Democrat Menendez Announces Opposition to Iran Nuclear Deal
Source: Associated Press
SOUTH ORANGE, N.J. — Aug 18, 2015, 2:45 PM ET
By DAVID PORTER Associated Press
Associated Press
New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez announced on Tuesday his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, the second Democratic senator to go against President Barack Obama, who is heavily lobbying for a congressional endorsement of the international accord.
Under the agreement, which the U.S. and other world powers negotiated with Tehran, Iran would curb its nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in relief from economic sanctions, which have been choking its economy.
Menendez, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, joins Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York in rejecting the deal.
Menendez said his opposition is not an issue of whether he supports or opposes Obama, who has pledged to veto a congressional resolution of disapproval. He said he is opposed because Iran has violated various U.N. Security Council resolutions while advancing its nuclear program and that the agreement doesn't require Iran to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure.
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/democrat-menendez-announces-opposition-iran-nuclear-deal-33159215
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
captainarizona
(363 posts)Bob menendez has really high legal bills from his crooked dealings as a new jersey politician that he needs rich anti iran deal supporters to pay for.
forest444
(5,902 posts)Our friend Señor Menéndez is owned by vulture fundie (and GOP megadonor) Paul Singer, whose Cayman Islands-based laundry NML is believed to hold the bribery proceeds of more than a few lawmakers as well as laundering money for Israel.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)To quote John Ehrlichmann of Watergate fame, Let him hang there, twisting slowly, slowly in the wind.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)in any event I expected this from him
Robbins
(5,066 posts)what was he offered to oppose deal?
he's not under corruption charges for nothing.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)That you don't.
Like it's not a very good deal.
- Cue the chorus of DUers who will accuse him of being a traitor, a sell out, a war monger, or anti Obama. -
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)since a good deal is not happening, at least it's a deal that's better than no deal.
Daniel537
(1,560 posts)Indydem
(2,642 posts)Except for voting against the Iraq war.
Totally towing that Neocon FP line.
Daniel537
(1,560 posts)You know, pesky things like supporting airstrikes to overthrow Assad, his crazed ramblings in support of the blockade against Cuba, and now calling for more sanctions on Iran. Totally moderate, no doubt.
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)He is a piece of shit and I'm embarrassed to even say he's my Senator from NJ.He has been a thorn in President Obama's back since he's been President.
The people who know of the deal generally are in favor of it.
The people against it are generally not aware of any of the details and when pressed for how to improve it they say stupid things like:
"I'd make it a deal where Iran doesn't get the bomb."
Seriously, this guy is an idiot and needs to be primaried out of office.
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)Or do you recommend the ostrich position?
In composing your answer, understand that it will be incomplete if it does not address the points below:
He does not explain how his strategy would be accomplished without the support of Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany, the other parties to the deal besides the United States and Iran. He also does not address the consequences if Washington fails to honor its commitment to a multilateral agreement negotiated over 18 months.
Rejection of the agreement would severely undermine the U.S. role as a leader and reliable partner around the globe. If Washington walks away from this hard-fought multilateral agreement, its dependability would likely be doubted for decades.
Rejection would also destroy the effective coalition that brought Iran to the negotiating table. China and Russia would likely resume trade with Iran. U.S. allies, unsettled by Washington’s behavior, would move their own separate ways.
The other five negotiators would likely have little stomach for going back to Iran “for a better deal.” The ambassadors of the five countries recently assured members of Congress that their governments would not return to the negotiating table should Washington reject the agreement.
...Tehran would be the winner of this U.S. rejection because it would achieve its major objective: the lifting of most sanctions without being required to accept constraints on its nuclear program. Iran could also claim to be a victim of American perfidy and try to convince other nations to break with U.S. leadership and with the entire international sanctions regime.
Meanwhile, Israel would be the loser, as Iran would resume its nuclear program without inspections and would garner support from other nations around the world. Ninety countries, including Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, have already supported the deal. Though Israel opposes it, many key Israelis do not, including retired senior generals and a former Mossad leader.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/13/why-we-disagree-with-chuck-schumer-on-the-iran-deal/
Indydem
(2,642 posts)"without the support of Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany"
You make an assumption that the other nations would have stood apart from the United States.
