[Rushtalk] Obama's Iran Deal Will Survive As 34th Senator Announces Support

Dennis Putnam dap1 at bellsouth.net
Thu Sep 17 10:18:49 MDT 2015


What is scary is that this is Neville Chamberlain all over again. I'm
afraid a full scale war is now inevitable (perhaps with nukes) and the
next POTUS is going to get the blame, not Obama. Israel has to take
action and soon or face destruction.

The only bright spot, if you can call it that, is Europe is now getting
what it deserves with all the refugees for sticking its cowardly head in
the sand like Obama.

Interestingly water cannons and tear gas are being used at some borders
to keep the illegal immigrants out. Can you imagine the world wide
condemnation if we did that on our southern border?

On 9/17/2015 12:00 PM, Stephen A. Frye wrote:
>
> Why, Dennis, are you saying you might have doubts about their
> sincerity?  The President has assured us of their integrity and
> reliability.  I’m certainly sleeping better.
>
>  
>
> Or maybe I’m sleeping better because I don’t have to get up and go to
> work anymore.  J
>
>  
>
> *From:*rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com [mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com]
> *On Behalf Of *Dennis Putnam
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 17, 2015 8:32 AM
> *To:* rushtalk at csdco.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Rushtalk] Obama's Iran Deal Will Survive As 34th
> Senator Announces Support
>
>  
>
> It is not a treaty because it does nothing more than reverse some
> executive orders (sanctions, asset seizure, etc.) in exchange for
> laughable assurances that they won't continue to pursue nukes.
>
> On 9/17/2015 11:14 AM, Steven Laib wrote:
>
>     Is it an agreement just because someone chooses to characterize it
>     as such, or is it because there is precedent that makes it so as a
>     matter of law, custom and tradition or other qualification? 
>     I'm not sure that it qualifies as an agreement.  The nature of the
>     "deal" smacks more of it being a treaty to my thinking. 
>
>     SDL
>
>
>     On 9/16/15 11:35 AM, Dennis Putnam wrote:
>
>         Its not a treaty, its an "agreement." It legally does not need any
>
>         approval from congress for that matter.
>
>          
>
>         On 9/16/2015 12:12 PM, Tom Matiska wrote:
>
>             Will one of our Constitution scholars here explain to me how this "Treaty" went from needing two thirds Senate approval to only the one third required to uphold a veto?   Tom
>
>             T-Mobile. America's First Nationwide 4G Network
>
>              
>
>             Carl Spitzer <lynux at keepandbeararms.com> <mailto:lynux at keepandbeararms.com> wrote:
>
>              
>
>                  
>
>                 Obama's Iran Deal Will Survive As 34th Senator Announces Support
>
>                  
>
>                 Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) gives the president the votes he needs to
>
>                 beat back legislation to kill the deal.
>
>                  
>
>                 Headshot of Sam Stein
>
>                 Sam Stein Senior Politics Editor, The Huffington Post
>
>                        
>
>                        
>
>                        
>
>                 Headshot of Amanda Terkel
>
>                 Amanda Terkel Senior Political Reporter, The Huffington Post
>
>                        
>
>                        
>
>                        
>
>                        
>
>                        
>
>                        
>
>                        
>
>                 Posted: 09/02/2015 10:12 AM EDT | Edited: 20 minutes ago
>
>                 WASHINGTON -- A nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers that
>
>                 promises to fundamentally alter the geopolitical landscape of the Middle
>
>                 East and beyond will not die in the U.S. Congress. 
>
>                  
>
>                 On Wednesday, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) announced that she would
>
>                 support the agreement, becoming the 34th member of the Senate to do so.
>
>                 In offering her backing, Mikulski, who is retiring in 2016, assured that
>
>                 President Barack Obama will dodge a Republican-led effort to kill the
>
>                 deal. Although a resolution of disapproval may still pass the chamber,
>
>                 the White House now has the necessary support to sustain a presidential
>
>                 veto of said resolution. 
>
>                  
>
>                 “No deal is perfect, especially one negotiated with the Iranian regime.
>
>                 I have concluded that this Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is the
>
>                 best option available to block Iran from having a nuclear bomb," said
>
>                 the Senator in a statement. "For these reasons, I will vote in favor of
>
>                 this deal. However, Congress must also reaffirm our commitment to the
>
>                 safety and security of Israel.”
>
>                  
>
>                 <span class='image-component__caption' itemprop=caption>Sen. Barbara
>
>                 Mikulski, the Senate's longest-serving female member and a prominent
>
>                 Israel supporter, backs the Iran nuclear deal. </span> Credit:
>
>                 ASSOCIATED PRESS Sen. Barbara Mikulski, the Senate's longest-serving
>
>                 female member and a prominent Israel supporter, backs the Iran nuclear
>
>                 deal.  
>
>                 With the deal now seemingly safe from congressional torpedoing, Obama
>
>                 has both notched one of the most significant nuclear non-proliferation
>
>                 agreements in history and cemented a foreign policy legacy of robust
