You post an opinion piece from a left-wing rag to shore up your support for a deal you have not even read?
Wow man that is weak.
You post an opinion piece from a left-wing rag to shore up your support for a deal you have not even read?
Wow man that is weak.
Unless of course you want to cite the same source...A conservative blog no less.
Obama’s immigration order strikes out at 5th Circuit:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/05/26/obamas-immigra tion-order-strikes-out-at-5th-circuit/
The opinion piece in the WAPO relies heavily on “J Street”.
J Street is a liberal activist organization. One of their major donors and influences is George Soros.
You post an opinion piece from a left-wing rag to shore up your support for a deal you have not even read?
Wow man that is weak.
Coming from a dittohead this is a compliment. You go to any fake military parties lately?
I cited an article researched and written by two very well known Jewish intellectuals. They outline how they conducted the research and so there is total transparency and this allows the research to be replicated. This whole process is known as science.
It may come as a surprise to you but there is a large and growing segment of America where the acquisition of intelligence and the display of learned wisdom is respected.
Your world which is based on collective opinion will probably be extinct by the time you are thoroughly trumped. You haven't figured out what is going on there at all have you?
The opinion piece in the WAPO relies heavily on “J Street”.
J Street is a liberal activist organization. One of their major donors and influences is George Soros.
J Street is a Pro Israel and Pro Peace organization funded by many Jews like George Soros and others.
What is your point?
Ya know, all these pages and I still haven't seen anyone say if they are for or against the proposed treaty.
Seen a lot of arguments about the treaty, but no one has said if they would vote yes or no on it.Since you asked, I am in favor of the treaty for a couple of reasons. The rest of the world seems to think it is a good idea and Iran is more of threat to Europe than to the U.S. with a nuclear weapon. Also, if the rest of the world drops the sanctions, our sanctions will not mean anything. Last, they are trying to build a nuke now. If the treaty does not take effect, they will continue to build nukes. If the inspection plan is as good as advertised, it should keep their nuclear program in check.
Thanks for the answer. Myself, I'd have to say I'm against it for several reasons.
Just because they're trying to build a nuke now doesn't mean we should let them continue.
The "mutual support' as reported concerns me. Would we have to support Iran if Israel decided to attack Irans' nuclear labs? Could a mutual support clause be included that Israel will not attack Iran if Iran would come the aid of Israel if they are attacked?
After reading what I've found about the treaty, non-support by the US would still have an impact on Iran
even if all of Europe removed their sanctions.
Any one else with comments?
the iran deal calls for them to get rid of 98% of their enriched uranium. they now have 20k centrifuges, after the deal they will only have 6k of them, those are the oldest ones,which are useless in creating a bomb. they have two large reactors which will be constantly monitored, one of them in a mountain, so an airstrike will probably not wipe it out.
if the agreement is not approved, we get NO concessions from iran. the sanctions we have in place now will be useless,the other countries will lift theirs. so either the deal gets done, or we get nothing. I think diplomacy is a smart way to go [the iran deal] if they don't want to cooperate, a harder line can still be taken later on.
Pretty sure that Israel will find a way, if provoked, to change the song to "There was a Mountain"
Isn’t interesting the all but one of our left-wing friends here has not stated that they support the Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear Deal?
Is it because they have not read the actual deal?
Is it because they lack the analytical skills to understand the deal?
Or is it because they are so bent over for their failed leader Obama that they simply won’t admit the truth?They attack anyone who makes a strong argument against this horrendous and weak deal.
What do our narrow-minded friends propose to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power?
Preventing Iran from getting the bomb was their stated position for decades.
What changed?What changed? We have a President that wants Iran to have nukes because he hates Israel.
Actually, I posted why I supported the deal. But since you and mule fool are too lazy to read anything you missed it. Color me surprised. You two are clueless idiots. 😛 😛
+1
Anyone who says "[w]e have a President that wants Iran to have nukes because he hates Israel" and means it is not operating with a full deck.
On what grounds?
Isn’t interesting the all but one of our left-wing friends here has not stated that they support the Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear Deal?
Is it because they have not read the actual deal?
Is it because they lack the analytical skills to understand the deal?
Or is it because they are so bent over for their failed leader Obama that they simply won’t admit the truth?They attack anyone who makes a strong argument against this horrendous and weak deal.
What do our narrow-minded friends propose to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power?
Preventing Iran from getting the bomb was their stated position for decades.
What changed?What changed? We have a President that wants Iran to have nukes because he hates Israel.
