• Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
  • FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!

White House Dares Democratic Senators Pushing Iran Sanctions To Admit They Want War

Mayhem

Banned
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/09/white-house-iran-war_n_4572003.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

The White House on Thursday challenged a group of senators to admit they are working to push the country toward war with Iran, upping the tension between the administration and Senate advocates of tough new sanctions amid nuclear negotiations.

"If certain members of Congress want the United States to take military action, they should be up front with the American public and say so," Bernadette Meehan, National Security Council spokeswoman, said in a statement. "Otherwise, it’s not clear why any member of Congress would support a bill that possibly closes the door on diplomacy and makes it more likely that the United States will have to choose between military options or allowing Iran’s nuclear program to proceed."

The "certain members" the White House is referring to are led by Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who is pushing legislation, backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, that would tighten sanctions on the Iranian regime despite the ongoing negotiations.

Advocates of a peace deal with Iran warn that toughening sanctions now strengthens the hand of hard-liners in Iran who can argue the U.S. is not negotiating in good faith.

The White House has consistently signaled its opposition to the bill, warning that it could unravel the delicate talks underway, and has promised a veto if it passes. But Thursday's statement is the first public accusation that the senators pushing the bill may have motivations they are not "up front with."

The bill is backed by a majority of the Senate. A Democratic leadership aide told HuffPost Thursday there were no plans to bring the bill to the floor soon.

After Menendez introduced his bill, 10 Democratic committee chairs released a joint letter warning his action could move the nation closer to war. At least 14 other Democrats have so far joined Menendez in bucking the administration.




A Menendez spokesperson was not immediately available to comment.

Below is Meehan's statement in full:

This bill is in direct contradiction to the Administration’s work to peacefully resolve the international community’s concerns with Iran’s nuclear program. We know that this proposed legislation would divide the international community, drive the Iranians to take a harder line, and possibly end negotiations. This bill would have a negative bearing on the sanctions regime too. Let us not forget: sanctions work because we convinced our partners to take the steps that we seek. If our partners no longer believe that we are serious about finding a negotiated solution, then our sanctions regime would suffer.

If Congress passes this bill, it will be proactively taking an action that will make diplomacy less likely to succeed. The American people have been clear that they prefer a peaceful resolution to this issue. If certain members of Congress want the United States to take military action, they should be up front with the American public and say so. Otherwise, it’s not clear why any member of Congress would support a bill that possibly closes the door on diplomacy and makes it more likely that the United States will have to choose between military options or allowing Iran’s nuclear program to proceed.

The President has been clear that he has a responsibility to fully test whether we can achieve a comprehensive solution through diplomatic means, before he pursues alternatives. Passing new sanctions legislation right now will undermine our efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution.

Perhaps one day we will have to go to war with Iran. But how, in this day and age, we wouldn't let it be only the final option, after all others are well and truly exhausted, is beyond me.

I question the loyalty and patriotism of anyone who is trying to speed up another fruitless conflict in that part of the world. And any conflict in that part of the world is fruitless.
 

bobjustbob

Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
At some point the realization will come that the middle east is a shit hole. They have oil and nothing else. Would the Russians or Chinese have any more luck stabilizing that area? I seriously doubt that. Let's pack our bags and move the fuck out. Canada has plenty of oil. We've got it here too. Let them deal with the Mullahs and Ayatollahs and other sand shit. Israel? Pack up the Jews and move them to NY, Arizona, or Florida. How do you Euros feel about that?
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Anyone who really thinks that one more war just might do the trick in that region is out of his/her mind. :rolleyes:
 

Mayhem

Banned
Major Newspapers Speak Out Against Iran Sanctions Bill

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/14/media-tackles-iran-sancti_n_4598887.html

The editorial boards of multiple major newspapers have spoken out this week against a controversial Iran sanctions bill.

The bill, backed by Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), would penalize Iran if it violates terms of an interim nuclear deal or fails to reach a final agreement, and could push the U.S. toward war. The Obama administration argues that talks to curb Iran's nuclear program may be ruined by the sanctions. The White House on Thursday challenged senators who support the measure to admit they are working to push the country toward war.

More than a dozen of President Barack Obama's fellow Democrats and more than 40 Republicans back the legislation, according to The Associated Press. Some co-sponsors have argued this week that the measure is meant to strengthen Obama's hand.

The New York Times editorial board declared that "dangerously misguided forces, including leading Democrats and Republicans in Congress, are working to sabotage" an agreement. The paper argued that the international negotiations could fail under Congress' pressure, leading to war.

"The senators already may have accomplished the maximum good by proposing the bill, thereby raising the pressure on the administration and Iran," The Washington Post's editorial board wrote. "Passing it -- which probably would require overcoming a presidential veto -- would be problematic," the Post wrote, suggesting that it would entangle Congress in the negotiations.

