Obama Caves to Senate on Iran Deal

[theDoctorisIn]

That's Awesome, Chief Sitting Couch.

So now all the other countries will just cut their own deals with Iran and leave us out of it.

This is a good thing, how?

What? That's stupid, even for you. Do you imagine other countries will sign bogus deals to lift sanctions and we'll be left behind with our sanctions regime? Or what?

If the P5+1 make a deal with Iran, and we refuse to honor it, are you under the impression that the other 5 countries would just blindly follow us?

Yeah pretty much. Without US support any deal doesnt mean a whole lot.
But those countries wont make a deal. Hell, France was warning us about a deal with Iran. France.

Of course it does.

They don't need our permission to lift their sanctions against Iran.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The French have more political sense than Obama. Says it all.

I wouldn't call it political sense. I'd call it common sense.

"Common sense" is what people say when they have strong opinions about something they don't understand.

 

[Obiwan]

News reports say Kerry argued against it up until 1PM, when the committee finally convinced him to surrender to them too.

 

[NLT]

That's Awesome, Chief Sitting Couch.

So now all the other countries will just cut their own deals with Iran and leave us out of it.

This is a good thing, how?

What? That's stupid, even for you. Do you imagine other countries will sign bogus deals to lift sanctions and we'll be left behind with our sanctions regime? Or what?

If the P5+1 make a deal with Iran, and we refuse to honor it, are you under the impression that the other 5 countries would just blindly follow us?

Quack

 

[theDoctorisIn]

As for the OP, there's no doubt this is a PR loss, from Obama's perspective. But it's likely to have no impact on whether a deal is made.

 

[AmericanFirst]

That's Awesome, Chief Sitting Couch.

So now all the other countries will just cut their own deals with Iran and leave us out of it.

This is a good thing, how?

You can thank obuthole for this mess.

 

[HenryBHough]

The wheels are fast coming off His Imperial Chariot.

 

[martybegan]

The Democrats disagree with you Joe. Case closed. Congress is there for a reason.

Joe doesn't believe in the rule of law, he knows what he wants, and he expects reality to change to match it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

We're not "following" them, we're negotiating alongside them. Any "deal" will be negotiated by all, including us.

I'm sorry, but you were the one who used the term "follow" in this context. So what happens if we stop negotiating "alongside" them? Shouldn't that send a strong message to the other 4+1 nations that Iran shouldn't be trusted at the negotiating table? Haven't they already demonstrated their untrustworthiness to the major world powers by now?

If Congress decided to ignore the negotiations and deal that we took part in, why would that impact the other members of the talks?

Congress is well within its rights to ignore the negotiations. And there was no "we" involved. Just Obama and his subordinate, John Kerry. There is no "I" in "we." Obama had every intention of bypassing Congress and running to the UN.

As for the impact, see the the previous response.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But it's likely to have no impact on whether a deal is made.

Naw, lets not sugarcoat it. This means Congress has reasserted its power under the advice and consent clause.

Congress gets a final say on any deal reached between him and Iran. If there is a deal reached between now and June 30, Congress can't move against it or try to stop it. It appears to me that after June 30, Congress has 30 days to review and/or amend the deal. If there is no deal reached by June 30, that only strengthens Congress' hand as it would prove Obama's incompetence at the negotiating table.

The path to any deal with Iran runs through both houses of Congress.

 

[HenryBHough]

It needs further proof?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

We're not "following" them, we're negotiating alongside them. Any "deal" will be negotiated by all, including us.

I'm sorry, but you were the one who used the term "follow" in this context. So what happens if we stop negotiating "alongside" them? Shouldn't that send a strong message to the other 4+1 nations that Iran shouldn't be trusted at the negotiating table? Haven't they already demonstrated their untrustworthiness to the major world powers by now?

But we're not going to stop negotiating. It's just not going to happen, no matter how much you want us to. We're already at the negotiating table. And no - Iran has not "demonstrated their untrustworthiness" to the major powers.

Let me try to explain the timeline to you. Right now, the P5+1 countries are negotiating with Iran. Congress won't have "a say" until after the negotiators arrive at a deal that appeals to all the parties negotiating.

If Congress decided to ignore the negotiations and deal that we took part in, why would that impact the other members of the talks?

Congress is well within its rights to ignore the negotiations. And there was no "we" involved. Just Obama and his subordinate, John Kerry. There is no "I" in "we."

As for the impact, see the the previous response.

Congress can "ignore" whatever it wants, but as we all learn as young children, ignoring something doesn't make it go away.

As for my use of "we", that's how it works. The President officially represents "us" in foreign policy negotiations. It's in his job description.

 

[NLT]

We're not "following" them, we're negotiating alongside them. Any "deal" will be negotiated by all, including us.

I'm sorry, but you were the one who used the term "follow" in this context. So what happens if we stop negotiating "alongside" them? Shouldn't that send a strong message to the other 4+1 nations that Iran shouldn't be trusted at the negotiating table? Haven't they already demonstrated their untrustworthiness to the major world powers by now?

But we're not going to stop negotiating. It's just not going to happen, no matter how much you want us to. We're already at the negotiating table. And no - Iran has not "demonstrated their untrustworthiness" to the major powers.

Let me try to explain the timeline to you. Right now, the P5+1 countries are negotiating with Iran. Congress won't have "a say" until after the negotiators arrive at a deal that appeals to all the parties negotiating.

If Congress decided to ignore the negotiations and deal that we took part in, why would that impact the other members of the talks?

Congress is well within its rights to ignore the negotiations. And there was no "we" involved. Just Obama and his subordinate, John Kerry. There is no "I" in "we."

As for the impact, see the the previous response.

Congress can "ignore" whatever it wants, but as we all learn as young children, ignoring something doesn't make it go away.

As for my use of "we", that's how it works. The President officially represents "us" in foreign policy negotiations. It's in his job description.

quack quack quack

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But it's likely to have no impact on whether a deal is made.

Naw, lets not sugarcoat it. This means Congress has reasserted its power under the advice and consent clause.

Congress gets a final say on any deal reached between him and Iran. If there is a deal reached between now and June 30, Congress can't move against it or try to stop it. It appears to me that after June 30, Congress has 30 days to review and/or amend the deal. If there is no deal reached by June 30, that only strengthens Congress' hand as it would prove Obama's incompetence at the negotiating table.

The path to any deal with Iran runs through both houses of Congress.

Not quite. If the deal is presented to Congress by July 9th, they will have 30 days to vote up or down on it - they will not be able to amend it. If they vote down, Obama can (and will) veto that down vote. If it is presented to Congress after that date, they'll have 60 days for the vote, with the same effect.

And the bill Congress is about to pass has nothing to do with the "advise and consent clause".

 

[HenryBHough]

Have enough Democrats come to their senses to make it a veto-proof vote?

 

[sarahgop]

i have a feeling in the end the reps will cave. they do that so well.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Have enough Democrats come to their senses to make it a veto-proof vote?

This bill? Yes, which is why Obama is going to sign it.

On the other hand, it's unlikely they'll have enough votes to override the inevitable veto of any rejection of a deal.

 

[blackhawk]

Obama must know or suspect Congress has the votes to override a veto if he were to push this and his veto was overriden that would be one embrassing bitch slap.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Threads Merged.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is a veto proof majority so obumble is forced to obey the law for the first time. The other negotiating nations of China and France have already accused obama of acting as an agent of Tehran so he bollixed up the whole thing from the beginning.