israel wins. obamas plan ia going to fail hard

[hater]

Wow can't believe such a small country controls the most powerful country in the world. Scary stuff.

Top democrats already falling like flies. Looks like the israel lobby pressure on their home towns is just too much. Niggas are in a pressure cooker.

Obama most likely won't even get enough votes to be able to veto. This deal was supposed to be his legacy. A failure now.

I hope I'm wrong and enough votes are in favor. Because its sad that the US is a puppet of such small groups of ppls.

Oh and this failure would hurt Hillary a lot. She was on board with this plan. Bad terrible news for democrats all across the board.

Lets see if they have a semblance of a backbone. I doubt it

[Splits]

God you are one stupid mother fucker in this forum. Do you know how to count?

[hater]

Either contribute or STFu shill

[boutons_deux]

count 'em

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/250261-the-hills-whip-list-house-dems-divided-on-iran-deal

[DMX7]

They will likely have enough votes to sustain the veto.

[in2deep]

when push comes to shove, most democrats will fold IMO

let's hope enough have some backbone to save the deal.

[in2deep]

what's sad is that this is a 100% partisan vote now, not a vote focused on whether its a good deal or not.

sad

[hater]

How Chuck Schumer could sink the Iran nuclear deal
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/5/9101063/chuck-schumer-iran-deal

Congress, my colleague Andrew Prokop has written, will probably not kill the Iran deal. It would require a lot of Democrats to vote against their president on his legacy foreign policy achievement, which is possible but seems unlikely.

So assume that the most likely, default scenario is that Congress makes a big deal out of passing a measure formally disapproving of the Iran deal. Obama will veto it, and then Congress will fail to secure the necessary two-thirds majority to override his veto.

This way, Congress doesn't have to own the nuclear deal ("we voted against it!"), thus allowing them to avoid any blame if the deal turns out to be a disaster. But they can also avoid killing the deal, which would require them to take the blame for any consequences that causes.

The whole thing is perfectly constructed to give Congress just enough of a role to avoid political blame without requiring substantive foreign policy contributions. However, there is one way in which those incentives might get screwy: If it starts to look like Congress is going to get the two-thirds majority to kill the deal after all, and if it looks like killing the deal will become politically popular, then lawmakers will have an incentive to join the "winning side" and vote against the deal.

If it does happen, the road to such an outcome almost certainly runs through Chuck Schumer's office. Schumer turning against the Iran deal is probably the one thing that would be most likely to open a floodgate of Democratic opposition.


If Schumer votes to oppose the deal, that will send a signal to other Democrats that it's safe for them to oppose the deal as well. Somewhat freed from the bonds of party loyalty, many might do that, especially in the Senate; the deal is controversial, and no one wants to take the blame if it falls apart or becomes politically toxic.

A Schumer "no" vote would also make it harder for Democrats to take a stand in support of the deal. Schumer has strong "pro-Israel" credentials. If this prominent Democrat comes out and declares the deal bad for Israel, other Democrats are going to feel pressure not to contradict him.

[boutons_deux]

The Repugs have no alternative except attacking Iran, militarily, paid to do the bidding of Israel's extreme right wing.

[boutons_deux]

veto? who vetoed the deal?

Congress will vote on approving or killing the agreement.

[m>s]

David duke was owning the shit out of Israel on the Alex jones show..Alex was in damage control mode

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_NUCLEAR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-19-15-56-34


Iran gets to inspect Iran's nuclear sites. :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

en. Bob Menendez (D., N.J.) came out against the recently inked Iran deal on Tuesday and said he would vote to reject it, dealing a major blow to the White House, which has been aggressively lobbying key Democrats to support the accord.

“I have looked into my own soul and my devotion to principle may once again lead me to an unpopular course, but if Iran is to acquire a nuclear bomb, it will not have my name on it,” Menendez said in a major address Tuesday afternoon, according to an advance copy of the text obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

“It is for these reasons that I will vote to disapprove the agreement and, if called upon, would vote to override a veto,” Menendez said.

Menendez joins a growing list of Democratic lawmakers expressing opposition to the deal. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) also has come out against the deal.