The Los Angeles Times and USA Today were among other newspapers whose editorial boards spoke out against the sanctions bill.

On Tuesday, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) suggested that Senate Democrats would not vote on the sanctions until negotiations were given a shot.

Over the weekend, a six-month nuclear agreement was reached between Iran, the U.S. and its five negotiating partners, and the Obama administration threatened to veto new sanctions.
 
Honestly keeping Iran from possessing a nuclear arsenal is the best reason I have heard in my lifetime for war. Unfortunately we as a country have been pouring men and resources into two giant shitholes for contrived nonexistent reasons for so long now that we have no stomach for it.
 

Lacey Black

Official Checked Star Member
Another war is not the solution. Doing so will just give another country a desires to terrorize this country.


Honestly keeping Iran from possessing a nuclear arsenal is the best reason I have heard in my lifetime for war.


No offense to you personally, because I do agree I don't want Iran or anyone including the US to have nuclear weapons, but every time I read someone say they don't want ____ or ____ to have nukes but we do I feel like our country is being extremely hypocritical. The United States is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon on a civilian population yet we tell other countries that they aren't even allowed to study the science behind nuclear power or weapons. Why? because we don't agree with their political views, religious views, who's in power, etc. Well our country has had its fair share of religious nutjobs, and horrible politicians as well.
 

Little Red Wagon Repairman

Step in my shop and I'll fix yours too.
Senate recipients of AIPAC funding 2006-2012: http://maplight.org/us-congress/interest/J5100/view/all
Top Senate Recipients Funded
Recipient Amount
Mark Kirk $945,679
John McCain $772,327
Benjamin Cardin $446,948
Mitch McConnell $404,700
Carl Levin $366,278
Robert Menéndez $343,394
Richard Durbin $325,112
Kirsten Gillibrand $312,687
Mary Landrieu $294,259
Harry Reid $261,708
Frank Lautenberg $258,333
Barbara Boxer $245,179
Charles Schumer $243,149
Bill Nelson $236,150
Ron Wyden $219,931
Sheldon Whitehouse $214,421
Sherrod Brown $212,175
Robert Casey $203,450
Claire McCaskill $175,396
Debbie Stabenow $169,089
Barbara Mikulski $168,250
Mark Udall $162,923
Roger Wicker $152,561
Bob Corker $151,820
Roy Blunt $144,750
Susan Collins $141,518
Mark Warner $140,651
Mark Pryor $138,250
Jeff Merkley $137,130
John Rockefeller $123,807
John Thune $122,725
Max Baucus $121,050
Amy Klobuchar $119,302
Pat Roberts $116,900
Jeanne Shaheen $114,374
Jon Tester $113,557
John Reed $111,140
Michael Bennet $109,126
Alan Franken $109,018
Tom Udall $107,468
John Cornyn $107,000
David Vitter $105,469
Joe Manchin $103,910
Saxby Chambliss $103,650
Tim Johnson $92,465
Kelly Ayotte $90,350
Martin Heinrich $89,160
Maria Cantwell $87,722
Jefferson Sessions $86,550
Lisa Murkowski $85,900
John Barrasso $84,550
Lindsey Graham $84,515
Daniel Coats $81,733
Tammy Baldwin $81,637
Patty Murray $81,550
Thomas Harkin $81,480
Richard Blumenthal $80,640
Orrin Hatch $80,250
Patrick Leahy $74,062
Marco Rubio $73,800
Richard Burr $70,850
Robert Portman $68,815
John Hoeven $67,535
Thomas Carper $64,450
Mike Johanns $63,635
Dianne Feinstein $63,520
James Inhofe $60,000
Charles Grassley $57,600
Jerry Moran $53,400
Thomas Coburn $47,445
Dean Heller $47,100
Michael Crapo $45,750
Mike Lee $45,030
James Risch $41,750
Jeff Flake $39,250
Patrick Toomey $38,500
Mark Begich $36,727
Joe Donnelly $35,400
John Boozman $34,250
Kay Hagan $32,933
Michael Enzi $31,600
John Isakson $31,600
Richard Shelby $27,250
Jim DeMint $24,270
Chris Coons $20,774
Mazie Hirono $20,300
Christopher Murphy $13,550
Ron Johnson $10,400
Bernard Sanders $9,000
Tim Scott $6,000
Rand Paul $5,500
 

Mayhem

Banned
Another war is not the solution. Doing so will just give another country a desires to terrorize this country.