Actually, I posted why I supported the deal. But since you and mule fool are too lazy to read anything you missed it. Color me surprised. You two are clueless idiots. 😛 😛
+1
Anyone who says "[w]e have a President that wants Iran to have nukes because he hates Israel" and means it is not operating with a full deck.
On what grounds?
On the grounds that you are a misinformed mo-mo.
A pretty accurate mo-mo in this case.
Isn’t interesting the all but one of our left-wing friends here has not stated that they support the Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear Deal?
Is it because they have not read the actual deal?
Is it because they lack the analytical skills to understand the deal?
Or is it because they are so bent over for their failed leader Obama that they simply won’t admit the truth?They attack anyone who makes a strong argument against this horrendous and weak deal.
What do our narrow-minded friends propose to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power?
Preventing Iran from getting the bomb was their stated position for decades.
What changed?What changed? We have a President that wants Iran to have nukes because he hates Israel.
Actually, I posted why I supported the deal. But since you and mule fool are too lazy to read anything you missed it. Color me surprised. You two are clueless idiots. 😛 😛
+1
Anyone who says "[w]e have a President that wants Iran to have nukes because he hates Israel" and means it is not operating with a full deck.
On what grounds?
On the grounds that you are a misinformed mo-mo.
A pretty accurate mo-mo in this case.
At the risk of you whining about this thread isn't about you, I find you to be one of the most uninformed and inaccurate trolls on this site.
These military leaders go from "Betrayus" to sudden geniuses when they agree with Obama.....Weird.
_____________________________________________________________________
It is the political agenda of the day.
When the military leaders were speaking out about Obama’s Middle East failures, the liberals attacked the military leaders.
When a few military leaders support Obama’s Iran Deal the liberals shout their wisdom.
Creditability matters not. The Obama Adoration Club will say anything and then change it as needed.
It borders on an almost cult-like devotion. Really sad.
These military leaders go from "Betrayus" to sudden geniuses when they agree with Obama.....Weird.
_____________________________________________________________________
It is the political agenda of the day.
When the military leaders were speaking out about Obama’s Middle East failures, the liberals attacked the military leaders.
When a few military leaders support Obama’s Iran Deal the liberals shout their wisdom.
Creditability matters not. The Obama Adoration Club will say anything and then change it as needed.
It borders on an almost cult-like devotion. Really sad.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Nice fishing trip, troll. 😛
Isn’t interesting the all but one of our left-wing friends here has not stated that they support the Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear Deal?
Is it because they have not read the actual deal?
Is it because they lack the analytical skills to understand the deal?
Or is it because they are so bent over for their failed leader Obama that they simply won’t admit the truth?They attack anyone who makes a strong argument against this horrendous and weak deal.
What do our narrow-minded friends propose to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power?
Preventing Iran from getting the bomb was their stated position for decades.
What changed?What changed? We have a President that wants Iran to have nukes because he hates Israel.
Actually, I posted why I supported the deal. But since you and mule fool are too lazy to read anything you missed it. Color me surprised. You two are clueless idiots. 😛 😛
+1
Anyone who says "[w]e have a President that wants Iran to have nukes because he hates Israel" and means it is not operating with a full deck.
On what grounds?
On the grounds that such a statement is so over the top ridiculous that only a person who is not grounded in reality would really believe such a thing.
the iran deal calls for them to get rid of 98% of their enriched uranium. they now have 20k centrifuges, after the deal they will only have 6k of them, those are the oldest ones,which are useless in creating a bomb. they have two large reactors which will be constantly monitored, one of them in a mountain, so an airstrike will probably not wipe it out.
if the agreement is not approved, we get NO concessions from iran. the sanctions we have in place now will be useless,the other countries will lift theirs. so either the deal gets done, or we get nothing. I think diplomacy is a smart way to go [the iran deal] if they don't want to cooperate, a harder line can still be taken later on.
Pretty sure that Israel will find a way, if provoked, to change the song to "There was a Mountain"
Define "provoked"
Isn’t interesting the all but one of our left-wing friends here has not stated that they support the Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear Deal?
Is it because they have not read the actual deal?
Is it because they lack the analytical skills to understand the deal?
Or is it because they are so bent over for their failed leader Obama that they simply won’t admit the truth?They attack anyone who makes a strong argument against this horrendous and weak deal.
What do our narrow-minded friends propose to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power?
Preventing Iran from getting the bomb was their stated position for decades.
What changed?What changed? We have a President that wants Iran to have nukes because he hates Israel.
