I hope all America doesn't suffer from the treachery and stupidity of these "senators" and other politicians. But if it happens, may the destruction fall on their heads first. It is only just.
3
Democrats did not 'hand' Obama the victory. Obama, Kerry, the administration, military, diplomatic, security and other leaders and experts, leaders of the other nations in the negotiations, all backed by legions of Americans who let their legislators know where they stood 'handed' the victory, not to Obama, but to the American people and the world.
14
"The debate divided Democrats between their loyalties to the president and to their constituents..."
Let's not let this stand as true, though it may be true in some cases. I think generally that Democrats voted for the accord because they believe, as I do, that it is morally and practically right.
Let's not let this stand as true, though it may be true in some cases. I think generally that Democrats voted for the accord because they believe, as I do, that it is morally and practically right.
8
No, it was Senator Corker who handed the victory to Obama by permitting him, once again, to weasel around the Constitution by not designating the deal a TREATY, thought of course it is. Once that cheap trick was accomplished, the end was predictable. If didn't take any statesmanship or genuine changing of minds of even Machiavellian plotting: it was just a matter of spitting on the Constitution and "We, the People."
6
Now this is what we can expect,Iranian exiles have a word for businesses looking to open their doors in Iran: Don't.To a person, they are warning that doing doing business with the theocratic regime of Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei was fraught with risk. “Americans who develop a business in Iran will find that not a penny they pay in fees to the government will go to help the poor, the 70 percent-plus of Iranians in their teens and 20s who are unemployed, or the teachers who haven’t been paid in six months,”said Allen Tasslimi, New Jersey venture capitalist and president of the Association of Iranian-Americans of New Jersey.
Tasslimi predicted that money paid to the Tehran regime by U.S. businesses for opportunities in Iran “would go to [Iran's] Quds Force,” its brutal branch blamed for spreading terror throughout the region.
The Quds are headed by the notorious Gen. Ghasem Soleimani, branded “a cold-blooded killer” by Sen. John McCain for overseeing the manufacture of armor-piercing bullets that have killed more than 500 U.S. Marines.
Tasslimi, along with other exiles, strongly believes that an enhanced Iranian elite military unit “will provide even greater assistance to the terrorist clients that Khamenei and the regime already service: Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis who have toppled the government of Yemen, and [Syrian President Bashir] Assad’s murderous regime, which has forced tens of thousands to flee to Europe. Congratulations Democrats.
Tasslimi predicted that money paid to the Tehran regime by U.S. businesses for opportunities in Iran “would go to [Iran's] Quds Force,” its brutal branch blamed for spreading terror throughout the region.
The Quds are headed by the notorious Gen. Ghasem Soleimani, branded “a cold-blooded killer” by Sen. John McCain for overseeing the manufacture of armor-piercing bullets that have killed more than 500 U.S. Marines.
Tasslimi, along with other exiles, strongly believes that an enhanced Iranian elite military unit “will provide even greater assistance to the terrorist clients that Khamenei and the regime already service: Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis who have toppled the government of Yemen, and [Syrian President Bashir] Assad’s murderous regime, which has forced tens of thousands to flee to Europe. Congratulations Democrats.
6
I may not live to see it, but all but certain now for nuclear war
in the Middle East in the next 50 years. Once it starts there, who knows
where it will spread and when it will end. Worst bunch of fools that has ever managed this country.
I have stowed the NYT Section A dated July 15, 2015 in my 'historic
newspapers' file in my attic. I hope my heirs will find it 10 years hence;
my question to them will be, did any of this stop Iran from building the bomb?
in the Middle East in the next 50 years. Once it starts there, who knows
where it will spread and when it will end. Worst bunch of fools that has ever managed this country.
I have stowed the NYT Section A dated July 15, 2015 in my 'historic
newspapers' file in my attic. I hope my heirs will find it 10 years hence;
my question to them will be, did any of this stop Iran from building the bomb?
8
I dont get the outcry. First, the US and rest of the world can reinstate sanctions in days the same way it does with Russia now. So the option to resanction is always available. It also helps to give the Saudis who are equally as terroristoc as Iran but whom we have no issue doing business with a reality check that lcant use the US to dominate and profit off of the middle east. And should Iran decide to get aggressive it will have provided the excuse needed to act against them. Kind of like give a country enough rope to hang itself.
4
So the GOP won't use the nuclear option on the nuclear treaty?
It makes no sense. Why would the GOP not want to use the nuclear option when dealing with the nuclear treaty? It makes me rather confused actually...
It's not over 'til it's over...guess what Republicans...it's over.
7
The headline should have said 'Democrats hand the world a victory'. Establishing a diplomatic solution to the Iran issue is a great accomplishment for the P5+1 nations and makes us safer. Remember, if Iran doesn't live up to the agreement, everything is still on the table as how to deal with them. Better this than no deal which guarantees they will continue down the road to nukes an in a short while. Which leaves the bomb, bomb, bomb foreign policy as our only option. Sanctions did not stop Iran from moving toward nukes but this deal will.
11
I just read this statement that I think pretty much sums it up:
Today we mourn the loss of 2,977 irreplaceable people. We also mourn the loss of our irreplaceable nation. During these long fourteen years we have descended into the pit of madness, from which we may never crawl out. The American people voted twice for a man who is about to release $150 billion and nuclear weapons to our worst enemies. On 9/11 they attacked us armed only with box-cutters. I can only imagine what they have in store for us the next time.
Today we mourn the loss of 2,977 irreplaceable people. We also mourn the loss of our irreplaceable nation. During these long fourteen years we have descended into the pit of madness, from which we may never crawl out. The American people voted twice for a man who is about to release $150 billion and nuclear weapons to our worst enemies. On 9/11 they attacked us armed only with box-cutters. I can only imagine what they have in store for us the next time.
13
Iran didn't attack us. And we aren't releasing nuclear weapons to Iran. What are you talking about/
10
for your information:
1)There was no Iranian involved in 9/11!
2) That $150 billion does not belong to you, it belongs to Iranians!
1)There was no Iranian involved in 9/11!
2) That $150 billion does not belong to you, it belongs to Iranians!
13
You fail to realize that a militant foreign policy of invasions and aggression doesnt make you safer. Just the opposite, it radicalizes those on the receiving end of US Neo-Con/Rightwing Evangelical aggression and inevitably prompts retaliation in kind.
8
Well at least we can say BHO and his team were more open about their dealings with Iran than the approach the Reagan administration took in the mid 80's when they lied all over the place about weapons, funds, Contras etc. and then we let Ronnie off the hook because he was growing increasingly feeble minded at that point.
11
Dems were so proud of the deal they did not want an up or down vote on it. See you Dems at the ballot box. 2010 and 2014 - Déjà vu all over again!
3
That's funny, because 98% of the Senate and 92% of the House voted to handle the deal this way, a vote of disapproval that is. Soooo, it appears that the Republicans are really the ones who did not want an up or down vote. Because, then, you know, they would have had to a)be honest to their constituents about how they really feel about the deal or b) pass up on what, even they think, is a good deal.
This vote could not have happened the way it did without broad Republican support. Had they voted regularly, only 218 votes in the House (Republicans have 247) and 51 votes in the Senate would have been needed for the deal to PASS.
Instead, they all voted for a vote of disapproval instead of a vote of approval, where they would've been able to vote down the deal, and a Presidential veto would have resulted in nothing to veto!
See for yourself. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/02/436647276/minority...
This vote could not have happened the way it did without broad Republican support. Had they voted regularly, only 218 votes in the House (Republicans have 247) and 51 votes in the Senate would have been needed for the deal to PASS.
Instead, they all voted for a vote of disapproval instead of a vote of approval, where they would've been able to vote down the deal, and a Presidential veto would have resulted in nothing to veto!
See for yourself. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/02/436647276/minority...
4
I am grateful the senate Democrats finally backed diplomacy over war. We've been in the Middle East quagmire of war for over 14 years. Let's give peace, diplomacy and international cooperation with other major powers time and put away the dogs of war.
6
The overwhelming response from Obama supporters today is :P "we win."
Not a word about what was "won" because nothing was.
The same old 2008 liberal pablum...it is impossible for Obama to be wrong. The only reason on Earth anybody disagrees with Obama is because of race. The vast right wing conspiracy to "block" the Obama presidency...no it's impossible to oppose the Iran deal because the Iranians cannot be trusted...
It must be exhausting to spend all day for 6 years lying to protect Obama's ego.
Not a word about what was "won" because nothing was.
The same old 2008 liberal pablum...it is impossible for Obama to be wrong. The only reason on Earth anybody disagrees with Obama is because of race. The vast right wing conspiracy to "block" the Obama presidency...no it's impossible to oppose the Iran deal because the Iranians cannot be trusted...
It must be exhausting to spend all day for 6 years lying to protect Obama's ego.
15
The celebration of this deal reminds me that the same people were cheering about the great success of Obamacare ... in 2009, when not a single one of its provisions had taken effect.
7
Yes, which is why we will likely soon be treated to another phony narrative about its "success", spinning non-compliance as some kind of success to save face. Like it did with Obamacare, where 2K pages of regulations and an industry upheaval just to move everyone onto Medicaid was spun as a "success."
As for Obama's ego, he's a weak president with a strong posse of defenders. They protect him from the meanies who give him a hard time. Poor thing.
As for Obama's ego, he's a weak president with a strong posse of defenders. They protect him from the meanies who give him a hard time. Poor thing.
5
If the Democrats thought this was a good deal, they would be willing to vote for it.
7
All, but four did.
5
All we did was kick the can down the road for another 15 years. Once the time expires limiting Iran's production of bomb grade material, then what? Thanks Obama for handing this problem over to our kids.
9
Then Iran gets the bomb. Just like the US and Israel and every other nation that has nuclear bombs. Please save your breath about Iran wanting to blow up the world. I'm sure the media is convinced you well.
5
an epic display of corrosive partisan politics-Barack Obama is the worst thing to happen to this nation since George W Bush- sanctions relief- once begun- will take on a life of its own- the treasonous acts of Obama and the pusillanimous senate are just remarkable- such a great deal that they wont let it come up for a thumbs up or thumbs down vote? yeah right- they completely abandoned their duty to their constituents-the president is exceptionally insular-and obviously does not know this country -his allegience is obviously to some other country than this- he wasnt even living here in 1979- and simply does not believe what the mullahs say they want to do - his ignorance is remarkable-his naivete is dangerous his treason the equal of chamberlain
5
Wow, Fox News sure did a great job on YOU buddy. But of course you are from Texas, so you are forgiven your idiocy.
3
Yep, another in a line of muck ups for our illustrious leader the yes men who fall in behind him and the cowards that couldn't or wouldn't stand their ground. True to the fact he is a community organizer, he's probably organized us right into hell.
9
Forget the promised nuclear halt. All they wanted was the $100 Billion to buy conventional weapons from Russia to further inflame the horrific Mideast conflict.
And freedom from sanctions.
This is good?
And freedom from sanctions.
This is good?
9
Sure, let's try to bring down an agreement that stops nuclear weapon proliferation, denying a weapon to arguably the most dangerous regime in the region. After all, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump are for "a mighty red white and blue peace' which near as I could fathom...means troops and more war! Because Americans really want war, this time with a nation that has an air force, unlike Afgh. and Iraq.That kind of conflict means troops will die by the thousands, not handfuls at a time. In their unhinged resistance to anything President Obama tries to achieve, Donald and Sarah and the Tea Party would rather our troops, already battle fatigued after 5-8 deployments in war zones ( unlike Vietnam where we had to endure only one 13 month deployment), fight a war that would simply be more horror, more blood and trillion dollar treasure, lost forever. That's the alternative they unethically don't put out, but which is inescapable: sanctions would be dead, our isolation, utterly complete. War would be the only containment strategy left...and they know it. Can the hatred of our first black President actually extend so far that dying troops and international disaster is less persuasive than the shrill, incomprehensions of a Sarah Palin or Donald Trump?
That answer, for our good, and the lives of countless troops simply cannot be "yes."
That answer, for our good, and the lives of countless troops simply cannot be "yes."
18
But Tom Friedman said yesterday Boots are the only moral option. And he speaks for Progressives, no?
2
If you think this is going stop Iran from cheating and getting the bomb I have some real estate in Florida you may be interested in.
3
It is my understanding, that Friedman has always been a middle-of-the-road guy, with a slight-right lean.
2
The fact that Dick Cheney is so vehemently against any diplomatic agreement with Iran is a solid sign that it's good for America, the rest of the world, and will promote a more peaceful situation.
22
Good for president Obama, stooges in the GOP are not fit to even carry this man's books.
15
I don’t understand why Senate Democrats refuse to vote on this.
6
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
3
Hooray! We just passed a deal with a nation that chants "Death to America" everyday, and considers the US the Great Satan. Are we feeling more comfortable yet? Just wait for this nation which considers us the epitome of evil, to start cheatin' on the deal and feel justified because the US is just bunch of evil infidels.
10
We will be soon be cheating on the deal. See the front page lead story in today's paper, where we are contemplating ways to punish Iran for things unrelated to the deal. Since we could not plausible get Iran on the nuclear deal, we will get them on some trumped up charge of terrorism, and apply sanctions.
The world has come to loathe us in many ways, simply because we have become too arrogant in our policy dealings.
The world has come to loathe us in many ways, simply because we have become too arrogant in our policy dealings.
5
And we had a Republican presidential candidate who chanted "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
3
To Sen. Graham and his cohorts. It is not the job of the U.S. to make any country safer or not safer. Diplomatic deals made by the U.S. are for the sole benefit of the U.S. If this cohorts loyalty is to Israel let them move there and participate in their political process. Otherwise look after the interests of the U.S. or get out of public office.
12
It's not the job of the US to make any country safer or not safer?
You know what its called when a US gov't official knowingly makes America less safe?
Treason.
You know what its called when a US gov't official knowingly makes America less safe?
Treason.
2
Shame on gutless Democrats wo won't allow votes to take place on so crucial a matter. The hypocricy of the so-called most transparent Administration in history is staggering. It's sellout to Iran will result in death and destruction. Every supporter, every Democrat who voted for this travesty, will rue the day. Now I fully comprehend how appeasement led to World War 2. Shame on Obama, everlasting disgrace to America.
10
Dems were so proud of the deal they did not want an up or down vote on it. See you Dems at the ballot box. 2010 and 2014 - Déjà vu all over again!
1
Let's recap Obama's legacy win (i.e. surrender and appeasement to Iran and it's radical Islamic extremists):
Snapback sanctions? An Obama lie.
Spot inspections in 24 hrs? An Obama lie.
Dismantling Iran's nuclear program? An Obama lie.
Only alternative to Obama's deal is war? An Obama lie.
Why are we doing this America?
Snapback sanctions? An Obama lie.
Spot inspections in 24 hrs? An Obama lie.
Dismantling Iran's nuclear program? An Obama lie.
Only alternative to Obama's deal is war? An Obama lie.
Why are we doing this America?
14
Alright then, you've hit the objections talking points.
Now, how exactly, without international support, are you going to contain the Iranians?
You have no backing from the major powers that brokered this deal...we will be absolutely isolated. Sanctions will be non-existent, without effect.
So, what is the alternative?
Please tell us, as it's easy to simply say, "chest pounding feels good, me brave," what are you going to do?
It's war. That's what is left. War.
Now, are you going to sign up? Your family? How many more have to die?
Now, how exactly, without international support, are you going to contain the Iranians?
You have no backing from the major powers that brokered this deal...we will be absolutely isolated. Sanctions will be non-existent, without effect.
So, what is the alternative?
Please tell us, as it's easy to simply say, "chest pounding feels good, me brave," what are you going to do?
It's war. That's what is left. War.
Now, are you going to sign up? Your family? How many more have to die?
9
Good gracious, it's the same kind of 'the sky is falling' harangue rhetoric we got with Obamacare where none of the terrible consequences of Obamacare that were supposed to happen — mass cancellation of existing policies, soaring premiums, job destruction — actually happened. Frankly this kind of nonsense is
getting tiresome.
getting tiresome.
5
It's idiotic to accept the premise that under no circumstances, would the same US allies that "support" the deal would flat out refuse to go along with the US to impose more sanctions. That's a horrendous lie.
So you're saying US allies would sever all diplomatic relations, issue a UN resolution isolating the United States if we wanted to actually end Iran's Nuclear program completely? Another idiotic lie.
War is all that's left? According to Obama and who else? Another horrendous lie.
The sanctions were working. We could have imposed even more to bring Iran to its knees. Instead Obama let Iran walk all over us.
So you're saying US allies would sever all diplomatic relations, issue a UN resolution isolating the United States if we wanted to actually end Iran's Nuclear program completely? Another idiotic lie.
War is all that's left? According to Obama and who else? Another horrendous lie.
The sanctions were working. We could have imposed even more to bring Iran to its knees. Instead Obama let Iran walk all over us.
2
treason is what it is "Article 3, section 3, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the giving of aid and comfort to the enemy is an element in the crime of Treason. Aid and comfort may consist of substantial assistance or the mere attempt to provide some support; actual help or the success of the enterprise is not relevant."
all those that voted for it have committed a treasonous act in supporting and advancing the Iranian cause to establish the caliphate in the region that is now nuclear armed. The Iranians have already stated that they have the 20% enriched materials required for a nuclear weapon now Obama is giving them all the money they require to fund more terrorist groups like the Daesh as well as purchase the missiles to carry out their evil threats of destroying Israel and America.
all those that voted for it have committed a treasonous act in supporting and advancing the Iranian cause to establish the caliphate in the region that is now nuclear armed. The Iranians have already stated that they have the 20% enriched materials required for a nuclear weapon now Obama is giving them all the money they require to fund more terrorist groups like the Daesh as well as purchase the missiles to carry out their evil threats of destroying Israel and America.
6
By your logic, the grain sales to the Soviets and arms treaties negotiated with the USSR by the Nixon administration during the Cold War were also "treason".
How is Obama "giving them all the money they [Iran] requires" to fund terror groups and buy missiles? Would you care to elaborate?
How is Obama "giving them all the money they [Iran] requires" to fund terror groups and buy missiles? Would you care to elaborate?
4
Thanks to President Obama and his envoy John Kerry for concluding this diplomatic triumph - bringing so many global powers, both allies and foes, into a single accord. No thanks to the NY Times and other U.S. media for ignoring that United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia (!) and China(!) worked TOGETHER to find a diplomatic solution to the most aggressive and dangerous Middle East power's nuclear strategy.
This accord affirm's both America's global leadership and the power of diplomacy - and affirms the long-standing and absolutely necessary ability of our elected administration, Democratic or Republican, to negotiate international agreements.
All Americans - and our media - should demand that Republican opposition to this accord offer an alternative solution that does not include engaging America in another Middle East war. Haven't we had enough of wars in the wrong places for the wrong reasons allied with the wrong people? Didn't Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan teach us anything?
This accord affirm's both America's global leadership and the power of diplomacy - and affirms the long-standing and absolutely necessary ability of our elected administration, Democratic or Republican, to negotiate international agreements.
All Americans - and our media - should demand that Republican opposition to this accord offer an alternative solution that does not include engaging America in another Middle East war. Haven't we had enough of wars in the wrong places for the wrong reasons allied with the wrong people? Didn't Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan teach us anything?
39
Thank you for stating the facts and not taking off half cocked on half truths.
6
Mr. Schumer said, “I also have a great deal of respect for the careful thought and deliberation my colleagues went through,” adding, “I recognize for them that this is a vote of conscience just as it is for me.”
Would it be too cynical to think that it was for Senator Schumer more a vote of contributions than conscience?
Would it be too cynical to think that it was for Senator Schumer more a vote of contributions than conscience?
5
Pop Quiz:
True or False
1. When he embarked on the Iran Deal, Barack Obama promised to dismantle Iran's Nuclear Program. (Answer: True)
2. During the 2012 campaign debates with Mitt Romney, Barack Obama repeatedly declared in agreement with Romney that America must not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. (Answer: True)
Multiple Choice
3. Obama's Iran Nuclear Deal
a) Does not dismantle Iran's nuclear program
b) Does not prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon
c) Does not require Iran to stop financing global Islamic terrorism
d) Does not demand Iran release American hostages held in Iran
e) all of the above
Answer (e)
4. Obama's Iran Nuclear Deal
a) Gave Iran all of its demands on sanctions relief
b) Gave Iran all of its demands on diplomatic status
c) Gave Iran all of its demands on veto power over new sanctions
d) Gave Iran ability to leverage Russia and China to avoid inspections
e) All of the above
Answer (e)
Short Answer
No real inspections + Ability to block new sanctions + Ending all sanctions + No way to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons or building them = (Answer: A bad deal)
True or False
1. When he embarked on the Iran Deal, Barack Obama promised to dismantle Iran's Nuclear Program. (Answer: True)
2. During the 2012 campaign debates with Mitt Romney, Barack Obama repeatedly declared in agreement with Romney that America must not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. (Answer: True)
Multiple Choice
3. Obama's Iran Nuclear Deal
a) Does not dismantle Iran's nuclear program
b) Does not prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon
c) Does not require Iran to stop financing global Islamic terrorism
d) Does not demand Iran release American hostages held in Iran
e) all of the above
Answer (e)
4. Obama's Iran Nuclear Deal
a) Gave Iran all of its demands on sanctions relief
b) Gave Iran all of its demands on diplomatic status
c) Gave Iran all of its demands on veto power over new sanctions
d) Gave Iran ability to leverage Russia and China to avoid inspections
e) All of the above
Answer (e)
Short Answer
No real inspections + Ability to block new sanctions + Ending all sanctions + No way to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons or building them = (Answer: A bad deal)
11
It is telling that there is more factual information in your comment than appeared in the story it accompanies.
3
The Iran nuclear agreement will never find favor with three people or groups of people – all for the same reason: loss of their influence to more moderate people or groups.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei realizes that he and other hardline clerics have held power by trading on fear of the United States. Approval of the nuclear deal begins the erosion of his influence.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the ultra-Orthodox rabbinical forces and the Likud party realize that they can no longer push the Israeli people to the far right by fear-mongering.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party realize that they no longer can avoid trying to govern without having to answer to more moderate voters at the ballot boxes and cannot pursue their shoot-first foreign policy. They also know that this is one more clear achievement by their uppity nemesis in the White House.
Khamenei-Netanyahu-McConnell: The Axis of Obsolescence.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei realizes that he and other hardline clerics have held power by trading on fear of the United States. Approval of the nuclear deal begins the erosion of his influence.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the ultra-Orthodox rabbinical forces and the Likud party realize that they can no longer push the Israeli people to the far right by fear-mongering.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party realize that they no longer can avoid trying to govern without having to answer to more moderate voters at the ballot boxes and cannot pursue their shoot-first foreign policy. They also know that this is one more clear achievement by their uppity nemesis in the White House.
Khamenei-Netanyahu-McConnell: The Axis of Obsolescence.
12
Do not adjust your computer screens.
There are Obama supporters on this comment board celebrating Iran gaining diplomatic power, nuclear power and global power.
But that's fine. Let Iran keep sponsoring radical Islamic terrorism, capturing US hostages and developing nuclear weapons...we libs sure stuck it to the GOP. Yay team!
No person who values integrity, humanity, decency or sanity could be or support Barack Obama. It takes a special kind of lowlife.
There are Obama supporters on this comment board celebrating Iran gaining diplomatic power, nuclear power and global power.
But that's fine. Let Iran keep sponsoring radical Islamic terrorism, capturing US hostages and developing nuclear weapons...we libs sure stuck it to the GOP. Yay team!
No person who values integrity, humanity, decency or sanity could be or support Barack Obama. It takes a special kind of lowlife.
6
The article seems to blame O.
So what, Reps will use this as campaign spin, thats all they have done since 2010. What significant bills have they passed that aren't too extreme even for most of their own party to pass.
Why doesn't the article show the extreme partisan `right is nothing but an obstructionist-gerrymandering Machine.
The examples provided with this Iran deal and ACA in this article seemingly, by pointing out Os plan of 2008 of bipartisan, is a failure by his adm.
So what, Reps will use this as campaign spin, thats all they have done since 2010. What significant bills have they passed that aren't too extreme even for most of their own party to pass.
Why doesn't the article show the extreme partisan `right is nothing but an obstructionist-gerrymandering Machine.
The examples provided with this Iran deal and ACA in this article seemingly, by pointing out Os plan of 2008 of bipartisan, is a failure by his adm.
2
This debacle tells me that Trump is very wrong about Obama. The president is anything but a stupid negotiator - in fact he is quite good. The president knew in advance that he won't have the support of either the public or congress for this type of deal with Iran. But he wanted the deal badly, and negotiated a superb deal with his party, the democrats, to ensure that the Senate will not kill it. If Trump doesn't know this, then it's he who is the stupid negotiator.
The democrats went along with him because they have nowhere else to turn for meaningful political sustenance - none of their leaders have the popular following except for Obama.
But in the end the party will pay a price. Like Obamacare, which slowly lead to the loss of the entire congress to GOP, this Iran deal may very well be another problem the dems just won't be able to overcome. You see, Obama won't be on the ballot any more. And who else is there?
The democrats went along with him because they have nowhere else to turn for meaningful political sustenance - none of their leaders have the popular following except for Obama.
But in the end the party will pay a price. Like Obamacare, which slowly lead to the loss of the entire congress to GOP, this Iran deal may very well be another problem the dems just won't be able to overcome. You see, Obama won't be on the ballot any more. And who else is there?
1
When Republicans shout "Better Deal", they need to put their Intelligentsia at work, and present a deal or shut up!. To create havoc without offering a solution is incompetent. This deal has the support of many retired Militars of this country and many Jewish
American Organizations. It is the best that could happen according to circumstances. Also, America has the power to take action if the Iranians do not comply.The countries that aproved this deal are not going to sit and wait for another, if the US looses is hand on it. It is the best situation in a world full of hardships that are almost incredible to believe, and it might give us the peace of mind that the planet for, a while, at least, will not be blown away. Thank You Democratas for supporting our President.
American Organizations. It is the best that could happen according to circumstances. Also, America has the power to take action if the Iranians do not comply.The countries that aproved this deal are not going to sit and wait for another, if the US looses is hand on it. It is the best situation in a world full of hardships that are almost incredible to believe, and it might give us the peace of mind that the planet for, a while, at least, will not be blown away. Thank You Democratas for supporting our President.
15
1. Iran has leveraged Russia and China to block new sanctions.
2. Iran has veto power and control over any inspections.
3. Iran's Supreme Leader has stated there will be no US inspections in Iran.
4. Obama acted alone, surrendered to all of Iran's demands, got all sides to sign off on the bad deal and THEN liberals ask Republicans for their ideas AFTER it's all over. Again.
5. Obama vowed to veto ANY changes or new proposals to the Iran deal from day one.
Obama's Iran deal assures us that Iran will have nuclear weapons. Explain how that keeps the planet from being blown away?
2. Iran has veto power and control over any inspections.
3. Iran's Supreme Leader has stated there will be no US inspections in Iran.
4. Obama acted alone, surrendered to all of Iran's demands, got all sides to sign off on the bad deal and THEN liberals ask Republicans for their ideas AFTER it's all over. Again.
5. Obama vowed to veto ANY changes or new proposals to the Iran deal from day one.
Obama's Iran deal assures us that Iran will have nuclear weapons. Explain how that keeps the planet from being blown away?
6
So very naive to think that a nation will considers the US the Great Satan to actually follow the nuclear deal. This weak, flawed deal will be cheated as soon as it is ratified.
5
"To create havoc without offering a solution is incompetent." Boy, you got that right. The Republican agenda can be summed up in one word, "obstructionist". Somehow, they've gotten it into their heads that this is the way you win the hearts and minds of the electorate. Not to mention how much easier it is to sit back and cast aspersions than to offer constructive alternatives. Oh. one other thought. You referred to Republican intelligentsia. In my world, that's an oxymoron...with emphasis on the last syllable.
2
Mr. Netanyahu's intervention in this process has probably caused irreparable harm to the American-Israeli relationship. My children in their fifties and grandchildren in their thirties have no emotional ties to the Holocaust. For them it is just another ancient catastrophe. But they have seen Mr. Netanyahu's direct intervention into the American political process and are deeply disturbed by it. Israel has sufficient nuclear forces to defend itself and most of the younger people that I know would like to see us disengage from Israel in particular and the Middle East in general.
10
As an American Jew who fully supported the Iran deal and who vehemently disagrees with Israel's current leadership, I nonetheless found your comment disturbing. Perhaps it is because of my race (and yes, to me it is my race and not my faith as I am agnostic), but the Holocaust is much more than an "ancient catastrophe", and I dislike your referring to it that way. It might be time for a visit for you, your children, and grandchildren, to the Holocaust Museum in DC.
5
Apparently there are very few citizens aware of our nation's very dominant nuclear and military might: 7,600 nuke warheads, ICBMs,nuclear subs, largest numbers of aircraft carriers, largest combat Air Force; this compared to Iran's is almost laughable - USA could give Iran 50 nukes and still obliterate them - foes of this deal just managed to instill impotence - This may actually cut down much of GOP's war fever, but I doubt it.
7
War fever? Our nuclear arsenal was built up over decades by several administrations from both parties, primarily as a deterrent against the Soviets. And, it worked. Neither side was going to commit suicide. Can you truly say the same about a nuclear Iran?
3
I guess those cheering the deal failed to notice that the actual compliance steps remain hidden from public view according to The Times. (What, exactly, are they cheering?)
Given that Iran has pretty much made it clear that it has no intention of allowing Westerners, never mind the US, to dictate whether it has a nuclear weapon, compliance is unlikely.
Is there any specialist at this point who believes Iran will comply? The sanctions were the only thing that got Iran to the negotiating table. Why would it return, once its out of compliance, when there is nothing forcing it to?
Given that Iran has pretty much made it clear that it has no intention of allowing Westerners, never mind the US, to dictate whether it has a nuclear weapon, compliance is unlikely.
Is there any specialist at this point who believes Iran will comply? The sanctions were the only thing that got Iran to the negotiating table. Why would it return, once its out of compliance, when there is nothing forcing it to?
20
@AACNY
Why do you always have to lie when it's so easy to disprove your assertions? There are numerous "Specialists" military and scientific in the US and Europe who believe Iran will comply with the deal. And are you too obtuse to understand that if the US withdrew from the deal the sanctions regime (which you claim is the solution) would collapse.
Why do you always have to lie when it's so easy to disprove your assertions? There are numerous "Specialists" military and scientific in the US and Europe who believe Iran will comply with the deal. And are you too obtuse to understand that if the US withdrew from the deal the sanctions regime (which you claim is the solution) would collapse.
5
@AACNY
Dempsey a specialist?
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/outgoing-joint-chiefs-chairman-dempsey-of...
Dempsey a specialist?
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/outgoing-joint-chiefs-chairman-dempsey-of...
2
AACNY, Perhaps you are unaware. The part that remains hidden are the dealings between Iran and the UN International Atomic Energy Agency. This is so that national secrets are reported to the Agency (which monitors compliance) and do not become public. This is the arrangement with all countries of the world. If the dealings with Iran were to become public then all of the secret nuclear plans and arrangements of our OWN government would also have to become public. Would you prefer that? And you miss the point or likely have not read the agreement. Our country has pretty sophisticated means of detecting compliance. If Iran is out of compliance the sanctions will return. And US military action is always available.
9
So. Americans chose the US over Israel Isn't that normal for a change? So maybe we can be less racist and bigoted in the Middle East in the future. Maybe?
13
The self centered, cynical chicanery of Republican opposition to this treaty has NOTHING to do with the accord. It has EVERYTHING to do with electoral politics. Those polioticians will say and do anything to be reelected including opposing this accord that, in fact, postpones and hopefully avoids another Bush/Cheney utterly insane Iraq War. That was and remains the only option for politicians ready to send more Americans to die so they can be reelected as patriots who defend democracy and world peace. The reality that those soldiers were and will continue to be predominantly from the underclass. They were exploited and slaughtered to support Republican braggadocio and patriotic posturing to secure reelection. They are cynical bullies who would rather fight than talk through an accord that offers meaningful opportunities to scrutinize Iran's nuclear program. God Bless Obama for standing up for reason, diplomacy and mature well measured responses to this rhetoric. Obama stands for a sane and stable America using adroit diplomacy to avert tragedy. We should support him passionately.
18
Are you making the claim that without this deal we would be at war with Iran. Aside from Obama claiming this how do you get there. ould Iran declare war on us? We would declare war in Iran? Obama promised Iran would not get nuclear weapons and then he signed an accord that guaranteed that they will. It is an accord that allows the Iranians to do their own inspections. It is an accord with several secret side deals. And all this and the sanctions were working. Why not leave the sanctions in place?
6
If Iran says no to a stronger agreement, what other choice do we have? Yes, war is the only other option. Sanctions wont work because the rest of the world't countries are about to lift sanctions anyway.
This agreement in no way guarantees that Iran will make a weapon. In fact, no accord would guarantee that as we have seen Iran working toward one in the years we refused to negotiate with it.
This agreement in no way guarantees that Iran will make a weapon. In fact, no accord would guarantee that as we have seen Iran working toward one in the years we refused to negotiate with it.
"We would declare war in Iran?"
It's pretty apparent that several of the Republican presidential candidates are promising war and several sitting senators are champing at the bit for us to cease all negotiations and to invade Iran as a means of destroying whatever the Iranians have stockpiled.
"Why not leave the sanctions in place?"
Even if we wanted to continue to impose sanctions, none of the other partners to the treaty, including the European nations involved, would stand with us at this point, given all of the work they've contributed to the treaty, their individual economic situations, and their growing unease with the way the Republicans are behaving as an opposition party. We may be a strong power but we are interwoven into a world economy from which we would basically be trying to extricate ourselves from, not sure where that would be an advantage for us.
I am disturbed not only by the strong suspicious tone of the Republicans bitter reaction to their loss on this, insinuating that Obama is practically acting in treason, but also by Sen Schumer who considers the Democratic support to be one of 'conscience' and not one of practicality, as if support represents a white flag. Nobody wants Iran to become a nuclear power - the only difference is how each side believes that can be achieved. But to hear the opposition, one would conclude that Obama is deliberately working on behalf of those in Iran who want to acquire it.
It's pretty apparent that several of the Republican presidential candidates are promising war and several sitting senators are champing at the bit for us to cease all negotiations and to invade Iran as a means of destroying whatever the Iranians have stockpiled.
"Why not leave the sanctions in place?"
Even if we wanted to continue to impose sanctions, none of the other partners to the treaty, including the European nations involved, would stand with us at this point, given all of the work they've contributed to the treaty, their individual economic situations, and their growing unease with the way the Republicans are behaving as an opposition party. We may be a strong power but we are interwoven into a world economy from which we would basically be trying to extricate ourselves from, not sure where that would be an advantage for us.
I am disturbed not only by the strong suspicious tone of the Republicans bitter reaction to their loss on this, insinuating that Obama is practically acting in treason, but also by Sen Schumer who considers the Democratic support to be one of 'conscience' and not one of practicality, as if support represents a white flag. Nobody wants Iran to become a nuclear power - the only difference is how each side believes that can be achieved. But to hear the opposition, one would conclude that Obama is deliberately working on behalf of those in Iran who want to acquire it.
1
Senator McConnell once again you embarrass your constituents and yourself by vowing to hold another futile vote in order to salve your ego. This agreement is a positive for this country and the people of the globe. It is another step toward deescalating conflict in the Middle East. If you haven't noticed there is an epic refugee crisis unfolding in Europe and the Middle East that has resulted in part from the same type of confrontational pigheadedness exhibited by those opposed to this agreement. In the meantime Federal Spending authorization needs to be approved before October 1st and a minority of very juvenile GOP Congressmen want to disrupt the funding process over an ideological hissy-fit that aims to defund critical family planning services for Women, based on some less than credible videos. Concentrate your efforts on getting the funding bills passed and stop the petty nonsense. The dysfunctional manner in which the GOP led Congress approves Federal Spending saves nothing. It does however cause disruption and billions to rectify such uncertainty and shutdowns that resul.
8
RE "Senator McConnell once again you embarrass your constituents and yourself by vowing to hold another futile vote in order to salve your ego"
The real shameful part is the cost in terms of blood and guts by the war vets who are now being denied adequate coverage for wounds endured in useless wars and assistance in assimilating back into american society thanks to McConnell and his gang of GOP senator thugs who filibusteref vet support bills willy nilly regardless of merit.
The real shameful part is the cost in terms of blood and guts by the war vets who are now being denied adequate coverage for wounds endured in useless wars and assistance in assimilating back into american society thanks to McConnell and his gang of GOP senator thugs who filibusteref vet support bills willy nilly regardless of merit.
3
Excellent op-ed piece about Republicans planning schemes to scuttle the Iran deal down the road.
The Atlantic
September 10, 2015
Can the Next President Repudiate Obama's Iran Agreement?
Marco Rubio says he’d abandon the deal if Congress fails to reject it—and his rhetoric may damage America’s ability to negotiate future accords.
By Bruce Ackerman and David Golove
"Rubio is wrong. If taken seriously, his position would destroy the binding character of America’s commitments to the IMF, the World Bank, NAFTA, and the World Trade Organization. The accords that undergird these institutions, like the Iran agreement, have their foundation in statutes authorizing the president to commit the nation. The Constitution makes these statutes the “supreme law of the land,” binding the country in the same manner as treaties approved by the Senate. The President can no more walk away from them than he can from any other law or treaty."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/can-the-next-preside...
The Atlantic
September 10, 2015
Can the Next President Repudiate Obama's Iran Agreement?
Marco Rubio says he’d abandon the deal if Congress fails to reject it—and his rhetoric may damage America’s ability to negotiate future accords.
By Bruce Ackerman and David Golove
"Rubio is wrong. If taken seriously, his position would destroy the binding character of America’s commitments to the IMF, the World Bank, NAFTA, and the World Trade Organization. The accords that undergird these institutions, like the Iran agreement, have their foundation in statutes authorizing the president to commit the nation. The Constitution makes these statutes the “supreme law of the land,” binding the country in the same manner as treaties approved by the Senate. The President can no more walk away from them than he can from any other law or treaty."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/can-the-next-preside...
7
A) Rubio isn't going to be president and B) the next president isn't going to "go back" on a deal that's been signed by six other nations. What he might do is claim that Iran is cheating, then bomb them into the Stone Age. That's what Bush/Cheney would do. Could this country elect another Bush/Cheney?
2
JimBob,
"Could this country elect another Bush/Cheney? "
Yes- absolutely!
Would anyone believe that an imbecile like Donald Trump could possibly lead the Republican field of presidential contenders at any point in time?
Could a Bush/Cheney Regime be elected and re-elected following Richard Nixon's extraordinarily lengthy record of criminal activity while president?
"Could this country elect another Bush/Cheney? "
Yes- absolutely!
Would anyone believe that an imbecile like Donald Trump could possibly lead the Republican field of presidential contenders at any point in time?
Could a Bush/Cheney Regime be elected and re-elected following Richard Nixon's extraordinarily lengthy record of criminal activity while president?
7
GWB abandoned the agreements Clinton had made with North Korea about nuclear weapons and North Korea subsequently made nuclear weapons.
Ignore a country and it will do what it wants.
Ignore a country and it will do what it wants.
1
The man who proclaimed the Arab Spring now gloats over his Iranian "victory". Ask the folks in Budapest what they think of Obama's grasp of diplomacy.
6
Above this story on the from t page of today's Times was the date Sept. 11. I shuddered at the juxtaposition and the fear that the world has just enabled an even worse disaster in 15 years, if not before.
5
Again, another sea change in the world (Obamacare being another example) without any participation of the opposition party. When running for president in 2008, Mr. Obama promised to be a unifier and operate the most transparent administration in history (the opposite of which occurred), the result that he has achieved is tyranny. Regardless of how one feels about the Iran nuke deal, the achievement happened without consensus, or transparency and should not be lauded.
7
The opposition party's failure to participate is their own fault.
11
Unquestionably we are much better off today than we should have been able to expect we would be, when viewed from the bottom of that deep chasm left by Bush ... an economy in collapse and an unemployment rate hitting 10%.
After 69 months under Obama, the economy is growing at 3.7% annually and unemployment is 5.1% and coming down monthly with 17 months to go.
The GOP gives Obama no credit for a remarkable recovery they have worked doggedly to prevent.
After 69 months under Obama, the economy is growing at 3.7% annually and unemployment is 5.1% and coming down monthly with 17 months to go.
The GOP gives Obama no credit for a remarkable recovery they have worked doggedly to prevent.
4
Saddled with an opposition party that vowed and plotted to oppose anything he proposed, no matter the merits, what do you propose President Obama should have done? Sit back and do nothing for 8 years?
4
These same people that voted to support this president will act shocked when Iran launches a nuke and destroys an entire U.S. carrier group.
Remember this vote!!!!!
Remember this vote!!!!!
10
Does anyone really believe Iran wants to start WWIII? it would be suicide, and everybody knows it.
11
z'These same people that voted to support this president will act shocked when Iran launches a nuke and destroys an entire U.S. carrier group. "
Should that happen, we can hope that the US president would not hesitate to launch a full blown nuclear strike that would completely destroy Iran. Unfortunately, I can not see our Dear Leader Obama, or someone like him, having the guts to give the launch order.
Should that happen, we can hope that the US president would not hesitate to launch a full blown nuclear strike that would completely destroy Iran. Unfortunately, I can not see our Dear Leader Obama, or someone like him, having the guts to give the launch order.
5
The religious fanatics in Iran believe that Allah will protect them from any consequences of their actions.
Here's free word of mouth advertising for the NYT:
In today's NYT a news article suggesting that there are some problems with Obama's Iran Deal with regard to how the sanctions work. Obama's promises that the US could just put the sanctions back in place turns out to be another Obama lie.
But don't worry, Obama insists if you like the Iran plan, you can keep it. Period.
In today's NYT a news article suggesting that there are some problems with Obama's Iran Deal with regard to how the sanctions work. Obama's promises that the US could just put the sanctions back in place turns out to be another Obama lie.
But don't worry, Obama insists if you like the Iran plan, you can keep it. Period.
10
DCBarrister:
Obama's supporters don't care whether he lies. Protection requires them to ignore his "mistruths", serial over promising and false narratives, and throw mud at anyone who dares to point out his weaknesses.
He is a weak president and brings out the protective nature in people. So they overlook his deceptive promises.
Obama's supporters don't care whether he lies. Protection requires them to ignore his "mistruths", serial over promising and false narratives, and throw mud at anyone who dares to point out his weaknesses.
He is a weak president and brings out the protective nature in people. So they overlook his deceptive promises.
8
I have never heard an Obama supporter (or Obama) admit that Obama has lied to the American people.
Yet here we are again, with the Iran deal staring down another "if you like your plan" moment with regard to the details of the Iran deal that supposedly Obama promised us included anytime spot inspections (that was a lie) and snapback sanctions (which we learn today in the NYT is a lie).
To force these things past Congress, Obama lies to the American people about what's in them. We have seen this over and over and over again.
Yet here we are again, with the Iran deal staring down another "if you like your plan" moment with regard to the details of the Iran deal that supposedly Obama promised us included anytime spot inspections (that was a lie) and snapback sanctions (which we learn today in the NYT is a lie).
To force these things past Congress, Obama lies to the American people about what's in them. We have seen this over and over and over again.
5
Amazing! The voters have clearly signaled no to war like actions in the Middle East. the opposition's best argument is "get a better deal" without an alternative proposal. Even key Jewish leaders support a negotiated solution. this would be a no brainer but for the fact that it was completed under Obama's watch. Let's get real and recognize that like the ACA this action addresses a significant need as time will tell.
11
The alternative was to not sit down at the table until our captive Americans were released and to keep sanctions in place. PERIOD..
6
"Mr. Obama is likely to go down in history as a rare president whose single biggest foreign policy and domestic achievements were won with no Republican votes... ... the health care law — passed exclusively with Democratic votes — was a policy achievement that has come to define his presidency, in part through the vehemence of its opponents in Congress."
It's not JUST Republicans who oppose the Iran deal and Obamacare. Both measures were opposed -and Obamacare continues to be opposed - by a majority of the American people.
In his imagination, Obama believes he is a gifted persuader, able to get people to see things his way through "soaring oratory." The reality is, he has to rely on brute force to ram things down the public's throat against their will.
