Trusting Iranians...

[RLENT]

On a side note, the House suspended debate on the Iran deal this afternoon due to the continued refusal of the Obama administration to provide all the details of the agreement/treaty, including the side deals between the IAEA and Iran.

Right-wing uprising in House stalls votes on Iran deal

Sounds like a really great way to shore up some more Democratic support for a filibuster on the Iran Deal vote on the Senate side.

Circular firing squad prepare to fire in ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

 

[RLENT]

In May 2003, shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, elements of the Iranian government of Mohammad Khatami made a confidential proposal for a "Grand Bargain" through Swiss diplomatic channels. ...

Pilgrim,

You have my condolences.

I can only imagine the feeling of having your head nearly exploding, with the veins throbbing and that flushed red face ... as you waded through all the exculpatory information in that Wiki article that largely refutes most of your talking points, to pick out the lonely couple of snippets that you came up with ...

Good stuff !

I think some of the cherries here are nearly ripe, if you have the spare time ...

 

[RLENT]

From the linked article:

... The effort seems to be an attempt to extend the fight over the Iran deal beyond the 60-day review limit, which expires on September 17. There is no indication, however, that the White House even has access to confidential deals between Iran and the IAEA, meaning even if the “side deals” were vital to the review process, it’s a problem with the design of the process in the first place.


Rep. Roskam appears to believe that passing a resolution demanding these documents would put the 60-day review process in suspended animation, basically forever since they’re not going to get the documents. Other House leaders warn the more likely result is for the White House to simply consider the September 17 review deadline met, particularly since the Senate isn’t going to vote at all, and implement the deal.


That’s probably going to be the case, indeed, since the White House doesn’t have a lot of alternatives. The P5+1 deal is finalized, and there was never more than a very outside shot Congress would prevent US involvement. The deal is going to be implemented either way internationally and the US really has no excuse not to follow through with its promises.

[URL='http://news.antiwar.com/2015/09/09/gop-revolt-delays-iran-deal-vote/']GOP ‘Revolt’ Delays Iran Deal Vote[/url]

 

[Turtle]

No - you don't "got it". You're starting off by putting words in my mouth, stuff I didn't say. It's not a matter of "hating Muslims", it's a matter of not trusting Iranians; big difference.

No, I really and truly do "got it." I didn't start off by putting words in your mouth, I started off by asking anyone to detail the specific things in the agreement they think make the agreement no good. I made specific note that we don't trust Iranians with or without the deal, so saying Iranians can't be trusted is both a well-worn and hardly an argument against the agreement. I also noted that the arguments against the agreement from conservatives tend to be nothing more than different ways of saying either "I hate Obama" or "I hate Muslims". Because so few people are willing in the course of debate to flatly state "I hate Obama" or "I hate Muslims" as reasons for their positions, they will dance around it, obliquely refer to it, slyly imply it, or try and deflect it euphemistically on things like "trust." You say it's not about "hating Muslims," rather it's about not trusting Iranians, and further state there's a big difference between the two. Yet your use of "mullahocracy" belies that statement. I don't think there is much of a difference at all, not to you, and not to the many conservatives who have made the exact same arguments and statements which you have made here and in the past.

In any case, I asked for specifics in the plan which are no good, and right out of the gate you drop a long paragraph that touts either, the virtual "I hate Muslims" argument, or the well-worn, tired and worthless "I don't trust them" argument (take your pick, it doesn't really matter), neither of which lists a single detail of the agreement that's no good. You sucked me in and got me all excited with " there are several basic points that make this a bad deal," as I was eager to find out what exactly people aren't liking about this agreement. And then you proceeded to rant about terrorism and the destruction of Israel, then bring up trust again, and then plop in a false premise about a deal that allows them to develop nuclear weapons capability and the means to deliver them. WTF are you talking about? None of that is in the agreement. So fine, I get it, you hate Muslims, or Iranian Muslims, or you can't trust them, whatever, and it's so much so that you can't even see past that to address the details of the agreement.

Once again, that's what you said. It's a matter of not trusting Obama and his competence in foreign policy. See above.

No, you said it, too, just not directly, and in a different way. See bold text above.

Actually I have, but the words in the agreement really don't mean much if one of the parties - Iran - isn't trustworthy.

Sorry, I find it incredible that you could make the statements you've made having read and understood the parts of the agreement that deals directly with that you say the agreement does. Whether they are trustworthy or not, whether the words in the agreement mean anything or not, they do not say what you claim they say. They just don't. And there's no way you can say they do if you've read them.

The entire counter-argument for those in favor of this agreement/treaty is based on the premise that Iran can be trusted to live up to their end of the bargain. Surely you're not that naive.

