Liberal Groups Vow To Hold Democrats Accountable If They Help Republicans Kill Obama Iran Deal

[babylonsister]

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/08/liberal-groups-vow-hold-democrats-accountable-republicans-kill-obama-iran-deal.html

Liberal Groups Vow To Hold Democrats Accountable If They Help Republicans Kill Obama Iran Deal
By: Jason Easley
Wednesday, April, 8th, 2015, 4:43 pm


Liberal groups Credo, Daily Kos, Democracy for America, MoveOn.org Political Action and USAction sent a letter to Senate Democratic leadership warning them that they will be held accountable if they vote to help Republicans kill the deal on Iran’s nuclear program.

The groups wrote:

Senate Democrats are now faced with a choice: Support President Obama’s diplomacy or vote with Republicans to potentially start a war with Iran. There is no third option. A historic vote on a nuclear deal with Iran is coming. Like the 2002 vote to give President George W. Bush authorization to invade Iraq, Democrats who end up on the wrong side of it will have to answer for their decision for the rest of their careers.

….

We urge you to support the diplomatic process, and ensure that Democrats don’t deliver the Republicans the votes they need to override a presidential veto of diplomacy-killing legislation and begin yet another war of choice in the Middle East.

It is time for Democrats, liberals, progressives, and all supporters of peace to step up and pressure Senate Democrats to make sure that they sustain any veto issued by President Obama in response to Republican attempts to kill the deal that the international community has negotiated with Iran.

As The President has pointed out, the choice is between war and peace. Republicans like Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) are arguing that Iran’s nuclear facilities could be destroyed with a short bombing campaign. What Cotton doesn’t say is that the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities will result in a new war in the Middle East.

The left is firmly united in their support of President Obama’s diplomatic efforts, and if Senate Democrats refuse to listen to what their supporters want, they will pay at the ballot box for years to come.

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. I will not vote for any Democrat that votes with Republicans to kill the agreement.

(Their call of Congressional Approval is just a vote to kill the agreement.)

I will not donate money to any Democrats that votes wtih Repulbicans to kill the agreement.

[still_one]

5. Same here. Just received a letter from the DSCC signed by Harry Reid

asking for a donation to take back the Senate

No matter net from me, but a letter expressing your sentiments

[Agnosticsherbet]

7. I think winning back the Senate is critical, but I prefer to donate to individual candidates.

[still_one]

11. I agree, but if we get into another war with Democratic help I will

need to give it serious thought

[hifiguy]

2. I should hope so.

Sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up, Schumer.

[vlakitti]

24. YAY!!!

[still_one]

3. It won't just be liberal Democrats. Call your senators and representatives

[monmouth4]

4. And please, how can we keep Chuckie from a leadership post.

[rhett o rick]

6. Why is this limited to just "liberal groups"? I know, because the Conserative Dems

don't know whether to back the Blue Dogs/Republicons or Pres Obama. What a conundrum.

[AtomicKitten]

8. yes yes yes

[Hekate]

9. Kick

[bvar22]

10. HERE!

bvar22

[marlakay]

12. Good, i was disgusted when so many dems are beating war drums

What is really crazy is Schumer is leading it and he might take Reids place...ugh!

[babylonsister]

13. I hear you; I'm not happy about him either, and this makes me even

less happy.

[busterbrown]

14. Here’s Schumer’s facebook..

Get on it and give him some ass kicking....He’s a getting plenty..Deservedly so..


https://www.facebook.com/chuckschumer?fref=ts

[WinstonSmith4740]

22. There's also a link to his website.

http://www.schumer.senate.gov

I posted on his facebook page, and sent the following to his site:

If you really want to help, you can stop siding with the lunatic, treasonous Republicans who are trying to start yet ANOTHER completely useless war of choice in the Middle East. I hope you will hear from enough people and organizations about this to make you understand that not only will you not get to be Senate leader, you could just possibly lose your Senate seat. This is a flat out historic opportunity to try to being some level of sanity to that part of the world, and you choose to side with the most radical, insane voices in this country. (Have Republicans EVER seen a war they didn't want? As long as their kids don't have to go fight it, of course.) Plus you are showing more respect and fealty to Netanyahu than you are to your own President. You should be ashamed, but I'm sure you're not.

