds was not required, that the deal fell under foreign policy powers of the executive, was that Congress could vote on the deal by September 17. If Congress voted against the deal, the president could veto that action and two-thirds would then be required to overturn the veto.
The president now has enough Democratic votes in the Senate to have his veto sustained should it come to that. But that is not enough. Now, Democrats and the New York Times would have it that the deal can not even be debated and voted on. Apart from the purple prose vitriol of this editorial we are told that this will spare the president from having to veto a probable Congressional disapproval of the deal and the damage that veto might do to his "legacy." And if the Republicans who entered into the compromise in good faith got snookered, as long as it's the Democrats who did the snookering, no problem.
The president now has enough Democratic votes in the Senate to have his veto sustained should it come to that. But that is not enough. Now, Democrats and the New York Times would have it that the deal can not even be debated and voted on. Apart from the purple prose vitriol of this editorial we are told that this will spare the president from having to veto a probable Congressional disapproval of the deal and the damage that veto might do to his "legacy." And if the Republicans who entered into the compromise in good faith got snookered, as long as it's the Democrats who did the snookering, no problem.
5
Too bad IRS would not come clean and let Congress get on with business. Too bad Hillary Clinton and the Obama State Department will not do the same. Too bad Obama will not declassify a secret trade agreement. Too bad the Times rakes the GOP over the coals and makes xenophobic accusations when citizens are represented. SOP for progressives.
4
"Too bad the Times rakes the GOP over the coals and makes xenophobic accusations when citizens are represented. SOP for progressives."
Are you claiming the Times is not presenting the facts? Are you saying the editors are making them up? If so, then please enlighten us as to the facts. Not your opinion, just the facts.
Are you claiming the Times is not presenting the facts? Are you saying the editors are making them up? If so, then please enlighten us as to the facts. Not your opinion, just the facts.
11
The Times does not present the fact that the law says the President cannot waive sanctions until it presents all agreements to Congress.
This means that the Iran deal is dead in the water, if the President follows the law.
This means that the Iran deal is dead in the water, if the President follows the law.
4
Republicans practice playing a wacked out version zero sum game politics: their astonishing ineptitude at even identifying (much less executing) a winning strategy neatly cancels out their all too predictable knee-jerk obstructionist response to everything that smacks even vaguely of Obama.
17
All of the anti-Iranian bombast will only serve to further bury the Republican Party , along with the anti Planned Parenthood bombast, and let's not forget the upcoming debt ceiling bombast.
The Republican Party is fully intent upon suicide by bombast.
Nice!
The Republican Party is fully intent upon suicide by bombast.
Nice!
16
Any Democrat Senator who is with the President on this deal but wants to filibuster against a vote is a coward who should be held to account come the next election. A deal of this magnitude demands each Congressman be on the record with their vote, not just a press release. It is imperative that there be a record of this vote for history's sake.
6
Pointless? Not so. The point is for the Republicans to stop and block everything so that they can say that the Obama Administration has not accomplished anything.
194
My thoughts exactly. I also think that the republicans CAN NOT wrap their heads around the fact that a black man is sitting in the white house - as president and was ELECTED twice.
6
The point for Republicans is to be against whatever Obama does, not necessarily to block it.
3
Maybe that will disguise the fact that they haven't done a positive thing, for the American people, in the last 14 years. When do we give them the boot? Where's the tar and feathers?
1
Judging from their over the top reactions to the Iran deal, the gay marriage issue and immigration, it appears that the Republicans have completely lost their minds.
26
Along with the majority of the US citizens who oppose the Iran deal, according to the latest polls.
3
The delay is pointless to those who want to weaponize Iran and give them greater power to terrorize. To the rest of us who would like to avoid a nuclear holocaust, facts are important.
4
They're taking Dylan Thomas's advice to not go gentle into that unavoidable, definite "good night" and raging against it.
And raging.
I suspect they're full of Hamlet's anxiety that what dreams must come when last they have shuffled off the ill motivated mortal coil of their tantrum doth give them pause.
The irony is that historically these negotiated treaties, as both parties governments have shown, work to our, and the world's, benefit. Years from now, their anxiety diluted by experience and history, they'll be sitting in beach chairs on the Black Sea, eating filberts and dates with Iranian wine and cheeses and protesting to anyone who will endure their petulance that Barack Obama was, indeed, as Dick Cheney decrees in his book, worthless for not having achieved the settlement sooner as good Conservatives would have.
The truth of history not being any meaningful obstacle to Conservative reinvention of it.
.
.
And raging.
I suspect they're full of Hamlet's anxiety that what dreams must come when last they have shuffled off the ill motivated mortal coil of their tantrum doth give them pause.