When Iran develops nuclear weapons - and they will well before the deal allows them to, will Obama admit his mistake? No, it will be George Bush in reverse: Obama will place all the blame for the bad outcome on his successor.
It's not JUST Republicans who oppose the Iran deal and Obamacare. Both measures were opposed -and Obamacare continues to be opposed - by a majority of the American people.
In his imagination, Obama believes he is a gifted persuader, able to get people to see things his way through "soaring oratory." The reality is, he has to rely on brute force to ram things down the public's throat against their will.
When Iran develops nuclear weapons - and they will well before the deal allows them to, will Obama admit his mistake? No, it will be George Bush in reverse: Obama will place all the blame for the bad outcome on his successor.
9
When did GWB ever admit the worst foreign policy decision in US, invading Iraq, was a mistake? He denied it. On video tape.
4
The worst foreign policy decision was Vietnam. Then Iraq. Then Afghanistan (the good war), the Libya and now Isis.
6
Bush had a bipartisan majority, obama had enough to filibuster the majority's wishes.
3
It is endlessly amazing to me that the Republicans; that august body that gives us the likes of Perry, Cruz, Trump, Rubio and Walker to name but a few, sincerely believes they can out-negotiate the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China collectively.
9
It's endlessly amazing to me that people such as yourself think you can deal with a country that continues to call for the death of America and Israel while sitting at the negotiations table.
How did out monitoring of North Korea work out?
How did the monitoring of the Saddam regime work out? When they would simply turn inspectors away and continually violated the agreements?
How did our agreements with the old USSR work out?
Russia, China, and France want the sanctions dropped so they can trade with Iran. Russia and China want to sell them weapons.
I wouldn't put all my chips on Britain's negotiation skills after the war to end all wars.... check with Czechoslovakia on that deal.
How did out monitoring of North Korea work out?
How did the monitoring of the Saddam regime work out? When they would simply turn inspectors away and continually violated the agreements?
How did our agreements with the old USSR work out?
Russia, China, and France want the sanctions dropped so they can trade with Iran. Russia and China want to sell them weapons.
I wouldn't put all my chips on Britain's negotiation skills after the war to end all wars.... check with Czechoslovakia on that deal.
6
OK, besides avoiding another (avoidable) shooting war in the Middle East with all its consequential " Unknown, Unknowns", the US agreement with Iran provides time and momentum for the progressive Green movement in Iran to flower. The Arab Spring should have demonstrated to the most die hard militarist in the US (and even Isreal) that there is a huge urning in that part of the world for a more participatory form of government in even the most repressive and authoritiarian countries there. Grand Ayottollah Khamanie's recent statement , immediately following the recent US Senate vote for the Accord, expressing fear and anger that the nuclear agreement with the US may bring with it an opportunity of greater contamination amoung his own young people with "Decadent " western ideas and aspirations, is in fact a tact admission of that urning and (underlying unrest) amoung the Irianian people.
6
There is already a shooting war and we are involved in it. Not enough to make a difference, but we are certainly involved.
1
Here's a statement that's half right, and half dead wrong:
"The Majority of people in this country oppose the deal. Democrats will pay for this."
I haven't seen any polls, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that most Americans oppose the Iran deal. It will surprise me greatly, however, if polls show the same result a year from now.
The Democrats (at least those who supported the deal) won't "pay for this." I doubt they'll get much upside credit when (as I predict) things go well with this deal. But they certainly won't get any downside blame, since there won't be any downside blame to assign: This is a good deal, and that will become more and more apparent as time passes.
"The Majority of people in this country oppose the deal. Democrats will pay for this."
I haven't seen any polls, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that most Americans oppose the Iran deal. It will surprise me greatly, however, if polls show the same result a year from now.
The Democrats (at least those who supported the deal) won't "pay for this." I doubt they'll get much upside credit when (as I predict) things go well with this deal. But they certainly won't get any downside blame, since there won't be any downside blame to assign: This is a good deal, and that will become more and more apparent as time passes.
9
"As Congress prepares to vote on the Iran nuclear agreement, public support for the deal has declined. Currently, just 21% approve of the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program reached between the United States, Iran and other nations. Nearly half (49%) disapprove of the agreement, while three-in-ten (30%) offer no opinion."
http://www.people-press.org/2015/09/08/support-for-iran-nuclear-agreemen...
From a poll this Spring:
"Fifty-three percent of Americans say the agreement will be not very or not all effective in preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, including more than three in four Republicans and half of independents. Most Democrats are optimistic that the deal will be at least somewhat effective.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-more-americans-disapprove-than...
Now you can't say that you haven't seen any polls.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/09/08/support-for-iran-nuclear-agreemen...
From a poll this Spring:
"Fifty-three percent of Americans say the agreement will be not very or not all effective in preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, including more than three in four Republicans and half of independents. Most Democrats are optimistic that the deal will be at least somewhat effective.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-more-americans-disapprove-than...
Now you can't say that you haven't seen any polls.
1
Yep, because nothing is more "apparent" on how good a deal it is, when you have a #MushroomCloud over US Soil.
1
I dislike the title of this article: everything is couched in terms of who wins, who loses. That is one reason why we lose focus on finding the best solution and instead make these decisions all about politics. The media is partly to blame for focusing on the politics and on the win/lose perspective. You can do better, NYT, to lift the discussion.
9
Absolutely! I have lost my respect for NYT and the manner in which they report significant, world-wide achievements as a Win or a Loss for President Obama. When President Obama was running for office the first time, he was ridiculed for advocating negotiating with Iran as the first step. Remember John McCain's chorus of "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"! I do...and so did the country.
2
Let's not exaggerate what happened here:
"So much for the illusion, based largely on anti-semitism, that American Jews could dictate anything."
AIPAC indeed got rejected this time – call it "anti-semitism" if you like, but I prefer "common sense." But it's premature to count AIPAC out. They'll be around for a long time, sad to say.
"So much for the illusion, based largely on anti-semitism, that American Jews could dictate anything."
AIPAC indeed got rejected this time – call it "anti-semitism" if you like, but I prefer "common sense." But it's premature to count AIPAC out. They'll be around for a long time, sad to say.
5
How surprised we all are to have the Republicans pledge to keep fighting! When have they ever done anything but obstruct, object, and take meaningless votes? It may be unfair, but the pictures in the article seem somehow symbolic: smiles among Democrats - genuine, nice guy smiles (surely Mr. Obama is one of the friendliest looking presidents we have ever had!), while the GOP continue to frown and shake their jowls in perpetual disapproval of almost everything.
5
Yea, how dare those republicans stand up and fight for what they believe in! They should roll over and cave like the Dem's that opposed this agreement..
4
Adults admit defeat after losing a vote, and get on running the country; they don't vow to block everything forever. As so many Republicans were so fond of saying after Bush's election, "Get over it." But one suspects that it is not a matter of principle (other than the principle of Goethe's "spirit that eternally denies"), but of recalcitrance, resentment and the ever-gnawing desire for power. One way ot the other, it's not democracy.
1
Block everything forever? Really? This is the processes our country has set up. If you are unhappy with it, change it or be silent.
Just curious where you stood when Clinton blocked welfare reform until the Republicans got a veto proof majority... then he signed it. Who was wrong? Clinton for dontinually losing, or congress for persisting? Were they behaving like adults? A bit myopic are we?
I hope that I never end up in a fox hole with someone that shares your ideals...
Just curious where you stood when Clinton blocked welfare reform until the Republicans got a veto proof majority... then he signed it. Who was wrong? Clinton for dontinually losing, or congress for persisting? Were they behaving like adults? A bit myopic are we?
I hope that I never end up in a fox hole with someone that shares your ideals...
1
While the Irani is being monitored, one hopes, that with the relief of sanctions and the easement of living in Iran, the Iranian people will bring their government to a secular state over the next ten years, and enjoy a freer life so much that they will separate Church and State for themselves over this period of time. I believe they are sophisticated, intelligent and evolved enough to want to do this.
6
I would like to take that bet and give you 3 to 1 odds.
1
I'll take that bet and go 50 to 1.
1
After demanding and voting 98-1 to allow the Senate to have an up or down vote on the resolution of disapproval, the Senate Democrats showed their true colors by preventing a vote from even taking place. Now when the deal shows its ugly self, and Iran breaks its obligations and also uses the new monies from sanction relief to continue its terroristic ambitions, these same Democrats will be running around yelling that they never voted for the deal. Unbelievable.
6
We can be glad that this is over, cool heads won out and diplomacy proved correct. For the past six years the Republicans have blocked every proposal made by the President, and in spite of this, he has succeeded in obtaining some significant success. Imagine if we had had a bipartisan Congress, how much more would they have accomplished? We dare any Republican to cite the accomplishments of the Republican Congress over the past six years - what legislation has benefited the people, what improvements have been made in our economy? Yes, this deal is finally approved, but we must be vigelent to make sure that Iran follows the agreement.
After all is said, the latest Congressional struggle must serve as an example that voting is important, only two votes was the difference.
After all is said, the latest Congressional struggle must serve as an example that voting is important, only two votes was the difference.
4
Now click your heels together and ask to go home... what a fairy tale.
2
As Will Rogers said, "Never miss a good chance to shut up."
The day Republicans offer any alternative policy to the Iran deal, to the (very successful) ACA, or anything else, perhaps they should have the floor.
Until then, it is anti-Obama all the time for 8 years. That is not measured policy: it is hatred.
The day Republicans offer any alternative policy to the Iran deal, to the (very successful) ACA, or anything else, perhaps they should have the floor.
Until then, it is anti-Obama all the time for 8 years. That is not measured policy: it is hatred.
10
I would suggest it is not hatred at all, but disgust.
1
Republicans did offer an alternative. Impose even stronger sanctions, and negotiate for more favorable terms.
If you got your news from sources other than Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, you'd know this.
If you got your news from sources other than Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, you'd know this.
2
The Obama administration claims the Iran "deal" does not require two-thirds Senate approval because it is not a treaty, but a "agreement." However, terms such as "deal," "agreement," and "arrangement" are synonyms for "treaty." The Supreme Court should rule on the issue of whether using a synonym for the word "treaty" negates the Treaty Clause" of the U.S. Constitution.
4
The same Supreme Court that allows Obamacare to exist?
Obama is using a paper thin legal semantics trick.
By calling his amnesty scheme "executive action" instead of an "executive order" he skated by constitutional challenge and impeachment.
By calling the Iran thing a "deal" instead of a treaty, even though it fully functions as a treaty, Obama is avoiding constitutionally mandated Congressional advice and consent.
These mindless, laughable word games, knowing he has the Justice Department and the courts under his thumb are Obama's MO.
Obama is using a paper thin legal semantics trick.
By calling his amnesty scheme "executive action" instead of an "executive order" he skated by constitutional challenge and impeachment.
By calling the Iran thing a "deal" instead of a treaty, even though it fully functions as a treaty, Obama is avoiding constitutionally mandated Congressional advice and consent.
These mindless, laughable word games, knowing he has the Justice Department and the courts under his thumb are Obama's MO.
3
When Obama went to the United Nations he essentially cut Congress out completely. This lack of a vote is just air cover.
Yes, the SCOTUS should decide. They are a lot less vulnerable to his convoluted narratives.
Yes, the SCOTUS should decide. They are a lot less vulnerable to his convoluted narratives.
1
You succinctly point out the most distressing aspect of Obama's desire push through what he wants done, regardless of the legal requirements--skirting the law by not using the correct legal format for the action being taken.
By doing that, he is betting on the people's ignorance of the law--as well as that of the Justice Department and the courts--and acting more like a dictator than the president of a country that was once defined by the rule of law.
Whether one agrees with the subject of what Obama is trying to do, the fact that he, as President of the US, feels he has to circumvent our legal system indicates to me that his primary interest is not the US but in his "legacy." And perhaps more importantly, he has disdain for the American people and our Constitution.
By doing that, he is betting on the people's ignorance of the law--as well as that of the Justice Department and the courts--and acting more like a dictator than the president of a country that was once defined by the rule of law.
Whether one agrees with the subject of what Obama is trying to do, the fact that he, as President of the US, feels he has to circumvent our legal system indicates to me that his primary interest is not the US but in his "legacy." And perhaps more importantly, he has disdain for the American people and our Constitution.
2
What a victory! What a series of triumphs for the Obama administration and loyal Democrats.
What an absolute guarantee that the first 9/11 won't be the last. The next Jihadist terror event will leave a much bigger crater and thus, require a much larger memorial.
As one of the five terrorists promised when he was released in exchange for the invaluable Beau Berghdal, "See you in New York."
What an absolute guarantee that the first 9/11 won't be the last. The next Jihadist terror event will leave a much bigger crater and thus, require a much larger memorial.
As one of the five terrorists promised when he was released in exchange for the invaluable Beau Berghdal, "See you in New York."
7
The irony, for Iran and the president, is that the agreement may actually embolden Israel to take unilateral military action if they see Iran taking any further steps to weaponize.
1
NYT: "Iran’s Supreme Leader Says Israel Won’t Exist in 25 Years"
This is nothing but a symbolic/political statement meaning that Israel will be fully integrated with the norms and way of life in the Middle East. Right now Israel can be compared with West Berlin, surrounded by Russia, during the Cold War and primarily supported by the US. That won't last forever and Iran is jut telling Israel to grow up, become part of the world, and integrate with its neighbors. No Einstein needed here.
This is nothing but a symbolic/political statement meaning that Israel will be fully integrated with the norms and way of life in the Middle East. Right now Israel can be compared with West Berlin, surrounded by Russia, during the Cold War and primarily supported by the US. That won't last forever and Iran is jut telling Israel to grow up, become part of the world, and integrate with its neighbors. No Einstein needed here.
3
NYT: "Iran’s Supreme Leader Says Israel Won’t Exist in 25 Years"
There is a far greater chance that Iran will not exist in 25 years than Israel. Israel has more than enough H-bombs to completely destroy Iran, and possibly the entire Arab world as well, while Iran has yet to develop its own A-bomb.
There is a far greater chance that Iran will not exist in 25 years than Israel. Israel has more than enough H-bombs to completely destroy Iran, and possibly the entire Arab world as well, while Iran has yet to develop its own A-bomb.
1
So on the anniversary of 9/11 we are essentially giving the folks that helped fund and cheer on the terrorists that attacked us a path to a nuclear weapon.
What am I missing here?
What am I missing here?
5
The Wahabi Saudis? The Salafist Sunnis? You're definitely missing something.
5
The gasoline you bought this week is from countries that helped perpetrate 911. Why did you buy gasoline if this means so much? The gasoline you bought was not from Iran as there were sactions.
Can you prove Uran was behind 911?
Can you prove Uran was behind 911?
3
Oh the irony . . . Obama, in search of his legacy, is promoting a deal with the largest state sponsored terrorists on the anniversary of 9/11. God help us.
7
um, no ... that would be our long-time 'ally,' Saudi Arabia. You know, the other Bush brothers.
2
Actually, they handed the American people and the World a victory.
5
A victory for Obama. A Pyrrhic victory for the Democrats who caved to the party, instead of listening to their constituents.
5
The constituents who were fooled into believing Iraq was behind 911, had WMDs and that cutting taxes would create jobs? Those informed constituents?
Uh....they had WMDs,
How does the same party that desperately (and appropriately, mind you) wants to prevent people with expressed violent tendencies from having access to conventional guns in the US fight tooth and nail to get a nuclear gun into the hands of a group of people with expressed (and realized) violent tendencies outside the US.
5
Kudos to Obama... So you pulled it off ...
> You have allowed Iran to have almost any conventional weapons system in 5 Years, if not sooner..
> You managed to allow Iran to buy all the Missile components so that they can have ICBM's in 8 years, if not sooner...
> You managed to allow Iran to support the Assad regime in Syria to the greatest extent...
> You managed to allow Iran to support Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houtis in Yemen...etc.
Wow what an accomplishment ! .., you will definitely have Legacy ... you have definitely earned your Nobel Peace Prize...
Wow Obama ... "You the Man"...
> You have allowed Iran to have almost any conventional weapons system in 5 Years, if not sooner..
> You managed to allow Iran to buy all the Missile components so that they can have ICBM's in 8 years, if not sooner...
> You managed to allow Iran to support the Assad regime in Syria to the greatest extent...
> You managed to allow Iran to support Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houtis in Yemen...etc.
Wow what an accomplishment ! .., you will definitely have Legacy ... you have definitely earned your Nobel Peace Prize...
Wow Obama ... "You the Man"...
8
58 Senators declared their opposition so some would call this a vote of "no confidence." Only 21% of American people support this deal so can we any longer call this administration a republic that represents the people? As the deal is announced, Iran calls America the Great Satan and promises the end of Israel within 25 years. Instead of calling this deal a defeat for AIPAC, elsewhere in this paper, it was a major win for the Iranian Lobby which this paper chooses to ignore. How quickly will Democrats begin to forget their vote for this major capitulation of American foreign policy?
6
"Iranian Lobby" ?..........please explain who this is.
I don't understand those who criticize the treaty with Iran as flawed. In diplomacy, all deals are flawed. I find it frankly incredible for Julian Zelizer, a professor at Princeton, to portray Iran as a 'horrible regime... that shows little signs of reform.' This treaty is not about regime reform. It is about nuclear weapons capability. And for another thing, how many fingers would you need to count the number of horrible regimes that the U.S. blithely enters into agreements with? And where is the much-vaunted "balance" of a truly historical perspective in response to Zelizer's attempt at a considered opinion?
Under discussion here is a vote on international security, yet Mitch McConnell, the Senate's leader, still seems to think his job description is to make President Obama's life as miserable as he can. This story is about an elementary school-level food fight, folks. Cut and paste into Foxed-up News.
Under discussion here is a vote on international security, yet Mitch McConnell, the Senate's leader, still seems to think his job description is to make President Obama's life as miserable as he can. This story is about an elementary school-level food fight, folks. Cut and paste into Foxed-up News.
10
Your first three words sum it up.
Not an Obama fan but I was OK with him talking with Iran on this. I thought it took a lot of guts. But during the course of negotiations, we caved on everything Obama said was important. Getting a deal done became what was important. This is not uncommon in the course of "partner" negotiations, be it between countries or companies. When that happens, not walking away (and trying to start over) always ends badly.
5
Hey, New York Times, enough with the "waning presidency" language. President Obama has 16 months remaining in office, and I expect him to continue racking up an impressive record of achievement as long as he's President. The very story you report here -- reaching an agreement with Iran and getting it through a recalcitrant Congress -- demonstrates that Mr. Obama is still very much on the job. If anything, he's grown more forceful and assertive.
7
It's gratifying to see that the Democrats in the Senate were not hoodwinked into dashing the Iranian deal because of the influence of AIPAC on the Republicans. At least the Democrats have learned something from history: that is, that Israel looks out for Israel ONLY. Take the war with Iraq as an example. The Republicans formed a war propaganda machine in this country advocating a war with Iraq based partly on false intelligence provided by Israel. We know the outcome: the US suffered tremendous loss of life and fortune as a result of that war and we still don't know what Israel has lost. I'm more concerned with organizations like AIPAC, who spend millions to influence American policy when in reality that policy benefits Israel ONLY and not the US. Israel has many enemies, not all of which are our enemies. For instance, Iran. Diplomacy was the best alternative to war and we all hope for the sake of world peace that it will work.
6
Victory to Obama? To rehabilitate the foremost terrorist state in the world and bring them into the community of nations with multi-billion $ bribes to put off their nuclear breakout for 15 years (if they adhere)? That is victory?
Ir is a deep body blow to the future of Western civilization. Unwilling to put the use of credible force on the table now for a conventional military action, the Administration is inviting nuclear war later, on someone else's watch, creating a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and guaranteeing stepped up Iranian aggression and killings of Israeli Jews and Arabs now. That is victory?
Democratic Senators should be ashamed of themselves not even to allow a vote on the major issue of our day, to vote for their party over their country and Western civilization.
Ir is a deep body blow to the future of Western civilization. Unwilling to put the use of credible force on the table now for a conventional military action, the Administration is inviting nuclear war later, on someone else's watch, creating a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and guaranteeing stepped up Iranian aggression and killings of Israeli Jews and Arabs now. That is victory?
Democratic Senators should be ashamed of themselves not even to allow a vote on the major issue of our day, to vote for their party over their country and Western civilization.
7
I wouldn't be so quick to declare "victory" for Obama or the diminishment of AIPAC, other rightwing opponents, chickenhawks and Iran demonizers in Congress.
As noted in the article, Bibi and his minions can count on those same allies in the House and Senate to do everything possible to delay or otherwise interfere with the implementation of the agreement. With the 2016 elections in full horse-race mode, the GOP, aided by the likes of funders such as Sheldon Adelson, will use Iran to hopefully affect the Jewish vote. Expect another visit from Bibi before November 2016. Maybe two.
That Schumer called his vote one of conscience is beyond laughable. He's now in his usual suck-up mode to keep his path open to succeed Harry Reid.
As noted in the article, Bibi and his minions can count on those same allies in the House and Senate to do everything possible to delay or otherwise interfere with the implementation of the agreement. With the 2016 elections in full horse-race mode, the GOP, aided by the likes of funders such as Sheldon Adelson, will use Iran to hopefully affect the Jewish vote. Expect another visit from Bibi before November 2016. Maybe two.
That Schumer called his vote one of conscience is beyond laughable. He's now in his usual suck-up mode to keep his path open to succeed Harry Reid.
5
Only thing remaining is for Obama to join the Ayatollahs in a "death to America" victory parade.
7
How absurd. This country can't even protect the borders in Arizona and Texas.
and to suggest the U.S. will monitor Iran's nuclear progress is absurd. Obama fooled the Jewish people in 2008 and 2012. Now he'll drop the next shoe on the Jewish people when he dumps the Palestinian problem into the U.N.
and to suggest the U.S. will monitor Iran's nuclear progress is absurd. Obama fooled the Jewish people in 2008 and 2012. Now he'll drop the next shoe on the Jewish people when he dumps the Palestinian problem into the U.N.
5
I am thrilled by this deal being done. No longer the tail wagging the dog. AIPAC put in their place yet again. PRICELESS
7
JYNX:
Nothing captures blind support for Obama better than your comment. It's all about the weak president finally showing strength and/or winning, right?
Nothing captures blind support for Obama better than your comment. It's all about the weak president finally showing strength and/or winning, right?
2
The Majority of people in this country oppose the deal. Democrats will pay for this.
6
I am delighted that President Obama has broken the chokehold of AIPAC and its Republican puppies in Congress in getting the nuclear agreement with Iran. My thanks to the 42 Democratic Senators who had the courage to ignore the blatant and non-stop threats from the big-money lobbyists, and stood-up to protect US national interests, and stop a right-wing cabal to orchestrate another war in the mid-east by 2017. Let us stand guard against the assault on our democratic rights and prevent a Republican victory in the2016 Presidential election.
1
The Republican strategy to continue to have votes on policies that have become law (ACA) or international agreements which have not been "disapproved" is odd, but consistent. This focus on denying reality over and over again while hoping for a different result explains many of the ideas in the Republican platform(s) used by Republican candidates.
It is the same strategy used by Republican candidates who repeat "I am not a scientist or I am not a doctor or I am not an economist" to voters in gerrymandered districts who apparently only care that their candidates are "Republican" however outrageous their policies or statements are.
I am grateful to the Democratic senators such as Bill Nelson, Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar who understand the agreement reached with Iran does make the US and the world safer. I am even more grateful to the voters who elected the Democratic senators who choose diplomacy over the military actions Sen. Graham--with the less than courageous support of Sen. Schumer--would have threatened with Iran.
The elections of 2016 will be fought over many issues; I hope the continual votes demanded by Republican congressional leaders over this successful international agreement preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon encourages Democratic voters to vote. I expect when the GOP congress gets around to re-voting Social Security, Medicare and the elimination of the gold standard, GOP voters will be even more enthralled and Democratic voters will vote.
It is the same strategy used by Republican candidates who repeat "I am not a scientist or I am not a doctor or I am not an economist" to voters in gerrymandered districts who apparently only care that their candidates are "Republican" however outrageous their policies or statements are.
I am grateful to the Democratic senators such as Bill Nelson, Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar who understand the agreement reached with Iran does make the US and the world safer. I am even more grateful to the voters who elected the Democratic senators who choose diplomacy over the military actions Sen. Graham--with the less than courageous support of Sen. Schumer--would have threatened with Iran.
The elections of 2016 will be fought over many issues; I hope the continual votes demanded by Republican congressional leaders over this successful international agreement preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon encourages Democratic voters to vote. I expect when the GOP congress gets around to re-voting Social Security, Medicare and the elimination of the gold standard, GOP voters will be even more enthralled and Democratic voters will vote.
7
If this thing goes South, it will be the defining element of the Obama presidency...even more so than Obamacare since the stakes are so much higher and the implications of failure so onerous.
3
Despite the fact that I laud President Obama for negotiating a "good deal", this is another political exercise in futility because it will take years to determine if it is a success or failure. I say this because I don't think Iran is that stupid to violate the agreement in the short term as it would lead to greater sanctions and possible military conflict. In the meantime, the GOP will relentlessly criticize the deal and verbally crucify President Obama and those who supported the deal. When the final outcome can be determined, it will be politically irrelevant, as is the case today where "President Chaney" is unsuccessfully trying to rewrite the history of his greatest victory.
2
Not true, I predict that Iran will break the deal in major ways in the short term, probably in the first six months, certainly within the year. Although the US could reimpose its sanctions, the UN would have to vote on it, and China and Russia will never, ever vote to reimpose them.
If this were a treaty, as the Founders would have required, it would be soundly rejected.
2
The next step is to see that Chuck Schumer is not the leader of the Democrat caucus.
8
One needs to look at statements by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. As reported in the NYTimes on April 9, “Iran’s Supreme Leader Says Sanctions Must Lift When Nuclear Deal Is Signed.”
On June 23, the NYTimes reported, “He also ruled out any freeze on Iran’s sensitive nuclear enrichment for as long as a decade . . . and repeated his refusal to allow inspections of Iranian military sites.”
Then, just a few days ago, on Sept. 3, at
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/09/khamenei-sanctions-rem...
in his speech to Iran’s Assembly of Experts:
“If on certain matters we compromised and gave concessions on certain issues, it was primarily to remove sanctions. Otherwise what need was there to negotiate? We would have continued our work and . . . [i]n a short time we could have reached 50,000 or 60,000 centrifuges, and continue 20% enrichment.” Further, on the nuclear facilities and components that are to be dismantled or removed, Khamenei said, “If the sanctions are to be suspended, then the actions we are to take will be at the level of suspension, not structural actions on the ground.”
If anybody still wonders what the result of this agreement will be: Just today, he stated, “I'd say (to Israel) that they will not see (the end) of these 25 years.” “God willing, there will be no such thing as a Zionist regime in 25 years.”
Iran has no intention of complying with the words, never mind the intent, of the agreement.
On June 23, the NYTimes reported, “He also ruled out any freeze on Iran’s sensitive nuclear enrichment for as long as a decade . . . and repeated his refusal to allow inspections of Iranian military sites.”
Then, just a few days ago, on Sept. 3, at
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/09/khamenei-sanctions-rem...
in his speech to Iran’s Assembly of Experts:
“If on certain matters we compromised and gave concessions on certain issues, it was primarily to remove sanctions. Otherwise what need was there to negotiate? We would have continued our work and . . . [i]n a short time we could have reached 50,000 or 60,000 centrifuges, and continue 20% enrichment.” Further, on the nuclear facilities and components that are to be dismantled or removed, Khamenei said, “If the sanctions are to be suspended, then the actions we are to take will be at the level of suspension, not structural actions on the ground.”
If anybody still wonders what the result of this agreement will be: Just today, he stated, “I'd say (to Israel) that they will not see (the end) of these 25 years.” “God willing, there will be no such thing as a Zionist regime in 25 years.”
Iran has no intention of complying with the words, never mind the intent, of the agreement.
4
One of the largest concessions Kerry made was in the uranium section. At the beginning of the negotiations, it was made clear that Iran would have to have its enriched uranium removed from the country, to a neutral country. In the end, they were allowed to keep it in their secure facilities and just de-enrich it. All it takes to re-enrich the uranium is add some iron oxide (rust), and you now have active uranium. Unbelievable.
Good or bad? Who knows?
I happen to think it will relieve pressure on US Geopolitics in that region, thus raising the temperature for Russia and the Saudis. Iran is still in some strange Islamic narrative in which progress is demonised. Out of control? Conceivably. They aren't, however, a failed state and still have to play by the rules. Unlike many, they've more of a vested interest in stabilising the region. The Iranian state may never be a partner of the US - yet some of its objectives run alongside those of the US (counter the influence of Russia and the Saudis); with the added bonus of less blood of US citizens shed abroad - well I can see value in that.
Can the politicians make it work?
I happen to think it will relieve pressure on US Geopolitics in that region, thus raising the temperature for Russia and the Saudis. Iran is still in some strange Islamic narrative in which progress is demonised. Out of control? Conceivably. They aren't, however, a failed state and still have to play by the rules. Unlike many, they've more of a vested interest in stabilising the region. The Iranian state may never be a partner of the US - yet some of its objectives run alongside those of the US (counter the influence of Russia and the Saudis); with the added bonus of less blood of US citizens shed abroad - well I can see value in that.
Can the politicians make it work?
11
Actually, destabilization in the region is to the Iranian's benefit. Take Iraq for example. With the emergence and success of ISIS, Iraq actually welcomed with open arm Iranian military help, with Iranian weaponry and military personell now on the ground in Iraq. Iran would like nothing better than to have a major presence in Iraq, if not outright run the country. Now they have it.
Iranians are allies of the Russians.
President Obama and the Democratic majority are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Britain, France and Germany. AIPAC and the Republicans would have us turn our backs on our closest allies.
9
Britain, France and Germany are doing what they had to do to protect their aid and trade deals with the United States, which is what Obama had to use to drag them into this horrible deal.
Actually it is pretty funny that those same countries refused to provide substantial military assistance to defeat ISIS, but now that their countries are being over run with refugees, they are now chomping at the bit to defeat this terrorist organization. Just yesterday, France announced major airstrikes will now be undertaken against ISIS. To bad these liberal socialist experiments cannot do a better job of understanding the repurcussions of sitting idly by.
Policies bssed on mutal benefit is stronger than policies based on hygemeny -- a concept that Republilcans, includeing Trump, who were raised by strict parents never really understood.
3
I anxiously await the Times editorial complaining about the abuse of the filibuster process.
4
Iran has achieved remarkable goals.
First, it has been relieved of sanctions which brought it to the verge of collapse.
Second, it will obtain billions to continue and increase its military campaign using conventional weapons with more on order from Russia.
As General Colin Powell noted recently, second-tier countries use the threat of obtaining nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip.
The Ayatollah isn't crazy enough to use a nuke even if his scientists figure out how to build one.
But he employed that stalking horse to recover an amazing victory!
First, it has been relieved of sanctions which brought it to the verge of collapse.
Second, it will obtain billions to continue and increase its military campaign using conventional weapons with more on order from Russia.
As General Colin Powell noted recently, second-tier countries use the threat of obtaining nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip.
The Ayatollah isn't crazy enough to use a nuke even if his scientists figure out how to build one.
But he employed that stalking horse to recover an amazing victory!
2
How is it a "victory" if we don't have a discussion of the pros and cons of the nuclear accord? Especially if there are parts of the deal that are hidden.
I just wish the President would negotiate as hard with our Country's enemies as he does with the Republicans in Congress.
I just wish the President would negotiate as hard with our Country's enemies as he does with the Republicans in Congress.
16
Some of us would argue that the Republicans are our country's enemies.
5
With all the confetti and Obama victory laps, there's still one thing missing.
Exactly what does the USA get in this deal?
Hint: Nothing.
Exactly what does the USA get in this deal?
Hint: Nothing.
5
Hint. If it works, how about no war.
3
If?
So we are risking nuclear war on a global scale for an "if" it works?
Psst...next time we are negotiating to keep Islamic extremists from destroying the world, maybe we need something a tad stronger than an "if".
So we are risking nuclear war on a global scale for an "if" it works?
Psst...next time we are negotiating to keep Islamic extremists from destroying the world, maybe we need something a tad stronger than an "if".
1
It's dreadful to feel like congratulating Democrats for supporting their leader and their party, which is what they're supposed to do, in the first place. Sometimes, I have to agree that so many of them operate like Republican-lite. This is one of the major things they need to fix, in the party. Unity is not to be underestimated, as the Republicans so clearly demonstrate in all, but their drive to oppose every proposal made by our first Black President.
4
Sad to see the great USA go down on bended knees to the vile Iranian regime
Sadder to see so many democrats in Congress having no backbones
This is a sad and awful deal
Sadder to see so many democrats in Congress having no backbones
This is a sad and awful deal
5
"Mr. Obama is likely to go down in history as a rare president whose single biggest foreign policy and domestic achievements were won with no Republican votes, a stark departure from his 2008 campaign that was fueled by the promise of bridging Washington’s yawning partisan divide."
The sad thing here, and the most frustrating for me, is it should have been clear to anyone listening to and watching the Republican Party in 2008, neither President Obama or God himself was going to bridge Washington's yawning partisan divide. You can not reason with irrationality and insanity. Unfortunately President Obama's drive to accomplish that illusionary goal 2009 and after wasted a lot of political capital that could have been spent pushing the reform and progressive proposals he is only now advocating. Sadly Mr. Obama's drive to bridge that partisan divide also gave a cloak of legitimacy to blatant Republican irresponsibility and prevented him from consistently using the presidential pulpit to bring America's attention to that irresponsibility. We will never know, but just maybe the 2010 congressional mid term election would not have been such a disaster and just maybe the Republican Party would be exhibiting more willingness today to compromise for the common good.
The sad thing here, and the most frustrating for me, is it should have been clear to anyone listening to and watching the Republican Party in 2008, neither President Obama or God himself was going to bridge Washington's yawning partisan divide. You can not reason with irrationality and insanity. Unfortunately President Obama's drive to accomplish that illusionary goal 2009 and after wasted a lot of political capital that could have been spent pushing the reform and progressive proposals he is only now advocating. Sadly Mr. Obama's drive to bridge that partisan divide also gave a cloak of legitimacy to blatant Republican irresponsibility and prevented him from consistently using the presidential pulpit to bring America's attention to that irresponsibility. We will never know, but just maybe the 2010 congressional mid term election would not have been such a disaster and just maybe the Republican Party would be exhibiting more willingness today to compromise for the common good.
3
Comment Sen. Mitch McConnelll made in an interview with the National Journal's Major Garrett on Oct. 29, 2010: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
As someone with fond memories of Cambridge from my law school days, allow me to correct you.
Barack Obama was sworn as President of the United States in 2009.
I live in Washington DC, and work on Capitol Hill.
Barack Obama has never, not for a solitary second in office, met with any Republican in Congress, the US Senate or even a Republican voter in America and said "let's compromise, what are the things you would like considered and let's meet in the middle."
That's never. As in never.
It was Obama who made the promises in 2008, and Obama who has failed to keep the promises that six years of irrefutable evidence prove Obama never meant. When you promise something you never meant to deliver on, you're lying.
Barack Obama was sworn as President of the United States in 2009.
I live in Washington DC, and work on Capitol Hill.
Barack Obama has never, not for a solitary second in office, met with any Republican in Congress, the US Senate or even a Republican voter in America and said "let's compromise, what are the things you would like considered and let's meet in the middle."
That's never. As in never.
It was Obama who made the promises in 2008, and Obama who has failed to keep the promises that six years of irrefutable evidence prove Obama never meant. When you promise something you never meant to deliver on, you're lying.
Our form of government, a republic, is also one wherein the delegates to both houses are supposed to represent the will of the people. In the most recent Pew pole on 8 August, at
http://www.people-press.org/2015/09/08/support-for-iran-nuclear-agreemen...
" just 21% approve of the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program . . . Nearly half (49%) disapprove of the agreement, while three-in-ten (30%) offer no opinion." Excluding the no-opinion folks, that's better than 2 to 1 against the agreement.
A technical rule allowed a minority of the House members to overrule the will of the people, as expressed by the votes of the majority.
This is an outrageous use of the filibuster and the rules governing cloture to frustrate the clear wishes of the electorate. I can only hope that the voters remember this denial of their will, and those who violated their constituent’s trust are turned out of office at the earliest opportunity.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/09/08/support-for-iran-nuclear-agreemen...
" just 21% approve of the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program . . . Nearly half (49%) disapprove of the agreement, while three-in-ten (30%) offer no opinion." Excluding the no-opinion folks, that's better than 2 to 1 against the agreement.
A technical rule allowed a minority of the House members to overrule the will of the people, as expressed by the votes of the majority.
This is an outrageous use of the filibuster and the rules governing cloture to frustrate the clear wishes of the electorate. I can only hope that the voters remember this denial of their will, and those who violated their constituent’s trust are turned out of office at the earliest opportunity.
5
At last Obama shows how working for Peace instead of War can be done without AIPAC's paranoid and over the top fabrications infecting foreign policy ! The rest of us will not forget the irresponsible, self centered and demented republican party that has come to represent what is most repulsive in human nature :the barbarian of war, greed, racism,irrationality and exclusion of others.
7
Seeing this headline side by side with our remembering 9/11 was a stark reminder of what damage can be done by our enemies with just a plane.
Iran declares itself our enemy and we lift sanctions, shower it with cash and allow it a clear road to a nuclear bomb. Oh, yes, it will have to wait 10 years - if, when they are busily inspecting themselves, they actually do wait 10 years.
In the meantime, a tide of humanity has been released from the Middle East into the Western world for us to shelter, educate, and respect their culture, while our culture continues to be vilified and hated. Remind me again why no country in the Middle East and Africa opened their doors to permanent settlement? - just set up 'camps' for these suffering people? And Christian communities in the Middle East and Africa continue to be brutally attacked - but we are the Infidels.
To Obama, this is all about politics - winning - and validating the beliefs of his parents. The Western World. The Colonizers. The Aggressors. These are all to be taught a lesson in humanity from the rest of the world. Well, folks, that notion is now a reality.
Iran declares itself our enemy and we lift sanctions, shower it with cash and allow it a clear road to a nuclear bomb. Oh, yes, it will have to wait 10 years - if, when they are busily inspecting themselves, they actually do wait 10 years.
In the meantime, a tide of humanity has been released from the Middle East into the Western world for us to shelter, educate, and respect their culture, while our culture continues to be vilified and hated. Remind me again why no country in the Middle East and Africa opened their doors to permanent settlement? - just set up 'camps' for these suffering people? And Christian communities in the Middle East and Africa continue to be brutally attacked - but we are the Infidels.
To Obama, this is all about politics - winning - and validating the beliefs of his parents. The Western World. The Colonizers. The Aggressors. These are all to be taught a lesson in humanity from the rest of the world. Well, folks, that notion is now a reality.
5
As Hillel said if I'm not for myself who am I , If I am only for myself what am I.
As a proud American Jew, & a lover of the State of Israel, I appeal to my fellow American Jews to toss away our worn out loyalties to the Democratic Party,& become United behind the Republican Nominee & defeat the traitors in our ranks.This is far more than a defeat for Israeli issues, this is a screaming wake up call that our sensitivities are not the concern of the Party I supported my entire life.
As a proud American Jew, & a lover of the State of Israel, I appeal to my fellow American Jews to toss away our worn out loyalties to the Democratic Party,& become United behind the Republican Nominee & defeat the traitors in our ranks.This is far more than a defeat for Israeli issues, this is a screaming wake up call that our sensitivities are not the concern of the Party I supported my entire life.
4
We have, of course, created bad memories among many of the Iranian people by our support for the 1953 coup, our support of the Shah's Savak, our aid to Saddam during the 1980's war, our mistaken downing of an Iranian passenger jet, etc.
The Persian people are not hopelessly internecine, however, as the Iraqis may prove to be. There have been times when many of them have been friends of America.
This deal strengthens the possibility that, ten years from now, Iran will have a more secular government and the Iranian people will once again see the United States and its government as friends.
The Persian people are not hopelessly internecine, however, as the Iraqis may prove to be. There have been times when many of them have been friends of America.
This deal strengthens the possibility that, ten years from now, Iran will have a more secular government and the Iranian people will once again see the United States and its government as friends.
7
Obama on Obamacare: Trust me.
Obama on Bergdahl: Trust me.
Obama on Syria: Trust me.
Obama on ISIS: Trust me.
Obama on Iran: Trust me.
What's the definition of insanity again?
Obama on Bergdahl: Trust me.
Obama on Syria: Trust me.
Obama on ISIS: Trust me.
Obama on Iran: Trust me.
What's the definition of insanity again?
7
It's great for Obama personally that the Democrats handed him a victory and he looks like he is pretty proud of himself. The more important issue however is whether the Democrats have handed America a victory. We are told the Iranians have a "break out" capability of six months but that if Iran abides by the agreement they will not have a nuke within the next 15 years. Diplomacy is great when the parties to the agreement operate in good faith or when there is at least some ability to monitor one another's compliance. I am not seeing much on either of these fronts with this diplomatic effort. I may be a pessimist but I see Iran with a nuclear weapon well within the next 15 years so I am not feeling very celebratory on this, the 14th anniversary of 9/11.
1
"I see Iran with a nuclear weapon well within the next 15 years"....Without a deal they could have had a nuclear weapon in 6 months. Even if you are right It is still the better option.
Fairminded Americans should acknowledge the fact that Chuck Schumer, apparently believing most Americans are naive, put some Americans ahead of all Americans.
7
Of all the dirty deals that have weaseled their way through congress, and that number is legion, all those putrid money grabs and back room sleight of hands, none of them, not one of them can hold a candle to this abomination which tarnishes the ideals of this once great country and is a stab in the back to those who have fought so bravely to keep this country safe and secure. It a deal so dishonest it could make the Devil himself blush, all it took to sell out every ideal and core principle this country was built on was 150 billion dollars worth of kickback and money grabs. It is made even more loathsome by the fact that it is signed on the day that commemorates the Anniversary of the attack of September 11 when thousands of Americans were murdered by people who were indoctrinated to think in the same fashion as the ayatollahs of Iran think. today is a sad day for our country and the World.
7
Republicans will do better by suggesting an alternative to the Obama's Iran deal. Sanctions do not work and It has been revealed to be the weaker weapon to deal with non-democratic states. Deal or No deal, Iran can continue with its nuclear program and the fate of Israel will still be in danger.
3
Sanctions do work. You are 180% wrong and have no data to back your make-believe assertion. My data point? Sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table. Sanctions were working.
Guess the State of Israel can use all the weaponry and billions of aid we have given them - as well as their own nukes - to defend themselves. Like us, they are an autonomous state. Our military needs a break. Good luck!
1
You can be sure that, within the month, at least 40 of the Pro Deal senators will have forgotten how they voted. In the Executive, it will take a bit longer, until early 2017 for the thrill to fade!
3
Couldn't even get 4 of our citizens released from an Iranian hell hole - we will not forget which Senators left them there. See you at the ballot box!
7
To the skeptics and fearful: Iran has never invaded a foreign country and present day Iran is not analogous to 1930s Nazi Germany. It's also useful to remember how a harsh economic posture towards Germany helped create the environment for Nazism to flourish. We shouldn't make the same mistake with Iran. We need Iran in our struggle against ISIS and the best way for Israel to protect itself is to engage diplomatically. Of course this approach won't suit politicians like Netanyahu who want to pose as the great "protectors" against existential threats. Kudos to Obama and Kerry for not taking the bait and pursuing the higher ground.
13
Without this successful diplomacy, we would have no ground to stand on as we try to get these people released. Now we can move on to other diplomatic concerns. You can't throw the kitchen sink into a eal meant to resolve just one problem.
You make too much sense. "No GOP nomination for you!"
" Iran has never invaded a foreign country "
Technically that is not true. Under international law, the US embassy in Teheran was sovereign US territory and it was invaded by Iran.
Technically that is not true. Under international law, the US embassy in Teheran was sovereign US territory and it was invaded by Iran.
Now we read in the NYT that there's some question as to the promises Obama made about the sanctions. We learned 2 weeks ago that Obama's promise that the US had snap inspections and could go in at any time was a lie.
