Posted on Jul 15, 2015
Iran Deal Leaves U.S. Republicans Short of Votes to Stop Obama - Should they Try?
11.4K
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
1
1
0
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?
(1)
(0)
SP5 Richard Maze
Of course they should try to stop it, even if they cannot. Sitting on one's thumbs is not the American way.
(0)
(0)
PO2 Robert Cuminale
COL Mikel Burroughs: Right on. This deal is a concession to everything the Iranians wanted. The $150 Billion that was being held as part of the sanctions is going to them. No attempt was made to release the four Americans Iran is holding, no attempt was made to force Iran to pay the $45 Million in judgments by American citizens and Iran has ordered missiles capable of long distance flight from Russia. It will still be financing terrorists. And the production of weapons grade uranium will go on since they can stone wall the inspection process with a minimum of 24 days before anyone can even think of looking at their facilities.
What a deal.
What a deal.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Sgt Tom Cunnally - Sergeant; It now looks like President Obama doesn't have to worry about having enough votes to "over-ride a veto" since there are now (well, the last time I looked) 41 votes in favor of "The Deal" and that will mean that it will never even come to "a vote to overturn a veto".
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
Yes. one of the final two was a Republican Senator from my state, Corker. There is little more that I can do about it, I haven't voted for either of my so-Called Republican Senators in years. They are typical politicians, when up for the next reelection, they become solid conservatives, the other a mushy moderate. Then they reverse the next election cycle. Disgusting!
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
It's going to be really close.....Write and call your senators......Now..............
(1)
(0)
Sgt Tom Cunnally
Obama needs a few Dems for the 34 votes he needs to sustain a veto. But what is not certain are some Dems leaning towards voting for it. And who knows which way they will vote next month??
(0)
(0)
SFC Everett Oliver
Sgt Tom Cunnally -
Which is why we need to write, call, e-mail, tweet, and any other means of communication we can think of.....
Which is why we need to write, call, e-mail, tweet, and any other means of communication we can think of.....
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Count me as unsure because some Dems are still undecided & I don't know what the current count is
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
LCpl Mark Lefler
COL Ted Mc - Cause you know Bush wasn't the idiot that started a war we didn't need to fight.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LCpl Mark Lefler - Lance Corporal; According to the "Officially Revised and Approved History of the United States of America [R]" Mr. Bush didn't have anything whatsoever to do with either the invasion of Afghanistan or the invasion of Iraq - those were all Obama's fault. Mr. Bush's only contact with the mess in the Middle East was when he personally flew his aircraft carrier into Baghdad to single-handedly capture Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein (after personally defeating the entire Iraqi Republican Guard).
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LCpl Mark Lefler - Lance Corporal; Just wait until the Republicans only have one candidate (the Democrat one) to spend their "attack ads" budget on.
[If Mr. Trump does run as an independent, BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats will deal with him using the tried and true "Don't 'waste' your vote." tactic.]
[PS - "Don't 'waste' your vote." is actually shorthand for "Don't express your true opinion by voting for the person you want to vote for - vote for the person you least dislike voting for so that they can claim to have a 'mandate'.".]
[PPS - Under the current electoral system, Mr. Trump could be elected as the President of the United States of America if he "carried" eleven (11) states by one (1) vote in each state - even if one of the other candidates received 100% of the votes in the remaining thirty-nine (39) states. That works out to about 16.41% of the popular vote (assuming that the voter turnout follows the national/state demographics).]
[If Mr. Trump does run as an independent, BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats will deal with him using the tried and true "Don't 'waste' your vote." tactic.]
[PS - "Don't 'waste' your vote." is actually shorthand for "Don't express your true opinion by voting for the person you want to vote for - vote for the person you least dislike voting for so that they can claim to have a 'mandate'.".]
[PPS - Under the current electoral system, Mr. Trump could be elected as the President of the United States of America if he "carried" eleven (11) states by one (1) vote in each state - even if one of the other candidates received 100% of the votes in the remaining thirty-nine (39) states. That works out to about 16.41% of the popular vote (assuming that the voter turnout follows the national/state demographics).]
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
SFC Everett Oliver
COL Ted Mc -
We'll just have to put you down as trusting Iran. Would you care to address the charges that they trained people to kill Americans? Or that they still preach death to America?
We'll just have to put you down as trusting Iran. Would you care to address the charges that they trained people to kill Americans? Or that they still preach death to America?
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SFC Everett Oliver - Sergeant; It isn't so much "trusting" as realizing that the Iranians are NOT complete idiots, can work out the consequences of their own actions, and are acting in (what they consider to be) Iran's best interests (regardless of whether those best interests are in the best interests of any other country [including the United States of America]).
This will result in a somewhat different analysis of what the Iranians are likely to do than believing that they are mindless idiots and that the only best interests that anyone in the world should consider are the best interests of the United States of America - the way many people appear to do.
I have no doubts that the Iranians have trained people to kill Americans - although I don't have any direct knowledge of this. Equally I have no doubts that American government agencies (with the consent/concurrence of the government of the United States of America) have trained people to kill people in other countries (including Iran). Equally I have no doubts that the American government has sponsored/funded other countries to train their own people to kill their own people.