The senator, who has led the charge to impose harsh economic sanctions on Iran, said the deal would do little to rein in Iran’s nuclear weapons program and went on to lash out at President Barack Obama’s portrayal of the deal.

“President Obama continues to erroneously say that this agreement permanently stops Iran from having a nuclear bomb,” he said. “Let’s be clear, what the agreement does is to recommit Iran not to pursue a nuclear bomb, a promise they have already violated in the past. It recommits them to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), an agreement they have already violated in the past. It commits them to a new Security Council Resolution outlining their obligations, but they have violated those in the past as well.”

The deal “leaves Iran with the core element of a robust nuclear infrastructure,” Menendez said, contradicting remarks by senior Obama administration officials.

Menendez also pushed back against Obama’s claim that those who oppose the deal favor war with Iran.

“The president and Secretary Kerry have repeatedly said that the choice is between this agreement or war,” he said. “I reject that proposition, as have most witnesses, including past and present administration members involved in the Iran nuclear issue, who have testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and who support the deal but reject the binary choice between the agreement or war.”

After outlining the conditions required for a good deal, Menendez flatly declared that the deal fails to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon at any time it chooses.

“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. In fact, it authorizes and supports the very road map Iran will need to arrive at its target,” he said.

[Th'Pusher]

en. Bob Menendez (D., N.J.) came out against the recently inked Iran deal on Tuesday and said he would vote to reject it, dealing a major blow to the White House, which has been aggressively lobbying key Democrats to support the accord.

“I have looked into my own soul and my devotion to principle may once again lead me to an unpopular course, but if Iran is to acquire a nuclear bomb, it will not have my name on it,” Menendez said in a major address Tuesday afternoon, according to an advance copy of the text obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

“It is for these reasons that I will vote to disapprove the agreement and, if called upon, would vote to override a veto,” Menendez said.

Menendez joins a growing list of Democratic lawmakers expressing opposition to the deal. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) also has come out against the deal.

The senator, who has led the charge to impose harsh economic sanctions on Iran, said the deal would do little to rein in Iran’s nuclear weapons program and went on to lash out at President Barack Obama’s portrayal of the deal.

“President Obama continues to erroneously say that this agreement permanently stops Iran from having a nuclear bomb,” he said. “Let’s be clear, what the agreement does is to recommit Iran not to pursue a nuclear bomb, a promise they have already violated in the past. It recommits them to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), an agreement they have already violated in the past. It commits them to a new Security Council Resolution outlining their obligations, but they have violated those in the past as well.”

The deal “leaves Iran with the core element of a robust nuclear infrastructure,” Menendez said, contradicting remarks by senior Obama administration officials.

Menendez also pushed back against Obama’s claim that those who oppose the deal favor war with Iran.

“The president and Secretary Kerry have repeatedly said that the choice is between this agreement or war,” he said. “I reject that proposition, as have most witnesses, including past and present administration members involved in the Iran nuclear issue, who have testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and who support the deal but reject the binary choice between the agreement or war.”

After outlining the conditions required for a good deal, Menendez flatly declared that the deal fails to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon at any time it chooses.

“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. In fact, it authorizes and supports the very road map Iran will need to arrive at its target,” he said.

You want to place a bet on whether or not they have the votes to override a veto?

[Koolaid_Man]

Its sad that Menendez and Schumer are bought and paid for by the Jewish shills..
.as if I'm supposed to accept their words over that of the nuclear scientists (those scientists who created the first ever nuclear bombs) and the US military brass....retired and current...I'm supposed to accept Schumer and Menendez and the obstructionist GOP over these PROVEN SCIENTIFIC AND MILITARY MINDS?

yeah right...get the fuck outta here

[DMX7]

.as if I'm supposed to accept their words over that of the nuclear scientists (those scientists who created the first ever nuclear bombs) and the US military brass....retired and current...I'm supposed to accept Schumer and Menendez and the obstructionist GOP over these PROVEN SCIENTIFIC AND MILITARY MINDS?

yeah right...get the fuck outta here

Totally agree

[TeyshaBlue]

You want to place a bet on whether or not they have the votes to override a veto?
Right now? Nah. In a month or so? Even money.