Now we learn Iran, Russia and China hold veto votes over snapback sanctions and Iran can flat out refuse the inspections completely.
Another Obamacare style scam rushed through by the WH.
Now we learn Iran, Russia and China hold veto votes over snapback sanctions and Iran can flat out refuse the inspections completely.
Another Obamacare style scam rushed through by the WH.
6
Which country could dare to use nuclear bombs against another country without being annihilated? Especially countries which do not have higher technology like Iran? Why this fear?
3
The whole thing depends on what Iran is. Is Iran an ordinary nation like most other nations? N. Korea comes to mind as an exception. Or is it a nation whose leaders are obsessed with bringing the end of days, and don't really function with a calculus of self-interest that guides other nations? Iran's rhetoric would suggest something of the latter. Its current involvement in war in Yemen, in the country formerly known as Iraq, in the country formerly known as Syria, with its supply lines extending to Hezbullah and Hamas, it being the greatest state sponsor of terrorism in the world--these things would suggest the latter.
This is the gamble that Obama and Europe took. We will essentially capitulate to Iran on the assumption that this will help moderate their terrible behavior.
This is the gamble that Obama and Europe took. We will essentially capitulate to Iran on the assumption that this will help moderate their terrible behavior.
The fake outrage is laughable. Democrats who support Israel and voted for the deal got guarantees of more military aid to Israel. The deal opens trade to US arms dealers to exchange weapons for oil to Iran so we can arm both sides in the Sunni, Shia civil war in exchange for oil as needed.
Now if we could just elect a pacifist President and Congress this deal might actually do something positive. Reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation and reduce the threat of war.
This has been a clear win for Israel and US arms dealers. Even Bibi knows when to shut up and accept victory.
Now if we could just elect a pacifist President and Congress this deal might actually do something positive. Reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation and reduce the threat of war.
This has been a clear win for Israel and US arms dealers. Even Bibi knows when to shut up and accept victory.
2
I think it is wrong that the Democrats did not allow an up or down vote on the Iran Deal.
5
Senator McConnell should have executed the Nuclear Option and force every Senator to go on record as opposing or supporting the Iran Deal. He is a spineless coward who couldn't even follow the path the Harry Reid blazed before him.
The Republicans' lock-step opposition to this president makes his achievements even more remarkable. The Party of "No" has refused to negotiate on most of the major issues Obama has faced, making a mockery of the Senate's constitutional duty to "advise and consent" on issues of foreign policy. Mr. O'Connell will be remembered as one of the most feckless Senate leaders in our history, a description he richly deserves. His intransigence should not go unacknowledged.
13
Comment Sen. Mitch McConnelll made in an interview with the National Journal's Major Garrett on Oct. 29, 2010: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
I am extremely proud of President Obama and also to Secretary Kerry and all members of the administration who labored to fashion and pass this accord.
I feel that sanity has won out after so many years of reflexive violence and belligerence primarily fostered by the Republican party. The fact that our conservatives only see the world in terms of smashing and bombing what they don't like proves- yet again- how unfit they are to lead on the national and international stage. That they are angered by President Obama's peaceful resolution shows that this was the right thing to do, given how colossally wrong they have been in the past.
I am glad that intelligence, negotiation, diplomacy, and peace have won out. We will accomplish much more in the long run by engaging the citizens of Iran - culturally, individually, diplomatically- than conflict ever could. Our President deserves our congratulations.
I feel that sanity has won out after so many years of reflexive violence and belligerence primarily fostered by the Republican party. The fact that our conservatives only see the world in terms of smashing and bombing what they don't like proves- yet again- how unfit they are to lead on the national and international stage. That they are angered by President Obama's peaceful resolution shows that this was the right thing to do, given how colossally wrong they have been in the past.
I am glad that intelligence, negotiation, diplomacy, and peace have won out. We will accomplish much more in the long run by engaging the citizens of Iran - culturally, individually, diplomatically- than conflict ever could. Our President deserves our congratulations.
14
In response to PE who said of President Obama, "No one before him has had to deal with an up hill battle like this." In fact, FDR had the same kind of battles with the same top 1% global financial elite when they brought the world to it's knees in 1929 with unfettered, predatory, greedy-beyond-belief capitalism. However, the difference is that FDR was one of the wealthiest people in the world - BIG democracy-LOVING money. President Obama has achieved these victories for the American people through sheer courage, intelligence, tenacity and determination. WE hit the jackpot with President Obama!
12
The Democrats just saved the Republicans from themselves by cutting of debate on the Iran nuclear deal. They also saved Israel from Netanyahu and company.
7
Look below at all the things this horrible deal requires Iran to do. No wonder Republicans are against it!
"Iran must reduce its large stockpile of low-enriched uranium to no more than 660 pounds from roughly 12 tons today — a 98 percent reduction. To do so, it will almost certainly have to ship fuel out of the country. It must also disassemble and store more than 13,000 centrifuges — it is allowed to have only 5,060 spinning — and convert the underground Fordo nuclear enrichment site to a research-and-development installation. Iran must also remove and disable the core of its heavy water reactor at Arak so that it cannot produce plutonium, another pathway to a bomb. It must also make arrangements for inspections and monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency and begin answering questions about suspected military-related work on nuclear weapons."
"Iran must reduce its large stockpile of low-enriched uranium to no more than 660 pounds from roughly 12 tons today — a 98 percent reduction. To do so, it will almost certainly have to ship fuel out of the country. It must also disassemble and store more than 13,000 centrifuges — it is allowed to have only 5,060 spinning — and convert the underground Fordo nuclear enrichment site to a research-and-development installation. Iran must also remove and disable the core of its heavy water reactor at Arak so that it cannot produce plutonium, another pathway to a bomb. It must also make arrangements for inspections and monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency and begin answering questions about suspected military-related work on nuclear weapons."
6
Terrible, just terrible!
United States National Security versus AIPAC's 30 million dollar Israel first lobbying campaign
US wins.
US wins.
7
Whether intended or not, the photo by Andrew Harnik says it all. Golf decorum, the essential Obama. Now for the the part which this administration never gets quite right, the roll out.
1
Peace is better than war, particularly a war that we are not prepared to fight.
4
The only reason Schumer "sided" with the GOP was because he knew the dems had enough votes. Look at what Chuckie says, it reflects his true feelings on this. For him, it was a power vote.
“Regardless of how one feels about the agreement,” Senator Chuck Schumer, one of four Democrats to vote against Mr. Obama, said on the Senate floor, “fair-minded Americans should acknowledge the president’s strong achievements in combating and containing Iran.”
“Regardless of how one feels about the agreement,” Senator Chuck Schumer, one of four Democrats to vote against Mr. Obama, said on the Senate floor, “fair-minded Americans should acknowledge the president’s strong achievements in combating and containing Iran.”
Finally got rid of that pesky Advice and Consent of the Senate clause, just think of what Nixon and Reagan could have done in the world without that restraint.
4
Our brilliant president wins again, doing the right thing whether the Republicans and their owner-operator Shel Adelson like it or not. The morning after Hillary was dragged, kicking and screaming, into conceding the obvious, that she had simply lost to Obama, Hillary's version of Shel Adelson, Lady Rothschild, went on every network show to tell a breathless world that she was switching her allegiance from a "liberal" Democrat to a right-wing Republican, John McCain, because she didn't "trust" Obama for some reason that dared not speak its name. Lady Rothschild was as right not to trust Obama to fight another proxy war for "regime change" for Israel in Iran as the Nobel Peace Committee was right to trust him to save the world from such AIPAC madness. The Nobel Committee were simply way ahead of the world in seeing the full implications of Obama's presidential victory. He's earned his prize in spades now. Time to give one to Kerry, too. Charles Krauthammer and friends thought they were dealing with another Wilson here, and they were going to be his Lodge nemesis. Good-bye to all that.
6
What a Pyrrhic victory is was! The treaty, to describe it in the most irenic terms, is a disaster, an assault on common sense and by its own highly advertised standards. We were told the choice was the treaty or war. But Iran is already deep in military operations via its proxies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya -- where tomorrow? And its war machine will receive $100 billion dollars to double-down on all its hegemonic projects. There are side agreements dealing with the most sensitive of all matter: the ability of the IAEA's monitors to keep track of developments at Parchin, which the Iranians have declared closed. On top of which Obama, as has been the case throughout his presidency, continued to eviscerate the Constitutional separation of powers, deigning to permit Congressional participation in the farce so long as an outcome favorable to the Administration was guaranteed in advance: and a witless or Machiavellian Corker went along with it. The American people (but after all, who are they?) oppose the deal two to one (only a pathetic 21% support it), and 65% wanted real Congressional approval, something Emperor Obama was unwilling to grant. But it will all come back to bite its authors. The Democrats now own Iran. Its predictably violent misbehavior will be on their heads. It will be a centerpiece of the 2016 election -- when many Democratic Senators will lose their seats for being too loyal or self-delusional or cowardly to stand up to the president.
4
I disagree with Senator Schumer when he says the vote in Congress was a vote of conscience. Representative Corker said basically the same thing over in the House. These words are Congress merely patting itself on the back to look good to America, like they are doing their jobs. Republicans are not doing their jobs at all. In truth, Republicans are sticking to the "Obstruct Obama At All Costs" playbook they wrote at the beginning of this administration (covered here in 2012: http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/the-party-of-no-new-details-on-the-.... Republicans would need to have physiologically different brains than the rest of humanity to have established their 7-year record of block-think, were that record not the result of deliberate marching orders. Nor do Republicans in the US Congress have special intelligence or insight into the meaning of the Iran agreement that trumps not just our Secretary of State and our other diplomatic and scientific experts, but those of the other nations who also helped to forge the agreement. The amazing thing is the sea of bombast and extreme rhetoric on which the Republican party floats its boat in the broad daylight of America watching. Their behavior deserves no reward, especially not that of self-congratulation.
5
Democrats hand victory to Obama over the Iran deal.
Little will we remember and soon we will forget what was done here. However, we will never understand, this real cause of effects to come.
We will blame whoever is in office when Iran floods the market with its oil and gas, but using a non-US reserve currency, helping to drive the value of the dollar down and America into an inflationary economy.
Soon will we forget the reason for Saudi Arabia to purchase nukes from Pakistan and Iran's purchase from Russia. We will forget why missiles are flying all over the Middle East as the world enters WWIII that will seem to start and bring and end all too quick.
This is not a victory, but a calamity that will befall upon us faster that then a speeding bullet. Obama's legacy will be lost in remains of what this one deal will cause to humanity while proclaiming he saved the planet from global warming. When morons presents us with an oxymoron; it is time to stop them from doing their business as usual.
Little will we remember and soon we will forget what was done here. However, we will never understand, this real cause of effects to come.
We will blame whoever is in office when Iran floods the market with its oil and gas, but using a non-US reserve currency, helping to drive the value of the dollar down and America into an inflationary economy.
Soon will we forget the reason for Saudi Arabia to purchase nukes from Pakistan and Iran's purchase from Russia. We will forget why missiles are flying all over the Middle East as the world enters WWIII that will seem to start and bring and end all too quick.
This is not a victory, but a calamity that will befall upon us faster that then a speeding bullet. Obama's legacy will be lost in remains of what this one deal will cause to humanity while proclaiming he saved the planet from global warming. When morons presents us with an oxymoron; it is time to stop them from doing their business as usual.
6
What's Israel's responsibility for the state of affairs in the Middle-East? What was George Bush's responsibility?
It is annoying to have to read critiques of the deal from readers and member of congress, just as with critiques of the Affordable Care Act, etc., that offer nothing at all in any shape or form of an alternative. Invade Iran? Who in their right mind thinks that will turn out well.
It is annoying to have to read critiques of the deal from readers and member of congress, just as with critiques of the Affordable Care Act, etc., that offer nothing at all in any shape or form of an alternative. Invade Iran? Who in their right mind thinks that will turn out well.
1
The cause of sanctions against Iran had nothing to do with nuclear weapons, for Iran can purchase them anytime from Russia or N. Korea. ME events have more to do with who controls the flow of oil and gas through and from the region and the reserved currency is used. The West and its ME allies want to take down Assad’s government and run gas pipelines through it, but before this can happen ISIS must be stopped and it appears that Iran and now Russia will have a role.
We blame the Republicans, Democrats, the current or past Administrations. We also blame the media and journalism for being partisan, but we should mostly blame ourselves. It is urgent for our country’s survival to get off our bandwagon and media propaganda to find better leaders with improved choices.
Because the people, government and its agencies are thoroughly misinformed, misdirected and corrupted. We need laws that will get rid of all of exploitation and purge our system from wrongful influencers who uses government and its agencies out of their greed for power and riches above the interest of our country. Today we must look in different directions to find a better way for transformation to happen. The internet, when properly used can inform, change, organize and unite for what is right for America and the world. This can never happen; if we just go along with the status quo and ignore or attack, anyone who does not follow the prejudices feed to us by news releases.
We blame the Republicans, Democrats, the current or past Administrations. We also blame the media and journalism for being partisan, but we should mostly blame ourselves. It is urgent for our country’s survival to get off our bandwagon and media propaganda to find better leaders with improved choices.
Because the people, government and its agencies are thoroughly misinformed, misdirected and corrupted. We need laws that will get rid of all of exploitation and purge our system from wrongful influencers who uses government and its agencies out of their greed for power and riches above the interest of our country. Today we must look in different directions to find a better way for transformation to happen. The internet, when properly used can inform, change, organize and unite for what is right for America and the world. This can never happen; if we just go along with the status quo and ignore or attack, anyone who does not follow the prejudices feed to us by news releases.
2
At the end of the day, the vote is a reinforcement of Obama's message through out his presidency that debate and diplomacy are the only means by which this issue will be resolved. Winning this vote at the tail end of his presidency is also a reflection of his popularity (even though there were a few in his party who voted against) and the confidence that the rest of the senators have on their ability to succeed in convincing their constituency that this indeed was something that they should support.
7
As an Iranian, I am happy to see that this deal now has a chance to be lived. Lets give it a chance for better dialogue between nations, countries and people with different opinions. Call me naive but I believe that by working together to make this deal works we can have different understanding of each others and change things for the better.
17
I agree. Iranians (Persians) are highly intelligent and civilized peopl. Their vilification is part of the US propaganda machine. If the US made Iran their ally, instead of their enemy, there would be a much better chance for peace in the region. Obama knows what he is doing. Anything else than a diplomatic solution would have meant another war which the US once again could not win.
1
I sincerely believe that history will eventually condemn those who negotiated and voted for this agreement. Their reputations as leaders and citizens will be in tatters. The devil is in the unknown details and side agreements. The nuclear arms race in the middle east is assured.
6
Absolutely correct.
Obama's Iran deal is now official and we STILL don't know the details of what's in it or what it will mean for America's future.
How in the world are we allowing this to happen?
Obama's Iran deal is now official and we STILL don't know the details of what's in it or what it will mean for America's future.
How in the world are we allowing this to happen?
1
Belief is not fact son. Tell me what you would do.
1
Obama promised at the start of these negotiations to dismantle Iran's nuclear program. He made the promise repeatedly when he ran against Romney.
Obama's Iran Deal in no way, shape or form dismantles Iran's nuclear program. If anything it gives them a 150 billion dollar jump on it.
Obama unilaterally ran the car into the ditch, now liberals are asking Republicans what we should've done to avoid going into the ditch.
Obama's Iran Deal in no way, shape or form dismantles Iran's nuclear program. If anything it gives them a 150 billion dollar jump on it.
Obama unilaterally ran the car into the ditch, now liberals are asking Republicans what we should've done to avoid going into the ditch.
1
There wasn't much the republicans could do. This is not a joyous accomplishment, this is a bad deal and Iran will cheat and guess what we won't enforce anything. Bad deal from a weak man.
6
I wish someone would explain the philosophy here. I Truly don't understand how we grant them self inspections. What did we achieve? I very much hope the results are positive but I don't think they will be. Iran has proved to be the instigator for instability in the region and we seem to appease them. Are we so desperate to make a deal that we make the wrong one? And, for this President, his legacy will not be complete until 30 years from now, he will look like a genius or a complete fool. But, from the contemporary results I fear it will be the latter.
6
Cite your source for the "self-inspections" claim. That's straight out of AIPAC's lies and distortions about JCOPA.
We do not have a treaty. We have an executive order that required 2/3 majority to negate. All options are on the table for the next President to undo this if it is in our best interests.
7
The NEXT President will not undo this treaty. Count on it.
1
Mr Obama's presidency proves that even in a Citizen's United world the cream can, at least occasionally, still rise to the top.
16
Love how the story says this, "...a stark departure from his 2008 campaign that was fueled by the promise of bridging Washington’s yawning partisan divide. " without mentioning that the Republicans in the minority at that time had NO interest whatsoever in working with Obama - the only work they wanted to do was to demonize him and make him a one term president. I guess the joke's on them in the end.
22
You're right, Bruce. As former GOP Senator Voinovich has stated and Mitch McConnell ordered, the GOP's sole mission since Obama's first inauguration was to oppose anything with his name connected to it.
This article's reference is just another example of the NY Times repetition of false equivalency GOP talking points. It is symptomatic of how its journalism has diminished over the years. From cheerleading the Iraq War to continuing such shoddy reporting/editing, the Times has eroded its brand and credibility.
This article's reference is just another example of the NY Times repetition of false equivalency GOP talking points. It is symptomatic of how its journalism has diminished over the years. From cheerleading the Iraq War to continuing such shoddy reporting/editing, the Times has eroded its brand and credibility.
Not wasting anytime, Iran has already declared that they will not work with the US on other matters after the deal (read after they get their money) because the US is the Great Satan and enemy.
Another great Obama Legacy that will require future President's to expend lives & treasure to fix. And the Democrats now own this one. Way to Go.
Another great Obama Legacy that will require future President's to expend lives & treasure to fix. And the Democrats now own this one. Way to Go.
10
[[Mr. Obama’s triumph in securing the deal — without the support of a single member of the party now in control of Congress — is refashioning the definition of victory for a waning presidency in the era of divided government.]]
Good Lord!
What's with the "in the era of" and "refashioning the definition" and "a waning presidency"?
Obama lobbied his party members, twisted arms, counted votes and he won.
So, what?
Why does the Times feel the need to frame things in epochal terms?
How does this event refashion anything?
"refashioning the definition of victory for a waning presidency in the era of divided government"
You've smashed three things together and you are wrong on all three.
1. "refashioning the definition of victory" Obama won. Victory. Period. Same definition.
2. "a waning presidency" His presidency isn't "waning." Look up the word.
3. "in THE era of divided government" Are you saying this is the first and only time government has been divided? Or is this only AN era of divided government?
Please don't be lax with your terms and phrases.
I don't want to refashion the definition of my interest in a waning news industry in the era of google news.
Good Lord!
What's with the "in the era of" and "refashioning the definition" and "a waning presidency"?
Obama lobbied his party members, twisted arms, counted votes and he won.
So, what?
Why does the Times feel the need to frame things in epochal terms?
How does this event refashion anything?
"refashioning the definition of victory for a waning presidency in the era of divided government"
You've smashed three things together and you are wrong on all three.
1. "refashioning the definition of victory" Obama won. Victory. Period. Same definition.
2. "a waning presidency" His presidency isn't "waning." Look up the word.
3. "in THE era of divided government" Are you saying this is the first and only time government has been divided? Or is this only AN era of divided government?
Please don't be lax with your terms and phrases.
I don't want to refashion the definition of my interest in a waning news industry in the era of google news.
13
I love you "Third.coast"...(whoever you are).... and consider this one of the all time best comments. This is why I read the NYT comments sections. I, for one, get seduced by these epochal terms because I adore my president and your threshing out of the language here is very appreciated.
It's interesting. The hard line mullahs in Iran don't like the agreement. the Republicans also don't like the agreement. I guess those two sides are not so apart after all.
10
The pen is mightier than the sword!
1
And apparently the Constitution. And US national security. And Christianity. And those of us in America who are concerned about Iran's radical Islamic terrorist funding that Mr. Obama just gave them another 150 billion dollars to continue.
1
Good for Obama, Biden and Kerry! And for all the Senate Democrats who had the good sense and guts to stand with them.
21
Do you give them credit for the start of a Middle East Arms Race too?
1
Senator Schumer belongs Bibi and AIPAC.
In the words of Churchill in lauding the RAF as the Battle Of Britain waned "Never in the history of mankind has so much been owed by so many to so few."
Kerry for president.
Kerry for president.
Finally, giving peace a chance!
11
As far as I am concerned the Iran Deal STINKS!! I want to know ALL of the terms - those we seem know about and those we don't know about, I find it despicable that our legislators do not vote the way their constituents feel but along their party lines - absolutely disgusting. Folks better be concerned about this as I guarantee we are getting the short end of this stick -- shame on this Administration.
4
How can you say definitively that it stinks, and then say you "want to know ALL the terms"--which implies you don't? Are you basing your assessment on what the republican politicians or the people at Fox News tell you?
2
Because what Elizabeth and millions of us in America have learned about the Iran deal stinks.
I don't need to see the entire rotted fish to know it's rotten.
I don't need to see the entire rotted fish to know it's rotten.
1
The future will demonstrate the value of this deal. Like the Jay Treaty did during George Washington's administration. It was hated by the populace but reaped lasting beneficial effects.
3
For a nation that failed to meet our objectives (e.g., "lost") in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, perhaps we should give diplomacy a try.
11
While this has been an agonizingly drawn-out process, the fact that so many have fought so hard for so long to give Iran a chance to prove to the world that they've abandoned their nuclear ambitions would seem to greatly increase the pressure on Iran's leadership to honor the deal and prove all the naysayers wrong. And not just for the next 10 years, but for the foreseeable future if they want to finally graduate from being a shunned 'Evil Empire' to being a respected member of the world community. It seems that they're ready.
And if they're not, they can be sure that the retribution from the betrayed co-signators of this deal -- the most powerful nations on the planet -- will be both swift and mighty. Just like the Republicans and Israels like it.
And if they're not, they can be sure that the retribution from the betrayed co-signators of this deal -- the most powerful nations on the planet -- will be both swift and mighty. Just like the Republicans and Israels like it.
4
A highly controversial foreign policy agenda involving nuclear weapons and a foreign regime with a long history of Anti US activity opposed by a majority of US congressional representatives and US Senators is allowed to move forward because of a clever parlimentary "ju-Jitsu".
The underlying message this administration is sending to the public is "trust us....we are more intelligent and insightful than you. Everything will work out OK in the end "
How's that Healthcare Reform legislation working out ?
The underlying message this administration is sending to the public is "trust us....we are more intelligent and insightful than you. Everything will work out OK in the end "
How's that Healthcare Reform legislation working out ?
6
The healthcare legislation is working out quite well.
2
perfect comment
Great thanks
For nearly seven years,the Republicans have done nothing but denigrate the president, distort the truth, refuse to compromise or engage in sincere debate, or participate in any meaningful way in improving the government. They chose to grandstand (50 meaningless, money-wasting votes on health care), shut down the government, and behave like cry-babies (stunningly stupid letter to the Ayatollah, invite to Netty) when they didn't get their way. But all they accomplished was relugating themselves to the sidelines while the president made, and continues to make, history. His accomplishments have been profound. The GOP has been profoundly disappointing and embarrassing.
19
the prez strong armed the deal like an good lobby would do. It is bogus you have to write a poor bill then ramp it down and into the throat of the people who should be working for the people of the US not the parties of the US. Bogus bill.
4
To all the people looking forward to the Republicans taking the POTUS to court to "force him to hand over all the information of the agreement the USA negotiated with Iran" - understand, the President HAS DONE THIS. The deal between the IAEA and Iran is just that. It was not negotiated between the USA and Iran. Obama can't turn it over because he doesn't have it. And if the Republicans want the IAEA to turn over all information they negotiated regarding the Iranian nuclear program, would they be happy to have the IAEA do the same - and hand over to Iran all the information on America's nuclear program that deals were signed on? You realize much of it is classified secret or top secret? In the end, the courts will side with Obama again and the Republicans will look like idiots - again.
7
I am non-partisan. I was impressed by Charles Schumer's lengthy explanation for his principled, non-partisan opposition to Obama's Iran deal.
The Democrats who support Obama on the Iran deal have displayed the worst aspect of our American party system. They have place partisan concerns above the national security. With his Iran deal, Mr. Obama has betrayed the American people and our ally, Israel. With their partisan support, Democrats in Congress who support Obama on this have betrayed us as well. For their betrayals, I curse them all.
The Democrats who support Obama on the Iran deal have displayed the worst aspect of our American party system. They have place partisan concerns above the national security. With his Iran deal, Mr. Obama has betrayed the American people and our ally, Israel. With their partisan support, Democrats in Congress who support Obama on this have betrayed us as well. For their betrayals, I curse them all.
8
Senator Schumer's conscience and principles always available to the highest bidder. In this case, his AIPAC sponsors lost. Schumer's statements are aimed as keeping the peace in the Dem Senate caucus so he can succeed Harry Reid. Chuck's sole principle is power.
1
Errol – This deal was crafted with 5 other nations, our most important allies. Israel is not our only ally.
2
Shame in Obama and the Senate Democrats. They are simply avoiding the confrontation with Iran that they know will come down the road. Appeasing the radical mullahs who run Iran today only postpones the inevitable. And by then they will have nuclear weapons.
5
"Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, said Thursday that he would force the exact same vote again next week...."
It's as if Congress had nothing else to do besides beating dead horses. I fully expect that next week's vote will include a provision to repeal Obamacare.
It's as if Congress had nothing else to do besides beating dead horses. I fully expect that next week's vote will include a provision to repeal Obamacare.
4
A victory, indeed - congratulations, President Obama!
Yet a moment's thought will reveal Republican opposition has nothing to do with the merits of the Iran deal. Many, many Republicans know that this is precisely the kind of diplomacy that serves US interests and, in private, they are happy for our nation.
The real motivation for Republican opposition is the upcoming presidential election, where the primary process demands absolute opposition to a president whom intemperate Republicans detest, and where the financial support from AIPAC is a glittering prize.
As for intemperance, only the Republican leadership can bring the party to its senses. As for AIPAC, its days are demographically numbered. Soon, J-Street will be the voice of American Jewry, and the US will finally be free from AIPAC's toxic distortions.
Yet a moment's thought will reveal Republican opposition has nothing to do with the merits of the Iran deal. Many, many Republicans know that this is precisely the kind of diplomacy that serves US interests and, in private, they are happy for our nation.
The real motivation for Republican opposition is the upcoming presidential election, where the primary process demands absolute opposition to a president whom intemperate Republicans detest, and where the financial support from AIPAC is a glittering prize.
As for intemperance, only the Republican leadership can bring the party to its senses. As for AIPAC, its days are demographically numbered. Soon, J-Street will be the voice of American Jewry, and the US will finally be free from AIPAC's toxic distortions.
8
Well, now Iran can get on with the business of cheating on the deal, hiding things from inspectors, fomenting worldwide terrorism with the money the US is about to give them, calling the US the great satan at every opportunity, including just days ago by the grand ayatollah, and most importantly, eliminating the state of Israel within 25 years, as announced by the grand ayatollah just days ago.
9
Another piece that blames Obama for the Republican strategy of complete resistance to everything--and that gets history wrong. Bipartisan legislative achievements are few and far between across history. Almost all major policy victories for ordinary people (Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights Act, etc) have been passed on overwhelmingly partisan votes with little or no support from conservatives. These programs only became 'bipartisan' AFTER their passage, when they became popular, indeed essential parts of American life. (And the extremists who run the Republican Party are still bent on rolling back all of these achievements.)
15
When you do the right thing, and President Obama and the major world powers have done the right thing in keeping the nuclear genie in the Middle East bottle, how or where you get the votes will be of little concern to historians. But, peace that brings Iran haltingly into the "community of nations" will be remembered as a major achievement. Whether or not there had been an Iran deal to oppose, the poisonous anti-Obama politics of the Republicans led by Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell will continue to find cause for attack and obstruction. While there may be no peace in Congress, there is more in the world today and for that I am thankful to President Obama and Secretary Kerry and the 42 Democrat Senators who stood with them.
11
To give this deal a chance to work Obama will have to resist the temptation to impose new sanctions, or re-impose those retracted during the implementation of this deal, for reasons other than a clear violation of the treaty by Iran. There is a concerted movement to do just that, and it will appear to be, if not in actuality, a backdoor effort to maintain the same prohibitions on the Iranian economy as the full sanctions. That is dangerous.
10
Problem solved.
Russia and China hold veto authority of re-imposing sanctions on Iran, and since they are Iran's allies, they will use Obama's deal to block sanctions on all fronts.
Another feature of Obama's "if you like your plan" deal with Iran.
Russia and China hold veto authority of re-imposing sanctions on Iran, and since they are Iran's allies, they will use Obama's deal to block sanctions on all fronts.
Another feature of Obama's "if you like your plan" deal with Iran.
Obama finally redeemed his Nobel Peace Prize.
In fact, Kerry just earned a future nomination!
In fact, Kerry just earned a future nomination!
9
My concern revolves around how this government works.
New York and New Jersey have 4 senators from the Democrat Party. The two senior senators oppose and the two junior senators support. Is this what we should expect is a representative democracy?
I pray that this works out. I will not be around to reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of this deal.
Please if it does not work out, make sure we fully take care of our armed forces and not do what has become policy since the Viet Nam War.
New York and New Jersey have 4 senators from the Democrat Party. The two senior senators oppose and the two junior senators support. Is this what we should expect is a representative democracy?
I pray that this works out. I will not be around to reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of this deal.
Please if it does not work out, make sure we fully take care of our armed forces and not do what has become policy since the Viet Nam War.
2
"Representative Patrick Meehan, Republican of Pennsylvania, has introduced legislation — which could reach the House floor next week — prohibiting sanctions relief for Iran unless it pays damages it owes to terrorism victims." Sure, why not, as long as the US pays for the damages of its imperial, terrorist war in Iraq and its creation of the largest refugee crisis since WW II. Indeed, President Cheney and his lapdog Vice President Dubya Bush should be handed some of that "damages" bill.
11
What detractors of the deal don't say is that the military option is always on the table. They also don't acknowledge that we are but one of 6 countries involved in the negotiations who would likely not continue the sanctions. We would have been alone. I for one am glad we used diplomacy this time instead of us involving ourselves (no allies would join us this time) in another costly middle east war.
46
The military option was on the table without the deal.
It wouldn't matter if the US allies Obama extorted using US aid and trade didn't reimpose sanctions. The US sanctions are crippling Iran enough on their own.
Again, non factors that have little to do with the fact that the Iran deal gave Iran everything Iran demanded, and gave the US nothing.
It wouldn't matter if the US allies Obama extorted using US aid and trade didn't reimpose sanctions. The US sanctions are crippling Iran enough on their own.
Again, non factors that have little to do with the fact that the Iran deal gave Iran everything Iran demanded, and gave the US nothing.
2
Being alone is no burden when you are correct. Capitulating to Iran makes the United States just another of the crowd of countries who are too afraid to confront Iran now rather than later.
14
Our only other option to prevent nuclear development in Iran is boots on the ground. Are you prepared to put YOUR boots on the ground in Iran to support that option?
This is a first step in negotiating. There's nothing to prevent further negotiations. Developing a base of trust can create a foundation for the future. But for so many that strategy is just too complicated (or unpredictable) and nuke 'em till they glow is certainly a simple approach.
This is a first step in negotiating. There's nothing to prevent further negotiations. Developing a base of trust can create a foundation for the future. But for so many that strategy is just too complicated (or unpredictable) and nuke 'em till they glow is certainly a simple approach.
1
Long live Peace!
I wonder why Iran would want to use their nuke assuming they got one in 10 years. I am sure they are capable of thinking about them being obliterated and wiped off the map if they did so.
It seems they want to do trade and business with the rest of the world and the closer those interdependencies get they may realize its better to live rather than die.
Kudos to President Obama and the world community.
Sorry war mongers, please pick another country!
I wonder why Iran would want to use their nuke assuming they got one in 10 years. I am sure they are capable of thinking about them being obliterated and wiped off the map if they did so.
It seems they want to do trade and business with the rest of the world and the closer those interdependencies get they may realize its better to live rather than die.
Kudos to President Obama and the world community.
Sorry war mongers, please pick another country!
10
Exactly Hans, There are thousands of foreign business people already in Iran or buying their flights. In 3-4 years, not even 10, there will be mutually profitable trade alliances enhancing the economy and the livelihood of all Iranians. With the surveillance, the man with his finger on the alleged red button will be disseminated before he pulls his jeans up in the morning.
NO , they will not commit suicide.
.
NO , they will not commit suicide.
.
2
Thanks to President Obama, and the democrats who supported it, for this historic and successful lesson in diplomacy. However, this is not a "Obama" victory - it's a victory for the vast majority of Americans who do not want to see us involved in a war with Iran.
7
I was quite enthusiastic about the deal at first. Though I still support it, I wonder how bold will the Iranians become when they realize that true opposition to them can be so easily over-ridden by Democratic political chicanery. Wouldn't it have been more honest to oppose it in Congress and then just allow for the presidential veto?
7
To answer your question we would have to find an honest Democrat in Washington DC.
There are none.
There are none.
"Democratic political chicanery"
There were Democrats who voted against the deal. Why do you think Democrats would never favor reimposing sanctions if there was evidence the Iranians were cheating?
There were Democrats who voted against the deal. Why do you think Democrats would never favor reimposing sanctions if there was evidence the Iranians were cheating?
1
With this procedural vote, the consequences of the nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran will fall squarely on the Obama Administration and not Congress.
6
Now that President Obama's second term is winding down I can honestly say I am glad that I voted for him twice. If only he could run again.
7
GOOD! We have to keep these Republican and some Democrat war mongers in line.
6
When people say this agreement is "deeply flawed" I believe what is meant is we didn't get everything we wanted. However, deeply flawed is a more negative sound byte for the adversaries of the agreement. In negotiations with two independent parties, the goal is to achieve a compromise that both sides can live with. It is not to go in and say we want everything and you get nothing. We used the leverage of the global sanctions to get more than we would have gotten without them. The people who feel a better deal could be achieved by the US going alone without the support of the other nations maintaining sanctions are delusional. I am sure the hardliners in Iran view this agreement as deeply flawed also.
5
We didn't get anything we wanted never mind everything and the hardliners in Iran have been very vocal about their unwillingness to follow this "deal"
1
Is this news or an Op-Ed? On what basis does the author assert that "ipartisan victories tend to be those most celebrated outside of Washington"? In my opinion the opposite is more accurate - it's only in Washington (and in the media), that anybody cares at all about that.
4
This can only be bad for our future. This congression process was counterintuitive to common sense, it wasn't an approval. Anything called a 'deal' isn't the way Treaties should be handled. The Iranians can only be trusted to want to live out their "death to America" desires, nothing else.
8
First of all, it's not a treaty. It's a remarkable agreement between a coalition of countries who agreed -- quite remarkably, given their self interest -- to partner with the President to sanction Iran for its nuclear program. The result is the toughest nuclear inspection regime in history. No other country allows inspections to the degree that Iran will. Secondly, it's a little rich to cry foul over blocking a vote through filibuster. When the Republicans were in the minority under President Obama, they used filibuster threat more than any prior congress. Ever. As to your statement that Iranians can only be trusted to live out "death to Amrrica" desires, I am glad that Nixon didn't succumb to such prejudice of an entire people before he went to China; nor did Reagan when he reached out to The Soviet Union, thus contributing to its breaking apart.
2
Politics aside, I'd rather go to a horse race with Obama. He sure knows how to pick long shots that make it to the finish line. The other side sticks with a lot of loud, tired, old favorites who never seem to win place or show.
7
On September 11th I want to say "Peace in our time."
3
What's dangerous is that these Zionist Republicans support Saudi Arabia which has created and supported more America-hating terrorists than Iran could ever dream of.
9
And the Saudis also give big, big bucks to the Clinton Foundation. Maybe somebody will ask Hillary about that.
1
Excellent news. I wish people in the U.S. would just look at that and realize that the Republicans these days are just there to obstruct, with no responsibility to propose anything better. In this particular case, the only thing the GOP would have to offer is the drumbeat of war.
11
Pyrrhic at best
4
Why?
Thus demonstrating Dr. Carson was right: DC operates with half a brain.
5
I agree. Thank God that the part operating with the half brain got it right!
1
the GOP has lost all pretense of being a loyal opposition. actually, they lost it long ago. to play blatant politics with an issue of this import is prima facia evidence that they are wholly incapable of governing.
11
I think our first goal when it comes to Iran should be a stable Iran. I don't want to see Iran become another Iraq or Syria or Libya or Yemen. I'm also way more concerned about Pakistan having a nuclear weapon than I am about Iran. So, given that I'm most concerned about stability, I think this deal is a double win. Maybe a triple win. If we don't open up trade with Iran now other nations will and we will be left out in the cold.
37
Except Pakistan is not threatening Israel, not saying that we are the great Satan. or practicing attacks on mockups of our aircraft carriers. I think a fractured, broke Iran will be less of a threat to world peace than an unstable regime with the "Sword of Allah".
A "stable Iran" is a contradiction in terms. Americans so often make the arrogant mistake of assuming that everyone else thinks as we do. We have diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc, and they have each sponsored terrorism and killed Americans. We are all infidels, pure and simple, to the leaders of those countries, and that will not change. Try going to "progressive" Dubai, for example, and carrying a bible around with you, or, if a woman, wearing a skirt.
The Iran deal victory had more to due with the merits and common sense of the deal and the likely consequences if it failed more than anything else. Obama should take credit for effectively communicating those positive and logical points.
Those Democrats who voted against it should take stock of their inability see beyond the politics involved and the lobbying efforts of Aipac.
Those Democrats who voted against it should take stock of their inability see beyond the politics involved and the lobbying efforts of Aipac.
5
This entire Iran agreement process exposed the Israel Lobby efforts to undermine our countries interests.
It is time for AIPAC to be registered as a foreign agency operating inside our government without any proper oversight.
It is time for AIPAC to be registered as a foreign agency operating inside our government without any proper oversight.
6
And CAIR?
I have to challenge the headline here: The reason this is important is not because Obama won and AIPAC lost. The reason this is important is that peace won and war lost.
It suggests that we have as a nation learned a valuable lesson from the aftermath of 9/11: Just because we're hearing scary stuff about a country does not mean that we should attack it!
It suggests that we have as a nation learned a valuable lesson from the aftermath of 9/11: Just because we're hearing scary stuff about a country does not mean that we should attack it!
2
And there are still people who are confused about Obama's agenda to bring the United States down?
Unbelievable
Unbelievable
4
I only wish that Obama could stand up to the bullies of Iran as well as he thinks he's standing up to the bullies of the Republican Party. Obama is giving high fives while his Iranian counterpart is denouncing America and threatening That Israel won't exist in 25 years. If this is a victory, I'd hate to see what defeat looks like.
5
I take issue with the journalist's description: "... a stark departure from his (Obama's) 2008 campaign that was fueled by the promise of bridging Washington’s yawning partisan divide." You're not seriously implying that the president broke a campaign promise about bipartisanship when everyone knows that it's the Republicans who have consistently refused to cooperate on anything?
8
While the Republicans choose to look at the snarling Ayatollah as the face of Iran, how many Iranians look at the growling Boehner as true America?
3
100 billion to Iran and our 4 hostages are still being held? That says it all to me about how meed up our priorities are. Why are they forgotten by the media?
7
One would have thought that with the leverage we began with, the hostages would have been freed first thing. Seems the first thing Kerry and Obama did was give up our leverage, i.e., no more sanctions Iran, now let's negotiate. What did we actually get in this deal? We'll probably get bombed by Iran because of this deal -- we just handed them the money to bring "death to America" as they keep chanting they want to do.
When Iranian bombs start dropping on Israel, remember it was the American Democrat Party that created and voted for this dangerous appeasement of the biggest state supporter of terrorism.
5
Why exactly will Iran start bombing Israel? Do you honestly believe Iran is itching to ignite a major conflagration that will set back it back for generations?
That Ayatollah Khamenei believes Israel should not exist does not mean he is willing to sacrifice Iran to achieve that. And if you bothered to listen to the younger Iranian generation you would find they are more pro-US than the Arabs and could not care less about Israel.
That Ayatollah Khamenei believes Israel should not exist does not mean he is willing to sacrifice Iran to achieve that. And if you bothered to listen to the younger Iranian generation you would find they are more pro-US than the Arabs and could not care less about Israel.
2
I think its more likely that Israeli bombs will began dropping on Iran.
1
If Iranian bombs drop on Israel, then Iran will soon cease to exist. I think that even the "Supreme Leader" knows this.
1
"The debate divided Democrats between their loyalties to the president and to their constituents,..."
I hope the Democrat voters see who 'won' and take note that it wasn't them.
I hope the Democrat voters see who 'won' and take note that it wasn't them.
5
I beg to differ. The constituencies of many of the Democrats who voted against the deal have very few Jewish voters.
I'm looking forward to a new dynamic in the Middle East. Congrats to Iranian middle class. Let's hope the predictions of moderation and modernity come to pass. The U.S. sponsored 1953 Iranian coup d'état was obviously not a good idea, created a nightmare of unintended consequences, and hopefully now we can move forward.
5
Schumer is not a leader for one thing he hasn't been appointed to anything. He is not the minority leader and from the looks I am others are getting Elizabeth Warren looks to be the next Majority Leader to take over when we throw the Republicans out of the majority in 2016.
All I can say right now Republicans need to wake up to the fact that every time they spout nonsense the US public sees how uncompromising. at all cost they are.
All I can say right now Republicans need to wake up to the fact that every time they spout nonsense the US public sees how uncompromising. at all cost they are.
2
I think it is completely naive to think that this "deal" will deter Iran's nuclear intentions. This is Chamberlainesque appeasement at its best.
5
Finally a slap in the face of AIPAC and Schumer who sided with the GOP. A timely victory just when the US is struggling with a psychotic foreign policy in the Middle East and needs the help of the only country willing to give it all to defeat ISIS.
5
Kudos to the Democrats, who allow people like Senator Schumer to vote their conscience without excommunicating them from the party. Why any Republican would take pride in the fact that they have consistently voted as a bloc the last 8 years on everything by threatening excommunication from the party is beyond me.
5
Very proud of our President and his Administration. The Right is getting smaller and smaller in the rear view mirror as this country moves forward. And they don't even realize it. Just wish we could have held onto or otherwise kept frozen Iran's billions of $$ as some type of "behavior bond." But the world will indeed be watching them.
5
Democrats hand Iran Victory and Israel a death sentence on Iran deal. We really need to change the rules here. When we have a security situation that affects the lives, as in life and death, of millions of people, and we wish to have a vote on whether or not our law makers think we are about to do or what is being recommended is a good thing or a bad thing, the least we can do is let there be an up or down vote. Not to have a vote on something as significant as this deal with a country who has promised to destroy Israel and chants death to America every day as well as supports terrorist groups to a larger extent than any other country in the world is completely unacceptable in a FREE Society.
5
The Iran deal in this country is all about politics, but the politics is not one-sided. True, virtually all Republican senators opposed the deal, but isn't it also true that virtually all Democratic senators (except three) supported it?
In israel - which has the most to gain or most to lose - all major parties (including the left leaning Labor party) oppose the deal. To Israel, this isn't about politics, it's about survival.
In israel - which has the most to gain or most to lose - all major parties (including the left leaning Labor party) oppose the deal. To Israel, this isn't about politics, it's about survival.
5
President Obama is to be commended for the manner in which he achieved this historic foreign policy accord; the years to come will judge and define the impact on his legacy.
5
"United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China announced the agreement with Iran in July."
Republican "resolution to reject" is their conservative addition to the world's statesmanship? Low bar for the G.O.P. these days.
Republican "resolution to reject" is their conservative addition to the world's statesmanship? Low bar for the G.O.P. these days.
4
Thank goodness Obama and his lawlessness will be gone in a year. Ironically, as Iran becomes more and more bellicose----this treaty will be Obama's legacy.........as the WORST president in our history.
5
"Iran becomes more and more bellicose"
That doesn't make much sense:
- President Hassan Rouhani was elected on a platform of negotiating precisely this kind of agreement and normalizing relations between Iran and the rest of the world.