That is the basic, fundamental assumption that is wrong and foolish about this whole thing.
For all you know (and Schumer may know) the United States position was "we need a deal so let's get a deal."
Taking a strong position that the sanctions were not going to be removed from the very beginning may have been more effective. If China and Russia wanted to resume trade against the positions of the rest of the civilized world, secondary sanctions could have been enacted against them.
It wasn't even tried.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Do you have a poster of John Bolton in your living room?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)Diplomats from the five countries that negotiated the Iran nuclear agreement with the United States have launched a coordinated lobbying effort on Capitol Hill, with some warning lawmakers that if Congress scuttles the accord, there may be no chance of resuming talks to get a better deal.
“The option of going back to negotiations is close to zero,” Philipp Ackermann, the deputy ambassador of the German Embassy, said in a briefing Thursday with reporters.
Ackermann and the deputy chiefs of mission from the other nations involved in negotiating the Iran deal briefed 25 Democratic senators on Tuesday, an unusual session in which diplomats from Britain, Germany and France were aligned with counterparts from Russia and China.
...
British Ambassador Peter Westmacott said he has met with at least three dozen members of Congress to discuss the deal, either by himself or within his colleagues from the P5+1.
“Since the deal was reached, I have been on the Hill and on the telephone talking to members of both houses,” he said. “We believe that it is a good, verifiable deal and the best way of stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. All the alternatives are worse.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/ambassadors-press-case-for-iran-nuclear-deal-in-congress/2015/08/06/9f46cae8-3c70-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
PM David Cameron defends Iran nuclear deal on 'Meet The Press'
French, Iranian Leaders Agree To Cooperate After Nuclear Deal
and so on. The world outliers on this are the US Republicans, the Iranian hardliners, and the Israeli government (just their government, because:
The recent deal – assuming it’s approved by US and Iranian legislators – will accomplish more than the Israeli military would have been able to. Rather than two years, Tehran’s nuclear development will be stalled for a decade or more, and a new front with Iran has been taken off the table. This is probably the reason most IDF generals are uncharacteristically reticent about the agreement: they know it is advantageous but are afraid of upsetting the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and his supporters in the United States.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2015/08/17/neve-gordon/more-effective-than-airstrikes/
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)your warmongering feel any less awful.
But, no, the educated and informed take on this deal is that we should approve it.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Indydem
(2,642 posts)No other options exist.
The only alternative to this is war.
Right.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Indydem
(2,642 posts)I forgot. Israel would rather fight a war by proxy than starve and sanction the mullahs out of power.
Right.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)If we sign a peace deal, we can't fight for them in Iran
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Security" is now pimping the Neocons' propaganda.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=12857
Every terrible policy of the bush administration (as well as a few others above and beyond his bullshit) has been conducted by this president as well.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2030437
Indydem
(2,642 posts)I have answered these accusations from you before.
It must be very fufilling for you to keep a spreadsheet on those who may commit a thought crime by not agreeing with you. Each user categorized and labeled with convenient posts to keep attacking with - no matter how many times they walk you through explanations.
FACT: The president had no more authority to
bomb Libya into the Stone Age than bush had to
invade Iraq. If you have any consistency at all, then you will have to admit that the things that have happened under Obama are nearly as bad as what happened under Bush. We are still in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now we have advisors in Syria. Obama is better, by far, but as someone who thinks war was not a solution in ANY of these cases, I don't hold the President in very high regards when it comes to these things.
FACT: Chained CPI would have been disastrous to SS. The president didn't give it away in a grand bargain because people like me stood up and spoke out.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)No I will not admit that anything Obama has done are anywhere near as bad as the Iraq catastrophe, which lead to the biggest middle east problem--ISIS--of Obama's presidency.
And here you are taking up with Ted Cruz and Joe Lieberman and the PNAC trying to take us down the path of war with Iran, based on simple-minded rejection of the Iran nuclear deal without any content other than "it sucks"
Indydem
(2,642 posts)I want iron clad sanctions until Iran stops their quest for a nuclear weapon.
I do not want a war. Why would I say "Obama is bad for taking us into more wars" and then advocate war with Iran????
