Obama needs only 3 of 11 Dem Senate Fence Sitters to stop GOP Bill to kill Iran Deal

[NotfooledbyW]

The White House right now has 31 backers and likely backers of the Iran Deal and needs 34 to stop the GOP and Schumer's hopes of passing a disapproval of the deal which would then be vetoed by the President. Obama will not need a veto if he can get three of the eleven undecided Dems to back the deal.


What does anyone think the odds are that Obama can get three of these a Senators to stand by their President and give peace a chance?

.
ON THE FENCE, BUT BEING LOBBIED HEAVILY (11)

Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) @SenBlumenthal
Blumenthal was an original co-sponsor of the two consecutive efforts to pass additional sanctions in the midst of negotiations. However, his July 14 reaction to the deal was neutral: "I welcome the announcement of an agreement with Iran after a long and difficult diplomatic road,” he said. "While our common hope may be that diplomacy has succeeded in barring an Iranian path to nuclear weapons capability, Congress must apply exacting standards and strict scrutiny, especially given Iran’s history of deceit and international law violations."

Cory Booker (N.J.) @corybooker
Booker has yet to issue a statement and is currently juggling his loyalty to Obama and his ideological support of peace and diplomacy with pressure from pro-Israel lobbying groups, who gave Booker significant backing during the last election cycle. Earlier this year, Booker heeded the president’s call to resist voting for new sanctions.

The Rev. Al Sharpton, who is close to Booker, admonished the senator on Twitter last week, suggesting it was hypocritical to quote Tupac saying "They have money for war but can't feed the poor" while also casting a vote that could lead to war


Maria Cantwell (Wash.) @SenatorCantwell
“It’s a really busy time around here and people are trying to do other things,” Cantwell toldPolitico shortly before the August recess. “And so if you don’t have to decide in the next two days, then people will take their time.” Cantwell has given no other public indication of how she’ll vote.

Chris Coons (Del.) @ChrisCoons
Coons is a close ally of the Obama administration. When lawmakers were considering legislation to give Congress a vote on the eventual Iran deal, Coons, along with Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), played an instrumental role in modifying the bill into something that was amenable to the White House. However, he has also supported controversial sanctions legislation in the past.

Before leaving for recess, Coons said he had some concerns about the IAEA’s ability to conduct a meaningful investigation into whether Iran sought nuclear weapons in the past.

Joe Donnelly (Ind.) @SenDonnelly
Donnelly has been one of the most tight-lipped senators about the issue, but supported the efforts to sanction Iran in the midst of talks.

Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) @SenatorHeitkamp
Heitkamp was one of the original co-sponsors of the bill that provided Congress with the opportunity to vote on the Iran deal -- which, in its original version, faced a veto threat from Obama. Although Heitkamp stayed quiet after the initial announcement of the deal, she has since posted the entire text of the agreement on Medium and encouraged her constituents to read up.

She recently advocated lifting the export ban on U.S. oil, arguing that if Iran’s oil industry received sanctions relief, U.S. oil exports should be allowed to flow freely -- an indication she thinks the nuclear deal is likely to go into effect.

Heitkamp is likely to find herself under pressure from her sizable progressive women's donor network. Her supporters was disappointed by her vote against background check legislation, but cheered when she opposed Larry Summers' bid for chairman of the Federal Reserve. Many of those donors are pushing for approval of the Iran deal.

Gary Peters (Mich.) @Peters4Michigan
Peters has not yet issued a statement on the Iran deal, but was a co-sponsor on the most recent sanctions legislation. As the lone freshman Democrat, Peters is unlikely to make waves by breaking with a president of his party on the cornerstone of the administration's foreign policy agenda.

Harry Reid (Nev.) @SenatorReid
Although the retiring Senate Minority Leader has not come out publicly in favor of the nuclear accord yet, he has tended to heed the Obama administration’s requests to give diplomacy a chance. As majority leader in the last Congress, Reid blocked attempts to vote on new sanctions. More recently, he opposed the timing of the vote on the bill that gave Congress a vote on the deal, again citing concerns that it would hinder negotiations.

Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) @SenStabenow
Stabenow has been noticeably quiet on the Iran deal. She has not issued a statement and her public comments have been cryptic while also suggesting she is open to the accord. “We have to look at what the alternatives are and really be very thoughtful because it is incredibly serious for the United States and for Israel and for the world. ... It’s a very difficult issue,” she told The Detroit News last month.

