Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Stonepounder

(4,033 posts)
Tue Apr 14, 2015, 09:14 PM Apr 2015

In setback, Obama concedes Congress role on Iran deal

Source: Nation

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama conceded on Tuesday that Congress will have the power to review a nuclear deal with Iran, reluctantly giving in to pressure from Republicans and some in his own party after they crafted a rare compromise demanding a say.

The role for the Republican-controlled Congress injects a new element of uncertainty into the delicate final stages of negotiations between major powers and Iran aimed at curbing Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

<snip>

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Senator Bob Corker, who wrote the bill, said the White House had agreed to go along with the bill only after it was clear there was strong Democratic support. The legislation was passed unanimously by the committee and is expected to pass the full Senate and then the House of Representatives.

<snip>

Bipartisan support for the bill had grown in recent weeks to near the 67 votes needed to override any presidential veto.

Read more: http://bangordailynews.com/2015/04/14/news/nation/in-setback-obama-concedes-congress-role-on-iran-deal/



Hey, Hey, GOP! How many boys (and girls) will you kill today?

After all, war is much more profitable than peace!
25 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
In setback, Obama concedes Congress role on Iran deal (Original Post) Stonepounder Apr 2015 OP
I really hope Congress doesn't fuck this up. Comrade Grumpy Apr 2015 #1
Its a dead deal now project_bluebook Apr 2015 #5
Yep, DOA. In more ways than one. blkmusclmachine Apr 2015 #19
I think Obama should go ahead and Veto the bill and make them override. nt kelliekat44 Apr 2015 #2
How many Democrats and who were they? jwirr Apr 2015 #3
See post 6. woo me with science Apr 2015 #7
It's not just the GOP, I'd be harder on the Dems that support this Reter Apr 2015 #4
Rotating villains again. woo me with science Apr 2015 #6
This is so silly. joshcryer Apr 2015 #13
And here you are! woo me with science Apr 2015 #15
Nothing is "safe in our pockets." joshcryer Apr 2015 #16
He already capitulated. woo me with science Apr 2015 #17
This message was self-deleted by its author emulatorloo Apr 2015 #14
That's the end of the deal ChiefJusticeIV Apr 2015 #8
That isn't true. Corker bill doesn't give Congress any new way of killing Iran deal. geek tragedy Apr 2015 #10
I'm pissed at Obama. Stonepounder Apr 2015 #11
Yes, makes sense to be pissed at the on MFer doing the right thing Cosmocat Apr 2015 #20
Huh? I think Obama is a great President. If he could run for a 3rd term I'd vote for him again. Stonepounder Apr 2015 #23
OK Cosmocat Apr 2015 #24
Is there enough time to put pressure on our Democratic Congressional members? PADemD Apr 2015 #9
Have said this all along madville Apr 2015 #12
This is not a setback, this is a litmus test. Major Hogwash Apr 2015 #18
Fuck. Well... Buy stock in defense contractors.... Adrahil Apr 2015 #21
Doesn't really change things substantially. DCBob Apr 2015 #22
i am sorry, LOCKING as a duplicate post etherealtruth Apr 2015 #25
 

Comrade Grumpy

(13,184 posts)
1. I really hope Congress doesn't fuck this up.
Tue Apr 14, 2015, 09:42 PM
Apr 2015

What it usually does is bad enough, but this is world-class serious stuff.

 

project_bluebook

(411 posts)
5. Its a dead deal now
Tue Apr 14, 2015, 10:28 PM
Apr 2015

thanks to repubs and weak president and paid off dems. Plan on WWIII in the near future.

 

Reter

(2,188 posts)
4. It's not just the GOP, I'd be harder on the Dems that support this
Tue Apr 14, 2015, 10:14 PM
Apr 2015

We expect Republicans to act like this, but they can't get 67 votes without Democrats.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
6. Rotating villains again.
Tue Apr 14, 2015, 10:40 PM
Apr 2015

Was waiting for this to happen. It always does after corporate Democrats have sought very public adulation for a seemingly impressive stand against corporatism or the MIC.

We know this scam by now. They take turns defecting or trashing the deal so that corporate Democrats, including the president, can *claim* to have fought against corporate, warmongering policy and failed.

The MIC will always get their way, and corporate policies will always prevail, as long as our party is purchased and packed with Third Way corporate liars in Democrat costumes.



http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

Tuesday, Feb 23, 2010 11:24 AM UTC
The Democratic Party’s deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass



Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how it’s played:
....
The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, it’s Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, it’s Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and “breaking with their party” to ensure Michael Mukasey’s confirmation as Attorney General; then it’s Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then it’s Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they can’t blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don’t need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.










joshcryer

(62,270 posts)
13. This is so silly.
Wed Apr 15, 2015, 12:20 AM
Apr 2015

The President is "ceding" because he wants to be sure that actual efforts to stonewall don't happen due to AIPAC meddling. It will be nothing more than a gesture, so that AIPAC supporters in Congress can go back to their donors and say "Hey, I got that review process passed."