No, I'm not that naive. I'm also not so deeply entrenched in my preset beliefs that I actually believe something as ridiculous as those making the argument in support of the agreement is based on the premise that Iran can be trusted. Where do you come up with this stuff? Even the people involved in making the agreement flatly state they don't trust Iran to live up to their end of the agreement and they assume Iran will try to skirt whatever they think they can get away with. After two years of testing Iran in negotiations, the international community does not believe that ramping up sanctions will persuade Iran to eradicate all traces of its hard won civil nuclear program, sever its ties to its armed proxies in the region, or live up to their end of the bargain in the agreement. That's why they put in the restrictions and the monitoring and the safeguards into the agreement. You may not trust Iran, no one else does, either, but there's no reason for you to distrust the entire international community To scuttle the deal and the US to go it alone and either let Iran continue to do in secret what we all know they're doing, or to think we can just obliterate Iran and everything will be OK, is an insanely dangerous fantasy that flies in the face of economic and diplomatic reality.

The fact is that if Russia or China decide to start clandestinely shipping arms or missiles to Iran tomorrow, the US under Obama would do nothing about it except go whining to the UN Security Council to enforce the deal. Who among that group will act as enforcer if Iran decides to get weaponry from not only Russia or China, but perhaps N. Korea or Pakistan? Maybe Chile or Lithuania will send troops.

That's a fear not a fact. Regardless, Obama wouldn't have to go to the UN Security Council to enforce the deal. You'd know that if you read the agreement. If Iran violates the agreement any one of the P5+1 can unilaterally invoke a certain provision (I'll leave you to read the agreement or Googlehunt for it) that would cause all of the current sanctions to immediately be put in place. As for who would enforce it, who enforces things now when Russia or China clandestinely ships arms to Iran?

Does anyone seriously think Iran will ask permission from the UN or anyone else before conducting weapons deals after they get their money back? It's amazing how many people have such short memories of previous deals and treaties with the UN and the IAEA that Iran has proposed, agreed to and then reneged on, not to mention the "freeze" on nuclear development they supposedly implemented that never happened.

How many different ways are you going to try to convince me that you don't trust Iran and that you're afraid of them. I believe you, I really, really believe you. But more to the point, again, Iran isn't going to just get all their money back in one whack. It gets unfrozen little by little as the dismantle things, and even at that most of it will need to stay right where it is so they can conduct the international trade they need. Additionally, they're banned from importing conventional weapons for 5 years and advanced weaponry for 8, so, no, they they aren't going to ask permission before conducting weapons deals.

You can't be serious.

Oh, but I am. There's certainly a possibility of a Middle East arms race, but it's by no means a certainty, or even a likelihood.

Wrong. It doesn't matter if my argument doesn't fit your template, and these lame put-downs of websites or sources you don't happen to agree with only confirms differences of opinions. My argument happens to be in sync with theirs - that Iran can't be trusted based on their past behavior - which is established fact. Hating somebody has nothing to do with it.

Well, it does matter if your argument doesn't fit my template, because I asked for specific things in the agreement that are no good, and you responded instead with... broken-record political agenda that I've heard from you and the other conservative "arguments" against the agreement. I already I said I've got that information already from the other conservative arguments that I've read, I really don't need it repeated as if repeating it will somehow make it a valid argument. I'm asking for specifics about what makes the agreement a joke, what is in the agreement that doesn't work, and you got nothing. It's clear, crystal clear, that your arguments are in sync with the lame websites you source, as it's equally clear that those website is where you get the bulk of your information.

The article you quoted from Breitbart that finally gave the specifics of the plan that were not good were nothing more than opinion, that used a twisted and misleading truth to present them. And you proudly proclaim that your opinion is in sync with that. You presented 7 "Devastating Facts" about the agreement that were supposed to show why the agreement was bad, I was able to debunk them without any effort (OK, I didn't refute the 7th one, because it's so lame and logically fallacious that it doesn't even deserve a response), and yet if they were in fact truly "devastating facts" about the agreement, you should have been able to steadfastly defend them. Yet nothing.

Tell me again about how US nuclear inspectors are "banned" by the agreement from inspecting Iran's nuclear sites. Or at the least tell me that it's not misleading spin and it's the unfettered truth. Or, how about the one of particular interest to you, #6, which allows Russia and China to ship weapons (ballistic missiles) to Iran. I like that one. Tell me more about that one. No matter how hardline you want to be, no matter how much you want to keep sanctions in place forever or even ramp them up to just squeeze the life out of Iran, China, Russia and a whole laundry list of other countries aren't going to keep sanctions in place just because the GOP wants them to.

