White House seeks support at home and abroad for Iran deal

White House seeks support at home and abroad for Iran deal

And has it. This is a good deal.

Repubs will, of course, oppose it. And suffer at the polls accordingly.

Instead of discussing about the contents, some Dems use talking points and name calling as the answers. Obama helps Iran to be an economic power house, military dominance in the region, hub of state sponsored terrorism, and cultivating Iran's religious goal of Shiite Muslim apocalyptic vision as they prepare for the coming Imam? This agreement has reversal effect on regional peace beyond narcissistic Obama understanding, and now he is trying to sell it to others????

And has it. This is a good deal.

With delusional Dems and progressive libs, Yes.

Repubs will, of course, oppose it. And suffer at the polls accordingly.

Because they see the reality for what the Iranian government is as for the suffering, most comes from the unwillingness of the GOP with all the power they posses to stop or hinder the president in making this bad deal.

@Bgood41

Excellent point.

It's unfortunate that some people have to always view issues like this through the lens of politics - Dems are for, Rep are against, etc. That's just limited thinking, promoted by the various media outlets that pander to and use that form of argument to get viewers (and make money).

This is really about peace or war - those that support this deal understand that this keeps the dogs of war at bay, at least for awhile - and may bring about a more peaceful middle east.

Those that oppose the deal want really just one thing (though they may say otherwise) - a war with regime change in Iran - overlooking or offering excuses for the disaster that occurred, and is still occurring, the last time they tried that........

Here's hoping the peace advocates win out.

A better title for the article would have been: "And in other news, the sun still rises in the East and sets in the West, water is still wet, flowers still bloom, dogs still like to sniff rear ends, and the GOP still absolutely loathes anything and everything that Obama does."

The drama queens are putting on their tiaras and getting ready for the ball. Skew the information, tell us that it will bring about an end to the US, then say it's our patriotic duty to stop this madness. 1, 2, 3.

It's unfortunate that some people have to always view issues like this through the lens of politics

The entire issue is ALL about geopolitics.

Dems are for, Rep are against, etc. That's just limited thinking, promoted by the various media outlets that pander to and use that form of argument to get viewers (and make money).

I disagree, both sides will always play politics because of how people relate to their lifestyles, surroundings, family, friends and what is socially important to them, as far as the media is concerned take your pick, Liberals for the most part control the print and most of the local TV outlets and conservatives talk radio and books, everyone will pander to their constituents, that's something that is unavoidable.

This is really about peace or war - those that support this deal understand that this keeps the dogs of war at bay, at least for awhile - and may bring about a more peaceful middle east.

EVERYONE wants peace, the difference is, the Republicans just flat out refuse to make a deal with Iran until they unconditionally come clean and promise to be transparent on the nuclear issue, if we go by history as an indicator, Iran has a terrible history of lying and NOT being forthcoming and honest about the issue. Dems on the other hand, at least the majority want to make a deal no matter what, if they have to capitulate, then so be it.

Those that oppose the deal want really just one thing (though they may say otherwise) - a war

That is an absolute fallacy.

with regime change in Iran - overlooking or offering excuses for the disaster that occurred, and is still occurring, the last time they tried that........

Well, that is not quite true, however if we could encourage the people to rise up and overthrow the religious theocracy that would be the best thing for the people of Iran as it would be for the rest of the world.

Here's hoping the peace advocates win out.

That's what we all want, but sadly this deal won't bring that about.

Where's the push for alternative energy Mr. O? Sun is plentiful solar panels won't be made into bombs. Weren't we striving for rentable energy? But not include Iran?

Iran does need power. I am no nuclear fan. The by product in the best of hands is volatile. The by product in mischievous hands is death. We as a world should have debates on better solutions. If offered a million solar panels Iran would want nuclear. Alternative motivation may very well be present with Iran.

Iran hates USA and even reachable Israel. Let's not forget this.

Time will tell that the Iranians were lying through their collective teeth. Just look at who the Iranians do business with for weapons sales. As in they, the Iranians are selling weapons to. Would you seriously trust someone who does weapons business transactions with North Korea?

The entire issue is ALL about geopolitics.

No, it’s really about peace and war – read below…….

EVERYONE wants peace....

