Iran Deal Leaves U.S. Republicans Short of Votes to Stop Obama - Should they Try?

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:38:17 -0400

Iran Deal Leaves U.S. Republicans Short of Votes to Stop Obama

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-14/skeptical-congress-will-now-have-its-say-on-iran-deal

Should the Republicans and some Democrats try to stop this deal?

If Congress votes to disapprove the agreement, the ban on lifting sanctions would continue for another 12 days to allow time for the president to issue a veto. The period then would extend for another 10 days to let Congress consider an override.

Enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval would bar Obama from granting sanctions relief for Iran under the agreement. The resolution wouldn’t invalidate the agreement itself.

If Congress approved the deal during the review period, the president could begin waiving sanctions immediately. The president also could waive sanctions if the review period expired without action by Congress.

The law would allow Congress to reinstate sanctions waived by the president if Iran failed to make certifications required by the agreement.

Iran Deal Leaves U.S. Republicans Short of Votes to Stop Obama

The president sayshe willveto any measure blocking the agreement.

Response by CMSgt Mark Schubert made Jul 15 at 2015 11:49 AM

CMSgt Mark Schubert — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:49:42 -0400

Sir,
Obama said "I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal. This is not the time for politics and posturing.”
WHAT? Excuse me, this statement is BOTH posturing AND politics!
Good grief!
To answer the questions directly, I do think it's that important of an issue to at least try - to me, it's the right thing to do and we should not lose sight of that.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Jul 15 at 2015 11:54 AM

LTC John Shaw — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:54:33 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs It is always best when the President and Congress agree (Senate's role is advise and consent). While hoping for unity in an agreement is a good thing the reality is two completely different world views with dramatic impacts. Part of the issue is the lack of transparency in the administration with Congress. Republicans need to review and if they don't agree then vote the disagreement with specifics on the why. If it comes down to a VETO at least all know where each Senator stands.

Response by PO2 Mark Saffell made Jul 15 at 2015 12:04 PM

PO2 Mark Saffell — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:04:10 -0400

YES. They need to stop this and Dems need to know if they dont help stop it they will be replaced

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Jul 15 at 2015 12:17 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:17:53 -0400

As it should be. It's on the opponents to make their case. If they can't make it convincingly, we need to move forward. There are no options that move us forward without risk or outright war, so it's up to them to come up with an alternative. They can't.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Jul 15 at 2015 12:22 PM

COL Ted Mc — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:22:21 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs - Colonel; Those who oppose the deal (for whatever reason) should oppose the deal publicly and on the record - including an honest statement of their actual reasons for opposing the deal (even if that means admitting that they are voting against it because it was an agreement reached while a Democrat President was in the White House and they don't care if it is a good agreement or a bad agreement because they simply are going to do everything they can to make any Democrat look bad - regardless of the consequences to the United States of America of doing that).

They should also be up front with the American people in telling them that backing out of the deal will deal American prestige a heavy blow (that the US may not ever recover from).

They should also be up front with the American people and tell them that US law is likely to force the US government to place trade embargoes on over 90% of the countries in the world - including those countries from which materials vital to the US economy are imported - since those countries will not likely respect "American sanctions" and will continue/resume trading with Iran immediately Iran and the remaining countries have signed the deal and (under American law) countries which do not comply with US trade sanctions are, themselves, to be placed under trade sanctions.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Jul 15 at 2015 12:37 PM

SN Greg Wright — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:37:31 -0400

Ehh I wish Trump would just go away. My opinion is that he's wrecking any chance of a republican president this time around.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 15 at 2015 1:26 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 13:26:31 -0400

CPT Private RallyPoint Member the point that we have a seat at the table and they are not representing a clear concise standpoint that has already been agreed upon by our government officials is a sign of how dysfunctional we are. In no world should someone be contributing to decisions that affect our countries safety and the safety of the world and not be representing the actual thoughts of our nation and elected official (Goes for all sides regardless of party). If we do not unify our efforts and agree upon the way ahead we are destine to suffer until we can compromise as a nation.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 15 at 2015 2:09 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:09:42 -0400

I'm having a hard time liking this deal. Especially when there is a point in the deal that states that even if Iran acts a fool and possibly bends the rule, just a wilttle bitty bit, that The US will refrain from reintroducing, or re-imposing the sanctions AND we will refrain from imposing any new nuclear related sanctions, per the POTUS. If we DO impose something, Iran has the right to flip us the bird and lift any or all restrictions that we had. AND I am only 1/2 way in to this 159 paged document. Don't think there is going to be anything else that I will like. Plus the fact that they are "limited" to 30 centrifuges. 30!! AND a stockpile of enriched uranium to only 300 Kgs. Do you know HOW MANT KGS it takes to make a nuclear weapon? 25. Yes, that means they are capable of making at the most 12. I am totally baffled by what I am reading here. Not happy at all. COL Mikel J. Burroughs
They should ABSOLUTELY stop this deal if at all possible.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 15 at 2015 2:19 PM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:19:13 -0400