Actually, I posted why I supported the deal. But since you and mule fool are too lazy to read anything you missed it. Color me surprised. You two are clueless idiots. 😛 😛
+1
Anyone who says "[w]e have a President that wants Iran to have nukes because he hates Israel" and means it is not operating with a full deck.
On what grounds?
On the grounds that such a statement is so over the top ridiculous that only a person who is not grounded in reality would really believe such a thing.
The reality is that Obama clearly doesn't want to stop Iran from getting nukes, and his
relationship with Israel is horrible.
Isn’t interesting the all but one of our left-wing friends here has not stated that they support the Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear Deal?
Is it because they have not read the actual deal?
Is it because they lack the analytical skills to understand the deal?
Or is it because they are so bent over for their failed leader Obama that they simply won’t admit the truth?They attack anyone who makes a strong argument against this horrendous and weak deal.
What do our narrow-minded friends propose to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power?
Preventing Iran from getting the bomb was their stated position for decades.
What changed?What changed? We have a President that wants Iran to have nukes because he hates Israel.
Actually, I posted why I supported the deal. But since you and mule fool are too lazy to read anything you missed it. Color me surprised. You two are clueless idiots. 😛 😛
+1
Anyone who says "[w]e have a President that wants Iran to have nukes because he hates Israel" and means it is not operating with a full deck.
On what grounds?
On the grounds that such a statement is so over the top ridiculous that only a person who is not grounded in reality would really believe such a thing.
The reality is that Obama clearly doesn't want to stop Iran from getting nukes, and his
relationship with Israel is horrible.
The reality is that you clearly live in an alternate reality. Obama doesn't want Iran to get nukes any more than you or I or anyone else does, and every time you say he wants Iran to get nukes you look like a fool. And the cold relationship with Israel has more to do with Israel and Israeli politics than it does with Obama.
the iran deal calls for them to get rid of 98% of their enriched uranium. they now have 20k centrifuges, after the deal they will only have 6k of them, those are the oldest ones,which are useless in creating a bomb. they have two large reactors which will be constantly monitored, one of them in a mountain, so an airstrike will probably not wipe it out.
if the agreement is not approved, we get NO concessions from iran. the sanctions we have in place now will be useless,the other countries will lift theirs. so either the deal gets done, or we get nothing. I think diplomacy is a smart way to go [the iran deal] if they don't want to cooperate, a harder line can still be taken later on.
__________________________________________________________________________
pops really needs to read the actual Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear Deal. A link to it has been long posted here.
1.) “the iran deal calls for them to get rid of 98% of their enriched uranium”
a. Not true. Iran maintains control of all of their enriched uranium
2.) “they now have 20k centrifuges, after the deal they will only have 6k of them”
a. Not true. The deal specifies that Iran take a large number of their centrifuges off line. There is no provision that Iran remove or destroy any centrifuges
3.) “they have two large reactors which will be constantly monitored”
a. Not true. Iran has at least six reactors and there is no constant monitoring of anything. All inspections must be requested in a process that will take a minimum of 24 days and only if approved by The Iranians.
No Americans are allowed to participate on the inspection teams.
There will be no inspections on the four military sites doing nuclear weapons development. Only the Iranians may enter those sites and, if requested, may take soil samples and after some period of time and at their choice turn those samples over to the IAEA at a negotiated time and place.
What concessions from Iran?
Iran wanted but one thing from this deal. They wanted their billions of dollars that were held by the sanctions and this deal gives them all of their money up front and before any possible future inspections.
Obama wanted what he can call a “win” in foreign policy (since he has no other), good deal or bad deal. What the world gets with this deal is an Islamic Extremist Terrorist nation in the Middle East with nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them.
Iran’s nuclear sites:
7th of Tir Industries (Seventh of Tir, Hafte Tir or Haftom e Tir Industries)
Abzar Boresh Kaveh Co. aka Kaveh Cutting Tools
Anarak nuclear waste disposal
Arak Complex
Atomic Energy Organization of Iran
Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant
Darkhovin Nuclear Reactor
Defense Industries Organization
Education Research Institute (ERI)
Esfahan
Esfahan Nuclear Technology Center/Research Reactors
Farayand Technique
Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP)
Institute of Applied Physics (IAP)
Kalaye Electric Company (also known as Kala Electric)
Karaj Agricultural and Medical Center
Khorasan Metallurgy Industries
Kimia Maadan
Kolahdouz
Lashkar Ab’ad - Laser Uranium Enrichment
Lavisan-Shian (Lavizan-Shian)
Ministry of Defense, Armed Forces and Logistics (MODAFL)
Natanz
Parchin
Pars Trash (Tarash)
Physics Research Center
Pishgam Company
Sanam Electronic Industry Group
Shahid Hemat Industrial group (SHIG)
TABA Facility
Tehran Nuclear Research Center
Uranium Mining
[Edited on 8/18/2015 by Muleman1994]
Cohen puts the Netanyahu and Obama relationship into context. It should be noted that no Israeli party outside of the Ultra right wing orthodox parties would from a government with Netanyahu.