No offense to you personally, because I do agree I don't want Iran or anyone including the US to have nuclear weapons, but every time I read someone say they don't want ____ or ____ to have nukes but we do I feel like our country is being extremely hypocritical. The United States is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon on a civilian population yet we tell other countries that they aren't even allowed to study the science behind nuclear power or weapons. Why? because we don't agree with their political views, religious views, who's in power, etc. Well our country has had its fair share of religious nutjobs, and horrible politicians as well.

This is, of course, the sticking point. And I'm certainly not arguing with you but there are counter-points to be made. Command and Control is the big one. The US is layered in protocols that are inviolable. The Pres can't just launch a nuke and say, "Because I said so." You can't say anything close to this for other countries. Once upon a time, Iraq actually did have WMD's and they used them. One thing we (the US) found out during/after D esert Storm was that there was nothing preventing anyone from launching a chemical attack anytime they wanted too. Storage was a joke, no protocol or second party confirmation whatsoever, no nothing. This is what we worry about with Iran and countries like Iran. Another example is Russia. Their security is a joke. If a country like Iran builds 10 nukes, what's stopping someone from selling or stealing them?

So C&C, security, second/third party authorization, a criminal justice system that will either imprison or execute you, a free press and a public that won't tolerate it. We're one of the few that you can say that about.
 

Lacey Black

Official Checked Star Member
This is, of course, the sticking point. And I'm certainly not arguing with you but there are counter-points to be made. Command and Control is the big one. The US is layered in protocols that are inviolable. The Pres can't just launch a nuke and say, "Because I said so." You can't say anything close to this for other countries. Once upon a time, Iraq actually did have WMD's and they used them. One thing we (the US) found out during/after D esert Storm was that there was nothing preventing anyone from launching a chemical attack anytime they wanted too. Storage was a joke, no protocol or second party confirmation whatsoever, no nothing. This is what we worry about with Iran and countries like Iran. Another example is Russia. Their security is a joke. If a country like Iran builds 10 nukes, what's stopping someone from selling or stealing them?

So C&C, security, second/third party authorization, a criminal justice system that will either imprison or execute you, a free press and a public that won't tolerate it. We're one of the few that you can say that about.



I get the points you make and its an extremely complex topic considering we are literally talking about the power to kill every human on the face of the planet. I just feel if nuclear power is going to be here it would be a better idea for the US to help countries setup protocols to protect ourselves and their own population instead of saying. "No, we don't like you so you can't do what we do!". Especially when you know these countries are going to pursue it anyway. And starting another war to stop them continues the endless circle of policing countries only for another country to get pissed off at us and want to attack us for doing so.
 
Another war is not the solution. Doing so will just give another country a desires to terrorize this country.





No offense to you personally, because I do agree I don't want Iran or anyone including the US to have nuclear weapons, but every time I read someone say they don't want ____ or ____ to have nukes but we do I feel like our country is being extremely hypocritical. The United States is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon on a civilian population yet we tell other countries that they aren't even allowed to study the science behind nuclear power or weapons. Why? because we don't agree with their political views, religious views, who's in power, etc. Well our country has had its fair share of religious nutjobs, and horrible politicians as well.

Would make my day never to wage war ever again.

You are correct that we are the only ones ever to use these against anyone but to our credit we realized fairly quickly that this was an extremely dangerous new weapon and have refrained from using them since.

I will remind you that when 1million plus Chinese crossed the Yalu River to meet our forces in North Korea General Douglas MacArthur was fired by President Harry Truman for demanding that we drop nuclear weapons on the Chinese forces. That the Cuban missile crises could easily have fallen into a nuclear exchange if not for the understanding by JFK and/or Khrushchev of what that would mean.

The danger isn't our hypocrisy but the fact that the Iranians at this time are run by religious fanatics that would tend to use these weapons in a great many more circumstances than we ourselves would.

This is a humungous potential problem in Pakistan that already posses a nuclear arsenal that could easily fall into the wrong hands if this brewing civil war should go the wrong way.

Never worry about offending me I welcome any and all points of view as this is how we evolve and grow as people.
 
Another war is not the solution. Doing so will just give another country a desires to terrorize this country.





No offense to you personally, because I do agree I don't want Iran or anyone including the US to have nuclear weapons, but every time I read someone say they don't want ____ or ____ to have nukes but we do I feel like our country is being extremely hypocritical. The United States is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon on a civilian population yet we tell other countries that they aren't even allowed to study the science behind nuclear power or weapons. Why? because we don't agree with their political views, religious views, who's in power, etc. Well our country has had its fair share of religious nutjobs, and horrible politicians as well.


Wrong. Iran is also very adroit in pointing out what their rights are as a sovereign nation and signatory to international conventions. Nuclear weapons programs are another story.
 
Top