You want to know why the Republicans have taken over the House & Senate? Because Democrats continue to try to be "Republican Lite" instead of Democrats. It has nothing to do with their ideas, because they don't have any. Except of course, to outlaw abortion and cut taxes for billionaires. Democrats don't recognize their own successes, and DON'T know how to sell them. Democrats got their butts handed to them in November because they ran away from the ACA instead of celebrating it. We had to listen to Democrat after Democrat running for office take pains to explain that s/he wasn't Obama. You continue to let the Koch Brothers set the agenda and talking points, while you all quake in your shoes because a Republican might say something mean. Grow a damn spine, and try standing for Democratic principles for a change.

I've joined a huge number of people and organizations who are pledging to NEVER DONATE ANOTHER DIME to any Democrat who sides with the Republicans on this. Think about it, and share this with your colleagues. You guys throw Obama under the bus, and give the Republicans enough votes to screw this thing up, and you will pay for it with your political careers. Democrats stayed home in droves in November & we'll do it again because you guys are giving us nothing to vote for. The country is tired of war. We have spilled both treasure and blood in the Mid-East. Enough is enough. Get this thing done . Support this accord, and your own President, or be prepared to be considered a traitor.

[PatrickforO]

26. Brilliant! K&R

[WinstonSmith4740]

35. Thanks!

I don't know if it will do any good, but it sure made me feel better. A vast majority of the posts on his Facebook wall were pretty much saying the same thing...a few trolls supporting him, but for the most part, he caught a boatload of shit on this.

[Fred Sanders]

15. There is a third choice! Some Democrats may join with Republicans to vote for AIPAC. Or is that the

same choice?

[tomsaiditagain]

16. Its all about the profit

and the campaign money given to the war mongers who push and get war. Right politicians? I mean losers.

Trust is given when trust is earned.

[snowshadow]

17. A New Yorker.

Let me start off with I didn't vote for Schumer last time he ran, went with the Green Party. When Reed said he wanted to hand the baton to Schumer I immediately wrote a letter to my other Senator, Senator Gillibrand to nominate someone more progressive, the list also included herself. Never heard back from her office but they know what's on the mind of her constituents.

[babylonsister]

25. Hi! I'm from NY originally also; nice

to see you here!

Schumer is disappointing, and I love Gillibrand. I think Patty Murray has earned that job so will be rooting for her.

[snowshadow]

30. Hence Babylon?

Lived and worked in Deer Park. Now living in Hoosick Falls, outside of Bennington VT.

[babylonsister]

38. Yep, raised at Oak Beach but

born in Dix Hills/Huntington. Small world!

[snowshadow]

40. Isn't

My siblings went to Half Hollow Hills, then onto SUNY Farmingdale.

[Jefferson23]

18. Sound the alarm. n/t

[Thespian2]

19. Sad to Say,

But any Democrat who tries to destroy this step away from continuous war is not a Democrat and should be treated as such.

[Dont call me Shirley]

20. I will call my Senators, again, to support President Obama and the Peace Deal!

Every call you make to your Reps, Sens and WH is worth 4,000 constituents voices, so call.

Whitehouse Comments: 202-456-1111

United States Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121

[blackapron]

21. support the...

I have been a DEM. my whole voting life{and that has been awhile). But if they vote with REP'S. I will not support one more DEM. This PRES. has put up with more "shit" from across the isle, and why because he is black. Support the man this country elected. What Obama and Kerry (and whoever else helped) have accomplished is amazing. Support your PRES. or you "WILL" pay the price come 2016!

[Hulk]

23. I'm with you, and......

WE need to do our best to vote OUT every fookin' repuKKKe that does the same. Enough is enough!

[Oilwellian]

27. Good! n/t

[wildbilln864]

28. k & freakin r! n/t

[Scurrilous]

29. Good!

K & R

[Cha]

31. Good, this is that serious! mahalo babylonsistah~

[leftynyc]

32. This part is complete bullshit

Senate Democrats are now faced with a choice: Support President Obama’s diplomacy or vote with Republicans to potentially start a war with Iran. There is no third option. A historic vote on a nuclear deal with Iran is coming. Like the 2002 vote to give President George W. Bush authorization to invade Iraq, Democrats who end up on the wrong side of it will have to answer for their decision for the rest of their careers.

Asking that congress be involved is what that bill is about, not overturning what the President has done. I also suspect that if the parties were turned around, the feelings about this bill would be much different. I think congress should be involved and have a say.