Iran and American Jews
Roger Cohen
Earlier this month, Roland Moskowitz, a Cleveland physician, and Sandra Lippy, a retired health care executive of Boca Raton, Fla., got on the line with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. As two people who have been active in major Jewish organizations, they were among thousands of American Jews invited to watch a webcast whose message was: oppose the Iran nuclear deal.
Moskowitz and Lippy listened as Netanyahu claimed the deal would give Iran “hundreds of bombs tomorrow”; turn any terrorist group backed by Iran into a “terrorist superpower”; allow Iran to “have its yellowcake and eat it, too”; cause a nuclear arms race in the Middle East; provide Iran with billions of dollars; and pave Iran’s path to a bomb.
The Israeli prime minister was contemptuous of the view, expressed by President Obama, that those who oppose the deal favor war, calling it “not just false, but outrageous.” Netanyahu insisted, against all evidence, that he rejects the deal “because I want to prevent war.”
Lippy was not impressed. She thought all the doomsday lines were tired. She’s not about to get on the phone to her representative to press for Congress to condemn the deal and then gather enough votes to override Obama’s inevitable veto of the resolution. That’s what Netanyahu wants to achieve, the deal’s demise, using American Jews as a vehicle.
“It’s not a great deal, but it’s enough of a deal to postpone the nuclear situation and maybe give us time to work things out,” Lippy told me. “While they’re being sharply reduced in their nuclear capacity, we can sit down again over the next several years and talk about the Holocaust, Israel and human rights, and that is why I go along with it.”
She’s right. A merit of this deal is that it would condemn the United States and Iran to a relationship — hostile, but still a framework for airing differences and doing business — over the next 15 years. Most young Iranians no more believe in “Death to America” than they believe the Hidden Imam is going to show up tomorrow.
Moskowitz was left feeling uneasy. On balance, not worrying enough for the United States to walk away. Nor does he want the family strife that would arise if he sided with his fears. His wife, Peta Moskowitz, is a firm supporter of the deal and a member of J Street, the largest Jewish organization to back Obama’s Iran diplomacy. These strains are not unusual. Within families and across the American Jewish community, discussion of the Iran deal is fiery.
A few things must be said. Netanyahu’s performance was of a piece with his habit of intervening in American politics, evident at the time of the last presidential election, when his preference for Mitt Romney was clear. His relations with Obama are bad. He tries to circumvent Obama, often in clumsy ways, further undermining the relationship. It’s enough to imagine Obama calling thousands of Israelis to encourage them to oppose a piece of sensitive legislation in the Knesset to gauge how inappropriate Netanyahu’s behavior is.
The Netanyahu webcast was co-sponsored by the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (an umbrella organization so resistant to the age-old fertile cacophony of Jewish opinion that it rejected J Street’s application for membership last year) and the Jewish Federations of North America.
Several leading Jewish groups — including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League — have come out against the Iran deal. This is unsurprising; they tend to move in lock step with Israel. But it’s troubling because it’s unclear how representative of American Jews as a whole these organizations are.
Some polls have suggested a majority of Jews favor the Iran deal; certainly the community is divided. It’s no service to Jews, or Israel or Middle Eastern peace, for major Jewish organizations to be unreflective of this wide diversity of opinion within American Jewry — or for them to give airtime to Netanyahu on Iran rather than Obama.
The alternative to this deal, as Obama said, is war. Why? Because sanctions on Iran will fall apart as Russia and China conclude the United States is not serious about a compromise with Tehran that increases the distance between Iran and a bomb, ring-fences its nuclear program, and subjects it to intense international inspection. Centrifuges, slashed in number by America’s diplomacy, will increase again, as will Iran’s uranium stockpile. The war drumbeat will resume. Folly will loom.
Rather than listen to Netanyahu, American Jews should listen to the longest-serving Jewish member of the House, Sander M. Levin, who supports the agreement because it is “the best way to achieve” the goal of preventing Iran from advancing toward a nuclear weapon, so making the Middle East and Israel “far more secure.” They should note that five Jewish senators have come out in favor.
