Of Nevada delegation, only Harry stands with Obama on Iran deal

Predictably, Nevada’s Washington delegation is toeing the party on Obama’s ill-advised Iran deal that has already been approved by the U.S. Security Council.

Sen. Dean Heller was perhaps the most cautious on the GOP side.

“I have some serious reservations regarding the deal reached on Iran’s nuclear program and will review it carefully, as will the public. For more than three decades, America has stood up against Iran and implemented sanctions enacted by Congress to prevent them from further developing a nuclear weapon. Yet, this work may be unraveled by an agreement that crosses red lines the U.S. had previously set, putting our nation and its allies like Israel at risk,” said  Heller. “I’m sure this is a proud day for the Iranian negotiators. The leadership our nation now needs is for Congress to act decisively in the review process to ensure we are doing everything within our power to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability.”

Rep. Cresent Hardy said, “Iran’s open threats to neighbors like Israel, its government sponsorship of terror around the world, and the confirmed killing of hundreds of U.S. soldiers are all reasons to question their long-term intentions.

“If initial reports are true: This agreement would provide billions of dollars in sanctions relief and only delay Iran’s breakout time to a nuclear bomb by a matter of months. The President can claim a victory with this deal – but it is a hollow one. Simply extending the time it takes for Iran to get a bomb still creates a future where Iran has a bomb.”

Rep. Joe Heck, who is running for Harry Reid’s Senate seat, said, “My initial concerns with the deal stem from the fact that we caved on anytime-anywhere nuclear site inspections, even giving Iran a say in which sites get inspected, and that the deal lifts the conventional arms embargo on Iran. According to reports, Russia and China were the two biggest proponents of lifting that embargo, no doubt to pursue their own nefarious purposes and regional ambitions.

“One thing this deal will not change is Iran’s continued sponsorship of terrorist groups in the Middle East and their influence peddling in Iraq. Those aren’t qualities I look for in a partner on an agreement over nuclear weapons development. In the past Iran has not adhered to international norms and obligations when it comes to their nuclear program, and so Congress now has a chance to review this deal and every aspect of this agreement.”

Rep. Mark Amodei told a television station, “We’re not making the middle east a safer place when you have the Saudis band the Israelis and the Jordanians wondering what Iran will do with that stuff. I think we instead should stay the course with the sanctions and say no,you cannot do this.”

Reid as usual played Democratic politics instead instead of looking out for the safety of the country, saying, “Today’s historic accord is the result of years of hard work by President Barack Obama and his administration. The world community agrees that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable and a threat to our national security, the safety of Israel and the stability of the Middle East. Now it is incumbent on Congress to review this agreement with the thoughtful, level-headed process an agreement of this magnitude deserves.”

Rep. Dina Titus did not agree, “With the announcement today of an agreement with Iran, I stand strong in the belief that no deal is better than a bad deal and a nuclear-armed Iran is simply unacceptable.”

Her predecessor in the 1st Congressional District, Shelley Berkley, penned an op-ed Sunday calling on Congress to reject the deal.

“In the final analysis, then, President Obama couldn‘t bring home a good deal, nor could he bring himself to walk away. The consequence is a deal that will give Iran billions of dollars in cash and relief to fuel its terror and war machines, shred the hard-won sanctions and enable the Iranians to get away with hiding the full extent of their nuclear work, infrastructure and know-how,” Berkley wrote.

“Don‘t be fooled, either, by the claim that the Iranians will pump $150 billion of promised sanctions relief into their ailing economy. Much, even most, of that windfall will be spent on Iranian terror operations in Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen, as well as on prolonging the brutal Assad dictatorship in Syria, which has become a full-fledged tool of Iran. At the end of June, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei announced that the forthcoming year‘s defense budget would be increased by a colossal 32.5 percent. The regime is committed to war and conflict, not peace and stability.”

Reid stands alone with smelly deal.

Advertisements

18 comments on “Of Nevada delegation, only Harry stands with Obama on Iran deal

  1. It’s only because the President gave Harry his 700,000 acre national monument with the hope of blocking the railroad spur to Yucca Mountain.

  2. nyp says:

    We should just invade. That always works out well, especially in the Middle East.

  3. No…we just need a tougher, more realistic agreement…one that might actually achieve the rhetorical claims being put forth by the administration.

    http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?id=761668

  4. Rincon says:

    Damn, we shoulda had Brien doing the negotiations. He woulda gotten the Ayatollah in a pretzel hold and forced him to sign!

  5. Patrick says:

    I know this is off topic but it just raises so many interesting questions (and possibilities for bumper stickers; “guns don’t kill people, drones with guns do”)

    http://www.reviewjournal.com/trending/the-feed/faa-investigating-gun-firing-drone-video

    So, assuming a corporation owns the drone, does the drone now have second amendment rights?

  6. Steve says:

    Like Reagan and Gaddafi…peace through strength.
    Maybe Nyp is really on to something!
    Loose the bombs!