On my own side note, more than 90 UN countries officially have endorsed the agreement, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt and Lithuania. You know who hasn't endorsed it? A handful of Iran wacko hardliners, Israel, and the GOP. That should tell you something. If not, please use whatever Fox News cable ratings logical fallacy to make of it whatever you like.

This agreement is approved by virtually the entire world, and it's going to happen with or without the direct involvement of the United States. If Congress votes to disapprove, it won't matter, except that it will make it all but impossible for the US to act unilaterally or forcefully within the international community if and when Iran reneges on any part of the deal. The UN will be calling the shots. If Congress approves, the US will be calling the shots. Who would you rather have calling the shots?

 

[RLENT]

This agreement is approved by virtually the entire world, and it's going to happen with or without the direct involvement of the United States. If Congress votes to disapprove, it won't matter, except that it will make it all but impossible for the US to act unilaterally or forcefully within the international community if and when Iran reneges on any part of the deal. ...

An adjacent aspect to that is "What will it do to the reputation of United States Government, in the eyes of the world, in terms of being considered a reliable party in negotiated agreements, who keeps its word once given ?"

Now, that may not be of much concern to those who suffer from the delusion that the US can impose it's will on anyone it wants, friend or foe alike ... but not everyone suffers from such delusions.

Wanna talk about truly creating a lack of respect for your country within the international community ?

And the GOP - as well as a few Dems - will get to own that one.

 

[LDB]

Pelosi says we must give the Iranians nuke capability first, then we can find out if they'll use it.

 

[TDave]

Wouldn't it be wiser to approve the agreement ,especially since the rest of the world will agree to it anyways, wouldn't we be in a better position to act militarily if the Iranians violate it?

 

[RLENT]

C-SPAN covered the Tea Party Patriots Stop Iran Deal rally and broadcast it in it's entirety late last night.

I watched most of it and it was quite entertaining. The crowd that showed up looked to be no more than 300 - 400, tops ... not terribly impressive for an organization which claims over 2200 local chapters and over 130,000 members.

As expected, the usual collection of wing-nuts were trotted out to speak against the deal. The level of demagoguery, misinformation, and outright lies was actually mind numbing.

The list included Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert (R - Asparagus ... always a treat), Rep. Dave Perdue (GA), former Rep. and failed Presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann, failed VP candidate Sarah Palin, talk show hosts Mark Levin and Glenn Beck, and many others with Trump and Senator Cruz as the headliners apparently ...

They were time-limited to two minutes apiece, with the organizers turning up the volume of the background music to cut them off. Glenn Beck ... who was on a tear reminiscent of a tent revival preacher in the throes of religiously-inspired orgasm, became incensed that anyone would act to cut him off and threatened to stop talking and walk off the stage and leave ... which I think was probably the general idea. Nevertheless, he got his way because: tantrum ...

Perhaps the most interesting though was Michelle Bachmann ... who essentially advocated (immediate ?) military action to attack any and all of Iran's nuclear site and wipe them out, while asserting that there would be no civilian collateral damage from such attacks.

Then in an all-out effort to share her particular brand of insanity, she went all Godwin and declared that the situation was pretty much the same as the Nazis and their concentration/death camps in WWII ... and that we now needed to do what we should have done there: bomb the "death" camps .... and wipe them out.

She did not offer any explanation or insight as to how she figured any then-present captives in said camps might have fared in such an action ...

Perhaps the true face of the right-wing extremists (aka the modern GOP "base"), not possessed of the good sense of knowing when to keep her hate hole shut.

There were many hails to Jeebus - the false god of many (most ?) present-day, bloodthirsty 'Murrican (fake) Christianists - and a good time was apparently had by all.

 

[RLENT]

Sarah Palin Has Learned To Word Salad In Russian, Y’all

 

[RLENT]

Louie Gohmert Says He’ll Quit Congress Over Iran Deal, Bye Dumb***!

 

[RLENT]

Not being satisfied with only one more failure (losing on passing a resolution of disapproval), the circular firing squad considers doubling down and going for the gold by getting their heads handed to them in court:

House conservatives may end up in court to kill Iran deal

 

[RLENT]

The resolution of disapproval on the Iran deal has just been killed/blocked in the Senate.

McConnell called for a vote to invoke cloture (a method for shutting off debate and moving to a vote on the pending disapproval resolution) and it failed with a vote of 58 (for) to 42 (against)

60 votes are required to invoke cloture.

The resolution has been effectively filibustered.