The irony is that historically these negotiated treaties, as both parties governments have shown, work to our, and the world's, benefit. Years from now, their anxiety diluted by experience and history, they'll be sitting in beach chairs on the Black Sea, eating filberts and dates with Iranian wine and cheeses and protesting to anyone who will endure their petulance that Barack Obama was, indeed, as Dick Cheney decrees in his book, worthless for not having achieved the settlement sooner as good Conservatives would have.
The truth of history not being any meaningful obstacle to Conservative reinvention of it.
.
.
27
These "negotiated treaties." I thought treaties need the approval of 2/3 of the Senate under the U.S. Constitution. Hmm.
1
Ya, they're voted on, and, like our treaties with the late "Soviet Union," entered into over the windy protests of those who like a status quo they know, without having an alternative. So, here we are, decades after the Soviet Union went away, still better off in our treaties with Russia than without them. Truth is that without them we might not be here.
So what's the alternative to treaty with Iran "USA Judge?" I keep hearing protest after protest from the far Right, but never an alternative to all out war. We're seeing how that worked out for us in the Middle East following the Cheney/Bush fiasco in Iraq and destabilization of the region, destabilization that spread like a range fire in a hot August with prevailing winds.
Propose a way to prevent Iran from refining nuclear waste for weapons and one that comes even marginally close to the probably constructive, positive outcome of this treaty.
.
So what's the alternative to treaty with Iran "USA Judge?" I keep hearing protest after protest from the far Right, but never an alternative to all out war. We're seeing how that worked out for us in the Middle East following the Cheney/Bush fiasco in Iraq and destabilization of the region, destabilization that spread like a range fire in a hot August with prevailing winds.
Propose a way to prevent Iran from refining nuclear waste for weapons and one that comes even marginally close to the probably constructive, positive outcome of this treaty.
.
If Israel does not exist in 25 years, it will be because Netanyahu has led it into a dead end with the Palestinians, not because of anything done by Iran.
If Israel does not exist in 25 years, it will be because Obama was unable to stop Netanyahu on his course, and the Republicans helped him do that. It will not because Obama or others trying to stop Netanyahu betrayed Israel.
Israel's true friends are at J-Street and among Democrats. Israel's enemies, like ours, are the hawks who are charging like Custer at the Little Big Horn.
If Israel does not exist in 25 years, it will be because Obama was unable to stop Netanyahu on his course, and the Republicans helped him do that. It will not because Obama or others trying to stop Netanyahu betrayed Israel.
Israel's true friends are at J-Street and among Democrats. Israel's enemies, like ours, are the hawks who are charging like Custer at the Little Big Horn.
216
Amen. It is the fascist worm eating us and them alive.
7
It is amazing that both of you know better what is best for Isreal than Israel's democratically elected government and its leftist opposition.
Israel will exist 25 years from now. The only question is whether that will be after having won a nuclear war with Iran. The Palestinians, of course, have nothing to do with this. The Iranians simply could care less.
Israel will exist 25 years from now. The only question is whether that will be after having won a nuclear war with Iran. The Palestinians, of course, have nothing to do with this. The Iranians simply could care less.
2
Indeed Mark. The existential threat that Israel faces is Israel. Unfortunately, Israel may also be an existential threat to Judaism itself.
http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/mourning-for-a-judaism-being-murdered-by-i...
http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/mourning-for-a-judaism-being-murdered-by-i...
5
The "Axis of Evil" GOP constituency in the US is the mirror image of the "Great Satan" Supreme Leader constituency in Iran. Both aim to mobilize their base to maintain some kind of leverage within their respective political processes.
This kind of political paranoia is not new in the US. It reached a high point in the John Foster Dulles-Eisenhower-Soviet era, with consequences that reverberate today.
But what is remarkable about today is that we view conflicts with minor powers like Iran as existential. Even Foster and Allen Dulles would have a good laugh about that.
This kind of political paranoia is not new in the US. It reached a high point in the John Foster Dulles-Eisenhower-Soviet era, with consequences that reverberate today.
But what is remarkable about today is that we view conflicts with minor powers like Iran as existential. Even Foster and Allen Dulles would have a good laugh about that.
138
It's not pointless. A large number of people, including many without partisan allegiances, firmly believe the Iran treaty is a terrible mistake. I have no doubt others sincerely feel the opposite. The large majority in congress have only partisan reasons deciding their vote and being "primaried" is a constant fear which has perverted the entire process. This is why outsiders like Bernie, Don, and Carly are having such success.
39
Over half the country is under 30, mostly college educated. unemployed and open to the West. None of the death to America nonsense. Just like no sane person believes that the"axis of evil" represents most Americans. This is an opportunity to defuse a ticking time bomb and step forward. And all those Republicans trying to undermine it now will be the first in line to do business with a pent up demand. Much like many Republicans also "did business" under the radar of Iran and other countries we have sanctioned.