>
>                 diplomatic engagement. Whether that legacy turns out sterling or sour
>
>                 will be determined well beyond the end date of his presidency.
>
>                  
>
>                 Under the deal, Iran would be subjected to comprehensive inspections on
>
>                 its nuclear program and forced to reduce current uranium stockpiles and
>
>                 the number of its centrifuges. In exchange, it will be granted sanctions
>
>                 relief estimated to be anywhere between $50 billion and $150 billion.
>
>                 But the deal phases out between years 10 and 15, albeit with Iran still
>
>                 forced to provide some access for inspections for another 10 years
>
>                 thereafter. And even for supporters of the initiative, concerns remain
>
>                 about the possibilities of a quick military breakout once restrictions
>
>                 ease.  
>
>                  
>
>                 "That's the core concern," Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said in an
>
>                 interview with The Washington Post when announcing his support for the
>
>                 deal Tuesday. "All they've got to do is be really patient."
>
>                  
>
>                 Faced with this pushback, the administration has implored lawmakers to
>
>                 consider the alternative, in which no restrictions are placed on Iran
>
>                 and the world community is unwilling to rework the accord. A briefing
>
>                 between ambassadors and officials from the other countries party to the
>
>                 deal -- in which they articulated their reluctance to head back to the
>
>                 negotiating table -- was highly persuasive to several Democratic
>
>                 senators.
>
>                  
>
>                 While the passage of the deal is now secure, its long-term viability is
>
>                 not. Nearly all of the Republican presidential candidates have pledged
>
>                 to end the deal should they win the office. And though that seems to be
>
>                 more of a campaign applause line than thought-out foreign policy, the
>
>                 politics of the accord are difficult to predict or interpret. Public
>
>                 opinion polls in July alone showed support varying from 33 percent to 56
>
>                 percent. Opponents have been better funded, running millions of dollars
>
>                 in television ads during the August recess to convince Democrats to jump
>
>                 ship. But that campaign has had, seemingly, only a marginal effect.
>
>                  
>
>                 So far just two Senate Democrats have announced their opposition. And
>
>                 both Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) were seen as
>
>                 skeptics of the deal from the outset. That said, Democrats could find
>
>                 themselves in an odd proposition in which the vast majority of the party
>
>                 supports the deal except their incoming Senate leader (Schumer) their
>
>                 likely next House leader (Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland remains
>
>                 undecided) and the chair of the Democratic National Committee (Rep.
>
>                 Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida is undecided too).
>
>                  
>
>                 That could explain the timing of Mikulski's announcement. The Maryland
>
>                 Democrat is a strong symbolic choice to bring the vote tally for the
>
>                 agreement to the critical 34. She is the chamber's longest-serving
>
>                 female member and a prominent Israel supporter -- the American Israel
>
>                 Public Affairs Committee, which has lobbied heavily against the deal,
>
>                 called her "a stalwart supporter of the U.S.-Israel relationship." And
>
>                 her backing could foreshadow forthcoming support from another critical
>
>                 member: Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), a fellow Marylander who is the ranking
>
>                 member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
>
>                  
>
>                 Indeed, at this juncture, Democratic leadership is gunning to get to 40
>
>                 supportive members, which would prevent a resolution of disapproval from
>
>                 even making it to Obama's desk, should they choose to filibuster it.
>
>                  
>
>                  
>
>                  
>
>                  
>
>                 _______________________________________________
>
>                 Rushtalk mailing list
>
>                 Rushtalk at csdco.com <mailto:Rushtalk at csdco.com>
>
>                 http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>
>             _______________________________________________
>
>             Rushtalk mailing list
>
>             Rushtalk at csdco.com <mailto:Rushtalk at csdco.com>
>
>             http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>         Rushtalk mailing list
>
>         Rushtalk at csdco.com <mailto:Rushtalk at csdco.com>
>
>         http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     Rushtalk mailing list
>
>     Rushtalk at csdco.com <mailto:Rushtalk at csdco.com>
>
>     http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>
>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rushtalk mailing list
> Rushtalk at csdco.com
> http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20150917/0a2f9c6a/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20150917/0a2f9c6a/attachment-0001.bin 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list