Congress appears unable to block Iran deal … and that is troublesome

Michael Ramirez cartoon (IBD)

On the day before the Sept. 11 anniversary of the attack on U.S. soil by Islamic jihadists, Democrats in the Senate blocked an attempt to derail Obama’s deal that guarantees a nuclear armed Iraq in a matter of years. A procedural vote fell two short of the 60 needed to break a Democratic filibuster.

This came the day after Ayatollah Ali Khamenei predicted there will not be an Israel in 25 years.

Nevada Rep. Cresent Hardy, fresh off a trip to Israel, sent out an op-ed to state newspapers concluding that the Obama deal if upheld will mean, “Iran needs to ‘play by the rules’ for 10 or 15 years until they can have an internationally approved nuclear research program. Iran will then be a mere three months away from building a nuclear weapon. For an ideological war that has been waging for centuries, 15 years is no time to wait at all.”

That’s assuming they don’t cheat.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani writes in The Wall Street Journal:

As we reflect on the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, we must remind ourselves that all the wickedness underlying those attacks still exists and has expanded. We may very well be in more jeopardy now than before 9/11. Attacks such as those at Fort Hood, the Boston Marathon and similar incidents in Europe and around the world reveal that many enemies, not just one, are united in purpose: the destruction of our way of life. Each of these attacks may be more limited than the coordinated terrorist assault on Sept. 11, but they are frequent and hard to anticipate, causing widespread fear, the ultimate goal of terrorism. …

The Obama administration appears likely to get its nuclear deal with Iran—even though it gives the ayatollahs access to hundreds of millions of dollars that will be used to sponsor terrorist acts against us and our allies, and puts the regime on the road to becoming a nuclear power. The deal makes war, either conventional or nuclear, more likely.

Rep. Hardy asks: “In reviewing the nuclear accord, Americans should ask: If we were neighbors with Iran, would I feel safe with this agreement?”

The Las Vegas Sun quoted Harry Reid as saying, “The Senate has spoken with a clarion voice and declared that the historic agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon will stand. Our fellow Americans, allies and negotiating partners around the world should know that today’s outcome was clear, decisive and final: there is now no doubt whatsoever that the United States Congress will allow this historic agreement to proceed. Efforts by opponents to derail this agreement were soundly rejected by a margin much larger than anyone thought achievable as recently as a few days ago.”

When was the last time Harry was right about anything?

Will no one bring up the fact this is a treaty and requires two-thirds of the Senate to approve, not just 41 votes to filibuster?

 

Advertisements

16 comments on “Congress appears unable to block Iran deal … and that is troublesome

  1. nyp says:

    Guess we ought to just start another middle-east war, — right, Mr. Mitchell?

  2. Start? Where are all those refugees running from? Obama is bringing 10,000 here.

  3. Patrick says:

    When will someone tell bush that his war against reason required a declaration of war by congress?

  4. nyp says:

    all the more reason for us to start bombing Iran.

  5. Steve says:

    Nancy Pelosi thinks 10,000 is too few.

    I say we just bring the whole civilian population of the middle east here and let the rest of them kill each other.

    I bet Nancy P would go for that!

  6. Rincon says:

    Once the west gave them all that oil money, it became inevitable. Prevention is almost always easier than treatment, but we never seem to learn. Conservatives created a no win situation and now are criticizing the administration because it can’t find a winning solution. But oh no, it’s not their fault. We HAD to buy all that Mideast oil because…ummm…how does that go again? Oh yea, Bubba NEEDS his monster pickup truck..

  7. Winston Smith says:

    Ohhh, silly Patrick, Democrats and Republicans have been ignoring that Constitutional requirement since WWII. Just like they both ignore the 2/3 Senate requirement for ratifying treaties, as Tom mentioned. The fucking Constitution is just an anachronistic impediment to whatever the Party in Power wants to do.

    War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength; Constitutions be Stupid

  8. nyp says:

    so, let’s see. On the one hand you have Brent Scowcroft supporting the Iran Deal; on the other, you have Rudy Giuliani comparing it to 9/11. Whose is the more credible voice when it comes to complex nuclear non-proliferation issues?

    Guess we ‘oughta start bombing!

  9. Rincon says:

    Guiliani supported the Iraq War. Maybe he likes the idea of a war in Iran too.

  10. Unfortunately…the Senate fiasco was a self inflicted wound by the Corker foolishness. The so called “Disapproval” vote would have done nothing to stop this bad deal…it was a show vote at best. The last, best hope continues in the House of Representatives where three resolutions are being debated. The first – HR 411, passed yesterday by a vote of 245 – 186…it states that because of the Administrations failure to furnish the lawmakers with all of the information pertaining to this flawed deal (ie: the side deals)…the 60 day clock has NOT yet started. The resolution being debated now…is to prevent the President from lifting any of the sanctions until all of these matters are resolved.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/house-edges-toward-legal-action-against-obama-on-iran-deal/

  11. nyp says:

    Good luck with that, fellas!

  12. Since this is about nuclear weapons…if the House stalls the deal, it would be high time to invoke the “nuclear option” in the Senate. The only problem is…the Senate Majority Leader is a milquetoast, pantywaist ineffective wimp…sorry but it’s the truth. (The product of the Senate seniority system which is as bad as any union). The latest House vote…162 for and 269 against approving the Iran Deal. 247 to 186…preventing the President from lifting the sanctions.

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4550520/mark-levins-speech-stop-iran-deal-rally

  13. It’s time for the US Senate to suspend the filibuster rule and join the House of Representatives in suspending this bad deal with the Mullahs. All three resolutions against this “treaty” were ratified on Thursday and Friday in the House with a number of Democrats joining the fray. The Michael Ramirez cartoon above is spot on. Over 70% of Americans are against this bad deal.

  14. Rincon says:

    Conservatives got us into this mess. Why would I heed their advice to get out of it?

  15. Not get out, just not make it worse.

  16. Rincon says:

    According to the National Review, which should be close to biblical in the minds of Conservatives, Iran was 2-3 months away from being able to build a nuclear bomb as of April, 2015. Is there really any way to make it worse? http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/416624/iran-currently-needs-only-two-three-months-build-nuclear-bomb-jim-geraghty As I said, once the west gave them all that oil money, even knowing that they want us dead, this was inevitable. The only good way to prevent it would have been to stop buying their oil, but Conservatives successfully argued that doing so would cost too much. Now the bill is due, so we’re paying the price.

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