202
6% in the polls for Fiorina is "such success"?
The soft bigotry of lowered expectations is still real.
The soft bigotry of lowered expectations is still real.
9
Carly? Did she break 2%?
10
When was the last time this board recalls the Republican Leadership acted in the best interest of the country, they are still trying to undo ACA; a program that has benefited millions of Americans? Instead of improving and removing the shortfalls as they are supposed to do are still busy in trying to dismantle it. ACA is the law of the land; yes the Congress has the power to change it. Whereas the JCPOA is a multi-country agreement reached with Iran, the US Congress can and would hurt the US businesses for their own personal gains.
The European leaders have already taken many trade delegations since the signing of the accord. Iran would be needing at least 500 short haul and long haul planes; The Republicans want the Airbus to get the contract instead of Boeing. I guess the Unions and people concerned about well-paying manufacturing jobs in the Rust belt and Bible belt should ask their representatives as to whose interest are they protecting instead of Americans. This is just one example, Iran being a progressive country of 80 million educated people would complement our efforts in resolving many issues in the Middle East. It may also be worthwhile to note that we did not had a single Iranian in the 9-11 attack on our country whereas 16 out of 19 hijackers were Saudis, whom the Republicans support.
Republicans you lost this one so work and just pass the budget and stop wasting time.
The European leaders have already taken many trade delegations since the signing of the accord. Iran would be needing at least 500 short haul and long haul planes; The Republicans want the Airbus to get the contract instead of Boeing. I guess the Unions and people concerned about well-paying manufacturing jobs in the Rust belt and Bible belt should ask their representatives as to whose interest are they protecting instead of Americans. This is just one example, Iran being a progressive country of 80 million educated people would complement our efforts in resolving many issues in the Middle East. It may also be worthwhile to note that we did not had a single Iranian in the 9-11 attack on our country whereas 16 out of 19 hijackers were Saudis, whom the Republicans support.
Republicans you lost this one so work and just pass the budget and stop wasting time.
230
Ha ha ha! A progressive claiming Iran to be progressive and eager to stop terrorists, further human rights, stop religious oppression, stop oppression of women and a host of other evils? Hilarious! Wait, you are joking. Right?
5
I think your first sentence says it all; when was the last time the GOP did anything in the best interests of our country? Lincoln, and abolition? Quite a while ago.
12
@Pk As compared to Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, and GCC states Iran is a lot more Progressive; In Universities of Shiraz, Mashhad and Tehran the majority of students are Women, I have interacted with many female students during a Medical conference at Bahesti University, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, and Shiraz University of Medical Sciences and to my surprise also found them articulate, smart and able to stand their ground on their arguments. I believe propaganda on our part/Hollywood and TV did not helped the picture. The above is based on my very recent personal experiences in 5 major cities of Iran and is limited in scope for Tehran, Shiraz, Qom, Mashhad, Neshabour, and Esphahan.
Iran was eager to stop terrorist right after 9-11, it was one of few Muslim countries that sent condolences to us and was eager to work with us against the Taliban in Afghanistan, Our Republican Leadership of George Bush and Dick Cheney declined; we need to understand the culture when we address issues between nations, each nation has its own idiosyncrasies that one needs to work with, just taking the word of one Nation sometimes lead us to a path that may not be in our interest but in the interest of the country whose interpretation we accept.
Iran may not be on our side but we do have a common enemy and that is extremists in the form of IS/ISIL, Al-Qaeda and the Wahhabis of Saudia. Tom Friedman’s piece of last week would help understand, here is the link.
http://nyti.ms/1hX06G9
Iran was eager to stop terrorist right after 9-11, it was one of few Muslim countries that sent condolences to us and was eager to work with us against the Taliban in Afghanistan, Our Republican Leadership of George Bush and Dick Cheney declined; we need to understand the culture when we address issues between nations, each nation has its own idiosyncrasies that one needs to work with, just taking the word of one Nation sometimes lead us to a path that may not be in our interest but in the interest of the country whose interpretation we accept.
Iran may not be on our side but we do have a common enemy and that is extremists in the form of IS/ISIL, Al-Qaeda and the Wahhabis of Saudia. Tom Friedman’s piece of last week would help understand, here is the link.
http://nyti.ms/1hX06G9
8
A lot has been said on this debate by both sides and at this point it appears that nothing will bring the Republicans to the side of reason. So all the President and Democrats need to do is deal with them the way you deal with recalcitrant children - let them throw their temper tantrums, yell and scream about in this pointless exercise. Their supporters will be joyous and smug.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world (dont forget the Russians, Chinese, French, Brits, Germans etc) who signed on to this deal will continue with their lives.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world (dont forget the Russians, Chinese, French, Brits, Germans etc) who signed on to this deal will continue with their lives.