[karynnj]

41. The bill as written will KILL the deal - that message is not BS, it is very much the case.

It adds various things - like any support of terrorism - to things that would prevent the sanctions from being lifted.

I listened to a J Street call in with Joe Cirincione, Preisdent of the Ploughshares funds and author of "Nuclear Nightmares: Securing the world before it is too late" and that was his conclusion. It also is the reason that 50 top foreign policy people signed a letter that called for no legislation for 90 days to avoid derailing a deal. In addition to Democrats, including Madeline Albright, there are Republicans like Scowcroft and former Senator Lugar. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026479445 Dick Lugar knows more about foreign policy and the prerogatives of Congress than Corker, elected in 2006.

As the administration as said, they have had hearings with both Houses of Congress and they will have more hearings. The CONSTITUTION gives the President significant power in setting foreign policy. Every President has made executive agreements - as this one is. In fact, both the China/US climate change agreement and the US/Cuba agreement are executive agreements. In fact, the Nixon/China agreement was also an executive agreement -- and China was as much an enemy then as Iran is now. This is not an overreach by Obama. In fact, the legislation is an attempt to take from him a power every other President has used.

As to waiving sanctions temporarily, that was what was written into the law as passed. What would need Congressional approval is permanently ending the sanctions.

The choice is likely very simple:

Make this deal - and have Iran closely controlled for 13 - 15 years, with monitoring that continues beyond that.

Have the US (and Israel) blamed for not getting a deal, having many countries abandon sanctions ( the US sanctions aren't the big deal here), losing the monitoring that has happened since the start of the interim agreement. This puts Iran back to where Netanyahu and others said they were three months from a bomb --- what choices are there then? I suspect that Netanyahu and AIPAC would be strongly pushing the Tom Cotton plan - just a little bit of bombing. Now, ignoring that that almost certainly would cause a war - even that is said to hold them back only 3 to 5 years. They KNOW how to do each piece already. So, are we then going to hear a variation of the immoral "mowing the grass" in the form of additional bombings every 5 years? (In this alternative, it might be better to just hope Iran does not want a nuclear bomb or accept the reality that they will get one.)

It is idiotic to think that people like Corker can negotiate from Congress BETTER than Kerry, with Energy secretary Moniz next to him and the foreign ministers of the other 5 countries.

You might also notice that there have been people like Haas, of the CFR, who were skeptical, but who has indicated that the deal is better than he expected.

[leftynyc]

43. So you support lifting the sanctions

on a country that HAS been financing terrorists for decade because they are making that demand. The financing of hezbollah, hamas, islamic jihad and other terrorists. You don't find that an unreasonable thing that people might have a problem with and if they do, fuck them. And you're perfectly ok with an imperial presidency. What if congress had voted AGAINST going to war with Iraq back in 2002 and bush/dick did it anyway. Just how loud would the howls have been around here (and I would have been joining right in). Especially with something that any subsequent President can overturn with a pen. Just ignore congress - 1/3 of of our government - because you don't like who is in charge. Well, I disagree. And J Street has zero power so whatever they have to say may be interesting but it is ultimately irrelevant.

[karynnj]

45. I disagree

1) The entire reason the P5 +1 put those sanctions in place was due to the nuclear program. There are other sanctions the US put in place for other reasons - those are unaffected by the agreement.

With countries like the USSR, China etc, a similar method of acting in a step by step manner dealing with their threat was used. Consider that it was within the cold war when we first started to limit nuclear weapons via treaties with the USSR (THAT was a treaty because it committed the US - as well as USSR - to limit their nuclear arsenal.)

The reason for this effort that in some of the P5 went back a decade, was that it was thought that Iran having nuclear bombs was very dangerous to the world. What this deal does is insure that they will not get a bomb for over a decade and it preserves monitoring even beyond that.

2) Now as far as terrorism goes, Iran is in a class with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - neither of whom are sanctioned. It is easy to make the case that both of them have in fact been worse than Iran, but at the level all are at, arguing that any one is better than the rest is silly.

However, you can't really claim that their backing of terrorism has been reduced by the sanctions that were in place for over a decade. There is no reason to assume this will increase due to the expiration of the nuclear program related sanctions.