Stabenow is the vice chairwoman of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee and close with Schumer, who has publicly opposed the deal. She recently defended Schumer against the administration's criticism of his decision, saying, “I think it’s very unfortunate to see the comments coming from people connected with the White House."

Mark Warner (Va.) @MarkWarner
Warner has not yet indicated which way he’ll vote, but recently pushed back on critics who accused the Obama administration of rushing into a bad deal to cement the president’s legacy. “I find it remarkable that some members seem to impugn that you are not there trying to do the best deal possible for the United States of America and for long-term prospects of stability in the region,” he said to Sherman, the lead U.S. negotiator, during a recent Senate Banking Committee hearing.

“I’ve got more due diligence to do,” he said at the time about his position on the deal.

Ron Wyden (Ore.) @RonWyden
“I said all along I was skeptical that Iran’s leaders would agree to dismantle their nuclear weapons program and I have questions about whether this agreement accomplishes that, particularly in light of Iran’s history on this issue," Wyden said on July 14. "However, I will use my seat on the Senate Intelligence Committee to thoroughly review the details."

Wyden, who is Jewish, is up for re-election in 2016 and has been a top recipient of funding from pro-Israel groups, the most powerful of which oppose the Iran deal. However, Wyden abided by the Obama administration’s requests to hold

Here Are The Wobbly Democrats Who Could Make Or Break The Iran Deal


I say Obama gets at least seven of them and we all get to see another GOP fail. No need to go down the veto path at all.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Why are you so eager to see Iran obtain nukes?

 

[jwoodie]

The Dems may filibuster in order to avoid a veto and override vote. It may be time for the Reps to take off the gloves and go nuclear.

 

[Pete7469]

Any political whore that signs on to support obozo's insipid deal should be vaporized in the eventual mushroom cloud.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SIL 12057050

Why are you so eager to see Iran obtain nukes?

The deal makes it less likely that Iran will move from peaceful nuclear energy use to actually making a bomb.

You are with the hardliners in Iran that oppose the deal just like you and they would be the ones most desiring of building a nuclear bomb. The eagerness is with you. A deaf dumb and blind Bush supporter who started his time as President when Iran had zero centrifuges and left office when Iran was spinning 12,000 centrifuges.

This deal reduces the grade and number of centrifuges spinning in Iran and moves the breakout time to produce weapons grade material from 2 months to a year.

That's why 29 retired U.S. Admirals and Generals agree with me and not with you.

 

[AceRothstein]

Why are you so eager to see Iran obtain nukes?

Why do you love licking assholes so much?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Pete 12057130

Any political whore that signs on to support obozo's insipid deal should be vaporized in the eventual mushroom cloud.

Why? How do you know for any kind of fact that there will be an eventual mushroom cloud.

Like 29 U.S. Generals and Admirals have quite easily figured out, if Iran breaks the deal it will be much more possible to have international backing to bomb the hell out of all their facilities in order to stop them from building a bomb than it would be if diplomatic means right now is not given a chance.

The bombing Iran option is best served by first finding out if Iran intends to comply with the deal they signed.

Again what is your better alternative to the deal other than Chicken Little Syndrome?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Why are you so eager to see Iran obtain nukes?

The deal makes it less likely that Iran will move from peaceful nuclear energy use to actually making a bomb.

You are with the hardliners in Iran that oppose the deal just like you and they would be the ones most desiring of building a nuclear bomb. The eagerness is with you. A deaf dumb and blind Bush supporter who started his time as President when Iran had zero centrifuges and left office when Iran was spinning 12,000 centrifuges.

This deal reduces the grade and number of centrifuges spinning in Iran and moves the breakout time to produce weapons grade material from 2 months to a year.

That's why 29 retired U.S. Admirals and Generals agree with me and not with you.

You're still as duped as you ever were, Foo. Iran is working towards one objective, a nuclear warhead.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

jwoodie 12057053

The Dems may filibuster in order to avoid a veto and override vote. It may be time for the Reps to take off the gloves and go nuclear.

Do that and it would definetly guarantee 1000% that Obama's eventual veto in the Senate would not be overturned. Right now there is little chance that if forced to do so Obama's veto of a legit passed bill could be over-ridden.

McConnel would never grant your wish on this. He'd look a bigger fool than he already is.

 

[deltex1]

The cat has already left the building. The chinks and rooskies are already violating obabble's wet dream...a catastrophe in the making.