 

[RLENT]

Clueless right-wing moron, probably doesn't "hate the Mooslims" either:

Lindsey Graham Blames Iran For 9/11 Attacks

 

[skyraider]

Long Island Teas for all who want them, killed your pain..

 

[muttly]

Have to laugh at those who chastised Bush for not adhering to the constitution, but give Obama a free pass in spitting on it daily. HYPOCRITES

.
Spitting on the Constitution to pass the Iran deal
It’s rare for people to celebrate getting 41 percent of anything. If you score 41 percent on a test, you get an F. If you win 41 percent of the vote in a two-person race, you lose. If your tax rate is 41 percent, you’re likely to feel ripped off.

In the matter of his Iran deal, President Obama and his team have spent two months working relentlessly to secure 41 percent — and now they’re claiming an enormous victory even though by any other standards what they’ve achieved is nothing but a feat of unconstitutional trickery.

Spitting on the Constitution to pass the Iran deal

 

[muttly]

A statement from rep. Justin Amash:
[ Emphasis added]

.
Justin Amash
This week, the House will hold votes related to the nuclear agreement with Iran. I have read the publicly available portions of the agreement in full. Consistent with my oath to support and defend the Constitution, I must oppose this nuclear deal.

There are at least two major constitutional defects with the nuclear deal.

First, President Barack Obama refuses to recognize the agreement as a treaty, subject to approval under the Constitution’s Treaty Clause (Art. II, Sec. 2, Cl. 2). Under the Treaty Clause, the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” To avoid this higher threshold for approval, the Obama administration asserts that the nuclear deal is merely an “executive agreement” that binds only this president.

Even if we accept this dubious claim, there is a second constitutional defect that compels me to reject the nuclear deal. Under the Take Care Clause (Art. II, Sec. 3, Cl. 5), the president must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” As I discuss below, the president clearly fails to fulfill this obligation.

In May, both houses of Congress passed, and the president signed into law, H.R. 1191, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (Review Act). The Review Act provides a process for congressional oversight of any nuclear deal, so that Congress can determine whether the nuclear-related sanctions Congress has imposed on Iran should be lifted. I have supported sanctions on Iran directed at preventing the country from obtaining or using a nuclear weapon (in contrast to sanctions targeting non-nuclear-related civilian activities), and it’s likely that negotiations would not have taken place had those sanctions not been enacted.

The Review Act requires the president to submit to Congress the text of any nuclear deal reached with Iran. Submission of the nuclear deal triggers a period of review for Congress to analyze the agreement—a period during which the president is prohibited from taking any actions to lift statutory sanctions.

The precise language of the Review Act recognizes that a comprehensive nuclear deal includes many separate components, and that for members of Congress to accurately assess the merits of the agreement, Congress must have access to all portions of the agreement. Thus, the Review Act carefully defines "agreement" to include "annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements."

We now know that there are at least two side agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that are integral to the nuclear deal but nevertheless will not be shared with Congress. These side agreements cover how a primary Iranian military site will be inspected for nuclear activity and how Iran will resolve outstanding issues on possible military dimensions of its nuclear program. Remarkably, it was only through a chance meeting between two members of Congress and the IAEA that the existence of these secret agreements came to light. The Obama administration apparently preferred to keep Congress in the dark, and even now the administration refuses to provide the side agreements to Congress. Indeed, Secretary of State John Kerry claims that even the president’s negotiating team doesn't have access to these side agreements.

The Obama administration's secrecy surrounding these side agreements casts serious doubts on its other claims about the nuclear deal, and it makes clear that the president has not been working with Congress in good faith. The president signed the Review Act into law knowing full well that it requires him to provide all side agreements to Congress. The administration should not have negotiated a final nuclear deal that allows portions of the agreement to be withheld from Congress, because the president knows that his agreeing to such a nuclear deal violates U.S. law and his duty under the Constitution’s Take Care Clause.

This violation of law with respect to the submission of the agreement has further implications under the Review Act. The 30- to 60-day congressional review period for the nuclear deal isn’t triggered until the president submits the *entire* agreement to Congress. If the nuclear deal hasn't been submitted in full—because side agreements remain hidden—then the review period hasn't even begun.

But the existence of secret agreements with the IAEA has deeper implications still. The available text of the nuclear deal states that nuclear, missile, and arms restrictions on Iran are to be lifted after certain periods of time (between five and ten years depending on the source and type) "or when the IAEA has reached the Broader Conclusion that all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities, whichever is earlier." In other words, at the discretion of the IAEA, these restrictions may be lifted significantly earlier than the milestone dates specified in the agreement, and the exact method by which the IAEA will reach this conclusion can't be known to Congress or even the Obama administration, because the side agreements remain secret.

