Obama has 34 veto proof votes to protect his Iran Deal. Can the protest set for 9 SEP in DC and speeches like LTC Allen West's change minds?

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL. I sure hope so, LTC/Congressman West sure got my patriotic juices flowing with his speech!

MCPO Katrina Hutcherson well said and elequently expressed.

COL Ted Mc. That scenario is thoroughly depressing. I'm cynical but not that bad. This is why POTUS should have opted for a treaty instead of a UN resolution. The Wilsonian tactic of making end runs around congress only makes partisan politics worse in my opinion.

MCPO Katrina Hutcherson - Master Chief; Unfortunately Mr. Obama didn't really have much of a choice since "The Deal" wasn't one that ONLY involved Iran and the United States of America.

If "The Deal" had been in the form of a multinational treaty, do you think that the US government would have been able to get the other countries to say "Well, we think that this is the way to go - but we'll continue to do the things which aren't going to work and which are only going to make matters worse if America tells us that it don't want to do what we think will work and tells us to keep on doing the things that aren't working." (read as "This treaty shall only come unto force provided that the United States of America ratifies it and everyone else has to abide by whatever the government of the United States of America says is going to happen.")?

Presidents have been "making end runs around Congress" almost ever since the country started and President Obama has one of the better modern records for NOT doing so. Compared to Mr. Reagan and both Messrs Bush his record is sterling (which is sort of like saying he is the least bad example).

LTC Kevin B. This deal seems bad all the way around. IMHO, we will just be kicking the can down the road and letting an adversary get stronger before we will eventually have to apply a military solution from a much weaker position. Our service members will be the ones to pay the awful price of this foolish diplomacy...

MCPO Katrina Hutcherson - "Seems bad all the way around".... how so? What is your alternative? A " better deal "? That seems to be the typical vague answer from the President's political opponents. War? Our service members will certainly pay the price there.

LTC Kevin B. While it's good that the deal temporarily delays Iran from achieving nuclear enrichment capability it still opens the door for them to eventually meet the goal of obtaining nuclear weapons capabilities within 10 to 15 years. The original intent was to dismantle Iran's nuclear weapons capability as a prerequisite for the lifting of sanctions; we didn't even come close. We did not link the deal to Iran's activities. Iran undermines regimes, supports terrorist organizations and continually calls for the annihilation of Israel, not to mention it is still calling for death to America and holding four Americans hostage. Any deal should have made that type of behavior a violation. Delinking Iran's conduct from the nuclear deal is ultimately self-defeating as the concerns about Iran's nuclear weapon program stem directly from the fact that given its conduct, it can't be trusted with nuclear weapons. Iran can undercut the deal by cheating and it is free to continue its support of murderous dictators such as Assad of Syria, and waging proxy wars to serve its national agenda. Sanctions relief isn’t tied to Iran complying with the deal, Iran gets massive amounts of relief before they’ve demonstrated adherence to the deal and the money can’t be taken back once Iran gets it. To enforce the deal, world powers must first know if Iran violated the deal but with 24 days notice Iran would be able to hide and obfuscate banned activities. Iran doesn’t have to come clean on its past nuclear activity, leaving world powers little ability to verify future illegal advances. Iran’s foreign minister interprets the deal very differently than the Obama Administration does. For example, he believes that the scale of foreign investments would effectively prevent the world from re-imposing sanctions on Iran, making the “snapback” provision of the deal effectively meaningless. He may be right, after a few years when lucrative contracts are in place getting the the votes in the UN Security counsel for snapback sanctions would be quite difficult. He also said that Iran could deny inspectors access to nuclear and military sites under the deal. He has said that Iran would not be violating the deal if it broke the UN resolution prohibiting the purchase of conventional arms and missiles because the arms embargo is implicitly out of the scope of the nuclear agreement. Iran will be doing the ground monitoring for the UN inspectors/observers at all of the current known sites. The Iranians will provide their readings of the “situation on the ground” from which the UN inspectors will draw their conclusions. US nationals will be excluded from all UN and all other inspection teams. If Iran is caught cheating and sanctions are in any way “snapped back,” this agreement gives Iran the right to end their compliance from all their obligations that they have undertaken. Thus, the incentive is for Iran to strictly observe the provisions of this agreement until the Iranian economy is moving, then to cheat around the edges, and then to walk away from the entire agreement if and when they want to (completely based on their desires and their timetable). No one in their right mind wants a war with Iran but this deal was made under the auspices that without it war is inevitable. The deal may avert war now but it is far from "peace in our time". We may well find ourselves in armed conflict after we have allowed Iran to build a robust economy and conventional and nuclear weapons making them a much stronger and dangerous adversary and costing us much more in terms of casualties.
I could go on but there's no need to keep piling it on...

Don't let the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good". Just because we can't get everything doesn't mean we aren't getting much of what we want. People against this deal seem to think the U.S. can simply dictate all of the terms, and that's not the case. A number of other countries were involved in the negotiations, and they will also be involved in any solution. Therefore, pushing for everything we want could very well ensure that we get nothing. And, keep in mind that many of the chicken hawks rattling their sabers over going to war will not have any of their loved ones fighting that war.