- The only significant deployment of Iranian military power in recent years has been against ISIS. So to the degree they are belligerent, it's against people who are far worse than Iran has ever been.
That doesn't make much sense:
- President Hassan Rouhani was elected on a platform of negotiating precisely this kind of agreement and normalizing relations between Iran and the rest of the world.
- The only significant deployment of Iranian military power in recent years has been against ISIS. So to the degree they are belligerent, it's against people who are far worse than Iran has ever been.
Unlikely.
No doubt about that. Obama is the worst thing that has ever happened to this country. We will be paying for his idiocy for generations.
2
Obama's victory on his Iran deal is so sweet. The only chance to keep Iran at bay re developing the nuclear bomb for the foreseeable future. If only our President could run for a third term next year. How do we start a movement to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution? Amendments repealing Slavery and Prohibition were instituted, and women given the right to vote, why not allow for a third term for our brilliant President Barack Obama - notwithstanding all obstructionist Republicans whose hatred of him, for 8 years, has grown into a Hydra. The GOP has wanted to make Obama disappear from the White House and the Oval Office - hey, Presto! - and now they have 17 horses - Hobson's Choices, all of them - running for The Presidency next year. The Iran Deal is a victory for peace
6
Diplomacy is certainly preferable to war though I have doubts about the Obama administration's ability to negotiate an acceptable agreement. It is as if the US was the weaker of the two sides in the negotiation process.
Be that as it may, I would have preferred a full debate in the senate on the pluses and minuses of this agreement, something the Democrats appeared to want to avoid at all costs. It is as if they feared the light of day on what the agreement contains and that is not a good sign.
Be that as it may, I would have preferred a full debate in the senate on the pluses and minuses of this agreement, something the Democrats appeared to want to avoid at all costs. It is as if they feared the light of day on what the agreement contains and that is not a good sign.
19
Jefny, it was Bob Corker who teed this whole vote of disapproval thing up in the first place, so don't blame the Dems for a lack of debate. Corker set this up with a hunch that Obama would never get to 34 votes, let alone 42. He still left wiggle room for the GOP to diss the deal whether it was good or bad, and in fact Corker himself wasn't looking for debate, just a lot of GOP hissing and dissing on Fox and AM radio. As far as your "light of day" statement, this deal has been through the political PETscan machine on both left-and-right wing media outlets, so if you don't have a pretty good pro-and-con idea about it, you haven't been paying attention, at least if you have read both sides of the argument.
1
A legitimate debate intended to educate and muster support would have been preferable. Regrettably, under the existing political climate, that likely would never have materialized. Rather, we’d have seen arguments, citing manufactured or distorted facts, designed to support preconceived political agendas. Sadly, the days of honest debate and debaters appear to be long gone.
2
Most people ignore, or are unaware, that the Iranian Nuclear Agreement is not “an American” deal with Iran. It is an International agreement American negotiators helped create in alliance with the other major power brokers of the world. The Iranian government has just as much reason to distrust American and other Western leaders (especially Great Britain) as our leaders do to distrust them. American leaders’ “hands are not clean” when it come to overthrowing other countries’ governments -- specifically Iran’s in 1953 with the help of Great Britain.
2
It is just stunning that the battle to win the approval of a multinational peace initiative was a longer, harder pull than to invade and preemptively attack another country based on lies about weapons of mass destruction.
8
And yet the entire world supported the war in Iraq... Voted to fully fund it i.e. Hillary Clinton. They weren't against it until it became politically expedient to do so. Both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for anything that occurred in Iraq.
1
i unequivocally opposed our invasion of Iraq. As did then Sen. Obama.
Well done Mr President, I am no fan of you ,but this is the most important result of american foreing policy in decades.
1
"relations continued to be positive after the war until the later years of the government of Mohammad Mossadeq, who was overthrown by a coup organized by the Central Intelligence Agency and aided by the MI6. This was followed by an era of very close alliance between Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's regime and the U.S. government, which was in turn followed by a dramatic reversal and disagreement between the two countries after the 1979 Iranian Revolution."- Wikipedia . We have given the Iranians every reason to hate us thanks to our support for the Shah and Israel's brutalization of the Palestinians with our support. I worry about them given the absolute evil of out foreign policy in the Mideast.
1
Some Republicans are "promoting a letter to all 50 governors asserting that states are not bound by the accord." What are the chances that despite all of the high drama from their side, the GOP will promote a letter to big corporations asserting that they are not bound to trade with Iran even with sanction relief and in fact should not? I strongly suspect that despite all of their rhetoric, the Republicans will not say a single word against any of their precious private enterprises that rush to trade with Iran.
3
I wish the media accounts of this deal would point out to readers that not one Republican ever offered a legitimate, workable alternative. It's one thing to report that no Republican supported the deal, but quite another to fail to report that no Republican attempted to achieve a meaningful, bipartisan response or counter-proposal.
It's a perfect example of journalistic "objectivity" getting in the way of presenting a fully rounded account of a major political party shirking its duty in order to embarrass a President they detest.
It's a perfect example of journalistic "objectivity" getting in the way of presenting a fully rounded account of a major political party shirking its duty in order to embarrass a President they detest.
10
Exactly spot-on, Paul B.!
Why does there have to be any deal? If this is the result of a deal then no deal was better than this. And there is an option. The one that's going to happen anyway. All out war in the Middle East. It's coming. Whether any of us likes it or not. These types of actions ensure it.
1
As always, the President continues to play Chess, at a grandmaster level no less, while the cadre of detractors try to play checkers.
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
7
The President's detractors keep drinking their own Kool-Aid, continuing to underestimate him. They are engaged in what in some settings is described - I will clean up the expression - as an act of mutual reinforcement. In fact, Obama has outplayed the Republicans and their crude tactics and dog-whistle racism, time and again - the AHA, budget votes, stimuli, immigration, getting Bin Laden, undermining the Chinese - he is indisputably the smartest guy in the room.
1
The Iranians have seen the ineptitude of POTUS in Libya, where American diplomats were ruthlessly murdered; in Egypt, where the government has changed twice; in Syria, where ISIS rules; in Iraq, where ISIS rules; and in Israel, where POTUS snubs our only ally. American foreign policy is nonexistent in Obama's "burn all bridges" reign.
The Iranians get: cash and time.
Americans get: A promise.
Which is likely to be valuable, and which is likely to be dust?
The Iranians get: cash and time.
Americans get: A promise.
Which is likely to be valuable, and which is likely to be dust?
6
Spot on. This is what the so-called educated elite at the New York Times should be reading today. But in their myopic view of life where everybody is at peace and kissing and happy and sunshine and lollipops.... They close their mind to the reality of what's at hand. Why was this deal negotiated to begin with? Why now? After Obama destabilized Libya why would anybody trust him to do the right thing in Iran. Why did the New York Times get a free pass over the murder of an American ambassador? If George Bush had been the president when that happened with still be hearing about the dad murdered poor ambassador. The New York Times often tries to get me to subscribe. I will not pay you one cent until there is a true debate in your pages. And when all sides are given equal footing to promote viable ideologies in the marketplace.
I have lived in Israel and admire what they have achieved, but would not make a decision on such an important pact based on what Israel needs. The divided loyalty of the Democrats who do not support the deal, almost all of whom are Jewish, makes the cries about JFK owing fealty to the Pope look like child's play. The U.S. has always supported Israel, and none more than Obama, in its quixotic but successful attempt to establish a secure country in the midst of its enemies, but it is also as much a theocracy as many of the jihadist Muslims would like to see their countries be. It does not run on the same rules as the U.S. and should not be dictating U.S. policy.
7
Israel is not dictating US policy. They are our only true ally in the Middle East. And we are not supporting it. In favor of a gambit because Valerie Jarrett liked growing up in Persia. There's no reason for this deal. None whatsoever.
Isn't it funny how the same people who rush to denounce the words uttered by American political figures if they are demeaning towards women, or gays, or any other "special protected group" are today celebrating capitulation to a theocratic regime that publicly executes women, and gays, and openly admits that they intend to incinerate millions of people one they acquire nukes?
This "victory for Obama" is a loss for humanity. But by all means, focus on the horse race aspect of it.
This "victory for Obama" is a loss for humanity. But by all means, focus on the horse race aspect of it.
6
Jeff, you make a straw dog argument. This does not condone the behaviors of this theocracy. Instead, the intention is to place controls on Iran's nuclear capabilities. I am a woman and I am gay. I support this negotiation over the alternative rush towards a catastrophic war.
I meant "straw man" argument. Hadn't yet had my 2nd cup of coffee.
1
I like straw dog better.
The people cheering this agreement don't know what's in it. For that matter, the US Congress doesn't know what's in it, and I frankly doubt that Obama does, either. The Iranians have come out publicly rebutting his statements about what it says.
All the praise for this great achievement of statesmanship are based on what Obama INTENDED to do, but not what his negotiators actually DID.
This "deal" involved giving the Iranians everything they wanted without extracting a single meaningful concession. This is strictly an agreement for the sake of saying "we got an agreement".
To say that Obama and Kerry got rolled in these "negotiations" is altogether too kind. And the idea that "if the Iranians fail to comply, sanctions will SNAP BACK" is a sad, sad joke.
The people cheering this agreement don't know what's in it. For that matter, the US Congress doesn't know what's in it, and I frankly doubt that Obama does, either. The Iranians have come out publicly rebutting his statements about what it says.
All the praise for this great achievement of statesmanship are based on what Obama INTENDED to do, but not what his negotiators actually DID.
This "deal" involved giving the Iranians everything they wanted without extracting a single meaningful concession. This is strictly an agreement for the sake of saying "we got an agreement".
To say that Obama and Kerry got rolled in these "negotiations" is altogether too kind. And the idea that "if the Iranians fail to comply, sanctions will SNAP BACK" is a sad, sad joke.
There are many arguments on both sides of the issue of how much the U.S. really NEEDS Israel as a sometime truculent partner, ally, and customer for military hardware. What is now ABUNDANTLY clear is that we do not need or want Israel meddling in our internal political deliberations. AIPAC, Dermer, Adelson, and Netanyahu need to shut up, fold their tattered tents, and recognize that their defeat on the Iran accord is a significant rebuke and evidence of their diminished power. The President did not make Iran a partisan political issue but these people and their GOP lap dogs did and they lost - big time. Thankfully, this disingenuous and destructive crew has had their sails trimmed.
10
$ 30 m were spent by AIPEC to scrap Iran Deal. This Group was gathered in USA immediately after the creation of Israel. And getting stronger.Some times directing US how to govern. Soon US is going to send a massive Military Aid to Israel. Perhaps to assuage the the anger at 320m Americans by 6 m Israelis..
1
This Man is incredible! Without a Democratic majority in the last six years of his term, Obama has defeated the GOP in just about all his fights! This is just another example of his enormous power and influence ---- where there is a true "will" . . . their is a way! There is no match, NONE... in the GOP..... Z...E ....R.....O!!!!
11
Let us pray this agreement with Iran will bear peaceful fruits. Why not try to resolve the matter diplomatically first? The gods of war can be moved when and if needed. Let us hope our leaders will move on to other issues needing attention like a federal budget, education and so on.
8
Now the Saudi's will call in the IOU's from Pakistan and have their own bomb. With N.K, Pakistan and SA nuclear, I will see a nuclear war in my lifetime, and I am 64.
6
How much would you like to bet on that?
Economic engagement has proven again and again to be the most successful means of diplomacy. Iran's economy is pregnant with potential: complex sectors, educated public, and a somewhat civil society. Once the floodgates are cracked open and the parties to this deal can begin doing business, it will be nearly impossible for the hardliners - both here and in Tehran - to put the genie back in the bottle. That's why it was so important to have world powers involved in this deal - it needs to be a global opportunity.
The deal may not be perfect now, but the calculation is correct that this is the best option for setting in motion a deal that will mature with time (we all know how the war option turns out for middle east countries... Iraq).
The deal may not be perfect now, but the calculation is correct that this is the best option for setting in motion a deal that will mature with time (we all know how the war option turns out for middle east countries... Iraq).
8
President Obama does stuff. If a sales company is struggling, the CEO doesn't say, let's vote on something that won't improve sales for the 48th time; he'll try to find solutions to improve supply and demand. He fires those who have no sales. We elect presidents to move us forward - same thing.
16
“President Obama can claim that he found a way to move an extremely important, yet controversial, diplomatic agreement through the political process,”
Or he can claim that he made a disgracefully wrongheaded agreement with an implacably hostile foreign power responsible for thousands of American deaths, circumvented normal procedure and the Constitution of the United States to do so with the backing of 42% of the Senate, which legislators didn't even have the intestinal fortitude to have a vote on the subject so that when it all goes sour they can swear to their angry constituents who mostly oppose their actions that they never voted to enable it.
Or he can claim that he made a disgracefully wrongheaded agreement with an implacably hostile foreign power responsible for thousands of American deaths, circumvented normal procedure and the Constitution of the United States to do so with the backing of 42% of the Senate, which legislators didn't even have the intestinal fortitude to have a vote on the subject so that when it all goes sour they can swear to their angry constituents who mostly oppose their actions that they never voted to enable it.
6
RE " circumvented normal procedure and the Constitution "?
Give us a break! Just what was "circumvented" in the constitution? And as for "normal procedure" just what is normal procedure about the self-styled two musketeers of the GOP - Boehner/McConnell - leveling a torrent of insults, disrespect, and paralyzing antipathy that eclipses what any president in living memory has had to put up with. Indeed not since the 19th century has a president met with a less cooperative, less civilized, less mature opposition.
Give us a break! Just what was "circumvented" in the constitution? And as for "normal procedure" just what is normal procedure about the self-styled two musketeers of the GOP - Boehner/McConnell - leveling a torrent of insults, disrespect, and paralyzing antipathy that eclipses what any president in living memory has had to put up with. Indeed not since the 19th century has a president met with a less cooperative, less civilized, less mature opposition.
The Democrats used the same filibuster tactics they spent years attacking the GOP for using.
The. Exact. Same. Trick.
When you become the enemy to defeat the enemy, you are the enemy.
The. Exact. Same. Trick.
When you become the enemy to defeat the enemy, you are the enemy.
This is Persia we're talking about , the greatest of empires, casually taken over by Great Britain and the U.S. for its oil, its remarkable leader Mossadegh casually removed, and a playboy Shah brought back as nominal "ruler" with a hated police force, the Savak, installed. Unfortunately the determined leadership required to get rid of European imperialism came from Mullahs. Ah for another Mossadegh who sometimes held cabinet meetings dressed in pyjamas and was always, always considerate and fair.
9
Listening to the debates on Cspan I heard reps Bradley Byrne say the deal will absolutely lead to war, Pete Olson stand next to a 4 foot photo of some guy who Olson says is going to blow up something in the U.S. if the deal goes through and congressman Chris Stewart compared the deal to one like Pilate, Judas over Christ. M.Rubio satisfied with good old cold war stuff saying there is a nuclear warhead aimed at us.
I know we've sat our fat behinds on small countries before. Didn't we learn anything from Iraq?
I'm with Jimmy Carter all the way and not with the fear mongers.
I know we've sat our fat behinds on small countries before. Didn't we learn anything from Iraq?
I'm with Jimmy Carter all the way and not with the fear mongers.
22
How naive does Senator Corker look right now? Corker legislation that Obama signed had two requirements: 1) all details, including side deals, of the proposed Iran deal and 2) a vote of disapproval. Obama lawlessly ignored the first and Senate Dems, in bad faith, avoided the second. This will go to federal court. McConnell should employ the so-called nuclear option that Reid employed in 2013 to force Dem Senators to go on record supporting the deal and force Obama to veto it.
4
Where did you get your law degree? The GOP has filibustered countless times. What happened yesterday was entirely within Senate procedure. Perhaps AIPAC will want their money back for this flop.
I earned my law degree in Cambridge MA.
The Democratic leadership used the same tactic the Democrats spent a decade complaining that the Republicans were using. When you sink to level of your enemy, you've already lost.
The Democratic leadership used the same tactic the Democrats spent a decade complaining that the Republicans were using. When you sink to level of your enemy, you've already lost.
hmmmm...In fifteen years my grandson will be 21, I'm not sure I like passing the buck to him.
1
So, you are in favor of immediate war so your grandson will be spared and another person's grandson will not. Very magnanimous. Why not work to avoid wars? I have two grandsons, one of whom will be 22 in 15 years. I support the Iran agreement. Let's give Peace a Chance.
1
Shumer is incorrect in his statement that this was a vote based on conscience. It should have been a vote based on fact, logic and what is best for the United States and its allies. But what Shumer did was base his vote on AIPAC; lobbyists; Netanyahu and his distorted obsession with Israel. Perhaps this episode will remind him that he is a member of the United States Senate and not the Knesset.
31
"Netanyahu and his distorted obsession with Israel." Since when is obsession with security of one's country in the face of those who declare they want to destroy it a distorted obsession. I would hope our leaders are similarly obsessed with the safety and security of our country in the face of an enemy that vows to destroy us.
It's hard to know which is the victory walk: overcoming a house divided, combating the combatitive Republican Party or actual correct procedure. Although the Obama legacy will include this pax salubrious disarmament of Iran, there are no guarantees that a republican president would try to maintain it or any other of Obama's solitary turnaround policies.
3
This is a bad deal. It is apparent that Obama cut a deal with the Iranians a year ago. As they say in Chicago politics this was a done deal. Obama will go down in history as the worst President this country ever had. This is a bad deal for everyone except Iran. Watch how Saudi Arabia teams up with Israel for the mutual benefit of both countries against Iran.
4
Actually, Obama will go down in history as a good president. Better than Reagan, who was a bit of a disaster, certainly better than George 'Dubya' Bush, and as a president who helped to strengthen the USA after Republican foreign policy allowed Iran to expand its field of influence in the Middle East dramatically, causing friction with many long-term US allies and lessening respect and fear of the US around the world.
Extraordinary. He is everything a president should be and more. Iran is a powerful country to be taken seriously, and only Senator John Kerry and President Barack Obama have the sensitivity to establish an understanding with this complex Middle Eastern Country. Exemplar achievement on their part, one to be remembered, along with their courage and conviction, a moment in history to pause and consider there are a few good Americans among us to honor with valor; thanking them for standing strong against the odds and in the face of adversity.
38
Someday they will be remembered along with Chamberlain for having brought us peace in our time.
1
Open your eyes !
Iran's leader just threatened Israel with death and today sent troops to help Syria ??
Obama allowing them to now build Nuclear weapons ??
Why did we have do remove the sanctions ???
Iran's leader just threatened Israel with death and today sent troops to help Syria ??
Obama allowing them to now build Nuclear weapons ??
Why did we have do remove the sanctions ???
1
A president who promise to bring the country together has divided us more than any president in history. Iran cannot be trusted, this is NOT a debatable point, we are fools to believe that Iran will abide by any deal. We have a 20 year failed tract record going back to hostage taking during Carter administration. As a patriot, I am so disappointed and disillusion with our country's direction. I am afraid we have lost our way. I have grown tired of the Middle East taking our blood and treasurer in the name of what, national security, oil, nation building, what? My answer is blockage the straits of vermouth and let them eat sand.
1
Lets recapitulate a little bit, shall we? None of the hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001 attack were Iranians, Syrians, Shias or even Iraqis. 15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia. The others were from the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon.
When was Iran a threat to anybody? Iran, like Israel, does spew out its annoyance with Israel and the American Jewish lobby. And Israel and the American Jewish lobby does the same with Iran. But when was Iran a bigger threat than all the petro-dollars coming out of SA and UAE funding Madhrasaas in Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Britain, France, etc.to wage Jihad against non-Muslims, non-Sunnis and even moderate Sunnis?
Republicans need to better at geopolitical history.
What the US must do with Iran is also invite them to aid countries around the world to fight Sunni Jihadism and forced conversions...like that which is going on in South India. And then Republicans can stop missionaries doing the same, which is similar to what happened to many Protestants who fled the old Europe from Catholic persecution to the new world...that became "the USA".
The US, which has been a pluralistic society, that embraces intelligent and compassionate legal immigration, and gains from it, must now understand that Jihadists are leaving ME to fight their wars in other regions of the world...that are very sensitive and unprepared. This requires a different approach than what Republicans, stuck in a time warp, constantly propose.
When was Iran a threat to anybody? Iran, like Israel, does spew out its annoyance with Israel and the American Jewish lobby. And Israel and the American Jewish lobby does the same with Iran. But when was Iran a bigger threat than all the petro-dollars coming out of SA and UAE funding Madhrasaas in Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Britain, France, etc.to wage Jihad against non-Muslims, non-Sunnis and even moderate Sunnis?
Republicans need to better at geopolitical history.
What the US must do with Iran is also invite them to aid countries around the world to fight Sunni Jihadism and forced conversions...like that which is going on in South India. And then Republicans can stop missionaries doing the same, which is similar to what happened to many Protestants who fled the old Europe from Catholic persecution to the new world...that became "the USA".
The US, which has been a pluralistic society, that embraces intelligent and compassionate legal immigration, and gains from it, must now understand that Jihadists are leaving ME to fight their wars in other regions of the world...that are very sensitive and unprepared. This requires a different approach than what Republicans, stuck in a time warp, constantly propose.
9
Must have been a very expensive "triumph" for Obama. Now let see who is right; Western, Chinese and Russians corporations or peace loving people . . . BTW does it mean that the US have signed a peace accord with Iran? Does it mean that the programs put in place to curtail the Iranian nuclear efforts will be dismantled?
1
At some point, those senators opposed to the Iran nuclear deal are going to have to ask themselves whether the privilege of holding their seats in the Senate is worth the shame and humiliation that each of them must endure during those quiet moments when they ask themselves what they stand for and why they are there. I say this because the opposition has voiced no overarching principle to this deal other than to oppose it, and to oppose its architect, President Obama. Surely, Sen. Schumer of New York must now be feeling some of that chagrin. His 'no' vote on the deal may ease his burden now to raise campaign funds; but like what happened to his Republican colleagues, that vote has opened the floodgates of public criticism, and the potential for a primary challenge by someone who is more in tune with the majority of informed opinion than is Schumer.
Insofar as Schumer is looking to become the next Senate Minority Leader, I think not. It's gone, lost, because Schumer lacked the courage to stand up to fearful and perhaps bigoted campaign donors, the way that other senators who just happened to be Jews voted their conscience and their patriotism in the face of outrageous and hysterical claims by AIPAC and its minions of paid lobbyists. Bibi Netanyahu is not Schumer's constituent. Schumer chose to put his country's future at risk if the deal were to fail rather than pay a political price, and then let other Jewish senators take the heat for their votes to support the president.
Insofar as Schumer is looking to become the next Senate Minority Leader, I think not. It's gone, lost, because Schumer lacked the courage to stand up to fearful and perhaps bigoted campaign donors, the way that other senators who just happened to be Jews voted their conscience and their patriotism in the face of outrageous and hysterical claims by AIPAC and its minions of paid lobbyists. Bibi Netanyahu is not Schumer's constituent. Schumer chose to put his country's future at risk if the deal were to fail rather than pay a political price, and then let other Jewish senators take the heat for their votes to support the president.
16
Well said. I would only add. The 28th Amendment to the Constitution states: "No citizens or organization -- foreign or domestic -- shall be allowed to attempt to influence any United States government employee or elected official on behalf of a foreign nation. Such action will be considered treasonous." Schumer , Cardin & AIPAC are traitors.
I was impressed with the leadership by my senator, senator Dick Durbin. I was also impressed by the Democrats who voted for peace and not war.
16
There was no "war" vote. More political myth. A real negotiation with benefits to all sides was the way to go. The other powers win as well. The USA and Israel are the losers.
The more interaction the West can have with Iran is better for the West. Isalm cannot stand in the face of Western freedoms. The allure of casual sex, drugs and alcohol will win in the ends. And you know this to be true. It always is.
8
Why are the GOP senators so upset? They built this.
Idiots like Corker, Cornyn, McConnell, Graham and McCain turned the Treaty Power clause of the Constitution on its head. So they reaped what they sowed.
Obama should take the GOP senate out to dinner every now and then. After all, he is doing better with them in the majority than when they were in minority.
Idiots like Corker, Cornyn, McConnell, Graham and McCain turned the Treaty Power clause of the Constitution on its head. So they reaped what they sowed.
Obama should take the GOP senate out to dinner every now and then. After all, he is doing better with them in the majority than when they were in minority.
8
He also should have 47 of them arrested and charged for violation of the Logan Act.
Putting America First, Great and Independent - Again!!!
4
Schumer, Cardin, Menendez and Manchin are no longer considered to be Democrats and the traitors will be remembered during the Democratic primaries. For Schumer and Cardin to have dual citizenships and then vote for the foreign policy for the wrong country, is completely unforgivable. I will be glad to contribute to anyone who will run against these sick old men in a Democratic primary. They must be taught that being a complete and total sell out to Bibi the warmonger will never be forgotten. Go serve in the Knesset traitors and quit taking our money to do Israel's unholy work.
17
Congratulations! Obama kept to his original promise to negotiate with countries not in accord with the U.S., in this case Iran, and arrived at a successful nuclear arms deal. Iran has even agreed to cease plutonium production, the most-high powered nuclear explosive, and the one that is used in 95% of the world's nuclear bombs.
International oversight has been achieved, and the US is on the same page as the rest of the UN Security Council. Americans are now free to begin trade with Tehran, as the rest of the world began doing weeks ago.
I very much appreciate America keeping apace with the world, instead of being held back by fear, naiveté and partisan politics.
For Jews who view this accord as a sign of danger for Israel, one must remember the Torah and the Midrash. The Torah comprises the Bible's Old Testament. The Midrash records centuries of daily rabbinical arguments, to the present day, about the Torah's meaning. The Midrash keeps the Torah current.
For example, thanks to daily rabbinical argument, Jews do not stone women to death for infidelity. People with acne are no longer considered "unclean".
Israel, a democratic/theocratic State, must step into the modern world. The Torah says killing is only permitted in self-defense, not in preemptive strikes. Locating Israel among Muslims requires Israeli diplomacy.
And, it is my sincere hope that the Republicans do not start a war with Iran, just to "prove" that they were right in this case, and Obama wrong.
International oversight has been achieved, and the US is on the same page as the rest of the UN Security Council. Americans are now free to begin trade with Tehran, as the rest of the world began doing weeks ago.
I very much appreciate America keeping apace with the world, instead of being held back by fear, naiveté and partisan politics.
For Jews who view this accord as a sign of danger for Israel, one must remember the Torah and the Midrash. The Torah comprises the Bible's Old Testament. The Midrash records centuries of daily rabbinical arguments, to the present day, about the Torah's meaning. The Midrash keeps the Torah current.
For example, thanks to daily rabbinical argument, Jews do not stone women to death for infidelity. People with acne are no longer considered "unclean".
Israel, a democratic/theocratic State, must step into the modern world. The Torah says killing is only permitted in self-defense, not in preemptive strikes. Locating Israel among Muslims requires Israeli diplomacy.
And, it is my sincere hope that the Republicans do not start a war with Iran, just to "prove" that they were right in this case, and Obama wrong.
15
"Negotiate" is the key word in your comment/ What Obama did was give away the strength and security of the USA, under the guise of a 15 year safe period. Read the "deal" at whitehouse.gov
Why is this article about a tactical political victory in Congress and not about the approval of the deal with Iran? At best his story should be a sidebar to the deal itself. And this isn't a "victory" for Obama but a landmark advancement toward less bellicose relations amongst nations in and engaged in the Middle East. Why make the divisive politics in Congress the main story when the deal itself is such an historic achievement?
Sometimes it is difficult not to believe the argument that the media's principal focus is to sell papers through sensationalism and advocacy of controversy. Even the esteemed NYT.
Sometimes it is difficult not to believe the argument that the media's principal focus is to sell papers through sensationalism and advocacy of controversy. Even the esteemed NYT.
18
Not a single Republican vote? The Soviet Communist Party would be proud, indeed envious, of their lock-up discipline.
17
We could say the same thing about how the Republican Congress operated under Bush. But I doubt you compared that to the Soviet Communist Party.
If we take Iran at its word about how it views the world and the US in particular, there is great reason to be concerned about whether this is an agreement that Iran intends to honor or will honor. Members of the President's own party have said as much, including the former Secretary of State.
The problem is that, since the end of WW II, whenever the international situation has broken down to the point were it required military force to set things right, the US has had to take the leadership role, even when things were done under NATO or UN auspice or through a coalition of concerned states. The need for the US to accept this responsibility is not likely to change any time soon, and, if the US abdicates that role, China and Russia will likely be only too willing to step in, and we would certainly not be at all comfortable with such a development.
Unfortunately, the president has very different views of the world than many others in the US and elsewhere, and, when it comes to foreign policy, he seems to believe that all problems can and should be solved through negotiation. This leads to fundamental policy foreign differences that not everyone can accept, even some members of his own party. Regrettably, the president seems more willing to negotiate with foreign governments than he is with the congress of his own country.
If the Iran deal does not work, and many believe that that will be the case, the US is going to have to clean up the mess.
The problem is that, since the end of WW II, whenever the international situation has broken down to the point were it required military force to set things right, the US has had to take the leadership role, even when things were done under NATO or UN auspice or through a coalition of concerned states. The need for the US to accept this responsibility is not likely to change any time soon, and, if the US abdicates that role, China and Russia will likely be only too willing to step in, and we would certainly not be at all comfortable with such a development.
Unfortunately, the president has very different views of the world than many others in the US and elsewhere, and, when it comes to foreign policy, he seems to believe that all problems can and should be solved through negotiation. This leads to fundamental policy foreign differences that not everyone can accept, even some members of his own party. Regrettably, the president seems more willing to negotiate with foreign governments than he is with the congress of his own country.
If the Iran deal does not work, and many believe that that will be the case, the US is going to have to clean up the mess.
4
When Congress has shown no interest in negotiating with you, and you squander two years of your presidency trying to do so, you move on and deal with the real facts, not the fantasy you had wished for. Republicans in the House and Senate had no intention of working with Obama since day one - and proved it time and time again. Each time they claimed the house was falling - quantitive easing would cause massive inflation, Obamacare was wrong and wouldn't work, and now Iran should be allowed to continue to develop nuclear weapons or the US should bomb Iran. What would the US do if in return Iran bombed the US? I mean, bombing a country, as some Republicans and Israelis have blithely talked about doing, is an act of war. And an unprovoked attack at that? Remember Pearl Harbor? Does America need to give 60+ million Iranians who currently like it (and this is before the nuclear deal) a real reason to really start hating America and reinforcing the Iranian theocracy? Get real.
We are used to it. We are still cleaning up the mess the last guy who occupied the whitehouse and his team left the world in.
1
There are extremely "strange" aspects of the "great" Iran "peace" deal. E.g., many Cong. DEMOCRATS & others objected that it bankrolled massive add'l Iranian terror, killing/maiming/robbing/etc. of loads of people including Americans, infiltration of other govts, etc. First there is $150 BILLION (37% of GDP) in escrowed funds. Even a tiny part will create far more havoc that drastically increases what Iran is doing! Plus, analysts say even bigger amounts will begin flowing soon to Iran from other deals. To trick more Democrats or give them cover, Obama recently wrote a propaganda letter. He added that he'll promise mountains of military & other aid for eons to countries & other entities to try to fight the add'l lunacies. And we all know lots of them never can be stopped. Of course, more of his cronies then rolled over on cue in Obama's rigged game, putting Obama and party above country and sanity once again. Many of them even wrote things such as it is "DEEPLY FLAWED", gave lots of reasons that made it sound as if they were opposed, etc., but then concocted MEGA-NONSENSE why "AFTER GREAT THOUGHT", they "RELUCTANTLY" support it!
So for many, many years (of course including long after Obama leaves office), American taxpayers will be on the hook for huge amounts of moolah to fight what the deal financed! It's all "brilliant", isn't it? BTW, why didn't Obama get our great "partners", who are so hot for this deal, to pay this dough ad nauseam? He buried us big time again!
So for many, many years (of course including long after Obama leaves office), American taxpayers will be on the hook for huge amounts of moolah to fight what the deal financed! It's all "brilliant", isn't it? BTW, why didn't Obama get our great "partners", who are so hot for this deal, to pay this dough ad nauseam? He buried us big time again!
8
So long as this Agreement does not lead to a better Human Rights situation under the religious dictatorship in Iran, it has no value for the Iranians and no use other than strengthening the hardliners in Iran and their terrorist army. The end of sanctions to any extent could only benefit the generals of the Islamic revolutionary Guard that control the whole Iranian economy. In Iran there is no constitutional Government. Rouhani is only a tool in the hands of the rogue military and the ayatollahs! Political and economic power is in the hands of the generals and the clerics. Just as in the 1813 and 1828 Treaties between Qajar Iran and Tsarist Russia, that was determined by conflicts between the superpowers (Russia and Britain), this Agreement is also decided by the power game between Russia and USA at global level. Unfortunately, once again the national interests of the Iranian people have been entirely neglected in such diplomatic negotiations. This Agreement preserves the clerical regime but not the interests and security of the Iranian people. In the USA the focus on Democrat-Republican discord about this Agreement has entirely distracted the public attention from the fact that given the religious dictator and his army are involved in the regional conflicts, Iran risks to become the next arena of conflict, a missing ring for the chain of regional and civil wars that has been formed for decades from Afghanistan to Libya.
12
I agree - the religious dictatorship in Iran is horrible for the Iranian people and I hope it disappears as soon as possible.
However, you can't criticize the agreement for not ending the regime - no agreement could accomplish that. When Carter and Reagan made arms control agreements with the Soviet Union, human rights there weren't part of the deals and didn't change as a direct result. When the world brought China into the WTO, human rights didn't improve in China, but we dealt with the government anyway.
This isn't a perfect world. Dictatorships don't negotiate themselves out of existence. Don't hold this agreement to standards no other agreement in history has reached.
However, you can't criticize the agreement for not ending the regime - no agreement could accomplish that. When Carter and Reagan made arms control agreements with the Soviet Union, human rights there weren't part of the deals and didn't change as a direct result. When the world brought China into the WTO, human rights didn't improve in China, but we dealt with the government anyway.
This isn't a perfect world. Dictatorships don't negotiate themselves out of existence. Don't hold this agreement to standards no other agreement in history has reached.
1
"Unfortunately, once again the national interests of the Iranian people have been entirely neglected in such diplomatic negotiations. This Agreement preserves the clerical regime but not the interests and security of the Iranian people."
We know that the regime in Iran is oppressive to the Iranian people, however, here in the USA we are looking out for our own national interests. We cannot continue protecting the rights of citizens in every country that has a dictatorship through force.
History has shown that the direct involvement of external powers in shaping a democracy within a country always fails (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc.). The only way for the Iranian people to gain their democracy and human rights is for them to massively revolt against this tyrannical regime.
The success of this agreement weakens the nuclear capability of the Iranian dictatorship and will reduce economic hardship on the Iranian people.
It's difficult, bloody, sacrificial, and time consuming, but time has come for the Iranian people to rise against this clerical regime, their worst enemy, from within. That's the only way.
We know that the regime in Iran is oppressive to the Iranian people, however, here in the USA we are looking out for our own national interests. We cannot continue protecting the rights of citizens in every country that has a dictatorship through force.
History has shown that the direct involvement of external powers in shaping a democracy within a country always fails (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc.). The only way for the Iranian people to gain their democracy and human rights is for them to massively revolt against this tyrannical regime.
The success of this agreement weakens the nuclear capability of the Iranian dictatorship and will reduce economic hardship on the Iranian people.
It's difficult, bloody, sacrificial, and time consuming, but time has come for the Iranian people to rise against this clerical regime, their worst enemy, from within. That's the only way.
1
Whatever one's opinion of the treaty itself, both sides in Congress have agreed to a process that goes outside the constitution and may set a terrible precedent.
The constitution is quite explicit that foreign treaties are negotiated by the Executive office headed by the President with the secretary of state. Then they must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate in order to take effect. (The house plays no role at all.)
In the absence of any chance of this 2/3 majority, both sides agreed to an extra-constitutional procedure that suits their political machinations. I find this far more frightening for our democratic process than any aspect of the treaty itself.
If the President and Congress routinely conduct business outside of the constitution to suit their political interests, I fear that far worse situations lie ahead.
If they can ignore the constitution when it comes to treaties and foreign relations, what will prevent them from ignoring basic constitution rights of individual citizens??
What happens if cases go to the supreme court based upon provisions in a treaty that has not been ratified??
The constitution is quite explicit that foreign treaties are negotiated by the Executive office headed by the President with the secretary of state. Then they must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate in order to take effect. (The house plays no role at all.)
In the absence of any chance of this 2/3 majority, both sides agreed to an extra-constitutional procedure that suits their political machinations. I find this far more frightening for our democratic process than any aspect of the treaty itself.
If the President and Congress routinely conduct business outside of the constitution to suit their political interests, I fear that far worse situations lie ahead.
If they can ignore the constitution when it comes to treaties and foreign relations, what will prevent them from ignoring basic constitution rights of individual citizens??
What happens if cases go to the supreme court based upon provisions in a treaty that has not been ratified??
4
Tme for the "Nabobs of Negativism" aka GOP to invite their mentor Bibi to Congress to further cement their defeat and compound their misery.
5
A strong and powerful Iran means that Israel will be forced to cede land for a Free State of Palestine thus bringing peace to the Middle East once and for all time.
1
Can there be any doubt that President Obama has ruined the Democrat party for at least a generation? After passing Corker-Cardin 98-1 and agreeing to put the agreement to a vote, to filibuster it now is the very definition of cynical. People are watching.
No one in DC should now be surprised by the ascendency of Trump, Carson or Sanders. The Democrats should now ponder that their election prospects in 2016 are in the hands of the mullahs in Iran.
No one in DC should now be surprised by the ascendency of Trump, Carson or Sanders. The Democrats should now ponder that their election prospects in 2016 are in the hands of the mullahs in Iran.
3
So much for the illusion, based largely on anti-semitism, that American Jews could dictate anything. The National Rifle Association? Yes; they can get Americans to shrug at dozens of dead first graders and ignore calls for gun control. The AARP? Oh yeah: bring on a giant drug benefit, that it's current members haven't paid for, and get it passed by a "conservative" president. But Aipaic? They lose all the time, as this article points out. The only thing that makes people believe they don't lose all the time are ancient anti-Jewish slurs that Jews somehow secretly run the lives of non-Jews and are, therefore, responsible for their misery. Never been true, still isn't true, and shame on the countless people who repeated it (and on the NYT for allowing comments repeating stereotypes and lies that, if aimed at any other ethnic group, would have been correctly labeled as bigoted and suppressed).
2
You are wrong about AIPAC losing all the time. They win all the time, and sort of lose occasionally. Why is it that Israel offends the Vice-President on the day of his visit by enlarging settlements, and why is it that we keep on showering money and armaments on Israel, why Netanyahu disrespect the President by going to Congress and speaking against his policies. It isn't because the US likes to be humiliated. It is because politicians are afraid of the money and influence that AIPAC has. So, don't count them out.
Has the Times in any of its articles covering the Iran deal spelled out the economic/trade repercussions that backing out would have created? Or asked Schumer to explain his vote to our allies who will be trading with Iran while the US would supposedly be sanctioning their companies? Did this paper ever adequately explain the political economics involved? I don't think so. Did it play up the grandstanding Republicans without explaining just how scripted and preordained the asinine theater of our Republican congress and senate was and continues to be? The long and the short of it all is that there was never any chance it would not go through and anyone paying attention understands this. Why oh why does our country behave so stupidly. And why does our press enable dishonest politicians putting on a show for the gullible.
4
We can be thankful that at least some members of Congress remember which country they are supposed to represent.
10
Of a second vote on the Iran deal next week Mitch McConnell says “If the president’s so proud of this deal, he shouldn’t be afraid.” Nice try Mitch -- but Obama is not afraid. But you should be. A second LOSING vote will just emphasize how Obama outmaneuvered you, that boy Cotton, the Repubs, and AIPAC.
He's smarter than all of you put together.
Go ahead, take another loss lap around the field where you got whooped. The best thing you can do for your party and for the country is move on to new business as soon as possible. Get back to work.
He's smarter than all of you put together.
Go ahead, take another loss lap around the field where you got whooped. The best thing you can do for your party and for the country is move on to new business as soon as possible. Get back to work.
9
58 members of the Senate voted against the deal. Some loss.
1
So happy that sanity prevailed, so happy the dinosaurs in Congress did not once again promote chaos and destruction in the world. Republicans seem to want war even when US interests are at stake, they are very unpatriotic. The Iran deal is a model of what diplomacy can and should achieve. The same approach should be tried over Ukraine and also the fight against ISIS.
Obama has already regained some of the popularity in the world that NSA spying & drones had understandably eroded. For the whole world it is as positive as the so-called "Good Friday" agreement for the Irish & the British. Something to really celebrate.
Obama has already regained some of the popularity in the world that NSA spying & drones had understandably eroded. For the whole world it is as positive as the so-called "Good Friday" agreement for the Irish & the British. Something to really celebrate.
5
An emerging media narrative that the Iran deal survives " Without a single GOP vote ", likening it to the passage of the ACA (and it's myriad attendant GOP amendments ) ignores the fact that the framework giving cover for congressional Republicans to vote against it was passed bi-partisanly.
2
Regardless of how much positive spin Aipac and Netanyahu put on the vote regarding the Iran nuclear agreement, this illustrates that in general Americans are tired of having Israel interfere with US politics, first by having Netanyahu speak before Congress and second by having Aipac spending millions of dollars to sway public opinion in the U.S. It would also display incredible shortsightedness, arrogance and stupidity for Aipac to try and retaliate against Democrats who supported this deal because I believe that in general Democrats have been much more supportive of Israel than Republicans, who tend to use Israel as a political wedge when it is convenient.
11
You know I'm happy they've approved finally that recent Iranian nuclear deal because I really find it a historical event making the whole world a safer and better place.
5
Another "Great " Victory for Obama AGAINST The American People and Experts NOT Under Obama's Control!
For example:
9/8/15 Pew Research Iran Nuke Deal Poll: 21% favor, 49% OPPOSED!!
Plus, despite what Obama claims, the deal does NOT block all of Iran's paths to nukes, and he has ZERO answers to various problems! As one example, he touted approximately 36 former Generals & Admirals who support him, but conveniently ignores the astounding total of about 214 who then responded, and said they OPPOSE the deal, partly because the inspections in Iran are very problematic.
Many other U.S. experts not under Obama's huge thumb found similar and other showstoppers, and OPPOSE his insane deal!
Among other things, there also are Iranian dissidents who report that North Koreans are showing Iran how to hide some activities. Plus many people already had stated that now Iran is very likely to build at least its first nukes in N. Korea and/or elsewhere rather QUICKLY. Then all the talk about many years is IRRELEVANT! In those countries, Obama's Keystone Cops Inspectors are worth ZERO! Regardless of all of that, even kids know to go where the inspectors CAN'T FIND OUT what's going on, NOT where they CAN! Iran probably would prefer to produce nukes at home, but will go where it has to. As soon as Iran has even one nuke from wherever, the whole ballgame changes drastically due to their threats, possible use, etc.
There are many other huge lunacies that won't fit here.
For example:
9/8/15 Pew Research Iran Nuke Deal Poll: 21% favor, 49% OPPOSED!!
Plus, despite what Obama claims, the deal does NOT block all of Iran's paths to nukes, and he has ZERO answers to various problems! As one example, he touted approximately 36 former Generals & Admirals who support him, but conveniently ignores the astounding total of about 214 who then responded, and said they OPPOSE the deal, partly because the inspections in Iran are very problematic.
Many other U.S. experts not under Obama's huge thumb found similar and other showstoppers, and OPPOSE his insane deal!
Among other things, there also are Iranian dissidents who report that North Koreans are showing Iran how to hide some activities. Plus many people already had stated that now Iran is very likely to build at least its first nukes in N. Korea and/or elsewhere rather QUICKLY. Then all the talk about many years is IRRELEVANT! In those countries, Obama's Keystone Cops Inspectors are worth ZERO! Regardless of all of that, even kids know to go where the inspectors CAN'T FIND OUT what's going on, NOT where they CAN! Iran probably would prefer to produce nukes at home, but will go where it has to. As soon as Iran has even one nuke from wherever, the whole ballgame changes drastically due to their threats, possible use, etc.