 

[deltex1]

 

[Preacher]

Good hope they get the 3 they need. The tears of the Israel Firsters and War mongers should be heard around the world

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Debunking "deal makes it more likely that Iran will move from peaceful nuclear energy use to actually making a bomb".

SIL 12057456

. You're still as duped as you ever were, Foo. Iran is working towards one objective, a nuclear warhead.

I see you have no argument based on facts reason or reality that this deal makes it more likely that Iran will move from peaceful nuclear energy use to actually making a bomb".

Who told you Iran is working toward that one objective? Delbert?

Iran could be working on that objective but this deal slows it down. It could turn out that they are not and thus no need to start another war in the Gulf Region by going to war as a first resort by abandoning diplomatic efforts to resolve it peacefully first.

There is no reduction of US military power as part of this deal.

If you should turn out to be correct the military option present right now will still be there and it would have more backing if Iran goes down the nuclear bomb path by backing out of this deal.

Why not produce a valid argument instead of partisan speculation so your silly claim is not so easily and obviously debunked?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

DT 12057639

The cat has already left the building. The chinks and rooskies are already violating obabble's wet dream...a catastrophe in the making.

What exactly are the Chinese and Russians violating?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Debunking "deal makes it more likely that Iran will move from peaceful nuclear energy use to actually making a bomb".

SIL 12057456

. You're still as duped as you ever were, Foo. Iran is working towards one objective, a nuclear warhead.

I see you have no argument based on facts reason or reality that this deal makes it more likely that Iran will move from peaceful nuclear energy use to actually making a bomb".

Who told you Iran is working toward that one objective? Delbert?

Iran could be working on that objective but this deal slows it down. It could turn out that they are not and thus no need to start another war in the Gulf Region by going to war as a first resort by abandoning diplomatic efforts to resolve it peacefully first.

There is no reduction of US military power as part of this deal.

If you should turn out to be correct the military option present right now will still be there and it would have more backing if Iran goes down the nuclear bomb path by backing out of this deal.

Why not produce a valid argument instead of partisan speculation so your silly claim is not so easily and obviously debunked?

All Obungles has done is guaranteed Israel making a strike and in turn the Middle East blows up. The man is a fool

 

[deltex1]

A

DT 12057639

The cat has already left the building. The chinks and rooskies are already violating obabble's wet dream...a catastrophe in the making.

What exactly are the Chinese and Russians violating?

Ask the doctor is in....Russia violated the deal when general Suleiman visited Russia for arms assistance.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Debunking "deal makes it more likely that Iran will move from peaceful nuclear energy use to actually making a bomb".

Debunking "deal guarantees that Israel makes a strike on Iran and the Middle East blows up"

SIL 12057853

. All Obungles has done is guaranteed Israel making a strike and in turn the Middle East blows up. The man is a fool

Who told you it is guaranteed that Israel will strike Iran now? Delbert?


The interim deal prior to the actual deal made it less likely that Isreal will strike Iran on its own.

Good Reading for You:

Here is Reason One. I will post the rest in case you are too busy watching Delbert's cartoons to follow the link.,

Published on The National Interest (http://nationalinterest.org)
5 Reasons Israel Won't Attack Iran

.
Although the interim deal does further reduce Israel’s propensity to attack, the truth is that the likelihood of an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities has always been greatly exaggerated. There are at least five reasons why Israel isn’t likely to attack Iran.

1. You Snooze, You Lose

First, if Israel was going to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, it would have done so a long time ago. Since getting caught off-guard at the beginning of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Israel has generally acted proactively to thwart security threats. On no issue has this been truer than with nuclear-weapon programs. For example, Israel bombed Saddam Hussein’s program when it consisted of just a single nuclear reactor. According to ABC News, Israel struck Syria’s lone nuclear reactor just months after discovering it. The IAEA had been completely in the dark about the reactor, and took years to confirm the building was in fact housing one.

Contrast this with Israel’s policy toward Iran’s nuclear program. The uranium-enrichment facility in Natanz and the heavy-water reactor at Arak first became public knowledge in 2002. For more than a decade now, Tel Aviv has watched as the program has expanded into two fully operational nuclear facilities, a budding nuclear-research reactor, and countless other well-protected and -dispersed sites. Furthermore, America’s extreme reluctance to initiate strikes on Iran was made clear to Israel at least as far back as 2008. It would be completely at odds with how Israel operates for it to standby until the last minute when faced with what it views as an existential threat.

5 Reasons Israel Won t Attack Iran

The other four to come.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Debunking "deal makes it more likely that Iran will move from peaceful nuclear energy use to actually making a bomb".