That's just ridiculous.
But I guess I shouldn't expect anything else from you.
There is absolutely no evidence that the only two choices are this shit sandwich deal and a war. That is such an egregious framing of the issue. There are a spectrum of solutions between "war" and "useless deal."
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)You've committing the same logical fallacies, using the same dumbed-down, substance-free rhetoric.
"useless deal."
Says you and the Republican party.
You have presented ZERO logical arguments, just boilerplate Republican talking points that would embarrass Ted Cruz and Donald Trump in their vapidity.
You have nothing intelligent to say about the deal, and the stupid things you say about it are wholly derivative from the most simpl-minded rantings of the warmongering rightwingers.
Of course, the reality is that you are an IDF apologist who snickers when Arab kids get killed and openly excuses racism towards Africans.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025311492#post5
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113411169#post2
So, yes, it's perfectly logical that someone such as yourself who has never met an Israeli killing of Arabs he didn't like would embrace this deal. A war against Iran, killing a bunch of Iranians, is just what folks of your ideological bent are angling for.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)With the assistance of our western allies we COULD have gotten a stronger deal.
There was a deal struck for a deals sake.
The Iranians had absolutely nothing to bargain with, and yet they get the bomb in 10 years? What kind of agreement is THAT??
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)combined with bullshit claims.
The US was negotiating with France, and Germany, and the UK. China and Russia were sitting at the other end of the table.
We are not all powerful.
There is no factual basis for claiming there was a significantly better deal to be had. Just post hoc wishful thinking.
Substance-free Republican talking point speculating that Obama and Kerry have been lying about their motives.
Iran does not "get the bomb in 10 years." That's another brain dead Republican falsehood. It's a flat-out lie. You should really stop getting your information about this from Ted Cruz and Michelle Bachmann.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)How does this guy think this helps him or anyone else?
NJCher
(35,684 posts)who is paying him off in favors or whatever.
I have a colleague at the campus today. She writes:
Oh, right now, Sen. Menendez is speaking in Jubilee Auditorium. All day, many sheriff’s vehicles are parked there. Dogs sniffed out the place, and Ch 7, Eyewitness News van is also in front of the building. Maybe he’s speaking before he has to appear in court!
I write back:
We have so many of them—Christie better hurry up and be president before he has to go!
Cher
Daniel537
(1,560 posts)and he's still pissed at President Obama for starting to normalize relations with Cuba. His vote was never in question. His freedom, however, still is.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)of democrats, small, small 'd' in 'supporting' their party leader. They are worse snakes than the RW. These type of democrats? They always say they like Obama, but..........snakes in the grass POS. period......
menendaz, it figures....
atreides1
(16,079 posts)Menendez is opposed to this deal because Iran has violated various U.N. Security Council resolutions while advancing its nuclear program and that the agreement doesn't require Iran to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure!
Israel isn't exactly innocent either!
http://www.israellawresourcecenter.org/internationallaw/studyguides/sgil3i.htm
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/01/27/rogue-state-israeli-violations-of-u-n-security-council-resolutions/
24601
(3,962 posts)vowing to wipe Iran off the map.
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)Stop politicking and judging the weight of lobbyist money, and just vote for the deal because you care about the future of the country and the world.
NYCButterfinger
(755 posts)I think Menendez got the money from AIPAC. He needs to resign. He won't win in 2018 unless the NJ voters don't care anymore. Frank Pallone, Donald Payne, Jr., Dick Codey can be better alternatives to Menendez in 2018.
Truprogressive85
(900 posts)So my question to Schumer and Menedez what is the alternative to this deal ?
Sanctions - Impact the people of Iran and make hardliners happy. The hardliners will push for advancement of nukes , while Iranian people suffer
War - are these two senator willing to send their family members to fight in Tehran ? Iran is not Iraq , who is going to pay for the war ? dont we already have a crisis elsewhere and on the homefront why create a one
MisterP
(23,730 posts)
BumRushDaShow
(129,068 posts)so this is part of the payback.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Menendez apparently can't read or is just willfully ignorant.
Or a bought and paid for stooge of the MIC.
So far we have two that are stabbing Obama in the back.