There are many other huge lunacies that won't fit here.
5
The poll you cite has context - among voters, only 31% know what it is or follow it closely so A) 2/3rds don't know about it B) the 1/3rd that does align's with Trump's polling.
A war with or bombing Iran, even by proxy through Israel without the support of our allies was never on the table. Ours is the nation it is because historically, it has made every attempt to obtain the moral high ground before shedding American blood on the battlefield. Recently, we have stepped away from that policy. Now, we have stepped back towards it. Making this deal in no way castrates our ability to wage war against Iran, should a clear threat present itself. In fact, should Iran break the deal, it will clear the way for our nation and its allies to initiate unprecedented destruction upon their country from every angle possible. In that event there would be nothing Russia or China could do about it.
Perhaps one day, because of this deal, the youth of our two nations will be able to interact peacefully, out of natural curiosity, love and respect for the differences that we all bring to the human table.
Perhaps one day, because of this deal, the youth of our two nations will be able to interact peacefully, out of natural curiosity, love and respect for the differences that we all bring to the human table.
2
The open lobbying by Netanyahu and many ads placed on the News media by Zionist have finally come to naught. The condescending tone toward US as if we were a proxy and a vassal state of Israel in Netanyahu's speech have not helped the opposition’s cause. The overreaching of Netanyahu in this episode must have dimmed his political future?
3
Only if Iran doesn't use a penny of their 100 billion signing bonus to undermine Israel ! Netanyahu will be deemed correct , once the new CONVENTIONAL weapons war begins with Irans shiny new weapons made in Russia and China.Dont be blinded by poli-correctness Ted. Theres no upside
1
Israel is more than capable of defending herself with the nuclear arsenal in her possession without help.
Since 1953, we have given Iran many reasons to despise us, yet I believe the Iranians are capable of rising above that. When I attended Air War College, class of 1974, there were 6 Iranian officers in attendance for ten months. I don't know why, but the Iranian people seem to like Americans, as shown by Rick Steves travelogues. Let's give peace and diplomacy a chance. I have noted that our chicken Hawks almost never serve in the military.
5
Well said. We have meddled in Iran's internal affairs since the 1950s, imposed a brutal dictatorship on them, and then wondered in naïve awe why they would profess to not like us...even though the average Iranian still likely welcomes closer relations with the U.S.
And to your most salient point, yes I'm really tired of these conservative chicken hawks - exemplified by the draft-dodgers Bush and Cheney - whose answer to every increasingly complex foreign crisis is to use military force. But they never seem to have stepped forward to serve themselves, or sent their kids to serve in uniform. I find them all disgusting.
J. Chronic
CAPT USN (Ret)
And to your most salient point, yes I'm really tired of these conservative chicken hawks - exemplified by the draft-dodgers Bush and Cheney - whose answer to every increasingly complex foreign crisis is to use military force. But they never seem to have stepped forward to serve themselves, or sent their kids to serve in uniform. I find them all disgusting.
J. Chronic
CAPT USN (Ret)
"The debate divided Democrats between their loyalties to the president and to their constituents, animated the antiwar movement on the left and exposed the diminishing power of the Israeli lobbying force that spent tens of millions of dollars to prevent the accord."
Diminished power of the Israeli lobbying force? Really?
A major U.S. foreign policy diplomatic advance, with no credible alternative offered by the opposition, couldn't stand on its own merits to get a straight up vote of approval in the House and the Senate and had to sneak through on a procedural vote.
U.S. military aid to Israel will be substantially increased. There will be no pressure on Israel to deal with settlements, Gaza, or any negotiations with the Palestinians, at least between now and November 16. Senators and Representatives who supported the Iran deal will face primary challenges and funding pressure as payback. Sheldon Adelson will be looking to decide which Republican candidate to drop perhaps $100 million on in return for committing undoing the Iran deal if elected.
But somehow the Israeli lobbying force is diminished. Very convincing.
President Obama has shown no disloyalty to any American. How did any legislator, Democrat or Republican, have to worry about disloyalty to their constituents?
Diminished power of the Israeli lobbying force? Really?
A major U.S. foreign policy diplomatic advance, with no credible alternative offered by the opposition, couldn't stand on its own merits to get a straight up vote of approval in the House and the Senate and had to sneak through on a procedural vote.
U.S. military aid to Israel will be substantially increased. There will be no pressure on Israel to deal with settlements, Gaza, or any negotiations with the Palestinians, at least between now and November 16. Senators and Representatives who supported the Iran deal will face primary challenges and funding pressure as payback. Sheldon Adelson will be looking to decide which Republican candidate to drop perhaps $100 million on in return for committing undoing the Iran deal if elected.
But somehow the Israeli lobbying force is diminished. Very convincing.
President Obama has shown no disloyalty to any American. How did any legislator, Democrat or Republican, have to worry about disloyalty to their constituents?
1
Who's afraid of the elections? If Democrats cannot turn a major win for diplomacy and peace into electoral advantage in a war-weary country, then that's their problem.
They should learn from the electoral rout they suffered from their ambivalent defense of Obamacare.
For once, come out swinging and be strong in your message, stop being weak and defensive about your own policy achievement!
They should learn from the electoral rout they suffered from their ambivalent defense of Obamacare.
For once, come out swinging and be strong in your message, stop being weak and defensive about your own policy achievement!
1
Mr. Obama has served his Iranian puppet master Vallerie Jarrett very well. Her Muslim fatherhood father is very proud of her. By guaranteeing Iran a nuclear weapon, they seal the fate of Israel. "The Deal" allows Iran 24 days notice before inspections among other things. On a daily basis Iranian warships threaten American ships and the high ranking Immams are screaming death to America. What do think is going to happen next?
4
If only the Democrats did this more often: stood up to the bullies of the GOP and threw down when they blustered.
One might even have a modicum of respect for them in those circumstances.
One might even have a modicum of respect for them in those circumstances.
25
I don't normally post twice here on the same topic, but I have to say this: This president, the "in over his head" former community organizer, has ushered in seminal domestic and foreign policy legislation. To say said legislation is once in a generation is not hyperbole; it might even be an understatement.
30
I am glad we agree said legislation is historic.
It's duly noted that Chuck Schumer is a front and center member of the "MORE WARS" group who is opposed to the Iran agreement. He's finished as a leader of the Democratic Party, and has no influence for millions of rank-and-file voters. As long as he's in a senior leadership role, the DNC can forget asking us for money.
19
He is not finished he will be the next minority leader, count on it.
Guess two can play the filibuster game. McConnell can dish it out (hundreds of times) but sure can't take it.
15
In re-reading the article, I find still another reason to doubt Schumer's capacity to be the Democratic leader. He talks about this being a vote of conscience. But this is not a vote of conscience. This has nothing to do with this often-used cliché. This is a vote for practicality, for realism, for a chance to bring stability to a chaotic area, to retch down hostilities, to see if something can be done to control the barbarism of ISIS. to pay attention to the tragedy of they Syrian refugees.
The right wing of Israel may have decided that they can live with constant conflict, but we don't have to follow them along that path.
The right wing of Israel may have decided that they can live with constant conflict, but we don't have to follow them along that path.
60
This "vote of conscience" is a vote for Netanyahu.
With all that is happening in the Middle East and the World... Can you tell me which planet youe are living in ...????
Another victory for commonsense and Obama. The behavior of the Republican party which is motivated entirely by hatred for the president and domestic politics without concern for the national interest is deplorable. The Iranian regime isn't particularly pretty but then neither are many other regimes with whom we have relations around the world. Is China pretty? Russia? Vietnam (which killed 58,000 Americans some of whom I knew). Even some of our so called allies don't pass the smell test (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Jordan). The Republicans offer no alternative other than war (Cheney was proposing this a couple of days ago) and they know as well as anyone that without an agreement the sanctions regime would collapse. The irony is that I'm not sure they're right about the politics either. There is no appetite whatsoever for further military adventures in the middle east. If the Republicans want to go into the presidential election threatening to tear up this agreement and start a war I doubt it will redound to their benefit.
56
Quote:
“I’ve never been more disappointed in the body than I am today,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who has long protested the deal. “You won’t let us have a vote. You won’t let us have a debate. And please stop saying this deal makes Israel safer. That’s cruel.”
End quote.
That is from the senator who willingly signed Tom Cotton's letter to the Ayatollah promising to sideline the president on an important foreign policy initiative. Republicans claiming that the president is bypassing the people's elected representatives must have forgotten that the Iran letter not only bypassed the president, but also all the people's elected representatives from the Democratic party. But it would would be asking too much for these Republican party ideologues to see the irony.
“I’ve never been more disappointed in the body than I am today,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who has long protested the deal. “You won’t let us have a vote. You won’t let us have a debate. And please stop saying this deal makes Israel safer. That’s cruel.”
End quote.
That is from the senator who willingly signed Tom Cotton's letter to the Ayatollah promising to sideline the president on an important foreign policy initiative. Republicans claiming that the president is bypassing the people's elected representatives must have forgotten that the Iran letter not only bypassed the president, but also all the people's elected representatives from the Democratic party. But it would would be asking too much for these Republican party ideologues to see the irony.
63
Is there any irony to having a deal that only 21% of US citizens agree with? Is that representing the people? According to the New York Times and the Democrats in the Senate it does. I still don't know why it was approved, what is actually in it, why it benefits the United States.
1
Mr Lindsay Graham is an honorable man.
The GOP reaction to the Democrats' filibuster is childish. The Republicans behave like a bunch of unruly schoolkids, who become vindictive, when they don't get what they want. They have indulged themselves in nefarious gamed, like inviting a foreign head-of-state (Netanyahu) to speak in Congress, without consulting the Administration. They they intervened in the negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 and wrote an unprecedented letter to Iranian leaders in March, telling them they “may not fully understand our constitutional system.”
Mitch McDonell said: “Democratic senators just voted to filibuster and block the American people from even having a real vote on one of the most consequential foreign policy issues of our time.” They had used a record number of filibusters against Obama’s agenda when in the minority. Besides it may be hyperbolic to see the nuclear deal with Iran as "one of the most consequential foreign policy issues of our time".
Mitch McDonell said: “Democratic senators just voted to filibuster and block the American people from even having a real vote on one of the most consequential foreign policy issues of our time.” They had used a record number of filibusters against Obama’s agenda when in the minority. Besides it may be hyperbolic to see the nuclear deal with Iran as "one of the most consequential foreign policy issues of our time".
35
The majority in Congress and in America are opposed to this deal, what's childish is thinking that going against the majority is a positive thing, an accomplishment, because it's not.
Let the voters show in 2016 whether they agreed or not with this 'deal' and the fact that their Democrat reps voted against them.
Let the voters show in 2016 whether they agreed or not with this 'deal' and the fact that their Democrat reps voted against them.
Yes indeed. The most consequential foreign policy issue of our time was the invasion of Iraq in 2003. No filibusters then.
Iraq was voted on and for by a bipartisan majority. This was passed by filibustering an up or down vote. Huge difference, as in a whole different universe away.
Wonderful to experience a major defeat for a major lobby: AIPAC.
Now if only the rest of the lobbies, all of them, could experience the same, and if "Citizens United" could be overturned, we might actually be able to call this country a democracy again.
Now if only the rest of the lobbies, all of them, could experience the same, and if "Citizens United" could be overturned, we might actually be able to call this country a democracy again.
87
Lobbyists aside, the "deal "destroys the state of Israel..Incredible ,this President creates ISIS and a new Persian Empire. Rev Wrights lessons.....well taught.
This "defeat" is beyond generic lobbying. Its the start of a huge conventional weapons build up financed by the world powers, with Israel losing qualitative edge in 10 years
"the start of a huge conventional weapons build up financed by the world powers, with Israel losing qualitative edge in 10 years." What does that even mean, Al? What's your source on "quantitative edges", AIPAC?
A lot of the goyim are more worried about their own in-house democracy than they are about the future of a right-wing, theocratic foreign power like Israel.
A lot of the goyim are more worried about their own in-house democracy than they are about the future of a right-wing, theocratic foreign power like Israel.
1
The current issues relating to the treatment of intel on ISIS should give some pause to wonder whether the intel underlying the Iran deal was reliable.
10
This "issue" about the Iran deal really has no existential threat, yet ISIS, which the opposition to the deal ignores, is existentially a few hundred miles from Israel.
The intel that invading Iran would cause the destabilization of the Mid-East was pretty clear to anyone who, again, wasn't married to politics.
The intel that invading Iran would cause the destabilization of the Mid-East was pretty clear to anyone who, again, wasn't married to politics.
Now time to address Israel's nuclear arsenal. That's the prime cause for nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Let's get cracking.
44
That's interesting, because Iran has always wanted to build a bomb since Khomeini promised that no weapons would be denied to the servants of Allah. Iran has demonstrated a love of killing people outside of Iran, as well as inside Iran.
Saudi Arabia is now pursuing nuclear weapons - but only because Iran now has more freedom to do so, not because of Israel. Your logic is nonexistent.
Saudi Arabia is now pursuing nuclear weapons - but only because Iran now has more freedom to do so, not because of Israel. Your logic is nonexistent.
1
I couldn't agree more. Israel's nuclear arsenal shows their hypocrisy on this crucial issue. Good point SP.
It is too late. The world will crack first.
I was not crazy about the Deal when I was first learning about it and was pretty apprehensive in general. However the more I learn about it and understand what the alternative would be, it has become increasingly apparent to me how deleterious and foolish a game the Republican party has been playing regarding it. It used to be that partisan politics ceased at the 'waters edge' but now the R's have gone way past that with their hijinks. Beyond setting up their nomination for president as another circus of know-nothings and clowns they seemed poised and prepared to shut down the federal government again. I hope whoever of the adults that remain in the Party can find a way to gain the reins again some day.
55
Yes, it's clear that the GOP is willing to throw not only their constituents and country under the bus, but anyone else in the world. I would never have believed this was possible. When the President was elected, of course we expected the Republicans to be upset, but I thought their obstructionist plans and hissy-fitting would eventually give way. But an immature reaction has become a permanent mental disease, and with awful irony, one of the worst problems the nation faces, because of its power to prevent solutions to others.
1
As you contnue your odyssey keep us posted.
To quote John Lennon " give peace a chance" as there's always time for war and that should be the last resort, not the first.
42
... And I beleive there will be "Peace in our Time" - Neville Chamberlain 1938
We'll see over the next 10-15 years or so whether Iran intends to join the world community or still has it's annual death to Israel death to America celebrations. We'll then know whether this diplomatic "victory" is in fact a good thing for all the interested parties.
12
The measure of success is not Iran's rhetoric, but its actions with respect to the development of a nuclear weapon.
1
How did your "weapons of mass destruction" turn out?
Yes, let's "wait" until "then" before passing "judgement".
President Obama is the greatest asset to this country since America's achievement of the first moon landing.
I can not wait to see what he will achieve for humanity once he leaves the Presidency.
I can not wait to see what he will achieve for humanity once he leaves the Presidency.
41
You won't have to wait long.. The greatest refugee crisis in historycreated by Obama,,Syria, ,the destruction of the Jewish state ,the empowering of a new Persian empire, are his legacy
250,000 Dead in Syria ... ISIS in Syria and Iraq... Turmoil in Libya... War in Yemen...
14 Million displaced Refugees ... Thousand of Refugees arriving daily in Europe... The "Great" Iran Deal ...Russian troops arriving in Syria ...
Wow !!! . .. If Obama managed to do all that without even trying ..,I can't imagine what he will be able to do once he leaves Office...
I can't wait...
14 Million displaced Refugees ... Thousand of Refugees arriving daily in Europe... The "Great" Iran Deal ...Russian troops arriving in Syria ...
Wow !!! . .. If Obama managed to do all that without even trying ..,I can't imagine what he will be able to do once he leaves Office...
I can't wait...
Good to see a realpolitik victory in the US, despite the country's dysfunctional congress.
In regard to the elephant in the room however, dependence on oil, the news today is not so good (i.e. California drops plan to cut petroleum use by half).
Iran's oil reserves rank fourth largest in the world...
In regard to the elephant in the room however, dependence on oil, the news today is not so good (i.e. California drops plan to cut petroleum use by half).
Iran's oil reserves rank fourth largest in the world...
9
The real tragedy is that the vote should not even have been close. The fact that it went down to the wire is more a reflection of political implosion in the U.S. than the possibiilty of a nuclear explosion by Iran.
47
A major effort for the possibility of peace in the middle east has been secured.
War mongers take note. Obama doesn't need the GOP!
War mongers take note. Obama doesn't need the GOP!
41
A day to be filled with respect for my President and the efforts he and those of goodwill have made toward peace in our time, and for those Americans who HAVE a conscience that directs their actions toward peace. For the rest..."silence" would be too good a word. "Warmonger" is too kind a word. But for this day...the word "democracy" has a chance of respect in the world at large, wearing the prayers for peace. The world is watching.
28
Dick Cheney vehemently opposed the deal. What other reason could anyone possibly need to know that it was, while not perfect, the right deal?
64
When only 42 out of 100 senators back your signature achievement, and almost all those who do support it call it "deeply flawed", it borders on propaganda to proclaim this a great victory. The president negotiated a disappointing deal, tarred all those who dared point out its flaws as war-mongers, and forced Congress to choose between a bad deal or no deal at all. What a legacy, Mr. President. We couldn't be more proud.
28
Did you actually think that there would be one single Republican vote FOR this deal? Their Commander in Chief Netanyahu told them to vote against it.
Why in god's name does anyone keep repeating that the President should have gotten a better deal? Does anyone really think the Iranian's are so incompetent that they'd sell out their national interest ... and to us? Why don't you go try to convince the Iranian delegation that they're really the great satan who can't be trusted with nuclear technology. I'm sure they'll listen to you.
We should be proud of the calibre of men and women we send to Congress. And they don't even run the country, the plutocrats do.
Senator Graham, I suspect that President Obama would gladly give the Senate an up-or-down vote on the Iran deal in return for an up-or-down vote in the House on the Immigration Reform bill already passed by the Senate.
13
This "deal" will define Obama's legacy but not for a number of years. If it turns out well, he will be lauded by those who will remind us of his sponsorship. If it doesn't work, well, then there will be all sorts of backtracking over its formation and the lack of real support among the Senate and House elite. This is a roll of the dice with our future and the future of our greatest ally in the Middle East. I wince at the prospect of Obama's defenders promoting his statesmanship if it works but will settle for that because the alternative is dreadful.
3
I am scared to think how this issue would be resolved if we had a Republican president! More blood, more refugees and desolation!
35
Obama's Syrian and Middle East abandonment created the refugee problem and now his administration is ignoring the issue, as his greatest legacy is going to be his foreign policy disasters!
As crippling as sanctions may have been to Iran's economy and its innocent citizens, they have done almost nothing to deter the countries quest for nuclear weapons. Any rational person can see that the only alternative to diplomacy for slowing or stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions is war. It's the only reasonable option that anyone is offering. I wish those that condemn it were brave enough to brandish their advocacy for deepening the current Middle East quagmire.
8
War will not stop it. It will put it back 3 years due to physical damage and then accelerate it due to lack of the 24/7 video inspections at key sites and mines of this deal and to proving the assessment of the Iranian hardliners about us to be correct. Republicans and Iranian hardliners are allied on a path to war. We are lucky that more thoughtful heads in both countries have prevailed this round.
2
You said it. War now, not later.
Thank goodness. No it is not perfect; yes, the Iranian government is not totally trustworthy (though, I dare say, they feel the same way about us). The GOP and the anti-deal have no alternative. Crushing the Iranian people has never been a good option; bringing a nation to its knees in humiliation (as much as the GOP and the likes of Trump think that that is a good idea) is destructive and a fine recruitment tool for extremists; a span of 10-15 years is a longer time than a few months no matter how much AIPC cries that the sky is falling; and the "bomb them back to the Middle-Ages" approach of the hawks has been a disaster over and over again with thousands of our young adults dead or maimed and the country in question descended into chaos and violence.
35
The difference in the two mistrusts is this: we have engineered the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran, and its replacement by a brutal dictatorship, while they have never pulled off such an offense here. They mistrust us with good reason, while most of our opinion of them is shaped by their enemies in our midst--Saudis, AIPAC and oilmen.
However this partisan victory by Obama on the Iran nuclear deal is turned into an issue for electoral exploitation in the coming presidential elections, it represents a major triumph of diplomacy, constructive international effort for peace, and a bold move by Obama to so redefine US engagement in the Middle East as to allow the former to be at the right side of history, hitherto prevented by some of the privileged allies of the US in the region.
76
So agree with you I do, Prof. Sharma. "...a major triumph of diplomacy..." it most certainly is. And kudos to Pres. Obama and his Sect. of State, John Kerry, for leading us away from the endless war for $$$$$ and oil, oil, oil method of operating. The MITC (military, industrial, terrorism complex) 1%ers, along with the Bushwhacker and Kochsucker fossil 'foolers', must be furious, along with AIPAC, the most corrupting lobbying group (a.k.a. the giant politician buyer offer).
And, kudos also to the increasing number of U.S. citizens who are taking off the blinders and getting active these sooooo troubled days. Real McCoy change is absolutely essential in this no longer a democracy of ours, for peace, justice, and the health of Mother Earth and all life on it. That is exactly why so many, myself included, turn out in such massive numbers at Bernie Sanders gatherings.
Change is essential, and change does not come from placid, center style, more of the same approaches, but rather it comes from determined extremism, i.e. Bernie Sanders 12 Point Plan. Win, Bernie, Win !!!
And, kudos also to the increasing number of U.S. citizens who are taking off the blinders and getting active these sooooo troubled days. Real McCoy change is absolutely essential in this no longer a democracy of ours, for peace, justice, and the health of Mother Earth and all life on it. That is exactly why so many, myself included, turn out in such massive numbers at Bernie Sanders gatherings.
Change is essential, and change does not come from placid, center style, more of the same approaches, but rather it comes from determined extremism, i.e. Bernie Sanders 12 Point Plan. Win, Bernie, Win !!!
1
What a phony triumph.
I think "most fair minded" people have come to conclude that Republicans have been opposing every important steps this President has taken not based on reason but hatred
149
There's not much to conclude, Boehner & McConnell announced their mutual strategy in late 2008 of total opposition to Obama in everything so as not to "leave any republican fingerprints" on any legislation. They were seeking to stop a repeat of what Clinton was able to do in the 1990's. And yet Obama still was able to accomplish much.
Republicans have not been able to think up and accomplish anything positive for several decades now.
Republicans have not been able to think up and accomplish anything positive for several decades now.
1
Liji, it is a curious case of hatred on the part of the President's many detractors, but the more they scramble to defeat him, the weaker they are and their antics are most revealing and transparent to this American's eye.
1
Right wing, pro-war and single issue voters, coupled with a very compliant American media, turned Iran into political caricature for the last few decades. The fascinating part of this whole "Iran debate" has been watching American politicians, who know the Iran caricature is a lie or a wild exaggeration, still nonetheless attempt to convince people to support the deal all while pretending to believe the fundamentally false Iran caricatures and media myths.
Imagine the high degree of difficulty - to repeat the lines of right wingers, accept many of their false fundamental truths about Iran, all while supporting the deal. Besides the surface politics, this deal passed because a great preponderance of American foreign policy experts, defense experts, and the intelligence establishment supported it.
Americans should point their fingers at those who didn't and ask why, because arguably, they could have defeated our best and brightest in the foreign policy establishment and perhaps dragged this country into WWIII.
The "no votes" are getting off way too easy on this one, aided by a media complex that's always compliant to the warmongers.
Imagine the high degree of difficulty - to repeat the lines of right wingers, accept many of their false fundamental truths about Iran, all while supporting the deal. Besides the surface politics, this deal passed because a great preponderance of American foreign policy experts, defense experts, and the intelligence establishment supported it.
Americans should point their fingers at those who didn't and ask why, because arguably, they could have defeated our best and brightest in the foreign policy establishment and perhaps dragged this country into WWIII.
The "no votes" are getting off way too easy on this one, aided by a media complex that's always compliant to the warmongers.
89
Well said! Thanks Principia.
6
Why? Because they're paid not to by the Israel lobby. It really is that simple.
The corporate media loves war. It gives them a well of hysteria to draw from, with no danger to themselves.
N Korea went nuclear under GW Bush's watch. Will it matter who is in charge when Iran detonates their first nuke? Humanities biggest threat is overpopulation. Welcome to the club Ayatollah.
7
Trade converted the economies of China and Vietnam from communism to capitalism. The USA lead the way as we are doing now with Iran. Trade converted Japan and Germany from WWII enemies to allies. Remember? China even joined the USA sanctions, negotiations, and favorable UN vote. Russia did too. It will not be long until trade between Iran on one side and the USA, Germany, France, Russia, China, UK, etc. will be such that Iranian capitalism will overtake the religious hate in Iran as the moving political force. There is no way Iran will ever give up trade for a bomb!! Thanks Obama!! But there are many other countries we need to help out of the control of religious hate. Iran, given its location and religion, will be a prime example of the benefits of trade.
This agreement with Iran between the USA and the other negotiating nations will go down as a watershed historic event which signaled the beginning of better relationships between American, Europe and Iran as well as the disarming of the nuclear weapons ability of the Iranians.
Again the Republican Party was united in its opposition to an important and historic moment in the history of our country, this time on an issue regarding foreign policy, traditionally an area in which there is at least some agreement between the political parties and the administration. Of course the other issue is their united stance against providing something like universal health care for Americans and which the administration and congress passed without a single Republican vote.
So, even though this agreement with Iran and Obamacare are great for the country, the negativism of the Republican Party and its support of a shutdown of the government to avoid paying our debts, makes this a sad event as it shows that one of the great political parties shows now interest in the American way of governing, that is to be part of a compromise in the interest of progress and good sense. I sadly conclude that the current Republican Party is incapable of governing. This is not good for our system.
Again the Republican Party was united in its opposition to an important and historic moment in the history of our country, this time on an issue regarding foreign policy, traditionally an area in which there is at least some agreement between the political parties and the administration. Of course the other issue is their united stance against providing something like universal health care for Americans and which the administration and congress passed without a single Republican vote.
So, even though this agreement with Iran and Obamacare are great for the country, the negativism of the Republican Party and its support of a shutdown of the government to avoid paying our debts, makes this a sad event as it shows that one of the great political parties shows now interest in the American way of governing, that is to be part of a compromise in the interest of progress and good sense. I sadly conclude that the current Republican Party is incapable of governing. This is not good for our system.
65
Harold Johnson
An American witness to this historical event, I do not have your education or informed mind to express my feelings adequately. The Republican Party chose to self-destruct awhile ago; we will vote Republican again. The damage has been done to our political system, and we are to expect a lot of dust to be kicked in our faces, while these disoriented politicians set about placing a cardboard president in the White House. But regardless of one's party affiliation, I will always stand by this president for better or worse. Thank you, President Obama, for bringing out the best in this American by your example and encouragement to widen my vision and love for my Country.
An American witness to this historical event, I do not have your education or informed mind to express my feelings adequately. The Republican Party chose to self-destruct awhile ago; we will vote Republican again. The damage has been done to our political system, and we are to expect a lot of dust to be kicked in our faces, while these disoriented politicians set about placing a cardboard president in the White House. But regardless of one's party affiliation, I will always stand by this president for better or worse. Thank you, President Obama, for bringing out the best in this American by your example and encouragement to widen my vision and love for my Country.
If we got our troops and Missionaries out of there peace would reign. I doubt if the Russians want to get evolved; but that is their problem. I can't imagine a socialist country wanting anything to do with religious nuts.
1
Huge victory! Less than 50% support in either chamber. Great news. Bad deal for the country however.
8
richard in sf bay area: got a better idea?
19
Yes,an actual "deal " that benefits the USA
Turning an entire Nation from an imbedded Idealogy of superiority by war vs peace, bridged by negotiation is at best an act of blind faith. In today's environment where political expediency is a function of money, It's a brief breath of air to see that the few can hold our Democracy .
22
Still waiting for an alternative strategy....other than sheer war with Iran.
I want to hear Repubicans say in the same breath how they plan to make right our treatment of American Veternas who have served in our last few conflicts, while they want to rush to a situation where we will undoubtably create more poorly treated veterans. We can't even allocate enough money for the Vets Administratin (not to mention all the other things we need to do at home) much less engage in ayet another unfunder, unplanned, un-allied war in the middle east. Add on Pres Jeb's tax cuts for the wealthy and we are left with even less money to pay for the next war much less fix our own country.
Over to you on that one Mitch.....
I want to hear Repubicans say in the same breath how they plan to make right our treatment of American Veternas who have served in our last few conflicts, while they want to rush to a situation where we will undoubtably create more poorly treated veterans. We can't even allocate enough money for the Vets Administratin (not to mention all the other things we need to do at home) much less engage in ayet another unfunder, unplanned, un-allied war in the middle east. Add on Pres Jeb's tax cuts for the wealthy and we are left with even less money to pay for the next war much less fix our own country.
Over to you on that one Mitch.....
51
Mark's wife.
Wonderful comment John. It is even more appalling that many social workers and mental health professionals, who have worked with Vets are getting badly treated in the system too. The men and women who go, out of duty and commitment, to serve their country and its leaders, putting their life on the line and allowing themselves to become disabled or dead, for the decisions of their leaders (in the civilian government and the military), irrespective of how they feel about that decision personally or politically, should be treated with utmost respect and support at all times...especially when they are injured, disabled and/or traumatized psychologically. We diss our soldiers, veterans and their helpers too.
Wonderful comment John. It is even more appalling that many social workers and mental health professionals, who have worked with Vets are getting badly treated in the system too. The men and women who go, out of duty and commitment, to serve their country and its leaders, putting their life on the line and allowing themselves to become disabled or dead, for the decisions of their leaders (in the civilian government and the military), irrespective of how they feel about that decision personally or politically, should be treated with utmost respect and support at all times...especially when they are injured, disabled and/or traumatized psychologically. We diss our soldiers, veterans and their helpers too.
That is a simple answer, John, its War!
Another major success for President Obama despite Republican opposition.
46
SteveS
It brings to mind the great Secretariat who left the other competitors far behind him, as he came down the stretch with his generous heart and endurance. We will not see a distinguished and accomplished president of such nobility in our life time, and it is a privilege and honor to have been under his banner and leadership.
It brings to mind the great Secretariat who left the other competitors far behind him, as he came down the stretch with his generous heart and endurance. We will not see a distinguished and accomplished president of such nobility in our life time, and it is a privilege and honor to have been under his banner and leadership.
"When I remember all the adolescent hooting from Republicans when Netanyahu spoke at their invitation, it must be a bitter day for them..."
Two comments on that:
1. When Congress cut its deal with Obama earlier this year on Congress' limited "review" rights, this result was entirely predictable. And so one must wonder why Congress capitulated so quickly back then. Did its leaders know they couldn't block the deal (probably the case, since it's not a "treaty" but a revocable political agreement which, therefore, doesn't require Senate approval as a treaty would)? Or did Congress really want the deal to go through?
2. Let's cool it with references to "Republicans" being the only ones opposing the deal. Several Democrats opposed it too -- notably Senator Schumer and Rep. Elliott Engel. The real test was the Senator's/Congressman's ability and inclination to resist pressure from AiPAC and the Israeli government.
Two comments on that:
1. When Congress cut its deal with Obama earlier this year on Congress' limited "review" rights, this result was entirely predictable. And so one must wonder why Congress capitulated so quickly back then. Did its leaders know they couldn't block the deal (probably the case, since it's not a "treaty" but a revocable political agreement which, therefore, doesn't require Senate approval as a treaty would)? Or did Congress really want the deal to go through?
2. Let's cool it with references to "Republicans" being the only ones opposing the deal. Several Democrats opposed it too -- notably Senator Schumer and Rep. Elliott Engel. The real test was the Senator's/Congressman's ability and inclination to resist pressure from AiPAC and the Israeli government.
17
And, hats off to Senator Charles Schumer for having the grace to come forward to acknowledge the President's voice, despite his serious reservations on this important deal with Iran.
Thinker - here's a scenario for you: Responsible Republicans knew from the start that the deal would go through. Heck, they may even have wanted it to go through in the deep, dark, secret recesses of their brains. And the whole opposition thing? pure political theater, red meat for the base to further gin up loyalty to the Republican Party for the coming elections and hatred for Obama and the Democrats....
1
Whether or not President Barack Obama is consciously or not,seeking to validate his 'early Nobel Peace Prize,is open to discussion.In either regard,his positive steps in that direction,have stabilized national postures,possibly for a generation.While it is difficult to surmise American opposition that has metastasized from mere distrust to embraced apocalypse,catastrophe seems the only republican salvation.The Iranians are no fools and perceive the drudging and dreaded respect that these negotiations now bestow upon them.They know the knowledge the nuclear question accords them,shields their people from random attack and acknowledges their 21st century status.This may have been their central and greatest achievement of all...
12
A commenter describes Iran as:
" ... an enemy nation that threatens to destroy the US and Israel ..."
Numerous commenters have explained over the years, correctly, that Iran has never threatened to destroy Israel. But at least words were spoken that, with a little imaginative stretching, could be interpreted to mean that.
But "destroy the US?" When did anyone in Iran ever threaten to destroy the US? If you say something over and over and over, pretty soon listeners will simply assume it must be true. That's why it's important to challenge fabrications like this one -- forcefully and early. So maybe that commenter -- or anyone else -- will be kind enough to tell us who said what here? (That won't happen, of course, since the commenter just made this up -- but I'll be polite and ask.)
" ... an enemy nation that threatens to destroy the US and Israel ..."
Numerous commenters have explained over the years, correctly, that Iran has never threatened to destroy Israel. But at least words were spoken that, with a little imaginative stretching, could be interpreted to mean that.
But "destroy the US?" When did anyone in Iran ever threaten to destroy the US? If you say something over and over and over, pretty soon listeners will simply assume it must be true. That's why it's important to challenge fabrications like this one -- forcefully and early. So maybe that commenter -- or anyone else -- will be kind enough to tell us who said what here? (That won't happen, of course, since the commenter just made this up -- but I'll be polite and ask.)
38
If anything, Thinker, it's our own politicians, including McCain, that have been saying "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb" Iran. Imagine what our side would make of it if a major Iranian politician came out and made such an unprovoked and threatening statement.
1
Why do so many commenters find this surprising?
"It is telling that the other five signatories to the agreement were ready to proceed with it regardless of what the Republicans did."
Do commenters really believe that negotiators from, say, the UK or France or Germany (not to mention China and Russia) went back to their countries and told their people: "Yes, we approved the deal, but we'll change our mind if the US Congress doesn't like it."
Do people really believe that would happen?
"It is telling that the other five signatories to the agreement were ready to proceed with it regardless of what the Republicans did."
Do commenters really believe that negotiators from, say, the UK or France or Germany (not to mention China and Russia) went back to their countries and told their people: "Yes, we approved the deal, but we'll change our mind if the US Congress doesn't like it."
Do people really believe that would happen?
48
Obama may be celebrating a political victory, but it is, alas, a Pyrrhic one. Signing a deal with a rogue country whose terrorist tentacles are spreading the world over can hardly be counted as victory. People don't learn from history, and unfortunately this cliché also applies to President Obama. The next time the world has to confront Iran - and it will - the toll will be infinitely higher. To use Iran's own lingo, the small Satan will grow into a mega-Satan and today's free world will be called upon to save itself at a very exorbitant price. So what we have here is a short-term gain for a what will surely be a long-term calamitous reality.
10
We started the ball rolling when we and the Brits overthrew an elected government in Iran in 1953 and installed a fascist police state because of oil. What goes around comes around. Another great example of American "exceptionalism".
3
Simon, would you prefer to face an Iran with an arsenal of nuclear bombs or an Iran with none? Zero?
Hi Ronald,
Well, that's exactly the point. The agreement is not unlimited; it does allow Tehran - albeit in 10-15 years - to do pretty much what it wants in terms of its nuclear program. By then it will have amassed so much riches (from oil and other sources, e.g. doing business with the West) and by then it will have also established such an elaborate web of terrorism, that undoing the situation will, as I noted, come at prohibiting costs. By all accounts, nobody - even the Democrats (of which I am a supporter) - expects Iran to change its nefarious ways. Peace is something that one makes with enemies - but only with those willing to change their ways, lay down their arms and discontinue their aggression. Clearly this is not the case with Iran, whose leaders, using vitriolic rhetoric, call for |Israel's annihilation and doing away with a democratic US/West . President Obama, in his own words, expressed hope that maybe in 10 or 15 years' time the ayatollah regime will be replaced by a more moderate regime. Engaging in pipe dreams is the luxury of lay people like you and me, not of the leader of the world's only democratic superpower.
Well, that's exactly the point. The agreement is not unlimited; it does allow Tehran - albeit in 10-15 years - to do pretty much what it wants in terms of its nuclear program. By then it will have amassed so much riches (from oil and other sources, e.g. doing business with the West) and by then it will have also established such an elaborate web of terrorism, that undoing the situation will, as I noted, come at prohibiting costs. By all accounts, nobody - even the Democrats (of which I am a supporter) - expects Iran to change its nefarious ways. Peace is something that one makes with enemies - but only with those willing to change their ways, lay down their arms and discontinue their aggression. Clearly this is not the case with Iran, whose leaders, using vitriolic rhetoric, call for |Israel's annihilation and doing away with a democratic US/West . President Obama, in his own words, expressed hope that maybe in 10 or 15 years' time the ayatollah regime will be replaced by a more moderate regime. Engaging in pipe dreams is the luxury of lay people like you and me, not of the leader of the world's only democratic superpower.
1
Cheney and his ilk i.e. The Bush administration - must be so beside themselves, to paraphrase Groucho Marx - they must be on the other side of themselves because our President accomplished something without sending our military to another war. Imagine. Accomplishing something intelligently, peacefully, firmly and working with other countries. The GOP right-wing-Obama-haters must be beside themselves.
68
Finally, a victory for sanity in the Middle East. The next step towards a safer, nuclear-free Middle East is obvious: The time is long overdue for us to impose sanctions on Israel until it agrees to give up its nuclear weapon program.
47
Having to hear Senator Graham complain about a filibuster makes me sick to my stomach. The Republicans refused to allow the Senate to act like a legislative body for 7 years now and this Senator and presidential candidate has the nerve to complain about a filibuster. These guys have no shame whatsoever.
62
House Republicans were already scrambling Thursday to find ways to undercut the accord and maintain or restore sanctions against Iran. “This debate is far from over and, frankly, it’s just beginning,” said Speaker John A. Boehner. “We will use every tool at our disposal to stop, slow and delay this agreement from being fully implemented.”
It is instructive the term "Scrambling." It shows, once again the Republicans are incapable of governing even with a Majority
It is instructive the term "Scrambling." It shows, once again the Republicans are incapable of governing even with a Majority
30
Because Netanyahu, has already paid them! Ironic isn't it, money spent by taxpayers and sent to Israel is sent back to their lobbyists, to interfere with our internal affairs.
1
The tenor of the right-wing broadcasts that I pulled up on AM radio this evening did not put the blame for the Iran nuclear deal on President Obama, remarkably. They put the blame on Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and the Republican establishment. As the current popularity of Donald Trump further attests, the Republican Party is coming apart at the seams. Obama may live up to his promise of hope and change, yet, by acting as the catalyst.
45
The situation is curious. We elect individuals to represent us under the notion of a Democratic Republic, yet the hubris of the elected subverts the concept of a plebiscite to determine that which citizens of the U.S.A. actually want. Further, the very large hole in this process is that assumption that the leaders in the Administrative and Congressional branches have solid intellects and are capable of make reality-based decisions about the nations future. I believe the reality is these people are intellectually deficient as a small minority possess training and experience in Science and Engineering which is, of course, is at present the engine of the worlds economy.
6
The Republicans are experts at one thing, whining. Obama's greatest foreign policy achievement also delivers a measure of poetic justice. The Republicans have lived by the filibuster and now they die by the filibuster.
54
This is not just a victory for Obama. This is a world victory. What has been accomplished here is a great step toward real future peace. The only ones that are deceived by this agreement are those opposed not by conviction but by mere political egotism and by intimidating rhetoric.
There is no question that we have had to negotiate with an intransigent element, but let's keep in mind that they are our own doing. Remember the Shah, a product of our transgression with democracy in Iran and then the resultant consequences of his overthrow, i.e. the radical fundamentalists that we had to maneuver around to be able, along with other five nations, finally and successfully reach this milestone for every one, yes for everyone's, benefit.- Let's be thankful.-
There is no question that we have had to negotiate with an intransigent element, but let's keep in mind that they are our own doing. Remember the Shah, a product of our transgression with democracy in Iran and then the resultant consequences of his overthrow, i.e. the radical fundamentalists that we had to maneuver around to be able, along with other five nations, finally and successfully reach this milestone for every one, yes for everyone's, benefit.- Let's be thankful.-
34
As a member of Aipac, I'm embarrassed by the partisan tone the group has adopted around this deal, and also by the anti-Obama fervor of many of my fellow Jewish Americans (note that I don't call myself or them American Jews).
Despite the conservatives' attempt to tar Obama and other Democrats with the anti-semitic label, history shows that over the years, Presidents of both parties went against Israel's interests, and I certainly don't recall them receiving the same sort of labeling by Aipac and other conservatives. Note the paragraph below from tonight's NYT article:
"Aipac feuded with Jimmy Carter in 1978 over his plan to sell F-15 Eagle fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, and three years later battled with Ronald Reagan over Awacs reconnaissance planes for the Saudis. The group lost both times and suffered a similar defeat when George Bush opposed loan guarantees for Israel in 1991."
Let that serve as proof that by defying Israel, Obama is following the path of other Presidents, including Republicans, who correctly decided they were Presidents of the United States, not prime ministers of Israel.
Despite the conservatives' attempt to tar Obama and other Democrats with the anti-semitic label, history shows that over the years, Presidents of both parties went against Israel's interests, and I certainly don't recall them receiving the same sort of labeling by Aipac and other conservatives. Note the paragraph below from tonight's NYT article:
"Aipac feuded with Jimmy Carter in 1978 over his plan to sell F-15 Eagle fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, and three years later battled with Ronald Reagan over Awacs reconnaissance planes for the Saudis. The group lost both times and suffered a similar defeat when George Bush opposed loan guarantees for Israel in 1991."
Let that serve as proof that by defying Israel, Obama is following the path of other Presidents, including Republicans, who correctly decided they were Presidents of the United States, not prime ministers of Israel.
54
Perhaps it's time to ask yourself why you are a member of AIPAC. If straight thinkers like you deserted them, and perhaps joined J Street, you could enact more change, here and in Israel.
I hate to see the sanctions go, The pressure put on countries and multinational corporations trading with Iran was unprecedented. By choking off much of the oil industry, we caused substantial inflation, which had a broad effect across the economy, and tended to weaken popular support for the government. Black market transactions mushroomed, further damaging the national economy and political stability. Though the leaders mocked the sanctions, their rule became more answerable to public opinion. At the same time, the power and influence of the West, and the US in particular, were enhanced in the eyes of Iran, causing government restraint, which seems to have delayed nuclear development over the last couple of years. These sanctions are now gone. That is a terrible shame.
6
Well done to President Obama and his team for an outcome which is certainly the best possible given the complexities of the issue. This is leadership and diplomacy in action. Meanwhile, Boehner, Cheney and McConnell will continue their war dance and then retire to the den for a cigar and whiskey---grateful for a clueless constituency who keep them in such splendour. At night's end they'll chuckle under their breath, "Well, we did our best........a round of golf tomorrow?"
32
If all the Republicans were against it, then it must be a good deal. And if Manchin voted against it, I'm darned sure it is a good deal! And if Joe Donnelly had the political courage to vote for it, perhaps even sacrificing his political Senatorial future in Indiana, then it must be a great deal!
19
For decades, Israeli-American relations was a bi-partisan issue.
All Americans supported foreign and military aid to Israel and gave the country the benefit of the doubt when human rights issues asserted themselves before the UN.
However, Netanyahu tried to embarass and demean a popular sitting American Democratic President in order to score points before an election on a single political negotiation.
He burned down the bridges between Israel, President Obama, the Democratic party and the American people - despite all President Obama has done to secure Israel's safety in his term of office.