The peace deal isn't going anywhere whether you like it or not. And I'll be bookmarking this post and if I remember I'll give you a nice reply by the end of the summer when the peace deal goes through.

I bet you won't even make an OP saying you were wrong about it either. I remember when you called out the FCC for not immediately releasing its net neutrality rules, calling it secret government and using loaded language. It's cute until it's wrong over and over again.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
15. And here you are!
Wed Apr 15, 2015, 01:59 AM
Apr 2015

Oh, Josh. You've *got* to stop following me around. People will say we're in love.

Today's dispensing of Third Way spin is charmingly oily, but weak on substance, as usual. But it's okay. People need to see the patterns of the talking points.

So illustrative to pretend that net neutrality is safe....

*Even* if we were to pretend that the widely publicized "final victory" on net neutrality weren't utter nonsense (As the link below shows, everything predictably becomes uncertain again *after* the PR blitz is over and adulation for Third Way politicians has been safely pocketed...)

Congress Is STILL Trying to Destroy Net Neutrality - April 14, 2015
http://www.freepress.net/blog/2015/04/14/congress-still-trying-destroy-net-neutrality


*Even* if we pretended that the administration had actually done what it should and could have done all along and reclassified the internet as a public utility...."Even* if Obama had not appointed a crony telecom corporatist as head of the FCC.....And *even* if threats to net neutrality weren't predictably resurfacing in Congress, as always seems to happen with faux Third Way "liberal victories" once the adulation dies down...

...Even if all that weren't the case, we *still* know that Hillary's and Obama's TPP will take care of that little net neutrality problem even if by some chance the FCC PR rules stand. It's a clever tactic by corporatists to run on policies and promises they know will be completely dwarfed and made irrelevant by predatory actions they pursue simultaneously. It's called talking out of both sides of your mouth...

...or PR

[font size=3]...or LYING. [/font size]

HOW THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP WILL UNDERMINE INTERNET FREEDOM
http://www.exposethetpp.org/TPPImpacts_InternetFreedom.html

Let’s Take Apart The Corporate Case For Fast Track Trade Authority...Net Neutrality a Target of TPP
http://ourfuture.org/20150129/the-corporate-arguments-for-fast-track?utm_source=progressive_breakfast&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pbreak

Can America Really Have Net Neutrality? Not If the TPP Passes ...
http://economyincrisis.org/content/can-america-really-have-net-neutrality-not-if-the-tpp-passes


[font size=2]Yes, while claiming to protect net neutrality, Obama is pushing to fast-track the net neutrality-assaulting TPP. [/font size]

It's the Third Way MO. Promise one thing, maybe even deliver a temporary little carrot while seeking public adulation for it...while you are simultaneously pushing for the hammer that will render your little carrot meaningless, a cruel joke. It' a familiar, cynical, predatory game that we all know by heart now, because we have seen it repeated so many times by Third Way Democrats. And the overall outcome *always* keeps moving us steadily into corporate rule and away from democracy.

It's the very same MO as pretending you care about income inequality and giving pretty speeches suggesting you want to raise the minimum wage, while you are simultaneously pushing for H1B visas or to fast-track a predatory "trade agreement that will gut American jobs and slash pay for FULLY 90 PERCENT of American workers.

Obama and Hillary's TPP will mean a pay cut for 90 percent of American workers.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4141426


And it's the same MO as insincere, massively publicized speeches about reining in military power, followed immediately by huge escalations in military power, a new war in Syria, a new war in Iraq, carpet bombing of captive populations in Gaza, a continuation of the unconscionable droning of civilians in multiple countries with which we are not at war, continued massive escalation of military forces in Africa, and a new TRILLION DOLLAR ramp-up of nuclear weapons.

It's what Third Way politicians do. They advertise, and they manipulate, and they lie. They are always looking for an opportunity to APPEAR to support progressive causes, while working behind the scenes to ensure that the overall outcome is corporate.

Now, you will continue to deny the patterns, as you always do, or to issue absurd challenges to PROVE that the well-established patterns will continue. We have learned, however, that the best predictor of the future behavior of corporate politicians is the past behavior of corporate politicians.

Of course we don't have net neutrality safe in our pockets, as those of us who follow patterns knew we wouldn't. And just as we predicted that there would be more war in Iraq and Syria from this administration (as the PNAC and neocons...now also neolibs...demand...), we also predicted that triumphant claims of achieved peace and diplomacy with Iran would turn out to be vastly overstated. And here we are.