360
Ever see the look on the face of an embarrased parent when their child throws a tantrum in public?
That's what our foreign service staff looks like every time the Republicans do what they do.
That's what our foreign service staff looks like every time the Republicans do what they do.
12
Is it also a fact that Russia and China are waiting for sanctions to be lifted so that Iran can have the money to buy both military supplies and materials to be used for nuclear energy.
Why do we criticize and mock the actions of Congress and others who oppose the Iranian deal but are silent when Iranian leaders shout daily "death to Americans"
Why do we criticize and mock the actions of Congress and others who oppose the Iranian deal but are silent when Iranian leaders shout daily "death to Americans"
4
Perhaps bringing the Republicans to "the side of reason" would entail getting their pledge to have their own children and grandchildren be the first to enlist for another boots on the ground war in the Middle East. It seems reasonable if their mantra actually is "reason."
Hillary Clinton's hypothetical saber-rattling at the Brookings was not responsible; it was as equally pointless as the GOP delaying tactics or the Ayatollah's hateful remarks. If she were truly responsible she would be turning down the heat, and returning to the silence that she maintained during the last month when the issue was actually in question. Where was she then? Typical Clinton: she waits to come out "in favor" after 41 democratic senators have already taken a stand and sealed the matter. And then blows her own horn, claiming to have been part of the team from the beginning, but as being "tougher" than the President (hypothetically, of course), threatening to Bomb-bomb-bomb Iran. I fear that, should she be President, she will revert pretty quickly to the Joe Lieberman protégé she was when she voted for the Iraqi War.
48
Hillary Clinton came out in support of this agreement long before there were 42 votes for it. In fact, her work at State laid the groundwork for it.
14
I question the accuracy of the above statement
3
This delay isn't any more pointless than voting over 50 times to kill the ACA or shutting down the government over culture war nonsense. Anything to sabotage our government is a good day for the GOP. Since they've long since run out of ideas they can sell to the public like "trickle down" economics and more wars. The "blame the government" crowd is now running the government but somehow still want to pretend they aren't responsible for the government.
303
In GOP-land, nothing - absolutely nothing - is ever their responsibility. Responsibility is for the little people, particularly if they are poor.
11
Ironic isn't it? Your last sentence "the "blame the government" crowd is now running the government but somehow still want to pretend they aren't responsible for the government." Describes it brilliantly. What hypocrites. What deceivers. What disruptors. It's interesting to note that while the Democrats had a debate over the merits and do not walk in lockstep together on this topic, the Republicans, as usual, have not one, not one, Representative or Senator who can see that diplomacy should have a chance. Not one.
1
Congressmen Roskam and Pompeo are snake oil salesman trying to sell people on the false notion that Congress has authority over the IAEA. It doesn't. Roskam and Pompeo won't listen to scientists on climate science; they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near nuclear science.
147
...or anywhere near governance. These people might as well be working for ISIS; indeed both Al Quaeda in Iraq and ISIS didn't exist until we broke Iraq for the greater profits of Halliburton.
17
Why would the Democrats want to filibuster a resolution on the Iran deal? To avoid having to go on the record as voting for it? Let's have a cloture vote to end debate and let everyone, both Republican and Democrat, show us their convictions. Then the same thing again when it comes to overriding President Obama's promised veto.
Under Harry Reid, the Senate avoided almost all votes to protect Democrats from having to take a position on any material issue. It's time to end that and have all our Congressmen go on the record with their votes.
Under Harry Reid, the Senate avoided almost all votes to protect Democrats from having to take a position on any material issue. It's time to end that and have all our Congressmen go on the record with their votes.
12
"Why would the Democrats want to filibuster a resolution on the Iran deal? To avoid having to go on the record as voting for it?"
Filibustering is de facto voting on it. The names of those for and against this is public knowledge.
When Mitch McConnell was minority leader of the Senate, the GOP filibustered everything. Now they cry foul.
Hilarious.
Filibustering is de facto voting on it. The names of those for and against this is public knowledge.
When Mitch McConnell was minority leader of the Senate, the GOP filibustered everything. Now they cry foul.
Hilarious.
11
It is not a "pointless" delay. It is just one more battle in congressional republicans ongoing war against america. They intend to defeat america.
292
It’s a “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” that allows each side to do whatever they want to do, with the understanding that if they don’t do what the other side wants, something may happen they won't like.
Sort of like me planning to lose weight or clean out the basement or mow the grass. No heavy duty consequences if I don’t do what I promised to myself. Sorry President Obama and Secretary Kerry, that doesn’t cut it when you are dealing with a thug state that is fomenting a massive civil war in Syria, underwriting Hamas and Hezbollah and hanging gays and people seeking democratic freedoms from construction cranes in its public squares.