  7. nyp says:

    That’s the ticket — just negotiate a “tougher agreement.”
    Easy as pie!

  8. No one said it would be easy…but if you believe this agreement will stop Iran from procuring nuclear weapons, the latest weapons to distribute to terrorist allies (5 years) and ballistic missiles (8 years)…I have some brothel front property in Pahrump I’d like to sell you…

    http://theweek.com/cartoons/567063/obama-cartoon-world-iran-nuclear-deal

  9. Rincon says:

    Since Pakistan and North Korea have atomic weapons too, we’re only addressing 1/3 of the problem, at least until another rogue nation gets them too. Perhaps a war on 3 fronts, Steve? It would be a nice sequel ti Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Get used to it. Lots of other nations have them. Trying to squash them all through force is a game of whack-a-mole. That strategy also has the disadvantage of putting a target on our foreheads. Europe has a greater Muslim problem than we do. No need for us to be any more aggressive than they are. To do so would allow Europe to keep sponging off of us. Didn’t most of us agree once that Europe should shoulder more of its defense costs? Here’s the litmus test.

  10. Patrick says:

    I know what really would have delayed (and most lkely denied) the possibility of Iran getting the bomb; if Reagan hadn’t made sure the technology was sold to them originally by AQ Khan and the Pakistani government.

    See, Reagan lied about knowing AQ Khan and the Pakistanis were selling nuclear weapon technology to (surprise surprise) all the countries who are now our biggest worries; N. Korea, Syria, Iran, and yes even Iraq (and supposedly Saudi Arabia but you don’t hear much about that do you?). Anyway, Reagan was so wanting to help the guys who in later years would fly planes into the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon, that he LIED, under oath every year, about whether Pakistan was complying with the non-proliferation treaties.

    And so, as with most things, that which many on the right now try to attack a democratic president for failing to prevent was, originally, initiated and caused by one of their own (to wild applause I might add) so many years ago.

  11. Of course…all roads lead back to Reagan. Cue the music…

  12. Patrick says:

    Ah, a “non-denial, denial”. Always a republican winner.

    “An obvious explanation for the high-level quiet revolves around the fact, haunting to some in the intelligence community, that the Reagan Administration had dramatically aided Pakistan in its pursuit of the bomb. President Reagan and his national-security aides saw the generals who ran Pakistan as loyal allies in the American proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan: driving the Russians out of Afghanistan was considered far more important than nagging Pakistan about its building of bombs. The Reagan Administration did more than forgo nagging, however; it looked the other way throughout the mid-nineteen-eighties as Pakistan assembled its nuclear arsenal with the aid of many millions of dollars’ worth of restricted, high-tech materials bought inside the United States. Such purchases have always been illegal, but Congress made breaking the law more costly in 1985, when it passed the Solarz Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act (the amendment was proposed by former Representative Stephen J. Solarz, Democrat of New York), providing for the cutoff of all military and economic aid to purportedly non-nuclear nations that illegally export or attempt to export nuclear-related materials from the United States.

    A second law passed that year, known as the Pressler Amendment (for Senator Larry Pressler, Republican of South Dakota), also affected the continuous flow of hundreds of millions of dollars annually in American aid to Pakistan. This legislation calls on the President to certify every year that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons. Without such certification, Pakistan could not get any foreign aid. The certification process became farcical in the last years of the Reagan Administration, whose yearly certification—despite explicit American intelligence about Pakistan’s nuclear-weapons program—was seen as little more than a payoff to the Pakistani leadership for its support in Afghanistan.”

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1993/03/29/on-the-nuclear-edge

    Mage if Reagan hadn’t been the cause of so many problem in the world, people wouldn’t be able to point to so many problems that he caused.

  13. Steve says:

    Rincon and sarcasm don’t mix.

    Jimmy Carter was Reagan’s best supporter. (though not intentionally)

  14. How interesting…the source for the New Yorker epistle, Seymour Hersh…is also on record as saying “…Obama is worse than Bush. “Do you think Obama’s been judged by any rational standards? Has Guantanamo closed? Is a war over? Is anyone paying any attention to Iraq? Is he seriously talking about going into Syria? We are not doing so well in the 80 wars we are in right now, what the hell does he want to go into another one for. What’s going on [with journalists]?” he asks.” Oh yeah…and let’s not forget this little tidbit…”Don’t even get him started on the New York Times which, he says, spends “so much more time carrying water for Obama than I ever thought they would” – or the death of Osama bin Laden.” “Nothing’s been done about that story, it’s one big lie, not one word of it is true,” he says of the dramatic US Navy Seals raid in 2011.” ” The Obama administration lies systematically, he claims, yet none of the leviathans of American media, the TV networks or big print titles, challenge him.” Seems Mr. Hersh is a bit of a prize winning crackpot…

  15. On a related note, ten thousand protesters marched and rallied in Times Square yesterday AGAINST the Iran Nuclear Deal…and NOT A PEEP from the mainstream press. If this had been a rally against McDonalds for not paying $15 an hour in wages…it would have been pasted everywhere!