In the real world, this is the best achievable deal for America and the ally, Israel, it would never forsake.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/opinion/roger-cohen-iran-and-american-jews.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
Anyone remember that secret side deal between Iran and the IAEA? Sure you do. This is the secret side deal the Sec. Kerry first testified before Congress, under oath, did not exist. The next week Kerry, again under oath, was confronted with the fact that Susan Rice had admitted she had read the secret side deal. Kerry then admitted he had been briefed on the secret side deal. When asked to share that document with Congress Kerry said he didn’t have access to it.
Iran threatened ‘harm’ to top nuke inspector to prevent disclosure of secret deal
By Adam Kredo - Published August 18, 2015 - Washington Free Beacon
Iranian leaders prevented a top International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) official from disclosing to U.S. officials the nature of secret side deals with the Islamic Republic by threatening harm to him, according to regional reports.
Yukiya Amano, IAEA director general, purportedly remained silent about the nature of certain side deals during briefings with top U.S. officials because he feared such disclosures would lead to retaliation by Iran, according to the spokesman for Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization (AEOI).
Amano was in Washington recently to brief members of Congress and others about the recently inked nuclear accord. However, he did not discuss the nature of side deals with Iran that the United States is not permitted to know about.
Iran apparently threatened Amano in a letter meant to ensure he did not reveal specific information about the nature of nuclear inspections going forward, according to Iranian AEOI spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi.
This disclosure has only boosted suspicions among some that the Iranians are willing and able to intimidate the top nuclear watchdog and potentially undermine the verification regime that Obama administration officials have dubbed a key component of the nuclear accord.
“In a letter to Yukiya Amano, we underlined that if the secrets of the agreement (roadmap between Iran and the IAEA) are revealed, we will lose our trust in the Agency; and despite the US Congress’s pressures, he didn’t give any information to them,” Kamalvandi was quoted as saying Monday during a meeting with Iranian lawmakers, according to Tehran’s state-controlled Fars News Agency.
“Had he done so, he himself would have been harmed,” the official added.
Click for more from The Washington Free Beacon.
Hundreds Of Rabbis Urge Congress To Approve Iran Nuclear Deal
"We, along with many other Jewish leaders, fully support this historic nuclear accord."
(RNS) Rebuffing a campaign among Jewish organizations to scuttle the Iran nuclear deal, 340 rabbis sent a letter to Congress Monday (Aug. 17) supporting the agreement and rejecting the notion that most American Jews oppose it.
“Most especially, we are deeply concerned with the impression that the leadership of the American Jewish community is united in opposition to the agreement,” the letter states. “We, along with many other Jewish leaders, fully support this historic nuclear accord.”
The Jewish community around the world, concentrated in the U.S. and Israel, has paid close attention to the nuclear deal, which was negotiated by the U.S., Iran, Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia China and the European Union. It aims to hamper Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon and would lift sanctions on the theocratic regime.
Many American Jews, citing Iran’s leaders’ repeated denunciations of the U.S. and threats to destroy Israel, have concluded that no deal with Iran is a good deal. Several national Jewish organizations, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — as well as many evangelical Christians — are lobbying Congress to vote it down.
The rabbis who sent the letter Monday argue that, while they have reason to distrust Iran’s leaders, the deal is the best available strategy to confront the specter of a nuclear Iran. And they want to challenge assumptions that Jews who oppose the deal represent American Jews as a whole.
“A wide array of views about the nuclear deal exist among American Jews,” said Rabbi Rachel Mikva of Chicago, who signed the letter.
She and others point to a recent poll from the L.A. Jewish Journal, which showed that Jewish Americans support the Iran deal by a larger margin than Americans in general, with 49 percent of American Jews approving of it, and 31 percent disapproving. The poll, of 501 American Jews, had a margin of error of plus or minus 6 percentage points.
The signatories to the letter include many rabbis in the more liberal Reform movement — the largest stream of Judaism — but also at least 50 rabbis from the more traditional Conservative movement, and at least one Orthodox rabbi, according to organizers of the effort.
“There is no denying that there are differences of opinion within the mainstream Jewish community,” said Nathan Diament, executive director for public policy of the Orthodox Union, which represents most of the 10 percent of American Jews who call themselves Orthodox.
While the Orthodox Union does not claim to speak for all of American Jews, and while the deal should not be judged on a poll, there is no question that the Orthodox are overwhelmingly opposed to the agreement, he said. “We are planning to bring hundreds of rabbis to Washington in early September to lobby Congress and make this point.”