Netanyahu acted shamefully. Netanyahu will quickly find he backed the wrong horse.
Meanwhile, Trump, Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum, Christie, Perry, and the rest of the clown car have ensured that demographically Republicans will not hold national offices for generations to come.
The consequences for Netanyahu will be significant, severe and biting.
All Americans supported foreign and military aid to Israel and gave the country the benefit of the doubt when human rights issues asserted themselves before the UN.
However, Netanyahu tried to embarass and demean a popular sitting American Democratic President in order to score points before an election on a single political negotiation.
He burned down the bridges between Israel, President Obama, the Democratic party and the American people - despite all President Obama has done to secure Israel's safety in his term of office.
Netanyahu acted shamefully. Netanyahu will quickly find he backed the wrong horse.
Meanwhile, Trump, Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum, Christie, Perry, and the rest of the clown car have ensured that demographically Republicans will not hold national offices for generations to come.
The consequences for Netanyahu will be significant, severe and biting.
32
A deal with Iran. What could go wrong? Lol
3
No deal with Iran. Continued progress toward a nuclear weapon, unconstrained by negotiated reductions in numbers of centrifuges and permissible amounts of enriched nuclear material, without verification and inspections.
This is a viable alternative to a diplomatic deal?
This is a viable alternative to a diplomatic deal?
1
Simplistic, sound-bite thinking about complex issues of foreign relations. What could go wrong?
As someone once said, "The devil is in the details." And we will be seeing the devil sooner than later when it comes to this deal. This treaty is, in effect, no deal with Iran when it comes to nuclear weapons. Iran can eventually become a nuclear power in the Middle East. By agreeing to the provisions proposed by Obama, Iran has agreed to postpone the prospects of getting a nuclear weapon for the next 15 years. You can say that is better than nothing. But I hardly call this deal one destined to bring peace in our time. Obama, as many other politicians, wants to get a major accomplishment before he leaves office, even if it means approximately 15 years after he he leaves office, Iran can start development on a nuclear weapon. Giving nations permission to develop nuclear weapons rises above party politics. Both Democrats and Republicans had/have favorable as well as unfavorable comments about this deal. They all should be heard without criticizing those who say them.
11
Not one Republican congressional representative proposed a viable alternative to the agreement, yet not one Republican Senator voted to support the agreement. That is not thoughtful, principled or sincere governmental decision making. It is playing partisan politics in the very dangerous area of nuclear policy.
I imagine some of those Republicans are secretly relieved that the agreement went through and they will not be held responsible for another huge foreign policy blunder like the Iraq war. I hope some of them are also secretly ashamed that they did not support the agreement and that they are now going to put the vote all on the backs of Democrats
This is what happened with Obamacare. Every Republican voted against it after making wild claims that it would cause all kinds of problems. They blamed Democrats and made that an issue in the 2012 election. They lost the election and none of the horrible problems they said Obamacare would cause have happened.
Republicans may now waste precious time with vote after vote opposing aspects of the agreement, as they did 50+ times with Obamacare. But, they will end up with egg on their faces again.
What unfortunate behavior. They claim now that the U.S. should have gotten a stronger agreement. The sad fact is that if Republicans had supported the Administration and engaged with it in negotiating the agreement with Iran, we would have been negotiating from a position of greater strength and might have gotten even more.
I imagine some of those Republicans are secretly relieved that the agreement went through and they will not be held responsible for another huge foreign policy blunder like the Iraq war. I hope some of them are also secretly ashamed that they did not support the agreement and that they are now going to put the vote all on the backs of Democrats
This is what happened with Obamacare. Every Republican voted against it after making wild claims that it would cause all kinds of problems. They blamed Democrats and made that an issue in the 2012 election. They lost the election and none of the horrible problems they said Obamacare would cause have happened.
Republicans may now waste precious time with vote after vote opposing aspects of the agreement, as they did 50+ times with Obamacare. But, they will end up with egg on their faces again.
What unfortunate behavior. They claim now that the U.S. should have gotten a stronger agreement. The sad fact is that if Republicans had supported the Administration and engaged with it in negotiating the agreement with Iran, we would have been negotiating from a position of greater strength and might have gotten even more.
25
Very well said....particularly your last point!
I don't think there is any doubt that, like him or not, its been 35 years or so since a president has achieved so many of his goals as Obama. I have no idea how this deal will play out between the countries and though I don't think it is a good deal, I'm not sure it matters what the agreement is if Iran and the U.S. or IAEF differ on its implementation. Or we get a Republican president (not that I believe whoever would be elected would necessarily cancel it immediately, no matter what they say while campaigning). But, it is still bad gov't, as the most important foreign agreement in his two terms should have been a treaty. But that would have meant cooperation from across the aisle, which was not about to happen. And as unpopular as some of his policies are with the majority of Americans (not NY Times' reader - that's different) and however low his favorability ratings are, the Republicans in general are more unpopular. Meanwhile, the most popular presidential candidates are a billionaire businessman/reality tv show host and a socialist. Strange times.
3
But the socialist and the billionaire agree on two MAJOR issues:
1. we should replace Obamacare with Medicare for all, Canada's proven universal health care system that costs half as much as ours measured as a percent of GDP of the two countries;
2. the ultra high earners should pay their fair share of taxes, -- more tax.
Yes, strange times indeed.
1. we should replace Obamacare with Medicare for all, Canada's proven universal health care system that costs half as much as ours measured as a percent of GDP of the two countries;
2. the ultra high earners should pay their fair share of taxes, -- more tax.
Yes, strange times indeed.
Since it's not a treaty or a law the next president and just totally ignore it. Is that true and if it is was why did we bother?
3
Obama did it for the good of the USA and the world. If the next president is Repub, he'll leave it in place for the same reason even though he'll have campaigned on the promise to void it.
The agreement may be dumped by the next President whether he or she is Republican or a Democrat with the except of Mrs. Clinton. Hillary will do as she is told.
Sanctions are a cruel and inhuman way to achieve foreign policy goals. Those in power suffer not at all, while the common man and his family do without. Estimates are that 500,000 Iraqi children died as a result of years of sanctions aimed at Saddam Hussein, who ate well every night and had doctors and medicine whenever he wanted them.
9
The following member states of the United Nations have never signed the Nuclear Arms Non-proliferation Treaty: India, Pakistan, South Sudan, and Israel. Today Republicans in Congress pretend their repudiation of the treaty with Iran is a matter of principle. Are we to assume those states are beacons of social justice, world peace, and diplomacy? Congratulations on your collective irrelevance. We can see through your profile-in-courage disguises. Perhaps now some of you may begin to understand why Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace price.
18
Credit to Barack Obama as probably the steadiest, most cool-headed, and most deeply grounded US president in history. Again and again he outmaneuvers the Republicans in Congress, locked as they are in their collective sociopathy. Mr. President, America's better side thanks you!
33
In ten years Iran will have the bomb if they stick to the deal; if not, they'll have it sooner. Ya Dems, celebrate that one!
Hope is not, and never has been, a winning strategy!
Hope is not, and never has been, a winning strategy!
4
And without the deal, Iran could have the bomb in two months.
3
This marks the end of the great illusion. Iran came unraveled when a few students who had relatives persecuted by the Shah suddenly took over the American embassy. Initially they received no support from the new "government". The international media picked up the story; the students finally got the KB...the Khomeini Blessing. Up to that point, the takeover was minor, and resolvable.
The vast majority of the Iranian people had no idea what this action had set into motion. Millions of Americans - myself included - were frustrated and extremely angry that Jimmy Carter just couldn't get the job done. And then, to top it off, Reagan got the credit for all of Carter's work.
Thus began the longest mass illusion in American history - that Iran was our enemy. NOT!
Iran, the former Persian Empire, became the bloody theocracy these evil "religious" people have imposed on their citizens for the last 35 years. To the vast majority of the oppressed Iranian people, we Americans are not the Great Satan, but for decades the illusion has made believable lies from Netanyahu, parroted in the US Congress by Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer.
Kudos to President Obama for breaking through this curtain of lies about what Iran really is. It is a theocracy which is set for a true revolution by its youth. Let Iran take care of Iran.
The Pentagon has much more important business on its plate right now. Iran is one of the least of our problems, and thanks to Obama, it is now even less so.
The vast majority of the Iranian people had no idea what this action had set into motion. Millions of Americans - myself included - were frustrated and extremely angry that Jimmy Carter just couldn't get the job done. And then, to top it off, Reagan got the credit for all of Carter's work.
Thus began the longest mass illusion in American history - that Iran was our enemy. NOT!
Iran, the former Persian Empire, became the bloody theocracy these evil "religious" people have imposed on their citizens for the last 35 years. To the vast majority of the oppressed Iranian people, we Americans are not the Great Satan, but for decades the illusion has made believable lies from Netanyahu, parroted in the US Congress by Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer.
Kudos to President Obama for breaking through this curtain of lies about what Iran really is. It is a theocracy which is set for a true revolution by its youth. Let Iran take care of Iran.
The Pentagon has much more important business on its plate right now. Iran is one of the least of our problems, and thanks to Obama, it is now even less so.
21
The deal passed by a losing vote and Obama says that is a victory for diplomacy. You figure it, I can't. A losing vote becomes a victory, if not for Israel than for whom? And it's advertised as a lose for Israel but in fact, it's a victory for terrorism and a slap in the face of the US. After all, with all our presence in the world, the deal is justified as being the best we could do. Where's the logic in that?
4
Congress sometimes does the right thing.
3
For the GOP, the possible outcome doesn't really seem to matter: its the journey, and trying to do the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different outcome. Just how many times has the House tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")?
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
10
I see nothing wrong with the "Iran deal", as long as the US intelligence community, with the cooperation of UN inspectors, is able to monitor Iran's behavior. I am especially interested in Iran's manufacturing of plutonium at Arak, as reported by William Broad in the New York Times on September 7, 2015. Plutonium serves no civilian purpose. It is only used as a fuel for nuclear weapons. I hope the US has the instruments in place, especially the Ground Filtering Unit which collects the byproducts of plutonium enrichment, krypton and xenon, to monitor this plutonium enrichment site. Only then can we and Israel sleep soundly at night. Cheers!
3
No one -- no politician, no diplomat, no pundit, no one -- has uttered the words: "I trust Iran." Yet, there is no evidence that the Islamic Republic has ever broken it's word. With anyone! Yeah, Iran is an enemy of Israel, an adversary of the United States and a sectarian mischief-maker throughout the reason. But that's not what this was about. It was about trusting Iran. I trust Iran.
5
Thank you President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry and Congressional Democrats. This avoids a war with Iran. If the Republicans had their way- no Treaty and invade Iran.
20
This is a victory for the United States of America negotiated with the leaders of Iran by President Obama along with the leaders of China, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and Germany. President Obama was twice elected President of the United States by popular and electoral vote majorities.
The high points of Republican opposition were a covert invitation by Speaker Boehner to an ungrateful arrogant foreign leader to address Congress and a letter from 47 members of Congress to the leader of Iran against the deal. Israel has received more American aid since World War II including $ 3 billion a year since 1985. Enough to build a nuclear weapons arsenal, multiple delivery systems and have the most powerful modern military in the region. Enough to deny the divine natural equal certain unalienable rights of 6 million Christian and Muslim Arab Palestinians under Israeli dominion. America does not deserve nor need such a foreign "ally" that is mostly a socioeconomic political military moral burden and liability. Time to end the era of the tiny Israeli tail wagging the big American dog.
America has been engaged in 60+ years of overt and covert regime war against Iran. America has no diplomatic relations with Iran. Along with the Kurds, Iran is the most implacable effective foe of the Sunni Muslim Arab extremist terrorist organizations and the nations that support them. Time to engage Iran as America did the Soviet Union and still does Russia and China.
The high points of Republican opposition were a covert invitation by Speaker Boehner to an ungrateful arrogant foreign leader to address Congress and a letter from 47 members of Congress to the leader of Iran against the deal. Israel has received more American aid since World War II including $ 3 billion a year since 1985. Enough to build a nuclear weapons arsenal, multiple delivery systems and have the most powerful modern military in the region. Enough to deny the divine natural equal certain unalienable rights of 6 million Christian and Muslim Arab Palestinians under Israeli dominion. America does not deserve nor need such a foreign "ally" that is mostly a socioeconomic political military moral burden and liability. Time to end the era of the tiny Israeli tail wagging the big American dog.
America has been engaged in 60+ years of overt and covert regime war against Iran. America has no diplomatic relations with Iran. Along with the Kurds, Iran is the most implacable effective foe of the Sunni Muslim Arab extremist terrorist organizations and the nations that support them. Time to engage Iran as America did the Soviet Union and still does Russia and China.
17
My guess is that the Republicans like Boehner and Mc Connell knew this was the responsible thing to do.
That’s why they made it so that the deal could be done with only the filibuster instead of having to get a majority of votes.
It allows Republicans to be against it while making sure it would pass.
That’s why they made it so that the deal could be done with only the filibuster instead of having to get a majority of votes.
It allows Republicans to be against it while making sure it would pass.
4
I agree that Boehner and McConnell and perhaps many other Republicans understand that this was the right thing to do and that they were glad that it could pass and they could appease their base by opposing Obama on it.
1
Congratulations USA, Iran, and President Obama!
9
I certainly do not trust the Senate Republicans regarding anything Obama proposes.
I trust the Iranians even less than the Republicans.
Trust Obama et al. judgement on this important matter? Sadly, not a given.
I trust the Iranians even less than the Republicans.
Trust Obama et al. judgement on this important matter? Sadly, not a given.
When I graduated with an International Relations degree in 1971, Tehran was first on my list to visit and hopefully work, despite the Shah. Didn't happen. Then the whole place came unraveled with a few students who took the American embassy and finally got the KB...the Khomeini Blessing. Up to that point, it was minor.
The Iranian people had no idea what it had set into motion, and I along with millions of other Americans were frustrated and extremely angry that Jimmy Carter just couldn't get the job done. But Reagan got the credit.
Thus began the longest mass illusion in American history - that Iran was our enemy.
NOT....Iran, the former Persian Empire, became the bloody theocracy these evil "religious" people have imposed on their citizens for the last 35 years. To the vast majority of the oppressed Iranian people, we Americans are not the Great Satan; but for decades the illusion has made for believable lies and other nonsense from people like Netanyahu and their minions in the US Congress like Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer. (Need I even mention Richard Cheney)?
Kudos to President Obama for finally breaking through this vast illusion about what Iran really is. It is a theocracy which is set for a true revolution by its youth. Let Iran take care of Iran.
The Pentagon has much more important business on its plate right now. Iran is one of the least of our problems, and thanks to Obama, it is now even less so.
The Iranian people had no idea what it had set into motion, and I along with millions of other Americans were frustrated and extremely angry that Jimmy Carter just couldn't get the job done. But Reagan got the credit.
Thus began the longest mass illusion in American history - that Iran was our enemy.
NOT....Iran, the former Persian Empire, became the bloody theocracy these evil "religious" people have imposed on their citizens for the last 35 years. To the vast majority of the oppressed Iranian people, we Americans are not the Great Satan; but for decades the illusion has made for believable lies and other nonsense from people like Netanyahu and their minions in the US Congress like Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer. (Need I even mention Richard Cheney)?
Kudos to President Obama for finally breaking through this vast illusion about what Iran really is. It is a theocracy which is set for a true revolution by its youth. Let Iran take care of Iran.
The Pentagon has much more important business on its plate right now. Iran is one of the least of our problems, and thanks to Obama, it is now even less so.
8
When I remember all the adolescent hooting from Republicans when Netanyahu spoke at their invitation, it must be a bitter day for them. And those bitter days have been adding up. When you are committed to obstructionism and malice and contributing nothing, you will eventually end up with nothing.
Bravo to President Obama. I'm so glad I've lived during your two terms. I bet you can't wait to exit the barnyard and clean off your shoes for the last time.
Bravo to President Obama. I'm so glad I've lived during your two terms. I bet you can't wait to exit the barnyard and clean off your shoes for the last time.
17
Can the American left finally give Obama his due? He wins again. He has had an exceptional Presidency, the limitations of his record mostly reflecting the never-say-die intransigence of the opposition. This potentially transformative deal extends an olive branch to Iran and a stiff jab to Bibi Netanyahu. Personally I couldn't be more pleased.
12
After all is said and done the President must send thank you notes to Tom Cotton the Speaker of the House and Dick Cheney. Senator Cotton for the gang of 47 letter, to the Speaker for inviting Bibi to speak in the well of the House. Lets not forget Dick Cheney the speech he made last week took the ball across the goal line. Could anyone on the left be on the same side as Dick? Talk about over reaching this one has to be a classic.
8
In many other countries (not only the other P5), there's no real debate whether to pursue this path of peace with Iran.
It is because this country has a large number of war profiteers, an outsize right wing Israeli influence, and a great number of US politicians who cannot rise above their own electoral interests and do for their country, that this is even any kind of debate.
Isn't it humiliating that today the heads of three European countries found it necessary write an op-ed in a major Washington newspaper reminding our lawmakers that this deal is in America's interest!
For shame!
It is because this country has a large number of war profiteers, an outsize right wing Israeli influence, and a great number of US politicians who cannot rise above their own electoral interests and do for their country, that this is even any kind of debate.
Isn't it humiliating that today the heads of three European countries found it necessary write an op-ed in a major Washington newspaper reminding our lawmakers that this deal is in America's interest!
For shame!
11
As far as I can see and I have read more than one summary of this deal with Iran, nothing directly threatens the existence of Israel. What Khameni said the other day is just another guy blowing smoke. He will dead and gone n the 25 years he talks about.
Perhaps the question that hasn't been dealt with: Should a foreign leader be dictating the foreign policy of our country? No!
Perhaps the question that hasn't been dealt with: Should a foreign leader be dictating the foreign policy of our country? No!
16
The thing that continues to amaze me is how President Obama continues to out fox the Republicans and they keep coming back and shooting themselves in the foot. When will they ever learn. Maybe if they are creamed in 2016.They are living in a fantasy world. The whole world thinks there are a joke.What an image for the US. Even if they were to get their way would they have to deal with a suspicious if not hostile world.Foreign Ambassadors are too diplomatic to say anything. Their governments need a friendly Congress but the price is too high to pay for what the Congress wants.
11
This marks the end of the great illusion. Iran came unraveled when a few students who had relatives persecuted by the Shah suddenly took over the American embassy. They received no support from the new "government". But the international media picked up the story, and the students finally got the Khomeini Blessing. Up to that point, the takeover was minor and resolvable.
The vast majority of the Iranian people had no idea what this action had set into motion. Millions of Americans - myself included - were frustrated and extremely angry that Jimmy Carter just couldn't get the job done. And then, to top it off, Reagan got the credit for all of Carter's work.
Thus began the longest mass illusion in American history - that Iran was our enemy. NOT!
Iran, the former Persian Empire, became the bloody theocracy these "religious" people have imposed on their citizens for the last 35 years. To the vast majority of the oppressed Iranian people, we Americans are not the Great Satan, but for decades the illusion has made for believable lies and other nonsense from people like Netanyahu and their minions in the US Congress like Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer.
Kudos to President Obama for finally breaking through this vast illusion about what Iran really is. It is a theocracy which is set for a true revolution by its youth.
The Pentagon has much more important business on its plate right now. Iran is one of the least of our problems, and thanks to Obama, it is now even less so.
The vast majority of the Iranian people had no idea what this action had set into motion. Millions of Americans - myself included - were frustrated and extremely angry that Jimmy Carter just couldn't get the job done. And then, to top it off, Reagan got the credit for all of Carter's work.
Thus began the longest mass illusion in American history - that Iran was our enemy. NOT!
Iran, the former Persian Empire, became the bloody theocracy these "religious" people have imposed on their citizens for the last 35 years. To the vast majority of the oppressed Iranian people, we Americans are not the Great Satan, but for decades the illusion has made for believable lies and other nonsense from people like Netanyahu and their minions in the US Congress like Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer.
Kudos to President Obama for finally breaking through this vast illusion about what Iran really is. It is a theocracy which is set for a true revolution by its youth.
The Pentagon has much more important business on its plate right now. Iran is one of the least of our problems, and thanks to Obama, it is now even less so.
26
The only "important business" the Pentagon has on its plate right now is hustling to find another enemy to justify its grossly inflated budget and its ineffectiveness at solving any problems whatsoever.
I agree, but I trace the unraveling back to 1953, when the US and UK overthrew Iran's democratically elected PM, probably for the oil. Then the US supported the Shah, whose secret police rivaled the worst of any country.
2
Perhaps you would prefer to see Iran become another Iraq, Syria, Libya or Afghanistan. The country has plenty of problems, but it is a functioning nation that has - OMG - it's own form of government that reflects its culture, religion and history. Than God Obama has prevailed on our dysfunctional government to bring the U.S. in line with the international community on this matter.
2
What has happened to Americans? The world is in chaos. The president is about to give an enemy nation that threatens to destroy the US and Israel the nuclear means to achieve those goals, yet the conversation on this page is about the behavior of the Republican Opposition. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns. Meanwhile ordinary Americans perceive the danger created for the world by the actions of this president and his sycophants and they are angry. Perhaps angry enough to elect Donald Trump in 2016.
4
most people see this deal as th best way to deter iran from a bomb. if donald trump is elected in 2016 i'll swallow a mountain.
1
Check this out. You really want to be a party to sanctions?
http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/we-think-the-price-is-worth-it/
http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/we-think-the-price-is-worth-it/
Republicans would be against anything having to do with a successful democratic president. But why do they vote over and over against everything this president has done? I think we all know why but refuse to whisper to anyone what we already know. It is what it is.
2
although this is a flawed agreement, the situation does strongly suggest that , had we not done this, the world would have moved on to trade and engagement with Iran anyway. We have already seen the other countries involved falling all over themselves and each other to begin trade and make deals. And while I think that the White House made some strategic erros in tryinng to convince people to support this (including and especially the President, whom I support and admire most of the time), it's hard to blame him for castigating the naysayers given that there is no realistic alternative to making this work. And, in the end, this may strengthen the moderates in Iran and it may lead Iran to moderate its positions. About its behavior with a windfall of cash coming its way, I have no illusions that the Middle East will be stabilized, as the Iranian money will help the Iranian regime stoke its bad actor allies (Hezbollah, Syria, etc.) with more weapons.
The Republicans, Netanyahu, the Cheneys, and AIPAC should all be ashamed of the vicious campaign of distortions and fearmongering that they have waged for no good end.
The Republicans, Netanyahu, the Cheneys, and AIPAC should all be ashamed of the vicious campaign of distortions and fearmongering that they have waged for no good end.
27
Numerous deal opponents insist that Iran will be "free to build a bomb" when this deal expires. Not so. To do that -- now or later -- Iran would have to breach the NPT and its Safeguards Agreement. It could do so, of course, but the IAEA isn't claiming that. Despite many assertions to the contrary here and elsewhere, the IAEA routinely reports that it has found no evidence that Iran is breaching the NPT or its SA, or that Iran is not disclosing information its SA requires it to disclose. Many commenters dispute this, and at least some of those commenters appear actually to believe that Iran is violating the NPT or its SA; nonetheless, the indisputable facts are what I've just stated.
Even when this deal expires, Iran will remain subject to the Additional Protocol and the modified version of Code 3.1, which will mean substantially more intrusive inspections and significant restrictions indefinitely. Nothing in the deal document says either of those commitments will end, ever. Those unfamiliar with these matters may not appreciate the significance of these ongoing obligations, but they are very significant indeed.
Even when this deal expires, Iran will remain subject to the Additional Protocol and the modified version of Code 3.1, which will mean substantially more intrusive inspections and significant restrictions indefinitely. Nothing in the deal document says either of those commitments will end, ever. Those unfamiliar with these matters may not appreciate the significance of these ongoing obligations, but they are very significant indeed.
10
This debacle tells me that Trump is very wrong about Obama. The president is anything but a stupid negotiator - in fact he is quite good. The president knew in advance that he won't have the support of either the public or the congress for this type of deal with Iran. But he wanted the deal badly, and negotiated a superb deal with his party, the democrats, to ensure that the Senate will not kill it. If Trump doesn't know this, then it's he who is the stupid negotiator.
So, I propose that Obama knew beforehand, before the deal was signed, that the Senate will not be able to override his veto. To get enough votes for the filibuster was even better, but not really surprising. The democrats have no one else to turn to for meaningful political sustenance - none of their leaders have popular following except for Obama.
But in the end the party will pay a price. Like Obamacare, which slowly lead to the loss of entire congress to GOP, this Iran deal may very wlll be another problem the dems just won't be able to overcome. You see, Obama won't be on the ballot any more. And who else is there?
So, I propose that Obama knew beforehand, before the deal was signed, that the Senate will not be able to override his veto. To get enough votes for the filibuster was even better, but not really surprising. The democrats have no one else to turn to for meaningful political sustenance - none of their leaders have popular following except for Obama.
But in the end the party will pay a price. Like Obamacare, which slowly lead to the loss of entire congress to GOP, this Iran deal may very wlll be another problem the dems just won't be able to overcome. You see, Obama won't be on the ballot any more. And who else is there?
6
What credible candidates does the GOP have?
1
Gerrymandering led to the R's taking over Congress not Obamacare. Remember that the public is capricious, Bush had an approval rating of 90% in the polls after invading Iraq and we know how that turned out. How many time do we hear that politicians should do the right thing regardless of the consequences---we really don't believe that .
1
I guess you just have to wait and see. The legion of candidates of the opposition resemble the extremists in the middle east in word and deed. So you honestly think that any of them (the republican candidstes) has any idea of how to talk to them? They will reach out for the Pentagon immediately, no matter how poor their record is.
3
Obama Trending on Quora http://www.quora.com/Would-a-rejection-of-the-Iran-nuclear-deal-by-the-U... made a succinct observation.
"We can either prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon through diplomacy, or be left with a form of war. Those are the options. As Commander-in-Chief, I have not shied away from using force when necessary, but I cannot in good conscience place the burden of war on our men and women in uniform without testing a diplomatic agreement that achieves a better result. That is the lesson that I hope we've learned from more than a decade of war and the weight of its consequences. Diplomacy is not easy, but it is a better choice".
I don't think there is a better and more logical observation in defense of the path breaking non zero deal with Iran!
"We can either prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon through diplomacy, or be left with a form of war. Those are the options. As Commander-in-Chief, I have not shied away from using force when necessary, but I cannot in good conscience place the burden of war on our men and women in uniform without testing a diplomatic agreement that achieves a better result. That is the lesson that I hope we've learned from more than a decade of war and the weight of its consequences. Diplomacy is not easy, but it is a better choice".
I don't think there is a better and more logical observation in defense of the path breaking non zero deal with Iran!
50
I think President Obama has finally earned that Nobel Peace Prize awarded to him. I'm proud of him and my country today.
97
Well time will tell. I have much confidence that the Iranians will cheat around the edges and become even more embolden when there is little or no meaningful response from Obama. I have very little confidence that Obama will have the heart to use any kind of military intervention when the Iranians do cross the line. A perfect storm is brewing. Time will tell.
5
I trust Iran more than I do Bibi.
2
But this isn't our fight. Granted we shouldn't be messing around out there to begin with. Let the Middle East collapse on its own and let Israel use their holy warriors to do the heavy lifting for a change. I've lost 2 friends in the last 10 years and all for what? We are no safer or secure now than we were after 9/11. This stuff just doesn't matter. With that said, IF Iran even thinks about using an atomic bomb, one U.S. submarine in the Persian Gulf can level that entire country in less than an hour. I'm not worried.
Why do you think that only war will show strength, history has shown over and over again the exact opposite. This type of opinion you find suggested by extremists and especially the enemy. Brain power only can set you apart, not this cowardly threat of war, extremely immature .
3
The Thursday vote on the Iran-5+1 deal reflects a strong assertion by the representatives of the American people of their national, independent voice.
25
A Filibuster...Hey remember when you hated the filibuster? Mr. Obama's democratic senators were just cowards - they got to avoid voting for a bill they may well regret. Obama and the Democrats own this.
8
Republicans abused the filibuster. Democrats just used it. Have a nice day.
3
Yes, we own it and history will reward us!
2
Proudly!
4
In another article today in the NYT the ayatollah declared that these have been the last and final talks about their nuclear program and that this is the last and final deal in regard to their nuclear program. And this is acknowledged by the supporters of the deal also. They all praise the deal is guaranteeing that Iran will not build a bomb within the next 10 years. That is its a short term deal with no plan for the long term.
And planning for the short term is the total opposite of the way governments think when trying to achieve something for the future. Imagine a short term deal with China over coal fired electric plants. That China agreed that for the next 10 years they will not build and new coal fired plants, after which they are not only free to build as many as they want, but like Iran, they had already declared their plans to go on a massive building spree of new coal fired plants.
Would anyone in their right mind praise this type of deal as accomplishing the goal of reducing future global emissions because it guarantees that China will not build any new plants for the next 10 years, after which they will build them to their heart's content.
However this is exactly the kind of achievement that this deal accomplishes in regard to the future of Iran having a nuclear weapon. So the talk of being the best way to guarantee what will happen in the next ten years, when the issue is not over ten years, but the future, is beyond absurd.
And planning for the short term is the total opposite of the way governments think when trying to achieve something for the future. Imagine a short term deal with China over coal fired electric plants. That China agreed that for the next 10 years they will not build and new coal fired plants, after which they are not only free to build as many as they want, but like Iran, they had already declared their plans to go on a massive building spree of new coal fired plants.
Would anyone in their right mind praise this type of deal as accomplishing the goal of reducing future global emissions because it guarantees that China will not build any new plants for the next 10 years, after which they will build them to their heart's content.
However this is exactly the kind of achievement that this deal accomplishes in regard to the future of Iran having a nuclear weapon. So the talk of being the best way to guarantee what will happen in the next ten years, when the issue is not over ten years, but the future, is beyond absurd.
3
It's way past time to stop putting the blame for a lack of bipartisanship on the President. God knows, he has tried. But Republicans have made opposing Obama their overriding concern for his entire presidency. During that time they have proposed nothing of value, achieved nothing of substance and cost the US economy $24 billion dollars by shutting down the government. In the face of their opposition, Obama has rescued a financial system in crisis, reformed healthcare and put it on a more sustainable trajectory, begun the task of reducing carbon emissions and now reduced and retarded Iran's ability to build nuclear devices. During this time the Republicans have whined, cried and shouted, predicting disasters that have never come – and that's all, nothing more. Shame on them.
36
YES, thank you!! Baffling why these huge achievements are not loudly & frequently acknowledged.
2
The Congress of the United States has rendered our country completely redundant on the world stage. This deal was baked months ago. Shell and BP are already in Teheran with the British ambassador while Exxon has to operate sub rosa. Much of the bluster was more about fundraising than about Iran. And Congress loves to figure out a way to vote on both sides of any important issue. The cynicism of our elected representatives has passed a threshold. Voters no longer take government leaders seriously. and that leaves us with a vulgar charlatan winning in the polls.
10
Think this is one of the rarest or rare cases where both proponents and opponents were perfectly justified from their perspectives and our democracy has delivered a wonderful outcome. There is great risk in not endorsing the Iran deal, but risks are even greater if the deal fails to deliver the desired outcome, which is NPT signatory compliant Iran.
The mechanism to have this vote, after the Iran deal was done, and 60 days wait period, was it can be said with the benefit of hindsight; well thought out. The message delivered to Iran confirms determined and continued preparation for responding to the long term risks. Let us gently nod to those thinking caps!
The mechanism to have this vote, after the Iran deal was done, and 60 days wait period, was it can be said with the benefit of hindsight; well thought out. The message delivered to Iran confirms determined and continued preparation for responding to the long term risks. Let us gently nod to those thinking caps!
4
This is nuts. There have been exactly two atomic bombs dropped on belligerents, and that was in deep war, but it's been 70 years since that happened. The folks running Iran may be fanatical religionists but they are not suicidal. This is a phony right wing issue.
32
Good. Now it's time for the USA and other nuclear powers to step up to the letter of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement and work hard to ban warheads. The potential for a nation-ending 'mistake' remains, humanity (in the N. hemisphere) is no safer than we were decades ago. De-targeting was a sham, it takes seconds to reload that information into missile guidance computers.
7
Is President a lame duck? Since GOP took control of both house and senate, Obama has more successful. He did lot more in this period from establishing diplomatic relation with Cuba to Iran deal, it is really amazing and unprecedented. Victory for peace and humanity and loss for warmongers. Chuck has to pay some price in next election in a blue state for more and allegiance to a foreign country than his own homeland, USA. .
29
The fat that the president could not get even one Republican to support the accord is a demonstration that there was no vote of conscience, or even sanity, among Republicans ... only a determination to defeat Obama, at whatever cost.
The Republicans claim they do not want to go to war with Iran, but they have no other plan.
The Republicans claim they do not want to go to war with Iran, but they have no other plan.
54
There may be some who oppose Mr. Obama's initiatives on political and religious or other philosophical grounds, but to avoid the obvious racial enmity lying just below the surface of many constituencies represented in our US Congress does a disservice to the whole of our nation.
It is not simply a Democrat/Republican tug of war and should be called out for the fear and loathing it is.
It is not simply a Democrat/Republican tug of war and should be called out for the fear and loathing it is.
23
Interesting that a filibuster to prevent discussion is considered a "Victory" (at least when its the Dems doing the filibustering). For Republics to filibuster is called obstructionism.
7
How many times have the Republicans used a filibuster in since Obama was first elected? And do note that he was elected by the majority of us.
17
The ACA and the Iran nuclear agreement will go go down as two of President Obama's greatest achievements and mark the shame of republicans who do not see the value of anything that President Obama has accomplished, only the color of his skin and that he is a Democrat.
Republicans continue to be the party of no and have not a clue as to what might be accomplished working with Democrats. they seem to bring nothing to the table except blind complaints with no substance.
They complain about not being capable of filibustering this deal, but think it is perfectly normal to filibuster six hundred other Congressional efforts..
Republicans continue to be the party of no and have not a clue as to what might be accomplished working with Democrats. they seem to bring nothing to the table except blind complaints with no substance.
They complain about not being capable of filibustering this deal, but think it is perfectly normal to filibuster six hundred other Congressional efforts..
39
As I recall, appeasement served the world well in the 1940's. I fail to understand how people can be happy with such an important agreement not even coming up for a vote. Another one of Obama's many victories achieved by refusing to engage with opponents, then divide, and divide more and then demonize all opposition.
8
Politics in the US today is not about a "vote." That would be overestimating the intentions of politicians, their zealous ideologies, and that of their multimillion dollar donors. No, a "vote" is about opposing the other side no matter what, regardless of real world consequences for average Americans.
9
Another point on the so called secret agreements between the IAEA and Iran. WE have similar agreements for our declared and military sites to meet the requirements of the nonproliferation treaty. It would be a violation of international law for third parties to obtain a copy of these agreements. Do we want the whole world to know our nuclear capabilities if these agreements were public.Our Congress seems to feel it can do anything it wants and gets bent when other Countries dish it back.It is called sovereignty.
12
I hate to pull the ol' "but what about China?" bait-and-switch here, but I guess I'll be that guy--an agreement with Iran, when the USA and Israel are the long-standing enemies with a nation that most of the world respects and has friendly relations with, is a triumph in that it showcases the USA's ability to move forward internationally, is less beholden to the screamers paid to support Israel's positions in Congress at all times, and that our nation can still and will continue to play a positive, diplomatic leadership role in the world today. China's far more cynical (sorry, pragmatic) approach has done wonders for its bottom lines, economically and politically, while the USA's actions abroad leave it easily portrayed in their media as a warmongering aggressor beholden to colonialist thinking.
Should we care what 1.4 billion Chinese think about our foreign policy? Yes, to the extent that China is perceived as successfully following a more friendly live-and-let-live doctrine by comparison (false as that is), and to the extent that the rest of the world is influenced by that perspective when the USA's actions are used as a reference point.
And, finally, I personally think that opening up Iran more will have a huge, positive, but slow to emerge, impact on its engagement outside its borders. Half the reason Iran wants a nuclear weapon is to look strong in the face of American/Western demands to its own hardliners. Peaceful economic exchange will temper fear on both sides.
Should we care what 1.4 billion Chinese think about our foreign policy? Yes, to the extent that China is perceived as successfully following a more friendly live-and-let-live doctrine by comparison (false as that is), and to the extent that the rest of the world is influenced by that perspective when the USA's actions are used as a reference point.
And, finally, I personally think that opening up Iran more will have a huge, positive, but slow to emerge, impact on its engagement outside its borders. Half the reason Iran wants a nuclear weapon is to look strong in the face of American/Western demands to its own hardliners. Peaceful economic exchange will temper fear on both sides.
21
President Obama is showing surprising power in the last years of his 2nd administration. This Iran nuclear accord seems like a better idea than not having any agreement at all from them. Apparently, the Republicans don't see it that way. If we have slowed down Iran's progress towards making working nuclear weapons, I'd say that is about as much as we can hope for.
Do we really want to go war with Iran? Apparently, Israel does want to, and many U.S. conservatives as well. I know Dick Cheney and his daughter, Liz, think we have become weak and soft in the face of world threats, but I don't see it that way. Many Americans, perhaps a majority, feel that years of Afghan and Iraq military involvement by the U.S. have done almost no good at all, for those countries, and for us. Do we really need more overseas military involvement than we have now? I can't see the point.
It is likely we will elect Hillary Clinton as our next President. She is a little more hawkish than Obama, but not much. I'd say we are in for years more, perhaps decades more, entrenched Republican obstructionism. I hope not, but I don't see what will bridge this political chasm in America. In the meantime, ordinary Americans will suffer the results, not Wall St. or the big corporations, or national-level politicians, either. This fact is what is wrong now in America.
41
Please, let's continue to be "weak and soft." Bush/Cheney tough guy antics sowed devastation on a cosmic scale and what did we get for it? Nothing.
2
I blame President Obama's staff in part for the unpopularity of this bill among citizens. If this administration would (sometimes just) reach out and deal with people on the same visceral levels as its opponents, their victories (of which have been many) would be more than just academic exercises.
For instance, how many Americans are aware of the size of US Air force and its five-thousand - thirteen-thousand (5,000 - 13,000) military planes, or of our approximate nuke warheads of seventy-six hundred (7,600) or more, and size and scope of our subs and carrier fleets?
Our people need this constant reassurance that bad guys will not come into their homes; this is particularly so knowing that a really scary entity (Iran) maybe closer to their neighborhood then before. And to hear all the fabrications of the Iranian supposed military powers one would think they are military equals to Russia.
We Americans talk tough as a people in bars and places, but in our hearts we do not act consistently with our boastful superpower status. Iran for heaven's sake - we could spot them fifty nukes and still obliterate them - but people have got to be told.
For instance, how many Americans are aware of the size of US Air force and its five-thousand - thirteen-thousand (5,000 - 13,000) military planes, or of our approximate nuke warheads of seventy-six hundred (7,600) or more, and size and scope of our subs and carrier fleets?
Our people need this constant reassurance that bad guys will not come into their homes; this is particularly so knowing that a really scary entity (Iran) maybe closer to their neighborhood then before. And to hear all the fabrications of the Iranian supposed military powers one would think they are military equals to Russia.
We Americans talk tough as a people in bars and places, but in our hearts we do not act consistently with our boastful superpower status. Iran for heaven's sake - we could spot them fifty nukes and still obliterate them - but people have got to be told.
12
What a relief!
It is intriguing, though, to ponder how much ‘better’ the deal might have been if the Republicans in Congress had been supportive during the negotiations – or at least just shut up. The hand-wringing, the fretting about details they didn’t even know about, the shameful invitation to the Israeli prime minister, the treasonous letter several of them sent to Iran – the miracle is that, after all that, we got as good a deal as we did.
It is intriguing, though, to ponder how much ‘better’ the deal might have been if the Republicans in Congress had been supportive during the negotiations – or at least just shut up. The hand-wringing, the fretting about details they didn’t even know about, the shameful invitation to the Israeli prime minister, the treasonous letter several of them sent to Iran – the miracle is that, after all that, we got as good a deal as we did.
24
Republicans angry "about details they didn't even know about"? An Opposition that thinks it should be fully informed about what amounts to a Treaty with the No.1 terrorist-financier in the world, sworn to destroy the US and its allies? Imagine that! If treason exists, it is not on the side of the Republicans in Congress, but on the side of those who willingly place the nation in grave danger.
With any luck, this will further the rise of J-Street, as well as the decline of AIPAC.
34
This may be a ‘victory for Obama.” It is not a victory for constitutional democracy.
The fighting recounted in this article came about because of a compromise between the Republican position that the Iran deal was a treaty requiring a two-thirds Senate confirmation and the Democratic position that no such confirmation was required. The compromise 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 be required to overturn the veto.
This “victory for Obama” means that the compromise, entered into in good faith by the Republicans who gave up their position that the deal was a treaty, was not worth the paper it was written It means that the Democrats never intended their words of agreement on the compromise. I can think of many words to describe the three card monte the Democrats have pulled. Start with shameful.
The fighting recounted in this article came about because of a compromise between the Republican position that the Iran deal was a treaty requiring a two-thirds Senate confirmation and the Democratic position that no such confirmation was required. The compromise 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 be required to overturn the veto.
This “victory for Obama” means that the compromise, entered into in good faith by the Republicans who gave up their position that the deal was a treaty, was not worth the paper it was written It means that the Democrats never intended their words of agreement on the compromise. I can think of many words to describe the three card monte the Democrats have pulled. Start with shameful.
44
Did you forget the Republic Senators end-around by addressing a letter to Iran directly? Or the failure to consult the President when inviting the Prime Minister of Israel to address a joint session of Congress? Both of these were unprecedented snubs of a president. Did you mention that presidents of both parties have used similar non-binding agreements in the past? The shamefulness here is the blindness to the perfidy of the Republicans and the redaction of historical fact.
4
So you're saying the Democrats were bad because they made a deal with Republicans and expect Republicans to live by their word?
4
what's the difference if the outcome would have been the same and is known? The intent of the resolution was to allow Congress to express its opinion (and its will if the vote would reject the agreement). The opinion of Congress is known. The outcome is known. Allowing this to come to a vote essentially turned foreign policy negotiations over to Congress and made the U.S. an unreliable negotiating partner without a credible speaking voice abroad. This was the reason the Constitution put that role in the Executive branch. The fact that three world leaders had to write an opinion piece that appeared in the Washington Post today to school the opposition in Congress indicates the level of willful ignorance on the part of many Republicans. There are some who simply have the view that we should destroy Iran but the fact that no Republican was in favor of the agreement shows that this was a political stunt. And one that weakened us internationally. (Like so many other positions on the Republican side.)
6
This is such a fractious issue, mirroring the deep division between the parties. The vote on the accord is simply the way this country has to get things done. Detractors will never be convinced. Without the accord, proponents see a somewhat isolated Iran still up to it's machinations behind a questionable firewall that impairs communication. They see the increased possibility of military activity or out-and-out war.
In this foray is Israel. It's against any rapprochement with Iran. I think that they are content to manage Iran the way they do the PLO. Occasionally things heat up, there's war, some people are killed and property damaged until there's another treaty. But Iran is a little larger entity than is the PLO. This means that detractors of the treaty might have to manage Iran in an ad hoc way with a future that is more uncertain than one with an accord.
There's a questionable belief among detractors that it's simple to bring Iran to its knees with a boycott, after which a stable government emerges there that plays nicely with the West. They have forgotten that we tried to stabilize Iraq after fracturing it and that hasn't worked out all that well.
Any accord with Iran is a risk at any time. Failure to achieve an accord with Iran is a risk at any time. The real consequential solution to which detractors of this treaty are lead is war with Iran. Otherwise, detractors have no solution. I'm not sure that much of the public is aware of that.
In this foray is Israel. It's against any rapprochement with Iran. I think that they are content to manage Iran the way they do the PLO. Occasionally things heat up, there's war, some people are killed and property damaged until there's another treaty. But Iran is a little larger entity than is the PLO. This means that detractors of the treaty might have to manage Iran in an ad hoc way with a future that is more uncertain than one with an accord.
There's a questionable belief among detractors that it's simple to bring Iran to its knees with a boycott, after which a stable government emerges there that plays nicely with the West. They have forgotten that we tried to stabilize Iraq after fracturing it and that hasn't worked out all that well.
