Posted on Jul 15, 2015
Iran Deal Leaves U.S. Republicans Short of Votes to Stop Obama - Should they Try?
11.5K
115
94
7
7
0
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.
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.
Posted in these groups: 
Politics
IranUS CongressU.S. House of Representatives
Office of the President (POTUS)
Politics IranUS CongressU.S. House of Representatives Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 30
7
7
0
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.
(7)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
CW3 (Join to see) - Fear is a terrible policy architect. The threat is real, but there are few options. War will not be a breeze, no matter what Senator Cotton thinks and the status quo has not worked. Forward movement requires risk and the answer to the Iran problem is to make being good worth more than being bad. That requires putting your neck out a little.
And yeah, it makes me uneasy too. I don't underestimate Iran in the slightest. Iran will look out for Iran.
And yeah, it makes me uneasy too. I don't underestimate Iran in the slightest. Iran will look out for Iran.
(0)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
TSgt Hunter Logan - When you're POTUS, you have to decide how much individual lives matter against the needs to the nation. As much as I'd like to see those American home, if it meant sinking a deal that could potentially avert a war, I'd have to let it go. Remember, for a deal to work, everyone has to go home thinking they won.
That said, increased diplomatic relations with Iran would theoretically give us the ability to leverage their release at a later date. Iran just needs to be given room to release them on their own terms. It has happened before and will likely happen again.
That said, increased diplomatic relations with Iran would theoretically give us the ability to leverage their release at a later date. Iran just needs to be given room to release them on their own terms. It has happened before and will likely happen again.
(1)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
Everyone who is for the deal seems to think the only option is war. So we make a deal regardless if it is good. The deal does nothing to slow the advance of their ICBM technology. China and Russia are all ready ignoring the sanctions imposed and requested by the U.S. They only abide my the UN sanctions. And according to the U.S. Government, Iran is a major supporter of terrorist organizations. So by removing the sanctions and releasing the billions of dollars we in essence will be supporting terrorism.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
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.
(5)
(0)
(3)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SFC James Sczymanski - Sergeant; I wasn't implying that YOU had used the term (even by implication) BUT there are large numbers of Americans who wouldn't vote anyone off the island if they did it (even by implication).
As an NCO you were taught that the First Rule In The Book is to "Always play by the rules."
As a good NCO, you learned that the REAL First Rule In The Book, is "Know what ALL the rules are (because there is always a rule that makes what you want to do mandatory [and there is also a rule that makes what you don't want to do prohibited]).".
Face it, the general purpose of "rules" is to prevent people who don't really know what they are doing (or don't realize what the potential unintended consequences of doing it are) from doing things which GENERALLY shouldn't be done.
As an NCO you were taught that the First Rule In The Book is to "Always play by the rules."
As a good NCO, you learned that the REAL First Rule In The Book, is "Know what ALL the rules are (because there is always a rule that makes what you want to do mandatory [and there is also a rule that makes what you don't want to do prohibited]).".
Face it, the general purpose of "rules" is to prevent people who don't really know what they are doing (or don't realize what the potential unintended consequences of doing it are) from doing things which GENERALLY shouldn't be done.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SFC Jack S. - Sergeant; Surprisingly enough not ALL of Iran's neighbours are opposed to the deal (unless you consider that Iran's ONLY neighbour is Israel). The government of Israel is opposed to "The Deal" because it only delays Iran from being able to counter "nuclear blackmail" in the Middle East and doesn't turn Iran into an (effective) puppet of Israel.
Of course, Israel DOES have the ability to express its displeasure of "The Deal" by simply nuking any site in Iran that even looks like it might be a center for nuclear weapons research/development/construction/deployment. [And if you don't think that that option has received serious consideration by the Israeli government, I have some Swiss desert property that I can let you have for a song (provided that it isn't "The hills are alive with the sound of music" - which I hate).]
As usual in International Affairs, the "Big Boys" are the ones who make (and enforce as they see fit) "The Deals" (and they frequently do so without consulting the people who are going to be INDIRECTLY [and sometimes even those who are going to be DIRECTLY) affected.
Not only that, but no one has been "paid" for anything yet. The way that "The Deal" is structured, Iran only gets "paid" IF it complies with "The Deal".