Pretending that the governments (both Democrat and Republican) of the United States of America have been nothing but enlightened supporters of true freedom and democracy around the world is either duplicitous or delusional.
As far as "preaching 'Death to America'" is concerned, there is quite a bit of difference between "politically inspired rhetoric" and "actual ability to carry out the deed". If you really believe that the 78,192,200 Iranians have the ability to kill 321,605,012 Americans, then you have a real problem. Besides, America's current internal divisions and conflicts would appear to indicate that Americans, themselves, are going to achieve "Death to America" MUCH faster than the Iranians ever could. [ASIDE - Using the "standard" 1 :: 40 ratio for occupation troops, the entire population of Iran would not suffice to provide an occupation force for the United States of America - and even then that would assume that the Iranians suffered absolutely no casualties in a war with the United States of America.]
It's time for America to get its own (internal) house in order and get on with actualizing "The American Ideal" rather than remaining divided between two political groups - EACH of which certainly appears to prefer ruling over a bankrupt and dysfunctional country than allowing the other to govern a prosperous and working society - or even allowing the other to have any share in governance. [The same could be said about racial, ethnic, economic, and religious groups - but let's not open that can of worms just yet.]
This will result in a somewhat different analysis of what the Iranians are likely to do than believing that they are mindless idiots and that the only best interests that anyone in the world should consider are the best interests of the United States of America - the way many people appear to do.
I have no doubts that the Iranians have trained people to kill Americans - although I don't have any direct knowledge of this. Equally I have no doubts that American government agencies (with the consent/concurrence of the government of the United States of America) have trained people to kill people in other countries (including Iran). Equally I have no doubts that the American government has sponsored/funded other countries to train their own people to kill their own people.
Pretending that the governments (both Democrat and Republican) of the United States of America have been nothing but enlightened supporters of true freedom and democracy around the world is either duplicitous or delusional.
As far as "preaching 'Death to America'" is concerned, there is quite a bit of difference between "politically inspired rhetoric" and "actual ability to carry out the deed". If you really believe that the 78,192,200 Iranians have the ability to kill 321,605,012 Americans, then you have a real problem. Besides, America's current internal divisions and conflicts would appear to indicate that Americans, themselves, are going to achieve "Death to America" MUCH faster than the Iranians ever could. [ASIDE - Using the "standard" 1 :: 40 ratio for occupation troops, the entire population of Iran would not suffice to provide an occupation force for the United States of America - and even then that would assume that the Iranians suffered absolutely no casualties in a war with the United States of America.]
It's time for America to get its own (internal) house in order and get on with actualizing "The American Ideal" rather than remaining divided between two political groups - EACH of which certainly appears to prefer ruling over a bankrupt and dysfunctional country than allowing the other to govern a prosperous and working society - or even allowing the other to have any share in governance. [The same could be said about racial, ethnic, economic, and religious groups - but let's not open that can of worms just yet.]
(0)
(0)
SFC Everett Oliver
COL Ted Mc -
Col, you forget that they are led by fanatics who are in a hurry to meet Allah. Or at least they teach such to their followers...
Col, you forget that they are led by fanatics who are in a hurry to meet Allah. Or at least they teach such to their followers...
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SFC Everett Oliver - Sergeant; Absolutely. And that provides a complete explanation for why Iran is in the forefront of the fight against ISIS.
However, your second sentence does show the beginnings of a start on the commencement of an understanding of what is actually happening.
You will NEVER see an "Osama bin Laden", "Ibrahim al-Badri", "Abu Ayman al-Iraqi", "Waleed Jassem al-Alwani", or "Adnan Ismael Najm" personally carrying out a "martyrdom mission".
You will, however, almost universally see them enjoying a much higher standard of living than their followers (with, VERY frequently, an extremely lucrative "retirement package").
However, your second sentence does show the beginnings of a start on the commencement of an understanding of what is actually happening.
You will NEVER see an "Osama bin Laden", "Ibrahim al-Badri", "Abu Ayman al-Iraqi", "Waleed Jassem al-Alwani", or "Adnan Ismael Najm" personally carrying out a "martyrdom mission".
You will, however, almost universally see them enjoying a much higher standard of living than their followers (with, VERY frequently, an extremely lucrative "retirement package").
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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...
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SFC Michael Hasbun - Staff; Would that be the same study that the Democrats would be citing if a leading Republican came out in support of drinking water?
The debate in Congress over whether H2O was better than Dihydrogen Oxide would be wonderful to watch.
The debate in Congress over whether H2O was better than Dihydrogen Oxide would be wonderful to watch.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Ehh I wish Trump would just go away. My opinion is that he's wrecking any chance of a republican president this time around.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
OKay that is not true SN Greg Wright We need to have Republicans stop trying to destroy each other. It happens every time. The Dems convince of shit that isn't true. Then we are left with the weakest candidate and this repeats itself over and over. We need to stand on our own. We need to prevent democrats from making choices for us. This is why we lose elections. We have to start making our own choices now.
(0)
(0)
PO2 Robert Cuminale
The Republican Party is going the way of the Whigs they replaced, totally ineffective because of fear of everyone and everything.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google