Republicans announce their verdict on the Iran treaty:

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
Post Reply
rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Republicans announce their verdict on the Iran treaty:

Post by rubato »

Republican position on Iran nuclear deal explained in just 30 words

by
Barbara Morrill

To save you all a lot of research, here is the Republican Party's position on the nuclear deal with Iran:
Republicans fall into two camps when it comes to President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. Some are against it, while others want to read it before announcing their opposition.
And that about covers it. But at least they're willing to be open-minded about it ...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/1 ... etail=hide


John (god we're lucky that spineless weasel wasn't elected) McCain is in the former group.

yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Republicans announce their verdict on the Iran treaty:

Post by Lord Jim »

John (god we're lucky that spineless weasel wasn't elected) McCain is in the former group.
Image


No doubt about it, this image is going to be a real time saver... :ok
ImageImageImage

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Republicans announce their verdict on the Iran treaty:

Post by rubato »

The clown show that is the Republican 'brain trust' on foreign affairs and nuclear power has opened up the BIG TENT for our amusement!



http://www.vox.com/2015/7/23/9023489/co ... -iran-deal
The clown show that was the Senate Iran hearing, in one tweet

Updated by Max Fisher on July 23, 2015, 5:52 p.m. ET @Max_Fisher max@vox.com
Tweet (416) Share (5,206) +
Senator Ron Johnson. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Top administration officials are at Congress today for a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Iran nuclear deal, a subject that has always brought out the crazy in American politicians.

No one expected this hearing to be anything other than a circus: The deal is politically contentious, and Republicans are trying to out-hawk one another for the coming presidential primaries. Congress did not disappoint. This tweet, from New York Times economics policy reporter Jonathan Weisman, captures the scene pretty nicely:
Jonathan Weisman

@jonathanweisman

Now Sen. Ron Johnson is lecturing MIT physicist Ernest Moniz on electro-magnetic pulse weapons.
9:15 AM - 23 Jul 2015
A bit of context: Johnson is the senior senator from Wisconsin and a Republican. Ernest Moniz is the secretary of energy and one of the lead US negotiators on the Iran deal. Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons are a nonsense science fiction "threat" and a longtime point of obsession among certain conservatives, such as Newt Gingrich and Ron Johnson. Johnson's line of questioning, to a top-of-his-field nuclear physicist, is a little like asking Neil Armstrong if he thinks the moon landing might have been faked.

Moniz, as is the obligation of administration officials at congressional hearings, did his best to entertain the senator's message:
Laura Rozen
‏@lrozen

Energy Secretary Moniz told Sen.Johnson he was not familiar with the EMP commission's findings. Johnson said he'd forward him some stuff
There were, naturally, other clown show moments. GOP Sen. Jim Risch said anyone who supports the nuclear deal "really joins the ranks of the most naive people on the face of the earth."

Risch added that Moniz and Secretary of State John Kerry had been "bamboozled" by Iran, but did not clarify whether they had also been run amok, led astray, or hoodwinked.

Sometimes congressional hearings can be productive. But almost always they will include a not-insignificant amount of circus time, particularly if it's on a politically loaded issue or if it's getting lots of TV coverage. This hearing is so far no exception.

Wow. This is the party that loves Donald Trump and elected shrub, twice.


yrs,
rubato

wesw
Posts: 9646
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:24 am
Location: the eastern shore

Re: Republicans announce their verdict on the Iran treaty:

Post by wesw »

I must be maturing.

I don't find rube upsetting...

I only find him boring.

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Republicans announce their verdict on the Iran treaty:

Post by Gob »

after another few months you'll find him pitiable.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21464
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Republicans announce their verdict on the Iran treaty:

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Ah, voxcom - the Conan/Jon Stewart "look at me" school of incisive journalistic investigation. The National Lampoon of news, but not quite as serious. All that's missing is the photo of the alien with Biliary Clinone trying to explain that if the email doesn't exist you must fahgeddabahtit.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Republicans announce their verdict on the Iran treaty:

Post by Lord Jim »

The Obama Administration has done a complete 180 on this...

For many months, they tried to reassure the public that they were prepared to walk away from the table, and insisted over and over again that "a bad deal would be worse than no deal", and that they would not accept that...

But now, the whole foundation upon which they base their argument for this crap arrangement is that "a bad deal is better than no deal"...

It basically comes down to, "well this is the best we could do, and if you don't accept it, the only alternative is war"...

This is kind of the false choice that this Administration is particularly fond of offering...similar to; "either accept our do-nothing policy in Syria, or we can have a massive US 'boots on the ground' military invasion"

(That "policy" led us to the "Islamic State" controlling half of Syria and 1/3 of Iraq ...but I digress...)

The history of these negotiations with Iran, are the history of the United States folding like a cheap lawn chair...

(A particularly cheap lawn chair, with bad plastic straps and cheap aluminum foundations... )

If I were a member of the US Senate, there's no way in Hell I'd vote for this deal...

We've gone from preventing the Ayatollah led terrorist supporting regime of Iran being prevented from getting a nuclear bomb to laying out a path for them to get it...

"Any time anywhere" 24/7 inspections have been replaced by "24 days" on top of a negotiating process that could go on for a couple of months beyond that....