PS - The "one month notice" period only applies to some types of sites (and those types of sites are the same ones that the US government would NEVER agree to "snap inspections" of.
PPS - You also appear to have forgotten that Iran does have a real reason to mistrust the American government. After all, it was the US government who orchestrated the ousting of the democratically elected government of Iran and the installation of an absolute monarchy (in the name of "Democracy" of course). Why? Because the democratically elected government of Iran had the gall to be considering making American petrochemical companies pay "fair market value" for the Iranian natural resources they were extracting.
Of course, Israel DOES have the ability to express its displeasure of "The Deal" by simply nuking any site in Iran that even looks like it might be a center for nuclear weapons research/development/construction/deployment. [And if you don't think that that option has received serious consideration by the Israeli government, I have some Swiss desert property that I can let you have for a song (provided that it isn't "The hills are alive with the sound of music" - which I hate).]
As usual in International Affairs, the "Big Boys" are the ones who make (and enforce as they see fit) "The Deals" (and they frequently do so without consulting the people who are going to be INDIRECTLY [and sometimes even those who are going to be DIRECTLY) affected.
Not only that, but no one has been "paid" for anything yet. The way that "The Deal" is structured, Iran only gets "paid" IF it complies with "The Deal".
PS - The "one month notice" period only applies to some types of sites (and those types of sites are the same ones that the US government would NEVER agree to "snap inspections" of.
PPS - You also appear to have forgotten that Iran does have a real reason to mistrust the American government. After all, it was the US government who orchestrated the ousting of the democratically elected government of Iran and the installation of an absolute monarchy (in the name of "Democracy" of course). Why? Because the democratically elected government of Iran had the gall to be considering making American petrochemical companies pay "fair market value" for the Iranian natural resources they were extracting.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Mikel J. Burroughs - Mikel; Thank you for the honour, the courtesy is extended back.
One of the signs of a "good" deal is that BOTH sides feel that they have screwed the other more than the other side screwed them.
I'm prepared to credit the Iranians with having the smarts to get them t the point where they were (possibly) "selling" a non-existent nuclear weapons program for as much as they could get for it (Col Qaddafi did much the same thing).
I'm prepared to credit the US with having the smarts to not really be concerned over whether there actually was a nuclear weapons program as long as the possibility of one could be dramatically reduced.
This is what is known as a "Win - Win" scenario.
From the "Eastern perspective" the BIG "win" for the Iranians would be if "The Deal" recognizes that Iran actually did have the legal right to do whatever it was it was doing - but which the US government described as "nuclear weapons development". This would "build face" for the Iranians and the US would "lose face".
One of the signs of a "good" deal is that BOTH sides feel that they have screwed the other more than the other side screwed them.
I'm prepared to credit the Iranians with having the smarts to get them t the point where they were (possibly) "selling" a non-existent nuclear weapons program for as much as they could get for it (Col Qaddafi did much the same thing).
I'm prepared to credit the US with having the smarts to not really be concerned over whether there actually was a nuclear weapons program as long as the possibility of one could be dramatically reduced.
This is what is known as a "Win - Win" scenario.
From the "Eastern perspective" the BIG "win" for the Iranians would be if "The Deal" recognizes that Iran actually did have the legal right to do whatever it was it was doing - but which the US government described as "nuclear weapons development". This would "build face" for the Iranians and the US would "lose face".
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
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.
(5)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
CMSgt Mark Schubert That is what are system is suppose to do - test every piece of legislation that comes across Congress' desk, not just roll over. I'm not saying there aren't some positives in this deal, but there are some definite loop wholes that I believe were given up to keep the Iranians at the table. I just read that Iranians supported the killing of over 500 American during the last 14 years of war, so how can we trust anything they sign or agree too. By the way, I don't know how accurate that information is about the 500, so don't shoot the messenger!
(1)
(0)
MCPO Douglas Pennington
this entire Iranian deal sounds so much like the agreement Chamberlen and Hilter signed i think in 1935 where there would be no war between their countries yet look what happened 5 years later. Iran was given just about everything they wanted and their people still riot and burn our flag. I don't see this ending war of any kind in the Middle East if nothing it will invoke war especially between Israel and Iran, where there is no love lost.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
CPT (Join to see) 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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
YES. They need to stop this and Dems need to know if they dont help stop it they will be replaced
(3)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
Along the same lines, I don't think we should have sent someone to the talks without having a unified stance on the issue. Makes us look like a bunch of bickering children.