Finally, even if we set aside the constitutional defects and related consequences discussed above, it is unconscionable that the Obama administration would negotiate a final agreement that does not secure the release of the three American hostages held in Iran—Saeed Abedini, Amir Hekmati, and Jason Rezaian—or information on the whereabouts of a former FBI agent abducted in Iran, Robert Levinson. The nuclear deal provides Iran access to billions of dollars in unfrozen assets and the almost immediate removal of major U.S. and international economic sanctions on Iran's financial and energy sectors, followed by the termination of most nuclear-related sanctions on Iran in just a few years. If Iran is unwilling to return American hostages to their families as part of this agreement, then we cannot trust that Iran will act in good faith as sanctions are lifted.

I support peaceful negotiations to prevent Iran from obtaining or using a nuclear weapon, and I kept an open mind about this agreement as it was being negotiated. It’s regrettable that the president has acted disingenuously in his interactions with Congress and continues to treat the Constitution with contempt. Despite the Obama administration's false rhetoric, the choice here is not between this nuclear deal and war. A better agreement that complies with the Constitution and secures long-lasting peace is possible.

The 2 Major Constitutional Defects With Iran Deal | RealClearPolitics

 

[muttly]

Alan Dershowitz's article articulates the constitutional flaws of this deal as well.

.
Article II, section two of the Constitution states that the president “shall have the power, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur…” Although the Constitution did not provide a clear description of the types of international agreements the Framers viewed as “treaties,” there is evidence that they included significant and long-term commitments with foreign countries. Some early versions of the Constitution allocated treaty-making powers solely to the Senate, but Alexander Hamilton argued that “joint possession of the power in question, by the President and Senate, would afford greater prospect of security, than the separate possession of that by either of them.” He thought it unwise to give a single person all the power to shape the country’s relationship to the rest of the world. He believed that the public is much better protected from abuse under the Constitution than it was under the Articles of Confederation, which rested the power solely in the hands of Congress.

In Federalist Paper 69, Hamilton specifically contrasted the treaty-making power of the British sovereign, with the Constitution that afforded the executive treaty making authority only with the advice and consent of the Senate.

When the Constitution was adopted, the leading authority in the world on such issues was Emerich de Vattel who was the author of the most influential treatise on international law. Benjamin Franklin noted that his treatise was “continually in the hands of the members of our congress now sitting.” Vattel defined a treaty as an agreement made “for perpetuity or for a considerable period of time” as distinguished from “having temporary matters for their object.”

In the two and a quarter centuries since the ratification of the Constitution, the power of the executive has expanded considerably, but the Framers would be shocked by the current situation in which the president alone gets to make an important and enduring international agreement that can be overridden only by two thirds plus one of both the senate and the house. At the very least, this important and enduring deal should have required a majority vote of Congress. Although the Constitution does not provide for such a hybrid agreement, in practice there have been numerous “executive-congressional” agreements that have been negotiated by the president and agreed to by a majority vote of Congress. Basic principles of democracy as well as our constitutional system of checks and balances would seem to require more than a presidential decision supported by one third of both the house and senate.

While a majority of the House and the Senate voted for this exceptional set of rules for approving the Iran agreement, it was only to assure themselves that they would have any say at all in the matter. President Obama's position was that he could make the "executive" agreement without Congressional approval.

Mr. Obama, your Iran deal will fall apart: Alan Dershowitz

 

[RLENT]

Barf,

Please enlighten us - via your vast Constitutional expertise and wisdom - exactly whose prerogative it is, to decide whether to enter into an agreement in the realm of foreign policy, either as an executive agreement ... or as a treaty and submit it to Congress for approval/ratification ?

Keeping in mind of course that it is a matter of settled law, that the Executive has plenary power in the realm of foreign policy and international relations.

Feel free to cite any case law to support your position (notwithstanding irrelevant cases offered in an attempt to obfuscate the issue from The Dersh ... lol ...)

 

[RLENT]

Barf,

Can you also tell us why Gibbons v. Ogden - the case cited by The Dersh - is irrelevant in this instance ?

Or even the converse: Why it would be relevant ?

To do this, you will actually have to have some real understanding of what you are talking about ... and not just be in a Google-frenzy to come up with articles that say: because ... Constitution !

FYI: this is a test ... and you will receive a grade (probably on a Pass/Fail basis)

 

[muttly]

Some people just happen to want a Dictator for a President, running off to the U.N. and avoiding their own government bodies. It is what it is. For those people who do, don't ever again complain if a future President doesn't follow the constitution. Because I'll know they're a fraud. They are more of a United Nations kind of person and not about the U.S Constitution.