But don't worry, if they fail to comply, we have the "snap back sanctions"...

And that will work really well because the United States is well respected by both our adversaries and our allies, and if we say "snap back the sanctions" it will happen in a heartbeat.....*






*(In case you missed it, that was sarcasm... )
ImageImageImage

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21464
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Republicans announce their verdict on the Iran treaty:

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

We've gone from preventing the Ayatollah led terrorist supporting regime of Iran being prevented from getting a nuclear bomb to laying out a path for them to get it...
I think a careful read shows those are the same thing :lol:
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

wesw
Posts: 9646
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:24 am
Location: the eastern shore

Re: Republicans announce their verdict on the Iran treaty:

Post by wesw »

rube s earlier post dismisses EMP pulse weapons as a threat and classified them as science fiction.

silly.

set off a nuke and there is an EMP pulse. you don t need a special fantasy weapon, you only need one nuke , set off at a few thousand feet, to shut down the whole grid for our eastern megalopolis.....

....your cars won t run either. mine might tho.....

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9607
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: Republicans announce their verdict on the Iran treaty:

Post by Econoline »

I'd prefer to listen to the actual experts on nuclear proliferation and arms control matters, rather than Faux News, various other conservative political commentators, and a bunch of Republican and Likud politicians who wouldn't be for anything Obama favored if their lives depended on it. (I swear, I can't believe no one in the Obama administration has managed to convince the President to come out in favor of breathing air, thereby asphyxiating most of his diehard opponents...)

As for this...
The Obama Administration has done a complete 180 on this...

For many months, they tried to reassure the public that they were prepared to walk away from the table, and insisted over and over again that "a bad deal would be worse than no deal", and that they would not accept that...

But now, the whole foundation upon which they base their argument for this crap arrangement is that "a bad deal is better than no deal"...
(a) This is *NOT* a "bad deal"; no one in the Obama administration has called it a "bad deal"; everyone who *IS* calling it a "bad deal" has been doing so since before the negotiations started; and they would call anything short of replacing Ayatollah Khamenei with Benjamin Netanyahu a "bad deal".

(b) The reason we *DON'T* have to settle for a "bad deal" is that Kerry et al. *WERE* prepared to walk away from the table at any time. (There is a very good article in the current issue of The New Yorker which details the current political climate in Iran as well as a very informative narrative of the negotiations process and the many times Kerry was on the verge of giving up.)
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Republicans announce their verdict on the Iran treaty:

Post by Lord Jim »

no one in the Obama administration has called it a "bad deal"
Of course they haven't; I'll stipulate to that...

Neither Herman Munster nor Obama himself is going stand up and yell, "Hey look guys! We negociated a bad deal!" :roll:

Just look at the US opening position and compare that to where we wound up; the facts speak for themselves...

And their whole defense for this, whenever their challenged about it is "this is the best we could do"...

I watched Kerry's performance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this week, and that was the gist of everything he presented...

BTW, my go-to position has never been to reflexively oppose every thing Obama does. When he first came into Office and Rush Limbaugh was saying he hoped he would fail, I denounced that attitude, for the very good and sensible reason that if a POTUS fails, the country will fail...

The record will show that I gave Obama all props for getting Bin Laden, (which in retrospect stands out like a sore thumb versus every other foreign policy decision he has made) and throughout most of his first term, I had very little criticism for his foreign policy...

Because frankly I missed the way he sowed the seeds we have now come to reap; from the failure to put a force agreement in place in Iraq that would have given us the leverage to continue to be honest brokers with the Sunni Tribal leaders that was established under the Petraeus Doctrine, to the thumb sucker "we're so incompetent, we can't figure out for three years who the good guys are so let's just do nothing" policy on Syria...

The combination of which played a huge role in the creation of "ISIS"...

The WTF ? eye opener moment for me with Obama of foreign policy was the day he announced, (after having failed to get buy-in from the Brits) that he wasn't going to bomb Assad over his use of chemical weapons unless Congress agreed...

That was totally unnecessary and made him look like weak-kneed amateur; no one of significance in either party expected him to do that, (John Boehner had said publicly that he supported the action, and it would have been entirely within the President's prerogative; all Obama needed to do to was abide by the notification Provisions of The War Powers Act)

That was followed by two weeks of painful to watch confusing tap dancing by Herman Munster talking about "incredibly small" attacks while the the White House was insisting "The United States does not do pin pricks"...

Which was then followed by a deal brokered by Vladimir "You've Got To Be Kidding Me" Putin, which (as Gomer says, Surprise, Surprise, Surprise) has been completely violated left and right ...

And it's been all down hill from there...With that sequence of events, he made the US an international laughing stock...(much as Carter did)

Maybe that sorry episode made Obama "well liked" among French college kids, but when it comes to respect from the governments of our allies and our opponents, not so much...
Last edited by Lord Jim on Sat Jul 25, 2015 5:37 pm, edited 4 times in total.
ImageImageImage

wesw
Posts: 9646
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:24 am
Location: the eastern shore

Re: Republicans announce their verdict on the Iran treaty:

Post by wesw »

Obama just announced that he is running for a third term.

his campaign slogan?

Death to America!!!

he has opened voting to the world, and has great favorability ratings with his new constituency.

Post Reply