The Reform Jewish movement plans to release a statement on the deal this week.
Congress is expected to vote on the deal in mid-September.
Iran Deal: Jews Now Oppose 2-to-1; Youth 4-to-1
by Joel B. Pollak Aug. 07 2015
American Jews now oppose the Iran deal by a margin of two-to-one, according to a new poll–with those between 18 and 30 against the deal four-to-one.
The telephone poll of 1,035 registered voters, conducted by McKeon & Associates July 29 and 30, found that a large plurality of registered Jewish voters oppose the deal, 45% to 22%.
That is a sharp reversal from initial polls (though polling questions have varied).
As the Iran deal debate began, a large plurality of American Jews supported the Iran deal, 49% to 31%. A week later, a plurality opposed the deal, 45% to 40%. A week after that, the margin widened substantially.
The latest poll was commissioned by Citizens for a Safe Middle East, a group that was formed to oppose the Iran deal. In a statement, the group said:
The survey also found that opposition to the agreement crosses party lines. The results showed that a plurality of Democratic Jewish voters (40-38), a significant plurality of Independent Jewish voters (44-24), and overwhelming majorities of Republican Jewish voters (51-4) and those identifying as Libertarian Jewish voters) (71-4) oppose the deal.
The survey also found that opposition to the agreement crosses party lines. The results showed that a plurality of Democratic Jewish voters (40-38), a significant plurality of Independent Jewish voters (44-24), and overwhelming majorities of Republican Jewish voters (51-4) and those identifying as Libertarian Jewish voters) (71-4) oppose the deal.
“Every group across the spectrum is against the pact, even the administration’s fellow Democrats,” said spokesperson David Spak. “Folks recognize that the deal is not in our country’s best interests. Congress should insist that the administration go back to the negotiating table with a stiffer spine.”
On Thursday, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), announced that they oppose the Iran deal. Schumer confirmed that he will vote to override President Barack Obama’s expected veto of a congressional resolution disapproving the deal.
The White House continued to lash out at opponents of the Iran deal, repeating the accusation that Republicans who opposed the deal had made “common cause” with the “hard-liners” in the Iranian regime.
more lists for the battle of lists.
http://www.armscontrol.org/files/Nonpro_Specialist_statement_on_Iran_Deal_Aug_2015.pdf
A second Democrat, Sen. Robert Menendez, opposes Iran deal
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) says that he will vote against the nuclear agreement with Iran.
(Andrew Harnik / Associated Press)
By Lisa Mascaro
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-iran-menendez-20150818-story.html
New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, a key Democrat who has been highly skeptical of the landmark nuclear deal reached last month between Iran and six world powers led by the United States, announced Tuesday that he would vote to oppose the agreement.
Menendez's opposition was not a surprise given his criticism of the deal. It comes amid a fierce lobbying fight before next month's expected vote in Congress.
So far, President Obama appears to have enough support to uphold the deal, which would curb Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for the easing of oil and economic sanctions. Even though Republicans control Congress and almost uniformly oppose the agreement, they are unlikely to sway enough Democrats to form the two-thirds supermajority needed for a veto override.
Menendez took aim not only at perceived shortcomings of the deal, but also at Obama's characterization of opponents as military hawks like those who backed the Iraq war launched in 2003. The agreement announced in July came after almost two years of negotiations between the six world powers — Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States — and Iran.
“The agreement that has been reached failed to achieve the one thing it set out to achieve: It failed to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state at a time of its choosing,” Menendez said, speaking at Seton Hall University’s School of Diplomacy and International Relations.
“This deal is based on ‘hope,’” said Menendez, a Cuban American who has often been at odds with the administration on foreign policy. “A hope that things may be different in Iran in 10 to 15 years. Maybe Iran will desist from its nuclear ambitions. Maybe they'll stop exporting and supporting terrorism.... Or maybe they won't.”
Menendez noted that unlike the administration's chief backers of the deal, Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden, he voted against the war in Iraq, which was an unpopular position at the time.
Menendez, a former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, is the second Democratic senator to publicly oppose the deal. Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York announced his opposition this month.
Republicans need to win the votes of four more Democrats to pass a resolution of disapproval in the Senate, assuming all Republicans oppose the deal. Though that would be a symbolic blow, Obama still would be able to veto the resolution.
Other Democratic senators who have announced their positions on the deal have lined up behind Obama. As of Tuesday, 21 senators who caucus with the Democrats have announced their support, including Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer of California.