Really? Here’s one quote from one neocon – google “neocons want war with Iran” and you’ll get about a thousand more……

Republican hawk John Bolton has denounced the nuclear talks underway between Iran and the P5+1 countries, calling on the United States to immediately launch a military offensive against the Islamic Republic to damage its nuclear infrastructure. Bolton, who was US ambassador to the United Nations during the George W. Bush administration, made the remarks in an article published by the New York Times on Thursday. “The inescapable conclusion is that Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program,” the neoconservative diplomat wrote. “Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure.” “The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed,” he added.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/opinion/to-stop-irans-bomb-bomb-iran.html?_r=0

Republicans hate peace and loved failed wars. Thank God Obama is President now and can actually make the world safer rather than invading countries with the following blowback, like when Bush let Osama bin Laden attack the USA. Took a while after that but Obama killed bin Laden for what he did.

The Republicans have no choice to back it.

If they don't, the US is on its own and the sanctions will collapse because the other countries in the negotiations have backed the accord.

'Well, that is not quite true, however if we could encourage the people to rise up and overthrow the religious theocracy that would be the best thing for the people of Iran as it would be for the rest of the world.'

So Iran could have a stable and thriving secular democracy like Iraq as promised by the headbangers who invaded it? Incidentally, given that you are opposed to theocracy, would you like to see regime change in terrorist-sponsoring Saudi Arabia or aren't they on the rightist shitlist?

delusional Dems and progressive libs, Yes.

Once again at your nonpartisan best. I love independent thinkers.

Well reasoned.

Republicans hate peace and loved failed wars.

Can you please tell us which Republican verbally said, they love war and please don't give us, you can tell by their actions...etc. I want to know which one of them wanted an all out war no matter what.

Thank God Obama is President now and can actually make the world safer rather than invading countries with the following blowback,

Ask Jordan, Israel, the Sunnis if they feel safe or safer with a soon to be nuclear Iran. Because I'll tell you this, of those countries feel that Iran will try to take them out, Iran will be a heap of smoldering ash, so it all depends how they feel since they are all in that region.

like when Bush let Osama bin Laden attack the USA. Took a while after that but Obama killed bin Laden for what he did.

So why didn't Clinton take OBL out in 1998? He had the opportunity had him in his sights and then called off the mission, I'm sure that equally infuriates you when you think about it.

So Iran could have a stable and thriving secular democracy like Iraq as promised by the headbangers who invaded it?

Iran would sooner or later have a civil war and possibly the Mullahs would have been thrown out with the leverage of the sanctions had they been kept in place were crippling slowly, but surely which was a good thing as a catalyst for any future uprising, but now the Sainted anointed one took that option off, so it's green light for the Iranians and the entire time as we speak they mush be gloating and laughing at how dumb this president truly is and the sad thing is, they're right.

Incidentally, given that you are opposed to theocracy, would you like to see regime change in terrorist-sponsoring Saudi Arabia or aren't they on the rightist shitlist?

Yup, absolutely!

"Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu is an implacable opponent of the deal, saying it would put Iran on a path toward acquiring a nuclear weapon."

I thought Iran was already on a path toward acquiring a nuclear weapon.

the sanctions had they been kept in place were crippling

Those sanctions require that the P5+1 stay on board, yet your solution requires the U.S. acting unilaterally in a way that works against that same group. The conservative plan is no plan at all, just some fantasy where the U.S. dictates terms to everyone, including our allies plus Russia and China, and everyone accepts.

yet your solution requires the U.S. acting unilaterally in a way that works against that same group.

So what's wrong with that?

The conservative plan is no plan at all,

Why? Because it causes severe and punishing hardship for the Iranians, it should. If it punishes them enough to ward of the desire to make a bomb and to threaten their neighbors and if it creates instability to the point where the people want and push for regime change, that would be a good thing.

But I keep forgetting, libs are all about capitulation.

just some fantasy where the U.S. dictates terms to everyone, including our allies plus Russia and China, and everyone accepts.

Worked so far, but for the last 6 years since Obama has taken the US out of foreign affairs, the world has gone to s......

'Iran would sooner or later have a civil war and possibly the Mullahs would have been thrown out with the leverage of the sanctions had they been kept in place were crippling slowly, but surely which was a good thing as a catalyst for any future uprising, but now the Sainted anointed one took that option off, so it's green light for the Iranians and the entire time as we speak they mush be gloating and laughing at how dumb this president truly is and the sad thing is, they're right.'