There's a structure to Kabuki. Once you understand corporate motives, you know the scripts by heart and can predict the next act. Anyone can do it. The MIC budget will always be preserved, because the blood profiteers *need* perpetual new conflict and threat to keep justifying their murderous profit machine.

It's not going to stop, and we won't have a true opposition party, until we get the filthy corporate money out of our government and elections and purge our government of Wall Street-bankrolled corporate liars wearing both Republican *and* Democrat costumes.




joshcryer

(62,270 posts)
16. Nothing is "safe in our pockets."
Wed Apr 15, 2015, 02:44 AM
Apr 2015

You do realize that the Republican congress is the one trying to overturn a Democrat's Net Neutrality rules, right?

But don't you worry I'll get you a poke when the Iran peace deal goes through. Just a friendly reminder that you posted walls of text about a conspiracy of lies when the reality is that the adults in the room are going to get it done.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
17. He already capitulated.
Wed Apr 15, 2015, 02:52 AM
Apr 2015

See LBN. And, psst....corporate Republicans and corporate Democrats work TOGETHER. That's how oligarchy works.

Stay tuned...

Response to woo me with science (Reply #6)

 

ChiefJusticeIV

(27 posts)
8. That's the end of the deal
Tue Apr 14, 2015, 11:09 PM
Apr 2015

It's too bad, guys. But we should have seen this coming. The nuclear deal is as good as dead. Congress is Bibi's bastion of support. There is no chance for a deal any longer. Thank you for the effort Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
10. That isn't true. Corker bill doesn't give Congress any new way of killing Iran deal.
Tue Apr 14, 2015, 11:34 PM
Apr 2015

They stripped out the major poison pill--the terrorism requirement.

Stonepounder

(4,033 posts)
11. I'm pissed at Obama.
Tue Apr 14, 2015, 11:38 PM
Apr 2015

The Executive has the responsibility to set foreign policy and to enter into agreements with foreign states. Congress has the responsibility to ratify treaties, but not to set policy. Obama could have simply ignored the bill that Congress is trying to pass that says they have to 'agree to the agreement' with Iran.

It would be interesting to see Congress sue the President in the SCOTUS. First they would have to prove 'standing'. Then SCOTUS would have to ask themselves if they really wanted to emasculate the office of the President and give Congress the right to set foreign policy. They would be happy to see the Rethugs do it, but what happens the next time we have a Rethug President and a Democrat Congress?

If Obama had whispered in McConnell and Boehner's ear that would be what would happen, even those two idiots would have to back down, since the vast majority of Americans want to see a peaceful resolution to the whole Iran mess.

Cosmocat

(14,564 posts)
20. Yes, makes sense to be pissed at the on MFer doing the right thing
Wed Apr 15, 2015, 07:31 AM
Apr 2015

99% of the time versus the 500+ morons on congress, the deranged, hate filled republicans who to a man and women oppose POTUS on EVERYTHING all the time and the spineless, POS democrats who have almost literally left this president out in the wind for the last six years.

makes perfect sense ...

Stonepounder

(4,033 posts)
23. Huh? I think Obama is a great President. If he could run for a 3rd term I'd vote for him again.
Wed Apr 15, 2015, 09:22 AM
Apr 2015

Doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he does or not get pissed when he does something I don't agree with.

Personally, I'd like to see a number of Rethugs in Congress put up in front of a firing squad. I suppose that's one of the reasons he's the President and I'm not.

Cosmocat

(14,564 posts)
24. OK
Wed Apr 15, 2015, 01:51 PM
Apr 2015

All I am saying is in this situation he has the entire republican party working against the right thing and his party has, once again, left him hanging ...

I like you, would have lost it on these morons, including his party, a long time ago.

madville

(7,408 posts)
12. Have said this all along
Wed Apr 15, 2015, 12:12 AM
Apr 2015

Even without the Corker bill the White House knew they would need Congress to permanently lift the US Sanctions on Iran at some point. It gave Congress some leverage plus I believe this gives the White House an out when this deal falls through (and it would have even without any Congressional interference because Iran will never go through with full inspections or exporting their Uranium stockpile).

When it ultimately fails they can point at Congress and blame away even though we all know a meaningful deal was a long shot to begin with.

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
18. This is not a setback, this is a litmus test.
Wed Apr 15, 2015, 04:56 AM
Apr 2015

Pay attention to how your Congressman/Congresswoman acts to this review.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
21. Fuck. Well... Buy stock in defense contractors....
Wed Apr 15, 2015, 07:35 AM
Apr 2015

Looks like Congress isn't satisfied unless we're involved in a major war.

Chuck Schumer is dead to me.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
22. Doesn't really change things substantially.
Wed Apr 15, 2015, 08:59 AM
Apr 2015

The President can still veto any vote against the final agreement and removal of sanctions.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»In setback, Obama concede...