Debunking "deal guarantees that Israel makes a strike on Iran and the Middle East blows up"

SIL 12057853

. All Obungles has done is guaranteed Israel making a strike and in turn the Middle East blows up. The man is a fool

Who told you it is guaranteed that Israel will strike Iran now? Delbert?


The interim deal prior to the actual deal made it less likely that Isreal will strike Iran on its own.

Good Reading for You:

Here is Reason One. I will post the rest in case you are too busy watching Delbert's cartoons to follow the link.,

Published on The National Interest (http://nationalinterest.org)
5 Reasons Israel Won't Attack Iran

.
Although the interim deal does further reduce Israel’s propensity to attack, the truth is that the likelihood of an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities has always been greatly exaggerated. There are at least five reasons why Israel isn’t likely to attack Iran.

1. You Snooze, You Lose

First, if Israel was going to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, it would have done so a long time ago. Since getting caught off-guard at the beginning of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Israel has generally acted proactively to thwart security threats. On no issue has this been truer than with nuclear-weapon programs. For example, Israel bombed Saddam Hussein’s program when it consisted of just a single nuclear reactor. According to ABC News, Israel struck Syria’s lone nuclear reactor just months after discovering it. The IAEA had been completely in the dark about the reactor, and took years to confirm the building was in fact housing one.

Contrast this with Israel’s policy toward Iran’s nuclear program. The uranium-enrichment facility in Natanz and the heavy-water reactor at Arak first became public knowledge in 2002. For more than a decade now, Tel Aviv has watched as the program has expanded into two fully operational nuclear facilities, a budding nuclear-research reactor, and countless other well-protected and -dispersed sites. Furthermore, America’s extreme reluctance to initiate strikes on Iran was made clear to Israel at least as far back as 2008. It would be completely at odds with how Israel operates for it to standby until the last minute when faced with what it views as an existential threat.

5 Reasons Israel Won t Attack Iran

The other four to come.

Save your links, Foo. There is no way Israel is going to allow Iran to obtain a nuke. Ain't happening

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Debunking "deal guarantees that Israel makes a strike on Iran and the Middle East blows up"

SIL 12057853

. All Obungles has done is guaranteed Israel making a strike and in turn the Middle East blows up. The man is a fool

Here are Reasons Two and Three.

Published on The National Interest (http://nationalinterest.org)
5 Reasons Israel Won't Attack Iran

.


2. Bombing Iran Makes an Iranian Bomb More Likely

Much like a U.S. strike, only with much less tactical impact, an Israeli air strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would only increase the likelihood that Iran would build the bomb. At home, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei could use the attack to justify rescinding his fatwa against possessing a nuclear-weapons program, while using the greater domestic support for the regime and the nuclear program to mobilize greater resources for the country’s nuclear efforts.

Israel’s attack would also give the Iranian regime a legitimate (in much of the world’s eyes) reason to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and kick out international inspectors. If Tehran’s membership didn’t even prevent it from being attacked, how could it justify staying in the regime? Finally, support for international sanctions will crumble in the aftermath of an Israeli attack, giving Iran more resources with which to rebuild its nuclear facilities.

3. Helps Iran, Hurts Israel

Relatedly, an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear program would be a net gain for Iran and a huge loss for Tel Aviv. Iran could use the strike to regain its popularity with the Arab street and increase the pressure against Arab rulers. As noted above, it would also lead to international sanctions collapsing, and an outpouring of sympathy for Iran in many countries around the world.

Meanwhile, a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would leave Israel in a far worse-off position. Were Iran to respond by attacking U.S. regional assets, this could greatly hurt Israel’s ties with the United States at both the elite and mass levels. Indeed, a war-weary American public is adamantly opposed to its own leaders dragging it into another conflict in the Middle East. Americans would be even more hostile to an ally taking actions that they fully understood would put the U.S. in danger.

Furthermore, the quiet but growing cooperation Israel is enjoying with Sunni Arab nations against Iran would evaporate overnight. Even though many of the political elites in these countries would secretly support Israel’s action, their explosive domestic situations would force them to distance themselves from Tel Aviv for an extended period of time. Israel’s reputation would also take a further blow in Europe and Asia, neither of which would soon forgive Tel Aviv.

5 Reasons Israel Won t Attack Iran

The other two to come.

 

[deltex1]

Iran U.S. Names Companies That Violated Sanctions Stratfor