No Republicans have announced their support for the deal. In a setback to White House efforts to secure at least some bipartisan backing, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who had been heavily courted by the administration and was seen as a possible supporter, said over the weekend that he would oppose the deal.
Both Menendez and Schumer represent areas with sizable Jewish populations. Though Jewish Americans appear divided over the merits of the deal, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called it a historic mistake. In the House, most of the Democratic opponents are under similar home-state pressures.
Some American defense hawks also are lobbying hard against the agreement, which would lift international sanctions against Iran in exchange for limits on the country's nuclear ambitions.
Neither Menendez nor Schumer, who is poised to become the party's next Senate leader, appear to be attempting to sway their colleagues to oppose the deal.
Many lawmakers are skeptical that Iran will wind down its nuclear ambitions, despite promised access to international inspections.
Menendez stepped down as the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee this year after being indicted on federal corruption charges. He denies any wrongdoing.
The New Jersey senator has suggested that the administration could achieve a better deal through continued negotiations.
The Obama administration says that the proposed agreement is one of the strongest of its kind and that if Congress rejects it, the only alternative to block Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon will be military action.
Congress faces a Sept. 17 deadline to act, and debate is expected to begin after Labor Day, when lawmakers return to Washington from recess.
_________________________________________________________________________
Sen. Menendez laid out his reasons in detail during his speech at Seton Hall.
Here is the actual text of the speech:
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2015/08/senator-menendez-speech-on-iran-at.html#.VdSEHn08osj
UN-Iran deal will let Tehran inspect site where it allegedly worked on nukes
Published August 19, 2015 - Associated Press
Growing Democratic opposition to the Iran deal
VIENNA – Iran, in an unusual arrangement, will be allowed to use its own experts to inspect a site it allegedly used to develop nuclear arms under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.
The revelation is sure to roil American and Israeli critics of the main Iran deal signed by the U.S., Iran and five world powers in July. Those critics have complained that the deal is built on trust of the Iranians, a claim the U.S. has denied.
The investigation of the Parchin nuclear site by the International Atomic Energy Agency is linked to a broader probe of allegations that Iran has worked on atomic weapons. That investigation is part of the overarching nuclear deal.
The Parchin deal is a separate, side agreement worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers that signed the Iran nuclear deal were not party to this agreement but were briefed on it by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package.
Without divulging its contents, the Obama administration has described the document as nothing more than a routine technical arrangement between Iran and the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency on the particulars of inspecting the site.
During a hearing on Capital Hill July 23, Sen. Bob Menendez, D-NJ, and Sen. James Risch, R-ID, raised the issue of how Parchin would be inspected. Kerry replied that the Parchin inspection was "a classified component" of the deal and wouldn't go into specifics.
Any IAEA member country must give the agency some insight into its nuclear program. Some countries are required to do no more than give a yearly accounting of the nuclear material they possess. But nations— like Iran — suspected of possible proliferation are under greater scrutiny that can include stringent inspections.
But the agreement diverges from normal inspection procedures between the IAEA and a member country by essentially ceding the agency's investigative authority to Iran. It allows Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence for activities that it has consistently denied — trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Evidence of that concession, as outlined in the document, is sure to increase pressure from U.S. congressional opponents as they review the July 14 Iran nuclear deal and vote on a resolution of disapproval in early September. If the resolution passed and President Barack Obama vetoed it, opponents would need a two-thirds majority to override it. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, has suggested opponents will likely lose.
The White House has denied claims by critics that a secret "side deal" favorable to Tehran exists. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has said the Parchin document is like other routine arrangements between the agency and individual IAEA member nations, while IAEA chief Yukiya Amano told Republican senators last week that he is obligated to keep the document confidential.
But Republican critics are bound to harshly criticize any document that cedes to Iran the right to look for the very nuclear wrongdoing that it has denied committing. Olli Heinonen, who was in charge of the Iran probe as deputy IAEA director general from 2005 to 2010 ,said he can think of no instance where a country being probed was allowed to do its own investigation.
Iran has refused access to Parchin for years and has denied any interest in — or work on — nuclear weapons. Based on U.S., Israeli and other intelligence and its own research, the IAEA suspects that the Islamic Republic may have experimented with high-explosive detonators for nuclear arms at that military facility and other weapons-related work elsewhere.
The IAEA has repeatedly cited evidence, based on satellite images, of possible attempts to sanitize the site since the alleged work stopped more than a decade ago.
The document seen by the AP is a draft that one official familiar with its contents said doesn't differ substantially from the final version. He demanded anonymity because he isn't authorized to discuss the issue.
