White House Indicates Obama Will Sign Compromise Iran Bill

[Purveyor]

Source: Washington Post

By Deb Riechmann and Laurie Kellman | AP April 14 at 2:45 PM

WASHINGTON — The White House signaled Tuesday that President Barack Obama would sign a proposed compromise giving Congress a say on an emerging deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program — and a chance to undercut any agreement it doesn’t like.

Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reached a compromise on the bill as Secretary of State John Kerry and other members of the Cabinet visited Capitol Hill for a second straight day to sell lawmakers on details of a possible final deal and plead for time to reach an accord with Tehran by the end of June.

International negotiators are trying to reach a deal that would prevent Iran from being able to develop nuclear weapons. In exchange, Tehran would get relief from economic sanctions that are crippling its economy.

--clip
The compromise bill that the committee is to vote on Tuesday would shorten from 60 to 30 days the amount of time Congress would have to review any final deal. During that time, Obama would be able to lift sanctions imposed through presidential action, but would be blocked from easing sanctions levied by Congress.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/senate-committee-to-challenge-obama-with-vote-on-iran-bill/2015/04/14/a9ce9be2-e277-11e4-ae0f-f8c46aa8c3a4_story.html

[lame54]

1. Hey Fuckheads...

get the hell out of the way

[Purveyor]

3. Sounds like the President got 'rolled' by his own DEM party members in the Senate. Officially a

'lameduck' Presidency from here on out...

[geek tragedy]

8. Not really. Congress always had the power to pass a bill on Iran sanctions

by overriding a veto. This bill doesn't require Congress to approve the deal, the only way the deal gets rejected is if 2/3 in both chambers vote to override--again which was always going to be the case.

The waiting time and the terrorism language were the big hang-ups.

[markpkessinger]

18. True enough about the veto, but . . .

. . . as an editorial in today's NY Times points out, this leaves the President as the only leader involved in the negotiations who may not be able to honor commitments made in the negotiations, and thus weakens the U.S. position as a party to the negotiations.

[bananas]

20. On the contrary, this strengthens Obama's position.

You seem to be forgetting that Obama is playing 11-dimensional chess.

John Holdren accepted the Nobel Prize on behalf of the Pugwash Committee, an organization devoted to ending the threat of nuclear war. When Obama selected him as Science Advisor, Congress unanimously approved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren

Holdren was chair of the Executive Committee of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs from 1987 until 1997 and delivered the Nobel Peace Prize acceptance lecture on behalf of Pugwash Conferences in December 1995. From 1993 until 2003, he was chair of the Committee on International Security and Arms Control of the National Academy of Sciences...

Holdren served as one of President Bill Clinton's science advisors (PCAST) from 1994 to 2001.[2] Eight years later, President Barack Obama nominated Holdren for his current position as science advisor and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in December 2008, and he was confirmed on March 19, 2009, by a unanimous vote in the Senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pugwash_Conferences_on_Science_and_World_Affairs

The Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs is an international organization that brings together scholars and public figures to work toward reducing the danger of armed conflict and to seek solutions to global security threats. It was founded in 1957 by Joseph Rotblat and Bertrand Russell in Pugwash, Nova Scotia, Canada, following the release of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto in 1955.

<snip>

Origin of the Pugwash Conferences

The Russell-Einstein Manifesto, released July 9, 1955, called for a conference for scientists to assess the dangers of weapons of mass destruction (then only considered to be nuclear weapons). Cyrus Eaton, an industrialist and philanthropist, offered on July 13 to finance and host the conference in the town of his birth, Pugwash, Nova Scotia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell-Einstein_Manifesto

The Russell–Einstein Manifesto was issued in London on 9 July 1955 by Bertrand Russell in the midst of the Cold War. It highlighted the dangers posed by nuclear weapons and called for world leaders to seek peaceful resolutions to international conflict. The signatories included eleven pre-eminent intellectuals and scientists, including Albert Einstein, who signed it just days before his death on 18 April 1955. A few days after the release, philanthropist Cyrus S. Eaton offered to sponsor a conference—called for in the manifesto—in Pugwash, Nova Scotia, Eaton's birthplace. This conference was to be the first of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, held in July 1957.