[Th'Pusher]

Right now? Nah. In a month or so? Even money.
We'll see where we're at in a month.

[TeyshaBlue]

Yup.

[ddjeffries]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_NUCLEAR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-19-15-56-34


Iran gets to inspect Iran's nuclear sites. :lol

saw that today. Sounds real honest. Iran is a country that can be trusted. Lol

[hater]

saw that today. Sounds real honest. Iran is a country that can be trusted. Lol

Iran hasn't attacked or invaded another country in hundreds of years.

uS on the other hand is a country that can be trusted :lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Still waiting for the conversation to turn to whether or not the specifics of the plan are feasible. Is the extended cleanup period enough time to hide evidence of high grade fissile material from the EU investigators?

[boutons_deux]

Still waiting for the conversation to turn to whether or not the specifics of the plan are feasible. Is the extended cleanup period enough time to hide evidence of high grade fissile material from the EU investigators?

the Fox/Repug "24-day" broken record is as big a LIE as "death panels"

[hater]

Breaking news: Rumors of a secret side deal with Iran in order to make the main deal work :wow

:lol looks like I was right after all

Obama legacy is a disgrace

:lol sending a Herman Munster looking motherfucker to make a world peace deal :lol

[ddjeffries]

Iran hasn't attacked or invaded another country in hundreds of years.

uS on the other hand is a country that can be trusted :lmao

lol you are correct both the US nor Iran can be trusted. Better scrap the deal.

[hater]

Still looking for reasons as to why Iran shouldn't be trusted. Besides the usual 'some Iranian guy said years ago that he wants to wipe out Israel'

Any other reasons???

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Still looking for reasons as to why Iran shouldn't be trusted. Besides the usual 'some Iranian guy said years ago that he wants to wipe out Israel'

Any other reasons???

Reductio ad absurdum and begging the question. I guess in your mind if people cannot answer your question that makes you right?

Their previous leader did indeed say those things and his hand picked successor still sermonizes the evil of our culture and government. Just because they no longer use the great devil rhetoric does not mean that the state has changed their position. The ayatollah's and their families still run the country regionally and they hate us. They were the driving force behind the crackdowns on the Green Revolution blaming us and continue to regionally use political strongarm tactics on any opposition. People still remember the late 70s.

Don't be like the US mouthbreathers that want to make it all about Obama.

[hater]

No I was serious about my question and still am.

Sermonizing about evil America is also not a good reason. We have been punishing them badly economically and politically for the last 50 years. What are their leaders supposed to say? America is great? :lol

So I post my question unanswered. What are the other or is there valid reasons to not trust Iran?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No I was serious about my question and still am.

Sermonizing about evil America is also not a good reason. We have been punishing them badly economically and politically for the last 50 years. What are their leaders supposed to say? America is great? :lol

So I post my question unanswered. What are the other or is there valid reasons to not trust Iran?

So they have reason to not trust us and a level of mutual distrust exists. Pointing out how they might feel we did them wrong does not help your case.

As for the deal the more I get specifics about the access to nuclear sites and the procedure for sites anywhere else in the country, I am fine with it. Trust seems besides the point.

[hater]

So no other reasons? The way Iran is talked about. You'd think they had done us wrong somehow :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So no other reasons? The way Iran is talked about. You'd think they had done us wrong somehow :lol

:lol us

The takeover of the US embassy and the hostage crisis was 35 years ago. It's not so long ago that you can just disregard it. Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban, and other Shia groups they use as proxies and allies also cannot be ignored.

The US attacked Iraq who was Iran's enemy and the Taliban who was their ally. Outside of that what has the US done to Iran?

[boutons_deux]

"The takeover of the US embassy and the hostage crisis was 35 years ago"

the CIA overthrowing democratically elected Mossadegh was 62 years ago. US/UK BigOil installed the Shah, leading to the 1979 Iranian revolution and the takeover of Iran by Muslim extremist.

iow, America is the biggest threat to world peace, has been since 1945. "Why Do They Hate Us?" asks the naive, childish, duped Americans.

[hater]

Boutons pretty much nailed it.

Still waiting for legit reasons....

[Splits]

God you are one stupid mother fucker in this forum. Do you know how to count?

:wakeup