Any accord with Iran is a risk at any time. Failure to achieve an accord with Iran is a risk at any time. The real consequential solution to which detractors of this treaty are lead is war with Iran. Otherwise, detractors have no solution. I'm not sure that much of the public is aware of that.
33
I know that many Republican men and women must be intelligent people. Yet, they don't seem to read, they don't seem to think carefully about the merits of any issue, supported by Obama or not. They just seem to have an obsession with knee jerk reactions. Why don't they think, why don't they consider the issues, why don't they really care about the people they are supposed to serve. This is an issue critical to all of mankind, and yet, they just seem to roll up in a little negative ball and scream. It's odd.
108
You say odd, I say intolerable.
1
While the Times has been insisting that Obama's deal has been losing support, the Gallup Daily tracking poll has been showing that Obama's approval rating has been rising. It is now at 50%, which is higher than it's been in a long time. If you include the Democratic left wing that will never "approve " of a Democratic president, but will always vote for that Democrat, Obama's true rating is about 55%. So what gives with the Times and it's hostile "reporting" about Obama (and Clinton, too!). The truth is that most Americans don't have a clue about what is in the deal, and the results of every poll has reflected the way the question has been framed. So, NYT, we (especially your loyal subscribers) expect better reporting. Get with it, please.
30
Well done, President Obama. Diplomacy winning over war is a rare event in our history, and the mouth frothing reaction of the R's shows why. They are all too happy to send our young men to their death or maiming on some "war de jour"
82
I think it is amazing that the president has been able to accomplish anything, much less the major milestone achievements he has reached despite the scorched earth policy of the do-nothing GOP.
81
And yet, another failed attempt by today's republican congress to do... what's the difference? Failure after failure after failure.
26
The first line of this article should have read "Senate Democrats delivered a major victory to Republicans by blocking a Republican senate resolution" If no one has noticed, this 'agreement' has the support of only 21 percent of the population, according to the latest polls. We are told by the same President, who said that we can keep our doctors, that this is a good deal. Then we hear about secret side deals, self inspection, completing an application to get permission to inspect among things that are not disclosed. Not only can we not trust Iran, we can't trust our own President.
Iran has ignored the UN on numerous previous 'promises' going back to 2005. What else can we expect except the expedited development of the very weapons that the Deal says will be delayed?
Iran has ignored the UN on numerous previous 'promises' going back to 2005. What else can we expect except the expedited development of the very weapons that the Deal says will be delayed?
13
21 percent? Baloney. Slanted poll numbers. The American people know its a good deal and Republican opposition to this deal means war. The people don't want that by any means which would be a repeat of Bush Cheney lies to start war to make Republicans rich. Through middle and lower class blood. There are no secret side deals...more Republican lies. The deal will be vigorously enforced and everyone knows it including the other signatory countries. The false accusations of secret side deals are just more Republican lies. By the way, everybody did keep their doctors. Oh and did I say Republicans lie?
6
Israel, Pakistan and India all have nukes.
None of them have ever signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT). No inspections, no monitoring, no nothing. Pakistan in particular is known to have close ties to dozens of extremist terrorist groups. Curiously, Republicans seem unconcerned...
Iran, by contrast, DID sign the NNPT! They've also NEVER violated it! Now, the last Administration decided to end all negotiations with Iran, and Iran - despite a multi-nation embargo - quickly went from 150 centrifuges (required to refine uranium to weapons grade) to over 10,000 centrifuges! The treaty will reduce them back to only a couple hundred centrifuges (verifiable via inspections by the IAEA, without first having to obtain Iranian permission). Personally, I find Iran far more trustworthy than Pakistan.
Oh, and people need to remember, Iran has ZERO reason to trust or believe us! Besides the GOP's almost treasonous letter to Iran, attempting to undermine U.S. foreign policy, every Iranian knows their own history far better than we do. Especially the fact that in 1953 they democratically elected their first, and very popular, President. And within one year, the U.S. CIA organized a coup, the murder of Iran's President, and the appointment for life of the Shah of Iran, one of the most vicious dictators in history! Why should they trust us?
None of them have ever signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT). No inspections, no monitoring, no nothing. Pakistan in particular is known to have close ties to dozens of extremist terrorist groups. Curiously, Republicans seem unconcerned...
Iran, by contrast, DID sign the NNPT! They've also NEVER violated it! Now, the last Administration decided to end all negotiations with Iran, and Iran - despite a multi-nation embargo - quickly went from 150 centrifuges (required to refine uranium to weapons grade) to over 10,000 centrifuges! The treaty will reduce them back to only a couple hundred centrifuges (verifiable via inspections by the IAEA, without first having to obtain Iranian permission). Personally, I find Iran far more trustworthy than Pakistan.
Oh, and people need to remember, Iran has ZERO reason to trust or believe us! Besides the GOP's almost treasonous letter to Iran, attempting to undermine U.S. foreign policy, every Iranian knows their own history far better than we do. Especially the fact that in 1953 they democratically elected their first, and very popular, President. And within one year, the U.S. CIA organized a coup, the murder of Iran's President, and the appointment for life of the Shah of Iran, one of the most vicious dictators in history! Why should they trust us?
1
No one should care that zero Republicans supported Obama's effort here. They have shown the same type of visceral opposition to far less "controversial" policy solely because Obama supports it. The Democrats who voted against this, however, are political cowards.
85
The President should now thank the opposition for their warm financial support of US mass media that were able to make a pile of money on their futile and silly ads. Thank you for the money boys!!n Lol...
27
Since the days of the Cold War, when the United States and the Soviet Union stood eyeball to eyeball as the world's only two nuclear powers, the list of nuclear states has grown inexorably longer.
It is thought that the following states either have now, or have had in the past, their own, or access to NATO shared, nuclear weapons: United States, Russia, France, China, United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and South Africa.
President Obama's Iran treaty represents the best possible effort to limit the increase in members of this Nuclear Club, which will undoubtedly become less and less exclusive with the passage of time.
It is thought that the following states either have now, or have had in the past, their own, or access to NATO shared, nuclear weapons: United States, Russia, France, China, United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and South Africa.
President Obama's Iran treaty represents the best possible effort to limit the increase in members of this Nuclear Club, which will undoubtedly become less and less exclusive with the passage of time.
50
While I think President Obama had the better argument, and he did have Harry Reid in his corner, I am a little surprised that the White House successfully outmaneuvered the wily Mitch McConnell at such an early point in the proceedings.
11
Schumer: “I recognize for them that this is a vote of conscience just as it is for me.” Really?
How about the Donor Vote?
How about the Donor Vote?
59
It seems that President Obama is ending his presidential term the same way he began it......With the Republicans opposing him, and, as usual, LOSING to him in matters that count the most.....Obamacare without Republican support, and now an International deal with six major countries and Iran...without Republican support...
The Republican legacy during the Obama years will be a record of utter futility, and crushing defeat...all at the same time, functioning as the most 'do-nothing-for-the-people Congress in history. They will always be known as the Congress of NO....no to Obama, no to the middle class, no to minorities, no to everything....but also, NO to not stopping Obama from eventually completing his major objectives.
It has been a good two presidential terms....
The Republican legacy during the Obama years will be a record of utter futility, and crushing defeat...all at the same time, functioning as the most 'do-nothing-for-the-people Congress in history. They will always be known as the Congress of NO....no to Obama, no to the middle class, no to minorities, no to everything....but also, NO to not stopping Obama from eventually completing his major objectives.
It has been a good two presidential terms....
150
Both Republican and Iranian leadership got what they need politically. Both have spittle-spewing hard-right wings that they must deal with. In this sense Republicans and Mullahs are like two peas in a pod.
Republican congressional leadership does not want to be seen voting against a deal with Iran negotiated by the six most powerful nations on Earth and endorsed by the UN Security Council. With this outcome, they can go home, tell their constituents that they opposed the deal, and cash in for more election donations.
The Iranian mullahs are in a similar tight spot. Now they are relieved to have the deal, which restores a sane nuclear policy (no plutonium at all [95% of all nukes worldwide are plutonium bombs], sharply reduced uranium enrichment good for energy but not for bombs, etc.). All the while they can make outrageous statements (that Republican presidential candidates gullibly repeat) to mollify their right wing as well.
In a good outcome, over the next 10-15 years, the old-fart Republicans and the Mullahs will disappear from the world stage and be replaced by rational people interested in the best results for their countries. C'mon citizens in USA and Iran, get out there and vote to make both of our countries better.
Republican congressional leadership does not want to be seen voting against a deal with Iran negotiated by the six most powerful nations on Earth and endorsed by the UN Security Council. With this outcome, they can go home, tell their constituents that they opposed the deal, and cash in for more election donations.
The Iranian mullahs are in a similar tight spot. Now they are relieved to have the deal, which restores a sane nuclear policy (no plutonium at all [95% of all nukes worldwide are plutonium bombs], sharply reduced uranium enrichment good for energy but not for bombs, etc.). All the while they can make outrageous statements (that Republican presidential candidates gullibly repeat) to mollify their right wing as well.
In a good outcome, over the next 10-15 years, the old-fart Republicans and the Mullahs will disappear from the world stage and be replaced by rational people interested in the best results for their countries. C'mon citizens in USA and Iran, get out there and vote to make both of our countries better.
390
A cogent analysis. You had me up until " the old-fart Republicans and the Mullahs will disappear from the world stage and be replaced by rational people interested in the best results for their countries.". That made me laugh for a second, then made me sad :(
2
Ah, but if we were only dealing with "old farts." (see: Cruz, Walker, Rubio, et al)...
I wish only the Iranians would be able to "get out there and vote.." freely for the candidate of their choice and not for one of those handpicked by the Mullahs.
If life would have been so simple....
If life would have been so simple....
So Iran is allowed a few small yield tactical nukes. Big deal. We've got 15,000 hydrogen bombs. One mishap and I doubt there's much preventing Iran from being wiped off the face of the Earth. Bush would have used Nukes in Iraq if he'd been allowed to blow up the oil. After all, we spent the last 50 years amassing an arsenal of hydrogen atomic weapons capable of blowing up the earth thousands of times of over and no one to use them on. Our military is begging to blow up those troublesome Arabs. How this is a significant change in foreign policy beats me.
3
I don't think anyone should pretend this is a great deal for the West, for Israel or for peace in the middle east or the world. The alternatives were Iran gets its way and builds the weapons, or some kind of war. If the US military had wanted war, they would have let the President and everyone else know, I'm sure. So some kind of greement is better than no agreement at all, I think.
Let's see what happens next.
Let's see what happens next.
4
The way you put it makes it sounds like a really great deal! But I'm not Dick Cheney.
"The alternatives were Iran gets its way and builds the weapons, or some kind of war."
"The alternatives were Iran gets its way and builds the weapons, or some kind of war."
I am so proud of our, my Republicans, working with our President to make this treaty complete. Over many years our govt has overthrown their govt, allied ourselves with our enemy in Iraq supplying both weapons and information, even allying ourselves with Israel who would like to attack them. But no, with our world-wide allies we have a treaty for peace in my lifetime
2
So House Republicans will force useless votes in attempts to embarrass Democrats and continue their 6-year strategy of obstruction and obfuscation.
Unfortunately the tactic has worked for them in the case of Obamacare, in spite of the program's success and the clear evidence that all the warnings about death panels, job-killing results, loss of insurance for millions and meteoric premium increases have all proven false!
The opposition intends to use the same tactic with the Ira deal, knowing that they will not be punished for being dishonest, unpatriotic and absolutely wrong.
Unfortunately the tactic has worked for them in the case of Obamacare, in spite of the program's success and the clear evidence that all the warnings about death panels, job-killing results, loss of insurance for millions and meteoric premium increases have all proven false!
The opposition intends to use the same tactic with the Ira deal, knowing that they will not be punished for being dishonest, unpatriotic and absolutely wrong.
28
Congressional Republicans are the biggest sore losers I have ever witnessed. They won't be happy until they start another war.
68
A recent Pew Research study shows that only 21% of all Americans support the Iran nuclear agreement.
Apparently this means nothing to President Obama who from the time he was elected President has been willing to do and say whatever is necessary to impose his personal agenda.
The Iranian deal is just another example of Obama's disregard for the constitution and our democracy. The lives and safety of all Americans not just republicans is in jeopardy as a result of the Obama presidency.
Apparently this means nothing to President Obama who from the time he was elected President has been willing to do and say whatever is necessary to impose his personal agenda.
The Iranian deal is just another example of Obama's disregard for the constitution and our democracy. The lives and safety of all Americans not just republicans is in jeopardy as a result of the Obama presidency.
7
Of the 79% who don't, what percent do you think can tell the pollster three correct things about the deal.
The press does a great job of telling people who supports the deal and getting their quotes about it, but a very poor job of getting into the actual details and letting people decide for themselves.
The press does a great job of telling people who supports the deal and getting their quotes about it, but a very poor job of getting into the actual details and letting people decide for themselves.
26
The poll results are a direct product of the Republicans' disinformation campaign, and the media's willingness to distribute the garbage they were spouting instead of objectively dealing with the facts. It is telling that the other five signatories to the agreement were ready to proceed with it regardless of what the Republicans did.
5
Yet fewer people reported "knowing about" the Iran deal in the recent Pew poll than in mid-summer (despite the additional news coverage). In almost all poles, the number opposed to the deal is still a minority owing, perhaps, to honest reflection by those who are uninformed. Let's not forget that 40% of adult Americans can't find the Pacific Ocean on a map and a majority can't name the Vice President or one of their Senators.
3
The Republicans lived by the filibuster when they were in the minority and now the old saying applies: live by the sword, die by the sword. TheRepublican's have only themselves to blame. By undercutting the President time after time, they strengthened Iran's resolve at the bargaining table. Republicans could have played a constructive role in helping get a better deal but they were too concerned about denying the President a positive accomplishment on an important issue.
No wonder the Congress has approval ratings near 12%.
No wonder the Congress has approval ratings near 12%.
48
just change "this agreement" to "Obamacare" and we've heard all the Republican talking points before. Someday, perhaps, they will focus on passing legislation to address this country's many problems, rather than taking up all the Congressional time showing that they oppose everything Obama proposes.
74
That congressional Republicans are absolutely apoplectic over their failure to force a symbolic vote over the Iran nuclear deal is entirely expected. The better way would have been to have a strong centrist-led debate over the deal on the merits, which is how things used to be. Regrettably, Republicans' mindless hatred of the president, and their relentless fear-mongering have completely discredited arguments they might've put forward to make their case. We only need look at Republicans' relentless opposition to the president's health care initiative to see how far they are willing to go. Republicans and others eagerly seized on American Jews' concerns about Iran's nuclear capabilities to engage in an especially distasteful form of scare-mongering about another Holocaust, but most Jewish senators were apparently not buying it, and they were undoubtedly bolstered by arguments put forward by other people, many of them Jewish, supporting the deal that relied upon both hard science and hardheaded realism about what the alternatives really were if the deal fails to go into effect.
Added to that scenario was the specter of a breakaway Republican bloc in the House now scrambling to change the optics of their party's clear and unmistakable defeat by staging still another round of votes on September 11, hoping to embarrass the deal's Democratic supporters.
Then, too, there was the media circus on the Capitol Mall yesterday.
These are not serious people, and they deserved to lose.
Added to that scenario was the specter of a breakaway Republican bloc in the House now scrambling to change the optics of their party's clear and unmistakable defeat by staging still another round of votes on September 11, hoping to embarrass the deal's Democratic supporters.
Then, too, there was the media circus on the Capitol Mall yesterday.
These are not serious people, and they deserved to lose.
94
Bravo! Nice to know that Netanyahu, Cheney and the Israeli lobbyists are not completely in control of foreign policy.
143
This is perhaps more important than Iran getting nuclear weapons!
Though I support the agreement with Iran, I am not very happy with how it has come about. While I have no illusions about the abject obstructionism of the Republicans, major foreign policy enacted by the President without Congressional support establishes a precedent that, under other circumstances, we might be extremely unhappy about.
53
The president does not have Congressional support for this deal simply because Republicans decided six years ago to oppose anything and everything he proposes or does. The 47 senators who tried to scuttle the deal before they knew what was in it, are testament to that blind, hateful, irrational obstructionist opposition!
60
What is the president to do, when faced with an opposition party that is determined to block him at every turn, no matter the policy? In 2010, President Obama negotiated a new START agreement on nuclear arms with Russia--an agreement that GOP leaders had previously supported.
Foreign policy enacted without bipartisan Congressional support isn't ideal. But the alternative--allowing the conduct of policy to come to a complete halt because of politics--is unacceptable.
Foreign policy enacted without bipartisan Congressional support isn't ideal. But the alternative--allowing the conduct of policy to come to a complete halt because of politics--is unacceptable.
24
Historically these types of agreements are not put before congress at all. The obstructionist Republicans forced this one to weaken the presidency. So, in reality your fear is exactly opposite to the truth; future presidents are weakened by this vote, not strengthened.
3
A sad turn of events for Republicans who have wanted thousands more dead American sons & daughters in the Middle East
35
There is no need for a single American to die in the Middle East, we have more than enough nuclear weapons to totally eliminate any and all enemies.
Everything the GOP has done since President Obama was elected has been demonic and history will judge their party as unhinged and understand exactly why Democrats, except for four traitors didn't go along with their imaginary "better deal". Schumer, Cardin and Manchin can expect big payouts in their coffers after their scheming for AIPAC, but I think we all know that Medicare Menendez is toast and probably not even worth a AIPAC bribe at this point. Enjoy your traitors' gold boys.
34
The official objections of the present government of Israel do temper, despite what I take to be their tragically tortured distemper, one's natural exultation to see such a panoply of respectable and indispensable diplomatic unity around the world, with the leadership of our President. The partisan objections, domestically, of those who've demeaned themselves abysmally and constantly in denying even the human dignity of this President, exert no deflating effect. All that is left to obstruct elation is the bellicose candidacy of Hillary Clinton, reaffirmed yesterday, in the same repulsively swaggering tones with which she mocked the vision behind this accord, in her last campaign for the Presidency. She does not understand the genius of which she now poses as a parent, and friends of this accord must remain vigilant against the mockery of its promise which she promised to the Brookings Institution.
4
This is a great victory for peace nod the future. I doubt mot sincerely that Sentor Schumer knows what a conscience is. For if he did he would not have voted as he did.
21
This is a great day for American democracy.
It's nice to see the liars and failures (e.g. Dick Cheney) didn't get their way. Hopefully we can continue this streak and stop rewarding those most responsible for the messes we are currently in.
It's nice to see the liars and failures (e.g. Dick Cheney) didn't get their way. Hopefully we can continue this streak and stop rewarding those most responsible for the messes we are currently in.
34
This is no way to govern. We have to do better at understanding each other and stop the mockery and cruel comments.
Fine to say that one group blocks the other and take sides - but - important to realize that both sides have reason to mistrust the other. We need statesmen, a rule of law and compromise. Too much is played for the media and too little for the average citizen.
Fine to say that one group blocks the other and take sides - but - important to realize that both sides have reason to mistrust the other. We need statesmen, a rule of law and compromise. Too much is played for the media and too little for the average citizen.
3
Charley Wilson had a war. Today and going forward President Obama has a war too! The cries will go up from the commenters here that it's all Bush's fault just like everything else is Bush's or Chaney's fault. They will over look Presidents Roosevelt,Truman and Carter as the custodians of problems in Iran that go back to WW1 and President Wilson. "It's all Duba's fault" will be the battle cry of the NYT Commenters.
Actions and inactions have consequences! This Iran deal will have legs and become the Democrat "gift" that keeps on giving, both in the Middle East and in Europe. Russia and Iran now own Syria for at least the next 18 months.
During those 18 months at least 200,000 More refugees will swarm into Europe like shoppers on the Friday after Thanksgiving and with the same regard for anyone past themselves. Europe or at the least the EU will fail as a result.
Iran will continue with their usual death threats to the U.S. and Israel. Iran will continue to "not build" nukes to put on their Intercontental range missiles. Iran will invest their bonus money in "infrastructure" and perhaps buy hundreds of airliners with the ability to span oceans upon delivery. Hopefully they will buy them from someone outside the U.S.
Iran will be President Obama "legacy". It will echo down through history and hopefully it won't be visible from the Moon as well!
Actions and inactions have consequences! This Iran deal will have legs and become the Democrat "gift" that keeps on giving, both in the Middle East and in Europe. Russia and Iran now own Syria for at least the next 18 months.
During those 18 months at least 200,000 More refugees will swarm into Europe like shoppers on the Friday after Thanksgiving and with the same regard for anyone past themselves. Europe or at the least the EU will fail as a result.
Iran will continue with their usual death threats to the U.S. and Israel. Iran will continue to "not build" nukes to put on their Intercontental range missiles. Iran will invest their bonus money in "infrastructure" and perhaps buy hundreds of airliners with the ability to span oceans upon delivery. Hopefully they will buy them from someone outside the U.S.
Iran will be President Obama "legacy". It will echo down through history and hopefully it won't be visible from the Moon as well!
4
Yes, part of a fine legacy: Affordable Care (what did the Republicans propose?) and this treaty (what did the Republicans propose?)
Score: Obama 2, Republicans 0.
Score: Obama 2, Republicans 0.
1
The only "losers" on this deal are the defense industry and the war profiteers.
54
Not Russia's defense industry. While the agreement was being negotiated the Iranians were negotiating with Russia to purchase anti-aircraft missle defense systems. Now they will have over 1 1/2 billion more dollars to buy even more weapons from the Russians. Yea! Three more cheers for our President!
1
And Likud.
Wow, a billion and a half? That's enough to buy the equivalent of exactly THREE Stealth fighter jets with pilots and fuel for a few years. I don't think that's going to tip the balance of world power, Larry.
1
It is unfortunate that the deal culminated in this fashion without Congress getting a chance to fully vet the Republicans' alternative plan.
Oh wait, no. As usual, they presented no alternative.
Oh wait, no. As usual, they presented no alternative.
60
I for one do not know how this deal will play out over time. However, I recently had a conversation with a young Persian (not an Arab) who just returned to this, his adopted country, from Iran where he was visiting family members. He indicated that the average person on the street in Iran does NOT believe the US to be the "Great Satan." Furthermore, Mullahs in Iran are like politicians here, they will say whatever needs to be said to keep their own turf intact. They will respond to baksheesh much as our politicians respond to Lobbyists providing election money and fact finding tours etc.
I do not have a lot of concern in what the Grand Ayatollah says about the Iranian nuclear program, they have one and will continue to have one no matter what we do, (unless we bomb the country to radioactive slag, which we won't do in my opinion even with a Republican in the White House.) I do not worry about what he says about Israel, they will take care of themselves.
My only concern is nuclear material being leaked to terrorists, which is more likely right now to happen from Pakistan than Iran.
I do not have a lot of concern in what the Grand Ayatollah says about the Iranian nuclear program, they have one and will continue to have one no matter what we do, (unless we bomb the country to radioactive slag, which we won't do in my opinion even with a Republican in the White House.) I do not worry about what he says about Israel, they will take care of themselves.
My only concern is nuclear material being leaked to terrorists, which is more likely right now to happen from Pakistan than Iran.
22
Schumer should be ashamed of himself. Time to retire Chuck. The fact that you are deciding your vote NOT on what is in the best interests of this country, but instead you're are voting based on the lobbying by and money from a foreign government - Isreal - makes you a liability to your constituents, a disgrace to your office and in many eyes a traitor. I have always liked your look on domestic affairs but the fact that you have turned into a hack for AIPAC means your time as an honorable senator are over.
Go away now!
Go away now!
124
As someone who has voted for Schumer in the past, I am now inclined to belive that he has not voted his conscience on this issue but rather his aligence to a foreign country rather than his aligence to this country. He will no longer receive a vote from me. Looking for a new candidate for New York Senator.
10
Add Ben Cardin to that short list. Don't think anyone believes they opposed the deal for any reason but to please their big $$$ donors.
Bravo to President Obama. Diplomacy in action trumps hostility and war! And to Israel, may I say: We cannot do your bidding (no matter how many ads you run) when we disagree. We are still your ally though.
46
Thanks to all the commenters who chastized the reporter for writing "a stark departure from his 2008 campaign that was fueled by the promise of bridging Washington’s yawning partisan divide" without a hint that Obama tried for six years to carry out that promise against unceasing opposition from the other side of the "divide", with incalculable cost to our country. I cannot understand how a journalist can write such an incomplete description, unless Ms. Steinhauer is too young to remember the 2008 election and its immediate aftermath.
74
It is indeed ironic that the GOP is savaging Obama over the Iran deal, especially claiming that is doesn't require the Iranian regime to "reform." Actually, if half the GOP presidential candidates were by some unlikely event to be nominated and elected, this country would be well on its way to becoming the kind of theocracy that they decry in Iran.
49
It's unfortunate that it had to come to a filibuster, but this is the world that Mitch McConnell helped create - and he can't complain now when the filibuster is used by the other party.
Mitch, wouldn't it be a better world if both parties allowed legislation to come to an up or down vote?
As to the merits of the deal, I would have preferred one that would have led to the Mullahs joining the 12th Iman in perpetual seclusion, alongside our American religious crackpots. But what can I say, we live in an imperfect world - and imperfect worlds produce imperfect deals.
Let me conclude by conveying my fondest wishes to the long-suffering Iranian people. May our two peoples one day again be friends.
Mitch, wouldn't it be a better world if both parties allowed legislation to come to an up or down vote?
As to the merits of the deal, I would have preferred one that would have led to the Mullahs joining the 12th Iman in perpetual seclusion, alongside our American religious crackpots. But what can I say, we live in an imperfect world - and imperfect worlds produce imperfect deals.
Let me conclude by conveying my fondest wishes to the long-suffering Iranian people. May our two peoples one day again be friends.
69
Once more the gentleman from Hawaii has beaten the seditionist, traitorous fifth column like the misbegotten red headed step children they are.
30
Hope and verify.
5
What a collection of cowards. Do not even have the courage to vote it up or down.
7
"Victory" for President Obama? Why can't you say this is a Victory for Peace, Diplomacy, and Security for America? Media always see this as a game between Obama and Republicans. Please focus on the World Peace, Middle East stability and any such thing but not a conflict of personalities.
19
The American People win. The GOP, representing the rogue State of Occupied Israel and the "people" of the military-industrial complex, loses. It's a good day to be an American...I've needed one of these for awhile.
Reading a recent review of Dick and Liz Cheney's new book, I found myself reflecting on the failure of some people to evolve past the expression of their reptilian brain. The GOP's performance with respect to this deal demonstrates their utter disregard for people over profit and patriotism over party...the victory of their reptilian brains.
Reading a recent review of Dick and Liz Cheney's new book, I found myself reflecting on the failure of some people to evolve past the expression of their reptilian brain. The GOP's performance with respect to this deal demonstrates their utter disregard for people over profit and patriotism over party...the victory of their reptilian brains.
24
Most of the peace loving world will heave a sigh of relief that at last the peace is allowed to breakout. It would have been a utter insanity to have listened to the neo cons war talk, amazingly unable to see beyond their nose.
Obama was extremely logical saying "we don’t need to have this conversation with the Canadians. It wouldn’t make any sense. You talk to people that are potential enemies or even enemies. He points out that we had weapons agreements and Reagan, the champion of the conservatives worked out deals with the Soviets, the Soviets, not the Russians, the Soviets, and backed off some of this weaponry".
Law makers who have sworn to oppose Obama seems to overlook simple fact that talking to people is most civilized way of resolving conflicts and bit of diplomacy can’t hurt all.
Of course, we have not heard the last word of the opponents yet. They unfortunately forget that present day world is just do not belong to Americans only. The Congress has the responsibility to remember that Americans have to work with six countries on a treaty against UN sanctions.
It is ridiculous to make it look like the entire world was aligned against Iran. The heart of the agreement between Iran and the U.S., U.K., Russia, China, Germany and France is Tehran’s acceptance of strict limits on its nuclear activities for 10 years.
I hope sanity prevails. Converting a butterfly into a caterpillar is impossible!
Obama was extremely logical saying "we don’t need to have this conversation with the Canadians. It wouldn’t make any sense. You talk to people that are potential enemies or even enemies. He points out that we had weapons agreements and Reagan, the champion of the conservatives worked out deals with the Soviets, the Soviets, not the Russians, the Soviets, and backed off some of this weaponry".
Law makers who have sworn to oppose Obama seems to overlook simple fact that talking to people is most civilized way of resolving conflicts and bit of diplomacy can’t hurt all.
Of course, we have not heard the last word of the opponents yet. They unfortunately forget that present day world is just do not belong to Americans only. The Congress has the responsibility to remember that Americans have to work with six countries on a treaty against UN sanctions.
It is ridiculous to make it look like the entire world was aligned against Iran. The heart of the agreement between Iran and the U.S., U.K., Russia, China, Germany and France is Tehran’s acceptance of strict limits on its nuclear activities for 10 years.
I hope sanity prevails. Converting a butterfly into a caterpillar is impossible!
21
President Barack Obama lauded the vote as a “victory for diplomacy, for American national security and for the safety and security of the world.” He described the debate over the Iranian nuclear deal as the most consequential since the 2002 decision to invade Iraq.
However, I believe the invasion of Iraq was voted on and approved by Congress. The Senate voted 77 to 23 and the House voted 296 to 133 in favor of giving the President authority for invading Iraq. Most of the no votes were Democrats but at least a matter that Obama indicated was consequential decision was allowed a vote.
However, I believe the invasion of Iraq was voted on and approved by Congress. The Senate voted 77 to 23 and the House voted 296 to 133 in favor of giving the President authority for invading Iraq. Most of the no votes were Democrats but at least a matter that Obama indicated was consequential decision was allowed a vote.
5
The Republicans in the Senate and House knew this agreement would be approved when they agreed to the terms of the Congressional review of the agreement. The Republicans knew they could not obtain enough votes to override the promised veto. For them to say otherwise, makes them all liars. For them to admit that all they have done with regard to this agreement is politically motivated by the coming 2016 election makes them crass ideologues with no true interest in the well being of the country.
There was not one counter approach proffered by the vehement opposition. None was offered because, short of going to war, there is no other approach that would have the wide spread international support given to the negotiated agreement.
There has been no suggestion by the vehement opposition as to how this agreement, as it is currently negotiated, can be improved and made stronger. There was no attempt by the vehement opposition to improve the circumstances of the United States in the world.
As to whether the agreement should have come to a vote in the Senate and House, the Senate played by the rules that were in effect and mandated in the Congressional review legislation. The House can vote anytime it so desires. But according to the rules that were voted upon and passed, the negotiated agreement goes through.
The Republican Party, in its current manifestation, is a far greater threat to the United States of America than Iran will be anytime in the future.
There was not one counter approach proffered by the vehement opposition. None was offered because, short of going to war, there is no other approach that would have the wide spread international support given to the negotiated agreement.
There has been no suggestion by the vehement opposition as to how this agreement, as it is currently negotiated, can be improved and made stronger. There was no attempt by the vehement opposition to improve the circumstances of the United States in the world.
As to whether the agreement should have come to a vote in the Senate and House, the Senate played by the rules that were in effect and mandated in the Congressional review legislation. The House can vote anytime it so desires. But according to the rules that were voted upon and passed, the negotiated agreement goes through.
The Republican Party, in its current manifestation, is a far greater threat to the United States of America than Iran will be anytime in the future.
1
@NYChap Chappaqua
Yes, they voted for the Iraq invasion and we can see how well that turned out.
And while we were fighting the "axis of evil" in Iraq, North Korea tested their first nuclear bomb in 2006.
Yes, they voted for the Iraq invasion and we can see how well that turned out.
And while we were fighting the "axis of evil" in Iraq, North Korea tested their first nuclear bomb in 2006.
1
That Congress approved the neo-con cabal's invasion of Iraq upon the basis of a campaign of fraudulent disinformation conducted by the luminaries of the Whitehouse Iraq Group, Vice President Cheney and Douglas Feith's intelligence cherry pickers. Had the Cheney/Bush administration been honest, it is unlikely the Iraq debacle would have occurred.
Not one Senate Republican had the courage to vote for the Iran deal negotiated by President Obama. This dismal performance can be contrasted with the Republican senate leaders going back to FDR's term who would work with Democratic presidents and support major foreign policy initiatives (and major domestic proposals). I do not remember with fondness Everett Dirksen, Howard Baker, or Bob Dole, but I would bet that those Republican Senators would have seen it as their duty to support the president when an issue like the Iran deal is before the world. I never thought I would praise them, but in fact, they were head and shoulders above the current leadership that would try to embarrass the President and the US before the world for Republican partisan gain, as if they could gain by cutting the United States President off at the knees.
65
Well said, Adamwdsk. I, too, miss the class institution it once was. I remain optimistic that the next generation, or two, will turn it around.
Never seen a majority taken to the woodshed like these hapless Republicans.
34
The military option has vanished. Except for the Iranian option to strike at a time and place of their choosing. Or their proxies choosing,
The "piece of paper" will keep the West sitting on its hands as long as Iran has military sites that are off limits to all inspectors, and other locations that, incredibly, only the Iranians may inspect.
When, not if, Iran finally reveals to the world that it has working nuclear bombs, and ICBM's to deliver them, only a nuclear first strike option will remain.
And if the West is too timid to contemplate a conventional military option today...
Maybe someday after that eventuality, years after that, a SEAL Team will sneak over a Shia controlled border somewhere, and kill the Shia version of Osama Bin Ladin.
The "piece of paper" will keep the West sitting on its hands as long as Iran has military sites that are off limits to all inspectors, and other locations that, incredibly, only the Iranians may inspect.
When, not if, Iran finally reveals to the world that it has working nuclear bombs, and ICBM's to deliver them, only a nuclear first strike option will remain.
And if the West is too timid to contemplate a conventional military option today...
Maybe someday after that eventuality, years after that, a SEAL Team will sneak over a Shia controlled border somewhere, and kill the Shia version of Osama Bin Ladin.
4
All you say is especially true if we elect a Republican President and leave the Senate and House in Republican control. The greatest threat we face as a Nation is the continued incompetence and ideology of the GOP. How can a Party that avows to destroy the Federal Government run that Government anywhere but into the ground?
8
Most people who object to this agreement, for any substantive reason, do so without thinking through the prospects and outcomes of any of the alternatives. For one, there are many who want to see no nuclear technology, even peaceful, developed in Iran. The problem with that stance is that it repudiates our agreement to the Treaty on Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, signed (I think) in 1968 by the USA, Iran and almost all other countries. Such a repudiation, if it spread to other countries, would remove the only existing barrier in international law to unbridled proliferation. Even if we stood alone in repudiation, we would lose our legitimacy to participate in future negotiations and enforcement actions taken under the treaty provisions. As to the effectiveness of the verification provisions of the recent agreement, this is a scientific question and I am more inclined to accept the assessment of the 32 scientists, including several who specialized in nuclear weapons, than to accept the opinion of politicians. As to the strategy of the agreement, I am impressed by the endorsements of Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisors to former Presidents.
19
How can a fair news article about President Obama's passing programs without a single Republican vote not mention that party's previously announced determination to block him in everything? Please explain, New York Times.
116
Yes. Yes, let us hear from the Public Editor on that disingenuous paragraph.
1
To all the conservatives saying how bad this deal is, I hope you will remember your words ten years from now.
As an example, testifying 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/
Then, of course there were the "Death Panels" and the job killing Obama-care. In the meantime, there 3 million jobs created under 8 years of Bush and already 12 million jobs created under only 6 years of Obama. Some of the best job numbers since Clinton.
You would think at some point conservatives would begin to see how many wrong things their leaders tell them.
As an example, testifying 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/
Then, of course there were the "Death Panels" and the job killing Obama-care. In the meantime, there 3 million jobs created under 8 years of Bush and already 12 million jobs created under only 6 years of Obama. Some of the best job numbers since Clinton.
You would think at some point conservatives would begin to see how many wrong things their leaders tell them.
74
Bush & Netanyahu -- strategists without peer.
1
All true. Pl explain to me why/how so many Americans buy Republican innuendos, distortions and outright lies as the Holy Grail. Even in the cesspool that politics is, these Republicans stand out. How much of this is driven by personal hatred toward President Obama?
The Republicans must secretly hope Iran violates the agreement so they can gloat, Told you so.
7
We, Americans, know they will violate this agreement. They are likely violating it already.
Perhaps, Rick Malwitz, you have heard of the 1938 Munich Agreement? The Republicans have certainly been talking about it often enough in recent months.
By not allowing the Iran deal to go to a vote, Democrats in the Senate avoid going on record as supporting the Iran deal so that when these same Senators are up for reelection they don't have to answer for their vote. They can always say they didn't support the Iran deal (blah blah blah) knowing that the majority of Americans were against the Iran deal and there is no Senate voting record to prove otherwise Well played politics by the gutless Democratic minority.
5
The "gutless" democrats have played a masterful hand of politicking, beating back the 'chicken little" republicans who swear that the deal deals the Iranians a free hand on the world stage. Time will tell or as some Senators put it "the proof is in the pudding."
3
As an Iranian-American, who does not support many of the policies of Iranian government, I believe the Nuclear deal will be a catalyst for empowering moderates and ultimately a more humane and responsible government in Iran. Republican's rejection was fueled by interests of right wing Israeli government and the military industrial complex. Glad to see their defeat.
82
The future will show that for first time in History America capitulated to a Despotic regime rather than uphold the Valued principals that America stands for...
8
Any principles America still had were ground into dust, spat upon and sold to the nearest capitalist a long time ago by the Bush/Cheney thugs.
12
And things worked out so well in Vietnam, Iraq, etc. All we need to do is invade more countries where we will be greeted as liberators.
1
Nope. Not even close. Nixon and Kissinger "capitulated" and sponsored a fascist regime's overthrow of a democratically elected government in Chile. Reagan "capitulated" and supported right wing death squads in El Salvador. Even worse, both Bush administrations "capitulated" to the Saudis, even after their nationals carried out the 9/11 attacks.
12
Well, despite the idiocy of too many of my fellow Americans, and despite the shameful pressure from those of my ethnicity who consider themselves American Jews, rather than Jewish Americans, as I am--we are finally moving into the rational world. The sky didn't fall on those hysterical American Cubans when diplomatic relations were restored with a crucial neighbor, and the sky won't fall on any of us now.
Our greatest enemy is and has always been Saudi Arabia, with its funding and fomenting of terrorism through the propagation of the very worst interpretation of Islam. Iran is a mess of our own making, but fortunately the majority of Iranians are neither crazy nor stupid. Iran is like, you know, Israel--a largely educated, urban, sophisticated, secular-leaning population held hostage by religious fundamentalists.
Me--I don't much care for theocracies, Jewish or Muslim. Perhaps now both of those Middle Eastern nations will evolve towards rationality...
Our greatest enemy is and has always been Saudi Arabia, with its funding and fomenting of terrorism through the propagation of the very worst interpretation of Islam. Iran is a mess of our own making, but fortunately the majority of Iranians are neither crazy nor stupid. Iran is like, you know, Israel--a largely educated, urban, sophisticated, secular-leaning population held hostage by religious fundamentalists.
Me--I don't much care for theocracies, Jewish or Muslim. Perhaps now both of those Middle Eastern nations will evolve towards rationality...
79
Republicans saying Johnny gave away the farm are ridiculous. If not for them losing it over an ersatz scandal, Susan Rice might have been Secretary of State. Half of them said, at the time, "I think Sen. Kerry would make a great Secretary of State." Maybe they changed their minds.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cameron-hollande-and-merkel-why-...
Republicans versus the world!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the military option hasn't vanished. The supposed "better deal" that Republicans want you to believe that they, with their swagger and cowboy boots, could have negotiated is fanciful. It is not now, and never was, obtainable. Let's see where this deal leaves us; and if there are problems either in the short or long run, we'll take care of them. As Republicans see things, military force is not one option among many, but the only one. Mr Cheney practically admitted this himself.
Many people who I trust say that this is the tightest nuclear agreement ever negotiated. But no agreement is going to assure you that the Iranians won't try to go nuclear; if they do, though, we'll know it. "It may not work" is something I'm willing to say; "it may work" is something Republicans are not only incapable of saying but are incapable, apparently, of even thinking.
To paraphrase some Englishman, This is not the end; it is not the beginning of the end; it's the end of the beginning.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cameron-hollande-and-merkel-why-...
Republicans versus the world!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the military option hasn't vanished. The supposed "better deal" that Republicans want you to believe that they, with their swagger and cowboy boots, could have negotiated is fanciful. It is not now, and never was, obtainable. Let's see where this deal leaves us; and if there are problems either in the short or long run, we'll take care of them. As Republicans see things, military force is not one option among many, but the only one. Mr Cheney practically admitted this himself.
Many people who I trust say that this is the tightest nuclear agreement ever negotiated. But no agreement is going to assure you that the Iranians won't try to go nuclear; if they do, though, we'll know it. "It may not work" is something I'm willing to say; "it may work" is something Republicans are not only incapable of saying but are incapable, apparently, of even thinking.
To paraphrase some Englishman, This is not the end; it is not the beginning of the end; it's the end of the beginning.
36
The real battle is only beginning. Enforcement of this pact will require a lot of money to pay for the inspectors, the technology to surveil, and enforcement. With the GOP in charge of the purse strings they can refuse to fund enforcement leaving the other parties to the pact to provide funding.
1
It will still be less expensive, in so many ways, than another war.
Lots of harrumphing from the right about this deal and every other thing Obama has done. This just solidifies my beleif that many on the right dislike the policy because they dislike the man. Case in point: An informal and unscientific, but telling, survey suggested right wingers were in favor of Obama's policies when told they were Trump's. That speaks volumes about the level of discourse in this country.
18
The GOP desperately needed to get this loss behind them so they can get ready to try once again for a government shutdown which, this time around, will be to make their partisan points over funding of abortion counseling, based on the misrepresentations via the dishonestly-edited videos about Planned Parenthood. It, too, will be another Charlie-Brown football moment with Obama playing the role of Lucy.
8
"Mr. Obama may go down in history as a president whose single biggest foreign policy and domestic achievements were won with no Republican votes, a stark departure from his 2008 campaign that was fueled by the promise of uniting."
When the current Senate Majority Leader states that one of his main objectives (SEVERAL years ago, during a first Obama presidency) is to limit Obama to a one term presidency, after all this time has passed, does the author of this editorial really expect the current POTUS - now, at present - to act any differently than what has been observed? I didn't think so. Just goes to show that evolution and natural selection are facts and both not only are natural phenomena, but they apply to American political systems as well.
When the current Senate Majority Leader states that one of his main objectives (SEVERAL years ago, during a first Obama presidency) is to limit Obama to a one term presidency, after all this time has passed, does the author of this editorial really expect the current POTUS - now, at present - to act any differently than what has been observed? I didn't think so. Just goes to show that evolution and natural selection are facts and both not only are natural phenomena, but they apply to American political systems as well.
5
Democrats must stop throwing life lines to Republicans in the name of consensus. What matters is the policy, not how we got there.Bill Clinton's 1993 budget, passed without a single Republican vote, was instrumental in helping achieve a balanced budget 7 years later.
When Republicans are fighting among themselves and cannot agree, democrats must not be seduced or intimidated by their call for working across the aisle. That only enables the GOP's bad behavior.
According to a Monmouth University poll this week, only 26% of Republicans want to elect in 2016 a president who knows Washington "and can get things done."
Why would Democrats want to give their support to a party whose members believe in NOT getting things done?
When Republicans are fighting among themselves and cannot agree, democrats must not be seduced or intimidated by their call for working across the aisle. That only enables the GOP's bad behavior.
According to a Monmouth University poll this week, only 26% of Republicans want to elect in 2016 a president who knows Washington "and can get things done."
Why would Democrats want to give their support to a party whose members believe in NOT getting things done?
16
that was the budget where Mr Clinton himself later admitted it raised taxes too much; the "balanced budgets" and the prosperity didn't come until Republicans took over Congress. Furthermore, if you want to give Clinton the credit for the boom, then you owe him the dot com bust as well.
Having adopted a policy of being the disloyal opposition early on in the Obama presidency, the GOP rendered itself both impotent and irrelevant. Running against the successes of president Obama in 2016 is likely to perpetuate the mantle of being the biggest losers of this decade.