Bass, you are not in the company of professional writers here. Your stream of consciousness prose is above the head of a semi-literate grease monkey like myself. Please write using some traditional rules of grammar so a philistine like me knows what the hell you are talking about.

'Incidentally, given that you are opposed to theocracy, would you like to see regime change in terrorist-sponsoring Saudi Arabia or aren't they on the rightist shitlist?

Yup, absolutely!'

Yup, absolutely what? You support tegime change on Saudi Arabia? Is Saudi Arabia on or off the rightist shitlist?

So what's wrong with that?

Sanctions are only effective if the U.S., Germany, The UK, France, Russia, and China all agree on them. Would you agree with that statement?

Data

Opinions About The Iran Deal Are More About Obama Than Iran http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/opinions-about-the-iran-deal-are-more-about-obama-than-iran/

Conclusion:

Democratic voters are probably not going to push for congressional Democrats to stray from the president (except possibly for strong supporters of Israel). That’s not good for the deal’s opponents, who will need bipartisan support to overturn the Iran agreement in Congress (which requires a two-thirds majority). But it also means the White House will not be able to claim a political consensus for one of its most significant foreign policy achievements.

White House will not be able to claim a political consensus... Oh nooooooooooos. Just when we were about to get some bipartisanship out of the Party of Hate.

you are not in the company of professional writers here. Your stream of consciousness prose is above the head of a semi-literate grease monkey like myself. Please write using some traditional rules of grammar so a philistine like me knows what the hell you are talking about.

So once again like in typical leftist fashion, when you get backed into a corner, you have to resort to ad hominem sling attacks? Try again, please.

'Incidentally, given that you are opposed to theocracy, would you like to see regime change in terrorist-sponsoring Saudi Arabia or aren't they on the rightist shitlist? Yup, absolutely!' Yup, absolutely what? You support tegime change on Saudi Arabia? Is Saudi Arabia on or off the rightist shitlist?

Yup and they absolutely are as well.

Sanctions are only effective if the U.S., Germany, The UK, France, Russia, and China all agree on them. Would you agree with that statement?

Yes, to a point, but if Obama had some serious ***** he could have easily persuaded the other countries with the exception of perhaps China and Russia to keep their sanctions in place, but as usual Obama was more preoccupied with what and how he can benefit from this deal, so if the other nations want to discontinue the sanctions, the anointed one will definitely not go out of his way to push these nations to keep their sanctions in place.

So you solution is harsher sanctions with neither Russia no China on board?

Absolutely.

You think sanctions can be harsher at a time when Russia and China give Iran a release value for sanctions. I figured your position required a unicorn, but I wasn't sure where it was until now.

'Incidentally, given that you are opposed to theocracy, would you like to see regime change in terrorist-sponsoring Saudi Arabia or aren't they on the rightist shitlist? Yup, absolutely!' Yup, absolutely what? You support tegime change on Saudi Arabia? Is Saudi Arabia on or off the rightist shitlist?

Yup and they absolutely are as well.'

They are absolutely on or off the rightist shitlist? For crying out loud! You complained about my ad hominem attack but I'm honestly saying I don't know what you are trying to say half the time. You posted in the past how Saudi Arabia is invaluable to the US and your stance on this is very unclear.

You think sanctions can be harsher at a time when Russia and China give Iran a release value for sanctions. I figured your position required a unicorn, but I wasn't sure where it was until now.

Yes, I do. There are other ways the US could impose harsher sanctions or punish and withhold funds or business dealings with any of our allies that try and do business with Iran, we do have the ships and navy to impose a blockade.

You complained about my ad hominem attack but I'm honestly saying I don't know what you are trying to say half the time.

Maybe you should calm down

You posted in the past how Saudi Arabia is invaluable to the US and your stance on this is very unclear.

No, it's very clear. The Saudis are invaluable to the US, have been for over 70 years and either way for good or bad, Obama wants to throw them and Israel under the bus over a country we haven't had any relations with for almost 40 years? This is just madness. Thank god the reign of thus nut job will be over soon enough.

Hope that was clear enough.