I personally don't agree with all the aspects of the deal but if the Republicans don't have enough fire power to fight it in Congress, then there is nothing that can be done. I just hope 10 years down the line that this deal doesn't bite out country in the back side.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jul 15 at 2015 4:13 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:13:00 -0400

Oh I'm certain they'll try regardless. They stopped governing a long time ago to focus on being full time nay sayers, regardless of topic. The president can go on record tomorrow as being in favor of drinking water and within 24 hours the GOP will have published a study on how 100% of people who have drunk water eventually died...

Response by SPC Andrew Griffin made Jul 16 at 2015 4:17 PM

SPC Andrew Griffin — Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:17:43 -0400

I Strongly they should Exercise their Right to Oppose. However, if you elect to Oppose, please provide some Alternatives to the Current Deal. I've heard a lot of Cynicism how I haven't heard any Solid Alternatives.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jul 17 at 2015 12:14 PM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Fri, 17 Jul 2015 12:14:23 -0400

no, they shouldn't, its the best deal we're going to get, nothing is perfect and compromise has to be made at times, can't have your cake and eat it too, thats the republican problem, they want it all.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Aug 28 at 2015 3:36 PM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 15:36:46 -0400

Count me as unsure because some Dems are still undecided & I don't know what the current count is

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Aug 28 at 2015 4:02 PM

SFC Everett Oliver — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:02:38 -0400

It's going to be really close.....Write and call your senators......Now..............

Response by Sgt Nick Marshall made Aug 29 at 2015 10:24 PM

Sgt Nick Marshall — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 22:24:31 -0400

It would be ashame if it did not pass, the rest of our allies think it's good, but politics is getting in the way of common sense.

Response by GySgt Lucian J Caldara made Aug 30 at 2015 12:36 PM

GySgt Lucian J Caldara — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 12:36:09 -0400

Yes, they should try and have a viable alternative. It is history in a rerun.. The Persian Empire is rising / risen again and we are seeing very little to stop the genocide in the Middle East. Read your European History of the 1930's. You don't pull the police off the streets to say arrests are way down. As we have done, since WWII. We give just enough assistance/effort to lose the conflicts or bring it to a draw.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Aug 30 at 2015 1:06 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 13:06:52 -0400

Yeah it is pathetic. Obama calls it an agreement not a treaty to get around Congress. He says he will talk with congress but makes a Beeline to the UN. To make congress moot. And the only two Democratics against the deal are for show.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Aug 30 at 2015 2:28 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 14:28:46 -0400

The"deal" is fete accompli. It will NOT be stopped. All we can hope for is something can be done to mitigate the damage by the next administration. Does anyone expect that after the Obamacare repeal promises?

Response by Cpl Don "GUNNY" Miller made Sep 3 at 2015 12:03 PM

Cpl Don "GUNNY" Miller — Thu, 03 Sep 2015 12:03:58 -0400

YES I am sure he has at least 34 IDIOTS to vote for it! They think and I use that term loosely that a bad deal is better than the alternative of war, but they don't understand that war is NOT the only option, how about sanctions after all that is what brought them to the bargaining table to start with, leave the sanctions in place and even increase them, THAT IS THE OPTION. Bargain from a position of strength, not weakness like our bumbling IDIOT of a Secretary of State Kerry. When they don't want to bargain get up and walk away, and increase SANCTIONS! Just like the Godfather offer them a deal, if they refuse increase the pressure (sanctions), and when they come back offer them a LESSER DEAL!

Response by Cpl Don "GUNNY" Miller made Sep 3 at 2015 12:32 PM

Cpl Don "GUNNY" Miller — Thu, 03 Sep 2015 12:32:09 -0400

Response by PO2 Robert Cuminale made Sep 3 at 2015 4:59 PM

PO2 Robert Cuminale — Thu, 03 Sep 2015 16:59:30 -0400

For the naive among you: This was a done deal before it started. Chuck Shumer was allowed to very noisily announce his opposition to the deal because he has a large New York Jewish constituency. Shumer is running to become Minority Leader of the Democrats or Senate President should the Republicans lose the Senate in 2016. Nothing was going to be allowed to jeopardize that possibility. Michulsky is Jewish and is retiring this year and doesn't have to worry about the large Jewish voting bloc in Silver Springs MD. Her vote was held back as insurance.
This is just another reason to hold these self serving slime bags in contempt.

Response by SGT David T. made Sep 4 at 2015 2:20 PM

SGT David T. — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 14:20:30 -0400

Politically they have to try even though it is futile.