14
"Mr. Obama may go down in history as a president whose single biggest foreign policy and domestic achievements were won with no Republican votes."
History will say this fact reflects the death of the Republican Party as a functioning participant in shaping policy to deal with the genuine problems of the 21st century.
History will say this fact reflects the death of the Republican Party as a functioning participant in shaping policy to deal with the genuine problems of the 21st century.
31
How I hope you are correct.
Deal with Iran was perhaps the only viable option for US. President Obama understands very well his country’s interests, its powers and limitations of those powers. Making a deal with Iran has secured US interests in the near future, and would make the world a safer place in far future.
Diplomats find diplomatic solutions first and use military option as a backup option. No doubt US can dictate its terms to Iran all by herself without her allies in Europe, but would it be prudent? Has it worked in the past? Will it work now, or in future?
All these question marks have to be answered keeping in perspective today’s reality. Mr. Obama and his democrats have made the best decisions to safe guard US interests, and for the peace in the Middle East. Negating war is working for peace, choosing war never brings peace at home and abroad. Hats off to Mr. Obama and his team's wisdom to choose peace over war.
Diplomats find diplomatic solutions first and use military option as a backup option. No doubt US can dictate its terms to Iran all by herself without her allies in Europe, but would it be prudent? Has it worked in the past? Will it work now, or in future?
All these question marks have to be answered keeping in perspective today’s reality. Mr. Obama and his democrats have made the best decisions to safe guard US interests, and for the peace in the Middle East. Negating war is working for peace, choosing war never brings peace at home and abroad. Hats off to Mr. Obama and his team's wisdom to choose peace over war.
8
This article crystallizes the fundamental problem with this deal. You and other liberal Democrats are celebrating this deal more as a personal victory for President Obama, than as an actual foreign policy achievement. Of course that's because the deal doesn't achieve anything positive other than to possibly stall for a relatively short time Iran's nuclear ambitions. Whoopee!
3
I would call this deal a twofer: (1) an actual (and significant) foreign policy accomplishment that defines a positive path both Iran and the World can take for the next 10 to 15 years with respect to Iran's nuclear program and (2) a personal victory for the President with respect to the stated "stop Obama at all costs" by GOP senators and representatives. The first part of the twofer is evidenced by certain aspects of the deal itself, especially as Iran has agreed to redesign and rebuild the Arak reactor so it will not produce weapons-grade plutonium (Pu is a much more effective and easier to produce nuclear weapons fuel than weapons-grade enriched U235 - look it up!). The second part is evidenced by the intentional absence of a single GOP senator's vote, which is in keeping with the 2009 GOP pledge to stop any and all of Obama's initiatives - look it up!
The dogmatic democrats that are blindly supporting this deal and Obama will be killed by the same nuclear weapons as everyone else.
By the time they realize the truth it will be too late. People throughout history have made this mistake and faced dire consequences. Ask the refugees from Syria who have been forced to flee their country.
By the time they realize the truth it will be too late. People throughout history have made this mistake and faced dire consequences. Ask the refugees from Syria who have been forced to flee their country.
3
Don't do scare mongering. Have you realized that Iran has never invaded any country for the past two hundred years? As for the dire consequence, why ask Syrian refugees? Ask instead people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki!
Who are the Republicans kidding? The same party that praises Ronald Reagan and Oliver North for illegally funneling arms to Iran, whose last president upset the balance and made Iran the undisputed regional leader, and whose same president sat by and watched Iran develop its nuclear program now vehemently objects to an agreement that requires Iran to reduce its stockpile of uranium and submit to inspections.
45
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Today, the US has chosen to gamble with world peace.
While declaring Iran a state sponsor of terrorism, the US has nevertheless allowed its nuclear program to return in 15 years to where it is today but legitimized under international law and without presupposing a change in Iran's behavior.
In addition to this, the US has allowed Iran to continue to destabilize Syria, Israel, Yemen, the broader Middle East and the world through sanctions relief and lifting the weapons embargo. This latter point includes ballistic missiles, with which Iran could eventually attack the US homeland.
The full range of effects of the Iran nuclear deal will not be seen immediately. The American supporters of this deal as well as the indifferent are responsible in various degrees for the consequences that will follow.
While declaring Iran a state sponsor of terrorism, the US has nevertheless allowed its nuclear program to return in 15 years to where it is today but legitimized under international law and without presupposing a change in Iran's behavior.
In addition to this, the US has allowed Iran to continue to destabilize Syria, Israel, Yemen, the broader Middle East and the world through sanctions relief and lifting the weapons embargo. This latter point includes ballistic missiles, with which Iran could eventually attack the US homeland.
The full range of effects of the Iran nuclear deal will not be seen immediately. The American supporters of this deal as well as the indifferent are responsible in various degrees for the consequences that will follow.
9
Humberto, what agreement do you propose to have instead? How do you plan to get Britain, France, Germany, Russia, et al. to sign on to your agreement? How do you plan to get Iran to sign on, given that all those other countries are about to give up sanctions against Iran?
22
Thomas Zaslavsky:
How about the agreement that Obama, himself, originally sold to the public? That one contained a phased rollback of sanctions, inspections, etc., etc.
How about the agreement that Obama, himself, originally sold to the public? That one contained a phased rollback of sanctions, inspections, etc., etc.
Actually, the Bush administration, by foolishly rushing into a war of choice with Iraq, destabilized the region and empowered Iran, which had previously been held in check by Iraq. The cause of the current unintended consequences was this tragic blunder. Everything that has been done since, including this deal, is damage control.
9
Let's not forget: Obama wasted his first term trying to work with Republicans whose oppositional strategy-to the detriment of America- was cast in concrete.
38
Not entirely "wasted" as I recall.
3
I am disgusted with politicians not supporting Obama’s negotiations with Iran. How could they not support Obama? Core and center of the argument is that Iran is sovereign state! Iran choose not to listen to what we demand from them (we have been demanding from Iran since 1979), and it is not surprising that there are other countries in the world that do the same! They don’t listen to what Obama or Donald Trump say. We are not the world police.
We would need to start WWWIII to prevent Iran from getting nuclear warheads!!!!
Sanctions didn't work with Cuba, Russia, etc — sanctions don’t work, and they haven’t worked with Iran since 1979!
Protecting Israel is a fair cause; however since Israel started the nuclear armament in the region, Israel has a weak case in demanding nonproliferation of other countries.
It is time that the politicians looks at the facts REALISTICALLY and not in a political “Wish Upon A Star!” Shame on the politicians that vote against this issue.
We would need to start WWWIII to prevent Iran from getting nuclear warheads!!!!
Sanctions didn't work with Cuba, Russia, etc — sanctions don’t work, and they haven’t worked with Iran since 1979!
Protecting Israel is a fair cause; however since Israel started the nuclear armament in the region, Israel has a weak case in demanding nonproliferation of other countries.
It is time that the politicians looks at the facts REALISTICALLY and not in a political “Wish Upon A Star!” Shame on the politicians that vote against this issue.
27
If sanctions don't work, then why did Iran come to the bargaining table? I agree with your overall sentiment, but the sanctions did work!
4
"Mr. Obama may go down in history as a president whose single biggest foreign policy and domestic achievements were won with no Republican votes, a stark departure from his 2008 campaign that was fueled by the promise of uniting."
Huh?
Republican talkimg points must go in the report, without the explanation that republicans explicitly chose to sabotage Obama's presidency, which is not a talking point but a fact?
Not pathetic, contemptible. Cowardly. Craven.
Huh?
Republican talkimg points must go in the report, without the explanation that republicans explicitly chose to sabotage Obama's presidency, which is not a talking point but a fact?
Not pathetic, contemptible. Cowardly. Craven.
66
This whole thing was done when in April Congress passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act sponsored by Republican Senator Corker. The rest has been a charade to feed the base, solicit donations and sell media. It allows Republicans and a few Democrats to jump up and down about their supposed opposition and avoid the responsibility that goes with their office.
44
The Republicans live in a Manichean world in which there are good guys and bad guys, and the only thing to do is bomb to smithereens the "bad guys." Other than this deal, what are the options? Start bombing tomorrow? And then when we have more refugees, and more recruits for extremists around the world, what then?
The fact is there are problems with anything we do in the real world. Iran will require diligent supervision, and rhetoric that is informed and intelligent. It will require handling of the Israelis, the Russians, and the continuing threat of Hezbollah. But Iran is full of young people, young people who don't have the same views as their elders. There is reason to hope that a generational shift will mean a change in philosophy. It has happened before in places all over the world.
The Republicans are perpetually bulls in China shops. They will make a mess if given half a chance.
The fact is there are problems with anything we do in the real world. Iran will require diligent supervision, and rhetoric that is informed and intelligent. It will require handling of the Israelis, the Russians, and the continuing threat of Hezbollah. But Iran is full of young people, young people who don't have the same views as their elders. There is reason to hope that a generational shift will mean a change in philosophy. It has happened before in places all over the world.
The Republicans are perpetually bulls in China shops. They will make a mess if given half a chance.
38
So future actions by the Republicans will be seen as seeking revenge against Obama, just as had been the phony claims about Clinton and Benghazi, "Obamacare", and the Iran deal about which Republicans have not proposed a better alternative. Good. Let them drown in their own ??? Well, it's a free coutnry and they have the right to political suicide.
20
The President's responsibility is to unite Americans and to foster bipartisan solutions.
President Obama has done the opposite.
His legacy is his lack of leadership.
President Obama has done the opposite.
His legacy is his lack of leadership.
5
The President's responsibility is to govern according to his or her ideology and the constraints imparted by law. Uniting the public and fostering bipartisanship may or may not be a part of those efforts.
Sorry, but Obama has bent over backwards to work with the Republicans. They've refused to work with him since day 1. Not giving the GOP everything they ask for, does not make him a failed leader. The GOP have refused to compromise at all, its hard to get bipartisan solutions when the GOP is completely opposed to everything you come up with unless its what they agree with.
8
And how's that bipartisan thingy going with the Republicans?
When you do the right thing, and President Obama and the major world powers have done the right thing in keeping the nuclear genie in the Middle East bottle, how or where you get the votes will be of little concern to historians. But, peace that brings Iran haltingly into the "community of nations" will be remembered as a major achievement. Whether or not there had been an Iran deal to oppose, the poisonous anti-Obama politics of the Republicans led by Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell will continue to find cause for attack and obstruction. While there may be no peace in Congress, there is more in the world tonight and for that I am thankful to president Obama and Secretary Kerry.
50
An election is looming and desperate politicians do desperate things.
2
A failed president would be a disaster for the Democratic presidential candidates.
1
This accord with Iran, along with restoring diplomatic ties with Cuba, bring American diplomacy into the digital age and out of the 1950's, which is where Republicans would have us remain. President Obama deserves much praise for embarking down a path that at least has a better chance of success than the saber-rattling of the past. He shares credit, however, with a most unlikely partner: Bibi Netanyahu. When Netanyahu had the effrontery to address our congress, and berate our President, he galvanized support from legislators and the American public for the deal. His own hubris helped carry the day.
60
I'm Jewish and absolutely delighted by this. The opponents of the deal offered no constructive alternative whatsoever. President Obama gets things done, which is a lot more than you can say for the Party of No.
132
My guess is that the Republicans like Boehner and Mc Connell knew this was the responsible thing to do.
That’s why they made it so that the deal could be done with only the filibuster instead of having to get a majority of votes.
It allows Republicans to be against it while making sure it would pass.
That’s why they made it so that the deal could be done with only the filibuster instead of having to get a majority of votes.
It allows Republicans to be against it while making sure it would pass.
22
I am afraid they didn't have a choice in the matter. The Republicans could not have got a vote on the agreement with Iran. The Democratic filibuster was not "planned" by the Republicans. It just got in their way. Please take a quick course in civics/political science before the next election. We need as many intelligent voters as we can get!
1
so this is a victory when only 20 per cent of voters approve and the majority of senators are against it?
5
Beats forcing the population of the Middle East to migrate to Europe just to get a Bush re-elected. #Feel_the_Bern
26
Interesting how the Senate works; the "place where bills go to die". Their own arcane rules turn what amounts to defeat; into victory. The Iran Deal did not exactly pass, what did happen was that there are enough Democrats voting for the deal, that the Senate could not get enough votes to override a presidential veto. It also passed, because there were enough Democrats to prevent the GOP from not having a super majority to kill the deal completely..
So, yes, the deal passed, because there were not enough Senators to kill it. American democracy in action. The consequences of what happen today could be applied to other unpopular bills that only a minority supports. Today opened a rather bad precedent in a continual dysfunction we call Washington.
There are reasons why people have been calling fro Congressional reforms, term limits, and campaign contribution reforms.
So, yes, the deal passed, because there were not enough Senators to kill it. American democracy in action. The consequences of what happen today could be applied to other unpopular bills that only a minority supports. Today opened a rather bad precedent in a continual dysfunction we call Washington.
There are reasons why people have been calling fro Congressional reforms, term limits, and campaign contribution reforms.
4
Civil rights and foreign policy are two things we do not decide by referendum, and that's a good thing (even when it's not). Why don't you ride it out and see what 15 years of careful, calculated diplomacy can bring. You'll be surprised.
3
Looks like the republicans lead by McConnell were just as successful with this as they were with "making sure Barack Obama was a one term president."
81
When myopic and "motivated" interests and groups try to stab the President from the back, they do a great harm to this great country. Too long, the US has had her hands tied by immediate domestic "interests" in exercising her power and responsibilities with a long-term and "ideal" view of the pertinent issues involved. This great nation, simply stated, cannot go on acting the way she has been forced to act by domestic compulsion. Responsibility must triumph over being responsive to particular groups and interests, however controlling the latter may appear. More power to our President!
27
"..a stark departure from (President Obama's) 2008 campaign that was fueled by the promise of uniting."
Alas, it takes two to tango, and two to unite. A fact-based analysis of the GOP would have revealed they have neither the ability nor the desire to "unite" with anything except complete folly.
Alas, it takes two to tango, and two to unite. A fact-based analysis of the GOP would have revealed they have neither the ability nor the desire to "unite" with anything except complete folly.
14
Faced with Yet Another humiliating policy defeat, a group of rightwing nutballs might decide that the only way save American democracy is with a government takeover.
9
There is so much to discuss regarding this news. Let's focus on Israel's role, and argue for the moment that its case was real, serious and pressing. That it failed to carry the day is a direct consequence of its Prime Minister's persistently gratuitous, public, contemptuous hostility to elected American leadership.
By colluding with a deeply injudicious House Speaker to address Congress without the elementary courtesy of notifying the President, he gave grave offense to Americans who value their nation's sovereignty. By willfully breaking standard norms of diplomatic protocol in such a personally objectionable way, Benjamin Netanyahu has damaged bilateral comity that will take many years to heal.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
By colluding with a deeply injudicious House Speaker to address Congress without the elementary courtesy of notifying the President, he gave grave offense to Americans who value their nation's sovereignty. By willfully breaking standard norms of diplomatic protocol in such a personally objectionable way, Benjamin Netanyahu has damaged bilateral comity that will take many years to heal.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
29
Today, I am proud to be a registered Democrat. The GOP's unwillingness to discuss the Iran Deal honestly and intelligently left the Senate Dems no choice but to pull the plug on the whole discussion. Yesterday's rally on the Capitol grounds displayed the Repugnican's total hatred and disdain for anything Obama. That sealed the deal. Discussion over.
The president keeps piling up victories, while the GOP acts in ways we would not accept from a middle-school child. Their lack of maturity makes them unfit for leadership.
Go, Donald Trump!
The president keeps piling up victories, while the GOP acts in ways we would not accept from a middle-school child. Their lack of maturity makes them unfit for leadership.
Go, Donald Trump!
19
The President fumbled the ball many times during these past 7years. But when a score was needed, he scored a touchdown. As the score board reads Obama 24, republicans 0. Not many dirty trick options left as time is running out.
10
I recall essentially the same objections at the time or Ike's Korean "solution", Nixon's opening to China, and Reagan's talks with Gorbchev. In such circumstances there's seems always to be a noisy opposition that declares "talks" a sign weakness and calls for hefty Military action to avoid certain and ultimate doom.
A common characteristic of both of these groups is that years later they either conveniently forget their former positions or engage in trying to justify them. Currently, we can see a bit of this behavior in those who enthusiatically supported the Iraq adventure.
Since WWII we've done immeasurably better when we've talked and "dealed" than when we chose to war (e.g. Vietnam, Iraq).
A common characteristic of both of these groups is that years later they either conveniently forget their former positions or engage in trying to justify them. Currently, we can see a bit of this behavior in those who enthusiatically supported the Iraq adventure.
Since WWII we've done immeasurably better when we've talked and "dealed" than when we chose to war (e.g. Vietnam, Iraq).
22
Obama's psyche and policies can be described as "harm reduction." Not everything one would want in a more perfect world or country (e.g., a single payer health care system) but better than what is now.
The Republican psyche is... can someone explain it? It seems to involve finding people or countries to attack, a need to escalate conflict, deliberate distortions of reality, and a belief that compassion, concern and thoughtfulness is for sissies.
Oh, I got it: The Republican psyche can be described as psychopathy.
The Republican psyche is... can someone explain it? It seems to involve finding people or countries to attack, a need to escalate conflict, deliberate distortions of reality, and a belief that compassion, concern and thoughtfulness is for sissies.
Oh, I got it: The Republican psyche can be described as psychopathy.
22
After 62 years the United States starts to make amends for overthrowing the secular democratically-elected Iranian government of Mohammad Mossadegh. It may well take the region another 62 years to finally recover from the consequences of that hideous mistake; I hope we will find the grace and courage to apologize sooner than that.
43
"Mr. Obama may go down in history as a president whose single biggest foreign policy and domestic achievements were won with no Republican votes, a stark departure from his 2008 campaign that was fueled by the promise of uniting."
No, Ms. Steinhauer, I disagree. Mr. Obama more likely will go down in history as a President who succeeded despite continuous and unwavering opposition to every piece of legislation he offered, and every effort he made to seek dialogue and common ground with, by a cabal of congressional opposition -- abetted by a dedicated news network and scads of radio radicals -- who have sought to tear him down at every opportunity since he took office.
Not once has the GOP leadership acknowledged that he was twice elected by a majority of American voters, winning a majority of electoral votes. They've attacked him about his birthplace, his citizenship, his religious beliefs, his middle name and, implicit through it all, his skin color. He's been publicly called a "liar" by a sitting member of Congress on the floor of the House of Representatives during a state of the Union speech. The current front-runner in the GOP presidential nomination contest has called him "very, very stupid" for even negotiating this deal.
And yet, he and his good works have prevailed. While I have disagreed with him on some positions he has taken, I say, Bravo, Mr. President. You will go down in history for your accomplishments, and your opposition will disappear into the ether.
No, Ms. Steinhauer, I disagree. Mr. Obama more likely will go down in history as a President who succeeded despite continuous and unwavering opposition to every piece of legislation he offered, and every effort he made to seek dialogue and common ground with, by a cabal of congressional opposition -- abetted by a dedicated news network and scads of radio radicals -- who have sought to tear him down at every opportunity since he took office.
Not once has the GOP leadership acknowledged that he was twice elected by a majority of American voters, winning a majority of electoral votes. They've attacked him about his birthplace, his citizenship, his religious beliefs, his middle name and, implicit through it all, his skin color. He's been publicly called a "liar" by a sitting member of Congress on the floor of the House of Representatives during a state of the Union speech. The current front-runner in the GOP presidential nomination contest has called him "very, very stupid" for even negotiating this deal.
And yet, he and his good works have prevailed. While I have disagreed with him on some positions he has taken, I say, Bravo, Mr. President. You will go down in history for your accomplishments, and your opposition will disappear into the ether.
62
When America deals with a paranoid totalitarian theocracy, second only to North Korea in its determination to flex its militaristic muscle, Obama's rationale of pushing the Iran deal as, "getting something is better than nothing" is pure political theater and does nothing to further peace.
Getting something is better than nothing is a mantra when talking a car dealer down during a sale; it's dangerous and feckless to apply that in negotiating nuclear treaties.
Getting something is better than nothing is a mantra when talking a car dealer down during a sale; it's dangerous and feckless to apply that in negotiating nuclear treaties.
2
A majority of Americans supported the Iran deal as a preliminary matter. The polls only moved the other way when the warmongers dumped millions into the public airwaves, in yet another attempt to brainwash Americans.
Remember mushroom clouds and Iraq. Until the Bush administration went loonie with the false claims against Iraq, Americans were similarly opposed to the Iraq War.
The neocons and warmongers (in both parties) are constantly buying our airwaves, attempting to brainwash Americans into doing more stupid and deadly things profitable only to the warmongers.
The warmongers should be deeply ashamed. They prefer nuclear proliferation and war to negotiations and peace. They are the anti-heroes of our time.
Remember mushroom clouds and Iraq. Until the Bush administration went loonie with the false claims against Iraq, Americans were similarly opposed to the Iraq War.
The neocons and warmongers (in both parties) are constantly buying our airwaves, attempting to brainwash Americans into doing more stupid and deadly things profitable only to the warmongers.
The warmongers should be deeply ashamed. They prefer nuclear proliferation and war to negotiations and peace. They are the anti-heroes of our time.
23
United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China--six countries.
Do we think that the US has better judgement than the other five combined? Personally, I doubt it. The fact that our conservative republican ayatollahlitos in Congress are so vehemently against the agreement reinforces my opinion.
Do we think that the US has better judgement than the other five combined? Personally, I doubt it. The fact that our conservative republican ayatollahlitos in Congress are so vehemently against the agreement reinforces my opinion.
24
Thank you President Obama and Secretary Kerry for a most significant achievement. Mr. Obama has now earned his Nobel peace prize, and secretary Kerry should be the leading contender for the 2015 prize. America is safer today, and so are Israel and the rest of the world, thanks to President Obama's vision, his intellectual prowess, and his unparalleled political acumen. The World is a better place when human beings try to find peaceful means to settle their differences. Unfortunately the opponents of this deal are, by and large, too infatuated with guns and bombs and the unnecessary slaughtering of human beings to recognize the intricacies of the Iran agreement. Dick Cheney has called it "madness"; this is not surprising, as it comes straight out of the mouth of the most prominent embodiment of madness in the United States! Chuck Schumer must know better, I'm convinced, but sadly he couldn't go against the wishes of his bosses in Tel Aviv; that should be sufficient to disqualify him from becoming the Democratic leader of the Senate. Hopefully, the citizens of New York will throw him out of the office in the next election.
40
The New Yorkers will not throw Chuck Schumer out of the Senate, nor will the Democrats not select him as Dem. Leader of the Senate. He said this was a matter of his conscience. Remember, the Jewish vote in a NY Democratic Primary Elections (I am a former Brooklynite) is a major part of vote turnout.
Note all the Dem. House members except Nadler voted as Schumer did. Nadler will have a nasty Primary financed by Abelson, the Gambling King of Nevada & his Republican cohorts. Schumer did not have enough Dems. to control the vote. He knew enough Dems would filibuster against the disapproval resolution.
Note all the Dem. House members except Nadler voted as Schumer did. Nadler will have a nasty Primary financed by Abelson, the Gambling King of Nevada & his Republican cohorts. Schumer did not have enough Dems. to control the vote. He knew enough Dems would filibuster against the disapproval resolution.
The tone of this article is that Obama is a failure at his campaign promise of uniting America, neglecting to note that Republican leaders and strategists were meeting on the night of his inauguration to block every initiative he proposed.
44
Yes, his inexperience and hubris led him to make foolish overly optimistic campaign promises. We saw the same behavior with Obamacare, most of which he got wrong. Now many of us see the same behavior in his dealings with Iran.
2
@AACNY: Yes, in 2008-09, Barack Obama underestimated the degree to which Republicans--whose standard bearer ran on the slogan, "Country First"--would try to advance their narrow political interests over the interests of the United States--in the midst of a national economic emergency, no less. By all means, let's chalk it up to hubris.
A complete capitulation of American power and influence. We have been sold a bill of goods by a President who cares only about his legacy (Kerry as well), and the Dems swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Only alternative is war?? Complete nonsense. The alternative was to not give Iran everything it wanted/demanded. We will pay a heavy, heavy price with this trash agreement that should have been a treaty from the start. A farsicle Obama foreign policy and now Iran with access to complete control of the Middle East, with Russia as its backer. The victory is Iran's. Just naive, stupifying and stupid. The world is not a safer place.
6
The sanctions were not working. Our allies were going to end their sanctions. The only alternative to the deal was all our nuclear war on Iran.There have been no right wing proposals other than the foolish and unworkable idea that the US can enforce sanctions that the rest of the world would ignore. I suppose you would be in favor of all out war with Iran?
I can certainly understand your points, and even agree that Kerry and Obama let Iran get away with too much. However, it's also short-sighted to say the world is more dangerous. This treaty requires Iran to give up most of its nuclear material and the majority of the centrifuges it built over the last decade. If it does abide by the treaty, the world will be safer. The question is, will Iran do so? If not, the U.S. has to come down hard.
Please read Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly. She is
a major historian. the folly she speaks of is national pride,
the kind that led the Brits to try to dominate 3 million
Colonials in 1776, against the intelligence of many of its
own Parliament and leaders. The kind of pride that lead us into the Vietnam war, when in 1937 Ho Chi Mihn had begged
the US not to support the French who had dominated the
Vietnamese for rubber and silk and coal, etc., turning an old
nation of landowning farmers into serfs. Ho pleaded with the
US on the basis of our own revolution against the tyranny
of Britain's colonialism. And then thre is the folly of invading
Iraq and upsetting the whole Middle East. Sir, your attitude
has learned nothing from history, would probably just bomb
Iran? Here we have a chance to try something less easy,
and full of hope that young people need.
a major historian. the folly she speaks of is national pride,
the kind that led the Brits to try to dominate 3 million
Colonials in 1776, against the intelligence of many of its
own Parliament and leaders. The kind of pride that lead us into the Vietnam war, when in 1937 Ho Chi Mihn had begged
the US not to support the French who had dominated the
Vietnamese for rubber and silk and coal, etc., turning an old
nation of landowning farmers into serfs. Ho pleaded with the
US on the basis of our own revolution against the tyranny
of Britain's colonialism. And then thre is the folly of invading
Iraq and upsetting the whole Middle East. Sir, your attitude
has learned nothing from history, would probably just bomb
Iran? Here we have a chance to try something less easy,
and full of hope that young people need.
1
I find it sad that my college students will find this plan unfamiliar. The Bush years were devoid of basic realpolitik and containment policies. It was all bluster and bravado, as if that stands for any kind of calculated strategy.
For us older citizens, this is a welcome return to business as usual. Contain, bind, monitor, and engage as advantageous.
The US did not lose here, it remembered. The only loser here is the Bush doctrine of armed intervention to manage threats as first course of action, a doctrine that nearly destroyed our reputation as a keeper of peace and order.
Welcome back to the old school, kids.
For us older citizens, this is a welcome return to business as usual. Contain, bind, monitor, and engage as advantageous.
The US did not lose here, it remembered. The only loser here is the Bush doctrine of armed intervention to manage threats as first course of action, a doctrine that nearly destroyed our reputation as a keeper of peace and order.
Welcome back to the old school, kids.
7
Actually this is all pretty depressing. Can anyone remember the last time an international agreement negotiated by a sitting president's administration was voted against unanimously by the opposition party in Congress? Such a thing is, I believe, unprecedented because in the past each of the parties comprised a mix of political views and philosophies that overlapped and defied easy categorization. No more, particularly with respect to Republicans of whom it can truly be said that the term "moderate" has become a four-letter word along with "compromise".
Now we have GOP congressional members who don't even bother to wait until the ink is dry on the agreement before condemning it out of hand and vowing implacable opposition. It's difficult to see how this is about the merits rather than Republican opposition to anything Obama (TPP was an exception because their corporate pals wanted it) and kowtowing to Israeli PM Netanyahu. At least Cardin and Schumer bothered to read the thing.
Such a display of unadulterated loathing and cynicism from our conservative legislators is a very bad omen for the possibility of ever again uniting our country for the common good.
Now we have GOP congressional members who don't even bother to wait until the ink is dry on the agreement before condemning it out of hand and vowing implacable opposition. It's difficult to see how this is about the merits rather than Republican opposition to anything Obama (TPP was an exception because their corporate pals wanted it) and kowtowing to Israeli PM Netanyahu. At least Cardin and Schumer bothered to read the thing.
Such a display of unadulterated loathing and cynicism from our conservative legislators is a very bad omen for the possibility of ever again uniting our country for the common good.
6
Merkel, Cameron and Hollande today published a discussion of why they support the Iran deal. It debunks some of the more outrageous "talking points" that some Republicans put forward as "the truth." Maybe one should read that piece before throwing rocks.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cameron-hollande-and-merkel-why-...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cameron-hollande-and-merkel-why-...
29
What a choice! Listen to their constituencies and reject what anyone any sense realizes is a very dangerous deal or do whatever it takes to avoid another significant failure by the president.
Guess democrats decided after Obamacare, the party could not take another Obama failure. Party came first.
Guess democrats decided after Obamacare, the party could not take another Obama failure. Party came first.
8
What Obama failure? The Affordable Care Act is big success -- more Americans insured, health costs dropping, and, as more Americans come to understand it, more and more Americans are supporting it. Again, what Obama failure?
3
Why would you consider Obamacares to be failure rather than the great success that it is?
6
AACNY
Can the Republicans point to any successes? They can't even get organized, and they have majorities in both Hoses of Congress.
The famous question that Ronald Regan asked applies: "Are you better off today than you were four (or eight) years ago?"
For most people, the answer is "YES."
If that is supposed to be failure, I will take that kind of failure.
Can the Republicans point to any successes? They can't even get organized, and they have majorities in both Hoses of Congress.
The famous question that Ronald Regan asked applies: "Are you better off today than you were four (or eight) years ago?"
For most people, the answer is "YES."
If that is supposed to be failure, I will take that kind of failure.
Hopefully this agreement will help to avoid another pointless war that kills thousands of American soldiers, hundreds of thousands of civilians and wastes another two trillion dollars.
45
Well done to President Obama, John Kerry and his team along with the Democratic Senators who voted for the Nuclear Deal with Iran.
Once again the GOP emphatically proves they have no solutions but inane and banal rhetoric and that they are wholly unfit to govern.
Perhaps the GOP should join the Knesset? Bibi loves them.
Once again the GOP emphatically proves they have no solutions but inane and banal rhetoric and that they are wholly unfit to govern.
Perhaps the GOP should join the Knesset? Bibi loves them.
33
Obama fulfilled his promise to unite the parties, just within them, not between.
2
The last time the Democrats voted against the overwhelming will of the American people, they had 60 Senators and a big House majority.
3
I marvel at the Republican ability to stand alone before a mirror and see the majority of the American people.
You are dead wrong. A recent poll reported that about 40% of the American
people had np opinion about the Iran deal. Yes in the remaining 60% there were slightly more Americans who were against the deal than those supporting it, but this did not constitute an overwhelming majority as you seem to suggest.
people had np opinion about the Iran deal. Yes in the remaining 60% there were slightly more Americans who were against the deal than those supporting it, but this did not constitute an overwhelming majority as you seem to suggest.
Mike:
A recent Pew poll found:
"...just 21% approve of the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program reached between the United States, Iran and other nations. Nearly half (49%) disapprove of the agreement, while three-in-ten (30%) offer no opinion."
Support is dropping:
"While the partisan divide over the nuclear agreement remains substantial, support for the deal has slipped across the board since July. Currently, 42% of Democrats approve of the agreement, while 29% disapprove and an identical percentage has no opinion. In July, 50% of Democrats approved, 27% disapproved and 22% had no opinion."
*****
* "Support for Iran Nuclear Agreement Falls",
http://www.people-press.org/2015/09/08/support-for-iran-nuclear-agreemen...
A recent Pew poll found:
"...just 21% approve of the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program reached between the United States, Iran and other nations. Nearly half (49%) disapprove of the agreement, while three-in-ten (30%) offer no opinion."
Support is dropping:
"While the partisan divide over the nuclear agreement remains substantial, support for the deal has slipped across the board since July. Currently, 42% of Democrats approve of the agreement, while 29% disapprove and an identical percentage has no opinion. In July, 50% of Democrats approved, 27% disapproved and 22% had no opinion."
*****
* "Support for Iran Nuclear Agreement Falls",
http://www.people-press.org/2015/09/08/support-for-iran-nuclear-agreemen...
1
The Republicans seem to be the nattering nabobs of negativity/
But wait, That was in a distant galaxy, long, long ago.
But wait, That was in a distant galaxy, long, long ago.
14
What a glorious day to be alive ! Finally we have a political party (the Dems - with a few notable exceptions) who support a realignment of our Mid-East priorities to realistic objectives. People are waking up to the corrosive influence of big-money and outside influence on our Nation's politics. Together with his opening to Cuba, this President will be remember for turning, if ever slightly, this giant ship of State into a new course of history. Congrats, Mr. President ... you've worked hard, and largely alone, to reach this historically important achievement.
32
No one says it's a perfect deal, but rather, a deal better than going to war. As the song goes, "Let's give peace a chance."
30
Good news, the say no to give peace a chance Republicans failed to thwart the Iranian nuclear deal hammered out by the U.S. Iran, UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China.
Has there been any other presidency in American history where the party of opposition declared it wanted to make sure the president was a one-term president, that it wanted the president's policies to fail, lied and disinformed the public to work its will, and then mostly voted in lock-step against the president's policies (aided by the Hastert Rule since the 1990s)?
Congratulations to President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry and to the current Iranian regime leaders who went against their supreme leader and ayatollahs in brokering the nuclear deal.
The the obstructionist, war-loving, anti-peace Republicans, Bibi Netanyahu, and the hardliner Iranian ayatollahs do have a lot in common.
Has there been any other presidency in American history where the party of opposition declared it wanted to make sure the president was a one-term president, that it wanted the president's policies to fail, lied and disinformed the public to work its will, and then mostly voted in lock-step against the president's policies (aided by the Hastert Rule since the 1990s)?
Congratulations to President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry and to the current Iranian regime leaders who went against their supreme leader and ayatollahs in brokering the nuclear deal.
The the obstructionist, war-loving, anti-peace Republicans, Bibi Netanyahu, and the hardliner Iranian ayatollahs do have a lot in common.
92
The irresponsibility of the opposition to this Agreement is breathtaking:
On the one hand, the opponents want Iran under no circumstances to possess nuclear weapons. On the other hand, they oppose a diplomatic breakthrough achieved by extraordinary effort and cooperation over several years by the USA and the other great powers. This Agreement supported by virtually the entire world except the government of Israel, is not good enough for them and they prefer to "tear it up."
The President and his party have done their duty to the American people. The Republicans who as a partisan block refused to help in achieving this landmark effort for peace, have defaulted in their duty.
In the short run, the Republicans have done the politically expedient thing. But they will eventually answer to the American people and to history for their reckless irresponsibility.
On the one hand, the opponents want Iran under no circumstances to possess nuclear weapons. On the other hand, they oppose a diplomatic breakthrough achieved by extraordinary effort and cooperation over several years by the USA and the other great powers. This Agreement supported by virtually the entire world except the government of Israel, is not good enough for them and they prefer to "tear it up."
The President and his party have done their duty to the American people. The Republicans who as a partisan block refused to help in achieving this landmark effort for peace, have defaulted in their duty.
In the short run, the Republicans have done the politically expedient thing. But they will eventually answer to the American people and to history for their reckless irresponsibility.
18
We sure hope so.
Reality check seems only intrest in media when has to do with other countrys who are in axes of evil . Iran has provided arms for isis an also responsible for a lot problem in iqru . Why cant congress work something important like ensuring we have jobs pay living wage stop picking on umions who support living wage. Our roads are dangerous because we have poor vechicle inspections an inforcement of inspections of trucks an cars. People drive down road cause accidents because cant afford car insurance an food to feed familys
1
@jerry lee rochester
I agree with most of what you say. One exception is that Iran is helping the US and Iraqis fight ISIS. In this battle, Iran is on our side.
I agree with most of what you say. One exception is that Iran is helping the US and Iraqis fight ISIS. In this battle, Iran is on our side.
The agreement was approved because the opponents failed to put forth a credible alternative. We heard over and over and over again what they did not like about the agreement, but nothing realistic about what would happen without it. It seems that many of those opposed were opposed simply because President Obama was for it.
9
Himm, where was there a vote of approval?
The Senatorial support to secure the deal is another reminder of how important Senate elections are. As eyes are trained on the Presidential campaign, please don't lose sight of legislative competitions. Vote and take back the Senate!
16
And the House!
1
Well, what's done is done. The Democrats decided to capitulate big time by choosing what's best for Iran instead of what's best for America. I find it terribly ironic that Senator Obama ran on a catchy slogan of Hope and Change back in 2008. America was seduced by this newcomer who was promising these two lofty goals--hope and change -- after being burned out from eight long years of Bush and Cheney. Unfortunately giving Iran permission to create its own nuclear arsenal wasn't exactly the change I was hoping for.
6
Really? Please explain how Iran *didn't* have permission to create its own nuclear arsenal *before* this agreement.
Iran could have forsaken the deal and the centrifuges would still continue to spin and the goal of achieving a nuclear arsenal would have been achieved *without* this agreement.
But once again, Sharon5101, you and the republicans who voted against the deal dishonestly ignore the reality of the situation and act as if Obama single- handedly "gave them a nuclear arsenal," as if they weren't already well down that road.
Iran could have forsaken the deal and the centrifuges would still continue to spin and the goal of achieving a nuclear arsenal would have been achieved *without* this agreement.
But once again, Sharon5101, you and the republicans who voted against the deal dishonestly ignore the reality of the situation and act as if Obama single- handedly "gave them a nuclear arsenal," as if they weren't already well down that road.
2
If his two significant achievements have come without the vote of any member of the opposition, that suggests a very strong president, does it not? Also, in this case, a president who finally learned that bipartisanship is as old-fashioned as pocket watches, and impossible with a party that is committed to oppose everything the president does no matter the substance or value. Obama finally learned to tango.
6
I don't believe the Republicans and four Democrats who voted for cloture really were against this deal. I believe it was pure political posturing. I hope President Obama is correct that this deal will lead to more power in Iran for moderate forces, but I am pessimistic. In the end, I fear that the opponents of this deal will be proven correct.
2
This vote and the larger brouhaha as it transpired in Congress is eventually not about more concessions from Iran since the United States cannot re-impose any credible costs on Iran without the EU and China, who have already signed on to the deal. It is about whether the actions of the executive branch of the US government can be relied upon by the rest of the world as the will of the American people. In a perfect world, Obama should have considered this a treaty and asked for congressional assent. However, it has been established practice now for successive administrations to make executive decisions on foreign deals and if Congress torpedoed this effort, it would only have affected America's standing in the world as a reliable actor. Through shady means perhaps, but Senate Democrats and the President have managed to protect America's standing by thwarting the republicans for whom no value seems to be higher than showing up Obama.
10
The tyranny of the majority, er, minority. But now we realize that the majority, er, minority, is not governed by what they say or promise, and will of course be benign when the minority, er majority, on assuming the Esteemed Office, acts in the same, unilateral, way. Obama's a uniter, that's for sure!
3
With this we have entered an agreement with the other Western powers that may have some positive impact on behaviors of the various sects and factions occupying the countries of Mideast. We did not go to war with anyone. Iran agreed to halt the development of nuclear arms. We agree to allow some economic interaction with the people of Iran. We did not invade them. We have much to gain from working with our allies to stop Iran's hostile actions in the region. Nothing is guaranteed, but we are not at war.
18
History will look most favourably upon Barack Obama. I think he will go down as one the great US presidents, not only for what he has achieved but also for how he achieved it: under the grimmest of circumstances, in the face of universal Republican opposition, that was entirely personal; and he achieved it with matchless grace. I hope they have room left on Mount Rushmore. They might just need it.
59
dream on more like the worst president ever..a deal that we get zero from and they go on spiting out their hate (Iran)! one for Iran and zero for the USA.
1
We made the best deal we probably could have - and we simply had to try. The opponents of this seem to have the view that if Iran fails to meet it's obligations under the agreement, then we do not have any options to restrain them. This is not true. In addition, Republicans also do not want to admit that the build up of Iran's nuclear weapons program took place under very stringent economic sanctions. One scientist I saw interviewed said in reality they were 6 months from a bomb. Given that, Mr. Obama had an obligation to humanity to try and negotiate some type of agreement to some extent reverse the process. The alternative was war, and we have seen the result of that. If we start a war with Iran, the refugee crises currently unfolding in Europe will look inconsequential. The Republican war-mongers are disappointed today, but I am relieved.
7
You know when something is wrong with our political system, the political parties, and our various institutions, when victories are measured by just having enough votes to prevent a super majority by being obtained.
I am glad this passed, because it hopefully accomplish two things:
1. An open dialogue with Iran, to balance out our so called "relationship" with Saudi Arabia.
2. To send a message to other nations, like Israel, that they have no business interfering (including spending millions on ads) with the internal workings of our government. Our government is broken enough as it is.
If the US did not accept the Iran deal, the other nations, part of the accord, would have ended their embargo anyway. The US would be left with what they had with Cuba, that is, everyone else had trade, tourism, etc. with Cuba and the US attempt to isolate Cuba was a dismal, 50+ year failure.
Now, the war mongers, and "terrorism is on every street corner" folks will condemn the accord. And Israel and their hard line government will be fuming, and trying to get a Republican elected in 2016.
I am glad this passed, because it hopefully accomplish two things:
1. An open dialogue with Iran, to balance out our so called "relationship" with Saudi Arabia.
2. To send a message to other nations, like Israel, that they have no business interfering (including spending millions on ads) with the internal workings of our government. Our government is broken enough as it is.
If the US did not accept the Iran deal, the other nations, part of the accord, would have ended their embargo anyway. The US would be left with what they had with Cuba, that is, everyone else had trade, tourism, etc. with Cuba and the US attempt to isolate Cuba was a dismal, 50+ year failure.
Now, the war mongers, and "terrorism is on every street corner" folks will condemn the accord. And Israel and their hard line government will be fuming, and trying to get a Republican elected in 2016.
34
Israel is strong and has its own nuclear weapons. The treaty does not involve a threat to Israel. The treaty isn't perfect, but it's the best we can do for now. It's a vote for diplomacy and peace, and perhaps some trust can emerge as time goes by. We have a responsibility to take this action.
11
"Mr. Obama may go down in history as a president whose single biggest foreign policy and domestic achievements were won with no Republican votes, a stark departure from his 2008 campaign that was fueled by the promise of uniting."
The implicit notion in this statement, and in similar statements many have made throughout the Obama presidency, is that the job of "uniting" was the President's alone to fulfill. But the relationship between a President and Congress is, in some way, analogous to a marriage. In a troubled marriage. if one party remains resolutely opposed to resolving differences, then the att the effort in the world towards reconciliation by the other party will come to naught. So let us be clear about where, precisely, the blame properly rests for this failure to 'unite.' It rests with a GOP, whose leaders, even as the President was being sworn in, gathered in a Washington restaurant and formulated a plan to stonewall anything and everything this President would try to do.
The implicit notion in this statement, and in similar statements many have made throughout the Obama presidency, is that the job of "uniting" was the President's alone to fulfill. But the relationship between a President and Congress is, in some way, analogous to a marriage. In a troubled marriage. if one party remains resolutely opposed to resolving differences, then the att the effort in the world towards reconciliation by the other party will come to naught. So let us be clear about where, precisely, the blame properly rests for this failure to 'unite.' It rests with a GOP, whose leaders, even as the President was being sworn in, gathered in a Washington restaurant and formulated a plan to stonewall anything and everything this President would try to do.
28
The Israel Lobby lost a big one today. May this be a harbinger of things to come...
23
The Republicans are going to be apoplectic over this. Sure, they have nothing better than tough-guy talk and nonsensical terms like "Axis of Evil" - but Congressional GOP leader Benjamin Netanyahu has only spent 19 years saying that Iran is just months away from the bomb! Then there was that cartoon at the UN to explain the science, so never mind the nuclear Physicists who applaud the deal. And a failure for America internationally, in their eyes, is well worth the value of denying President Obama a victory.
11