(0)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
I agree. Seems like all the Admin wanted was a feather for there cap and the heck with the dangers it causes us and the world. I wonder how that feather will look when he goes down in history as the person that started the Nuc Arms race in the Middle East
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
LTC John Shaw I believe you have hit a very important point between this POTUS and Congress - transparency. I think this has been an issue been the executive office and Congress for a number of years, no matter who has the mjority of seats in the House or Senate. How do we fix this divide?
(0)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
So I have a question. Since this POTUS violated the law and decided to do this as something different than a treaty in order to skirt the votes need. If a Repub gets voted in, he can say I dont have to follow this agreement and do as he pleases correct? This is NON Binding on the next President.
(0)
(0)
LTC John Shaw
COL Mikel J. Burroughs - PO2 Mark Saffell No easy answers. Both major parties want a similar end state but believe two different paths to execute. Next election both major parties make their case and we will have another statemate. Sweet!
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
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!
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
They should ABSOLUTELY stop this deal if at all possible.
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SGT (Join to see) - Sergeant; Have you ever been the subject of a "forensic audit"?
The question isn't whether Iran is going to be "open" but rather whether the US government is going to believe facts which contradict what it wants reality to look like.
You do remember that the Iraqi government staunchly maintained that it had no ongoing nuclear weapons research/development/production programs and did not have "vast stockpiles of WMD" (either in hand or being produced). These statements - verified by international inspectors (many of whom were CIA agents [operating under UN cover contrary to international law] until "Saddam threw the inspectors out of the country") - conflicted with what President Bush wanted reality to be and so were simply labelled as 'lies' which resulted in 13+ years of war.
The question isn't whether Iran is going to be "open" but rather whether the US government is going to believe facts which contradict what it wants reality to look like.
You do remember that the Iraqi government staunchly maintained that it had no ongoing nuclear weapons research/development/production programs and did not have "vast stockpiles of WMD" (either in hand or being produced). These statements - verified by international inspectors (many of whom were CIA agents [operating under UN cover contrary to international law] until "Saddam threw the inspectors out of the country") - conflicted with what President Bush wanted reality to be and so were simply labelled as 'lies' which resulted in 13+ years of war.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
You are absolutely correct COL Ted Mc
If you were to ask me if THIS administration would believe the FACTS that contradict reality, well I would say NO.
That is why I am patiently waiting for 2016 and a LEADER who will call Bullshit when needed.
If you were to ask me if THIS administration would believe the FACTS that contradict reality, well I would say NO.
That is why I am patiently waiting for 2016 and a LEADER who will call Bullshit when needed.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SGT (Join to see) - Sergeant; While I agree with you that "THIS administration" is highly unlikely to believe any facts which contradict the vision of the reality that it would like to be real, I'm going to have to down-grade that "THIS" to a "THE" since (historically [from at least 1850]) that has been the "policy" of EVERY administration (and the US isn't alone on this point).
Rather than hoping for "a LEADER who will call Bullshit when needed" you should be out there actively searching for a leader who can actually recognize BS when confronted with it (and when doing so actually results in positive benefits being achieved) rather than one who simply calls BS because they NEED to call BS for some personal political motive and haven't the foggiest idea of what the consequences of calling BS are likely to be.
I say "out there actively searching" because, quite frankly, NONE of the aspirants to be contenders for the nomination as a candidate impress me at all as even coming close to meeting those criteria.
Rather than hoping for "a LEADER who will call Bullshit when needed" you should be out there actively searching for a leader who can actually recognize BS when confronted with it (and when doing so actually results in positive benefits being achieved) rather than one who simply calls BS because they NEED to call BS for some personal political motive and haven't the foggiest idea of what the consequences of calling BS are likely to be.
I say "out there actively searching" because, quite frankly, NONE of the aspirants to be contenders for the nomination as a candidate impress me at all as even coming close to meeting those criteria.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I agree, they need to react to the Bullshit as well, COL Ted Mc
Actually I agree with everything you have stated. :-)
Actually I agree with everything you have stated. :-)
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google