Obama was later unanimously awarded the Nobel Prize for his commitment to nuclear nonproliferation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize

The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to U.S. President Barack Obama for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".[1] The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced the award on October 9, 2009, citing Obama's promotion of nuclear nonproliferation[2] and a "new climate" in international relations fostered by Obama, especially in reaching out to the Muslim world.[3][4]

<snip>

The five members of the Nobel Committee are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament to roughly reflect the party makeup of that body. The 2009 Committee comprised two members of the Norwegian Labor Party, one from the left-wing Socialist Left Party, one from the Conservative Party of Norway and one from the right-wing Progress Party. The chairman of the Committee was Thorbjørn Jagland, former Norwegian Labor Party prime minister and Secretary General of the Council of Europe since September 29, 2009. The panel met six or seven times in 2009, beginning several weeks after the February 1 nomination deadline. The winner was chosen unanimously on October 5.[9] but was initially opposed by the Socialist Left, Conservative and Progress Party members until strongly persuaded by Jagland.[10]

Jagland said "We have not given the prize for what may happen in the future. We are awarding Obama for what he has done in the past year. And we are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do," noting that he hoped the award would assist Obama's foreign policy efforts. Involvement in which can now be proven as early as March 2009. Jagland said the committee was influenced by a speech Obama gave about Islam in Cairo in June 2009, the president's efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and climate change, and Obama's support for using established international bodies such as the United Nations to pursue foreign policy goals.[11] The New York Times reported that Jagland shrugged off the question of whether "the committee feared being labeled naïve for accepting a young politician’s promises at face value", stating that "no one could deny that 'the international climate' had suddenly improved, and that Mr. Obama was the main reason...'We want to embrace the message that he stands for.'"[9]

[geek tragedy]

22. that's a feature of our constitution's separation of powers

it's something every president has had to work around.

our system isn't designed to deal with ultrapartisan insane people controlling parts of the government

[bananas]

19. No, this really needs the informed consent of Congress.

And I think it will be approved.

[truebrit71]

2. Capitulating again...

Total fucking bullshit....

[Journeyman]

4. It shortens the review time to 30 days -- So what? The PATRIOT Act was passed in 24 days. . .

It's easy to pass or reject anything when people just don't read it (as I'm fairly certain will happen this time through as well, since so many congress critters have already made up their minds that anything agreed upon is no good).

[mmonk]

5. Never lead the world again, America.

You are the biggest hypocrisy and lie the world has known.

[turbinetree]

6. Nice

You have some other countries (China, Britain, France, Germany among those negotiating) why don't all you just go over into their governments and say you want legislation to under mine there government negotiations as well, or did you forget this little caveat ,because you are hell bent on what, inserting your ego's into the process.

Hell, you people can't even pass legislation on the TPP to make it public, but your going to fast track that legislation---thanks a lot for nothing.

[Darb]

7. I think they are going to give them the chance to kill the deal.

Then it is on them. Plus I think it also provides a pretty distinct election issue. They want war and should be called out on it if they kill this deal.

[Darb]

10. I forgot to mention, the other nations can end their sanctions after an agreement.

So basically, all it does is make them look belligerent and hurt american businesses that cannot do business with Iran when the other nations' businesses can.

[karynnj]

13. True - with or without the others (and maybe the UN) agreeing to a deal

However, if it without a deal, expect there to be calls that we need to attack Iran - even if it just sets them back 3 to 5 years.

[karynnj]

11. This is too important to argue that it is good if defeated as an "election issue"

Not to mention, it is NOT a good election issue if more than a dozen democrats vote for it.

If there is a war, it will be against a country bigger and stronger than Iraq -- at a point when Iraq and most of the region is already a mess.

It is strange that it is easier to take a country to war than it is to avoid a war via diplomacy. It is also sad that very little of the very real anger at the Iraq War is present against the people trying to derail this.

In fact, the BEST thing for Democrats in the 2016 Presidential race would be the deal taking place and holding into 2016.

[Darb]

15. I agree, a deal is the best option. If blocked by the Repigs and..........

the slaves to Israel, then it will be a political advantage. Most Americans would prefer no war vs. to kissing Likudnik ass.

[karynnj]

21. but this is bipartisan

Hard to argue the Democrats disagreed when it looks like they have a large number of Democrats with the Republicans.

[QuestionAlways]

9. Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good

And perhaps Obama can use this to pressure Iran to adopt our understanding of the framework agreement.

[Lipss]

12. Compromise is inevitable

In politics.

[McKim]

14. The Grande Compromiser

How very sad, he has given away the store again to the nutcase Right Wing!

[Darb]

16. Don't overstate it, lest

you might look like a fool in the long run.

[Jesus Malverde]

17. derp..nt

[DCBob]

23. Not a big deal. The agreement can still go forward.

They would need to override veto to stop it.

[Octafish]

24. This is sad.

President wants peace. Congress wants a piece of the action -- for the Big Boss, Netanyahu.