WTF??? Democrats prepared to buck White House on Iran nuclear deal

[cali]

Even as the White House ramps up pressure on Congress to stay out of its negotiations with Iran on a nuclear agreement, Republicans are on the brink of veto-proof majorities for legislation that could undercut any deal.

And that support has held up even after the uproar last week over the GOP’s letter to Iranian leaders warning against an agreement.

Though several Democratic senators told POLITICO they were offended by the missive authored by Arkansas GOP Sen. Tom Cotton, none of them said it would cause them to drop their support for bills to impose new sanctions on Iran or give Congress review power over a nuclear deal.

<snip>

“The letter’s incredibly unfortunate and inappropriate,” said Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, a centrist Democrat who voted for the sanctions bill in committee and is a sponsor of the congressional approval legislation. “That doesn’t diminish my support for the legislation that we introduced.”

The president’s challenge in Congress on the issue isn’t limited to the 47 Republican senators who signed last week’s missive arguing that a nuclear agreement could be revoked by the next U.S. president. In a letter released Saturday, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough implored Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) not to push for a vote on his bill that would give Congress 60 days to reject or approve of any deal.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/democrats-prepared-to-buck-white-house-on-iran-nuclear-deal-116088.html#ixzz3UUPnMcpN

Nothing like Senate Dems undermining the President

[djean111]

1. Well, they have (D) after their names, so we must support them! And vote for them next time!

How fucked up this all is.

[RandiFan1290]

2. lol

[cali]

5. not sure what you find so amusing about this.

The President has been working toward an agreement and these folks are undermining his efforts and aligning themselves with the republicans.

[still_one]

3. Fuck um. Next time they call me to donate money to the dem senate, I will tell them to get it from

These senators

[Township75]

4. More traitors? Yeeesh, who isn't a traitor anymore?

Frankly, all of you look and act like traitors too!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

28. Not surprised. Those traitorous vermin have sold us out before. President Warren will whippem into shape.

[TheKentuckian]

6. Meeting stupid in the middle!

[madville]

7. What if it really is a crappy deal?

What exactly is Iran giving up in this deal? Seems like they get to keep their ability to manufacture nuclear material, get sanctions lifted and get to pump their fist in the air while declaring victory over the great Satan while talking about burning Israel off the face of the earth out of the side of their mouth.

[cali]

8. I have a lot more faith in the President than republicans

Republicans want a war.

[madville]

9. It's not automatically good just because the Republicans oppose it

The Republican position means nothing. Obviously something could be off if a significant number of Democrats don't support it either.

[cali]

10. I don't know that the number is significant. it only takes a few.

and yeah, most things that the republicans support are bad. Name one good republican proposal that democrats are against.

[madville]

11. Are they significant or not?

Your thread title is screaming about Democrats being a significant barrier to an Iran deal, then your reply says they aren't significant. So which is it?

Don't be so two dimensional, just because Republicans oppose it doesn't mean I should automatically support it. They may be opposing it just because it's a deal brokered by President Obama, the Democrats may be opposing it because of some details in the deal. There can be right and wrong reasons for opposing the same thing.

[cali]

13. except for the "WTF", the title is from the article

and I tried to explain to you that it doesn't take "many" Senate democrats to be a barrier, just a few.

So come on, do answer my question: Can you name a good republican policy proposal?

[madville]

15. These are not Republican proposals

They are bipartisan proposals due to both Republicans and Democrats supporting and sponsoring them.

[geek tragedy]

14. You should rely on sources other than Netanyahu and the Weekly Standard.

Seems like they get to keep their ability to manufacture nuclear material, get sanctions lifted and get to pump their fist in the air while declaring victory over the great Satan while talking about burning Israel off the face of the earth out of the side of their mouth.

Reminder that no deal has been reached at all, so you are basing your criticism on talking points from the warmongers, whom you for some reason find more credible than President Obama and John Kerry. Unless you have top secret access to the latest negotiation drafts . . .

[madville]

16. These Democrats potentially opposing the deal

do have access to the drafts and apparently don't like some of what they are seeing. Their opposition may have some merit, we won;t really know until more is made public.

[geek tragedy]

17. No, Congress has not been informed of the details, otherwise they would have been leaked by now.

You have already made up your mind--you have already judged the deal to be a complete failure, betrayal of Israel, appeasement of evil etc.

Seems like they get to keep their ability to manufacture nuclear material, get sanctions lifted and get to pump their fist in the air while declaring victory over the great Satan while talking about burning Israel off the face of the earth out of the side of their mouth.