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/iran-nuclear-talks-thousands-protest-against-lifting-sanctions-in-times-square-10409327.html

    http://www.wwmt.com/news/features/national/stories/Thousands-march-in-Times-Square-to-protest-Iran-nuclear-deal-170943.shtml#.VbEBsLPKVTQ

  16. Patrick says:

    Ah, “phase 2” “attack the source”, except for one thing; the sources for the facts regarding Reagan’s criminal actions of effectuating the transfer of nuclear technology to the N. Koreans, the Iranians, the Iraqis, and the Syrians, among others, is the US government, and Reagan officials themselves.

    “Preventing the spread of nuclear weapons has been a significant goal for U.S. presidents but there are instances when diplomatic and other interests have overridden concerns about nuclear proliferation. Israel since 1969 is one example and Pakistan during the 1980s is another. Concerned by new intelligence about the Pakistani nuclear program, in July 1982, the Reagan administration sent former CIA deputy director General Vernon Walters to meet secretly with Pakistani dictator General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. U.S. intelligence had detected an upswing of clandestine Pakistani efforts to procure nuclear weapons-related technology and unwanted publicity could jeopardize U.S. government economic and military aid to Pakistan, a key partner in the secret war against Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

    According to documents published today for the first time by the National Security Archive and the Nuclear Proliferation International History Project, Walters told Zia that Washington had “incontrovertible intelligence” that Pakistani representatives had “transferred designs and specifications for nuclear weapons components to purchasing agents in several countries for the purpose of having these nuclear weapons components fabricated for Pakistan.”

    http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/new-documents-spotlight-reagan-era-tensions-over-pakistani-nuclear-program

    If, or shall we say when, the Iranians achieve their goal regarding nuclear weapons, the right needs to remember how it all started and take their responsibility.

  17. Patrick says:

    “Bureau of Intelligence and Research, U.S. Department of State, “India-Pakistani Views on a Nuclear Weapons Options and Potential Repercussions,” Report 169-AR, 25 June 1981, confidential
    Source: Department of State FOIA release, copy courtesy of Jeffrey Richelson
    This report provides an overview of the state of the Indian and the Pakistani nuclear programs, reviewing motivations, the technical situation, possible decisions to test, and the implications of a Pakistani test. According to INR, the Pakistanis are “probably capable of producing a workable device at this time,” but the Kahuta plant was unlikely to produce enough fissile material for a test until 1983. While the Indians had stated publicly that they were preparing their test site that declaration may have been for political effect because they may have wanted the Pakistanis to make the “first move.” If Zia decided to do so, he would have to decide whether to risk worsening relations with Washington and a heightened regional nuclear arms race. Indira Gandhi would likely order retaliatory nuclear tests and quiet work on a weapons program. But if Pakistan went further and began an active nuclear weapons program, India was not likely to take risky preventive action because of the difficulty of taking out “Pakistan’s well-defended nuclear facilities” and the risk of “antagonizing China.” INR analysts opined that a nuclear South Asia would not be a stable region: “it is difficult to be optimistic that a stable, long-term mutual deterrence relationship would be established.”

    “The White House and the State Department worked successfully at offsetting Congressional pressures to impose tough nonproliferation standards, although arrests by the U.S. Customs Service raised inconvenient questions. The first major case was Nazir Ahmed Vaid’s arrest in June 1984 for trying to purchase nuclear weapons technology. U.S. government officials may have interfered in the case to minimize adverse publicity that could weaken Congressional support for aid to Pakistan. Nevertheless, Congressional pressure continued. In 1985, Senator John Glenn (D-Oh), among others, wanted the administration to certify, as a condition for further aid, that Pakistan neither possessed nor was developing a nuclear weapon. But the White House and its supporters in Congress won support for a weaker version: an amendment, supported by Senator Larry Pressler (R-SD), requiring annual certification that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear device and that U.S. aid would reduce the risk that Pakistan would acquire one.[1]

    In 1986 Reagan certified that Pakistan was in compliance with the Pressler amendment, but months later participants in the A.Q. Khan network were caught again. In July 1987 U.S. Customs officials arrested Arshad Pervez for trying to buy supplies for the Kahuta enrichment plant. Nevertheless, the administration insisted that nothing was amiss, arguing that it was too early to conclude the Pervez had official support in Pakistan.[2] Even after Pervez was convicted later that year, Reagan certified again that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear device, thereby ensuring that aid flowed without interruption. Congress, however, showed its concern by letting the five- year Symington amendment waiver expire, which temporarily halted “new commitments of aid.” When Congress reinstated a new waiver, it would be only for two-and-a- half years, instead of the six years that Reagan had proposed. 1990 would become a year of decision for future U.S. aid to Pakistan.”

    Criminal. Or, right wing hero? Same same?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s