Response by SSG Michael Hartsfield made Sep 4 at 2015 3:04 PM

SSG Michael Hartsfield — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 15:04:44 -0400

Here's the thing. The GOP knows that they can't stop this deal so what they are going to do is vote on its DISAPPROVAL rather than its approval. That way, Senate and House Republicans can say that that they voted against the Iran deal and say to their constituents that they did instead of wasting their time voting on something that's going to succeed anyway.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/02/436647276/minority-rules-capitol-hill-vote-tactics-displayed-in-iran-deal

How The Iran Vote Is Engineered To Pass

When Congress votes on the deal this month, it will be considered under rules that favor the president, even if his opponents gain a majority.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Sep 10 at 2015 8:15 PM

COL Ted Mc — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:15:38 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs - Mikel; Long-term (and that is NOT a term which the Arab/Muslim world is unfamiliar) the Iranians can "do more damage" to the United States of America (and the Republicans in particular) by simply sticking to the terms of "The Deal" than they ever could by weasel-wording their way around it.

In fact, the Iranians could do even better than that by simply responding to any request for an inspection with "Of course. An Iran Air jet has already been dispatched for Washington DC to bring your inspectors and their equipment to Iran as soon as you can get the jet loaded.". If the Iranians are planning on subverting "The Deal" then they lose nothing by waiting a couple of years before starting and the US government would end up looking like a bunch of dunces after screaming about how the Iranians would sabotage any inspections in order to conceal the fact that they were breaking the terms of "The Deal".

As long as the Iranians are sticking to "The Deal" they have rendered themselves almost immune to any military attack from anyone.

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Sep 11 at 2015 9:11 AM

CW4 Guy Butler — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:11:18 -0400

http://wapo.st/1Nkhlgb
The leaders of Britain, France, and Germany just sent their own open letter in support of the agreement.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Sep 14 at 2015 11:04 AM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 11:04:38 -0400

This

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Sep 14 at 2015 11:16 AM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 11:16:44 -0400

Obama negotiated a treaty but called it an agreement. To get around Congress. And I don't know why the Republicans did not inact the nuclear option like Harry Ried did to pass Obama care. Ried and his cronies did not want it to come to a vote. Then Obama would be on the record vetoing it. They needed 60 votes to stop debate. And Chucky Schumer who cried crocodile tears about the Iran deal quickly changed his toon. Whining that Rebublicans were trying to hurt Obama.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2015 5:23 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:23:45 -0400

The deal is not a good deal for America. It is not a good deal for Isarel. It is how ever a good deal for Iran.
The deal opens up and removes any restrictions on their ICBM technology and money will inevitably be diverted to terrorist organizations. Once the sanctions are removed they can't just be reapplied even though legally they can and it will be of great cost. If we are hell bent on removing the sanctions as we did for Cuba lets just do it and forget about. Russia and China don't abide by the sanctions anyway. Once the sanctions are removed although we can legally reimpose them it will be difficult and at great cost.

Response by Cpl Chris Rice made Sep 17 at 2015 5:55 PM

Cpl Chris Rice — Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:55:19 -0400

I think that Sen. Graham really laid out a good understanding of the legislative moves that are necessary and important for the long run of Republican policy. The sort of smaller level deals are usually not reviewed or approved by Congress, however because of Corker-Cardin they are allowed to formally reject the deal. I find it really silly that Congress is so upset about having to play by the rules that they created, the Senate approved this outline for how the deal would be accepted 98-1.

My personal view on the deal is that in order for them to be compliant they will have to slow down there nuclear ambitions, and if in the end they do not then the United States can replace the sanctions with the assistance of the rest of Western society, without the deal United States was going to be standing alone in their sanctions, and would’ve really lost their teeth. Is the plan going to work? I have not the slightest clue, but the current plan is not stopping them from getting a nuclear weapon, the only credible option presented other than this deal is war.

I hope the people also understand that our sanctions are really effective at making us scapegoats, fanatical regimes have trouble maintaining control the people if they do not have a scapegoat. Further when you place sanctions on a population we severely limit the resources available to that country, however we cannot completely eliminate all resources available to a country, and in the case of Iran they’ve elected to use those resources on a nuclear program, and while the economy we have decimated hurts their population they simply blame the US. This leads their people to consolidate behind an anti-American government.

Response by PO3 Bob Walsh made Sep 18 at 2015 2:06 AM

PO3 Bob Walsh — Fri, 18 Sep 2015 02:06:52 -0400

The republicans must do everything in their power to stop this agreement, How are they short on votes? If the President says he will use the Veto and shut down the Government the Republican leadership wets their pants and runs away. It is time to get a pair and do their job.