The only thing you left out was to accuse President Obama of 'bowing' to the mullahs. About a 8.5/10 on the Kristol scale.

Not even your best work.

No endorsements for the Administration's plan from any Democrats? Sounds like the Administration is Iran's only best friend in this situation. I think Kerry wants a deal, any deal, badly and would concede anything to be able to say he got something.

It's obvious the Administration is no fan of Israel

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=647597

[Scootaloo]

26. You mean they might get to enjoy their rights as signers of the NPT?

Yeah, they'll likely either keep their ability to enrich uranium, or to buy it from someone else. That's their right.
Yes, the sanctions will likely get lifted. Because the sanctions are scaremongering bullshit that actually ENCOURAGE Iran to violate the NPT. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, well might as well do.
Yes, they will declare it a victory, because it will be.
No, Iran has never threatened to "burn Israel off the face of the earth."

What's your idea of a not-crappy deal? An Iran bound by a treaty but with none of the rights from that treaty, laboring under pointless and harmful sanctions, denigrating the entire nation while our presidential candidates pass around the mic to talk about how much and how hard they're going to fuck Iran up the ass?

[geek tragedy]

12. they couldn't fit all of the pro-war jingos into one party. We've made progress in purging the

people who love war from the party, but not quite.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

29. They're gonna get us all killed. Hell, until recently, it looked liked a warmonger was about 2 head our party. What have we become? Frightening.

Why we need Elizabeth in 2016; it may be our only chance.

[nakocal]

18. Does anyone is congress not realize that US sanctions are worthless without international support

Does anyone is congress not realize that US sanctions are worthless without international support. If they want to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb they have two choices: negotiations with our foreign partners or be willing to go to war on our war on our own.

[sabrina 1]

19. No surprise really. Who are they? Name them so we can put them on the list of candidates to

to throw out.

Too much money in our system has BOUGHT these tools.

To them, it's all about money and they are afraid of losing their donors.

They should be made to feel MORE afraid of losing voters.

[sadoldgirl]

20. I know one of them is my senator

He is M. Bennet, and seems to be cosying up with
the right, even our idiotic theapartying 2nd Senator
Garner.
I wonder whether those, who support the Corker
bill are up for reelection in 16. Bennet is.

[sabrina 1]

23. My condolences. I haven't checked yet, but wouldn't be surprised if one of MY Senators is on the l

list, Schumer.

I think railing against them is fine, but taking action to replace them starting now, letting them KNOW they are now targeted for primaries, would be the best way to take out all the justifiable anger at such a betrayal of trust.

Right now, clearly they don't care what the voters think, which means they need a rude awakening.

We need to know who is on our side, and the good part about this is what we are finding out, who needs to be replaced and not left their working against the interests of the voters who elected them.

[newfie11]

21. I wonder how much the Sen Dems were paid

Money buys a lot of votes in today's world.

[Dawson Leery]

22. This weakness and willing to go with the Thugs on so many issues

makes Democrats look bad.

A clear majority want Obama to make a deal with Iran.

[sabrina 1]

24. This is what happens when the strategy is 'just vote for the D' or 'the worst Dem is better than the

best Republican'. That is pure nonsense and it's time to end the idea that voting for someone simply because of the letter after their name, is our only option.

It isn't. We can start right now working to replace these betrayers and that is what the result of their betrayal needs to be, an all out effort to remove from the position of trust they have so betrayed, and a lesson to others who might think the voters don't matter. So sick of this, watching our party cave on every important issue. Enough!

[jakeXT]

25. WaPo: "War with Iran is probably our best option"

...

Otherwise, only military actions — by Israel against Iraq and Syria, and through the specter of U.S. force against Libya — have halted nuclear programs. Sanctions have never stopped a nuclear drive anywhere.

Does this mean that our only option is war? Yes, although an air campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would entail less need for boots on the ground than the war Obama is waging against the Islamic State, which poses far smaller a threat than Iran does.

Wouldn’t an attack cause ordinary Iranians to rally behind the regime? Perhaps, but military losses have also served to undermine regimes, including the Greek and Argentine juntas, the Russian czar and the Russian communists.

Wouldn’t destroying much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure merely delay its progress? Perhaps, but we can strike as often as necessary. Of course, Iran would try to conceal and defend the elements of its nuclear program, so we might have to find new ways to discover and attack them. Surely the United States could best Iran in such a technological race.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/war-with-iran-is-probably-our-best-option/2015/03/13/fb112eb0-c725-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html

[RiverLover]

27. These are, as the article, says "Centrist Democrats", so they're

Republicans who ran as Democrats.

On the flip side, they will back Obama's TPP fast track.