It is labeled "separate arrangement II," indicating there is another confidential agreement between Iran and the IAEA governing the agency's probe of the nuclear weapons allegations.
The document suggests that instead of carrying out their own probe, IAEA staff will be reduced to monitoring Iranian personnel as they inspect the Parchin site.
Iran will provide agency experts with photos and videos of locations the IAEA says are linked to the alleged weapons work, "taking into account military concerns."
That wording suggests that — beyond being barred from physically visiting the site — the agency won't even get photo or video information from areas Iran says are off-limits because they have military significance.
IAEA experts would normally take environmental samples for evidence of any weapons development work, but the agreement stipulates that Iranian technicians will do the sampling.
The sampling is also limited to only seven samples inside the building where the experiments allegedly took place. Additional ones will be allowed only outside of the Parchin site, in an area still to be determined.
"Activities will be carried out using Iran's authenticated equipment consistent with technical specifications provided by the agency," the agreement says. While the document says that the IAEA "will ensure the technical authenticity" of Iran's inspection, it does not say how.
The draft is unsigned but the signatory for Iran is listed as Ali Hoseini Tash, deputy secretary of the Supreme National Security Council for Strategic Affairs instead of an official of Iran's nuclear agency. That reflects the significance Tehran attaches to the agreement.
Iranian diplomats in Vienna were unavailable for comment, while IAEA spokesman Serge Gas said the agency had no immediate comment.
The main focus of the July 14 deal between Iran and six world powers is curbing Iran's present nuclear program that could be used to make weapons. But a subsidiary element obligates Tehran to cooperate with the IAEA in its probe of the allegations.
The investigation has been essentially deadlocked for years, with Tehran asserting the allegations are based on false intelligence from the U.S., Israel and other adversaries. But Iran and the U.N. agency agreed last month to wrap up the investigation by December, when the IAEA plans to issue a final assessment on the allegations.
Both Iran and the IAEA were upbeat when announcing the agreement last month. But Western diplomats from IAEA member nations who are familiar with the probe are doubtful that Tehran will diverge from claiming that all its nuclear activities are — and were — peaceful, despite what they say is evidence to the contrary.
They say the agency will be able to report in December. But that assessment is unlikely to be unequivocal because chances are slim that Iran will present all the evidence the agency wants or give it the total freedom of movement it needs to follow up the allegations.
Still, the report is expected to be approved by the IAEA's board, which includes the United States and other powerful nations that negotiated the July 14 agreement. They do not want to upend their July 14 deal, and will see the December report as closing the books on the issue.
Senate Appropriations Committee subcommittee chairman Lindsey Graham, a Republican presidential hopeful, last week asked for "any and all copies of side agreements between Iran and the IAEA associated with the Iran nuclear deal." He threatened to cut off U.S. funding for the U.N. agency otherwise.
White House acknowledges ‘side’ deals between Iran, IAEA
Secret side deal revealed: UN to let Iran … inspect its own nuclear site; Update: White House “confident”
McConnell concedes Iran nuclear deal likely to succeed:
http://www.rferl.org/content/us-senate-gop-leader-concedes-iran-deal-likely-to-succeed/27194524.html
And the House most likely will not be able to overcome a presidential veto.....
[Edited on 8/19/2015 by Chain]
McConnell concedes Iran nuclear deal likely to succeed:
http://www.rferl.org/content/us-senate-gop-leader-concedes-iran-deal-likely-to-succeed/27194524.html
And the House most likely will not be able to overcome a presidential veto.....
[Edited on 8/19/2015 by Chain]
__________________________________________________________________________
Yea.
The Republicans, representing their constituents, will vote against this bad deal.
The Democrats will do as they always do and vote how their leaders tell them to vote.
The Republicans, representing their constituents, will vote against this bad deal.
They still fail to grasp this concept. They call it "obstruction."
The Republicans, representing their constituents, will vote against this bad deal.
They still fail to grasp this concept. They call it "obstruction."
How quaint. And naive.
The Republicans, representing their constituents, will vote against this bad deal.
They still fail to grasp this concept. They call it "obstruction."
How quaint. And naive.
No disagreement here.
I used to be 100% for this deal until I saw this story yesterday. I'm still for the deal but I am a little more concerned.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/19/politics/russia-iran-s-300-missile-defense-sale/
U.S. concerned about Russian arms sales to Iran
By Barbara Starr, CNN Pentagon Correspondent?Updated 7:08 PM ET, Wed August 19, 2015