3) This is not equivalent to going to taking the country to war -- and in fact, Clinton bombed Iraq, Reagan attacked Grenada, and Obama joined with NATO on Libya all without Congressional approval. More importantly, where the Constitution does split the authority on going to war, they assign dealing with foreign nations to the executive branch. There are FAR more executive agreements than there are treaties -- and there is a very clear definition of when something is a treaty. This isn't.

4) As to the Republican claim that the next President can undo this - that is absolutely unrealistic. If we get a deal this June, there will be two possibilities of what happens between then and January 2017 when a new President is sworn in.

If Iran has broken the deal, we will see how well the sanctions snapped back - if they did, there is nothing to change. (If they didn't, President Obama and Congress would already have considered and maybe taken action.) The key is that NO option we have at this moment is taken off the table. In fact, it is Congress destroying the deal that takes the option of having this decade of monitoring and reduction of fissile material and the repurposing of the facility that is the hardest to destroy off the table.

If Iran has NOT violated the deal, the US would have no chance in getting the international sanctions put back in place. Not to mention, other parts of the deal like the repurposing of mountain center and the international monitoring would continue. The US would look silly if we even try to get support for our unilateral sanctions.

5) Look carefully at the arguments of those against giving the negotiators the space to make a deal. Many will SAY things that sound reasonable -- until you look at the details. It is utterly bizarre that some argue that it should be rejected because 13 to 15 years from now, the breakout time could be extremely short. Given that the situation per Netanyahu as well as real experts is that if there is no deal, they would then be two or three months away from a bomb NOW - 13 to 15 years AND continuing monitoring even then seems a pretty good deal.

Oddly, some of the people AGAINST a deal now speak positively of the interim agreement's provisions and argue we can stick with that - however, we can't. These are things Iran agreed to WHILE continuing to negotiate in exchange for some moderate relief from sanctions. This is the SAME deal they blasted back in November 2013 when it was proposed and there is no offer by Iran (or the rest of the world) to make it permanent.

6) Here, the majority of the US population wants a diplomatic deal - this has been seen in every poll - even though the voices against it have for the last several months had far more coverage because while negotiations are ongoing it is not helpful making everything public. Yet more people are for it than against it.

7) I am happy this thread exists as there is lot of money and power behind the forces that want this to fail and they are lobbying everyone on any of their lists to call their Congressmen and Senators. WE NEED TO DO THE SAME.

8) One sanity test is to look at who are the voices on each side - Frankly, I trust the P5+1 members that were at the table - including not just Secretary Kerry, but our Secretary of Energy, who was an MIT professor of Nuclear Physics FAR more than Benjamin Netanyahu, who has repeatedly shown that he has no compunctions against lying in service of what he thinks is right.

The idea that a better deal can be had is arrogant and implies that the good people who worked on it were either not committed enough, not smart enough or too lazy to get the "better deal".

This is a chance to avoid a war that has been brewing since the Bush years. There is no risk in taking the chance because, it puts us in a BETTER position than not taking it if there really is a movement to breakout by Iran. We have FAR more monitoring than now - and we lose the monitoring we do have under the interim agreement if this falls apart. NOTHING IS PERMANENTLY TAKEN OFF THE TABLE.

9) Finally, I have always believed as Kerry said repeatedly since forever - you only go to war as a last resort. This is a clear case of where if they get a final deal, diplomacy will have avoided a war. Given that we give up nothing - the sanctions on the program were there to bring Iran to the negotiating table - this is a chance for peace, not war. I gladly stand with Obama, Kerry and Moniz - especially against Bolton, McCain, Cotton, Cheney and Netanyahu.

[Scuba]

33. K&R

[Enthusiast]

34. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

[Bluenorthwest]

36. DOMA yes voter. Never made amends as a few of those who made that choice have done so gracefully.

So this is not his first venture into backstabbing from the right.

[jwirr]

37. Is there a list of Democratic reps that are against the bill? If my reps are on it I want to be able

to call them.

[karynnj]

42. At this point, it is probably better to call even if their position is good

It is clear that the RW is putting lots of money behind stopping this. You don't want the legislators being inundated with stuff just from them.

I intend to even call Bernie!

[BrotherIvan]

39. Liberals: you can count on em when the going gets rough

Because principles.

[Orsino]

44. I am sick of warmongers, particularly those in Democratic clothing.

Anyone wanting to nerf a peace deal had better have a significantly better plan to offer, one that also keeps the hawks at bay.